In the comfortable and well-policed world of those who like to think of themselves as “responsible” political leaders, political correctness requires that nothing aggressive or disparaging is ever said about a partner country. Only the institutions – in particular the Commission – that are supposed to stand for the general interest and, by this token, are outside the control of the capitals may now sometimes be the target of verbal attacks by national politicians.
This is the stock in trade of the extremist parties and, in these difficult times, it is working rather well for them. And yet this slightly (or perhaps hugely) hypocritical code of silence has been shattered in a country known for its commitment to the European project.
The guilty party is a man who declares himself to be a “bruised and somewhat disappointed federalist”. Before taking up the position of Minister-President of the Walloon Region of Belgium, Paul Magnette was one of the finest and most knowledgeable scholars of Europe as it has been building from the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 – a little reminder to send those who, over the coming days, will stubbornly state that the European adventure began with the Treaties of Rome and the accession to power of a certain General de Gaulle who graciously extended his hand to Chancellor Adenauer back to their history notes. Magnette, the rising star of the French-speaking Belgian Socialist Party had already upset the “responsible” political circles that pull the strings in the EU by taking on the mantle of champion of the public’s disquiet at the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (See EUROPE 11726). This time he broke the traditional rules of European decorum even more unconscionably when he told journalist Frédéric Rohart: “I can well foresee Brexit being followed by Polexit, Hungarexit, Romanexit, Bulgarexit …” (L’Echo, 3 February).
Is it serious, doctor? Indeed it is! It is nearly as serious as thoughts of Grexit that are once more gaining traction in more than one German ministry. Those who are happy with the idea of an “exit” in one case but not in the other have no credibility because they are not acting in good faith, only out of ideological considerations. Quietly pushing or helping (without openly stating) to push a member country towards partial or full exit from the Europe that has been in construction since the creation of the Coal and Steel community in 1952 is morally wrong. The British public making a sovereign decision to leave the Union is one thing: it’s their choice and their right to make it, even though it is clear that it will leave them poorer. It is quite another thing to act underhandedly to make inevitable the removal of a partner which, no doubt crippled by defaults, can only be saved by clear, unambiguous displays of solidarity.
Paul Magnette’s comments are an entirely different kettle of fish. He acknowledges the decision of the majority of British citizens who voted in the referendum in June 2016 to jump the European ship (see EUROPE 11580). As a good, responsible European, he hopes that a sound agreement, “hard but balanced”, can be struck between the Union and London. Some countries – Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and maybe Denmark and Sweden – might, he postulates, come to the conclusion that “a British-style model is attractive” and, accordingly, take a sovereign decision to leave the EU and form a relationship with it that is much less constraining than membership. Are these comments out of order, as is being suggested by some right-thinking Europeans?
Commissioner Pierre Moscovici stands staunchly within that group. In an interview along with Liberal Guy Verhofstadt published in the Belgian daily Le Soir, the French Socialist declares his “commitment to a 28- and now 27-member Europe”, arguing with some justification: “When you are in Warsaw, even with a government like the present one, or in Budapest, even with Mr Orban, or in Prague, you are in Europe. And casting these countries back into the dark days of the past is a very bad idea”. Mr Moscovici is correct, but it must be pointed out that no one wants to cast these countries back into the dark days of the past – no one except themselves!
Who is casting himself in the memory of dark days of the past but the spokesperson of Czech President Milos Zeman – a Social Democrat, it should be noted – when he says that Donald Trump “is protecting the security of the public” against Muslims “which is precisely what the European Union elites are not doing”? Who is returning to dark ways but Viktor Orban, championing “a new era in political thought” knocking on Europe’s door “because people want democratic societies and not open societies”? Commissioner Moscovici is undoubtedly correct when he argues that we should “develop projects federating the 28, and afterwards 27, member states”. But, given that that has not yet happened, since the flurry of applications for accession in the wake of the collapse of the wall and the last dual big-bang enlargement, it is by no means certain that what Mr Magnette is saying is in any way out of place. Quite the opposite. (To be continued)
Michel Theys