Regionalism - An alternative strategy for Europe?

A New Century - A New Beginning?

In this new century the people of Europe will be faced with vital decisions having repercussions far into the millennium. After the chaos of two world wars, the political leaders of Europe decided that they must create an environment that would begin an irreversible process of closer integration within the continent of Europe. Only then would the cycle of war and destruction be broken for ever. Now, forty years later, Europe has reached a critical point in history. The €uro, a currency union for the EU, a scheme unparalleled in human history, is a reality. The relative success of this project is fundamental to the advance of the European integration process.

Unfortunately the 'European' debate within the UK has failed to ignite the interest of the wider electorate. During the general election of 1997, despite the best efforts of the Referendum Party, the people of the UK remained largely disinterested. Local issues still dominate ordinary peoples concerns. The standard of local healthcare facilities? How much money they have left in their pockets after paying all the bills? The quality of their children's education? Are the streets safe to walk at night? These are the issues that the vast majority of ordinary citizens are more interested in addressing, and who can blame them.

Talk of convergence criteria and stability pacts usually results in apathy or boredom. The process of European integration is complex and I can understand how many people feel uncomfortable with or unwilling to engage seriously in the debate which surrounds this issue. However the process will continue with or without our contribution. Ignoring the chain of events unfolding is not a sustainable strategy in the longer term.

Options for Change?

A simplistic analysis of the current situation shows three options open to the UK for the long-term future.

Option 1 is to negotiate the secession of the UK from the EU as quickly as possible. After all Great Britain once had an Empire and still has many friends in the World community. Great Britain is a trading nation and could happily exist as a separate entity in its own right. There are many nations who exist in this fashion and appear to thrive and prosper.

This option does not have majority support in the UK electorate. Opinion polls have consistently indicated that the majority of people feel the UK should be part of Europe in some form.

Perhaps this is because the idea of Europe gives people a sense of security. It may be because a large proportion of UK trade is now dependent on our European partners. It could be of course that the massive levels of inward investment into the EU (of which the UK has enjoyed the lions share) are seen as beneficial to job creation.

Option 2 is to preserve the status quo. A community of nations collaborating to remove trade barriers but maintaining the integrity of National sovereignty. We joined the European Economic Community in 1973. That is what 'we' voted for in the referendum. All this talk of Monetary and Political Union is going too far. 'We' like the idea of free trade but leave 'us' out of 'your' ideas about 'A European Superstate'. This option has widespread appeal within the UK.

In the 1960's the UK was part of EFTA which included the Scandinavian Nations, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Iceland. However, the majority of EFTA members have now deserted that organisation to follow the path of closer integration offered by the EU strategy. There must be a reason for this trend. The UK govt. was aware of the nature of the institutions they were applying to join back in the early 1970's. The core of UK govt. policy towards Europe ever since appears to have been aimed at changing the basic nature of the EU into a free trade area like EFTA. Today the majority of EU politicians are intent on ever deeper integration. The plan for a common currency is evidence enough for this. Successive Inter Governmental Conferences have put forward radical new proposals every four years aimed at enhancing the integration process.

Option 3 is to proceed wholeheartedly into a full scale Economic and Political union with the other nation states involved. This would, in the longer term, mean the complete assimilation of the United Kingdom and other member states into the European Union. The EU would effectively assume the status of nation state, policy areas currently within the competence of the United Kingdom and other member state national parliaments would be ceded to the European Parliament and European Commission. This is often referred to as the 'federalist' approach.

This option has limited appeal in the UK. The UK electorate are deeply suspicious about the intentions of mainland European politicians. Some information about the integration process has been at best misrepresented, and at worst, distorted and sensationalised by the tabloid press. However, successive UK government administrations have discovered that the majority of EU political leaders are intent on pursuing a strategy of closer and deeper integration. The last ten years of the Conservative UK governments tenure in office was a catalogue of delaying tactics designed to slow down or reverse this policy trend. It remains to be seen if the 'New' Labour administration will lead to a more constructive approach from the UK.

A Role for the UK ?

Where does this leave the United Kingdom? In my opinion it leaves the people who inhabit this island in a state of limbo. Is there a different approach available, a real alternative?? I believe that there is.

Apathy and disinterest in politics and the exercise of democracy has become a way of life in the UK. Amongst young people (25 and under) the level of indifference is frightening. Approximately 40% of this group did not vote at the last general election. More than 1 in 5 of young people are not even registered to vote!

However, disenfranchised young people are prepared to make their views known using less traditional methods. Protest via the ballot box is seen as ineffective. Young people are turning in increasing numbers to direct action, single issue pressure groups to make their views count. This trend is a clear condemnation of democratic credibility in the UK.

You have to ask yourself, why is there such disenchantment with the democratic process? Could it be something to do with the remoteness with which the exercise of political power is viewed by voters? Perhaps it is merely a legacy of first past the post, winner takes all politics. Could this trend be changed by bringing the democratic process closer to the people who elect their representatives? The closer such representatives are the more tangible their actions become and the more accountable they are seen to be for those actions. The most obvious method of bringing things closer is to reduce the physical barrier of geographical remoteness. Make the nation state smaller. Within the wider protective environment provided by the EU we now have an opportunity to do just that.

The Principle of Subsidiarity

Many people have heard the word "subsidiarity" and wondered what it really means. It can be defined as "A principle which states that decisions should be taken by the public authorities as close to the citizen as possible". Subsidiarity should be a guiding principle governing the democratic political process. It is a simple and effective means of returning the exercise of political power to a more appropriate level. "Appropriate" used within this context is open to interpretation but the maxim adopted should be 'proximity' - wherever possible the process of government should be brought as close as possible to the person it impacts upon, the ordinary voter. Our representatives are there because we put them there, not because they have a divine right to control our collective destiny.

The UK government has cynically abused the principle of subsidiarity by using it as a mask for their real intentions. What they have really been saying for the last twenty years is "We want to keep our hands on the levers of power". The last two decades have been witness to the wholesale centralisation of political power in Westminster. Those sectors of the UK political structure seeking to follow alternative agendas have been ruthlessly eliminated. UK central government uses the power of the exchequer to control any variance from the desired policy direction.

The UK electorate deludes itself if it believes in the effective exercise of democracy within the confines of the current constitution. Subsidiarity is a two way street. Power can just as easily be devolved from Westminster to a more local level. This concept never surfaces within the mainstream UK political agenda. In the UK there is no history of a 'federal' structure for government so it is hardly surprising that the mere use of the word arouses hostility and mistrust. People fear what they do not understand. UK National politicians with a vested interest in maintaining the political status quo at Westminster are not going to spend time explaining how a 'federal' system could or should work, within the UK or the European arena. Ordinary people might just begin to see that the system does have some positive attributes to offer if applied properly. That would never do!

Misinformation on this scale means that the debate in the UK is sterile. There are seemingly no credible alternatives for the wider electorate to consider. One hears repeatedly that the people of the UK do not favour a federal solution. This argument is usually put forward by national politicians who have a vested interest in maintaining their own power base. You can hardly expect an unbiased viewpoint from such a source.

A Real Alternative

Is there an alternative strategy ? I believe in small government. I do not want any more levels of government or bureaucracy in the form of government officialdom than is absolutely necessary. Now you are probably thinking right now that this is exactly what the EU is all about. You read in the newspaper only last week about this or that highly paid bureaucrat in Brussels who just spends his or her time issuing petty directives that we have to obey (to plagiarise a billboard poster). I am not attempting to defend the activities of the European Commission or Parliament.

We should all be working to make the institutions of Europe serve its citizens by increasing the democratic nature and openness of such institutions. Any system of government is open to abuse. However, to pretend that such abuse of power and misuse of funds is exclusively the premise of European institutions is naïve in the extreme.

The concept of Regionalism within a European perspective offers exciting and radical alternatives. Why should the existing National Government institutions be immune from the application of subsidiarity? The transfer of powers to directly elected Regional Assemblies demonstrating competence in clearly defined policy areas will lead to more efficient and accountable government for ordinary people. Issues that are Regional in nature such as healthcare, education, local law and order and Regionally based economic policy can be more effectively managed by democratic Regional bodies with real political power. Such power draws directly upon the capacity to raise and spend appropriate revenues. Those aspects of government activity that naturally lie within the scope of a supra-national body such as foreign affairs, defence, the wider environment, immigration, macro economic strategies and associated fiscal policy should be ceded to higher bodies that display competence and are perceived as accountable and democratic.

National Interests Obstruct Democratic Progress?

The words most frequently used when referring to European institutions are bureaucratic, undemocratic and unaccountable. Why should this be? Surprisingly, there are not thousands upon thousands of Brussels bureaucrats drawing large salaries and issuing directives like confetti. Perceptions can be misleading. National politicians have often been guilty of playing the bureaucracy card in an effort to deflect criticism from domestic rivals and hide their own shortcomings.

Classical government models consist of three main elements: Executive; Legislature; Judiciary. Democratic government exists where no one element can directly impose itself upon either of the other two elements. Within the structures of the European Union we have something of a compromise arrangement. There is a properly constituted Legislature: The European Parliament in Strasbourg, elected by universal suffrage (don't blame me if you didn't vote at the last elections for this body). In addition the European Court sits as the body of last resort in judicial matters. The executive arm of the European institutions is something of a hybrid structure. The European Commission consists of nominees selected by the Member State (National) Governments. All policy initiatives originated by the Commission are subject to scrutiny and approval by the Council of Ministers (ministers from each member state). If the areas of policy are considered important then unanimity is required. In other cases only a qualified majority decision is required. These arrangements mean that the National Governments from each member state effectively retain the power of policy formulation within their control.

