June 30, 2008
Destroying Europe to save it
A week ago I urged my colleague, Wolfgang Munchau, to elaborate on his argument that a country can legally be chucked out of the European Union. Today he obliges.
But - as ever - one question begets another. All the remedies Wolfgang suggests are so drastic that one is left wondering, why bother? Essentially, the idea seems to be that all the countries currently in the EU quit the Union and then re-group in a new Union - minus the Irish and any other recalcitrants. This procedure reminds me of the famous remark attributed to an American army officer in Vietnam - “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
And to save it from what, precisely? Wolfgang simply asserts that it is impossible for the EU to continue under the rules of the Nice Treaty. I don’t see this. What exactly is it in the Lisbon Treaty that is so indispensable?
The Charter of Fundamental Rights? Useful, I suppose if you like long lists of abstract rights and having your laws made by judges. The new voting system? Undeniably, more logical and more advantageous to Germany - but hardly critical to the future of Europe. The new jobs of president of the European Council and foreign minister? Well, I don’t object to jobs for the boys. But those who believe that these posts will make Europe a world player, are making the mistake of thinking that new institutional architecture will do the trick . Not at all - creating new jobs in Brussels is not going to persuade EU countries to spend more on defence, or force them to agree on issues like Iraq or Russia.
So I remain mystified. But this is not an incitement to Wolfgang to write another column on this subject. There are plenty of urgent economic issues that demand his attention.
And finally, I think I suggested that Wolfgang’s views on Europe are fired by “manic energy”. Something of the same spirit seems to have descended on me. This is my third blog posting today. I now intend to relapse into sullen silence.
Wolfgang put forward an excellent idea: quit Europe and regroup without the recalcitrants. I barely remember once reading a story about a Spanish or Portuguese bank which was sold to an investor whom the workers’ union opposed. One day all the bank’s staff resigned and then incorporated in a new institution.
What is important about the Lisbon treaty? The European project is like riding a bicycle: keep peddling lest you lose your balance.
Posted by: RCS | June 30th, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentWolfgang Munchau is right. All those states which ratify the Lisbon Treaty can LEAVE the European Union founding a new organisation that also could be called….European Union.
And any country which has to join the EU has to sign and approve its foundational Treaty the same way has happened to all those states which joined the EU after the Maastricht Treaty (much more important than Lisbon, but without the Charter of Fundamental Rights which was added by the Amsterdam Treaty)
So if the anti-Europeans of the Czech Republic prefer to join the Russia Federation, they can go and leave us alone because Europe doesn´t need them.
And if the pro-Europeans of the Republic of Ireland (already a founding state of the EUROZONE) want to join the European Union they can do it.
Posted by: Enrique | June 30th, 2008 at 6:11 pm | Report this commentEnrique,
The new organisation obviously cannot be called the ‘European Union’. Some variant is in order, for instance, the ‘European Onion’ (a name celebrating the new organisation’s Common Agricultural Policy).
Other suggestions: Union of Europe (a name pointing to the important distinction between the European Council and the Council of the European Union); Or, if referenda are finally accepted: Euro-opinion Union.
Posted by: RCS | June 30th, 2008 at 6:46 pm | Report this commentOf course it can be called European Union as the other would leave to exist…
Posted by: Enrique | July 1st, 2008 at 1:55 am | Report this commentEnrique: Now is not the time to let the UK into the ECB:
Consider that they are aganist a uniform minimum wage standards:
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/04408.pdf
Consider that the Lisbon Agenda has degenerated into a race to the bottom agenda. Where are the funds that were to be put into R+D so that the EU
could become more competitive?
Consider that the Bologna document has produced
more underfunding of public education and a push
for a “market” in educational establishments.
There are daily protest marches in Athens and Paris about education issues and pensions.
As far as i am concerned the EU has been going down the neoliberal path of pauperising the middle classes and nothing more.
We are cruising on past achievements which Barosso & Co want to destroy.
Posted by: Cassandra | July 1st, 2008 at 4:19 am | Report this commentEnrique,
The current EU would not cease to exist, its sole member would be Ireland. EU headquarters would logically move to Dublin.
Therefore the new union would need a new name. The simplest possibility would be: European Union (Lisbon).
Posted by: RCS | July 1st, 2008 at 5:18 am | Report this commentHow about “Sarkozia” or “Sarkoland” for the New Europe (or should we say the NeoCon Europe?)
Posted by: Pacifist | July 1st, 2008 at 9:50 am | Report this commentThe Polish president is not signing the Lisbon Treaty and he said (quoted on ZDF teletext, Germanys no 2 state TV channel) that the view that the EU cannot continue to exist without “Lisbon” is “nicht seriös”.
The same source states that Horst Kohler, Germany’s president, is not signing either, following the advice of the BVG
Bundesverfassungsgericht(the German court which deals with federal constitutional matters).
The background is that a German CSU (right-wing) member of parliament and also Die Linke party (the newish far left party in Germany) have both lodged their objections to the Lisbon Treaty and a ruling from the BVG is “unlikely” to be given before the year end. Clever Germans, imo.
Re Nicocarla. Don’t underestimate them. He gets on much better with Angie now….QED?
Posted by: J.J. | July 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am | Report this commentA federal union of European states is inevitable. It will follow the predictable path of history: Before it collapses under its own imperial, dictatorial and corrupt weight, it will have allowed its citizens a period of prosperous, dynamic, democratic and secure (in the real sense) citizenship. Read all about it.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 1st, 2008 at 10:42 am | Report this commentHi J.J….just reminds me, what was the football result in Sunday?
Posted by: Pacifist | July 1st, 2008 at 10:47 am | Report this commenton Sunday!
Posted by: Pacifist | July 1st, 2008 at 10:48 am | Report this commentPaskalis,
The European Construction is already 51 years old, and it is just (like NATO) an expression of pragmatism:
1. To avoid European War.
2. To guarantee free circulation of goods, persons and services among member states.
3. To guarantee for Europe an attractive Pole of capital.
4. To guarantee for Europe an economic and social alternative (and complement) to the other two Poles of World development being born in Eurasia (India and China)
Without China, India and Russia I am sure the European Union would collapse…
But the World´s trend is towards a more integrated Eurasia.
Besides, the Dictator of Europe (who exists) is NOT European, but the SACEUR Bantz J. Craddock, the Commander in Chief of all the Western and Central European Armies.
Craddock is the Viceroy of the European Protectorate of America. In fact, it is not possible for a Polish to be the Supreme Commander in Chief of their own Army. Not possible. Only an American can be the Supremme Commander so the President of Poland, like the Queen or the Prime Minister of the UK, or the President of Germany (well, the case of Germany with its military occupation is even more sad) are just a kind of Raj mini-Kings like the ones in India during the British Empire.
Cassandra,
Even if I think that the UK will join the EUROZONE next January it is evident they cannot join and try to dominate it after rejecting the Euro for years blaming all those like Spain which decided to go ahead.
Anyway, I don´t think the ECB´s Executive Board will accept the United Kingdom if they don´t join first ERM II, like Denmark.
Posted by: Enrique | July 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am | Report this commentYou say true, Enrique, and it’s clear why your team won.
It’s obvious that what holds back the union of Europe is not the confused and irrelevant voters of Ireland, nor the sycophantic leadership of Poland and The Czech Republic (among others) and not even biddable Britain which bides behind their skirts. It is the (relative) power of the United States that is the spanner in the working Union and, America, logically, brooks no competition from anyone, while it can.
Power is the magma beneath the crust of politics.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 1st, 2008 at 12:59 pm | Report this comment…..We, and many like us, are the true Europeans.
Let the others flounder in their little ponds.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm | Report this comment@Enrique
I managed to get hold of this secret communication:
To is Excellency, The US viceroy of Europe.
From his imperialist Highness the President of America,
As my viceroy I command you to send all European Armies to Iraq immediately! (Just like the Viceroy of India used to send troops at the old British Empire’s command). you should also close down all newspapers that object. Oh, and dismiss any Prince (Sorry European government) that objects. As Europe is a US protectorate - it should behave like one.
Yours Sincerely
G. W. Bush
(President of the World)
I suppose this kind of thing happens a lot, now that we’re a US protectorate.
Posted by: Jalipa | July 1st, 2008 at 1:13 pm | Report this commentit’s unlikely, that this communication would be sent from the home country to the colonies, Jalipa: it’s too subtle, diplomatic, grammatical and civil, but you’re spot-on that the coarse and brutal essence of the message is one of the known knowns.
Goethe (Joe Goethe from Topeka, Kansas) said, “No man is more a slave than the slave who thinks he is free.”
Posted by: Paskalis | July 1st, 2008 at 1:55 pm | Report this commentAs a European, I have seen that The Union has brought nothing – nothing - but advantages into my life.
Let any Eurosceptic say anything negative about The Union – anything – that cannot be said tenfold against his national government.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 1st, 2008 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentAll of the remedies Wolfgang Munchau suggested yesterday would not only be “drastic”, they would also be “illegal”, insofar as they would require 26 member states to break their present EU treaties with Ireland. And all 26 would agree to do this? Why? Because all 26 are desperate to move on to the amended treaties, even though we’ve been told again and again that the Lisbon amendments are really not that important, in fact they’re fairly minor adjustments designed to make the EU work more efficiently? Something’s not quite right here!
Posted by: Denis Cooper | July 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm | Report this commentPaskalis is right. The U.S. Dictatorhip over Europe is more subtle: it is better to cooperate sending thousands of Europeans to die and work in two far away American Wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) one of the a justified War to defend the honour of the nation (Afghanistan) and the other a War of Agression after the invasion and occupation of a Sovereign nation of 26 million people, something which Adolf Hitler did in Poland years ago…
U.S. military bases in Germany behave like parasites living inside that nation´s body without appearent interference in their affairs. But if the parasite consideres Germany is a threat to their interest they will just kill the body without compassion. And the German Government knows it perfectly: “we will kill you (remember Dresden)” is the simple advice from the occupation troops.
So if you have somebody with a permanent gun over your head you have to try to be kind…
Posted by: Enrique | July 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm | Report this commentNow apparently the Czech president doesn’t want to sign either, and the Austrian president is considering a referendum on Lisbon (no doubt he is under political pressure to do that) which would take time to organize of course.
Clearly there’s a lot of EU-fatigue at grass roots level plus resistance to further enlargement (esp. Turkey), so there’s a feeling that it’s time to send a strong message (”basta”?) to Brussels.
Posted by: J.J. | July 1st, 2008 at 5:55 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman,
Well written article, and I agree with your points. Before I begin, do you notice how the rampant anti-Americanism of the eurofanatic? It’s clear, Anti-American = Pro-EU. Pathetic, these eurofanatics…
Moving right along, as you pointed out, there is no need whatsoever for the Lisbon Treaty in order to make the EU run better. That claim is utter nonsense and pure fabrication by the eurofanatics themselves.
We have been lied to over and over and over again by Brussels and the euro-”elite” literally for a generation.
The latest example is the heinous attempt to try and pass off the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. They are one and the same.
As Giscard-the “father” of the EU Constitution himself-said in an interview with the British paper Independent on 30 October 2007: “The difference between the original EU Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content … the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary”.
Having failed at passing the EU Constitution in referendums held both France and Holland (it would have lost by a huge margin in the UK as well), the euro “elite” simply changed some wording around, called it a different name-the Lisbon Treaty, and then agreed among themselves to not allow any more referendums to be held ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
Then, the only country which was legally mandated to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, Eire, voted THAT down as well.
