The sovereign countries that exist today have not been around forever. In fact only very recently in the history of mankind, have we finally come to embrace the concept of the nation state; where political rule coincides geographically with ethnic or cultural identity. Before the nationalist uprisings of the 19th century, multi-ethnic Empires, and Kingdoms, were the norm on the continent of Europe. We have come a long way, and waged many wars, to achieve this common belief in nationhood, where people live in countries, side by side with other countries, and people chose to live with their own people and be ruled by their own people, whatever their definition of ‘their people’ may be. In some parts of the world, the struggle is not over, and it is quite possible that there are new countries still to emerge in the future. However, even when some peoples are still fighting for the basic freedoms that many of us have enjoyed our whole lives, there are some that think that it is time for change. These people believe that now we have achieved nationhood and cooperation, the way forward, or the next step from here, is to join our nations together again, but this time in a way where everyone is equal instead of one country ruling over many others. They may be right. But are we ready for this? - to expand our definition of ‘we,’ and alter our perception of who we call ‘our people?’
* * *
In addition to the laws passed by Parliament in London, the European Parliament in Brussels also enacts legislation in the UK, in the form of regulations (laws), and directives (targets/results that member states are free to choose how best to achieve). As explained in more detail in a previous article, legislation from the EU is created by the European Commission and reviewed and voted on by the European Council, composed of the heads of state of each country (currently Nikolas Sarkozy, David Cameron etc.), and the European Parliament, composed of the directly elected MEPs from each country. The European Commission, the body that initiates all the laws, has a president, who represents the Commission and is responsible for all laws passed. The European Council used to be composed of solely the heads of state for each member country, but now, since January 2010, it too has its own president. Herman Achille Van Rompuy, ex-prime minister of Belgium, was appointed as the full-time president of the European Council, in addition to the 27 members from each country. Although the European Council has no legislative power (which is solely the responsibility of the European Commission), it is charged with defining, according to the Lisbon Treaty of 2009, 'the general political directions and priorities' of the Union, and is the key problem solving body of the EU. Therefore, this makes Herman Van Rompuy the President of Europe, even though the exact definition of ‘Europe’ is still yet to be settled.
In terms of European ideology, Herman Van Rompuy is a federalist. He shares the views of the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, in that he believes that European sovereignty should be shared between a centralised governing authority and constituent political units. This means he, quite openly, wishes to create a United States of Europe, in which the United Kingdom would be a province of a much larger country.
Herman Van Rompuy does not actually have a vote in the European Council, because in this case Belgium would have two votes and that would be unfair, but he is the full-time leader of the Council. All of the other heads of state are, of course, only part-time. Most prime ministers have more commitments to their own parliament and domestic affairs than those of the European Union. This leaves the European Council with a strong federalist mind spearheading the movements of the Union when the other Council members may be unavailable to fully participate in decision making.
Mr Van Rompuy also believes in global governance, which, in a very extreme sense, means the world being ruled by one single government which delegates powers to individual countries. In a press conference in 2009 he confirmed his vision of world order: "2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of a financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." For environmental issues such as climate change and pollution, a global cooperation is undoubtedly the way forward; but does this really require the termination of sovereign nation states? Is the task of global coordination so great that we must all be ruled by one big government in order to make it work? Well, if the continent of Europe does eventually become ‘the USE’, Herman Van Rompuy will be one very large step closer to realising his vision of global government.
Mr Van Rompuy is the first long-term full-time president of the European Council. Until his appointment, the presidency of the Council changed every six months. At a recent United Nations meet he explained that “...before me there were rotating presidencies, speaking on behalf of their nations, and now I can speak on behalf of the Union as a whole, not representing a member state.” What he is saying, is that he will think and act, solely in the interests of ‘Europe’ and not in the interests of Belgium, where he is from. He feels comfortable to represent Europe as a whole instead of his country. Perhaps he even feels a greater affinity, or a greater identity, with a European nationality rather than a Belgian nationality.
Of course, one could argue if a ‘European identity’ even exists. No doubt it is stronger in some countries than others. European identity or not, there is definitely a sense of affinity between people from European nations. A combination of historical, religious, and cultural ties loosely bond European people together, purely because we are from the same part of the world. The ease of movement between European nations makes it far easier to travel around the continent and Spanish people, German people, French people and Hungarian people all mingle together more than ever before, and often communicate in English. Whether or not we have the European Union to thank for this bond between us, is a topic for debate. And the notion that replacing nation states with a European superstate will further strengthen these bonds, is, I suspect, doubted by many. Certainly, the imposition of such a superstate without the consent of the people, is unwelcomed.
