When Switzerland entered the "Schengen Area," that is, the group of twenty five continental European countries who allow passport-free movement of people among themselves, it was after decades of strong Euro-skepticism. After referenda strongly rejected the accession of the country to the European Economic Area (the precursor to the 1993 establishment of the EU) and subsequent ballot initiatives to re-open negotiations to join the EU failed with more than 75 percent of voters against, it seemed quite unlikely that the free movement of people would ever come to pass.
So, when I flew back to Geneva in March by way of Paris, after a short visit to the US, I was shocked to find myself walking straight through to customs, with my entry stamp from Charles-de-Gaulle good enough for the Swiss authorities.
At this point, freedom of movement is the leading edge of integration with the European system for the Swiss, with their high importation tariffs and controls, a strong committment to the Swiss Franc as the national currency, strenuous immigration requirements, opaque banking system, and neutrality-focused foreign policy. Indeed, in 2006, the Swiss Federal Council changed the official Swiss position regarding EU membership from "a strategic goal," to "an option."
For the rest of Europe, however, it is the impending passage of the Lisbon Treaty that defines the cutting edge of European integration. Signed in December 2007, the treaty has undergone more than 73 legislative, executive, royal, and judicial activities in the 27 EU countries. These have ranged from the official permission from the Duke of Luxembourg, no less than 10 separate regional legislatures, language community committees and special Brussels authorities in Beligum, along with the the ill-fated first 2008 referendum in Ireland that was the only failing vote on the treaty (and was overturned just a few weeks ago).
The Treaty of Lisbon is intended to improve coherance and streamline decision-making in the EU, and establish an appointed President of the European Council (the EU member states), who will serve a 2 1/2 year appoint term, instead of the current 6 month rotating Presidency. Approved by all the requisite parliaments, royal leaders, and the like, the treaty requires only the pro-forma approval of conservative, euro-skeptic Czech President Vaclav Klaus.
Klaus has decided to use this opportunity for a political stand against European integration, and insists that legal actions questioning the constitutionality of the treaty brought by conservative parliamentarians must be allowed to come to completion before he signs. The Czech constitutional court is set to review the case early next week.
Whether these efforts are meaningful, in practical terms, is up for debate. While there has been a great deal of heartburn about Lisbon from conservatives around the continent, it turns out that few issues that treaty addresses are meaningful to regular Europeans.
Eurobarometer polling published in September, which admitedly covers just the twenty seven EU countries, indentified ranks two issues far above the others in terms of the EU's role for its citizens. The two main practical impacts of European integration, common currency and common market, in terms of the movement of people travel) and the movement of workers and students (permanent work and study) are understandably the two key things that EU represents to Europeans. Speak to any regular person, be it Berlin, Athens or Ljubljana, you will find this to be true.
To measure these two issues (splitting travel and work, as the treaty system does), we can have a look at major European countries in terms of their participation in the common-currency Eurozone, the passport-free movement Schengen Area, and the European Economic Area, which encompasses free trade, common customs, and the freedom to work and study.
Regardless of the Lisbon Treaty, integration will continue, with eight countries on track to join the Eurozone in the next five years, and several others considering doing so. Liechtenstein and Cyprus are expected to join the Schengen Area in 2010 or 2011, while the new EU states of Bulgaria and Romania are on track to become part soon after, leaving just the UK and Switzerland outside of the "two or more" group.
Indeed, as French President Nicolas Sarkozy criticized President Klaus for his hold-up on the Lisbon Treaty, he suggested that the U.K.'s refusal to adopt the Euro would be a major stumbling block for former British Prime Minister Tony Blair becoming the inagural President of the European Council. Though Sarkozy intially introduced Blair's name into the process, he was not sure if he is the right choice. "Personally I believe in a Europe that is politically strong and embodied by a person. But the fact that Great Britain is not in the euro remains a problem," he explained.
So though the current Czech leadership, strong Euro-skeptic parties (such as those in Austria and the Netherlands), and other naysayers dominate the public dialogue right now, the real question will how the countries on the bottom end of the chart, namely the U.K., Switzerland, and to a lesser degree Norway, will change in the coming decade. Does the perception of inevitibility come into play at a certain point, or do national priorities dominate enough that this image does not come through?
