May 07, 2004
Slovakian Euroskepticism
Just read an excellent article on Euroskepticism in Slovakia, taken from Transitions Online. TOL is an excellent site, highly recommended for anyone interested in the region.
Unfortunately, they move their stuff behind a "Premium Content" wall after a few days. So I'm going to quote at a little length here. (All this is copyright Domino Forum, 2004, authors Robert Zitnansky and Martin Hanus.)
Slovakian politics was dominated for a number of years by an unpleasant character named Vladimir Meciar. Meciar was an excellent example of a type that's been very common across the region in the last fifteen years: an ex-Communist who gained power by turning populist, and who quickly developed an unsavory reputation for authoritarian rule and corruption.
So, write the authors, many people viewed the EU as an antithesis or antidote to Meciar and his ilk, and "many thinkers, intellectuals, and freedom-loving people for years looked forward to the day when Slovakia would become a member of the EU."
"After all these years, however, few of them are now able (or willing) to admit today’s fear, hesitation, and confusion. Although this attitude is understandable, the doubt, confusion, and disappointment won't go away, and it's time we started thinking about it.
"The first serious doubts came not so very long ago, starting in 1999, as Slovakia was getting its first real experience of the European Union. For the first time we saw that there were commissioners in Brussels who behaved as if they belonged in a different time and in a different part of the world than the [way we had envisioned the] West. Every serious political decision was presented in terms like 'an EU requirement,' or 'the EU is worried about it.' Our image of a Europe without barriers to the four former liberties (movement of people, goods, services, and capital) was slowly replaced by demands to regulate everything that could be regulated."
-- I note in passing that this is pretty consistent with my own experience in Romania so far. That is, Romanians are still mostly viewing EU membership as a thing absolutely good in itself; a long-delayed reunion of Romania with Europe, and a tonic that will act against corruption and authoritarian rule.
Where the rubber meets the road, though, there's a lot of "harmonization" of Romanian laws with EU regulations and standards... which sometimes results in positive effects for Romania, but sometimes (maybe often) not. "Paper compliance" is a big problem here.
The Slovaks go on:
"The single European market was (and still is) changing in front of our eyes into a space ever less and less free. Despite the fact that state reallocations, regulations, restrictions, and quotas are increasingly criticized even within the Union itself, the interest groups that benefit from these deformations are still stronger than the voices of economists or a couple of wise politicians.
"And yet, economic regulation could become the first source of serious disagreement--the rhetoric of German or Swedish politicians against lower taxes in the new member countries, hardly imaginable a few years ago, sounds like a sinister overture. It’s like a train speeding the wrong way without good brakes.
-- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder (who impresses me less and less, the more I see of him) stated last month that Slovakia's low taxes and loose regulations were stealing German jobs. I don't think that much will come of this. But that's only because the EU lacks the power to mandate things like "tax harmonization". If they could, they would.
"The central EU institutions live their own life. The voices of new ideologues with an old ambition to rule the world, or at least a small part of the world, grow stronger and stronger. They are wrapped in new terms: social or regional cohesion, consumer protection, sustainable development, struggle against social expulsion, gender equity, anti-discrimination, coordination of political systems, full employment, harmonization."
-- Personally, I think this overstates; it's the old Hayekian "Road to Serfdom", the idea that bureacracy inevitably turns into tyranny. I don't see it happening. But that doesn't mean that the large and opaque EU bureacracy doesn't present threats of its own.
"In 1989 we thought we were coming back to civilized Europe, happy that the liberal democracies had defeated socialism. Today we are entering an EU that is undermining the parliamentary democracies in its member states. The gradual, creeping shift of power into the hands of Brussels bureaucrats possessing hardly any democratic legitimacy engenders a strong sense of powerlessness, of lack of control and self-will. This was clearly visible during the process of drafting the European Constitution: a small group led by [Valery] Giscard d'Estaing created something in total conflict with the original assignment, something that might easily be called a summary of everything bad the Union had ever seen."
-- While I think this overstates, I broadly agree: the proposed EU constitution is pretty crap, and should be discarded. The fact that several countries are planning to hold referenda on it is IMO a very positive sign.
"Pro-European elites in the member states (without public support but also without public resistance) hand over much of their power to supranational bodies where power must beget corruption because there is nobody to report to...
"We should pay attention to the way in which positive reasons for joining the EU gradually became mere 'necessity.' For many people, entering the EU is not good simply because the EU is good, but because they are convinced there is no other alternative."
-- At least for Eastern Europe, I think this is very true. Nobody in this region can imagine a (good) future without EU membership.
"Two things are worth realizing in connection with the future of the EU. First, the freedom and prosperity praised by the Euro-ideologues are not the results of the Union's existence. They result from centuries-old social development in its member states and the 50-year presence of the Americans in Europe. Second, it is not true that a country in the geographic center of Europe has no other possibility but to join the EU on the grounds that if the country is small, it must adjust. But if the thought of not becoming a member of the Union was unimaginable, then even less imaginable is the thought of leaving it...
"We cannot expect much good even from the last change that looks promising--entering the single EU market. Customs duties will be replaced by less visible but much more dangerous standards that will restrict economic liberty by raising the cost of labor, spurring higher taxes or new ones, enforcing absurd hygienic norms, regulating the details of many production processes, and setting limits to free trade. Just at a time when Slovakia is winning admiration for reforms designed to hasten the coming of prosperity, it will crash head-on into the interests of big, unreformed states and uncompetitive companies. Except that these interests will be hidden under a cloak called "community interests...
"We are free people in an independent country: this should be the starting point for further reflection. We should start thinking about the Union and Slovakia without being fatalistic. We should definitely reject any future shifts of power to Brussels. We should think about our key interests and at least try to reach a quick agreement on a free, democratic political environment and an economics of prosperity. W e should look for allies who are not willing to be manipulated by the "engine of integration" and its demands, allies who want to protect their own interests. And we should protect our country from a situation where aversion to the EU in its present form could be used by primitive nationalists."
-- I particularly like that last part, as it seems to point towards a worrisome future, where "primitive nationalists" co-opt Euroskepticism once the initial flush of delight is past. Bad all around, that would be -- thoughtful criticism of the European project would be discredited by association, but the alternative would be a continued cession of power to a none-too-democratic Brussels.
I'm not seeing debate at this level in Romania, though. (Although it might be that I'm just missing it -- my language skills are still pretty limited.) There is discussion of whether Romania is really ready or not, but that's something else.
Are there Romanian Euroskeptics? Other than primitive nationalists, I mean?
Posted by douglas at May 7, 2004 03:35 PM