Engaging with Europe
10:44am Tuesday, 27th November 2007
As usual, there was the requisite blustering and posturing on some important and pressing issues (military interference in political matters) as well as on some decidedly obscure subjects (animal welfare in zoos and the harassment of transvestites) in the progress reports. But looking beyond such eccentricities, accession is a good example of an issue which is met with a deafening silence in the UK on the need for an engaged debate on institutional reform of the EU.
The accession procedure for candidate countries is a long, ambiguous and some might say overly elaborate process. In the case of the 2004 accession states though, it provided some much needed impetus for domestic reform of domestic public administrations. Given that these states were riding the crest of a post-communist wave of reforms aimed at securing a stable democratic political system, potential membership of the EU provided a further incentive to move away from a nomenklatura system of patronage typified by a politicised and unprofessional civil service in some cases. Throwing away the old communist rule-books in these administrations were the first symbolic steps towards creating a public administration capable of delivering a democratically established mandate.
That’s the theory.
In reality, things are not quite as straightforward. In some of the academic literature on the subject, it is hypothesised that accession only works effectively to help create “ideal members” when candidates are neither too likely to become members, nor too far away from acceding. Furthermore, the uncertain linkage between fulfilling conditions demanded by the EU and the rewards that follow also muddies the water.
This automatically limits the impact that the carrot of EU accession can have. In order to get an effective outcome from the process, some scholars and commentators have argued that there needs to be some institutional changes within the EU to facilitate this change. That the Reform Treaty is a step towards such institutional reform (even if it is not overly ambitious with regards to enlargement matters) is often lost in the larger debate on whether or not the UK should be in the EU at all. However, many people don’t actually know what is going on in the EU, or take the time to understand why.
What this highlights is the need to actually engage with the mundane events of the EU in order to understand its full utility. While this may not be some people’s idea of a stimulating use of their time, knowing what is happening in the EU is crucial in forming an opinion of whether or not membership of such an entity is necessary or desirable. That’s why I think Keith Vaz’s basic argument that we should have real debate on the issue is a good one – but I’m not convinced that a referendum is the best way to provide the impetus for needed reforms.
The accession procedure for candidate countries is a long, ambiguous and some might say overly elaborate process. In the case of the 2004 accession states though, it provided some much needed impetus for domestic reform of domestic public administrations. Given that these states were riding the crest of a post-communist wave of reforms aimed at securing a stable democratic political system, potential membership of the EU provided a further incentive to move away from a nomenklatura system of patronage typified by a politicised and unprofessional civil service in some cases. Throwing away the old communist rule-books in these administrations were the first symbolic steps towards creating a public administration capable of delivering a democratically established mandate.
That’s the theory.
In reality, things are not quite as straightforward. In some of the academic literature on the subject, it is hypothesised that accession only works effectively to help create “ideal members” when candidates are neither too likely to become members, nor too far away from acceding. Furthermore, the uncertain linkage between fulfilling conditions demanded by the EU and the rewards that follow also muddies the water.
This automatically limits the impact that the carrot of EU accession can have. In order to get an effective outcome from the process, some scholars and commentators have argued that there needs to be some institutional changes within the EU to facilitate this change. That the Reform Treaty is a step towards such institutional reform (even if it is not overly ambitious with regards to enlargement matters) is often lost in the larger debate on whether or not the UK should be in the EU at all. However, many people don’t actually know what is going on in the EU, or take the time to understand why.
What this highlights is the need to actually engage with the mundane events of the EU in order to understand its full utility. While this may not be some people’s idea of a stimulating use of their time, knowing what is happening in the EU is crucial in forming an opinion of whether or not membership of such an entity is necessary or desirable. That’s why I think Keith Vaz’s basic argument that we should have real debate on the issue is a good one – but I’m not convinced that a referendum is the best way to provide the impetus for needed reforms.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments