Thursday, May 31, 2007
Europe's autonomous agencies
Introduction
What if Europe could work better without the commission, or less of it? What if there could be a network of pan-European institutions serving the European citizen and the member states that can do what the commission can't do, or do it better? What if there could be a Europe that was more efficient, cheaper, closer to the citizen and the member state? What if there were institutions that gave a better, higher quality of information for policy-makers - and better information to the citizens - than currently provided by the civil servants working for the commission?
These are some of the questions that could be solved by the growth of a new type of European institution, the autonomous agency, usually based outside Brussels. Starting in 1994, their numbers have now grown to 32, with policy areas covering European airline certification and European food safety, and including several foreign policy and security areas. Their cost and staff numbers are relatively low - 1 billion euros a year, more than 3,000 staff - compared to national administrations.
But what are their benefits? And what are the challenges to their continued effectiveness?. To discuss the autonomous agencies and related matters, Friends of Europe brought together a distinguished panel of speakers for an evening debate, "The European Agencies; Who needs them?", on Monday 29 January. The panel's members comprised Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of the European Environment Agency, John Bowis MEP, member of the committee on public health and well versed in the autonomous agencies; and Kristian Schmidt, desputy head of cabinet for commissioner Siim Kallas.
Setting the scene
According to Jacqueline McGlade, the coordinator for the European community agencies, there are a few key messages
* "It's important to take the longer term view"
The agencies have been in the EU for over a decade. They have evolved piecemeal, with their own sets of rules; but where is the EU heading, and where do the agencies fit in?
* "Perhaps functionality of the European agencies need to be looked at again"
Strategy
Three times a year the heads of the 32 agencies meet up to discuss strategy, and for this occasion they assembled a set of profiles of three of the agencies to demonstrate their capabilities. The agencies differ in size, capabilities - some executive, some advisory - and funding. Some are funded by the commission; others funded by industry. But they possess at least some of the following four advantages; they emerged in a presentation by three different agencies before the discussion panel.
One advantage is that, since the agencies are usually based in the member states - the European Medicines Agency in London, the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen - they bring Europe closer to the citizen and to the nation state. A second advantage is that they can reduce bureaucracy, since the single European agency for setting standards can replace national agencies, in effect abolishing them.
A third is flexibility in decision-making. The commission is a large bureaucracy, but in demand-led areas such as medicines authorisation, the agencies' flexible management structure makes coping with a varying workload easier. A fourth advantage is that they are independent from political pressure, providing scientific advice independent of political pressure of nation states.
One example is the European Medicines Agency, which provides a single authorisation point for the 50 medicines brought onto the European market each year, standardising medicines across Europe, reducing costs for drugs firms and bringing medicine to the patient more quickly. Other agencies have other capabilities, some advisory, some with real executive powers. Size varies, so not all the advantages apply to all of them.
Challenges
In the panel discussion, issues that emerged that might prompt the agencies to re-examine the way they operate include:
* Is Europe really being brought closer to the citizen and the member state by the agencies - or further away? Does their independence come at the expense of accountability?
* Does reducing bureaucracy cause resistance from national and the Brussels civil service, hampering their efficiency?
* What are the cost implications of the growth in agencies?
Scenarios
Turn-out in the 2004 European elections was 45%, a far lower figure than in national elections. And it has nearly always been so: citizens in numerous polls attest to their sense of distance from the European project, culminating in the rejection of the European constitution in 2005 by the Dutch and French electorates. This sentiment is echoed by a similar sentiment of hostility by the administrations of some member states.
The problem of bringing "Europe to the citizen" has been a continuous concern for this commission. Do the autonomous agencies, decentralised as they are, provide a solution to the political distance, as McGlade suggests? She said: "Based outside Brussels, we hear a lot about Europe, a lot about what citizens think. As part of the European institutional family, we want to give a good impression of what the European Union can offer its citizens."
