FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No time for petty rivalry[/size]

Instead of cross-Channel bickering, Tony Blair should offer a listening presidency

Timothy Garton Ash
Thursday June 23, 2005
The Guardian

According to France's foreign minister, the British foreign secretary is guilty of perpetrating a supercherie. This does not mean that Jack Straw has outdone Cherie Blair in whatever it is to be a Cherie. It means "a piece of trickery". Meanwhile, the French prime minister Dominique de Villepin told his parliament that "this British cheque [ie Britain's EU budget rebate] - and I say this with all the friendship I feel for the British people [people, note, not government] - is truly an expense from the ançien régime". Coming from an unelected French aristocrat, that might be considered the pot calling the kettle black. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

In the immediate run-up to the Iraq war, Tony Blair seized upon a remark made by Jacques Chirac to blame on France our failure to get a second UN resolution. By pointing the finger at Britain's ancient "sweet enemy", he just managed to win the Commons vote for war. In the aftermath of the French no vote on the constitutional treaty, Jacques Chirac has deftly shifted the spotlight on to the British budget rebate, so he can blame Europe's crisis on perfidious Albion rather than France. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose .
Well, I have news for leaders on both sides of the Channel: we are living in the 21st century, not the 14th. This needle match between France and Britain dates back at least to the hundred years war. It is probably the oldest continuous national rivalry in the world, with the possible exception of that between China and Japan. It has now become ridiculous, damaging, demeaning and pathetic.

When they now talk bitterly of "national egoism", new members of the European Union mean both Britain and France - the two countries that used to be, for them, the model of what it is to be a "normal" European country. The Bush administration in Washington, which has belatedly and tentatively held out a hand of partnership to the EU, watches with dismay, tinged with contempt.

To respond to the greatest crisis of popular confidence in the European project for 50 years by having a Franco-British row over money is like a couple reacting to the complete trashing of their house in a flash flood by bickering over who does the ironing.

In the long run, as I have argued for some time, the only way forward, not just for us but for the whole of Europe, is for these two ancient rivals to find a historical compromise on the key issues that divide them: transatlantic relations, approaches to economic and social reform, the constitutional nature of the EU, enlargement. But that requires time. First, this autumn, Angela Merkel has to replace Gerhard Schröder as German chancellor, so that Germany can return to its proper role as honest broker between Paris and London. Then, in May 2007, Jacques Chirac has to be replaced by another French president. For with Chirac, the Louis XVI of European politics, such a compromise is impossible. By that time, however, the British prime minister may be called Gordon Brown; or, at the very least, Tony Blair will be thinking hard about his future on the lecture circuit as, so to speak, a Super-Cherie.

Meanwhile, Britain has the presidency of the European Union for the next six months. Britain's two prime ministers are setting out their stalls. The prime minister in office will do so in an address to the European parliament today. The prime minister in waiting, Gordon Brown, did so in his Mansion House speech last night. To judge by what I have seen so far, I'm afraid they will get it wrong - less in content than in tone. But tone is all-important in such a moment.

Blair and Brown now face a triple challenge. First, Chirac's exercise in buck-passing and Blair's intransigence ("Thatcher in a suit") have been damaging to Britain's reputation with many of its European partners. The prime minister of Luxembourg, who presided over the failed EU summit, yesterday launched a bitter attack on the British position. Even in countries broadly favourable to Blairism, such as Poland, Britain is seen as behaving like a selfish rich country. When British voices advance their vision of "Forward to a competitive future", what many in continental Europe hear is "Back to a free-trade zone".

Second, what the peoples of Europe have been saying through these no votes is "We want you, the leaders, to listen to us". They are in no mood to be lectured to. Third, British Eurosceptics have got the wind in their sails, and are now talking about a fundamental rethink of the whole European project. The political editor of the Sun, Trevor Kavanagh, praises Blair for his row with Chirac, declaring that the prime minister has "emerged as a full-blown Eurosceptic".

In this tricky corner, the language and tone adopted by Blair, Brown, Straw and others is critical. On the continent, they are talking to a deeply disaffected audience, many of whom believe both that the European Union has gone wrong and that Britain is not truly committed to any larger vision of the European project; would rather go back to a glorified free-trade area; would always choose America over Europe; really prefers American-style free-market solutions; and isn't doing half as well as it thinks it is economically. They can find serious Brits to support each of those propositions - although not the same person for them all.

Peter Mandelson says that we should turn the French and Dutch no votes into a yes to a New Europe. New Labour, New Europe. There was a time when such a message might have fallen on receptive ears. That time was in the first years after Blair was first elected; not now. In his Mansion House speech, Gordon Brown performed a familiar act. He recited the economic achievements of the Blair-Brown government. Then he produced a dour list of the things that Europe must do if it is to meet the challenges of globalisation. There's some truth in that, but as an exercise in political persuasion this will get us nowhere.

So now it's back to Tony, the great communicator. What should he say to the European parliament? I think he should say that the great challenges to Europe do indeed lie outside our frontiers, not in the minutiae of our institutions. Call it "globalisation" if you will, but then say what you mean.

I think he should say that, in our collective attempt to "give back to our social model the reality that it has lost", to use the telling phrase of Nicolas Sarkozy, all European countries have something to contribute. Germany's technical education is still second to none. France's public transport is superb. Scandinavia has shown us the way with primary education. Oh yes, and maybe Britain's experience in freeing up labour markets has something to offer, too (tip: avoid at all costs the word "liberalisation"). So let us use these six months to work out how we should go forward, together drawing on the best of each national experience. In business they call it benchmarking.

Above all, he should say: read my ears. Now we need the listening presidency.

With British Prime Minister Tony Blair poised to take over the rotating six-month EU presidency next week, a commentator in the Telegraaf describes the present mood in Europe as "uncertain and nervous": [..]

The editorial says the current bickering masks the true problem: "the fact that the citizen does not love Europe, and only sees the EU as a source of problems instead of as the way to unity and prosperity." It is high time, says the Telegraaf that we citizens of Europe make up our minds about what we want: "We don't want liberal market economics but we do want total freedom for our businesses... No Iron Curtain, but no Polish plumbers either. No rules from Brussels but cheap deregulated air fares... The answer will have to come from leaders like Blair, but citizens too will have to think about what they actually want from Europe."

And the Telegraaf's editorial adds this for its readers: "Europe needs roots, new inspiration and a little affection. That can only come from you."

The people of Europe are speaking to us. They are posing the questions. They are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.

Walter - for the record, jeers came mostly from Daniel Cohn-Bendit (1968 French student revolutionary leader), now a Green Euro-MP and pro-constitution campaigner.

I think, it has been quite a good speech, regarding especially all the noise the days before.

I would have liked, however, that Blair hadn't only given some good advice for others but plans as well.

Walter - the transmission you watched can't be the same one that was reported in the press by journalists who were actually in the chamber

Generally, I think, the "European public" might feel vindicated that their fear is justified:
- re Turkey and other more 'strange' countries,
- re loosing social security and getting globalisation instead of it.

Quote:

The people of Europe are speaking to us. They are posing the questions. They are wanting our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.

I don't think, we got his answers.
Blair's speech via BBC