Euroscepticism

Euroscepticism has become a general term for opposition to the process of European integration. It originated in the United Kingdom, and at first referred to those within the Labour Party and Conservative Party who were sceptical of their parties’ official support for UK membership of the then European Economic Community. Since then, the meaning has expanded, to cover most opposition to the European Union, to its policies, to the introduction of the euro, and to any future pan-European entity in the form of a superstate, a federation, or a confederation. The term entered other European languages as a loan word or calque, for instance Europaskepsis in German.

Euroscepticism is often associated with support for the nation-state and for national sovereignty, and is typically motivated by concern that the “ever closer union” enshrined in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome will erode that sovereignty. However euroscepticism, as an umbrella term, is not a single ideology, and eurosceptics differ on both their vision of Europe and on the manner in which it is perceived to fail. Thus, for instance, some seek a different form of European “Union” (with perhaps a new name), some seek reversal of the process of European integration, some seek withdrawal of their own country from the EU, whilst others seek the complete dissolution of the EU. Some see EU politics as highly bureaucratic and undemocratic and therefore want change within the EU rather than its dissolution.

Eurosceptic influences on European politics

Euroscepticism was at first stronger in Northern Europe. The UK, Sweden, and Denmark, for example, declined full participation in the Economic and Monetary Union. Non-members Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, especially the German-speaking cantons, were reluctant to expand ties with the EU or accept membership. In recent years, euroscepticism has grown in the new EU member states in central and eastern Europe, and even in Turkey, which is still a long way from EU membership.

According to Eurobarometer surveys, fewer than 3 in 10 citizens of Sweden and just over 4 in 10 citizens in the UK feel their countries have benefited from membership of the EU. Most continental European countries tend to be more pro-EU, although eurosceptic movements exist in all European countries in some form. Among the new member states who acceded in 2004, the Czech Republic is the most eurosceptic.

Euroscepticism is likely to have been a factor (at least in part) of:

The Republic of Ireland's unwillingness to join the Schengen Agreement (this more likely due to the UK not joining, and the land border with Northern Ireland).^{[citation needed]}
the French and Dutch rejection of the European Constitution by referendums held in 2005
the Norwegian rejection of EU membership, on both occasions
the Swiss rejection of membership in the European Economic Area
the initial Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty (later approved)
the Danish rejection of the euro
the Irish rejection of the Nice Treaty^{[citation needed]} in the first referendum (later approved). See Ireland’s “No” Vote^{[citation needed]}, (it is debatable as to whether or not this was euroscepticism)
the Swedish rejection of the euro in the national referendum on September 14 2003
the fact that Iceland has never applied for membership
the fact that Greenland chose not to remain in the EU (then the EEC) when it was granted home rule by Denmark in 1979
the United Kingdom’s unwillingness to be a part of the Schengen Agreement or the Economic and Monetary Union as well as its continued reluctence with regards to the euro.

Eurosceptic issues

The issues on which eurosceptics focus vary from country to country.

In European countries outside the EU, eurosceptics focus attention on the perceived disadvantages of Union membership; for instance, in the case of Norway, the greatest concern is the effect of the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. In those countries which are already members, but have chosen to retain independent currencies (the United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden), eurosceptics focus on the disadvantages of euro membership as well as on other aspects of involvement with the EU. Some arguments against the Economic and Monetary Union are built on complaints that the Growth and Stability Pact has been inconsistently applied, and on the recent underperformance of the eurozone when compared with those economies that have chosen to remain outside.

While many eurosceptics take issue with particular characteristics of the EU as it stands, some maintain in principle that the very concept of the EU is an invention of bureaucrats seeking to create a bureaucratic and undemocratic superstate.

Centralisation

Eurosceptics oppose the idea of a centralised European superstate, a United States of Europe akin to the United States of America, which many see as the inevitable outcome of current integrationist trends. This is a perception disputed by some, but by no means all, pro-Europeans.

Compromising sovereignty

Eurosceptics often disagree with current or proposed measures that they see as compromising national sovereignties, including:

the proposed European Rapid Reaction Force
the draft European Constitution
the proposed establishing of a European Public Prosecutor, or the establishing of Eurojust
any extension of Europol to include enforcement powers
harmonising taxation or welfare benefits
reduction to the number of policy areas subject to agreement by unanimity in the European Council, where each country may veto proposed legislation

Eurosceptics often propose either radical modifications to the structure of the EU, including more influence for national parliaments, or the withdrawal of their country from the Union altogether.

Harmonising of justice and home affairs

Eurosceptics generally consider the harmonising of criminal justice systems in Europe unnecessary. They dispute pro-Europeans’ claims that enhanced judicial co-operation could provide additional protection against terrorists or organised criminal gangs. They believe that moves towards centralised decisions on issues of justice and law are examples of the EU’s lack of choice and poor cultural awareness.^{[citation needed]}

While most^[who?] eurosceptics acknowledge that all current systems of justice in the EU offer adequate protection despite their differences, others,^[who?] including members of the British Parliament,^{[citation needed]} contend that common law systems of justice are incompatible with civil law systems which, according to them, do not provide enough protections with respect to presumption of innocence and other guarantees. (These guarantees, however, are laid out in the European Convention of Human Rights, which all EU members must sign.)

Eurosceptics in the European Parliament

In 2004, 37 MEPs from the UK, Poland, Denmark and Sweden founded a new European Parliament group called “Independence and Democracy” from the old Europe of Democracies and Diversities (EDD) group. The main goals of this group are to reject the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe and to oppose further European integration. Some delegations within the group, notably the United Kingdom Independence Party, advocate the complete withdrawal of their country from the EU.

The group’s leaders are Nigel Farage of UKIP (10 MEPs) and Jens Peter Bonde of Denmark.

The right-wing Union for Europe of the Nations Group is also eurosceptic as are some parties within the left-wing Confederal Group of the European United Left—Nordic Green Left and the European Greens - European Free Alliance. The UK’s largely eurosceptic Conservative Party are currently part of the European People's Party–European Democrats grouping in the European Parliament, which has mainly a pro-European agenda. However the party is currently committed to withdrawing from the EPP as soon as a new grouping, to be entitled Movement for European Reform, can recruit enough members to be viable.

Euroscepticism in France

1970s

In 1978, Jacques Chirac, a rival of then president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, published the Call of Cochin in which he clearly alluded to Giscard’s party as the “party of the foreigners.” Giscard is a well-known pro-European.

Recent events

On the left of the political spectrum, the Parti des Travailleurs, Jean-Pierre Chevènement and the French Communist Party are eurosceptic. They see the European Union as a means through which unpopular economic measures of free markets, free trade, the gradual demolition of public services and Social security and increasing technocracy, all of which they see as part of a right-wing agenda, are imposed on the French public. The Left is split along similar lines on the topic of the proposed European Constitution: the Communist Party, and parts of the Socialist Party, oppose the Constitution as carving “ultra-libéral” free market policies in stone; but the majority of the Socialist party considers the constitution an improvement, according to an internal vote.

On the right, Jean-Marie Le Pen (Front National) and Philippe de Villiers are eurosceptic. They are against compromising French independence and the possible integration into the European Union of countries that they contend are not European in essence, such as Turkey. Le Pen is also opposed to the Common Agricultural Policy and would rather have protectionist measures against imports of foreign agricultural products into France, and other imports as well. While the integration of Turkey was supported by former president Jacques Chirac, it is opposed by many, including 2007-elected president Nicolas Sarkozy.

Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom

The debate around euroscepticism has been a major political issue in the United Kingdom since the inception of the European Union (then the European Economic Community or EEC), and has not reduced significantly following UK membership of the Union.

The appropriate use of the term eurosceptic is sometimes disputed by those on both sides^[who?] of the pro-/anti-EU debate. Eurosceptics who feel that their position should emphasise a desire for greater national and parliamentary independence over specific criticisms of the EU^[who?] sometimes argue that the positive-sounding antonym pro-European contrasts with the more negative eurosceptic, giving a rhetorical advantage to those who advocate European integration.

In order to avoid this, euro-realist has been coined as an alternative. However, in recent years this term has sometimes come to denote^[who?] a milder form of euroscepticism, according to which it is not necessarily in countries’ interests to withdraw from the EU or disband it completely, but rather to modify its structure to some extent.

Other synonyms that are sometimes encountered include euro-critic and the much more pejorative europhobe.^{[citation needed]} The simple adjective anti-EU can also be used, although in most cases this is not a synonym since many British eurosceptics do not seek for the UK to leave the EU, only for the pushing for considerable reform of the EUs organisations.

Many^[who?] eurosceptics disapprove of the term pro-Europeans to denote their opponents. They maintain that their pro-democracy ideology is more “pro-Europe” than the federalist position. They prefer to call their opponents “europhiles” or euro-fantics and their philosophy as pro-EU, federalist (cf. the f word), integrationist or euro-centralist.

Many British eurosceptics are opposed to metrication, which they see as an EU imposition.^{[citation needed]}^[1]. The United Kingdom Independence Party is currently the largest offically Eurosceptic political party in the United Kingdom.

Euroscepticism in central and eastern Europe

One common argument^[who?] raised by eurosceptics in the new EU member states from Central Europe is that the European Union’s bureaucracy and perceived socialist tendencies may be sustainable for mature Western European economies, but will bring the still fragile post-communist economies to a grinding halt. These viewpoints have often been encouraged when governments tried to excuse increases to the fiscal burden as harmonising law with EU requirements, even when those laws had not been introduced for old EU member countries. Pro-Europeans argue the increased regulatory burden is feasible through post-accession increased economic growth, and that now inside the EU they will be able to help reform it.

Other issues include the need for new entrants to initiate EU-level border controls with non-accession neighbours. This has a big impact on Poland’s border with Ukraine. The introduction of the EU’s visa regime has often greatly reduced cross-border trade with these neighbours, thus bankrupting many small family business in one of the poorest regions of Poland. Some consider Poland’s joining the EU to be an act of disloyalty towards Ukraine, ultimately pushing the latter further into the Russian sphere of influence. Many economists believe that, on a country wide level, these disadvantages will eventually be offset by the freedom to travel and do business across the EU, though the benefits may be distributed unequally.

Other criticisms of the European Union are related to its inability to prevent the recent increase in ethnic nationalism across Eastern Europe; the example of Kosovo is often cited. The EU is sometimes accused of trying to impose models that worked in the Western European countries without any regard for the different reality of Eastern European life, and it is claimed that this approach produces more problems than it solves.

Some Romanians, Slovaks and Croatians claim that Hungarian irredentists have found a new platform built by the European Union in Eastern Europe. Alleged irredentist Hungarian politicians are claimed to be helped by European regulations in involving themselves in the internal affairs of neighbouring countries. The main practice denounced is that Hungary is trying use the legitimate concept of ethnic minority rights in order to promote various forms (mostly subtle) of revanchism in the region. The claim is supported by Hungary’s amending the status law trying to redefine the idea of nation and extending special economic, social and cultural benefits to ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring states (Romania, Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine), who had objected to the law in 2001. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), a body of the Council of Europe, was called in by Romania and criticised the Hungarian initiative.

Euroscepticism from religious groups

The EU has received strong criticism from members of some religious groups, most notably evangelical Christians with dispensationalist views. [1]They complain that the EU is rooted too strongly in secular humanism and undermines traditional Christianity with its policies. Some go as far to describe the EU as the beginnings of the one-world empire allegedly foretold in Bible prophecy. According to their interpretation of the Apocalypse, it is believed that such an empire will eventually be led by a single ruler, the Antichrist. Arguments for this view include a perceived occultic significance of EU symbolism[2], an allegedly “un-Christian” nature of EU policies[3], the refusal to mention the Christian God in official documents[4] and the effort to encourage the people of Europe to reject their national identity in favour of a European one. Also the Polish religious group known as the Radio Maryja Family, and led by Father Rydzyk, strongly opposed the EU.

References

^ UK Independence Party Manifesto for the 2001 General Election

External links

Studies of public opinion

Eurosceptic sites

Euroscepticism rebuttals

[1] UK Independence Party Manifesto for the 2001 General Election

[1]