England, Ireland, France and the EU

I was in Ireland last week (photos) and happened to notice quite a few 'This project x% funded by the EU' signs which was interesting because I had been to quite a few EU countries over the last few years and not noticed similar signs throughout the country.

Of course, at the time of joining, Ireland was at the bottom end of the EU performers and quickly became the beneficiary of EU 'equalization' funds as well as taking advantage of being an English-speaking country in the now common market. As a result of the 'Celtic Tiger' economy, Ireland has the second-highest per capital income in the EU.

This trip comes at an interesting time as the UK and France are both likely set to ultimately reject the proposed EU constitution for exactly the opposite reasons. A slim majority of the French people think that the EU constitution will erode the increased protections that they currently enjoy. English bosses reject the EU constitution for exactly the opposite reason - they fear the increased worker protections will hamstring them.

A clear example is the French worry their 35-hour week will be increased and the English (particularly in the professional sectors) worry they may be forced to work less than a 48-hour week.

The reason I bring Ireland into this is because they are a clear benefactor of the EU, not simply because of the subsidies they have recieved, but because the common market meant the EU common market replaced the UK as their largest trading partner.

The question is whether the EU is meant to benefit citizens in all member countries equally - or are they meant to improve the lot of individual countries, incrementally.

Fundamentally, I feel that the EU structure does provide a mechanism for improving the second tier countries rapidly through access to complex shared legal and trade structures as well as taking advantage of EU funding to hopefully bootstrap their economies and political structures to those of the 'Western' EU nations.

However it is clear that although richer nations will benefit, they will only do so incrementally, not fundamentally. Will larger nations accept large changes to their culture for minor economic benefit, particularly if their poorer neighbours benefit greatly under the same framework?

The book Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century attempts to answer these questions. I read it before the recent French dissent over the constitution, so it will be interesting to see how the book holds up if the referendum fails. However, like Mark Leonard, I think the EU will eventually succeed as it is designed to continue to find comprimise, rather than fold in the face of failure. It's ability to do so will ultimately be the major success of the EU, and I think this continual adaptation itself will be the lasting achivement, not the success of the EU constitution.