While panellist John Bowis agreed that the institutions he dealt with had "all been excellent" he wonders whether citizens and institutions back home were as aware of this: "National agencies have a liaison problem - even with the European Environmental Agency." Kristian Schmidt also wondered whether the agencies had such a high recognition in the member states, since many did not fly the European flag, and doubted whether passers-by would recognise their European function.
A further reason for their remoteness may be, ironically, the consequence of their raison d'etre: the agency concept received a big impetus in 1999 after a series of food scandals that impugned the impartiality of national food agencies prompted the creation of the important European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It was created to provide impartial scientific advice to states, the commission and to citizens and draws on Europe-wide expertise.
Remote and unaccountable
EFSA has been followed by other agencies; so a success the independent agency may have been, despite the commission's constant urge to interfere, but in fact their roles have changed: the original idea was to separate policy work and science, with the commission standing for policy. But, says Schmidt: "This is no longer true. As agencies have gained in expertise, they are often tempted to do policy themselves. Knowledge is power. The DGs are already crumbling under the work of making sure legislation is being implemented in member states. And the question is: who do you have that runs policy: There is a danger of duplicating the work of the parent DG."
The criticism levelled at the legitimacy of unelected Brussels bureaucrats could be aimed with greater force at the policy making of scientific experts representing even less well-known institutions. Nick Hanley of DG Environment, who was in the audience, said: "Where does the buck stop. Who are the agencies accountable to?" Created as handmaidens to an already unaccountable institution, the commission, and having since evolved real policy making power, they could in fact be unaccountyable twice over – another factor aadding to their remoteness, despite being in the member states
Bureaucracies versus each other
Apart from the merits of their unbureaucratic structure, there has been a growth of agencies for two other reasons: partly in response to the fact that, as Bowis said, there has been something of an inflation for reasons of national prestige: "Every self respecting country wants one – the bigger ones want two", and partly because they fulfil a function: Europe needs more done, but the commission is under resourced to carry out the job. But does this expansion challenge the work of the commission, the national civil services or even both?
McGlade says: "Our PR is that whatever you [the citizen] do, we work for you", implying a growing range of areas of competence - even exclusive competences. One member of the audience said of the European Aviation Safety Agency, one of the more powerful agencies: "This agency does not sit on top of national aviation safety agencies, it replaces them. Industry is happy with this, since it replaces 27 'cops', with one 'cop'. But the national agencies, who sit on the board, are not happy. Because the European Aviation Safety Agency means their ultimate demise."
One could speculate that, in the same way turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, this is the reason why national agencies do not consult their European counterparts as much as they could: they do not want to contribute to their success, despite the reduction in bureaucracy and savings in cost. As John Bowis said: "People ask the European parliament all the time for European authorities, for instance a single pricing authority for the pharmaceutical industry - and that might make life easier for a lot of us -- but on the other hand you have civil servants in the member states who might feel threatened. If they sit on the boards, there will be a real mismatch."
The commission too, might not always be happy: Schmidt, of the commission, said a euro-sceptic public would not be fooled by decentralising EU work to EU civil servants in member states, implying that it would be "more transparent" to have them under the commission, was also sceptical whether scientific dynamism could be maintained amid low staff turnover of the smaller agencies, and complained that the smaller agencies, though ostensibly independent, turned back to the commission for procurement and recruitment procedures. In response to such carping, one audience member said later: "There is a turf war going on between the organisations."
Conclusions:
So what of their future?
The question whether they should replace ossified parts of the commission, by implication being accessory to its dismantlement, provocatively implied by host Giles Merritt, the head of Friends of Europe, would have to wait for another day. Panellists also drew back from his suggestion that the agencies should be "torn apart and put together again."
The panel agreed - with qualifications - that European Agencies were a good thing. John Bowis said; "There are too many, but all those I have dealt with have been excellent." Schmidt said: "Yes, we need them. Their services are clearly useful because markets and citizens clearly need them. We need to approve drugs, plants, and make railways interoperable."
But there were several ways to deal with the challenges: a way to solve the legitimacy problem would be, says Bowis, to put MEPs on the agencies' boards "who both know how the European parliament works and know the expert subject." Perhaps by replacing board members belonging to national agencies.
