Breaking with convention: Towards a new European future

breaking with convention: towards a new European future Ian Christie

“green alliance...

the author

contents

Ian Christie is associate director of the London based consultancy, The Local Futures Group; and an associate of New Economics Foundation and www.opendemocracy.net. His latest publications include From Here to Sustainability (with Diane Warburton, Earthscan, 2001).

introduction the place of values and goals in a Euro-Constitution the EU’s achievements and the challenges ahead

acknowledgements Many thanks to Nigel Haigh, Charlotte Marples and Rebecca Willis for their valuable comments on drafts of this paper. None of them necessarily agrees with the content and all the usual disclaimers apply.

Green Alliance Green Alliance is one of the UK’s foremost environmental groups.

An independent charity, its mission is to promote sustainable development by ensuring that the environment is at the heart of decision-making. It works with senior people in government, parliament, business and the environmental movement to encourage new ideas, dialogue and constructive solutions.

Green Alliance 40 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0RE tel: 020 7233 7433 fax: 020 7233 9033 email: ga@green-alliance.org.uk website: www.green-alliance.org.uk Green Alliance is a registered charity number 1045395 Company Limited by guarantee, registered number 3037633

3

4

the achievement of a chastened continent in search of ‘ideas and a soul’ present challenges – the ‘vision vacuum’

5

EU achievements and the post-Cold War period the enlargement ‘debate’ the imagination deficit sustainability as a guiding vision for the new European Union

7

sustainability as an established idea unsustainability is the key 21st century challenge Europe as exemplar and pioneer sustainability and European processes conclusion: practical steps for the Convention process

10

recommendations to the Convention notes

12

3

introduction the place of values and goals in a Euro-Constitution What does Europe stand for? The question is being posed in many places – from the debates over the future of NATO, the war on terror, and Middle East security, to the heart of the European Union (EU).

The EU has established a constitutional Convention on the Future of Europe (hereafter the Convention) to draft a new statement of roles and responsibilities for the institutions of an integrated Europe. There is no doubt this will generate a vigorous debate on the processes and policy machinery of the enlarged Union. But we need a debate that reaches beyond procedures – one that embraces the purposes and values of the new Europe that is gradually taking shape. Two recent developments in the EU’s core institutions illustrate the point.

First, Commission President Prodi has established a working party – a ‘reflection group’ – to consider the nature of common European spiritual and moral values. Its first meeting took place at the end of January 2003 – months after the start of deliberations of the Convention.

It seems that values and questions of collective purpose are taking a poor second place to issues of procedure and institutional division of labour.

Moreover, they are being discussed in a private and exclusive fashion, when they should be at the core of the deliberations of the Convention.

Second, the European Parliament has unveiled a new weapon in the battle to arouse public interest in its activities and improve its image – Irina Vega, a cartoon character. What makes Irina a compelling figure?

She is a Member of the European Parliament, but that identity is not enough: she is also an eco-warrior, fighting for environmental protection and a better future. What gives her role its substance and (it is hoped) appeal to the public? It is her cause, not her place in the institutional machinery.

There is a message from these two developments for the whole of the EU as its Convention works on a constitution for the enlarged union to come. The institutions of the EU and their processes are of vital importance, but they need to be connected to a vision of what matters for Europe and the world. There is a risk that the Convention will follow a well-trodden path in the EU’s recent history and produce a document that fails to engage public interest and debate. There is little point in debating ‘less Europe’ or ‘more Europe’ without asking ‘why Europe?’

This pamphlet is a contribution to the debate on the work of the Convention. It calls for the new EU constitution to make a fundamental commitment to what we see as the most compelling candidate for a new vision for Europe – the goal of pursuing democratic sustainable development. The argument rests on: an analysis of the current state of the EU and the problems it faces in gaining public enthusiasm for the projects of integration; an analysis of the international challenges facing the EU and the rest of the world; and the potential of the idea of sustainable development to provide a coherent framework and vision for the EU.

“The institutions of the EU and their processes are of vital importance, but they need to be connected to a vision of what matters for Europe and the world.”

