Discussing the ideal policies of the European Union raises a kind of controversy not so apparent when discussing the idea of Europe and political structures, since people who agree on these may have very divergent views on the relative merits of capitalist and socialist economics, social liberalism and conservatism, and so on. In any case, policies are going to the product of the middle ground in European Union nations at that time. We are certainly very far from a model of European government in which there are sharp shifts according to temporary electoral majorities, and as I've explained in previous posts, I believe a more consensual model is appropriate at the European level, compared with the national level.
Questions of what policy ares the European Union should be concerned with avoid some partisan conflicts, though by going back in the direction of structures. I'll try to address questions of policy scope and questions of direction, which will be in between questions of political structure and the most divisive policy discussions. So far the European Union has been concerned most obviously with internal free trade along with maintaining the agricultural and fisheries sectors. The farming and fishery policies used to take up the majority of the budget and at least in Britain have been particularly unpopular due to the feeling that such policies were maintaining an unnecessarily large agricultural sector. These concerns have less force now as spending is declining as a proportion of the EU budget. In general the idea of subsidising any economic sector has been replaced by subsidies for research and development along with assistance for the less developed regions, while preserving farms has given way to preserving nature.
There are two big areas of EU spending, which between them take up most of the budget: 'cohesion for growth and employment', 'preservation and management of natural resources'. The former subsumes the industrial subsidies of the past, concentrating on regional development and networks; the latter subsume agricultural expenditure within an environmentalist context. Significant increases in the budget are highly unlikely in the foreseeable future due to the gloomy economic atmosphere and the evident restlessness of citizens of member nations with regard to integrationism.
The above seem to me to be relatively legitimate, though I am sure there is room to further shift spending to areas of most clearly defined public benefit where it is relatively unlikely that private sector activity can provide desirable outcomes with regard to long term research, environmental sustainability, preservation of natural beauty, large scale infrastructure projects, and public sector activity in education etc of particular benefits to particular regions, with regard to their specific situation. Even from a small government point of view the sums spent and the public goods proposed means there is not much reason to be disturbed. The spending and policies certainly do not appear to be disturbing to public opinion.
The pessimistic aspect from a viewpoint sympathetic to the idea of the EU is that though there have been major changes in the above areas in response to criticism, and frequently aggressive criticism has been largely defused the EU has not become more legitimate or persuaded more people to vote in European Parliament elections as a result. Negative views of the European Union appear to be focused on the Euro, immigration, and issues of sovereignty. Current rates of immigration are only in part down to the European Union, and resentment in that area, particularly in its most toxic forms, is in some significant part directed against immigrants from outside Europe. Generally it is not a good time to advocate increasing, and even open immigration, which is a shame because I am very much in favour of both. I will have to leave that aside as an area of deep despair.
Even the related internal goals of pushing for an end to identity checks at national borders and limitations on residential rights for unemployed citizens of other EU nations, are difficult in current circumstances. The same applies to ending all barriers to open competition for public sector posts and contracts across the European Union. However, I will at least say that in a time of rising economic fortunes it may be possible to make progress on some of these issues, as the attitude that my job might be vulnerable to some group in the EU, and if I don't get or keep this job, there isn't another, loses some of its force. A European Union without internal border checks, genuinely open public employment and contracts, and unqualified residential rights across the Union, has not achieved the goals of even a very minimal political union.
Next. Part 2, the Euro
Recent Comments