What are the implications ? if any ? for the arts and culture of all the recent European Union shenanigans over the future of the proposed ?constitution?? Christopher Gordon provides an answer.
Given the dismal record of most of the UK press and media on European issues, and the trivial London-obsessed focus of self-styled arts journalists, the potential impact of the pro-posed European ?constitution? for the cultural sector is a subject on which you are unlikely to have read much informed comment. Nevertheless it is, I believe, a rather important topic for reflection.
No going back
Whatever may be made of the Luxembourg ?yes? vote (half the population commutes daily from Belgium, Germany and France while an underclass of Italian and Portuguese temporary migrant workers send home the money they earn from doing the low-status jobs) it is the French and Dutch ?no? that has established the new reality. The silent conspiracy of Europe?s political élite has been rumbled. The hubris which underlay the constant aspiration for greater political union via the proposed treaty ? it never was a constitution ? has backfired. There is no going back now. What was required was an updated set of rather practical standing orders for how the 25 (and rising) member states can operate effectively together. Given the complexity of the Union and the vast difference in size of the members and their governmental machines (Germany?s population is almost 82.5 million, Malta?s less than 400,000), it is no longer sensible or feasible to have a roving six-month Presidency, and there has to be a better way of negotiating legitimate foreign policy differences, as the Iraq war has so disastrously demonstrated.
The citizens of two of the six original founding states have delivered their raspberry to the politicians. The national politicians who dominate the ?European Council?, of course, like to claim every Brussels success as their own, whilst any failures are rapidly ascribed to ?Brussels bureaucrats? (the average demonised Brussels bureaucrat, as it happens, is usually much more accessible and open than any Whitehall counterpart). To the general public across the continent the politicians? idea of ?Europe? is still extremely abstract and remote. But people do see and experience traditions and memory they know and value dissipating under the impact of globalisation trends. Broadly speaking, this is about culture. Younger people (the Erasmus generation) who travel and consume ?globally? simply do not relate to the politicians? nationalistic obsessions, rooted in the 19th century nation state. Unfortunately, this is often the same route employed in rebuilding national consciousness in the former Soviet-dominated EU member states as they try to assert distinctiveness. But European citizens also seem to be signalling that they want to live in an EU which is more than just a market of nation states, that there are certain European values they believe in. Culture is very much part of these.
Gloomy prospects
What is at stake, culturally speaking? Any direct cultural consequences of the EU Enlargement process are pretty small, but culture is a huge factor in the political debate that citizens can understand ? when you consider diversity, immigration, common defence and security, etc. Prejudice being rooted in fear of the unknown, culture in its broad meaning is one of the keys to the future of Europe. The specific cultural ?competence? (i.e. the legal basis for EU action in the field) which was added in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 is extremely constrained, and its agreement processes very restrictive. The rejection of the ?constitution? means this is likely to continue. The prospects for those looking for financial support for projects is about as minimal and convoluted as those hinted at in Arts Council England?s recently published International Policy. The inevitable delays will severely destabilise many of the European cultural networks which have been working hard to in-crease genuine international cultural co-operation (i.e. more than bi-lateral exchanges or the prevalent and brazen post-colonial types of activity which the British Council, Alliance Française and Goethe Institute are increasingly indulging in).
The real European debate is not about simplistic rhetoric concerning ?Anglo-Saxon? or ?Welfare? models, or national politicians squabbling about who gets what for how much in-put. While Chirac prefers to make cheap jokes about haggis with Schroeder and Putin, the rising star of populist right-wing French politics, his Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy, has just declared the old Franco-German axis in Europe obsolete. Sarkozy is also making speeches about reinstating national quota systems for professions and for nationals of particular countries ? on the rising tide of tabloid fixation on ?Polish plumber? syndrome. There are already huge problems for travelling artists and performers coming from outside EU countries. The rules are arbitrary, and the climate is getting worse.
Uncertainty
The ?Lisbon Agenda? dating from 2000 established the need for the EU to address a different future rooted in the knowledge economy, education, research and technological development. This is why, from the recent Chirac-Blair spat, several ?old? and most of the new member states credit Blair with at least articulating the positive agenda they need to relate to. Such is the current impasse that countries like Belgium could not risk a referendum on the constitution. Differing results within the Flemish and French speaking communities would be devastating for national cohesion. Others countries which were reasonably confident they could secure a ?yes? vote now don?t think that is any longer possible. Turkey will now be in shock about its prospects for joining, and Bulgaria and Romania are much more apprehensive than they were a few months ago. For a country like Croatia ? in the ?waiting room? ? the ?no? vote is catastrophic. Its democratic processes are extremely fragile and require strong, committed EU support in order to establish them. Hard-line Croat nationalists have recently captured political control of most of the major cities, which is actually weakening the democratic process and respect for human rights.
A new order?
You might say that the people of Europe are now voting ?no? for the sake of Europe as they understand and treasure it. Strange alliances of conflicting interests are agreed that they will no longer tolerate politicians uttering meaningless platitudes about ?citizens? Europe? in order to try to legitimise their own rarefied national and federal ambitions. Rather, they are announcing that the process must be constructed from the ground upwards. This implies some respect for culture in its local and diverse expressions, and not reflecting the distorted institutional agendas pursued by governments within the EU. This also means that finally the European Commission will have to begin to take seriously ? as per the cultural article 151 (clause 4) ? ?The Community shall take cultural aspects into account in its actions under the other provisions of this Treaty.?
Christopher Gordon has 30 years? experience as an arts professional in the public sector, and is now an independent consultant in cultural policy.
e: christophergordon@compuserve.com