How could so many clever people get it so wrong? The question was recently asked by the British politician Daniel Hannan in an article on the collapse of the euro; in the coming months, the same question will be asked more and more often about Europe itself.
Europe as it has been built may appear at best a huge error, and at worst a crime against the spirit of liberty that was supposed to be the initial source of inspiration for the whole edifice.
The idea that it is possible to build a society based on abstract principles — without considering historical, social and economic realities, as if its members were infinitely malleable – has often led to disaster; this time is no different.
The formation of this error began in the aftermath of World War II. Looking at the ruins left by Nazism and Fascism, politicians from various European countries fabricated a project meant to erase all past mistakes committed on the continent. They only repeated the mistakes.
Believing that nations, identities, and differences were the essential source of troubles, they decided to make a clean sweep and build an entirely new society, inhabited by new human beings modeled from the top down: Europeans.
Realizing that democracy can be dangerous — it had brought to power the likes of Adolph Hitler — they developed institutions to place it under close supervision. Deducing from their readings and their world view that a strong economy should be a command economy, they introduced instruments of planning in the production of coal and steel, then in agriculture.
This resulted in the creation of supranational structures that were added to each other over time, in a form of cumulative stacking, until, in 1957, a committee made up of unelected people was established in Brussels and charged with producing regulations for businesses and aspects of everyday life : the «efficient use» of water or the «appropriate shape» of waste containers, the «normal curvature» of bananas and cucumbers or the «harmonized definition of yoghurt». Meetings of Heads of States and Governments — a group that later became the European Council — were held out of sight to make key decisions , such as subsidies to industries, price-support mechanisms, decisions about enlargement, the reform of institutions, and the extension of powers. A European Parliament was created, but was given no power.
While the structures piled up, the edifice expanded: after the collapse of the Soviet empire, a group that had started with six countries became 27 member countries. Its name changed : formerly known as European Economic Community, it became European Union. While at first it seemed to be an economic edifice, it has proven to be a political edifice.
It might look like a State, but it is not a State. It is supposed to be composed of independent countries, but countries that are part of it has a sovereignty that more and more limited. It now has two presidents, one is the head of the Commission, the other is the head of the Union, but neither is the holder of any executive office. As the parliament essentially has an « advisory » role, the real power is exercised by the members of the Commission, a bureaucracy of technocrats, and by the European Council, a small political elite.
People still vote in each country, preserving the illusion that national governments have a voice, but 70% of the laws and guidelines in today's Europe are issued at levels that are unattainable for national governments. When elections are held on «Europe», voters are entirely free to voice their opinions, but only on the strict condition that their final answer is Yes.
The introduction of the single currency was designed to move towards a fuller political, fiscal and social unity, and a more complete abolition of the last vestiges of democracy. The unity in question has not emerged. The euro was supposed to be the currency of all Europe ; it is the currency of only 17 countries.
Rather than becoming closer, these countries have gradually moved away from each other, and divisions and disparities have intensified, leading to increasing dysfunctions. Neither Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, nor even France, has seen their economies and societies come to resemble German or Scandinavian economies and societies. Differences in productivity have only widened. Interest rates appropriate for some economies have proven inadequate for other economies. The exchange rate of the euro became too high for some countries, and if devaluation was impossible, the only remaining variables able to be adjusted were unemployment, budget deficits, and debts. On behalf of the construction of the new society, massive financial transfers were conducted from richer countries to poorer countries, while people living in the poorer countries enjoyed for a time the illusion of becoming wealthier without having either to work harder or become more efficient and disciplined.
Other factors played their part: The countries of Europe created welfare states that claimed to support people from the cradle to the grave; they developed economic systems of redistribution that have created in people an appetite for passivity and dependence, leading to a growing number of people who think the government owes them a means of subsistence. As welfare rolls and subsidies have increased, the number of those who contribute to them financially has steadily declined. European nations' borrowing power has gradually diminished, and the redistribution systems have been left unfunded. As the birthrate of native Europeans has fallen sharply, its aging population increases even further the financial burden on those who pay out to it. Immigrants from poor countries have flowed in, most of whom are Muslims who have not integrated, and have ended up living in separate enclaves of lawlessness and resentment. These conditions, coupled with economic decline, have created ghettos ever ready to riot and explode.
