The new European Constitution could fairly be seen as primarily a codification of existing Treaty commitments rather than the invention of a new constitutional order. However, its progress now appears to have been derailed for the foreseeable future, though complaints are regularly made that many of its provisions are being quietly effected nonetheless. Some Christians expressed particular regret at the refusal to incorporate a declaration relating to the Christian heritage within Europe. Others remain more concerned at the expanding competence of the European Union (EU), that is the increased areas of public policy, which are now decided by EU institutions, along with its lack of democratic accountability and its generally secular tone.
It is important to recognise the achievements of the European Union (noting incidentally its Christian Democratic origins) especially in holding together the major powers within Europe rather than allowing them to drift towards hostility and war, as occurred with devastating effect three times in the century before the European Economic Community was founded, and acting as an effective bulwark against the Soviet Union. That the EU is now bringing together countries that have throughout most of the post war period been engaged in a cold war should be a further cause for thanks.
Some of the hostility towards the EU within Britain arises from unworthy xenophobism. While it is reasonable to argue that Britain has on the whole made a remarkably successful adjustment from great power status, this process (frequently referred to as ‘decline’) has undoubtedly left a legacy of anxiety and a sense of frustration in some quarters. Would that the world was different, more as it used to be, with Great Britain still fairly effortlessly a great power! This frustration can perhaps too readily become focussed on the European Union.
Given the geo-political factors of the European continent and a world where globalisation has become so powerful a force, it is hard to imagine Britain not being a leading participant in the European Union. But Britain can and should seek to shape the development of the European Union. In particular, the extent to which the powers of the EU government have grown disproportionately to the growth in accountability of that government is a matter of very real concern. The EU has a serious democratic and procedural deficit.
The UK has been reluctant to push for greater democratic accountability because to do so would be seen as acquiescing in the development of a ‘federal’ Europe, one where European institutions became more prominent than national institutions. The concern in the UK for our allegedly ‘sovereign’ Parliament has made the UK reluctant to support greater power and legitimacy for the EU parliament, not least because of its perceived lack of responsibility and accountability.
There are signs that this is changing, however. What is desirable is much more serious scrutiny of EU policies, both at the national and European levels of government. The new EU constitution offered to MPs an enhanced role in policing subsidiarity (the principle that decisions should be taken at the closest possible level to the people, for example in national governments rather than at EU level, or at regional or local level rather than at national level). Parliament needs to seize appropriate opportunities for greater genuine scrutiny within the Commons of EU policy, which has for long been inhibited by those who would use every opportunity for scrutiny to re-run basic arguments about EU membership.
Some EU directives and some decisions of the European Court of Justice have caused particular disquiet among Christians within the UK. It is important that such matters be vigorously contested, using means of accountability available at both national and European levels. There is no point in demonising the EU as if it was a conspiracy designed to subvert decent democratic and even Christian governments. There has been a recurring tendency for Britain to ‘gold-plate’ EU directives, and more assiduous scrutiny could curtail this.
The fact that the new EU constitution did not contain any declaration or acknowledgement of the Christian heritage in Europe understandably pained many Christians. We should certainly seek to draw attention to the Christian heritage that has done so much to shape the culture of this continent and the EU itself. And we would wish that influence to continue, guided in its expression by a declaration that provides an appropriately Christian based philosophical lens through which major policy issues can be viewed. But we should remember that Christian influence must be seen in deeds as well as expressed in words, and we have no right to advocate the latter without giving substance to the former. One should therefore be cautious about attributing too much significance either to the inclusion or the exclusion of such a declaration. Though many do not, some national constitutions do contain such a declaration, but the practical or even symbolic effect of their inclusion or exclusion is very dubious.
