Europe after Lisbon

The Lisbon Treaty has now been in operation for a over six months; since 1 December 2009. Such has been the length and complexity of this tunnel from which we are emerging, that we may be forgiven for blinking a little as we emerge from it. The question arises, however, what now for the EU having finally got what it wanted and not immediately concerned with sorting out its institutional machinery?

The first question to ask what difference does this holy grail of institutional reform make? Unfortunately much of it is simply promise and potential, and quite elusive promise at that. It remains, in many respects, a befuddling and murky bureaucracy of an institution; a metaphor for which was ironically perfectly provided by the indecipherable text of the treaty itself. There are indeed a few changes. Incremental increases in the power of parliament and the openness of the Council of Ministers and the legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights are much to be welcomed. Equally auspicious, in my view, are the increases in the power of majority voting at the expense of national vetoes. Then, of course, there the superficial for which of which you will forgive my scepticism; the long-term President of the European Council and High Representative for Foreign Affairs. In terms of an analysis of the overall significance of the passing of this treaty and its above features it is of course far too early to say anything of substance.

What we can assess, however, is the impact it has made on the consciousness of the actors involved and the influential chattering classes. This has, it must be said, been a much expected and highly underwhelming whimper. The selection Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton as the public face for the institution was a dispiritingly EU-esque choice that emphasised the persistence of old, tired tendencies more than any kind of break from the past. It was a compromise in which hopes for anything visionary were swallowed up by squabbling and the vanity of national governments eager to appear to be getting
The second Barroso Commission’s appointments were greeted by a response that was, for the most part, meaninglessly parochial. Take Ireland, for example; Máire Geoghegan-Quinn has been given the relatively insignificant post of Research and Innovation, but the media’s response the Commission was an absolute fixation on her and disregard for everyone else. What exactly the public good of this focus was is beyond me. Parliament, in its ratification of the Commission, proved its use by kicking up a fuss over a number of weak appointments but in the end limited itself to its now customary one-kill limit with the withdrawal of Rumiana Jeleva of Bulgaria. In the meantime the Europeans muddled their way through Copenhagen in December without forcing much action from the US, China or anyone else despite the best of intentions.

This is not the way in which a healthy political system operates, and Lisbon clearly solves nothing in this regard. The question, however, is how we react to this fact. There are two basic alternatives; two ways in which we can interpret the both difficulties of the last eight years and the achievements which we have finally now made.

The first, very tempting choice is to do what most runners do at the end of a particularly gruelling marathon: collapse with exhaustion and relief. This very much seems to be the sentiment among many people involved with Europe. There is the sense that the EU has achieved the structural reform necessary for the foreseeable future; a satisfaction that the most glaring bureaucratic inefficiencies have been ironed out and that people can now get on with there job. If we pursue that then the ugly absence of outcome, vision and popular participation which we have witnessed both over the last eight years and over the most recent couple of months will continue and probably only worsen with time.

But there is an alternative. While most athletes may fall down and think about the race no more, anyone with a hope of competing properly in the long-term will also take time to assess their race strategy, worry at a time very much outside their seasonal best, and prepare to run the next race better. The next chapter in EU development has to begin in the wake of this ugly but very salutary episode that is the last eight years. The EU cannot possibly afford to continue along the route it is on; either so out of touch with the European people or so unable to cope with the challenges of a globalised economy and society. However tired we may be from the saga which is now drawing to a close, progress towards the next steps of democratic and institutional reform must begin immediately.

The problem we face, however, is that it is hard to know where this next step will come from. We are in a kind of a Catch-22 situation. The European public is so detached and disaffected with the EU that it is unlikely to make any real attempts at forcing reform itself. Meanwhile, the elites in Brussels will not make moves to reform things since they have seen the degree to which it is difficult to get a disaffected public to accept even the most mild-mannered reform. In other words, the public won’t engage to force reform and will reject any attempts at reform because it is so disaffected with the unreformed system.
The only answer which I can see to this problem is a two-pronged uphill assault at the institutional and cultural obstacles which we face. First, there should be a concerted effort at cross-border engagement at the level of public discourse. By this means we can, very slowly, begin to overcome the parochial myopia which dictates much public thinking at the moment, and, through this communication, begin to come to a communal way of thinking that sees the value of the EU as a whole and not for individual member-states. In the meantime, the long fight for greater transnational democracy, including a directly elected President of the Council, must continue and will hopefully facilitate this cultural engagement.