A collapse is near. Some EU countries are already in a state of bankruptcy, even if it is kept under wraps. Doubts hang over the medium-term strength of the nations who seem in better shape: the interdependencies that have developed appear difficult to break without causing even greater financial problems, and the health of healthier countries is merely relative. Germany's debt is 83% of its gross domestic product, and it has the lowest birthrate in Europe,1.36 children per woman. Italy, by comparison, has a debt of 118% and a birthrate of 1.40.
The agreement of December 9, described as the "Last Chance Agreement," will hold for a few months, but probably not more. Its goal is to give the high European authorities the power to ratify all countries' budgets in the eurozone, an approach that means guardianship by the unelected bureaucracy of technocrats and the political elite. The same causes will produce the same effects: the countries already in bankruptcy will continue to sink because their economies are not viable with, and often without, the current exchange-rate of the euro. The unelected bureaucracy of technocrats and the political elite will ask for sacrifices. The standard of living will continue to fall throughout the entire eurozone, and deficits will continue to widen. The recession in the countries already in bankruptcy will become permanent. As Germany is unable to bail out these countries indefinitely, they will be doomed sooner or later actually to file for bankruptcy. Germany no longer finds a buyer for its debt. Who will purchase Greek or Italian debt? The Financial Stability Mechanism will be fed for some time by the IMF and its main contributors. What country could be expected to continue endless assistance, given that difficulties appear more and more serious and will not stop?
The stated aim of the agreement is political, fiscal and social unity. The real aim is to give the unelected bureaucracy and the political elite the authority to implement this unity, at all costs. The argument used is always the same: the union of Europe is the only guarantee of peace and prosperity ; without it there will be chaos.
The reality may be very different. There could be chaos precisely because of the European Union as it was implemented.
In a book published a few years ago, the former dissident Vladimir Bukovsky compared the former Soviet Union to the European Union, which he called the EUSSR. Immediately prior to the Soviet Union's falling apart, its leaders were trying to clog the holes and persuade themselves that the Union would last. Although the European leaders are also now clogging the holes and trying to persuade themselves that the European Union will last, these measures will not prevent it from falling apart.
No one can know, of course, what Europe will look like in ten years. The only prediction that seems assured is that it will be poorer, more divided, more confrontational, more violent, and that the European Union will look like a shattered dream.
The «European dream,» as Jeremy Rifkin called it, has crumbled, ironically just at the time when its US followers — and the very politicians who want the United States to resemble Europe — are in power.
@ Guy Millière for Stonegate Institute.
The European union that was indeed built on the Ruins of Nazism and Fascism has manufactered its own Islamization.
The European union is a dusty machine that was unable to solve the Kossovo issue without the Help of the US Military intervention.
Where was Europe during the Soviet era ?
what has done Europe to Prevent The occupied Cyprus by the Turks?
in a matter of years, Europe as we know will soon cease to exist.
Why ?
Islamic immigration that has the highest rate of fertility
There never was (and hopefully there never will be again) such a time when so many over-informed people remained so completely blind to reality.
The longer we continue to dream, the harder it will be to rebuild and recover.
C’est une excellente analyse M. Millière. L’idée européenne est une application de la doctrine du constructivisme. Au départ, l’idée de Jean Monnet était de mettre fin aux rivaltés séculaires entre la FR et DE qui avaient causé tant de guerres, de morts et de misère par la mise en commun de la production de l’acier et du charbon, ces deux matières premières étant, en effet, nécessaires à la fabrication des armements et munitions. Le pari était de dire que les nouveaux partenaires (anciennement ennemis) dans la production des deux matières premières ne se feraient plus la guerre . Le pari fut le bon et Jean Monnet trouva en la personne de Robert Schumann (né à Sys Chazelles de mère luxembourgeoise et de père alsacien) une oreille à son projet. Ce projet aurait dû s’arrêter là ou aurait peut-être pu se concrétiser jusqu’à l’union douanière mais guère plus loin. Tout ce qui s’est passé par la suite se résume à du constructivisme: la construction d’un système sur base d’une idée qui ne passe pas le test de la réalité (il suffit de penser ces dernières années à la Stratégie de Lisbonne- l’économie de l’Europe la plus performante, la directive « services », le marché intérieur qui n’a pas été couplé avec la coopération policière et qui a permis à des réseaux mafieux de gangréner l’UE, la politique de la simplification administrative (25% de réduction des charges administratives pour les entreprises), la réglementation avortée ralative à la société européenne, l’échec de la société privée européenne etc etc etc)
Si la construction européenne est une erreur est ce qu’à l’inverse les réformes constitutionnelles en Hongrie sont bonnes? Elles semblent a priori moins constructiviste même si elles étendent le pouvoir du politique.
