Book Offer
This will close in 10 seconds
The European Union is desperate, apparently, to formulate a common policy on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas which is playing out in the Gaza Strip. In the debate over a statement, which is ongoing as I write this piece, there is dispute between those (like Ireland, naturally) who wish to call for a ceasefire of indefinite duration, and those like Germany and Austria who do not wish to tell the Israelis how to conduct their affairs.
Notably, in the debate, nobody appears to be asking a basic question: Why should the EU have a common position at all?
For a country like Ireland, the answer is obvious: Getting the EU to call for a ceasefire (which, I suspect, will prove impossible – some word like “pause” will be used instead) is evidence of our diplomatic clout – a force multiplier of sorts that makes little old Ireland’s voice suddenly speak with the force of the world’s third-largest economic bloc. And yet the truth of it is that on the flip side, Ireland will continue to insist that the EU doesn’t speak for it if and when the “joint statement” doesn’t actually reflect Irish values.
After all, were the EU to vote for a statement urging Israel to quickly launch a ground invasion, and bomb Hamas to smithereens, it is unlikely that President Higgins would simply refer journalists to the joint EU position. The Joint EU position will be respected if we agree with it, ignored if we do not. It will have moral authority if journalists agree with it, and be a disgraceful moral fudge if they do not.
In this sense, the idea of a common EU foreign policy is just that: An idea. In practice, across the continent, European Leaders will continue to volubly stand with Israel, and the Irish Government with some allies in Spain and other left wing governed countries will continue to volubly stand against it. The Israelis will ignore it either way.
What it all comes back to is the contradiction of the European Union: It has all the architecture of a superstate, but none of the public buy-in. So, aping Washington DC, its leaders gather in a great congress and its representatives in a great parliament to formulate statements on global events that, in truth, have neither moral power or political force behind them. The EU lacks an armed force to enforce its will, or the economic power (as a unitary entity) to make much of a difference. The elections in Germany and France still have vastly more significance in shaping world affairs than the European elections do.
It comes back to the old problem: European politics exists, but a European polity does not. Brussels remains the only city on earth where a meaningful section of the population, almost all on the EU payroll, would unironically refer to themselves as “Europeans first”. Everyone else is a German, or a Slovakian, or an Estonian. Or, indeed, an Irish person.
In Ireland, though, there’s the added wrinkle in that many people have come to believe – almost alone amongst Europeans – that the EU “speaks for them”. This is why, I think, there was such irrational anger at Ursula Von Der Leyen’s visit to Tel Aviv two weeks ago: Because for once, the figurehead of a Union representing 600million EU citizens was not “speaking for Ireland”. Brexit might have spoiled us, in this regard.
But the truth is that on a whole range of issues, Irish people should come to realise that the more powerful the EU becomes, the less it will “speak for them”. Ireland is already a significant outlier on neutrality, for example. On Ukraine, despite all our efforts to paper over the obvious cracks, the EU does not speak for Ireland. Were the common will of the EU to be enacted in a vote of the member states, there is no doubt that Ireland would be contributing military aid to Kiev on foot of a directive from Brussels. There is no doubt that our policy towards China would be more hostile. There is no doubt that our corporate taxes would be higher.
In all of these areas, there is no practical consequence of any kind to the “common EU position”. That common position is simply a case of the EU playing at statehood, expressing what it would do if those in Brussels who seek a superstate got their way. It’s basically a grown-up version of the model UN.
But there’s a lesson for Ireland here nevertheless: This is a country that loves to delude itself about the scale and breadth of its diplomatic influence, which, in truth, stems solely from the number of Irish emigres in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. In the European Union, on matters of world affairs, our voice is very much an outlier. And the common EU position is very rarely going to be the Irish position.
If we want further integration, we’d be best get used to that.
This will close in 10 seconds