[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 15, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E146]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     HAIDER AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 15, 2000

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues and 
submits for the Record this February 10, 2000, opinion column from the 
Financial Times regarding Jorg Haider.

               Why Europe Would Like Haider To Disappear

   The rightwing Austrian politician is a threat only because he has 
       highlighted problems that are common to the rest of the EU

                           (By Quentin Peel)

       Why on earth are we so worried about Jorg Haider?
       The leader of Austria's inappropriately-named Freedom party 
     is nothing more than a lightweight provincial politician, a 
     plausible populist more notable for changing his opinions by 
     the hour than for any consistency of fanatical thought.
       One moment he is in favour of the European Union, the next 
     he is a passionate Eurosceptic. One day he shows some 
     sympathy for the Nazi regime in Germany, and the next he 
     condemns it. He is an erratic gadfly with a grin, who has 
     cynically exploited the widespread hostility to immigrants in 
     the Austrian provinces, and the wider resentment of a 
     political establishment that has carved up all the public 
     sector jobs in Vienna.
       Yet the appearance of his party in the Austrian government 
     has united the rest of the European Union in a chorus of 
     condemnation. He is in danger of being demonised as a 
     reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, when he should instead be 
     treated with disdain and contempt.
       The year 2000 is not 1933, and the prosperous citizens of 
     Austria are scarcely the embittered unemployed of Germany 
     between the wars. The democratic institutions of post-war 
     western Europe are surely resilient enough to resist the 
     blandishments of a half-baked extremist.
       Yet the truth is that Mr. Haider, in himself, is not the 
     problem. The international overreaction is driven by fear of 
     contamination in other parts of the EU. He is a symbol, and 
     many of the causes of his popularity are present in most of 
     the states of the union.
       Austria is not alone in demonstrating resentment of a tired 
     and corrupt political establishment, a fear of excessive 
     immigration, and growing uncertainty about what enlargement 
     of the EU will mean for the cozy lifestyle of the present 
     member states.
       Germany and France both took a lead in the decision by the 
     rest of the EU to freeze bilateral relations with Austria, 
     and with good reason. Both have been hit by a series of 
     political scandals, threatening an upsurge in public disgust 
     with the political process. Scarcely a European country has 
     been unaffected by allegations of illicit or corrupt party 
     financing.
       As for immigration and EU enlargement, neither may be quite 
     as big an issue as it is in Austria, but they could easily be 
     exploited by a rabble-rouser in most EU countries. All the EU 
     governments have gone a long way to tighten up controls on 
     immigration and asylum-seekers, in precisely the direction 
     that Mr. Haider demands, for fear of a backlash.
       Enlargement, now intended eventually to bring 13 new 
     members into the EU, may be officially supported by all the 
     present governments, but their voters remain decidedly 
     skeptical. EU leaders will have to go out and sell the idea, 
     with passion and conviction, or they could face an upsurge in 
     xenophobia at the polls.
       If and when enlargement happens, as I fervently hope it 
     does, it will change the EU substantially. The only way to 
     accommodate such a wide variety of member states, at very 
     differing political and economic stages of development, will 
     be to build much more flexibility into the system. Somehow it 
     has to be adapted to preserve the single market, without 
     forcing the new members into instant bankruptcy. The high 
     standards of developed west European economies cannot be 
     adopted overnight in the east.
       Nor is it simply a matter of economics. The accession 
     candidates are all relatively fragile democracies. Most have 
     only recently recovered their full sovereignty from the 
     former Soviet empire. There are unresolved ethnic conflicts, 
     and minority rights issues, within their borders. They could 
     well spark the emergence of nationalist movements at least as 
     unattractive as the Freedom party of Mr. Haider.
       All these profound issues raised by EU enlargement are 
     supposed to be tackled by the intergovernmental conference 
     (IGC) of the present 15 member states, which opens next 
     Monday. They are supposed to be streamlining the institutions 
     so that they remain workable with as many as 28 members. Yet 
     the chances are that the IGC will stick to a very narrow 
     agenda, and leave the EU ill-prepared for the revolution to 
     come.
       Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, says 
     the prospect of more Haiders in an enlarged EU makes it all 
     the more necessary to take most decisions by majority voting, 
     not unanimity. Yet majority decisions enforced on unhappy 
     minorities could be a formula for breeding more Haiders. The 
     answer must be more flexible arrangements, more devolution of 
     power, and a minimum of rules.
       If an enlarged EU is going to hold together, and enjoy the 
     support of its inhabitants, it is going to have to be rather 
     more than a glorified common market. It does not have to be 
     the federal super-state that British Euro-sceptics fear and 
     loathe. But it will have to be a community of common values.
       That is why the initiative running in parallel with the IGC 
     may ultimately prove more important: the drafting of a 
     Charter of Fundamental Rights. This should be clear, concise 
     and easily intelligible. It does not have to add any exotic 
     new rights that are not already present in the EU treaty and 
     the European convention of human rights. But it should spell 
     out the minimum rights and freedoms to which all member 
     states of the union will be committed. It should also spell 
     out what will happen if they transgress.
       For the advent of Mr. Haider in Austria is surely only a 
     foretaste of the challenges to come in an enlarged EU. The 
     member states need a clear yardstick by which to judge the 
     acceptable behaviour of any government--a yardstick that 
     voters can read and understand before they vote. That might 
     discourage them from voting for anti-democratic extremists. 
     And it might restrain the other member states from ad hoc 
     overreactions.

     

                          ____________________