The Scots Independent Newspaper Online

Civic nationalism flourishes as the European Union matures

The EU’s 50th birthday passed off last week with rather muted celebrations and an almost total absence of the federalist rhetoric often associated with such occasions. As usual the institution is in crisis – crises are an essential part of the way the EU operates – this time as a consequence of the French and Dutch electorates’ rejection of the European Constitution. And, also as usual, no-one seems particularly worried.

Back in Scotland the EU has been allotted, thus far, only a minor walk-on part in the election drama. This is a pity because the urgency of gaining separate Scottish representation in the EU Council of Ministers is so great as to constitute in itself an irresistible argument for independence.

Unfortunately popular perception of the European Union tends to be shaped by the xenophobic English press and a Westminster-based political class that views EU membership as a means of containing rather than encouraging pan-European initiatives. There is little awareness of the radical changes in power within the EU in recent years and the exceptional opportunities these provide for an independent Scotland.

The two key changes that have occurred in the last few years have been the deep erosion of the powers of the European Commission, mainly to the benefit of the Council of Ministers, and the growing influence and prosperity of the smaller countries relative to the larger states. Put simply, the nation states have regained control of the Union and those most adept at playing by the new rules are the small and medium countries. The result is more like the Nordic Union than the dream/nightmare of a United States of Europe.

While this fundamental shift is surprisingly little analysed in Europe itself it is attracting the attention of North American academics and commentators. One example is a perceptive recent article by Tom Hundley in the Chicago Tribune (24^th March) entitled “Small nations discover benefits of EU membership”.

According to Hundley the 50^th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome comes at a time when the actual European Union has taken a path quite at odds with the federalist ambitions of the original signatories. The process they initiated “has reshaped the landscape of Europe in ways that few would have anticipated or intended back then”.

'One of the most significant of those unintended consequences is that European integration has created a Europe where "Great Powers" are becoming obsolete, and where it is safe, even advantageous, to be a small nation. ….. In terms of pure economic self-interest, it is undoubtedly better to be a citizen of a small nation like Finland or Ireland than a big one like Germany or Britain.'

Treaty of Rome signing He quotes Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash in a recent essay. "Small countries generally don't start wars. They usually don't have the arrogance of larger states. Besides modesty and intimacy, they often enjoy a high level of social solidarity. The nation is like an extended family."

Ironically the prime movers of the European project – France and Germany – saw the new institutions as a means of expanding their own power. For a while it did appear almost inevitable that they would dominate. As Hundley puts it “There was a moment between the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the "Big Bang" EU expansion of 2004 when it seemed the EU might morph into a kind of European superstate - a United States of Europe. “

'But something was happening below the radar. The EU changed the dynamic of power relations between big nations and small. Until then, politics in Europe was strictly a big boys' game. "It used to be that large nations - the Great Powers - would consult with each other and small nations had no say at all," said Hugo Brady, an analyst at the Center for European Reform, a London think-tank. "Large nations still have a say in the EU. But if they try to say to small countries `This is what is going to happen,' then that is what is not going to happen," he said.'

Some analysts would go further. Hundley quotes the Hungarian political consultant Krisztian Szabados as saying “France, Britain and Germany are ‘dinosaurs’. In the EU, it's better to be small."

He could have added: “and essential to be independent”.

So why don’t Scots love Europe?

I can imagine that the rosy picture of the European Union portrayed above will not go down well with many Flag in the Wind readers or, indeed, with a large section of the Scottish public. Scarcely a week goes by without some new outrage attributed to the faceless EU bureaucrats. If “Brussels” is not forcing a pointless and vastly expensive tendering process for island ferry routes it is blocking state support for direct flights or trading off Scottish fishing rights to the Germans in favour of concessions for English fishing fleets.

On closer examination almost all EU-related horror stories stem from the inadequacies of the UK Government rather than any anti-Scottish conspiracy on the part of EU officials. It is important to realise that the EU is not an additional layer of government but rather a negotiating and bargaining mechanism for national governments to reach mutually beneficial outcomes. The record of the UK in such deal-making is pathetic.

Didier Reinders, Belgian Minister for Finances, Jean-Claude Juncker and the British Minister for Finances, Gordon Brown Hamish Paton (not his real name) is a vastly experienced international civil servant. He has worked with both the European Commission and European Parliament, the OECD, International Energy Agency, WHO, IIASA and the World Economic Forum. This is his assessment of UK negotiators in the international arena:

“For a start, they don’t negotiate. They arrive at meetings with briefing papers specifying the position of the UK Government and instructing them how to vote. There is no room for compromise or acceptance of innovative solutions.

Even at the level of personal interaction they form an isolated group. While I find them individually pleasant enough company they are almost invariably monolingual and not even fluent in “European English” let alone French and German. This inhibits participation in the social intercourse where most of the real deal-making takes place.

They also have a reputation for poor manners. This is particularly noticeable with regard to simultaneous translation of meetings. Ostentatiously refusing to wear headphones, even where it is patently obvious you have no working knowledge of the language of other speakers, is regarded as the height of crass behaviour in international meetings. Yet it is commonplace among UK representatives at EU meetings, with the current Chancellor of the Exchequer reputedly one of the worst offenders.

The contrast with smaller countries is remarkable. The Irish, in particular, excel in playing the system to maximum advantage and consequently punch well above their weight. They speak European languages fluently and come to meetings fully prepared in the sense of understanding the nuances of other nations’ positions and being empowered to reach compromises.

If the Scots feel that they need to be represented in the EU by another country then they would be infinitely better served if that country were Ireland rather than the UK.”

Scotland will learn to love Europe, but only when we are fully part of it. As long as we remain a peripheral province of a medieval monarchy we are bound to be tainted with the prevailing negativism of those still nostalgic for the Empire.

The Working Life of Linda Fabiani MSP