European Union Uber Alles?

By Doug Bandow

The Czech Senate has ratified Europe's Lisbon Treaty. Only Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who must sign the document for it to take effect, and the Irish people, who must vote on the agreement, stand between the European Union and political consolidation.

The EU grew out of the wreckage of World War II. Strengthening the organization has become the premier project of Europe's elite, an amalgam of supranational politicians, continental bureaucrats, deracinated intellectuals, and borderless businessmen.

The benefits of creating a continental market were obvious, while the prospect of joining the EU spurred reform in the new nations formed out of the Soviet empire. The EU continues to pursue this vision with a free trade agreement negotiated with South Korea.

But the EU's goal of never-ending expansion is running into rising economic nationalism. Moreover, the EU increasingly micromanages national life, from mandating use of metric measurements to limiting the salt content of bread.

Yet the Eurocrats dream of competing with the U.S. for global influence. For that they have proposed creating a stronger continental government. Hence the Lisbon Treaty.

In 2001 the Europeans began negotiating a constitution of formidable length and incomprehensible verbiage.

It created a president and foreign minister, limited national vetoes, and reshuffled institutional responsibilities. Whether the treaty is worthwhile is for the Europeans to decide. But which Europeans get to decide?

Signed in 2004, the constitution had to be approved by popular referendum and was quickly rejected by both Dutch and French voters.

European consolidation looked dead, but the Eurocrats changed a couple of commas and reissued the constitution as the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 ― which, conveniently, didn't require popular approval in most nations. French President Nicolas Sarkozy admitted: ``There will be no treaty at all if we had a referendum in France.''

But in June 2008 Ireland held a referendum, as required by its constitution, and the voters said no. The collective reaction was: How dare they? Much was said of democracy and majority rights by elites, which were attempting to prevent the people from deciding their form of government.

The problem, argued Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is that ``There is no European demos ― and no European nation,'' which intensifies the problem of ``the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, the decision-making of the unelected.''

Klaus recently warned of ``a situation where the citizens of member countries would live their lives with a resigned feeling that the EU project is not their own.''

British member of the European Parliament Graham Watson acknowledged ``some kernels of truth'' in Klaus' description of ``the distance between the voters'' and the European Parliament.

Yet as Mats Persson of the think tank Open Europe observed: ``Ever since the Irish voted no to the Lisbon Treaty in June, politicians in Ireland and across Europe have tried to find ways to force this unwanted document through ― against the clear will of the people.''

After winning some theoretical concessions, Dublin announced plans to hold a revote later this year. If the Lisbon Treaty passes, then what? European policies will be further internationalized. European nations' sovereignty will be further eroded. European traditions will be further submerged. European peoples will be less free.

However, even if the Eurocrats win, they aren't likely to create a new nation state capable of challenging Washington for global influence. Rather, the EU will just create a slightly more pretentious political hollow shell.

In his valedictory address as European President, Nicolas Sarkozy said: ``The world needs a strong Europe and that Europe cannot be strong if it is not united.'' But the Lisbon Treaty does not unite Europe. In fact, the determined effort to limit popular participation demonstrates that Europe is not united. Would anyone, other than Belgians (and maybe not even them), today die for Brussels? Passing Lisbon won't create a continental identity now absent.

What the Sarkozys of Europe desire is greater international influence, but Europeans lack the desire and their governments lack the ability to take the necessary politically tough, financially expensive, and militarily risky steps.

Some younger pan-Europeans exist, but most Europeans remain loyal first to their national government. Lisbon builds a higher appointed structure, not a broader elected structure.

Moreover, few European governments have militaries with meaningful combat capabilities, and even fewer are ready to use their militaries in real war. Former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine admitted: ``At no point have the Europeans shown an appetite for a truly European defense. They don't want to devote more money to defense.'' From such does not spring an influential nation state.

A surge of continental nationalism might eventually sweep Europe. But attempting to force recalcitrant peoples into a new political order is more likely to build resistance than support for Brussels.

Vaclav Klaus, who says he won't sign the treaty until after the Irish referendum, represents the European people far more than do the EU's official leaders.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of several books, including ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire'' (Xulon Press). He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com.