I'm a believer!
Two days from now the political map of Europe will be changed forever. Ten new countries, the majority from the former Soviet bloc, will join the European Union - by far the biggest overhaul the EU will have undergone in recent memory. It was in this context that Dr Denis MacShane, Minister for Europe, came to Oxford to speak to the European Affairs Society.
Dr MacShane is one of those ministers whose existence could easily have passed you by. Despite having committed the odd inevitable 'gaffe', the fact that he is a staunch Blairite, along with his relatively junior position within the Government, could certainly render him indistinguishable from the Hains, Reids and Millibands of this world.
Yet it would be wrong to assume that this apparent lack of public profile must render him a dry, dull speaker. If nothing else, Denis MacShane seems genuinely and extremely passionate about his subject - the impression one gets is that his natural love for all things continental must be constrained by the Government's not infrequent measures to appease the Eurosceptic press. He is clearly in his element when articulating the undoubted benefits of EU membership, and seeking to dispel some of the myths surrounding it. When it comes to defending the Government's decision not to join the Euro thus far, however, one can almost see him flick into autopilot mode, with little in the way of enthusiasm, or - one suspects - belief.
It thus seemed appropriate to begin by quizzing Dr MacShane on one of the more substantial Government concessions to the Europhobes - the decision, in the face of mounting tabloid and Tory pressure, to impose controls on migrant workers coming to the UK from the new member states. Has this been a victory for the xenophobes? On the contrary - this was "a significant defeat for both Michael Howard and the anti-European press," since the measures imposed fall well short of the "complete block on the free movement of workers in Europe" that they demanded.
It seems he is clutching at straws a little here - after all, this argument is akin to a German minister in 1919 claiming the Treaty of Versailles to be a defeat for the French, on the grounds that the reparations bill was well below what Clemençeau wanted. At the end of the day, the government has been forced into a concession.
Does he fear, then, that Britain's diplomatic relations with the countries concerned will be soured as a result of the imposition of these special restrictions? Will Poland feel, as the paper Gazeta Wyborcza has argued, that "the joy of unification has been replaced by bitterness: they don't want us."
Dr MacShane is not troubled by this: "There were always going to be regulations to ensure that there wasn't an abuse of the benefit system, and these exist in every other country." Yet the response still does not fully explain just why it is Eastern Europeans in particular who have been singled out for this treatment.
Moving on to the Euro - does Dr MacShane think it possible that a 'yes' vote could ever be won in a referendum, particularly given the powerful nationalist rhetoric that can - and always will - be employed by those opposed to the single European currency?
Unsurprisingly, the Government's policy is defended: "Anti-European prejudice and populism may be widespread in the press" but "when people come to vote, they vote for their personal and their national interest [which would, of course, coincide with joining the Euro, if the government saw fit to put the issue to a referendum]."
He makes the reasonable point that strongly anti-European parties have always performed poorly in elections - Labour during the 1980s, and more recently the Conservatives. Yet surely the opinion polls, which have consistently shown a 20-point lead for the anti-Euro camp, would seem to undermine this stance? "Opinion polls go up and down on European issues. I firmly believe that the British people will never vote against their own economic interest." This is spoken with a reasonable degree of conviction, but it is hard not to consider such an assertion somewhat naive.
Finally then, the wider issue of the future of the EU - does the minister believe that it needs any general reforms? "Oh, the EU should be reforming all the time." He goes on to explain how the union is very much a dynamic institution, constantly evolving. The role of the future EU constitution is vital to this process, apparently, since it represents: "a strengthening of the European Union on the basis of the authority of member states."
Yet there is no explanation as to exactly where this dynamism should be taking us - what is this European ideal that we are so fervently marching toward?
Furthermore, Dr MacShane does not initially identify what many would argue is the EU's greatest weakness- the lack of democracy. After all, why bother electing a European Parliament when all power within the EU institution rests with a handful of independently-selected commissioners? When pressed, however, he defends the system, claiming that "it is important that Europe becomes more transparent, but it is not going to bring about the end of the authority of national governments, the British Prime Minister or the German Chancellor. The European Parliament may not be running Europe, but it is a very important institution that has increasing authority within the EU."
However, this does seem rather to be missing the point. A number of decisions are already taken at EU level - simply transferring the power to make these decisions from unelected commissioners to European parliamentarians would not affect the authority of national leaders. This could only be done by actually increasing the number of decisions taken by the EU in the first place.
One is left with the impression of a man who, like the Government in general, is clearly very keen and excited about future European co-operation, but too often fails to see the wood for the trees. The EU is passionately sold to the audience, only for the Government's so-called "red lines" regarding the future constitution to be outlined and defended at the appropriate moment. He leaves one unsure as to whether Europe is a continent full of friendly, wealthy peoples wishing to further common economic goals, or of scheming Belgians hell-bent on destroying British prosperity by stealth.
He clearly wishes to foster pro-EU attitudes, but undermines any success in this regard by looking to appease the xenophobes at crucial moments rather than tackling the root causes of their grievances. Denis MacShane, then: plenty of enthusiasm, precious little vision.
Dr Denis MacShane was
addressing the Oxford University European Affairs Society.
To find out more, visit their
website: www.oueas.org.
29th Apr 2004