Europe - Do Less And Do It Better
Brussels -- Friday 21st October
I was asked by the German newspaper, the Stuttgarter Zeitung, to write an article outlining my vision of Europe. They wanted me to mention the crisis of the Eurozone and how it impacted Germany as well as my own views for reform of the European Union - a hot topic at the moment. This is the article which was published in its English version:
The recent turmoil within the Eurozone has reopened a fundamental debate in the European Union: what kind of EU do we want to create?
The recent years of strong economic growth, stable political systems and steady immigration did not test the resolve of European leaders. Instead, we saw a more or less ‘business as usual’ approach to decision-making.
However, this has now changed. German taxpayers have been called upon to bail out Eurozone nations that have failed to remain as competitive as Germany in the global economy. Political uprisings in the Arab Spring and military intervention in Libya have chipped the already faded paint of the common foreign policy. And migratory pressures have caused European governments to request new tools within the Schengen agreement, which allow them to manage large migratory flows.
In the UK, there’s a famous political saying: ‘Events, dear boy, events.’ Unfortunately, events have stretched the very foundation of the EU’s existence.
However, in the European institutions this crisis is being met with only one response. Our leaders and policymakers are saying that only ‘More Europe’ is the answer, rather than asking whether Europe actually needs reform.
The reality is that many of the EU’s cornerstones – designed to overcome significant challenges on our continent in their time – are also acting as weights, pulling it below the water’s surface.
The EU’s social chapter was designed to tackle squalid employment conditions but today it exacerbates unemployment.
The Common Agricultural Policy aimed to provide food for a hungry continent but in the 21st century it hampers trade negotiations.
The notion of ever-closer Union was imperative after a period when the continent was ravaged by wars, but nowadays it merely serves to further distance the voters from those who make decisions in their name.
And symbols such as the European Parliament’s second seat in Strasbourg displayed post-war rapprochement but today they symbolize waste, and extravagance that is associated with the ‘gravy train’.
Unfortunately, in many cases my colleagues in the European institutions are allowing dogma and ideology to overtake the reality of events. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the ongoing sovereign debt crisis within the Eurozone.
The Euro was, above all else, a political project. Greece should never have been allowed to enter. The commission should not have failed to enforce the Stability and Growth Pact. Our focus in 2008 should have been on competitiveness rather than knee-jerk curbs on hedge funds and more EU employment legislation such as the Agency Workers Directive.
Unfortunately, German taxpayers are paying the price for decisions that were taken many years ago, the consequences of which EU leaders were either ignorant or deceptive about when presenting them to their electorates. Let me be clear about this: Angela Merkel should not be held responsible. She is showing incredible leadership and personal political sacrifice in order to keep the Euro together.
However, you cannot buck the markets. And they have already factored in a Greek default.
As a British politician, it is not my duty to try to influence German politicians. However, I do ask them how much longer they believe German taxpayers will be willing to go on picking up the bill for other countries’ failings.
What response will we see to the crisis in the long term? Already this week the European Parliament voted through new measures for economic governance across the EU, and particularly in the Eurozone. Already there are calls for the package to go further, towards the full development of fiscal federalism in the Eurozone with economic, taxation, even social policy being significantly influenced by Brussels. If that is the decision of the Eurozone leaders then, as a non-Eurozone MEP, I will respect that. However, it does beg the question as to whether there would be much point in electing national governments at all. Democracy is far from expedient – especially in a fast-moving crisis – but we should be extremely cautious about giving away a form of governing, which people have fought and died to maintain.
Even before the economic crisis, the European Union already faced an existential crisis. The fundamental question is: ‘What is it here to do?’
I believe that we can only answer this question when we invert it and ask, “What should the EU not do?”
I believe it needs to stop trying to resolve the challenges of the past and focus on the challenges of the future.
When in opposition, the leader of my Party and now the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, set out what he described as the ‘3G’ agenda for the EU. He said that it should focus its efforts on global poverty, global warming and global competitiveness. Beyond that, he argued that the national governments – who are far more accountable to you than European politicians - should retain their powers, but they should cooperate across the bloc with the commission facilitating that cooperation.
Of course, it was that agenda that also led to us leaving the European People’s Party of which the CDU/CSU are members, and forming our own group in the European Parliament that puts across what we believe to be a Eurorealist agenda. The decision proved controversial at the time but I hope that, although we are no longer members of the same family, we are still strong friends and allies on a number of issues. I still enjoy many friendships in the CDU and CSU and I believe German voters have some excellent MEPs of whom they can be proud.
However, I believe that the old concept of EU integration – the kind that was advocated by Monnet and Schuman – is outdated and often part of the problem, rather than the solution.
The EU has become enclosed. The European Parliament often thinks that the corners of Europe are also the four corners of the planet. They fail to realize the global extent of financial markets and economic trade means that overregulation in the EU diminishes our collective competitiveness.
The European Union often develops well-meaning employment legislation. On the face of it, it is hard to deny that 20 weeks of fully paid maternity leave would be fantastic. But, in the UK at least, we cannot afford it.
The EU’s Single Market is not fulfilling its potential, and enabling businesses and consumers to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the internet.
The answer is not more Europe, but a better functioning Europe. One of my party’s old slogans called for the EU to ‘do less and do it better.’ I think that this belief still applies. The EU should look at what it does well: facilitating cooperation, creating a common market, supporting national governments’ ability to project themselves on the world stage, and encourage the conditions for competitiveness.
I believe that this agenda would significantly assist with our economic recovery, and it would restore credibility of the EU institutions amongst the voters and taxpayers.
Restoring credibility is not going to be easy. The EU is far from popular. But it has failed to heed the will of the people for so long, is it any wonder?