4

the EU’s achievements and the challenges ahead the achievement of a chastened continent The EU’s evolution has been a remarkable achievement for a continent wrecked by warfare in 1945 and divided until 1989 by the Cold War. Nick Butler of the Centre for European Reform has underlined the historic nature of the peaceful development of a more united Europe since the war. A continent once riven by ‘‘vicious and genocidal wars’’ has become ‘‘a postmodern constitutional arrangement in which sovereignty is partially delegated and pooled together for the good of all’’1. Butler also points to the international dimensions of this development, ‘‘From the Middle East to Asia, nations look to Europe not as a simple blueprint for their own development but as a model of how neighbours – even after centuries of enmity – can work together without destroying their unique identities’’.2 Underlying this achievement is a new set of distinctively European values. The EU represents a commitment to democracy, peaceful coexistence and cooperation among a network of nations that have learnt hard lessons from a history of conflict. Butler notes in the EU ‘‘the pragmatic tone of a continent that understands power all too well and that is sceptical of all who claim to have mastered its use’’3.

He sees this quality as especially valuable for the EU as an ally of the USA, now the sole superpower and at risk of global hubris as it wages its ‘war on terrorism’.

In short, the EU is a political and economic space that is valuably chastened by the history of Europe. This attitude is visible in the relatively strong commitments made in the EU to the protection of the environment, drawing on widespread concern about the risks run by industrial societies in pursuing economic growth and pushing back the frontiers of science. It is also visible in the stance taken in Europe since the terrorist attacks on the USA on 11 September 2001: European debates have emphasised the need for long term security strategies not only to be based on defence and military action but also on policies to reduce global inequalities and risks that help to fuel the terrorist threat.4

in search of ‘ideas and a soul’ The EU has been a vital force in meeting the key demands of the last half century - peace, prosperity and freedom. We argue that its next fifty years must be about the politics of quality of life - not only in relation to Europe but also to the international scene and in particular the developing world. This means not only sustaining Europe’s achievements, but seeking to share them worldwide and overcoming the threats now posed by our patterns of production, consumption and policymaking to long term economic and social well being and the natural environment.

“The EU has been a vital force in meeting the key demands of the last half century peace, prosperity and freedom... its next fifty years must be about the politics of quality of life.”

5

To provide a foundation for this project, the fundamental aim of the new EU should be to bring us closer to the ideal of sustainable development. This means economic development for long-term well being which safeguards the essential services provided by the natural environment. The new EU must promote policies to ensure fairer distribution of resources within societies and across the globe through processes fostered by participatory democracy and co-ordinated strategies between sectors, and at all levels from the local to the global. We must find ways of improving our quality of life without doing it at the expense of the environment, future generations, and the poor of both the rich and developing worlds. The EU which emerged from the ruins of post-war Europe with a chastened understanding of power and its abuses, is well placed to promote such a collaborative vision and project.

Commission President Prodi has recognised the need for the EU to connect its processes and institutions to a vision and mission: in a speech in 2002 on Europe and Ethics to a Vienna conference on politics and morality he spoke of the need for the EU to have ‘ideas and a soul’5. But ideas and soul need to be at the heart of the Convention debate – if not, it will surely meet the same problem that has dogged other EU grands projets for years, namely the focus on means at the expense of vibrant debates over ends. A declaration of a new Constitution needs to be an occasion for stating what European civilisation stands for – as Will Hutton has argued, ‘‘Only thus can Europe have any ideological and cultural glue; without it we are just a commonwealth of states in a customs union’’.6

present challenges – the ‘vision vacuum’ EU achievements and the post-Cold War period The EU has helped achieve the prosperity of one half of Europe and the largely peaceful evolution of the continent since 1945. The EU’s founding fathers aimed to secure peace and plenty, to prevent conflict through the reconciliation of France and Germany, and to foster economic development to help secure democracy. These original goals have all, arguably, been achieved – leaving a vacuum where the aims should be.

