Event Information
Date: 2010-10-08
Location: Washington, D.C.
Organizer: Cato Institutions
Counterpart: Marian Tupy, Policy Analyst, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute.
Invitation/Anouncement
Text
Summary of discussion, CATO Institute Policy Forum entitled “Power Grab: European Integration in the Post-Democratic Age” held October 8, 2010
Featuring Frits Bolkestein, Former EU Commissioner for Internal Market and Services; John R. Gillingham, Board of Curators Professor, University of Missouri-St. Louis; and Angelos Pangratis, Deputy Head of the EU Delegation to the United States; moderated by Marian Tupy, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute.
Bolkestein started out by saying that the EU is “moving in the wrong direction” but though he regrets certain aspect of it, he believes the Lisbon Treaty was necessary to “clean up” the EU. His critique of the Lisbon Treaty was manifold:
– The European Council should not have been made another EU institution and bureaucracy; in ten years the European Council will consist of 200 people and a new building.
– Lisbon represented a shift of power from the Commission to the Council and that was not the intention in the origins of the EU.
– The accession of Romania and Bulgaria was too early. Why 2007? “Because the Council had decided so”.
– The EMU countries have very different attitudes towards economy; this is not an East-West dividing line or a new-old member country one, but rather a rift between Germany and France where Germany wants discipline and competition and France greater government involvement, and where the rest of member states tend to air on either side.
– The deficit and the financial crisis have put a definitive end to the Federal Europe aspiration though the European Parliament has not realized that this is the case. It believes it is moving ever closer to a federal state – ”the federal fantasy”. And it is an “odd parliament” because there is no opposition and it is not popular among citizens. Furthermore, the European Parliament disregards the principle of subsidiarity.
– Several Commission initiatives are ill thought through, such the Euro bonds, and it wants to intervene between consumer and producer in consumer affairs.
– There are too many Commissioners and they keep inventing new initiatives, many completely unnecessary. The only way to stop the avalanche of initiatives is to curb the number of Commissioners; the work could be done by 12. The Commissioners “should not take initiatives”.
– EU members did not stick to the stability and growth pact, and if this commitment is not adhered to then what commitment will?
– In essence, the EU does too much but Brussels doesn’t realize. The problem, let alone the solution, is not informing public opinion only as many in Brussels think.
– Pangratis emphasized that:
– The bottom line and real challenge is finding the governance that makes sense in today’s world of globalization and interdependence. Public policy today is struggling to keep up and properly meet the changes that are taking place, for example climate change, financial and currency crises and obstacles to trade.
– Too often criticism of the EU is based misunderstandings, such as the in the CATO program alleged “power grab”. The Lisbon Treaty has not amassed more powers to Brussels in the area of foreign policy or otherwise; it changed nothing in that regard. The Member States’ basic powers stay the same but the sharing of competencies is better defined.
– As to the democratic deficit and the referenda in Ireland, also referred to in the program, Pangratis posed the question how 53% of 1.4 million voters voting “no”, is any more democratic than 67% of 1.8 million voters later voting “yes” in a second referendum? Further, the veto right allows even the smallest state to halt decisions and can be seen as equivalent to protection of minority rights, thus deepening democracy.
– Concerning the alleged democracy deficit of the EU, Pangratis noted that, after Lisbon, all new legislation has to be approved by the European Parliament and that the Commission and its President are more accountable to the Parliament. Under the “Citizens Initiative”, 1 million signatories can help to introduce new European legislation; Member States’ parliaments can monitor subsidiarity, and Member States can withdraw from the EU. All in, Lisbon has consistently enhanced the quality of EU democracy.
– The Commission has no real power to decide, only to propose legislation which is adopted by the Member States and the European Parliament. The perception of a long distance between Brussels and the capitals does not jive with the fact that Member States are “everywhere” in the decision making process including in the Commission’s committees.
– As to the European “bureaucracy”, some 30,000 staff and 1% of the EU GDP, it seems a very efficient bureaucracy considering 60-85% of Member States’ new legislation originates from initiatives in Brussels.
– Increasing budgetary means is sometimes necessary to allow the Commission to carry out what it has been mandated to do and may in the end save Member States money in national budgets.
– We have seen progress in the EMU and EU economic governance as a result of the recent crisis and challenges to the euro.
– The criteria for accession pertain to the rule of law and democracy; the aspiration to join and the accession itself transform countries. The enhanced rule of law enables the country to modernize in the longer term and better handle interdependence.
– Being a European citizen means benefitting from rights to live, travel, study, work, etc in other Member States. The EU has conferred individual rights yet it is a Union open to the world. Overall it has enhanced greatly individual choice and freedom of its citizens.
– Now that we have achieved peace and stability, what drives the EU is the quest for a model of governance to deal with the challenges of our times.
Gillingham believed that:
– The disenchantment with the EU started with the Maastricht three pillar system and continues with the flaws of the EMU.
– The EMU was created with a view to ultimately form a political federation. Now we don’t hear about a European Federation anymore. The end result has instead become that the richer members pay for the so–called PIGS.
– 1% of GDP is still a lot in light of the fact that the EU does not deliver any services as do governments. Worse yet, ¾ of the funds go to the antiquated CAP.
– EU commands little respect and is at best a necessity, as in the case for Eastern and Central Europe.
– The EU project is coming to a natural halt and a power grab is in fact unlikely in the future where generations will have to wait for new initiatives as economic constraints kick in and put breaks at the national level.
– The EU is as instable as the EMU. Yet, no one has figured out how Europe can do without the EU. The PIGS should not leave the EMU, nor should Germany, that would be ruinous. Rather, the EMU should be reformulated where national currencies are revived as parallel currencies to the euro to reinstate flexibility.
– Further, the EU should reform and rebuild its structure on basis of bilateral treaties as needed. The EU may not go into complete hibernation but neither will there be any attempt to great leaps forward.
Photo Gallery
Video – Audio
Video: http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=7390
Reports & other useful links or materials
