Reform of EU relies on member states’ ability to compromise

COMPROMISE is at the heart of the EU. But this presents problems for all participants. When you are promising to reform the Union into an open and transparent entity, reaching a compromise can be even more difficult.

A country has to make a strong case and look as though it is not willing to deviate from it. This means creating as much noise and making as many threatening gestures as possible.

When each side has the measure of the other, the bargaining begins. And out of this a compromise is reached. The problem is a country must also convince its public it means what it says. Expectations are raised and the population stands behind the arguments.

It is difficult for a country to debate the possibility of compromise in public as it cannot afford to give much away to those with whom it is negotiating. However, when it explores the possibilities and comes within sight of a deal, it faces having to convince its public it is time to lay down arms and agree a compromise.

One example of this is the Poles, who are in the process of marshalling their troops and marching them down to the bottom of the hill again. The Polish government constantly warned their farmers would not accept the EU deal on membership. In the end, they got a little extra and must now convince their farmers and supporters they have won enough to merit a yes vote to EU membership.

The Irish are in a similar position. Having promised an EU that goes so far and no further during the campaign for a yes vote in the last Nice referendum, the Government is worried its actions might appear to deviate from this. At the same time, the Government has to operate in the real world where the country’s interests and the future lies in forming more common ties with the rest of Europe.

The Convention on the Future of Europe has been an excellent melting pot. Initially, the Irish Government wanted to ignore it in case it would scare Nice referendum voters. Then its attitude was that, irrespective of what the Convention decided, the leaders of the 15 member states would make the real decisions.

Now, as a Constitution evolves and finds considerable support among the other members, the Government has become properly involved.

It is now hinting it may be willing to debate even taboo subjects and depending on what is on offer, compromise on them. Any suggestion in public that this is the case results in denials. But the signs are there. Ireland’s answer to everything has been to run for the veto. But over the months the list of veto issues has been narrowing. The issues are mainly taxation, foreign policy, defence and the role of the Commission and the Council in the EU.

The tax issue has been narrowed down to an absolute refusal to budge on what the country charges companies, and this is likely to remain the bottom line for Ireland.

Foreign policy is narrowing too with an acknowledgement by Foreign Minister Brian Cowen that we will retain rights over any area of foreign policy we deem to be important to the national interest. National interest tends to be a moveable feast and can be weighed against other interests live at the time.

Defence boils down to our interpretation of neutrality and do we leave EU defence issues to a group of the more militaristic countries of the EU outside the control of the rest of the Union?

Finally, there is the question of who rules the EU. Ireland, like the rest of the smaller countries, is anxious to keep the Commission as the overall authority. The issue is how to do this. If the bigger states do not get more of a say the EU could become fractured permanently.

A compromise will be reached and the signs from the Irish Government is that it is willing to help shape this compromise. However, the Government is afraid of moving faster than it believes its citizens might be willing to. This means they have an important job to do in the country as well as in the EU.