Over the last decade the EU has, as a result, been dominated by arguments about major integration projects that in many ways are all about means rather than ends. They have helped create an image of the EU as a baffling mechanism for generating economic and bureaucratic projects whose goals are unclear to the citizen. Consider the EU’s key projects since the end of the Cold War. In each case the debates on these programmes have been marred by lack of connection to Europe’s citizens, by over-complexity 7, and by a lack of clarity about what longterm purposes are being served.

“... the fundamental aim of the new EU should be to bring us closer to the ideal of sustainable development.”

6

For example the Maastricht Treaty process produced tremendous rancour and was easily portrayed as anti-democratic by Euro-sceptic opinion. Moreover, it produced a debate on the future of the Union that was dominated by ‘economism’ – the idea that the overriding goals of European integration were economic and that the progress of the EU should be judged mainly in terms of economic growth and removal of internal market barriers. Economism allowed the EU to avoid many fundamental questions of political culture and strategic purpose and has contributed to the EU’s ‘‘crisis of idealism’’8; its inability to inspire the mass of citizens with a sense of loyalty, enthusiasm and common cause.

the enlargement ‘debate’ Most alarmingly, perhaps, the long drawn-out and fundamentally significant process of enlargement of the EU, to include former members of the Communist Bloc, has taken place with little injection of idealism and even less attempt to generate public involvement and enthusiasm. The results have been dire. Many in the accession states feel jaded and cynical after the mean-mindedness and foot-dragging of the EU states in the long negotiations. And the Eurobarometer survey unveiled in December 2002 before the Copenhagen Summit showed that forty per cent of EU citizens polled were unable to name a single candidate country for accession in 2004, and that worryingly large numbers of citizens display anxiety or even antipathy towards enlargement. This is wholly unsurprising given the lack of any serious attempt by the EU to generate a positive and open debate on the changes alongside a more enthusiastic process of negotiation.

As Will Hutton has noted, “The EU’s leading politicians have not sold enlargement as part of a visionary conception of Europe – or been prepared to make any substantive sacrifices to serve that end…The bad thing about enlargement is that it exposes this vacuum; the good thing is that it might – just might – spur us to fill it.”9

the imagination deficit The big EU projects have not captured the European imagination.

So far the Convention has followed this pattern. It is dominated by debates about processes and by rows about the number of European presidents we should have, and not by discussion of how to make the EU a truly democratic supranational network. Process is important, but not all-important. We cannot afford to see the Convention repeat past mistakes that have increased the EU’s distance from the citizen and detachment from large questions about the goals and values of the Union.

“The big EU projects have not captured the European imagination.

So far the Convention has followed this pattern.”

7

So what should the framework of goals and values be? In the next section I make the case for sustainable development as a guiding ‘big idea’ for the EU’s new constitution. This will allow the EU to build on its important successes in environmental and social policy and to connect Europe’s development to the issues of globalisation, ecological degradation and security that will dominate the coming decades.

sustainability as a guiding vision for the new European Union What kind of Europe do we want, and what kind of place in the world do we want for it? These questions ought to be at the centre of the debates in the Convention and in the discussions that will follow the production of a draft constitution for the EU. They are connected to the issues of political process and structure with which the Convention is grappling. Below I argue that the right framework of goals and values for the new EU is offered by the idea of democratic sustainable development.

sustainability as an established idea This is not a new idea. Policy analysts such as Nigel Haigh and bodies such as the Institute for European Environmental Policy, green campaign organisations and the European Environmental Bureau have worked for many years to embed sustainable development in the heart of the EU’s systems. Sustainable development is now among the goals of the EU set out in the Amsterdam amendments to the Treaty of Rome. My argument is that we should enshrine sustainable development as the core of the ‘Euro-vision’ for the next half-century.

Sustainable development offers the best opportunities for overcoming the greatest challenges the EU faces over the long term.

Sustainable development has become entrenched in the rhetoric and policy goals of international agencies, national governments and corporations in recent years, as well as in the Amsterdam amendments to the Treaty. There are many formulations of what it means, but the core of any definition is the following: the indivisibility of economic development from social welfare and environmental well-being; the need for integration of ecological concerns into economic and social policies; the need for fairness of development on a global level; and the responsibility of the present generation to pass on a healthy environment to future generations.

“Sustainable development offers the best opportunities for overcoming the greatest challenges the EU faces over the long term.”

8

unsustainability is the key 21st century challenge There is a growing acceptance that the nation state alone can no longer deliver the most important things that people need: security; economic opportunity; and environmental and social protection. Economic, social and environmental issues span boundaries horizontally across Europe: national policy systems do not fit the nature of the issues. The impacts of unsustainable development are evident from the recent flooding across much of Europe and our growing sense of global insecurity.

Sustainable development is an idea that reflects the major challenges to the democratic world: the risk of unsustainable exploitation of the environment; the threat of climate disruption from unsustainable use of fossil fuels; the risks to international and regional stability and peace generated by deep economic, social and environmental inequalities; the need for a fair trading system that promotes the development of poorer countries while promoting social justice and environmental stewardship; the need for major changes in the energy system to allow economic development in southern countries while greatly reducing the environmental impacts of energy consumption in the rich world; the risks from massive depletion of biodiversity worldwide.

There is no question that these issues will be major themes of the international policy agenda for the rest of the century. A revitalised EU ‘mission statement’ must address them. One key reason for this is that, while sustainable development is a part of international rhetoric and agreements, it has yet to be exemplified by a major international force. The USA is dependent on fossil fuel consumption and shows few signs of embracing the radical changes to its economy required for environmental sustainability; and its stance towards southern countries is now characterised by its fear of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and by resistance to calls for sustainable fair trade rules.

The big industrialising countries of the global South are not prepared to make radical changes for the sake of global sustainability when many of the major problems stem from action in the rich world over many decades.

Europe as exemplar and pioneer Europe is the only plausible contender to become a global pioneer and exemplar in sustainable development, generating economic, technological and political momentum for the idea. Just as the end of World War Two provided the impetus to the founders of the new European Community to pursue policies and develop structures that would prevent warfare and insecurity, so the end of the Cold War in Europe and the eastward enlargement should be the catalyst for

“Europe is the only plausible contender to become a global pioneer and exemplar in sustainable development, generating economic, technological and political momentum for the idea.”

9

change. In this case the new challenges call for policies and structures that will help prevent unsustainable development in Europe and also in the global systems in which the EU is embedded.10 Making such a goal – to be pursued over decades – the guiding vision for the EU, does not simply give the Union a worthy headline for its new constitution. It is a moral imperative, and it appeals to long-term self-interest, as UK Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt has argued: “If we in the West don’t create a system of world trade that is fair as well as free, then the developing countries above all will pay a price. But we will also pay a price in even greater pressures on our migration and asylum systems, we will pay a price in increased terrorism and increased insecurity all around the world”.11 The self interest argument goes further. The abandonment of unsustainable production and consumption patterns will generate demand for new energy and manufacturing technologies, products and services globally as well as within the EU. Sustainable development provides a framework for integration of environmental and social goals with economic development and technological research.

sustainability and European processes Adoption of sustainable development as the EU’s guiding vision has implications for changes to processes and institutions that will generate benefits for the Union’s link with citizens. In many respects the optimal solutions to ecological threats and the integration of environmental, social and economic policies can only be developed at local and regional levels. A truly ‘sustainable Europe’ needs to be a network of states and agencies with maximum subsidiarity: the devolution of responsibilities to the closest possible level to the citizen. This approach implies a more experimental future for the EU, as ‘Laboratory Europe’; with a flexible system of rules and goals up to the highest supranational level with freedom for member states and regions to go beyond minimum standards set by the Union.

Sustainable development as a guiding vision does not overload the federal level of the EU at the expense of nations and regions and localities and does not clash with the quest for greater simplicity in the operations of the EU as a system12. The challenges of sustainable development embrace issues affecting future generations, our relations with distant countries and the need for radical changes in lifestyles.