The issue has been discussed and debated a hundred times since the negotiations of the Maastricht Treaty, which established the EU, in the early 1990s. But with a new generation of ERASMUS-educated civil servants and political leaders and a likely common foreign policy, the option for countries to "opt-out" begins to seem more permanent than temporary.
While we are watching for the results of the Constitutional court in the Czech Republic, we can also look forward to next spring's UK General Election. After twelve years in power and facing a surging opposition, the ruling pro-Europe Labour Party looks ripe for a toss-out. And with the Conservative Party's shift to the euro-skeptic European Conservatives and Reformists political group, it seems quite possible that EU integration may be an important card on the table.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
10.30.2009
For European Integration, Movement and Money Counts
@ 6:30 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments
along with the the ill-fated first 2008 referendum in Ireland that was the only failing vote on the treaty (and was overturned just a few weeks ago).
I don't believe this is correct, the French also rejected a referendum on the subject 3 years ago. This round, they didn't bring it forward as a referendum, but passed it through parliament.
Y'know, it's funny how Sexton mentions strict Swiss immigration rules. For tourist visas, they were pretty good about just letting in people with US green cards before they were part of the Schengen area, now they make you jump through the same stupid hoops as the rest of Europe.
A minus all around, I say. I wish the Europeans would get the fact that if you have a green card, you probably are not going to stay for that job as a janitor.
hsb, the referendums were on seperate subjects- the French rejected the European Constitution, along with the Netherlands, while the Irish rejected (and later approved) the Treaty of Lisbon.
The whole issue of integration is going to be a mighty problem for Cameron's Conservative Party if the Treaty of Lisbon has been approved before the UK General Election.
For those of you outside the UK, the Conservative Party has a very strong 'euro-sceptic' (i.e. anti-europe) wing. This ranges from those who just want a smaller, cheaper EU, to those who advocate UK withdrawing from the EU completely. They've also been losing votes to UKIP (UK Independence Party) and a lesser extent the BNP (nazis by any other name) who both have a strong anti-europe message.
Cameron has to try and appease these people, especially about the Lisbon Treaty, but he won't actually be able to do anything. He has made noises about a referendum, but by that stage there won't be anything left to debate (and in any case the Treaty has received Royal Assent)...
Sometimes it's a good thing to look back at how things were, and how far we have traveled I grew up near a European border, with customs checks, and the habit of carrying two different currencies "just in case". Nowadays, I just carry Euros and haven't passed a customs office when traveling by car in years.
It's no surprise to me to find the two most tangible effects (travel freedom and currency) at the top of the list.
Euro-skepticism is very much like "anti-establishment" protest votes in various countries; the perceived "powers that be" are easy targets for voter discontent.
Fire Brian Lenihan - you are wrong. The French and Dutch voted down the Constitution at which point it was renamed the Lisbon treaty (virtually identical documents) and then accepted.
This also allowed the UK Government to break a manifesto promise to hold a referendum.
Why does the EU dislike democracy so much?
As much as I approve of European unity, I have to say that the Treaty of Lisbon is a scandalously bad constitutive document.
The damn thing is 231 pages long, and expressed essentially as a "diff" to the older treaties it replaces. It is written in obscure legal-diplospeak, and largely concerns itself with mind-destroyingly tedious details of bureaucratic governance procedure. I feel sure that no more than a few hundred people have read the whole thing, that only a fraction of that understand most of its implications, and that 95% of that is comprised of EU civil service types. Which is probably deliberate, IMO. These folks know how to concentrate power in the hands of a bureaucracy.
To me, this is very sad. I cannot see Europeans looking on this treaty with the sort of pride and sense of ownership that U.S. citizens (for example) have for their Constitution. In order for that to be possible, the Lisbon Treaty should really have been one-tenth of its length, should have expressed only principles of governance, and should have couched those in terms of the fundamental political values that really bind European democracies together.
