The point of a contract is almost always misunderstood. If asked, most people would say that a contract is there to describe how the relationship between two or more entities should operate.
Wrong. The contract is there for when the relationship has broken down. You don’t need one when the relationship is good; the parties just agree what to do and get on with it. There might be documents covering all sorts of details of course, but those are just aids. They don’t enforce anything.
Here’s an example. You hire a small firm to build you a wall. You don’t bother with a contract, it’s word of mouth and a handshake. You give them a deposit and a drawing of what you want done. Let’s say they do a good job. You’re happy and pay them. They’re happy too and no contract was needed. But suppose they messed it up, or didn’t even turn up? That’s when you need a legal way of holding them to their commitment or getting your money back.
You need a contract in case it goes wrong, not for when it goes right.
Let’s consider Europe. Dozens of countries with powerful identities, widely varying cultures and a shared history strewn with wars with each other. Bringing them together in a union sounds like the best way to prevent further wars and benefiting everyone, right? The EU has a principle of “ever closer union” aimed at eventually forging a United States of Europe. All of this has been enshrined in the form of treaties. They are legally binding on the member states. In other words, it’s a contract.
Europe is using a contract for the wrong purpose. They have said “This is what you all must do in good times and bad” and tried to make it stick.
Time for another analogy.
Let’s say you get together a group of people in a room; all different backgrounds, ages etc. Some of them have been fighting outside before they came in (See what I did there?) You say to them “You are now all friends and must work together exactly like it says here in this contract”. It’s probable that at least one of them would say “Well, we might be friends, we might not. We don’t know yet, we only just got here.” And that would just be the start of the arguments.
You can’t forge a united Europe, all you can do is sweep away the obstacles to it. After that, you just have to hope all the countries learn to get along and over time begin to align socially, economically and politically. A genuine federation of European countries will arise by common will and consent when the differences between those countries have faded away. It will take time and patience.
Right now, the European project is in trouble, largely because of that mad contract. We’re not in good times any more, we’re in bad times and the terms of that contract are biting. More and more countries, faced with massive refugee numbers, crippled economies and social unrest are saying “We don’t want to do it that way anymore. We want to do it our way.”
I have to ask, why should they do it that way? Why should they be bound by a contract that tries to dictate their every move for no other reason than to make everyone the same?
Stepping back for a moment, I should state that I’m very much in favour of the European Union as an idea. It is because I back the idea that I fear for its future. It needs to be radically overhauled. Tear up the treaties as they have been written and start again on the basic of respecting and recognising sovereignty, getting rid of barriers between countries and creating a mood where every country sees the Union as an opportunity, not a threat.
It’s fine to write a European book of guidelines, but don’t try to enforce it. Offer it as a resource. If it has merit then over time more and more countries will adopt those guidelines, because they make sense. It will help bring about alignment in the long term. Offer a common currency for those that want it. Highlight the mutual benefits of open markets and free movement of people, but trust that these ideas will catch on, that they will sell themselves. Don’t ram them down everyone’s throats.
Let’s return to our room full of very different people. Now instead of starting with “You must…”, say we put out some drinks and ask them to talk about themselves, what they do well, what they could use help with, what they have to offer. Facilitate instead of dictate. In the end, everyone in the room will be working together because they want to. No contract in sight.
To bring this analogy back to reality, the western European countries who created the Union thought they needed to forge a rigid framework. They offered this huge opportunity for a united Europe to become a super power; a shining light of democracy and freedom. After all that had gone before they considered that anyone joining this dream must live within this framework, that nothing else would work. I believe that premise was deeply flawed. If they had instead, just between those founding countries, opened their borders and abolished trade levies and let the benefits of having done so advertise themselves, then I think by now the momentum of European integration would be unstoppable. Countries like the UK would be passionately involved instead of considering leaving the project altogether. We would have created a pattern of following best practice voluntarily, of aligning with other countries because everyone benefited, of celebrating the vast panoply of European civilisation instead of trying to homogenise it.
We should have seen the scary parallels of trying to impose a single order on Europe. How did we miss that?
Filed under: Politics & Religion