It is my contention that a more democratic arrangement would result if this pivotal government function was managed from within the institutions of the EU by directly elected and accountable representatives appointed from the ranks of the European Parliament (a customary constitutional arrangement). National interests are effectively obstructing advancement towards more transparent, democratic and accountable institutions. The retention of the veto for individual member states over certain key areas of policy is the most obvious example of national interests restricting the advance of a wider European strategy. It is the compromise nature of the existing constitutional arrangements that are the primary cause of ineffective Brussels based government, not the centralisation of a limited number of administrative and policy making functions.

The current constitutional hierarchy within Europe is an anachronism in a modern political environment. We need to evaluate the effectiveness of all government institutions. This process should be objective, not coloured by national prejudice. If power is to be transferred to the embryonic institutions of the EU, it must happen in a structured manner. The process of ceding political power to supra-national institutions can be effectively counterbalanced by a corresponding devolution of appropriate powers to elected Regional bodies.

Above all, the transfer of political power must happen in a democratic fashion, either to a supra-national body or to Regional institutions. It is very easy for National Governments to withhold their consent in this process and disguise their unwillingness to co-operate behind a smoke screen of flag waving patriotism. The UK government has continually shown itself unwilling to engage seriously in the integration process. Here in the UK there are many ideas about how to make the institutions of the EU more effective and accountable. However the UK government has been consistently guilty of blocking progress on the grounds of 'alleged' national interest so it can hardly aim brickbats at other National Governments, engaged in similar tactics, frustrating initiatives originating in the UK.

Collectively the people of the European Union have the power to make the institutions of Europe more democratic and accountable. We deserve vision and boldness from our political representatives. What we get is timidity and fear masquerading in the clothes of jingoism and xenophobia.

Long Term Objectives – Diversity and Democracy

A Regional perspective offers the chance to break the log jam that is preventing long term progress. Why are issues always presented in the form of a 'them and us' scenario? A Regional perspective allows a more objective viewpoint to be adopted when analysing problems and proposing solutions. Such fundamental constitutional advances can only be achieved in the long term. However, if we are to reach a final objective of long term stability, security, and prosperity for the whole of the European Union, we must show a willingness to begin a new form of dialogue by embracing radical concepts and a planned strategy for their realisation. The Inter Governmental Conference is an ideal platform to initiate radical proposals for the transfer of specific policy areas from National Governments to more appropriate tiers of government, each time it convenes (at four yearly intervals).

I would also endorse the proposal that the Committee of the Regions should be elevated in stature from the toothless body it currently represents to become the second legislative chamber of Europe. The Committee of the Regions has already made official requests for just such recognition. Holding elections to this new chamber at strategically timed intervals, halfway through the term of the European Parliament, would create an additional constitutional safeguard and give a powerful voice to the aspirations of elected Regional bodies.

The Modern Face of Regionalism

European Regionalism in the 21st. Century should not be perceived as a nostalgic yearning for a return to the ancient kingdoms of yore. The modern concept of regionalism is a pragmatic and realistic reappraisal of the roles for current and future political structures in a fully integrated Europe. Cultural diversity is important but it is not the only element to be deliberated upon when considering the future form and shape of European political institutions. The relevance and accountability to their electorates for any democratic institution flows directly from financial competence; money = power. The potential building blocs of a diverse and culturally vibrant European society must also be economically and financially independent if they are to continue to thrive and prosper as semi-autonomous political regions.

For the European Union to continue seriously upon a path of ever closer integration, and the plans for a single currency are surely an integral element of that strategy, it must also have a long-term coherent plan for the development of relevant political structures. The policy of widening membership of the EU makes the necessity of closer political ties more desirable if we are to avoid political stagnation. What is required is an overall strategy for constitutional and political reforms that more accurately reflect the needs and wishes of its citizens. Short term national interests will by their nature, occasionally conflict with the long term advancement of the integration process in Europe. A gradual but deliberate reduction in the emphasis placed upon the political power and influence of Nation States will allow a more objective long-term strategy of wider European advancement to succeed.

Reducing the Democratic Deficit

There is nothing to be achieved by standing on the sidelines of the integration process making derogatory comments about the undemocratic and unaccountable nature of the EU. A more constructive contribution to the debate would result from suggesting positive measures to counteract such democratic shortcomings. I have no problem with the concept of a fully integrated European Union in the long term. I am not pretending that the changes envisaged can or should come about quickly. This is a process that should be planned and structured over a long time span; at least 50 years. We have a clear choice. We can make a start on the undoubtedly long road which lies ahead. We can face the challenge of the future with confidence. Alternatively we can turn inwards and cut ourselves off from progress and integration.

I know what sort of future I want our children and grand children to live in - do you??

Send mail to: post@padav.demon.co.uk with questions or comments about the content of this web site.

Copyright © 1996-2000 - Peter A. Davidson