Herman Van Rompuy was the Prime Minister of Belgium between 2008 and 2009, but he is not the first senior Belgian politician to leave Belgian politics for a European position. Guy Verhofstadt, the current leader of the European political party ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), was the Prime Minister of Belgium from 1999 to 2008. Jean-Luc Dehaene, Belgium’s Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999, is also a member of the European Parliament with the EPP (European People’s Party). Belgium was one of the original members of the EU and has been at the centre of European politics since the beginning. Several aspects of the country’s structure and politics make it an interesting choice for the location of the European Parliament.
Belgium is composed of two main linguistic groups, the Dutch-speakers, mostly Flemish people, the majority of which reside in the northern region of Flanders, and the French-speakers, mostly Walloon people, who live mainly in the southern region of Wallonia. There are also small groups of German-speakers and the capital city, Brussels, is very mixed. Due to the linguistic diversity, Belgium has always had a complex system of government and longstanding political conflicts. The country uses compulsory voting, resulting in one of the highest voter turnout scores in the world. Since 1970, the significant political parties have all split into distinct components that each represent primarily only one of the ethnic groups. There is a Dutch speaking majority in the country and the largest Dutch speaking political party is the N-VA nationalist/separatist party, which advocates separation of the two main ethnic regions of Belgium. This has created a situation of political deadlock and Belgium has been without a government for the last 16 months. Back in March of this year, it set the longest period that any country has been without a government, a title previously held by Iraq. There is currently a ‘caretaker’ prime minister in charge, Yves Leterme, who has slipped up several times when asked about Belgium including one occasion when a reporter asked him if he knows the national anthem and he sang the national anthem of France!
European history demonstrates that countries comprised of multiple ethnic groups, multiple linguistic groups or multiple faiths, are extremely difficult to hold together. There have been dozens of separations and declarations of independence on the continent of Europe stretching from the days of the dissolutions of Empires and the rise of Nation States in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries, to more recently in the 20th century, for example with Czechoslovakia - which existed for 74 years before peacefully splitting into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and Yugoslavia, the former region in the Balkans, which did not split peacefully, and is now the states of Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia and Serbia (including the province of Kosovo where many Albanians reside). History has shown us all that the forced union of different ethnic groups is a dangerous business and that no price can be put on freedom. Belgium, on the other hand, has held together successfully until now.
The capital city of Belgium, Brussels, is also the capital of the European Union and the heart of European diplomacy. It is therefore quite ironic, yet perhaps unsurprising, that a country with a multi-ethnic federation and an unstable government is at the centre of the European federalism agenda and fosters a proportionately large number of European politicians. Ex-politicians, diplomats and even ex-prime ministers of Belgium, unable to prevent the linguistically different regions of their own country from drifting apart, are now sitting in the European Parliament, or in the case of Van Rompuy, leading the political direction of the EU, willingly engaged in the forced union of many other cultures and linguistic groups. In Belgium, there is a greater belief among politicians in the European Union and its ideals. If this belief did not exist, then neither would the belief in the unity of Belgium.
The lack of political stability is a shame for Belgium and is a great embarrassment for the European Union. If and when the EU was to fail, Mr Van Rompuy would lose not just his job and his dream of a federal Europe, but also the status and quite possibly the unity of his home country. One can’t help but pity him, in a way. It may well be that the European Union is the last remaining force holding Belgium together. If the EU were to split, and nationhood was restored to the continent, it would be hard to imagine Belgium continuing in its present condition.
The appointment of Herman Van Rompuy raises questions of democratic legitimacy. Was Van Rompuy elected by the peoples of Europe? Is there any mechanism through which we can remove him if we dislike his policies? The answer to both these questions is no. Many ordinary people, and many politicians, see Van Rompuy as nothing more than a figure head, that without any real legitimacy, having not been elected by us, that he has no authority to make decisions for us, and the other 500 million people in the EU. What do you think? If the EU continues along its chosen path of federal integration, this could be a taster of what we can come to expect for the future representation of our country - the USE.
* * *
Below is a video of a great moment in the European Parliament where Nigel Farage, leader of the EFD party, embarrasses Van Rompuy about his lack of status and recognition in the eyes of other political leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment