Editorial / Spring 2004

The modern European ideal arose from a political tradition (Christian Democracy) which is dying, but which was once a vital force in all of the countries that formed the basis of the European Community: France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux. Christian Democrats wanted a broader political union, but began, prosaically, with coal and steel. The attempt to extend this to a common defence agreement was rejected by the French parliament exactly fifty years ago. Socialists were suspicious of the European ideal, but on it marched, until the integration process stopped in the 1970s and we find ourselves, today, in the highly undemocratic situation where 80% of the decisions in the European Union are taken by the European Commission, not by the European Parliament, whilst the Union itself is in the verge of massive expansion.

As Christianity has declined in Europe, so unrestrained capitalism has increased in power and influence; peace is taken for granted (though the dramatic changes in the map of Europe during the 1990s should keep us on our guard) and prosperity has become the shared ideal. In this light, our ageing population can be seen only as a problem, and our aged fellow citizens as non-productive consumers of resources. Migrants, legal or otherwise, are treated as a threat, rather than a necessary addition to our shrinking workforce. In other words, the decline of Christianity has brought a shocking dehumanisation in its wake and even a mention of God in the proposed European Constitution will not change such attitudes.

The original draft, which leaped from ancient Greece and Rome to the Enlightenment, thereby omitting centuries of Christian history, was based on a secularist outlook so deep, so elitist and so self-confident that it ignores the terrible destruction wrought by secular ideologies during the 20^th Century and blames religion for wars and for almost everything else. In fact, it was the recent experience of such conflicts that led Christian Democrats to found the European Economic Community, which is now the European Union (EU).

We now have a Europe united by an ideology of wealth, about to expand dramatically, yet holding to the illusion that it can somehow become a fortress against migration. This was tried by the Roman Empire, which managed to hold the Rhine-Danube frontier for several centuries (whilst being forced to allow controlled immigration), but attempts to maintain a frontier along the Polish-Baltic-Ukrainian frontier, in an age of rapid mobility, will be impossible. Wealthy areas attract immigration. If the energy, thought and money now spent on trying to keep people out, were spent on programmes for integrating them into European society, we would have a much healthier and more productive workforce. Instead, we focus on rules of exclusion and discriminate against immigrants even to the third generation. This should find a resonance in Ireland, where our emigrants were effectively excluded from Irish society and became immigrants in countries where they suffered other forms of exclusion and discrimination.

The majority of Europeans want a Constitution, but 83% of us want a referendum on it. Ireland and Denmark are two member states whose own constitutions guarantee such a referendum, but in the many countries where the government can impose the European Constitution, the most predictable result is a rise in Euroscepticism so sharp as to make even seasoned commentators gasp.

What can be said in favour of the European ideal in a world that has changed so much since the EEC was founded? There is the continued trust in European institutions: greater, in fact than the trust we have in our own governments, though less, amongst young people, than trust in the United Nations. There is the strength which solidarity gives to individuals and nations. There is the potential for creating a European voice in world affairs, particularly through the European Foreign Minister envisaged by the draft Constitution. This is vital in an era when there is only one world superpower. The new office of President could be a further source of strength, but could also, in the wrong hands, be an incredible nuisance. Both offices will be even more useful if the existing tradition of media accessibility is continued.

Against that vision, there is the failure to create a European public opinion and to debate EU law at a local level. The astonishing lack of public awareness as the European Constitution was being drafted is proof of a dangerous disengagement from vital developments, caused by an inexplicable failure to communicate the importance of what was being done.

Ireland is a small and peripheral nation which has become so much a part of the European project that we are now at its heart. Our recent membership of the UN Security Council shows that we are able to punch well above our weight. Our attempt to have God mentioned in the EU Constitution was itself a sign that we defend traditions and values, even when some commentators see them as “outmoded”. We can reaffirm the values that are the basis of the European ideal and can affirm the need for ever-closer cooperation.

We must, however, oppose the creation of a European juggernaut, of an organisation to which we will cede parts of our sovereignty irrevocably. Our law should never be so weakened that European legislation can over-ride it. Our independence cannot be diminished nor our autonomy lessened.

If the European Constitution means any diminution of our hard-won independence, our vote in the ensuing referendum can only be “No” and any rerunning of such a referendum should not beguile us into changing our minds.