One way to contain costs would be to implement e-government by use of virtual agencies creating networks of staff and buildings from already established national agencies (and thus keeping national agencies intact.)
Another way could be to bring on board industry to pay for the agency; as industry sometimes benefits most from the agencies' existence.
To fight the danger a growth of agencies merely to satisfy the national pride of 27 member states, it was noted that several of the existing agencies have regular review clauses; John Bowis said henceforth these reviews should be made by independent bodies.
Schmidt said that new agencies should only follow impact assessments, and introduced following close consultation with public and parliament
McGlade said: "We have to recognise that perhaps we haven't got it right today. Functionality needs to be looked at again, in terms of services and delivery of many things to European citizens - security, solidarity, accountability, and promotion of our values across the world - all these demand a European response because they have to be delivered to each individual, an enormous task."
What if Europe could work better without the commission, or less of it? What if there could be a network of pan-European institutions serving the European citizen and the member states that can do what the commission can't do, or do it better? What if there could be a Europe that was more efficient, cheaper, closer to the citizen and the member state? What if there were institutions that gave a better, higher quality of information for policy-makers - and better information to the citizens - than currently provided by the civil servants working for the commission?
These are some of the questions that could be solved by the growth of a new type of European institution, the autonomous agency, usually based outside Brussels. Starting in 1994, their numbers have now grown to 32, with policy areas covering European airline certification and European food safety, and including several foreign policy and security areas. Their cost and staff numbers are relatively low - 1 billion euros a year, more than 3,000 staff - compared to national administrations.
But what are their benefits? And what are the challenges to their continued effectiveness?. To discuss the autonomous agencies and related matters, Friends of Europe brought together a distinguished panel of speakers for an evening debate, "The European Agencies; Who needs them?", on Monday 29 January. The panel's members comprised Jacqueline McGlade, executive director of the European Environment Agency, John Bowis MEP, member of the committee on public health and well versed in the autonomous agencies; and Kristian Schmidt, desputy head of cabinet for commissioner Siim Kallas.
Setting the scene
According to Jacqueline McGlade, the coordinator for the European community agencies, there are a few key messages
* "It's important to take the longer term view"
The agencies have been in the EU for over a decade. They have evolved piecemeal, with their own sets of rules; but where is the EU heading, and where do the agencies fit in?
* "Perhaps functionality of the European agencies need to be looked at again"
Strategy
Three times a year the heads of the 32 agencies meet up to discuss strategy, and for this occasion they assembled a set of profiles of three of the agencies to demonstrate their capabilities. The agencies differ in size, capabilities - some executive, some advisory - and funding. Some are funded by the commission; others funded by industry. But they possess at least some of the following four advantages; they emerged in a presentation by three different agencies before the discussion panel.
One advantage is that, since the agencies are usually based in the member states - the European Medicines Agency in London, the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen - they bring Europe closer to the citizen and to the nation state. A second advantage is that they can reduce bureaucracy, since the single European agency for setting standards can replace national agencies, in effect abolishing them.
A third is flexibility in decision-making. The commission is a large bureaucracy, but in demand-led areas such as medicines authorisation, the agencies' flexible management structure makes coping with a varying workload easier. A fourth advantage is that they are independent from political pressure, providing scientific advice independent of political pressure of nation states.
One example is the European Medicines Agency, which provides a single authorisation point for the 50 medicines brought onto the European market each year, standardising medicines across Europe, reducing costs for drugs firms and bringing medicine to the patient more quickly. Other agencies have other capabilities, some advisory, some with real executive powers. Size varies, so not all the advantages apply to all of them.
Challenges
In the panel discussion, issues that emerged that might prompt the agencies to re-examine the way they operate include:
* Is Europe really being brought closer to the citizen and the member state by the agencies - or further away? Does their independence come at the expense of accountability?
* Does reducing bureaucracy cause resistance from national and the Brussels civil service, hampering their efficiency?
