Leaders | Europe’s angry voters

Bucked off

Europe’s leaders need to cut the power of Brussels in many areas, but in some they need to extend it

“DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe…” proclaims the Treaty of Rome that began the European project in 1957. When the history of the European Union is written, 2014 will very probably come to be seen as an equally significant date, for this was the year that Europe’s voters told its leaders to abandon the noble aspiration that launched the venture more than half a century earlier and has shaped its policies ever since.

Even though a big anti-European vote had been expected, the scale of it still came as a shock. In France Marine Le Pen’s National Front (FN) came top with 25% of the vote. The UK Independence Party (UKIP) did better still, with 27%. Almost 40% of the vote in Greece went to broadly Eurosceptic or avowedly racist parties. As many as 30% of the seats in the next European Parliament will be held by anti-establishment and/or anti-European parties. Manuel Valls, the French prime minister, was right to speak afterwards of a political “earthquake”.

Prosperity v democracy

The direct political consequences may not in themselves be hugely significant. Within the European Parliament, the populists will probably squabble so much that the pro-European 70% can continue in their usual consensual way. But the longer-term ramifications could be enormous. Europe faces the possibility that Britain—whose ruling Conservatives have promised a referendum on EU membership after the next election—will pull out. The EU might survive a British withdrawal; but if France elected an anti-European of Ms Le Pen’s ilk and pulled out, that would be the end of it.

Muddling through, the typical Brussels response to crises, is not an option this time, for if the EU does not change voluntarily, voters will force change upon it. To respond to their hostility, Europe’s leaders need first to examine the reasons for it.

Nationalism is clearly a factor. The message that voters do not want foreigners telling them what to do was broadcast loud and clear from the platforms of parties such as UKIP and the FN, and this is not the first rejectionist vote. The French and Dutch threw out the draft EU constitution in 2005 and the Irish rejected its replacement, the Lisbon treaty, in 2008 before being asked to vote again.

Hostility to immigration is another motive. Most of the anti-EU parties are also against foreigners. Resentment of the EU has risen since it expanded eastwards, and workers from those poorer countries moved westwards.

Finally, economics is a big driver of discontent. It is notable that the French, whose leaders have no solution to their stagnation, are far angrier than the Germans, whose economy is recovering nicely. Britain may be growing now, but the fact that its economy shrank so sharply in the aftermath of the crisis helps explain the grumpiness with its government.

There are two solutions to Europe’s problems: economic prosperity and increased democracy, which basically means returning power to the states and institutions that voters trust. The two aims often coincide, but not always.

There are plenty of areas of national life in which Brussels should interfere less. Much unnecessary red tape should be torn up and many regulations scrapped. Freedom to fix many detailed social and employment rules—parental leave, working time and so on—should be handed back to national governments. The European Parliament’s powers should be reduced, and national parliaments given more say in EU legislation. At least initially, such reforms can be made without the lengthy (and risky) business of treaty change.

But prosperity and democracy clash in two areas. The first is immigration. Yes, countries should be freer to clamp down on “welfare tourism”, a particular source of anger: rules can be tightened to make it harder for immigrants to claim benefits. And poorer new EU applicants could be subject to even longer transition periods when free movement is limited. But the “four freedoms” of movement of goods, services, capital and labour underpin Europe’s single market. To junk any one of these would not only call into question the point of the enterprise, but also reinforce the economic stagnation that is a big reason for the current discontent.

The single market provides the second set of conflicts. In some areas—labour-market flexibility, for instance—“less Brussels” will help growth. But not all. The euro crisis showed that the euro zone needs a banking union, which centralises a lot of power. And the best hope of growth lies in expanding the single market. The next commission needs to remove blockages to trade in services, energy and the digital economy. More free-trade deals, starting with America, are another priority. Opening up Europe’s economy will annoy some voters (and scare some politicians); but the alternative—years of economic stagnation—will doom the project anyway.

The quest for leadership

It may be, as Eurosceptics argue, that Europe cannot change. But the initial reaction from national leaders has been encouraging. Germany’s Angela Merkel and the present commission president, José Manuel Barroso, have both called on the commission to do less. France’s François Hollande says the EU is too remote and must scale back its power. Italy’s Matteo Renzi has won backing for reform. David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister, has been demanding a reduction in the powers of Brussels for years, while campaigning for a broader single market. Europe’s other leaders would do well to adopt his ideas—and then pretend they did not come from Britain.

The first job is to appoint a new president of the European Commission prepared to implement radical change. The continuity (and federalist) candidate, Luxembourg’s Jean-Claude Juncker, used to have Mrs Merkel’s support. But she seems to have realised that doing nothing is not an option. Our choice would be Christine Lagarde, the French boss of the IMF, a clever, brave outsider, who knows how to take on vested interests. With Ms Lagarde as president, Britain would be more likely to stay in. If the EU is to survive, it will need that sort of leadership. And its survival really is in question now.

This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "Bucked off"

A world to conquer

From the May 31st 2014 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

Discover more

Oil’s endgame could be highly disruptive

The oil shocks of the future will be driven by demand, not supply

The Gulf’s scramble for Africa is reshaping the continent

Its increased influence brings economic rewards and political risks


Making sense of the gulf between young men and women

It’s complicated. But better schooling for boys might help