Over the years and to this day, we have been repeatedly told that Europe should show confidence in its strength by remaining “open” in its relations with countries and powers outside it. It should not become a “fortress” behind walls and closed gates that defend it from all foreign threats.
After the Berlin wall was destroyed at the end of the 1980s... with the potent political symbolism that this triggered... the mindset deepened. The EU went on to widen its own frontiers to include more countries.
Acutally today, a more cautious attitude has crept in. It is being said that the Union should be “open” only with those who are also prepared to be open towards her. That given the competiton on a global scale between leading world power centers, one needs to promote one’s own winners to withstand the champions of other regions. And that doors should not be kept open for those who grant unacceptable competitive advantages to their own enterprises and citizens.
The Union is coming to adopt a position by which it will remain “open” (and not a fortress) only to those who operate according to the same rules that it follows.
***
IN SCOTLAND
A controversy erupted in the election to choose a leader of the Scottish National Party after the resignation of Nicola Sturgeon. One of the contestants, Kate Forbes stated that had she been a member of the Scottish Parliament when it voted in favour of same-sex marriage, she would have voted against. Now this was (still is) one of the major policy stances of the party. For this reason, her candidature came under attack, although she also said that once the matter has been decided, as leader of the party (and the government) in Scotland, she would in no way seek to review the decision.
The argument that “liberals” need to take care they do not become as intolerant as the fundamentalists is beginning to make sense. It seems to me that Forbes had every right to take the political and moral position which had been hers; for as long as her conduct was consonant with democratic norms and she acted with political responsibility not least towards her colleagues in the party, her right to hold opinions that diverged from the mainstream could in no way be cancelled.
***
POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES
How are political resonsibilities shared out and how exercised?
There are responsibilities which attach to one directly and personally. Others are collective, in the sense thet they attach to the entity charged with the task of wrapping up a decision: a board established by statute; a party’s national executive; the general conference of the same party; the cabinet of government ministers; Parliament.
When exercised collectively, responsibility inevitably appears to be diffuse and extended. For as long as the matter up for decision has not been really controversial (when members present would have personally given it their full attention) the great majority will have relied on the integrity and competence of whoever is making proposals. Above all they will rely on the authority and competence of whoever is leading and providing guidance to the meeting.