Where EU going?
Last Saturday saw Sir Edward Heath address the European Affairs Society. He was the key note speaker for their 10th Anniversary Conference, 'Where is Europe Headed'. That ironic Americanism was probably not intended, given the suitably cosmopolitan nature of the committee. Neither would it really be in keeping with the spirit of European harmony to comment on Teutonic committee members barking out orders, or the charming but somewhat distracted English press officer.
But it is worth wondering what the famous imperialist, Cecil Rhodes, must have been thinking as his portrait glowered over the 150 students gathered in Rhodes House. Especially when Sir Edward Heath kicked off by saying "my God, you've still got a lot to do" to increase Britain's integration into Europe.
The sad thing is, on the basis of Saturday's performance Sir Edward seems well on his way to becoming as much of an anachronism as Rhodes. Heath began his speech telling the familiar tale of the EU's genesis in the ashes of the Second World war, as the foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community, aimed to prevent another Franco-German war. Heath's own jour de gloire est arrive when he led Britain into the Common Market in 1972.
It was the consensual approach borne out of this that Heath argued caused the clash between EU and British political culture. "For heaven's sake," we were exhorted, "drop the view that Britain can impose its ideas on others."
Unfortunately, Heath seems quite willing to impose his own ideas on the British public. According to Heath, it is "unnecessary that the euro has to go to a referendum", as apparently it is "perfectly true that the man in the street does not know anything about it." Personally, you might prefer to decide for yourselves, given Heath says non Euro countries "cheat by changing the value of their currency".
Heath was followed by two more speakers, Lord Williamson of Horton, until 1997 the Secretary-General of the European Commission, and Larry Siedentop, an Oxford don who last year wrote a widely acclaimed book, 'Democracy in Europe'.
Both offered perspectives from their respective fields. Siedentop claimed that the EU "was sleep-walking into a crisis of democratic accountability". He thought that Europe should adopt a federal model of government like in Germany or the USA, where there is a constitution and power devolved to regional government as much as possible.
Ex-Eurocrat Lord Williamson remarked that while "academics are very interested in institutional reform, ministers are less so". Nonetheless, he agreed that the "very Germanic" idea of an EU constitution was likely to be extensively discussed over following years. Despite this, he reckoned that the EU had "no structure for a superstate", and that instead, individual governments were interested in "building a stronger Union".
Overall, though, the case for further European integration was taken as a given. Yet the speakers still left unresolved where exactly the EU should be going. Clearly the threat of war, which Heath saw as the original impulse for the EU, has passed. Equally, the single market has largely been implemented now, regardless of whether Britain uses euros or pounds. Under Siedentop's federal vision, national taxation would remain just that. The only major policy area left where the EU might play a role is defence, but discussion of this was only noticeable by its absence.
Perhaps Cecil Rhodes should humble anyone who has grand geopolitical plans. He dreamed of British control of Africa from Cairo to the Cape. And we must not forget that by 1919, Britain had achieved this. Yet by the 1950s, the world had changed beyond recognition and what politicians had struggled for for years was utterly in vain.
15th Feb 2001