Fluent Radical

Martin Kettle, in the Guardian today offers his ten tips for the new Conservative leader. I don’t agree with everything he says but he’s not far off the mark.

So that’s not what’s irritating. This is:

Develop a more moderate and pragmatic internationalism, sceptical of both federalist Europe and neocon Washington alike. [my emphasis]

AAH!

For let us speak expertly about Europe, without knowing a thing about the subject. Actually the sentiment is a lovely thing, especially coming from an Guardian writer. Mr Kettle is right when he says that the new Conservative leader should not look to the EU for answers.

But federalism? Come on! A federal Europe would be an improvement over the current situation.

I can’t pretend to be an expert on the EU, not like these guys. But I am at least aware that there are three models of European governance:

1. Intergovernmentalism
2. Federalism
3. Supranationalism - or political union.

I also know that number 3 is the one we got.

Briefly, intergovernmentalism is what the British and few others would like - that’s why back in the fifties we led the way in setting up the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) and the Organisation of European Economic Cooperation (OEEC, the precursor to the OECD). Of course we failed, and what we ended up with is supranationalism.

Now a federal government is organised into a two tier structure, a federal government and state governments. The powers of the federal government are restricted (probably in a constitution) and clearly defined. All other powers are reserved for the states. This is the type of government the U.S. uses.

On the other hand, a supranational government is different to both of these. In the European Union, powers may be passed from the national governments to the European government on a majority vote (in most areas). This is different from intergovernmentalism, where all power is ultimately retained in the national governments, and it is different from federalism, where there must be unanimity on what powers are permanently passed to the federal government.

The current EU includes elements of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, under the “three pillar” structure (although the constitution was drawn up to unite the pillars under a supranational ideas). So it’s a mix of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. It can hardly be called federal.

Note that what really distinguishes a supranational government is that it represents a continuing process of transferring power to the European government. The purpose of supranationalism is to build a political union upon the lines of Westminster, but brick by brick rather than in a day. If we had federalism we could call ourselves lucky, because it would mean we had decided once and for all what powers the EU should have, rather deciding every other week that actually it should have some more.

(for more on these issues, read The Great Deception by Richard North and Christopher Booker.)