The political fissures caused by the controversy about the inclusion of Jorg Haider's Freedom Party in the Austrian government is a timely reminder to Ireland, as a member-state of the European Union, that the fabric of integration is changing in a decisive manner.
From the 1972 referendum on membership onwards, the political debate in Ireland on Europe was dominated by bread and butter issues with a focus on the economic benefits that would flow from membership. Discussion of market access, agricultural prices and structural funds crowded out debate of the political dimension of EU membership, apart from a continuing preoccupation with neutrality. Little attention was paid to the fact that to be a member-state altered the form and substance of sovereignty.
During the 1990s there was a significant shift in the dynamic of integration. The political and normative dimension of the EU was made more explicit. The rhetoric of the founding treaties was infused with the values of peace, prosperity and the taming of the dark side of European nationalism.
It was taken for granted that only democracies would be eligible for membership of the Union and there was no treaty reference to human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The European Court of Justice began to incorporate a human rights dimension as the Union's legal order evolved and strengthened. The collapse of communism in 1989 and the provision in the Treaty on European Union of the Union's last major building block of economic integration - the single currency - meant the focus could and did shift to the political fabric of integration.
The Treaty of Amsterdam is the Union's first political treaty. Analysts - the present author included - tended to regard it as a relatively modest treaty containing a series of non-controversial provisions that built on the Treaty on European Union. This initial assessment seriously played down the significance of the political dimension.
Amsterdam included a robust commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, a commitment that was underpinned by treaty-based actions to be taken in the case of a breach by a member-state of the principles on which the Union was founded. The sanctions procedure paradoxically is not unlike the excessive deficits procedure in EMU. The Amsterdam Treaty also contained an anti-discrimination clause that included reference to discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin.
Taken together with the very specific conditions set out for the applicant states, these provisions point to the fact that having achieved a very high level of economic interdependence and market integration, the EU is now providing constitutional protection of the values that informed its establishment.
The unprecedented action by 14 member-states, through the presidency, in demonstrating their concern and opposition to the inclusion of members of the Freedom Party in the Austrian government must be seen in the context of the creation of a constitutionally based set of values for the Union. The action of the 14, on the face of it, undermines one of the most fundamental principles of democracy - government of the people - and one of the most fundamental norms of the international system - non-interference in the domestic affairs of a state.
A significant proportion of the Austrian electorate, some 27 per cent, voted for the Freedom Party and the social democrats are prepared to enter a coalition government with the Freedom party. Given these facts, should not the principle of majoritarian democracy predominate? Is there then any justification for the actions of the 14 other member-states?
At issue are two different bases of legitimacy. On the one hand, there is the voice of the Austrian people in free and democratic elections. No one would dispute the legality and fairness of the election. On the other hand, a normative interpretation of legitimacy would emphasise a deeper moral base for assessing legitimacy. The action of the 14 as member states can be justified on the basis of the normative dimension of European integration.
Jorg Hairder and his Freedom Party are not overtly neo-fascist. Rather it is a new populist party pursuing a parliamentary road. However, it shares with neo-fascist movements a strong anti-immigrant and xenophobic element as well as a sympathy for the ideology and actions of Nazism. org Haider's often quoted comments about the Waffen SS and Hitler's employment policies suggest he has not left his parents' Nazi past behind.
The ability of his party to garner 27 per cent of the vote in an Austrian general election also highlights the fact that Austrian society has not faced up to its collaboration with the Hitler regime. Imagine the reaction in Europe, if a far-right party like the Freedom Party won 27 per cent of the vote in a German election. The action of the 14 and internal opposition within Austria to the new government may well ensure the process of interrogating its past begins in Austria.
For Ireland, the events of the past week are a timely reminder that the fabric of integration is changing, that it is no longer just about market integration and Brussels money. The shift in integration may be seen in the growing importance of co-operation on internal and external security and in the changing political character of the Union.
Political Europe is finally beginning to catch up with economic Europe.
Brigid Laffan is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics at UCD and Director of the Dublin European Institute.
