Good in theory

But I have become a little sceptical

I remember when I first came to Brussels how amazed I was at the intricate structure of decision making: it was an immense flow chart diagram and everything seemed so immensely logical and right. The European Commission proposed; European parliament amended, with the insight from impact assessments; law proposals went on to the council of ministers, which represented the nation states. There was input from the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee. Numerous lobbyists and members of civil society also had their input arrows; there was COREPER, the nation states’ embassies to the EU, and the flow chart was slightly amended for second readings and what was known as conciliation, when the institutions failed to agree.

It’s not that underneath this political structure there weren’t people; the people’s needs came in through impact assessments, ruled by the gods of utility. But there was no politics, with all the generalisations, demagoguery, and simplification of issuess, that this implied. Instead policy-making is carried by a large number of extremely well educated, well paid, but too well paid, multilingual individuals. .
It seemed a liberation. There were differences between what different groups wanted, but the system was designed to create the best of all possible worlds for homo europeanus.

Who could say that Europe didn’t deliver? It broke down barriers to trade and movement of peoples, brought democracy to its eastern marches, raised the bar of environmental and safety standards and thus stimulated technical innovation. The EU funded schemes that would link Athens and Stockholm, Warsaw and Lisbon, by motorways, and the whole continent by a high speed railway network. It co-funded a bridge between between Sweden and Denmark. It was responsible for the ITER fusion reactor, which aims to provide an inexhaustible supply of clean energy by 2050, and now the Galileo global positioning satellites. European universities were pushed to collaborate so that there would be no duplication of scientific effort, so to compete with the US:

The EU also funded student exchange programmes and drove through the mutual recognition of professional qualifications,
For the consumer and expat there were low international call charges, better food labelling, cheap European flights, and free healthcare abroad
When the people said: “What has Europe ever done for us”, my reponse always used to be: “Watch the life of Brian”.

* * *

These days, my enthusiasm has moderated considerably.
There were times when I despaired of the British, with their insular righteousness, but the longer I spend in Brussels the more I have come to see that cynicism is either merited or is a useful intellectual stance towards the institutions..
Behind the flowcharts, the position and policy papers, , I have come to realise are individuals fighting turf wars, advancing their careers and that of their friends. The court of auditors failed to sign off the accounts for the13th year running. Money goes back into the national scene, having been handled en route by eurocrats, not always most efficiently. Science and Technology funding, the EU’s third largest item, is said to be particularly badly spent: take a closer look underneath the gloire and an independent satellite system like Galileo doesn’t look so good after all; and several of the pan European highways haven’t happened. .Meanwhile the EU buildings just continue to expand.

* * *

Still, there are moments when I still feel idealistic. And there are still persuasive europhiles about. Arrive in the European parliament’s press centre in the morning, and over a coffee, one spies and even rejoices at the young parliamentary assistants, the girls and boys in suits clutching files under their arms, together, planning a better world, one that looks splendid on paper Both that vision, and the more sordid reality, deserve to be more written about, to give undoubted power its due..