Opinion
Without the law there would be no European Union
Go to any introductory lecture on the European Union and you will hear phrases such as 'unique experiment,' 'international co-operation,' 'rule of law.'
Indeed the whole concept of what has become today's EU was founded upon the simple idea that if the conduct of nations could be voluntarily regulated by law, then there would be no further need for war.
Join EUobserver today
Get the EU news that really matters
Instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.
Choose your plan
... or subscribe as a group
Already a member?
From this grew the idea of a 'community' of nations pooling their sovereignty and subjecting themselves to a legal discipline the better to achieve those national objectives best realised within a common framework.
Member states even agreed to give 'European' law precedence over their own; there wouldn't be any point in having common laws if nations could pick and choose which they obeyed.
As the Union has developed so the volume of European law has grown; disproportionately so, say the critics. It has become fashionable to decry that so much legislation - reportedly as much as 80 per cent in Germany - has its origins at European level. Anthony Coughlan wrote a persuasive piece on this subject in these pages last week, arguing that this growth is pre-empting national parliamentary democracy.
But of course there are major laws and minor laws. One cannot equate laws that govern the functioning of a Parliament, or the running of schools, with other laws that specify the size of a car's headlights or how a commodity sold simultaneously in several European countries should be labelled.
Without law there could be no European Union. In volume terms European law does indeed appear massive - but it is domestic law that determines why France is France or Germany is Germany.
Nevertheless, the idea that European law is too dominant, too intrusive, has taken hold in the popular consciousness to the extent that even the European Commission is working to reduce the volume of new regulations and to roll back others.
Considered by itself this is no doubt a sensible measure, but it is easy for people to get the idea that because, in the past, there have been perhaps too many regulations, the principle of European Law itself is somehow flawed.
This is dangerous for it undermines the whole basis on which the Union is constructed. Once we lose our respect for the law as the fundamental instrument that makes the Union work, we threaten everything that has been achieved. A Union with weak laws, or laws that are not enforced, will be a Union that will soon break apart.
The same applies to agreements that may not have the status of law but which are nevertheless meant to be honoured. If we can't abide by our own internal decisions, how can we call on the rest of the world, much of which looks to the EU as a model, to do so?
Reneging on agreements
We have seen various examples recently of a worrying trend towards reneging on agreements. On the Constitutional Treaty, for example, despite having solemnly accepted all of its provisions in 2004, various governments now want to change or withdraw from its provisions.
London had accepted an extension of majority voting; Warsaw had accepted a revised system of voting in the European Council; Prague had accepted a single speed Europe.
All these points are now again in contention as the German Presidency struggles to bring forward a new treaty. Warsaw even appears to be seeking an escape from its legal commitment to adopt the euro.
More serious is the case of Romania, which joined the Union only a few months ago on the solemn undertaking that widespread and irreversible reforms to root out crime and corruption were well on their way. Various pledges were made and accepted in good faith and the country, with Bulgaria, was admitted at the earliest opportunity in 2007.
Once inside the Union, the Romanian Parliament has turned its back on reform, dismissed its anti-corruption prosecutors, thrown out its respected and efficient Justice Minister - Monica Macovei - and voted massively to impeach its pro-EU President.
The country seems set to return to its old ways, even postponing its elections for the 35 seats in the European Parliament in case this should prove troublesome.
Banana republic standards
Many people argued that Romania and Bulgaria should not have acceded in 2007 but instead should have been forced to wait a year until the process of reform was complete.
I argued this case myself. I could never understand why it was necessary to admit as full members countries described recently by The Times as 'weakened by systemic corruption, organised crime, fragile judiciaries and "oligarchic" control of press and broadcast media.'
The Commission, I seem to remember, argued that if the two countries were not admitted in 2007 then the pace of reform would slow. Well, it has slowed now and we have within the bosom of the European Union a country whose respect for the very principle of law is in some doubt.
All is not lost of course. The suspended President - Traian Basescu - may well win his forthcoming impeachment referendum, though the authorities are not making life easy for him. If he does he has promised to take action to weaken the party bosses.
For its part the European Commission cannot simply wring its hands and hope that all will come right. Romania has broken the pledges it made. That cannot be without consequence and while there is no doubt that we all want to see Romania, growing and prospering as part of the European family, this has to be as a state with European rather than banana republic standards.
The wider point is that we are in no position to deplore Romania's fall from grace if other member states also show themselves willing to renege on agreements and understandings when it suits them.
Law can only work by consent. Respecting agreements, however uncomfortable, makes us all stronger. Ultimately we are our own policemen. It is not only Romania that must learn this.
If we don't European Government will be reduced to the impotent position of Saint-Exupéry's King, who regaled on an impressive throne but without any other accoutrements of power, is reduced to ordering Le Petit Prince, sometimes to obey him and sometimes not to do so. Not exactly a recipe for success and progress.
The author is editor of EuropaWorld
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.