The Hindu Business Line : EU: Clash of fundamentals

"THE European Union is dead. Long live the European Union." To enthusiasts of the Union of Europe, nothing could be more welcome at this point of time than this slogan, which really means that though the new constitution of the EU has run into rough weather in the wake of the negative votes in the recently held French EU and Dutch referendums, the ideal and concept of a united, supranational Europe lives on and is, therefore, a goal to be pursued with even more vigour than in the past.

This is an entirely predictable response on the part of those who cherish the ideals set out in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, specially now when execution of the project is under threat. While this is understandable, the more important point to ponder over is whether translation of the dream into reality is at all feasible: in other words, whether the idea of a European Union is dead.

Admittedly, this is an embarrassing point to consider, especially in view of the fact that decades of effort have been spent trying to make the project work. Indeed, even a new currency has been introduced to facilitate the economic and monetary integration of the hitherto disparate European economies, which is no mean achievement when seen from a global, nation-state perspective.

But, then, times have changed, and it is just possible that the 1957 dream — given concrete shape in the aftermath of the Second World War when Europe was physically shattered and there was a compelling felt need to unite emotionally to repair the scars of Hitler's folly — will remain only a dream because of the altered political and economic circumstances governing present-day international relations.

To a body of European thought, this may appear to be loudly heretical, which it may well be. But the fact remains that the time has come to revisit the basic propositions, philosophical and otherwise, behind floating the Common Market idea.

So we get the point right that the EU project is still valid and is not something that will ultimately be rejected by Europe itself in the coming years as an unnatural graft.

For this may lead to deep and quite unnecessary scars being left behind.

Very recently, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown, put the big question mark in the right perspective when he said: "The question for us is how Europe can move from the inward-looking model to a flexible, reforming, open and globally-oriented Europe — able to master the economic challenge from Asia, America and beyond".

He felt that the present, unfolding world economic scenario made redundant the earlier bases for European integration.

As he put it: "The assumptions that became rooted in the very idea of European integration were that the single market and single currency would lead to tax harmonisation, a federal fiscal policy and something akin to a federal state".

True, Mr Brown has not been advocating a return to status quo ante. Among his reform proposals is one which focusses on "a commitment to complete the creation of the single market and make sure every country opens up to genuine competition", and another which advocates "moves to `eliminate the billions in state aid, the inefficient subsidies which prevent full and fair competition - starting with agriculture'".

As far as agriculture is concerned, very clearly national interest is behind the perpetuation of protection of farmers, which is an acknowledgement that the "national basis" of political power in Europe remains intact.

Indeed, Mr Brown made the point that "Identities have remained rooted in the nation state".

The central issue appears to be whether Europe today needs to be a supra-national entity to be able to withstand the economic competition offered by countries like China, or whether smaller national entities are in a better position to ward off the pressure and even make life difficult for the "challengers". This is a utility-oriented approach to the "unification" of Europe.

The other, philosophical, approach — which lays great store on the "oneness" of Europe, etc - is intellectually attractive but may be, historically, untenable, specially now when economic competition is the international buzzword and there are as yet no signs of secular losers.

Ranabir Ray Choudhury

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Dabhol re-powered

EU: Clash of fundamentals

Emergency: Memories of the dark midnight

Complying with tax notification conditions isn't an empty formality

Glaring omission in a commission case

Zero rate stock transfer for export

Loan, cash credit: No source, will tax

"If the wind comes from an empty cave, it's not without a reason"