Kurkkudirektiivi.fi myötä huomasin, että tosiasia taitaa edelleen olla että EU:sta on helpompi keskustella kriittiseen "aina on jotain parannettavaa" -sävyyn ja että EU tuottaa "vain ongelmia". En itsekään väitä, että integraatiosta tulisi puhua vain ja ainoastaan myönteiseen rakentavaan henkeen nojaten, mutta jotenkin aina hämmästyn sitä miten EU vaan on "niin paska" jollekin. Aika aseista riisuvaa? Tuskin.
Euroskeptisismin hetkellisesti kohtaani tekemän hyökkäyksen edesauttamana päätin osallistua yliopiston järjestämälle aihetta käsittelevälle luentosarjalle. Lyhyesti sanottuna opin sen, että määrittelyä hankaloittaa se, että EU merkitsee monille eri ihmisille niin monia eri asioita läpi koko Euroopan, joten yritäpäs siinä kategorisoida ihmisten asenteita. Ja miksi edes pitäisi kategorisoida? Kysymyksen asettelun kun tulisi olla, MIKSI joku suhtautuu skeptisesti eikä KUKA on skeptinen EU:n suhteen. Eroja syntyy myös sen suhteen kuinka asennoidutaan EU-instituutiota kohtaan ja kuinka puolestaan taas eurooppalainen integraatio koetaan. Opitun perusteella voisin siis antaa kirjamääritelmän siitä, mitä euroskeptisismi on, mutta päädyn tulevaisuudessa edelleen pohtimaan pikemminkin sitä, miksi ja miten sitä Euroopassa esiintyy.
Päätin liittää tuohon alle opiskelija-kollegani Alexin luentosarjan päätteeksi tekemän runon, joka käsittelee juuri euroskeptisismiä luennolla opitun perusteella, joten luehan läpi jos aihe enemmänkin vielä kiinnostaa. Pitkähän se on, mutta lupasin kunnioittaa itse runoilijaa, enkä sitten lähtenyt lyhentelemään runoa.
Poem by Alexandru Filip
It is a term that is hard to define.
It has a meaning that we seek to confine.
Attach too narrow a meaning to it,
And then you walk a very thin line.
It easily leads to ideas’ conflict.
We use the term so arbitrarily,
That it became pejorative…
From normative, subjective uses,
And the fact that the form of the EU itself confuses.
To too many people tagged alike in a union,
Without regards for differing opinion.
And researchers using it each in his (her) way
And not explaining clearly along the way
What they themselves understand by the term.
It leads among critics to much concern.
Groups are all tagged with the same name together,
Because it’s convenient for researching easier.
Some will forget we are from “different Unions”,
That each of the countries have their own EU experience.
And some think that they know the EU quite good,
But not even their own countries,
Have they actually understood.
Some will ask “does the EU really exist?
Or is it just in our minds,
- A constructivist bliss?”
Flood and Usherwood propose a “thin” way of analysis,
While “hard-soft” distinction ignores Critics’ varieties.
With Kopecky and Mudde a two-dimensional scale is used…
Where they will consider supporters both specific and diffuse.
The first variable is a matter of support for integration,
The other more of EU support generalization.
They realized there is a question of categories,
Let us refresh our memories:
Euroenthusiats, -pragmatists,
Eurorejects and -sceptics.
Each spring and autumn the people in
In opinion surveys they out-do themselves.
The Eurobarometer as we might know it,
Has many debates raised about it.
Is it relevant? Is it correct?
Popular opinion does it reflect?
It asks people about their situation
In future, present and past…
May put trust in institutions up to the test.
Whether they think they had something to gain,
From having become part of EU domain.
Still, a description of important aspects it made:
About fears of the people and EU’s perceived role.
“Will jobs go to
Will Poles and Slovaks start to invade?
Will we pay for the others,
Will small states be heard?
Or will they become just part of the herd?
Our farmers will suffer from Common Policy…
And we will loose our proud currency!”
Supporters will argue, “it keeps us safe and well!
“About work and study exchange” they will tell.
Many questions about people themselves are asked:
How often they discuss politics and EU matters,
And if they try to persuade around them the others.
The survey then will try to find out
If a by equation a relation works out,
Between politically active people and critics.
Critical Grass roots organisations try to do their best,
But have very limited resources to put up to the test.
Money, airtime, new members are always short,
The EU employs tricks of the domino (effect) sort.
It did it to the Norse, and Latvians too,
Hoping the skeptics would get the home “boo”.
But they might not be as we think, that blunt.
May not want to completely block the EU,
Some just more flexibility they want.
What EU-critics instigate.
Who are the actors, what are they saying?
In what alliances are they playing?
Some think that states,
Should merely collaborate.
Opponents of super-government they are,
Who’ll take the side of Anti-Federalism.
And protectionists oppose intergovernmentalism.
And then there are nationalists.
They will oppose neo-functionalism.
At least that is how Schymik might put it.
Never must we however forget,
That grass-roots critics are very distinct
Insult them you will by plotting them together,
And hard will you find them, if ever and ever,
Since they only need to work at home,
Tis’ hard to employ those who to each language belong.
And many good arguments might they really provide,
Just look at
TEAM has been very active and loud and up-front!
With the European NO campaign they make common front.
Just example of how critics unite
And many others are ready to fight.
Many of parties are making a stand!
But what is a party on the other hand?
There is of course such a fine line,
Between organisations and parties all the time.
Is it the leader, the voters, all members,
the programme?
On the issue there is much to comment.
Larger parties have more inner dissent.
Is EU criticism reflective
Of party members’ view?
And is the party left, center or right?
Is using those names really alright?
Parties differ, as their country does,
Studying parties can become a fuzz.
Party-research of all kinds
Is conducted at times,
Surveys is one of the types most used.
And discourse analysis,
Where subjects “conversate”,
It tries to explain and differentiate,
Relations that might normally be hidden tight,
And only qualitative research brings to light.
Surveying might be prone to mistakes,
Since often only established parties in consideration it takes,
Marginal ones it ignorates.
Or only the leaders’ portraits it makes.
We also have EU-critics at the heart of it all,
The current structure of EU they try to make fall.
Opposing the idea of a European super-government.
One example:
They want nation-states, that are democratic and sovereign,
Most of the members of course come from
They stand for democracy, traditional values,
And more respect for our own differences.
On the whole then, what have we learned?
That EU-criticism on many levels is to be heard.
There is no big mass, of united critics,
As nothing is simple,
in social science and politics.
Both supporters and critics of the EU are distinct,
The latter will maybe never go extinct.
There is such a wide spectrum and range of opinions,
As there are perceived European Unions.
Tekstit
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti