An Insignificant Future for Europe?

So after decades of treaty drafting, referenda and negotiation we get to the week where we implement the tweaked but long awaited climax of the European ideal, initiated by former French President Giscard d’Estaing so many years ago, with the final implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.

For the first time, a co-operative Europe will have a President and a High Representative of Foreign Affairs and Security to give the Union the international standing and authority it deserves. Yet, in perhaps true form, we have failed completely.

It seems almost ironic that the founding continent of the global power, with its historic empires, has failed to recognise the importance of having a respected and powerful global presence to lead the post-West Democracy/East Communism-post-American century.

Am I just bitter because Blair didn’t get the job? Not really. But I am annoyed that we don’t seem to have our hedgehog sorted and that’s a real problem.

Our hedgehog? That’s right, our hedgehog. The hedgehog is, as described in the business book ‘From Good to Great’, the central concept, the key strategic vision of what an organisation is about. If you don’t know what your hedgehog is you won’t achieve greatness and you’ll just be scurrying around for ever perhaps being good but no where near great.

But its OK, at least we have these positions filled and ready to have a go!

But the undemocratic yet sophisticated appointment of these poor unaware and incapable ‘representatives’ of Europe have a tough job ahead of them. For is it their job to represent the views and policies of the European Union to the world, to drive global co-operation on climate change, international money markets, relieving poverty and securing food, energy and water or is their job to not out shine their employers - the heads of European nations? Do you think they know? I doubt it…

I think the source of the problem here might be that we don’t know what we actually want and this once again comes down to a values based question. Do we want a quasi-federal state of Europe or do we want to remain as nation states? Do we want to be a key player in the ever changing global community or do we want to busy ourselves with internal issues? What is the purpose of Europe and of these new posts?

I think we’re stuck in limbo between the polar opposites of the answers to these questions. This is evident from the appointment of the people put into these offices of state. Let me be clear, I have no criticism of von Rompuy or Baroness Ashton, I know nothing of them at all and I wish them well but I do feel they're being used and indeed were used as negotiation pawns for a Europe unclear on its future.

And this is the biggest problem, a Europe unclear on its future is a Europe unclear to the rest of the world and, if what we are told is correct, the ever increasing role of globalisation risks being a game played by America and China with Europe becoming the old drunken uncle in the corner whose name no one can remember.

The perhaps ironic thing to this whole saga has been the complete lack of democracy; no say (or even conversation / consultation!) on the Lisbon Treaty, no say on what we think or would like Europe to be and no say on the potentially very important people filling the roles of European President and High Representative.

The whole thing is a nonsense and draws obscure parallels with an age gone by where the divine rights of monarchical power decided ‘on the peoples behalf’ what was right and what was wrong in the global empire in which it sat.

Lets hope von Rompuy is just pulling our leg and turns out to be progressive.

In centralising our politics, have we forgotten our values?

The Labour Party is a party of social democracy. We believe in equality, fairness and justice. But have we forgotten what our core values mean and allowed them to drown in the quick sand of modern political management?

Classic social democracy is a belief in the affect of politics in progressing our communities over a belief in purely economic based solutions.

It is the progressive element that makes us social democrats (and not ranting trots) and it's in the modern setting where our fundamental belief in social democracy is mixed with elements of capitalism; providing a mixed economy of free markets with comprehensive welfare state provision.

This Third Way, established in the modern setting (in our country at least) by the Clinton-Blair era, aimed to bring these traditionally left and right wing areas together.

But I do worry that the difference between values and management has been missed. Of course it is true to say that values drive the decisions that need to be made every day in Westminster but it increasingly appears to be the case that the centralisation of left and right has lead to a void of value based debate and politics.

This is important because, on the whole, I think it would be fair to say, people don’t care too much about the technical management of our country, as long as it works. But they do care about what it means to be British, what we aim to do as a country and what it is that we stand for as a people.

The lack of this type of debate from the main political parties has not only led to the disengagement we see today but also, I fear, the rise of far right extremism.

In current times, where the state has invested unfathomable amounts of public money into saving the private sector, the idea of social democracy is bought into focus. It is the careful balance between market liberalism and social democracy that needs to be maintained.

In an academy school I work with, a prime example of a third way policy, the school has a fantastic new building and resource. The management of the school is better than it was when it was more restricted through the Local Education Authority and the education its pupils receive is improving.

But, the school seeks to do more work in the community and recognises that it can do good work outside of the daily teaching time. But it can’t afford to because it needs to be able to pay extortionate rates of rent to use its own building because the buildings owner, a private company, must make a profit from its investment; an investment that was probably funded largely through its tax burden in the first place.

It is here where problems lie because whilst there are many benefits to this policy – benefits, some may argue which can outweigh the negatives – the fundamental negative is that the owner’s priority is profit not people.

If I were to ask a parent if they would prefer a school owned by an organisation whose purpose is to provide a fantastic education or to make a profit I think I would know what the answer would be. Yes, I know I’m being too simplistic with that argument (“surely it can be both” you cry and what about the charitable organisations that run academies…I agree with you) but the values based question here is should the sole purpose driving decisions be about what is socially ‘right’ or what is profitable?

This is a mere illustrative example of my point which, I empathise, can ignite a whole debate on education provision and academy schools.

But the real point that I’m perhaps incoherently trying to make is that when we consider policy announcements or campaign for change or advocate for decisions that have been made – as many of us do on a frequent basis – lets take the time to think about the values that are being questioned, applied or considered and remember our strong, personal belief in social democracy and what that should mean to the people in our communities.

For I believe that it is when we pose our questions and our arguments in that light that we connect the most with the people we are talking to and only then can we really engage people and differentiate between what is right and, quite simply, complete tosh.

We failed to do this with Europe. People were confused between the constitution and the treaty, the consequences of what that might mean and near clueless about its detail. Even an undergraduate law student, discussing EU law, described to her friends that the Lisbon Treaty would allow the “commission to make us have the euro”. I quickly interrupted in hopefully a not too obnoxious or patronising manner.

We need to be honest and straightforward with people and pose the questions from a value based philosophy. The questions should not have been around the detail, at least to begin with, it should be around the consequences of what the Lisbon Treaty means for Europe and Britain within Europe. And, quite frankly, I think the British people should have been given a referendum on that question long ago, regardless of any particular treaty.

I so strongly believe that if we start thinking in a more values based way, campaigning on values and not just manifesto management points that we will prosper and that we will start to bring the flames back into the fire of our democracy; bringing it back from the current state of apathy, mistrust, ever decreasing voter turnout and perhaps, the brink of democracy as we know it.