*** RENAUD DEHOUSSE, FLORENCE DELOCHE-GAUDEZ, SOPHIE JACQUOT (Eds.): Que fait l'Europe ? Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques (Centre d'études européennes, 117 bld Saint-Germain, F-75006 Paris. Tel: (33-1) 45498367 - Fax: 45498360 - Internet: http://www.pressesdesciencespo.fr ). "Evaluer l'Europe" series, No. 2. 2009, 119 pp, €12. ISBN 978-2-7246-1115-1.
The French Centre d'Etudes Européennes at the Sciences Po University has set up an EU institutions monitoring centre in order to make regular scientific assessments of each EU institution and the people working there, and this publication hits the nail on the head. A few weeks ago, far too many Europeans stayed away from the European election polling booths. Why? As far as many stakeholders, observers and commentators are concerned, this was a result of several interlocking issues - the European issues being drowned out by the national bandwagon because in each Member State, European elections are only European by name; a lack of information (disinformation even) for voters on how the EU machine actually works; and different ways of voting across Europe. All these issues clearly and undeniably played a part. The advantage of this book is that the authors discern another issue which might prove even more fundamental, namely that the low turnout might be due to the mismatch between people's expectations on the one hand, and the political choices made by the EU institutions.
The essay by Prof. Renaud Dehousse (holder of the Jean Monnet Chair at the 'Sciences Po' university in France, where he is head of the European Studies Centre) and Nicolas Monceau (senior lecturer at the Political Studies Institute in Grenoble, France) has what may be considered a rather iconoclastic title: 'Do EU policies meet Europeans' expectations?' Their answer is guarded, however, or even negative. They start by pointing out that any political system that claims to be democratic can be assessed in terms of supply and demand because politicians are supposed to respond to the interests of the people who voted them in and every now and again, voters have the right to punish the politicians in elections if they believe the politicians have not done their job. The problem is that in the EU, people have little control over who actually gets selected to pilot public action, explain the authors. Take membership of the European Commission, for example, where the choice of Commissioners owes far more to the preferences of the state than to the preferences expressed by voters in the so-called 'European' elections. Not to mention the fact that voters do not have the option of punishing European politicians they are unhappy with by voting against them. The main political guidance body within the EU is the European Council, which comprises men and women who have been chosen as their country's leaders but as a 'collegiate body,' the European Council answers to nobody. Given the outcome of Eurobarometer opinion polls from 2000 to 2007 (the authors criticise the incoherence in the polling methods during this period), Dehousse and Monceau discern Europeans' main expectations about the EU, noting that their expectations are not affected by the powers granted to the EU by the EU treaties. Top of the list is tackling insecurity, immigration issues and also (but this varies widely between old Member States and new Member States) tackling poverty and social exclusion. In all these areas, the EU has relatively limited powers, as is seen in the choice of EU policies. Between 2002 and 2007, social issues only accounted for a meagre 4% of the EU legislation that was adopted, while the 'area of freedom, security and justice' fared little better with 9%. The subject most covered by EU rules was farming and fisheries, closely followed by economic integration (the Common Market and taxation). Hence the authors' comment: 'There is a mismatch between EU policy supply and demand'. Whose fault is this? The 'masters of the treaties': in the social arena, for example, 'an area subject to huge expectations, governments find it more difficult to agree to anything more than a rather soft control of their action by EU guidelines'. Faced with an 'expectation of Europe,' whereby voters are 'more concerned about controlling the market than introducing rules on free circulation,' how long will it be before European and/or national politicians actually start listening to voters' expectations rather than simply ignoring them? Seen from this viewpoint, the fight by some newly elected political parties at the European Parliament to get the candidate for Commission presidency, Barroso, to explain and negotiate his political plans and action programme for the next European Commission is highly salutary, to say the least. It is the very least that can be expected to avoid creating a situation were even fewer voters turn out to vote at the next European elections in five years' time, in 'an election where they cannot even have an impact on the choice of the executive or on the choice of a political system whose priorities seem to voters to be miles away from their own'…
To give a more rounded account of this book, we should point out that other essays take a very useful look at how the various EU institutions, namely the European Commission, the Council of Ministers, the six-monthly presidency and the European Parliament, respond to voters' concerns.
Michel Theys
*** POUL F. KJAER: Three-dimensional Conflict of Laws in Europe. Zentrum Für Europäische Rechtspolitik (Universität Bremen, Universitätsallee, GW1, 28359 Bremen). "ZERP-Diskussionspapier" series, No. 2. 2009, 32 pp, €8.
The new issue in this series looks at the constitutional question by examining the hybrid nature of the European Union. The author argues that having to deal with the hierarchical governance structures in the Member States and its own, more heterogeneous, over-arching governance system, the European Union should aim at a constitutional format that would reduce the tensions between the two types of system operating in the European project. To this end, he suggests an approach based on three-dimensional legal conflict. The first is conflicts between territories, the second is conflicts between the EU and its Member States, and the third is conflicts arising from social structures that operate in different ways.
(NDu)
*** FRANCK SOMMER: Kulturpolitik als Bewährungsprobe für den deutschen Föderalismus. Peter Lang (1 Moostrasse, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - Fax: 3471727 - email: info@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). "Studien zur Kulturpolitik" series, No. 7. 2008, 339 pp, €52.80. ISBN 978-3-631-58090-5.
The German regions or Länder were for a long time the custodians of political culture in Western Germany, being legislators, requesters and creators at one and the same time. In recent years, the united Germany has tried to extend its influence in this domain. Things changed with reunification. The new German capital, Berlin, has generated a new political culture; a member of the federal government was given responsibility for culture and the media in 1998; and a culture foundation was set up in 2002. The European integration process has also brought changes in its wake and the Länder today face new stakeholders in the domain of political culture. This book shows that the political culture is a demonstration of confidence in German federalism, that recent changes have influenced policy design and recent changes have also had an impact on culture. After a theoretical consideration and a depiction of the historical landscape, the author analyses the political culture of various Länder. He also examines German cultural programmes and EU funding for culture. The book provides a highly interesting view of political culture in Germany.
(EPi)
*** KEITH BARLOW: The Labour Movement in Britain from Thatcher to Blair. Peter Lang (see above). 2008, 150 pp, €43. ISBN 978-3-631-55137-0.
This book, an updated and expanded version of a first edition published in 1997, examines the role of the Labour movement in the United Kingdom from the late 1980s onwards. It examines the influence on New Labour of the reforms introduced by the Conservative Party under Mrs Thatcher. Based on empirical research and a wealth of statistics, Keith Barlow starts by analysing the history of the trade union movement in Britain in an attempt to understand how the Iron Lady was able to transform the landscape while she was in power. The author then examines the Conservative Party of the time's macro and micro-economic strategies, comparing and contrasting them with the policies recommended by New Labour when it came to power in 1997 in order to assess the Conservatives' degree influence over Labour. The final part of the book examines the differences between Old and New Labour, and to what extent these changes resulted from Thatcherism.
(NDu)