Yes to Europe means No to Tony

As of this morning, the Czech Supreme Court has cleared the way for Czech president Vaclav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty, completing its ratification. Hopefully he will do so forthwith.

Of course, this leads to the immediate question: who will be the first president of the new Europe?

Personally, I feel that the president should come from among those countries that have demonstrated themselves to be committed to the project of continental integration. Tony Blair should not be in the running, as he hails from a nation that is not among those ranks.

Imagine instead the UK were integrating with not the EU, but the US, and the British were saying, "Oh, yes, we'll happily take full, unfettered access to your markets and offer you the same. But we won't accept to be tried in your courts or by your laws; and we don't want your Bill of Rights or certain articles of the US Constitution to apply to us; and we expect even people coming from the US to present their passports when they come here; and we won't agree to use the dollar. You see, while we're happy to move freely in your country and live, work, and learn as we please, we don't want you beastly people interfering in our lovely country. Oh, and please make sure your next president is one of us." What do you think the US would say? I think once they stopped laughing they'd be hard-pressed not to push the Button. It's gallingly insulting. Or maybe "de Gaulle-ingly" puts it better.

I guess it's fine for the British to cut the best deal they can, and play it the way they feel it, if the rest of Europe's willing to accommodate that. But there's no way the British, with all these tepid opt-outs and refusals to commit, should expect or even hope that one of their number should have the top job in an association they don't even fully participate in on so many levels. Frankly, I think there should be a tacit, or even explicit, disqualification for citizens of members that remain outside the eurozone, Schengen Agreement, and other crucial hallmarks of a continental home, from the presidency of the European Union.

N.B. Later, same day — Vaclav Klaus signed the treaty a couple of hours ago. Finally. Well, it took him far too long, but at least once the writing was on the wall, he put the writing on the treaty, too, and quick-smart. Alka Seltzer should work so fast. Congrats to the EU; the Lisbon Treaty is ratified at last!

Time for a two-speed Europe...?

I'm increasingly of the opinion that not only is a "two-speed" Europe justified, but it's even desirable.

First of all, let me say that I feel that the expansion of the European Union has been too hasty and too rapid. I'm happy, of course, that Eastern Europe is out from under communism, but having spent two or three generations adapting to it, I think at least a generation of getting used to the democratic process and free market economies was in order before they should have been ushered into a union with Western Europe. I mean, they needed to earn their stripes. That's just how I feel.

But, they're in. Some are adapting better than others. The Czechs seem not particularly happy to be there; their president is holding up the Lisbon Treaty, they've effectively sabotaged their program of getting their house in order to adopt the euro (while, incredibly, the Slovaks, with whom the Czechs once shared a country in which they looked down upon them as the poor cousins, managed it ably).

The British, too, are a problem. I'm particularly disenchanted with them. They want all the benefits of being in the EU, but they want to contribute nothing, or at least as little as they can possibly get away with. They want no onus put on them: no charter of rights, no European court, no shared currency, no common border controls... they're all too happy to eat the corn, but don't ask them to plow the field.

I think the requirement for unanimity in the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty was hopelessly naïve. It was a recipe for failure and I'm completely amazed it's gotten to the point that it has the ratification of 26 of 27 countries. But I don't think it should require even that to get going. There should have been a threshold point where, once reached, the treaty would go fully into effect for those countries acceding to it.

For example... when the United States was reforming, throwing out the creaky Articles of Confederation and replacing them with the Constitution in 1787, the Founding Fathers were not so foolhardy as to require the unanimous consent of all thirteen states before the Constitution would go into effect. They rightly anticipated there would be issues, and that some states might not be ready to sign on to something that new and untested. And so, they decided that as soon as nine of the states had ratified the Constitution, it would go into effect for those states that had done so. The others could join later, or not, as they pleased; but the important point is that the reticence of a few would not prevent the agreement from going into effect for those who had ratified it.

I feel that something like that should have been – should still be – put into effect for the EU. I think that it's long since passed a practical and similar point in it ratification. By the time something like, say, twenty of the member states had passed the Lisbon Treaty, it should have gone into effect for them. The other members under the old rules could hang on, but would have no say in the new institutions until they saw fit to join. Meanwhile, the core of Europe could move forward, and the stragglers could catch up, or eventually fall away, as suited them. And I would put a time limit on it: five years, maybe ten. Join or die, to coin a phrase.

If the Libson Treaty falls on the say-so of one Czech xenophobe, or the selfish, prideful arrogance of the British, then I think next time, the Union must take a page from American history, and institute a two-speed Europe.

Time for a two-speed Europe

By a roughly 7% margin, the voters of Ireland have narrowly rejected the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty that would have streamlined the administration of the European Union and given it the legal personality is has so badly lacked for so long. This has the practical impact, on the surface of it, of killing the Lisbon Treaty in its tracks: its ratification is incumbent on the agreement of all 27 current members of the European Union, bar none.

I do not believe it is in the interests of the EU, or the world, for the work of European integration to be halted at this point. It should, and must, continue. First the European Constitution was rejected, and now the scaled-back Lisbon Treaty is in jeopardy. My personal feeling is that European integration cannot be allowed to stumble and fall stricken to the ground on the basis of the Irish vote.

The principal problem has been the well-intentioned, but fetishistic insistence on unanimity in these votes. Given 27 different countries with 27 different cultures, histories, and attitudes towards the project of European integration, it is a recipe for permanent disaster and disappointment that can only result in cynicism about the project, and an ever-increasingly likelihood of its ultimate failure, which I believe the world cannot afford. Reality must finally be faced in this effort. Unanimity must be abandoned. Moreover, it is time to face the feared as the inevitable: the dreaded “two-speed Europe” must now become a reality. The time has come for the core nations of Europe to declare “We are proceeding. The rest of you may catch up as you please. But the time has come for those of us dedicated to European integration to go ahead without you.” It will be up to ‘slow’ European countries to consider their interests and either sign on to the project, or eventually fall away from the EU.

There is a historical precedent for this, and a great one. When the authors of the American Union proposed its constitution in 1787, they were not foolish enough to insist that the document be ratified unanimously by all 13 members who had agreed to the Articles of Confederation the new constitution was proposed to replace. Instead, they realized that some states might have reservations, legitimate or otherwise, and took that into account when they required that if nine of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution, it would then go into effect for those participating members. The other states would be left to decide their own fate, in or out… but their trepidation would not hold hostage the intention of those members willing to go ahead to do so. As we all know, those 13 states all realized where their real interests lay; they eventually all ratified the Constitution and went on to even greater things in the future.

This is the reality that Europe faces today. If Ireland is not ready for Europe, that does not mean that Europe must wait forever. It’s time for a two-speed Europe, and may the Irish have cause to reconsider.