To meet these challenges the EU needs to complement representative democracy with participatory democracy to open up debates on sustainable development and all the challenges facing the EU and bring the Union closer to its citizens.

Sustainability also has major implications for the EU’s external relations.

The enlargement process, the future of global trade negotiations and the global security agenda in the wake of attacks on the USA all need to be connected to a coherent common foreign policy. Sustainable development is a policy framework that can connect security, trade and support for good governance worldwide as well as within the new Europe.

“The challenges of sustainable development embrace issues affecting future generations, our relations with distant countries and the need for radical changes in lifestyles.”

10

conclusion: practical steps for the Convention process This pamphlet has argued that the EU needs a new vision to help it meet the challenges it currently faces. The Convention must define that vision. The institutions of the EU and their processes are of vital importance but they need to be debated alongside the values and goals of a new Europe, not separately. As a minimum the Convention must not dilute the existing commitments to sustainable development and environmental protection enshrined in the Amsterdam amendments to the Treaty of Rome. But it would be a missed opportunity to leave it there. Sustainable development addresses the greatest challenges to the democratic order over the long term and offers the best opportunities for overcoming them.

Through sustainable development we can tackle voter apathy, work towards social inclusion and lower unemployment, encourage greater resource efficiency and innovation, preserve and improve our clean air and beaches, and help define the role of the EU on the international stage. Unless the Convention really grapples with the challenges that the Union faces and delivers a new euro-vision alongside institutional reform, the consequences will be increased global instability and an ever-widening gulf between the EU and its citizens.

11

recommendations to the Convention We urge the Convention and subsequent policy debates to adopt the vision of sustainable development as a guiding framework for the new constitution. At the very least, there should be no dilution of the commitment to sustainability and environmental protection enshrined in articles 2 and 6 of the Amsterdam amendments to the Treaty of Rome.

As the draft Constitution stands, the commitment it makes to sustainable development is weaker than in the existing Treaty.

The draft text fails to include sustainable development in its statement of core values in article 2. It then proceeds in article 3 to define sustainable development in terms of ‘balanced economic growth and social justice’, relegating environmental factors to a sub-clause, weakening existing European commitments. Reference should also be made to the positive steps made in the EU to pursue a sustainable development strategy and to integrate environmental sustainability fully in decision-making via the so-called Cardiff Process.

Given the international challenges ahead, the Convention must go beyond existing commitments. We urge the adoption of the following, all of which are consistent with the existing Treaty, current challenges to the EU and the benefits gained from seeing sustainable development as the guiding vision for the Union: the right to a clean and healthy environment for all Union citizens; guarantees for transparency in EU decision-making and rights to information, consultation and appeal for all citizens; commitment to innovation in participatory democracy as an essential complement to representative democracy within the EU; commitment to effective integration of environmental, social and economic policies and rigorous assessment of the sustainability of policies; commitment to empowerment of localities and regions within the framework of pursuit of democratic sustainable development throughout the EU and globally.

12

notes 1. N Butler, Future Perfect Union, Foreign Policy, January-February 2003 2. N Butler, Future Perfect Union, Foreign Policy, January-February 2003 3. N Butler, Future Perfect Union, Foreign Policy, January-February 2003 4. G Erler, We are a reliable partner in a new world order of peace, Freidrich-Ebert-Stiftung, London, transl. From Frankfurter Rundschau, 11 December 2002 5. R Prodi, Europe and Ethics, speech to Politics and Morality conference, Vienna, 7 December 2002 6. W Hutton, East is East and West is rich, The Observer, 15 December 2002 7. F Vibert, Europe Simple, Europe Strong, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2001 8. L Siedentop, Democracy in Europe, Allen Lane, Harmondsworth, 2000 9. W Hutton, East is East and West is rich, The Observer, 15 December 2002 10. I Christie, Sustaining Europe, Green Alliance/Demos, London,1999 11. J Kampfner, Terrorism: the price we pay for poverty, New Statesman, 3 February 2003 12. F Vibert, Europe Simple, Europe Strong, Polity Press, Cambridge 2001