* What are the cost implications of the growth in agencies?
Scenarios
Turn-out in the 2004 European elections was 45%, a far lower figure than in national elections. And it has nearly always been so: citizens in numerous polls attest to their sense of distance from the European project, culminating in the rejection of the European constitution in 2005 by the Dutch and French electorates. This sentiment is echoed by a similar sentiment of hostility by the administrations of some member states.
The problem of bringing "Europe to the citizen" has been a continuous concern for this commission. Do the autonomous agencies, decentralised as they are, provide a solution to the political distance, as McGlade suggests? She said: "Based outside Brussels, we hear a lot about Europe, a lot about what citizens think. As part of the European institutional family, we want to give a good impression of what the European Union can offer its citizens."
While panellist John Bowis agreed that the institutions he dealt with had "all been excellent" he wonders whether citizens and institutions back home were as aware of this: "National agencies have a liaison problem - even with the European Environmental Agency." Kristian Schmidt also wondered whether the agencies had such a high recognition in the member states, since many did not fly the European flag, and doubted whether passers-by would recognise their European function.
A further reason for their remoteness may be, ironically, the consequence of their raison d'etre: the agency concept received a big impetus in 1999 after a series of food scandals that impugned the impartiality of national food agencies prompted the creation of the important European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It was created to provide impartial scientific advice to states, the commission and to citizens and draws on Europe-wide expertise.
Remote and unaccountable
EFSA has been followed by other agencies; so a success the independent agency may have been, despite the commission's constant urge to interfere, but in fact their roles have changed: the original idea was to separate policy work and science, with the commission standing for policy. But, says Schmidt: "This is no longer true. As agencies have gained in expertise, they are often tempted to do policy themselves. Knowledge is power. The DGs are already crumbling under the work of making sure legislation is being implemented in member states. And the question is: who do you have that runs policy: There is a danger of duplicating the work of the parent DG."
The criticism levelled at the legitimacy of unelected Brussels bureaucrats could be aimed with greater force at the policy making of scientific experts representing even less well-known institutions. Nick Hanley of DG Environment, who was in the audience, said: "Where does the buck stop. Who are the agencies accountable to?" Created as handmaidens to an already unaccountable institution, the commission, and having since evolved real policy making power, they could in fact be unaccountyable twice over – another factor aadding to their remoteness, despite being in the member states
Bureaucracies versus each other
Apart from the merits of their unbureaucratic structure, there has been a growth of agencies for two other reasons: partly in response to the fact that, as Bowis said, there has been something of an inflation for reasons of national prestige: "Every self respecting country wants one – the bigger ones want two", and partly because they fulfil a function: Europe needs more done, but the commission is under resourced to carry out the job. But does this expansion challenge the work of the commission, the national civil services or even both?
McGlade says: "Our PR is that whatever you [the citizen] do, we work for you", implying a growing range of areas of competence - even exclusive competences. One member of the audience said of the European Aviation Safety Agency, one of the more powerful agencies: "This agency does not sit on top of national aviation safety agencies, it replaces them. Industry is happy with this, since it replaces 27 'cops', with one 'cop'. But the national agencies, who sit on the board, are not happy. Because the European Aviation Safety Agency means their ultimate demise."
One could speculate that, in the same way turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, this is the reason why national agencies do not consult their European counterparts as much as they could: they do not want to contribute to their success, despite the reduction in bureaucracy and savings in cost. As John Bowis said: "People ask the European parliament all the time for European authorities, for instance a single pricing authority for the pharmaceutical industry - and that might make life easier for a lot of us -- but on the other hand you have civil servants in the member states who might feel threatened. If they sit on the boards, there will be a real mismatch."
The commission too, might not always be happy: Schmidt, of the commission, said a euro-sceptic public would not be fooled by decentralising EU work to EU civil servants in member states, implying that it would be "more transparent" to have them under the commission, was also sceptical whether scientific dynamism could be maintained amid low staff turnover of the smaller agencies, and complained that the smaller agencies, though ostensibly independent, turned back to the commission for procurement and recruitment procedures. In response to such carping, one audience member said later: "There is a turf war going on between the organisations."
