Block the road: Europe’s transparency

In Europe the boundaries are open, the population is relatively wealthy and the infrastructure is more than reasonable. Still, people mock and complain whenever the European Union is mentioned, especially in relation to national autonomy. People are scared of this big, angry and impersonal political manifestation that many regard as a major threat to the acquired national, partly western, tradition and culture.
National governments have spent millions of euros on promotion campaigns, but people just don’t seem to love Europe as much as they do. With the upcoming ratification of the Lisbon treaty in sight, it is more than a legitimate question to ask what is holding us back and why. Ought Europe to be stopped, dead in its tracks? People do seem to have little insight in European policy, let alone its future. And that for one thing, is not going to do it any favors.

 Besides the obscure processes that seem to hold the (partly) united continent in its grip, there is another threat, which is rather crudely known as ‘money’.  That which ought to be done ought to be done. But it is always a good thing if it is actually known what that exactly is. And despite the enormous amounts of money involved people rarely get any further than suggesting its business lies in some meager ‘agricultural subsidies’, ‘open boundaries’ and ‘shared monetary policies’. That is far from saying it isn’t important, which it is, especially now: The Irish have cast their votes and we will soon be subjected to the law that we no longer call the ‘constitution’, but the Lisbon Treaty. And that is characteristic. People have no reason to fear for the future of their culture, even the treaty explicitly mentions both the diversity of these as well as their aesthetical value, but Europe is being shoved down our throats, and that is an uncomfortable truth for many.
Now politicians often pretend to be interested in the people they are said to represent, while striving towards their own agenda in the meantime. No surprises there, but somewhere they seem to have crossed a line no one knew to exist. Though the vast majority of the establishment is still in support of a stronger Europe, it is no longer taken for granted as the only way forward. More questions are being asked, more criticism is put forward and more justification is required for the bottomless well in which we deposit our money. The overall tendency seems to become EU-skepticism. There is, I think, also a reason why most of the traditional part of politics is in favor of Europe: They designed it. And we all have looks of awe when a demagogue delivers another fascinating speech about values, world peace, economic prosperity and open boundaries. Alas, no one will look with admiration when someone of a party that formerly took part in sketching the foundation of the EU says:  “I’m sorry, we spent millions, no trillions, of Euros but it has all not gone according to plan. We better give up and search for an alternative”.
But we can comfort ourselves. Europe is no failure, it needn’t become one either. In order to achieve success, a lot more needs to be done. None of that concerns wasting more money than we have so far allowed ourselves to. Transparency, justification, honesty and more journalism are some of our new keywords. For why would anyone want to pay for Europe, if it seems to bear no sweet, juicy fruits? Our free trade and travel have long been taken for granted and only economic kamikaze idiots would like to switch the stability, strength and ease of the Euro to their old currency. Truth is Europe can serve us in positive ways in forms many haven’t even considered possible, or indeed impossible without it. This sounds unconvincing? Then it is time some examples are being put forward:

•  Open boundaries for open education. Extensive networks of knowledge and those who participate in creating and upholding it (teachers, students, university organizations)
• Health care: Why wait for health care in the Netherlands when a Belgium hospital can provide instant care? Requirements concerning quality and quantity are necessary of course. We cannot let healthy systems being dragged down by less qualitative ones.
• Dozens of different opinions: Quite unnecessary and expensive. One ethical and political voice for Europe on international issues, via the United Nations or NATO.  It isn’t a problem we will not all agree with what is being said, that doesn’t happen on national level either. Good representation, supported by sound arguments is what counts.
• BlueCard system: The possibility to work in all EU countries by an easy, universal system that takes care of both pension- and labor rights.
• Common policy concerning environment durability.
• Fight terrorism and criminality by cooperation: Better communication when it comes to cross-border issues.

 There are countless more points that could be mentioned, but these will suffice to illustrate my case. Now to return to the beginning: Fear of loss of autonomy. ‘Too much power concentrated in one place is never a good thing’ is something that people echo all over the place. True, I cannot but agree with the lessons that history has taught us (or I least I hope they did). The easy to grasp reply is: Europe is a democracy, subdivided in more democracies. That doesn’t say much of course, not as long as there isn’t a hook-up between the people and their governments. It should provide us with some peace of mind and an intermediate conclusion: For we can say that not all of the Lisbon Treaty is satisfying, transparency being the most important thing they did not elaborate on in an extensive enough way. It solves or deals with some issues, but it doesn’t cure the disease that goes to our European heart. For instance, the power entitled to the European Parliament is, theoretical, correct. But no one ordinary person knows what that institution takes care of, let alone who is in it. This brings along the issue of legitimization, something which is in not in great supply at the moment, which is one of the major reasons why Europe is losing face and ground.
However, that doesn’t change the observation that we are missing our target from nearly all the angles we are shooting. When it comes to world politics we are divided, so we cannot make a fist. The ultimate muscle power that has driven Europe to prominence is now also in the line of fire: It’s openness towards those who are not yet a member. The sluggish acceptance of Turkey is one major example of this. Rather than embracing a potential ally, we are taking a risk, whether that would become a ‘float-free, neutral Turkey’ or ‘a Turkey that has a ‘tendency to embrace Islamic thought and politics’ does not really matter from our present point of view. When countries are part of the European Union demands can be made on political, economical and ethical issues, and let’s not forget: Western countries did not get to where they are by plucking roses. So much is our demand for strengthening the Union that we are forgetting how it came into existence: By accepting, not rejecting.

 The Lisbon Treaty might get things moving again, but not if we fail to recognize the need to redirect our attention: Rather than staring at problems, some hard work needs to be done in order to solve them. A treaty is one step, but the basic problem that undermines a fully functioning economic and political platform will remain: Transparency, or rather lack of it. We should remain realistic however, which means that we cannot expect the administrative machinery to take care of this. Their lack of will power and overwhelming bureaucracy is just what needs curing.
More journalism is the logical consequence of course, but the costs are high. The numbers of bills passed are extravagant, and they can all contain potential valuable information that needs to be put into context. There are hardly any newspapers or magazines that can afford such luxury. This means that many of them will have to base their stories on the same sources, which is good for neither quality nor diversity. More room to maneuver for politicians is not what we are looking for either. Reasonably liberal as I am, I can hardly say I like the word, but a subsidy for journalism to secure our future? More press and criticism is definitely needed in any case, as people need to be shown how Europe functions, what it is for, and especially where it fails. This means that Europe must remain in touch with its civilians. I said remain, but in this case it is probably better to say ‘get in touch’, because they are far from that ideal. Not that anyone who doesn’t care about politics should in my view try to influence any policy, but when Europe wants to legitimize itself it will need to justify itself.