More of its not quite democracy in Europe

In March, I mentioned that Europe would be governed in practice by the big states, not by a democratic principle of one man one vote. French finance minister Nicolas Sarkozy has come out saying that this should be done. He identifies six states: France, Germany, the UK, Spain, Italy and Poland. Interestingly, he's the inclusive fellow on this issue. Jacques Chirac would prefer to do things by having France and Germany bully the rest of Europe. Yesterday, Mark Steyn took up the issue of European federalism in his Telegraph article, "Vote No". And why not. Also in the Telegraph was news that Germany, though their spokesman, Bela Anda, "joined France to insist that Britain and other "non-core" countries should be barred from proposing candidates for president of the European Commission."

Its clear that part of this was aimed at torpedoing the candidacy of Chris Patten, who is reported to have said, "Even though I had a lot of support, a couple of the bigger member states said 'nul points'." But still more, France and Germany seek to "control the EU machinery despite being part of a minority group within the enlarged bloc of 25 states." [again quoting from the Telegraph]

Britain is not pleased, and Jack Straw certainly seems less than thrilled. He pointed out that the reading of the constitution allows the president of the commission to come from any member states. But, as they say, some animals are more equal than others. France and Germany would prefer to impose Belgium's federalist prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt on the EU. He was an advocate of building an extra-NATO European army, which is the kind of instrument that Euro-nationalists could use to posit Europe as a rival of America on the world stage.

I'll offer an aside here, because often George Bush is accused of taking needless steps which have antagonized allies, friendly neutrals, and fair weather friends. What kind of step is it to talk seriously about creating such an army? Or supporting someone who does for a top Euro position? Europe is not about to start cutting into its generous social benefits to provide the kind of military spending necessary to pose a real challenge to America. So such a move carries all the downsides of antagonism without any of the upsides of independent policy. Those who are dubious about American policy might wish that Europe could act as a check on American "excess", but such a policy is both costly in terms of political relations with America as well as costing money which European voters would rather spend on their army of bureaucrats. So rather than being a serious challenge, its just a pointless annoyance. Do not believe those who claim that it is Bush who has breached the relationship with "friends". While Bush has done provocative things, he has backed up his policies. For all the disruption, Saddam is gone and Iraq has an opportunity to lead the Arab world into modernity. Whether you think that advances the War on Terror or was a distraction from it, its a real accomplishment. Guy Verhofstadt and his Euro-Army are just provocative disruption without anything to show for it.

France and Germany want the rest of Europe to "keep quiet". The debate is one of whether France and Germany have the ability to govern Europe alone, or, as Nicolas Sarkozy suggests, France and Germany don't have the power to do it. He has pointed to the failure of the Franco-Germans to push through Verhofstadt. But a "big six" is the same game of big state domination over small states. It may be more diverse, and so more capable of imposing its will on Europe, but its still fundamentally at odds with democratic principles.

As I wrote in March, American federalism used a bicameral system to prevent the large states from becoming dominant. The Senate gives equal weight to all states, and thereby prevents the large states from being able to manage policy for the whole country. Europe ought really to regard America as a model in this regard, among others.

Steyn makes the point that this attempt to hold all the power is doomed to fail. "America is the exception that proves the rule, because it's a highly decentralised federation. [...] If America were as centrally governed as France, it would break up. Yet that, in a nutshell, is what the new Europe will be: a jurisdiction the size of America, but as centralised as France." What's ultimately compelling about Steyn's piece (other than the prose, which is always a delight) is that he crafts an argument for both friends of the individual nation states and for a federal Europe. Its rather obvious that the friends of the nation state would oppose the new forms, but given that "the only pan-European state on offer is doomed to fail," friends of the very idea of pan-Europeanism are well advised to nix this offer and hold out for something better.