Conclusions:
So what of their future?
The question whether they should replace ossified parts of the commission, by implication being accessory to its dismantlement, provocatively implied by host Giles Merritt, the head of Friends of Europe, would have to wait for another day. Panellists also drew back from his suggestion that the agencies should be "torn apart and put together again."
The panel agreed - with qualifications - that European Agencies were a good thing. John Bowis said; "There are too many, but all those I have dealt with have been excellent." Schmidt said: "Yes, we need them. Their services are clearly useful because markets and citizens clearly need them. We need to approve drugs, plants, and make railways interoperable."
But there were several ways to deal with the challenges: a way to solve the legitimacy problem would be, says Bowis, to put MEPs on the agencies' boards "who both know how the European parliament works and know the expert subject." Perhaps by replacing board members belonging to national agencies.
One way to contain costs would be to implement e-government by use of virtual agencies creating networks of staff and buildings from already established national agencies (and thus keeping national agencies intact.)
Another way could be to bring on board industry to pay for the agency; as industry sometimes benefits most from the agencies' existence.
To fight the danger a growth of agencies merely to satisfy the national pride of 27 member states, it was noted that several of the existing agencies have regular review clauses; John Bowis said henceforth these reviews should be made by independent bodies.
Schmidt said that new agencies should only follow impact assessments, and introduced following close consultation with public and parliament
McGlade said: "We have to recognise that perhaps we haven't got it right today. Functionality needs to be looked at again, in terms of services and delivery of many things to European citizens - security, solidarity, accountability, and promotion of our values across the world - all these demand a European response because they have to be delivered to each individual, an enormous task."
Has eastern Europe too much influence?
Brussels is very anti-Russian at the moment, with opinion correspondingly pro-Baltic and pro-Polish. This stance is often reflected in the views of the local newspaper, the European Voice, which a few weeks ago ran an opinion piece by the former prime minister of Estonia, Maart Laar, saying the move of the Russian “unknown soldiers” in central Tallinn was merited.
It was pushing an open door, given the local mood. And in fact the paper
could have afforded to be a bit contrarian on this occasion, since on balance, I think, elite people in Brussels and in the UK have absorbed the Estonian (and Polish) worldview of Russia/Soviet history in general and applied this matrix of prejudice (right or wrong) to the statues issue in particular. In the EP debate which I sat through only one intervention came in favour of Russia, from a Latvian MEP whom I thought was heroic, and was almost hissed.
The newspaper, read by the Brussels elite, could have given some
highly intelligent Russian nationalist historian a platform, or failing that Anatol Lieven, who is sound on Russia, to put a cat among the pigeons.
There was no sense in the Laar article the fact that both the Estonian head of state, president
Toomas Ilves, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden, an important regional player, were reportedly against the move of the statue, according to Swedish press reports. As were a majority of Tallinners and a large
majority of its Russian component.
Bildt, who has many connections to eastern Europe, said something wise to the effect of letting
history lie, I can't remember, but I will state an argument which I think he'd approve if he wasn't constrained by the suffocating political correctness towards the Balts afflicting Scandinavians.
Leave the statues because we mustn’t forget, and leave the statues because we have to move on - and show ourselves superior to the regimes before us that famously tried to eradicate, manipulate, redraw the evidence of history left by others.
If Britain had moved all the statues of the murderers and rogues in its history it would start with the Marshal Haig statue in Whitehall and move on to the Cromwell statue outside the palace of Westminster.
They stay; and are part and the fabric and tapestry of the country's history.
If Estonia still exists in a 100 years time - if it hasn't been swept away by 50m British lager louts and French Moroccan unemployeds choosing to settle there under their rights as European citizens - they might regret not heeding the advice of wise old statesmen about leaving the statue in place as symbol, well to their uniqueness, their particular history, really.
