Economic-union Books

Stephen Wall worked in the Foreign Office's European Communities Department from 1983 to 1988, was Private Secretary to successive Foreign Secretaries from 1988 to 1993, Ambassador to Portugal 1993 to 1995, Ambassador to the EU from 1995 to 2000 and Blair's senior adviser on the EU from 2000 to 2004. As he writes, "It is undoubtedly true that the Foreign Office has, since the 1960s, been a pro-European department." Since retiring he has worked for `Britain in Europe'. So we know what to expect from this book.

He writes that John Major saw national sovereignty as a `commodity to be used for national advantage, not some untouchable heirloom to be hoarded at all costs' and that this `has been the policy pursued ever since'. This exposes the bipartisan policy of selling our sovereignty piece by piece.

He admits that Economic and Monetary Union, which he passionately supported, `was a step towards a federal Europe'. Even now, he claims that the EU's disastrous Exchange Rate Mechanism was good for us and he sneers at the `self-righteousness' of those who opposed our joining it.

He notes that Thatcher, Major and Blair all back the EU - truly part of the ruling class consensus. So also is the belief that Thatcher was `an undoubtedly great Prime Minister', as he puts it.

He laments that Britain is a `stranger in Europe' because of `the lack of deep-seated public support in Britain for the European project'. He believes that this is because governments, for some unknown reason, have done too little to explain to the British people the true nature of the European project. Obviously, we are too stupid to understand the sublime intentions of our dear leaders.

He describes the Danish people's vote against the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 as the `failure' of their referendum. He clearly thinks that it would be folly to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution.

Who needs democracy when we have superb mandarins like Wall to think for us? Who needs sovereignty when the wonderful EU will do everything for us?

Simon Hix is the Professor of European and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He chaired a working group for the Cabinet Office during the Convention drawing up the EU Constitution.

Hix sees three problems with the EU: policy gridlock, lack of popular legitimacy and the democratic deficit. He notes, "In substantive terms ... the EU is closer to a form of enlightened despotism than a genuine democracy." Yet he calls its political design 'pure genius'. He also thinks that 'the US has an ideal political-economic model', which gives some idea of his political nous.

In response to the EU's problems, he proposes to change the European Parliament's procedures for choosing its president and committee chairs, to make the Council's proceedings more open to the public, and to have a more open contest for the Commission's president. He explains patronisingly that through these reforms, "citizens will begin to understand and engage with EU politics."

He also mentions that the EU is 'a driving force of global economic and political integration'. He calls for the liberalisation of labour markets, welfare states, public services and energy industries, although he admits 'the downward pressures on public spending, corporate tax rates and wages that result from market integration and liberalisation'. He notes, "one group in society that has benefited enormously from European integration is the economic, political and social elite."

His proposed reforms completely ignore these economic realities, but these, not the EU's institutional failings, explain why public support for the EU has fallen since the early 1990s to just 50% across the EU and 30% in Britain.

Hix rejects the Lisbon Treaty, writing that "the new treaty reforms are unlikely to bring the EU closer to the citizens, and may even undermine the legitimacy of the EU further if a second attempt to ratify a new treaty is rejected. And, even if the new treaty is ratified and eventually enters into force, the minor institutional changes are not significant enough to enable the EU to overcome policy gridlock or make the EU more democratically accountable." But his minor procedural changes would do no better.

Of course, like all EU fans, he opposes referendums, calling them 'a crude and ineffectual mechanism for expressing citizens' preferences on policy issues'. Hardly ineffectual - the Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty indeed 'undermined the legitimacy of the EU' - in fact it has changed everything.