A Role for Europe

For many people, especially in the UK, the concept of 'Europe' conjures images of whacky laws defining the shape of bananas, the annual festival of bizarre Euro Pop that is the Eurovision Song Contest and foreigners who want to mothball the beloved pound note. At best 'Europe' is viewed as an object of mockery; at worst an organisation hell bent on eroding the sovereignty and institutions of the United Kingdom.

At a time when the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are debating closer ties - now that really would be an economic and political force to be reckoned with - the countries of Europe are either dithering or else embroiled in petty politics whilst pandering to growing nationalistic movements.

Take the much debated devolution of Scotland as an example. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland exists as an important region in one of the World's leading economies. As a devolved entity the country is relegated to the status of a small, cold, wet country of 5 million people on the Northern fringes of Europe. In GDP (PPP) terms it would rank below Portugal and Algeria and just above Chile. If it were a US State, economically Scotland would be 23rd largest behind Missouri and just above Connecticut (source: www.nationmaster.com)

But it's not just in Scotland, Spain has the Catalan separatist movement, Spain and France have the Basques, Britain also has a bubbling separatist movement in Wales and even Belgium has an active Flemish separatist movement.

Now, okay once separated these small countries would almost certainly want to join the EU in their own right, but it hardly bodes well for the future of a harmoniously integrated EU. Will Scotland, Catalonia or Flanders welcome greater EU integration and the devolution of sovereignty that that will entail when they've just fought so hard to disintegrate the nations they've devolved from? I think not.

In my view this fragmentation is economic and political suicide that would result in Europe becoming a spent economic and political force within 50 years. Only an integrated Europe can consider itself a serious contender for the title, that is, unless the US, Japan, BRIC and even the emerging Middle East seriously mess up.

But it's not just Nationalism that poses a major threat to the future success of Europe. I believe an equally threatening problem is that the EU has never really defined itself properly to the average John, Jacques, Giovanni or Johan in the strasse. This means they just don't see the value of it and in the absence of a strong, commonly held vision and belief, the mass populace will gravitate towards the sensationalist views pedalled by the populist media.

To use marketing speak and compare the EU to a brand, it neither knows it's brand proposition, it's brand values nor it's brand positioning. If it does know them, then it doesn't communicate them effectively enough. I suspect the former is true.

Currently the perception is that there's a great deal of overlap between what the EU does and what National Governments do, which leads to the conclusion 'what's the point?' Again, take Scotland as an example. In Scotland the average person has a local councillor, an MSP in the Scottish Parliament, an MP in the UK parliament and an MEP in the European Parliament - come on, how much representation does a person need?

So what should the EU do? My view is that it should do less. Rather than trying to cover all bases and thus overlapping the role of National Government, the EU should streamline and focus. In doing this it will be able to define a distinct role for itself that will be understood and valued by the public.

What should that role be? The politics systems of Europe are based on a 4 or 5 year cycle. This cyclical action whilst forming the bedrock of democracy does tend to lead politicians to take a rather short-termist view. Who can blame them when they have to 're-apply' for their jobs every 4 or 5 years. When you look at it like that, it's a wonder that anything ever gets built in the public sector. Europe is missing an overarching agency that can take the long term view and undertake projects which will benefit the population in 10, 20 or 50 years. If I'm starting to sound like an unreconstructed communist advocating a centrally planned economy, then that's the furthest from my thoughts.

If the EU could:

+ Redefine itself as a kind of supra-national development agency
+ Break out of the 4/5 year political cycle mentality
+ Work to a 10, 20 or 50 year game plan
+ Steer clear of becoming embroiled in petty political battles
+ Take a long term view of the future and develop a compelling vision based on enhancing the infrastructure, knowledge and fabric of Europe in order to make Europe a better place to live and more globally competitive
+ Communicate that vision to the masses effectively
+ Invest in delivering on that vision

Then there’s a chance it could convince dissenters of the value of an integrated Europe and give Europe a fighting chance of being able to compete with the US and BRIC in 20, 30 or 50 years time.