Symbols are what you want them to be, and symbols change over time. What is now an unbearable still open wound can be in future a scar worn with rueful wisdom, perhaps even pride. If they were to purge every brick and stone with Estonian blood on it there wouldn't be anything left of the old town whose turrets and battlements Estonians now take pride in and attract tourists with.
But at least I have some sympathy for the Estonian position; it doesn't mean the rest of us - from bigger nations, with different perspectives - have to be led by nose by them. We are allowed to have our perspectives too.
I thought it was absolutely disgusting that Charles Tannock MEP whose countrymen benefited enormously from Russia taking on and defeating 90% of the German warmachine so that the Brits could have their little jolly-ho gentlemen's war in the western desert to suck on for sixty years couldn't bring himself to sound one note of moderation or perspective in the EP debate. An astonishing lack of graciousness towards Russia's 20m war dead.
As often, normal people, on blogs, were a bit more balanced, recognising that for Brits and French and many other Europeans the Russians *were* liberators, both directly and vicariously.
They pulled out of Austria; and would have pulled out of east Germany had they been given a guarantee of neutrality.
(When the UK was first rejected for membership of the Common Market in 1963 Ted Heath told the Macmillan Cabinet there were two main reasons for the failure.
First, De Gaulle was determined to build a French Atom Bomb, and was angry that Britain wouldn't help him with it. Second, Adenauer feared that Britain was tempted by the Soviet offer to end the Cold War - to withdraw from Eastern Europe in return for a permanently disarmed and neutral Germany. This "peace scare" was Adenauer's worst nightmare, since it would have meant his total political eclipse. He preferred Britain to be sidelined in Europe for this very reason.
I think Adenauer was absolutely right in believing that any British government guided by rational self-interest would eventually take up the Soviet offer. Amazingly, Britain never had such a government.)
So, perhaps tant pis for Estonia; not so bad for the rest of us.
One issue that hasn't been explored is that communist oppression wasn't between nations, but from a communist bureaucrat class that transcended nation - over their own peoples. It was highly convenient for these people to drape themselves in a nationalist garb when the wind changed and this became politic. Many of these these are now prominent, including the Estonian PM who moved the statue.
An issue that's really interesting is whether this stance on Russia is a sign of how the east European political class will take over the EU institutions. After all, communism schooled them to excel in a culture of bureaucratic infighting. Supported by an over represented quota of young commission staff from the new member states for whom Brussels is more of an attractive career than for nationals in countries with greater domestic career opportunities, east European ministers might see a virtue in sticking together on every issue, a sense of camaraderie based on a shared past combined with a shared appetite for west European cash handouts. Public opinion in Britain has grumbled a little and said that the reason why east Europeans win the Eurovision song contest is that they have learnt the virtues of total solidarity, voting only for each other and using their strength in nation state numbers to appoint of their members winners and pushing the paymasters of the song contest, the big EU states, take all the bottom places. There were many calls in Britain to pull out completely, since the country faces little prospect if ever asserting itself again. The new constitution gives less power to block decisions.
If EU politics comes to resemble Eurovision song contest
voting, the union’s popularity will surely sink to a new low.
It was pushing an open door, given the local mood. And in fact the paper
could have afforded to be a bit contrarian on this occasion, since on balance, I think, elite people in Brussels and in the UK have absorbed the Estonian (and Polish) worldview of Russia/Soviet history in general and applied this matrix of prejudice (right or wrong) to the statues issue in particular. In the EP debate which I sat through only one intervention came in favour of Russia, from a Latvian MEP whom I thought was heroic, and was almost hissed.
The newspaper, read by the Brussels elite, could have given some
highly intelligent Russian nationalist historian a platform, or failing that Anatol Lieven, who is sound on Russia, to put a cat among the pigeons.
There was no sense in the Laar article the fact that both the Estonian head of state, president
Toomas Ilves, and Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden, an important regional player, were reportedly against the move of the statue, according to Swedish press reports. As were a majority of Tallinners and a large
majority of its Russian component.
Bildt, who has many connections to eastern Europe, said something wise to the effect of letting
history lie, I can't remember, but I will state an argument which I think he'd approve if he wasn't constrained by the suffocating political correctness towards the Balts afflicting Scandinavians.
Leave the statues because we mustn’t forget, and leave the statues because we have to move on - and show ourselves superior to the regimes before us that famously tried to eradicate, manipulate, redraw the evidence of history left by others.
If Britain had moved all the statues of the murderers and rogues in its history it would start with the Marshal Haig statue in Whitehall and move on to the Cromwell statue outside the palace of Westminster.
They stay; and are part and the fabric and tapestry of the country's history.
If Estonia still exists in a 100 years time - if it hasn't been swept away by 50m British lager louts and French Moroccan unemployeds choosing to settle there under their rights as European citizens - they might regret not heeding the advice of wise old statesmen about leaving the statue in place as symbol, well to their uniqueness, their particular history, really.
Symbols are what you want them to be, and symbols change over time. What is now an unbearable still open wound can be in future a scar worn with rueful wisdom, perhaps even pride. If they were to purge every brick and stone with Estonian blood on it there wouldn't be anything left of the old town whose turrets and battlements Estonians now take pride in and attract tourists with.
But at least I have some sympathy for the Estonian position; it doesn't mean the rest of us - from bigger nations, with different perspectives - have to be led by nose by them. We are allowed to have our perspectives too.
I thought it was absolutely disgusting that Charles Tannock MEP whose countrymen benefited enormously from Russia taking on and defeating 90% of the German warmachine so that the Brits could have their little jolly-ho gentlemen's war in the western desert to suck on for sixty years couldn't bring himself to sound one note of moderation or perspective in the EP debate. An astonishing lack of graciousness towards Russia's 20m war dead.
As often, normal people, on blogs, were a bit more balanced, recognising that for Brits and French and many other Europeans the Russians *were* liberators, both directly and vicariously.
They pulled out of Austria; and would have pulled out of east Germany had they been given a guarantee of neutrality.
(When the UK was first rejected for membership of the Common Market in 1963 Ted Heath told the Macmillan Cabinet there were two main reasons for the failure.
First, De Gaulle was determined to build a French Atom Bomb, and was angry that Britain wouldn't help him with it. Second, Adenauer feared that Britain was tempted by the Soviet offer to end the Cold War - to withdraw from Eastern Europe in return for a permanently disarmed and neutral Germany. This "peace scare" was Adenauer's worst nightmare, since it would have meant his total political eclipse. He preferred Britain to be sidelined in Europe for this very reason.
I think Adenauer was absolutely right in believing that any British government guided by rational self-interest would eventually take up the Soviet offer. Amazingly, Britain never had such a government.)
So, perhaps tant pis for Estonia; not so bad for the rest of us.
One issue that hasn't been explored is that communist oppression wasn't between nations, but from a communist bureaucrat class that transcended nation - over their own peoples. It was highly convenient for these people to drape themselves in a nationalist garb when the wind changed and this became politic. Many of these these are now prominent, including the Estonian PM who moved the statue.
An issue that's really interesting is whether this stance on Russia is a sign of how the east European political class will take over the EU institutions. After all, communism schooled them to excel in a culture of bureaucratic infighting. Supported by an over represented quota of young commission staff from the new member states for whom Brussels is more of an attractive career than for nationals in countries with greater domestic career opportunities, east European ministers might see a virtue in sticking together on every issue, a sense of camaraderie based on a shared past combined with a shared appetite for west European cash handouts. Public opinion in Britain has grumbled a little and said that the reason why east Europeans win the Eurovision song contest is that they have learnt the virtues of total solidarity, voting only for each other and using their strength in nation state numbers to appoint of their members winners and pushing the paymasters of the song contest, the big EU states, take all the bottom places. There were many calls in Britain to pull out completely, since the country faces little prospect if ever asserting itself again. The new constitution gives less power to block decisions.
If EU politics comes to resemble Eurovision song contest
voting, the union’s popularity will surely sink to a new low.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
