Saving the European Union – The logic of the Lisbon Treaty
Andrew Duff
Shoehorn Current Issues
196pp
£12.99

Never has so much been written by so many about so little as about the Lisbon Treaty.  Andrew Duff’s book adds to the word mountain. Its grandiose title gives us a clue about Duff’s views on Lisbon and also falls into the common trap of wildly exaggerating the treaty’s importance.

Lisbon is an important but not earth shattering step towards better decision-making in an EU of 27 plus. Of itself it will do nothing. It is simply a tool for politicians to use.  Politicians will save or sink the EU, not the treaty.

That said, Duff has produced a very thorough analysis of and commentary on the treaty. In the process, he slays a few dragons conjured up by the anti-Europeans and their press allies.

Be warned, though, the convolutions of the treaty set even my head spinning. Duff almost by default shows how what began as a simplification process morphed into complexity personified. Consequently, only experts can now explain some of the finer nuances present.

Duff is undoubtedly one such expert – but also arguably the most fervent ‘euro-federalist’ British MEP, ahead even of his own Lib Dem party. This produces a rather blinkered, idealistic approach, epitomised by his regret that the constitutional concept was dropped. 

To me the EU is a political process whereby sovereign nation states work together to find common solutions to common problems – a very successful process, but a process nonetheless. It is not a state and therefore does not need a constitution or a foreign minister. Yes, rules are required but that is not the same as a constitution. 

Integration fundamentalists like Duff see the EU as an end in itself. For me it is a means to an end to confront the challenges of the modern world like climate change, security, financial instability and the economy. 

Yet, it is not the only means. We also need local and national strategies to link in with the European and global dimensions. The EU is not then some perfectly formed academic model, standing in isolation, but is part of modern day governance. 

Duff’s blinkered approach often misses the political context. He writes warmly of the development of European defence policy, but only makes passing reference to the unsatisfactory contribution of some member states to NATO’s Afghanistan campaign. Similarly, he details at length the provisions for a core group of member states to develop enhanced defence co-operation without really explaining that, minus France and Britain, it would never happen. 

Nor does he point out that the countries advocating such a course are usually those least likely to put their money where their mouths are. Elsewhere, he focuses on the new legal basis for a comprehensive asylum and refuge system without observing that the real problem lies with politicians who cannot agree what they want.

In reality the EU is caught between the advance of globalisation and member state resistance. As nationalism and protectionism grow, it is increasingly difficult to find European solutions to problems. I particularly liked Duff’s quote from Juncker, the Luxembourg prime minister: “Everybody knows what they have to do; the problem is that nobody knows how to win an election after doing it.”

The big winner with Lisbon, as Duff indicates, is the European parliament which will get substantially enhanced powers. Hopefully, it will rise to the challenge. Currently it spends too much time on things it can do little or nothing about.

Changing the way parliament does business will be handicapped by the recent elections which have thrown up even more fringe parties with no interest in parliamentary reform. It will take strong leadership to keep the new parliament firmly focussed on the really important issues.

National parliaments also benefit from Lisbon although, as Duff observes, they have not always exploited their existing opportunities. EU scrutiny varies enormously from country to country. In Britain, it is hardly a priority, at least in the Commons. Attending Commons scrutiny committees has often driven me to despair, as they descend into point-scoring by the anti-Europeans.

Two items particularly irritate in Duff’s book. With Lisbon, we finally won the battle to get children’s rights recognised, potentially bringing about significant improvements. Yet Duff makes no mention of it. 

Secondly, he discusses the provisions for EU-Church dialogue, yet rather gratuitously writes: “It is greatly to be hoped that European Islam engages fully in the process of citizenship and constitutional democracy.” Why mention Islam and not say Methodism?  In any case, surely it is the EU’s job to engage with religions and not vice versa.

Duff cleverly opens his book by quoting the message from the 1948 Congress of Europe, presided over by Churchill. It is worthwhile re-reading that to remind ourselves of the vision of those emerging from horrific conflict and compare their aspirations with what we have achieved. 

He ends with his own twelve point manifesto, which should be endorsed by all who believe that European co-operation is the best way to safeguard our future. Just as long as we remember, though, that treaties are merely tools. The real issue is what politicians do with them.