What Now for the EU?

Over the centuries Europe has been a place of conflict and war where boundaries and frontiers expanded and receded at a terrible cost to millions of its citizens. Rivalries between Nations and power blocks constantly erupted. It was in the aftermath of the massive death toll and destruction of the second World War that French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman made the proposal in 1950 which would later lead to the establishment of the European Union. His first objective was to prevent further wars by building structures through which points of disagreement could be resolved peacefully. Initially this concept must have seemed unbearably naive after such bloody battles, but somehow it has worked.

In my view the European experiment has been successful as there has been a realization from the beginning that the individual must be paramount. The European Union deems the dignity of the individual as inviolable and that his rights are inalienable. This principle has led to a respect of difference, whether that difference is cultural, linguistic, religious, economic, or political. I share the view of General Charles de Gaulle that the strength of Europe is in its diversity.

Co-operation through mutual respect has been the ingredient that has made progress in Europe possible. The pooling of each member state’s sovereignty has enabled the setting up of institutions which have served the needs of the Union well. This year the European Parliament celebrates its fiftieth Anniversary. It currently has 785 members representing almost 500 million citizens. It is in this forum that the citizens of Europe directly express their views and perspectives on issues directly affecting them. Over the years the European Institutions have evolved to meet the needs of Enlargement.

There are now 27 countries making up the membership of the Union so the time has come to further review its political and administrative mechanisms. There has been an attempt over the last few years to address the functioning of the institutions. There was an agreement of member governments during the Irish Presidency of Europe on a European Constitution but this failed when it was turned down in a referendum in both The Netherlands and France. Now the campaign is on to have what is termed the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty accepted. The real debate on this treaty, which deals with the need for strengthening and reforming the Institutions and structures to deal with existing and forthcoming Enlargement, is taking place in Ireland. It is the only country in the European Union which according to its own constitution must hold a referendum on the treaty. This referendum takes place on June 12.

Although the main political parties in Ireland are campaigning in favour of acceptance of the Treaty and opinion polls seem to show a majority of the Irish electorate also in favor, the outcome is anything but certain. Given the nature of the treaty, consisting in the main of legal amendments to previous treaties, it is difficult to energize citizens in matters that are somewhat obscure. This in turn can make room for some opponents of the treaty to put forward mischievous or erroneous issues which can only at best distract and at worst confuse. This has already materialised in that the issues of taxation and neutrality which play no part in the treaty have already been used as a scare tactic by the opponents of the treaty. The campaign will also not be assisted by the fact that the electorate could use this referendum as a means to censure the domestic policies of a government which is one year into its third consecutive term in office.

I believe that it is essential that the Lisbon Treaty is ratified so that the European institutions become more streamlined and effective in the running of Europe. The changes which are being advocated in this treaty will lead in my opinion to the further democratization of Europe. I do not share the belief, however, that if Ireland should by way of referendum decide not to vote in favour of the treaty, thereby being the only country in the Union not to accept the treaty, that this is the end of the European experiment. If this should happen I forecast delay, deliberation, bargaining and compromise as these have been the tools which have always been employed in times of difficulty in order to find the basis for agreement at a later stage. It is through this approach that the European Union has maintained respect and unity of purpose between member states over the last 50 years.

The evolution of the European ideal has been one of slow incremental change. This has been a necessary approach in respecting diversity while at the same time maintaining a set of agreed principles to deal with the issues of the day. As Schuman himself said, “Europe will not be made at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements”.


Sile de Valera, a former member of the Irish Parliament, Irish Cabinet, and the European Parliament, was a Spring 2008 IOP Fellow.