Had the treaty been conceived in this way, it could have supplied an idealistic rallying point for a budding sense of common identity, an office that the U.S. Constitution has performed for Americans for a couple of centuries now. As it stands, it will rally nothing but apathy. Again, my guess is that this is a deliberate choice on part of a "Eurocracy" of civil servants who have no desire to see actual people meddle too closely in their jealously-guarded province of governance.
One thing that bothers me about the EU is its incessant dithering on the subject of membership for Turkey. It seems as if the current members have grave reservations about admitting Turkey but lack the nerve to come out and say "No." Really, grow a backbone and just say No if that's what you really think, but do something.
Peter
Thing is with Turkey is that it is steadily improving economically and would be a cornerstone of EU as a coming world power. It's Islam, the Ottoman past and especially the human rights record that are the strikes against membership. The last one is weird, though. Article 301 is losing ground and they are slowly trying to establish a relationship with Armenia and the Kurds, but at the same time there's the power of the military, the deep state and the Islamist minority. It'll be interesting to watch in the next twenty years, but eventually I think they'll come to standard, though with an Italy-style corruption problem.
Oh, come on, there's nothing pro-Europe about Labour Party other than empty rhetoric. They declined joining euro, or Schengen, or any other meaningful expansion of European cooperation on every step in spite of 12 years in power. No Euro-skeptics I can think of can match this record.
The only way Conservatives could be more anti-EU is if they actually seceded from it, and that won't (hopefully) happen.
"Fire Brian Lenihan - you are wrong. The French and Dutch voted down the Constitution at which point it was renamed the Lisbon treaty (virtually identical documents) and then accepted."
Evidence or STFU.
"As much as I approve of European unity, I have to say that the Treaty of Lisbon is a scandalously bad constitutive document.
The damn thing is 231 pages long, and expressed essentially as a "diff" to the older treaties it replaces. It is written in obscure legal-diplospeak, and largely concerns itself with mind-destroyingly tedious details of bureaucratic governance procedure. I feel sure that no more than a few hundred people have read the whole thing, that only a fraction of that understand most of its implications, and that 95% of that is comprised of EU civil service types. Which is probably deliberate, IMO. These folks know how to concentrate power in the hands of a bureaucracy.
To me, this is very sad. I cannot see Europeans looking on this treaty with the sort of pride and sense of ownership that U.S. citizens (for example) have for their Constitution. In order for that to be possible, the Lisbon Treaty should really have been one-tenth of its length, should have expressed only principles of governance, and should have couched those in terms of the fundamental political values that really bind European democracies together.
Had the treaty been conceived in this way, it could have supplied an idealistic rallying point for a budding sense of common identity, an office that the U.S. Constitution has performed for Americans for a couple of centuries now. As it stands, it will rally nothing but apathy. Again, my guess is that this is a deliberate choice on part of a "Eurocracy" of civil servants who have no desire to see actual people meddle too closely in their jealously-guarded province of governance."
Please learn what you are talking about. We HAD a Constitution coming, but then France and the Netherlands rejected it in referenda. Back to the drawing board.
The member states then came up with the Treaty of Lisbon, which amends previous treaties, in order to reform the EU to some extent. Amending previous treaties usually does produce lots of legalese.
A further reason for the legalese of this document is thatit is a Treaty between 27 different countries, all with wildly different established law, cultures etc etc. This is not like the United States, where you have 50 states under a Constitution. This is 27 countries under a TREATY. Very different.
Renard, when you call the EEA "the the precursor to the 1993 establishment of the EU", you have your history confused: The predecessor of the European Union was the European Community (or Communities), not the EEA. The EEA was founded after the EU, at the start of 1994. Its purpose was so that EFTA states which did not want to fully join the EU could participate in it partially. The non-EU EEA members (currently Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein) agree to apply some parts, but not all parts, of EU law; however, they have no formal say in the making of those EU laws they must apply.
It's funny, I've been living in Geneva for over 3 years now, and it was only after Switzerland joined the Schengen that customs officials have been looking at my passport and permis de séjour. I don't understand it.
электронная почта без регистрации
Post a Comment