France Attacks Barroso

The title of this post ascribes the attack to France, which may or may not be fair, since Francois Fillon and Nicholas Sarkozy are not the same person, and neither is fully analogous with the country they lead. But what has come out of Paris, apparently from government insiders, is undoubtedly an attack.

If the French government really wanted to support Jose Manuel Barroso's re-appointment as President of the European Commission, it could have been lobbying in the European Parliament and national capitals. Or it could have kept quiet and let the likeliest outcome of the debate in the European Parliament just happen. But no. This clever piece of political manoeuvering has suddenly given all those MEPs to the right of centre who were going to vote for Barroso a priceless excuse not to: a potentially better candidate is just waiting for the nod. Even better, it gives those on the left the perfect opportunity to score a political victory against the right by succeeding in rejecting the Member States' centre-right nominee, just weeks after European elections that were such a calamitous blow for the social democratic family across the continent.

Who stands to lose from a rejection of Barroso (apart from Barroso himself)? Only those on the right who really do like Barroso, and an as-yet undefined group across the political spectrum who have existing or potential objections to Fillon. But with Fillon's distinct lack of international profile, it is possible that he will fail to attract much hardened opposition.

There is also good reason to believe (hap-tip to Charlemagne and Jon Worth) that such an outcome would represent a new landmark moment for the European Parliament in its inorexable rise, and a commensurate defeat for the Member State governments who have nominated Fillon. For me, this is the only significant question mark over the cleverness of the French ploy, since a precedent will have been set that will make it easier in the future for the European Parliament to reject France's own nominees to the Commission By implication in the more distant future, it could also jeopardise France's and other Member States' preferences for other key EU positions, institutional arrangements, and other political stakes.

The other question mark for me is not about the cleverness of the ploy, but about the suitablity of the candidate himself. If he has been unable to step out from the shadow of his President as Prime Minister, what are the prospects for his ability to rise above national governments' lobbying as President of the Commission?

Anecdote on Liberation

A short anecdote to complement my last post. My British grandfather was sent from his headquarters in Sri Lanka (then called Ceylon) by Mountbatten to Normandy for the D-Day landings to observe and take detailed notes that could be used to inform the planning of a large amphibious assault on Burma.

The assault never happened, but my grandfather's notes remain, and I recently had a quick look through. They are filled with technical details about logistics and weapons, but also contain a diary in which he recorded some more personal impressions.

One of my favourite entries recalls a conversation with a Norman farmer, who complained that he had suffered more damage and property loss at the hands of British soldiers in 4 days of liberation than he had suffered in 4 years of German occupation.

A further remark was tha the discipline of American soldiers appeared to be much better than that of the British.

The first entry was interesting to me because it brought home the reality of war for an individual. I suspect the farmer was delighted to be liberated from German occupation. But that would not have lessened his anger at the British looters, and may have coloured his feelings of affection for the brave boys are so lionised in the UK for saving our allies.

And the second tickled me because the Brits love to think that Americans are uncouth and ill-mannered.

The truth is never as simple as it appears.

WWII and nationalism

The anniversary of the start of the Second World War has been fairly extensively covered in the media and in the Brussels blogosphere. You can see some examples here, here, and here.

As I get older and wiser, I am increasingly struck by the way states use history, and the history of war in particular. To put my remarks into context, I'll start with what seem to me to be factual observations about WWII. Some can be applied to war in general:

1. War was/is declared by governments and not by popular votes.

2. Most countries involved in the Second World War experienced a degree of internal societal division about it, ranging from which side to fight on, to what form of political organisation to create to cope with the new reality.

3. Individual men and women have radically different personal circumstances and make personal choices for accordingly radically different reasons.

In this context, it is striking to see how many nationalists from the victorious countries (UK, Russia, and USA in particular) are seeking to use the anniversary to promote an image of their countries that distorts reality. Equally, commentators from "victim" countries such as Poland or France, seem to be promoting interpretations that emphasise the injustice of what was done to them and the sufferings that their people endured. Commentators from "losing" countries, such as Germany, it seems to me, have a health and objective approach to the role of the state in the war and the sufferings endured by "victim" countries ("we feel bad about it"), but are rarely seen to discuss the sufferings of their own people. While it is good form for a Pole to bemoan the sufferings of his people at the hands of the Nazis, it is not such good form for a German to bemoan the sufferings of his people at the hands of the RAF or the Red Army. Note that I am talikng here about civilian populations.

The result is more than a passing atmosphere of triumphalism in the victor countries every 5 or 10 years, a passing atmosphere of the culture of victimhood among occupied or persecuted populations, and a passing atmosphere of humble introspection among the Germans and Japanese in particular. It is in fact a fundamental divide in how war is viewed in our countries.

In France, they tend to talk about the suffering experienced, but gloss over the political leadership that founded Vichy France and the crimes of the collaborators. In Poland, they talk about the terrible destruction of the country and mind-boggling loss of life, but try not to discuss the fact that millions of Poles fought for the Soviets and for the Germans as well as for the Allies.

As someone with a background primarily rooted in the victor countries, I can remember being taught and believing that "thousands and thousands of our countrymen died so that we could have a free country", or "died for democracy", or "sacrificed their lives for us" or "died on the battlefields in defence of our allies", etc. Every Memorial Day in the U.S. and Day in the UK full of speeches about national heroes. They glorify "our brave soldiers", and by implication, "our great nation". No one asks why individual men actually fought. Many many thousands undoubtedly fought for money. Many fought because they wanted a good fight. Many fought because their mates were fighting. Many fought because they were afraid of the Germans or the Japanese. Many fought for the British Empire. Many fought against their will. Many fought because they had nothing better to do. Most of them probably had some sense that they were fighting for their families and their communities, and in maney cases even some sense that they were fighting "for their country". I'll wager that nothing but a tiny minority consciously fought "for democracy". Indeed, we entered the war because of an existential threat, and not because we already had a blueprint for a democratic post-war Europe. We didn't. And yet here we are, 70 years later, effectively hijacking these peoples' lives for political ends. We are de-humanising war.

Only the Germans publicly take responsibility for the massacre of Europe's Jewry, for the terrible crimes of the SA, SS, Gestapo, the Wehrmacht, and other arms of the state, as well as thousands of individuals. No conquering war heroes in German schoolbooks - only warnings about the horrors of war. There is no introspection in British or American schools to speak of about the crimes committed by "our boys". Crimes? What crimes? They were liberators!

The fact is that WWII, like any war, was a horrible, individual human tragedy on an unimaginable scale. People died, were made homeless, witnessed the stuff of nightmares. And those people had to live or die with their choices. The choices were forced on them by states. And yet in many cases, those same states have the audacity to claim the right to interpret and advertise those individual tragedies as part of a national narrative without the consent of the individuals concerned.

I have lost count of the number of times hat I have heard Brits express suspicions that the EU is really a clever way for the Germans to take over again. The reality is that the threat to peace in Europe comes from those countries who have sold a distorted version of their history to their people for political benfit, but at an enormous social price. It certainly does not come from Germany.

Germany has managed to re-discover a cultural and political identity that does not need the glorification of the state through long-dead war heroes who can't express their views. Germany has grown up in a way that most other European countries (and te USA) have not. And for that, Germany and the Germans deserve our special thanks and respect.

Turnout

The problem of voter turnout at European elections is debated ad nauseam every 5 years. And every 5 years, we get the same, tired old arguments. The fundamental problem with this debate is that there is no agreement on what the problem really is. In other words, the problem is that defining the problem is problematic. This is important because we can't find solutions until we know what problem it is we are trying to solve.

Let's look at the candidates. The problem is:

1. The low level of turnout

2. The fact that turnout is falling

3. The causes of low turnout



1. The problem is the low level of turnout.

I don't really buy this. Lots of strong democracies around the world have low voter turnout at elections. Low turnout does not per se threaten democratic government. Some countries (Belgium is among them) take the view that voting is a duty as well as a right, and make voting obligatory, so turnout is always high. They are not stronger democracies for it. Indeed, there is intuitively someting to be said for the argument that high voter turnout is a negative reflection on how the voters feel they are being governed. Iran is a good example. Turnout has suddenly spiked - not because Iranian democracy is fundamentally healthier and stronger than it ever has been, but arguably for the exact opposite reason. In the French presidential election before the last one, turnout rose dramatically when it became clear that there was a risk that Jean-Marie Le Pen would be elected. Again, high turnout was associated with a problem, and not with enthusiasm for Jaques Chirac. I am not saying that high turnout is always to be seen in a negative context, but it is clearly simplistic to say that high is good and low is bad.



2. The problem is the fact that turnout is falling.

This makes more sense because there is meaning in the trend, but is not all that convincing either, because it boils down to a similar argument about low turnout being undesirable.



3. The problem is the causes of low turnout.

Ah, but what are those causes? I can think of four, or perhaps five, main lines of inquiry:

a) Are voters so satisfied with the way they are governed that they don't see the point in voting?

b) Are voters so dissatisfied with the way they are governed that they protest by not voting?

c) Are voters so ignorant of the importance of European elections that they don't see the point in voting?

d) Are voters, whether satisfied or dissatisfied or ignorant, so convinced that their vote will not make a difference that they don't see the point in voting?

e) Are voters so bored by European elections that they don't want to vote?



a) is an argument that doesn't get much in the way of media coverage, but is worth taking a look at. It does seem possible that in some countries, where support for EU membership is very high (especially new Member States), voters don't want much to change and therefore aren't motivated to vote. It must be remembered that voting is not a long-entrenched social habit in many of these countries, and that they have been through two generations of a political regime that did not encourage political activism. Voter turnout rose during the years of political strife that accompanied the fall of the system. Could it be that old Communist-era habits are returning, encouraged by the new-found comfort and stability of EU membership? I am not convinced by such arguments, because it seems to me that they boil down to d) rather than a). After all, you might just as well argue that people who are happy with the way they are governed would be expected to vote for the status quo.



b) is the argument that gets most attention in the media. Low turnout, we are constantly told, is a reflection of the poor regard in which the EU is held. As a protest against the EU, people don't vote, or vote anti-EU - hence the rise of the BNP, UKIP and Conservative vote in the UK, for example. But this argument, while intuitive, seems to me to be just as flawed as a). As shown by the Iranian and French examples, a serious crisis of government would result not in low turnout, but in a spike in turnout. People vote most when they want real change. Real change is not achieved by abstention. The political message sent by voter apathy is apt to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by politicians bent on achieving their political ends. Voters know this, and will send clear messages in times of crisis.



It is hard to deny the truth of c). Voters don't know much about the EU system. They don't understand what role the European Parliament plays in that system. This seems likely to be partly because of the complexity of that system, but partly also because of the failure of politicians and the media to explain the importance of the elections to voters. However, I am not left satisfied with this argument either. If voters voted more when they understood the system better, then why do they vote in U.S. presidential elections, with the ludicrous electoral college system? Why do they vote in Iran, with its unfathomably complex political system? In my mind, this argument is really powerful only when linked with d).



So d) also has an undeniable element of truth to it. Voters will be much more likely to vote if they believe that their vote can make a difference. This is the dynamic that drove the Chirac landslide vs Le Pen and drove Iranians to vote for change in their tens of millions. And totalitarian systems tend to produce apathetic voters, because there is no realistic prospect that the elections will change the system. But this argument is not sufficient by itself either. Firstly, the EU is clearly not a totalitarian system. Furher, why, then, did voters in Iran not vote in such great numbers in earlier elections? Indeed, does a vote for the president of Iran really make a big difference to the system? In France, why did voters not vote in the earlier round of the presidential election?



To me, e) is the most convincing argument. Voters will vote when there is something exciting going on - a change in government, an extremist to kick out of office, an exciting new Obama figure inspiring hope and promising a fresh approach. As shown by these examples, excitement is not always about supporting a popular incumbent or system. It can just as easily be a negative reaction. And excitement is not dependent on lots of information, or a realistic chance of change. Excitement is intangible and not scientifically measurable. It is emotional, human. And the failure to produce excitement lies not with the structural flaws of the EU system, or with the security that comes from EU membership, or voter ignorance. It lies with those whose functions are capable of producing excitement: politicians and the media.



In summary, if low voter turnout is a problem (and I think this is not as clear as it seems to be to many), then the cause is not one that can be easily identified. Commentators are always eager to explain the motivations of voters, but rarely take a systematic approach to analysing the problem or its causes. These will be different for different countries, and indeed, for different individuals. But I have not seen any press reports of low turnout in countries that nonetheless experienced a high degree of public excitement about the elections. Until we have politicians who can inspire us and media that are willing to break with the tradition of talking down European elections, we will doubtless continue to have low turnout, and more depressingly, the rather pointless and sterile debates that go along with it.

Polish Plumbers Apply Here!

The Polish plumber was the bogeyman of European politics for the two years that the Services Directive was going through co-decision in the EU institutions, coinciding with the accession of Poland and seven other former Communist Bloc countries - perhaps not quite a hate figure, but certainly feared as the symbol of Eastern European workers coming to Western Europe to "take our jobs", working for East European wages. The Polish tourist board outflanked French trade unionists by using humour and publishing the now-famous poster of a hunky, wrench-toting, pipe-wielding Polish plumber addressing French lady tourists saying, "Je reste en Pologne. Venez nombreux!"

At the time, the argument went something like this: Polish plumbers will come in large numbers to "old" EU countries like France and Germany, will price local competitors out of the market, and will not contribute a penny to local taxes. This has all been proved to be nonsense by the UK and Ireland, which have no successfully hosted several hundred thousand Polish workers (not just plumbers), of whom the overwhelming majority pay taxes and fill labour shortages. Most EU Member States took advantage of a "phase-in period" for the freedom of movement for workers from the new Member States, and have seen very limited immigration. Germany and Austria retain these controls. What immigration there has been there seems to be part of the grey economy, with the workers legally present in the countries, but working illegally.

And now we have the German government acknowledging a skills shortage in Germany, and calling for immigration from the East to be made easier. Great! Let's all gloat at the Germans and say how pleased we all are that they were wrong. And wrong they undoubtedly were. But is it really that simple?

Now, I'm not an economist, but I know for a fact that Poland is facing severe shortages of skilled construction workers, and yes, plumbers! Word is, you can't get hold of a decent plumber anymore, because all the best, most enterprising ones, have moved West. Can it really be that good for Poland to lose large numbers of its best and brightest? Sure, it makes the government's drive to cut unemployment much easier - the stats are good even taking into account the fact that many who are working abroad are claiming unemployment benefits at home.

There seems to be a consensus that most of the emigration is temporary, that workers are sending money home and will return when the Polish economy begins to catch up. That may be the case, but in the meantime, Poland and some of the other new Member States are making do with shortages of their own.

Shouldn't this really be about addressing the need for better education and training in all EU countries, rather than moving skilled workers from low-wage countries to high-wage countries? Isn't the issue here that all EU countries need these workers, and aren't we making a mistake if we seek to solve the problem only through labour mobility?

Don't get me wrong - I am not in favour of closing the borders. But I don't see governments addressing this in a way that is sustainable for Europe - the German government has little interest in what's happening in Poland; it wants to find the easiest way to fix the skills shortage. Shouldn't policy be more consistently directed at addressing the underlying structural problem?

I don't know. Maybe national governments are taking this seriously and are doing lots to increase the skills of the local labour force, and the media aren't reporting on it. But I have my doubts.

I have a confession to make: I have used a Polish plumber, a Polish handyman, and a Polish-owned Belgian construction company here in Brussels. They are competitive on price, especially for the small jobs, and they do good work. By contrast, my experiences with Belgian plumbers have invariably been negative: rude, incompetent, late, untidy, and expensive. The Poles are "incontournable" in Brussels, but I expect the locals still rule the roost outside the big city.