Simply put, what the euro-elite are doing is trying to perpetrate fraud. They behave as criminals, nothing more and nothing less.
We have been held in contempt by these elite, and now they are paying the price for their fraud and misdeeds.
I am fed up with the Brussels/euro elite’s lies, as are the people of Ireland, Holland, France and Great Britain.
Time to permanently shut the Berlaymont’s doors, I am afraid. The idea of a federalist EU has been proven a delusion, and an idea beyond saving and clearly not worth saving.
Posted by: Eriks Laimins | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 am | Report this commentAs we are Europeans and not Americans it is logical that we want a European as SACEUR Supreme Commander in Chief of NATO-Europe.
As we are Europeans and not Americans it is logical we prefer the Euro rather than the USD, which is not a European currency…and the European Central Bank (ECB) where we participate rather than the Fed where American states participate.
What doesn´t make sense is being part of one place and hate it as the Anti-Europeans do.
Of course, it happened before, and the American Confederation (CSA) would have preferred to be an ally of any European country against the United States of America (USA) if they had had the opportunity and received European support…
The European Union right now is just a Confederation but we Federalists want a full Federation, something inevitable sooner or later. The Euro was first envisioned during the 1970s and came back during the 1990s…
The Constitutional Treaty was signed by ALL Heads of Government and Heads of State of ALL member states of the European Union. By ALL, including the her Majesty the Queen of England and the King of Spain.
As we agree that we live in Parliamentary Democracies and ALL of them, including ALL their main political parties, and the overwhelming majority of the elected representatives of the People agreed on a Constitutional Treaty then it is logical it will come back…unless we think that Parliamentary Democracy is a farse.
Posted by: Enrique | July 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 am | Report this commentThe main expression of Sovereignty is Defense, the Army…and it is compulsory for Western and Central European Armies to be under the submission of an American, the Dictator Bantz J. Craddock, who is just third in the Defense Chain of Command after George W. Bush and the Secretary of State.
So the “independent” Kazyinski is jsut 4th in the chain of command of his own Army, hahaha. What a ridiculous guy. NO Polish General can be SACEUR, Supreme Commander in Chief of NATO-Europe. That´s not possible.
We are just an American Protectorate as the French President Jacques Chirac could realize when he rejected the American invasion of Iraq (and we are talking about France, which HAD the most autonomous Defense in Europe, not about a little poor and underdeveloped nation like the Czech Republic or Poland)
France is now back inside the American Chain of Comamnd under the US General Bantz J. Craddock, who at the same time is third in the U.S. Defense chain of command…
1.George W. Bush (Obama next year?) - 2.Condoleeza Rice - 3.Bantz J. Craddock - 4.Sarkozy, Kazinsky, Gordon Brown - 5. Angela Merkel
That´s the real truth.
Posted by: Enrique | July 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 am | Report this commentI would caution those who post such persuasive and forceful opinions against European federalism to be a little more moderate. It is not unthinkable that their arguments will sway Americans to see the failures inherent in federalism and thus disband that country’s federal structure and create 50 independence republics, each with a veto, its own duplicated army, its own tariffs, its own currency and its own vulnerability to outside manipulation.
After more than 200 years the dichotomy between federal and state power has not been settled in the US. Does America need to be destroyed in order to save it?
Posted by: Paskalis | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am | Report this commentThose who oppose the union of Europe never tell us how far back they want us to go: to restricted trade? To closed borders? To national currencies? To dragging women about by the hair?
Posted by: CAM | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 am | Report this commentCAM,
I think there are many people who oppose the European Union in its current unaccountable form, object to its socialist diktats and are frustrated at its continued lack of reform in vital areas (CAP?), who would be quite happy to see some form of union which was much closer to the people. The big problem with Bussels is that as its power grows it becomes ever more remote from the democratic accountability which, in spite of what our continental counsins may believe, really will decide whether the Union lives or dies in the long term. It’s patently clear that those like Giscard d’Estang and everything that they represent regard the European people with disdain - some would say total contempt; look at the blatant disregard for the recent referendum results on Nice and Lisbon if you want an example you can’t ignore.
In the patrician view of him and the other Enarques from across the European elites, it is far easier to build their Venusian paradise without the inconvenience of bothering with the voters. The cracks are beginning to show.
Posted by: AYC | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am | Report this commentLeaked out from l’Hôtel Matignon* via the German media comes the comment that the EU can keep going ok using the Nice Treaty, it will just mean that decisions will take longer to reach.
So - crisis? What crisis??
In any case, there is now also comment that the whole Lisbon matter can wait until the elections for the EU parliament have taken place in 2009.
* the abode of the French p.m. François Fillon
Posted by: J.J. | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm | Report this commentHe’s the cool laid-back guy who stands behind Sarko and usually looks slightly pained. He and his brother married two Welsh sisters.
Hi AYC:
The responsibility for the EU’s “unaccountable form, ” it’s “lack of reform and democratic accountability” and its distance from the people can all be laid at the feet of national politicians who dread the thought of those things coming about. For all its frightening “power,” the EU is still a creature of national politicians. One veto stops all: reform, democracy and accountability.
The results of referenda in France, The Netherlands and Ireland were shown to be a confluence of many different groups with a broad variety of unrelated grievances. Many were voting in protest against their own government. The results were to stop the reform that critics accuse the EU of not having made. Those who praise the wisdom of the voters for their No vote, would be condemning their ignorance had it gone the other way.
Why not have a Europe-wide referendum asking if Union officials should be elected by the people? Who won’t allow such referenda and whose knees shake at that prospect?
But never mind how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. This is the point:
Through the right of migration and employment, a common currency, the transference of a myriad of documents, portability of health care, protection and appeal from the excesses of national governments and many, many other ways, the European Union has brought many advantages to its citizens and could bring many more were it not for the rabid dogs that nip at the hand of progress. The very hand that feeds them.
Best,
Posted by: CAM | July 2nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm | Report this commentI stopped my Financial Times subscription about ten years ago, after many years because I was fed up of seing letters from British people an Martin Feldstein’s op-eds telling me how wrong I was as a European citizen to accept the Euro and the European central bank.
Gideon rachman and the editor are not better than those that were in charge at the time: they still do not undestand what the European union means for European citizen. I do not like the agriculture policy. Id Britain had joined the European venture at the start we would not have one. And britain would had to ask for the regional policy to have her money back.
I was very pleased to read the comments byPaskalis, Enrique and CAM. Fortunately, Eurosceptics are no longer “squatting” alone all the British press blogs.
Perhaps Eursceptics are devoting some of their time aand the little talent they have to ask their government to take initiatives to imrpove democracy at the European level. But to they realy think that their country are so much more “democratic” ?
Posted by: ET | July 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm | Report this commentET. I personally doubt if the EU will ever be much more politically than a “Staatenbündnis” - an alliance of European states - which seems to be as far as the German and French and some other member countries want to go.
For Germany, the economy and the currency have always been the most important factors.
The Euro is a resounding success. The reason for the rise of a quarter percent from the ECB yesterday was to maintain the purchasing power of the Euro and thus preserve the stability of the Euro as “the future world currency” (die kommende Weltwährung) as the German media put it yesterday.
In fact those countries which are suffering the worst inflation (double digits) are those whose currencies are linked to the USD, namely many countries in Asia and in the Middle East and the Arabian Gulf states.
Posted by: J.J. | July 4th, 2008 at 7:19 am | Report this commentJ.J.
As most EU member states, but much more European Peoples, are not eager to send troops to American Wars and die for American interests, European Defense would be more “National” than you think…but there is a danger as you point out as a consequence of being the E.U. an American Protectorate under the Dictator Bantz J. Craddock.
Posted by: Enrique | July 8th, 2008 at 12:00 pm | Report this comment