Connaissant l’U.E. et ses institutions de très près depuis 30+ années, je partage assez les vues historiques et analyses actuelles D.Hannan (dont je crois avoir déjà lu un article).
Créer des institutions « supra » n’est en soi pas un désavantage.
Le problème PROFOND de chacune d’elles réside dans l’ABSENCE DE RESPONSABILITES de leur part quant aux effets indésirables qu’elles induisent au loin, là sur un nuage. Effectivement : aucun de leurs dirigeants ne sont vraiment élus (sinon par lobbying inter-étatique, assez idéologique). Donc ils ne sont qu’armée mexicaine de SUPRA-FONCTIONNAIRES grassement payés à vie; sujets à tiraillements mais ne vivant guère sur siège éjectable (hors un cas… DSK).
Depuis l’ère « pères fondateurs des ’40s » (FR et apports BE/DE/IT), les situations internationales ont changé du tout au tout.
Du boom européen, rien n’aurait été réalisable sans l’aide du sénateur US Plan Marshall, un plan d’essence LIBERALE!
L’Europe de l’Ouest entière en bénéficia alors des retombées sous appellation « Trente Glorieuses ». Après lesquelles – et depuis trente autres années – l’U.E. à 6-15-27 E.M. ne mena qu’à des pis aller décrits par D.Hannah.
La misère d’Europe exangue d’après WWII n’existe plus dans ses mêmes origines. Désormais c’est celle « importée » qui l’a remplacée! Le bien-être social européen a généralement atteint des niveaux records (parmi les U.E. 9 à 12, selon les critères considérés).
Tenir l’U.E. en vie, la laisser s’essouffler ou tuer le concept?
Primo: plaçons-nous devant un futur réaliste :
– les USA garderont leur hégémonie (se battront pour).
– en dépit d’apparences de façade, les russes n’ont pas gros avantage à s’écarter de nous.
– le Japon et l’Inde ont renouvelé d’étroits partenariats avec USA et généralement l’Occident et l’Asie (hors Chine).
– les émergents Chine + Brésil bouffent les talons PIB allemands et français!
– bien que nous ayons des reproches à adresser aux Etats européens du pourtour méditerranéen, ils partagent une histoire longue avec nous.
– l’Europe de l’Est comporte des Etats en développement positif (PL), hors la corruption qui caractérise beaucoup d’eux.
Les risques environnementaux dont on nous rabat les oreilles depuis la vertueuse U.E. constituent un vaste leurre. Ils culpabilisent, sont joués par les fonctionnaires onusiens « arrosés » avec la complicité de IPCC/GIEC (bouffeurs de subsides pseudo-recherche). Plus lucides et disposant aussi de nombreux scientifiques, les russes – chinois – indiens – nord-américains rejettent ces tristesses apocalyptiques. Ils foncent selon leurs intérêts et de projections autrement futées que celle d’une « crosse de Hockey » des T° 2100, du CO2 anthropique et des G.A.S.!!!
Placés à horizon 2020-2030 (en géopolitique, c’est demain), la stabilité du monde est gravement mise ne danger! Quoi? diront ces niais qui peuplent chaque population d’ici et là… Ben au travers du CHOC des BLOCS économiques: pays développés contre pays émergents ayant émergé! Tous ces pays étant cependant INTERDEPENDANTS au plan socio-économique (la crise actuelle le confirme: cfr. les « effets systémiques »!
Deuxio : le fléau islamiste radical en cessera pas de sitôt! Populations à démographie galopante malgré les prévisionnistes imbéciles qui occupent nos universités d’Europe! Le Club de Rome 1971 avait vu juste, pour d’autres mobiles que les actuels.
Tout se rassemble alors pour des conflits qu’appréhendent clairement nos dirigeants mais qu’il importe de ne pas les exposer brutalement sur la voie publique de nos lambda et des apôtres-pacifistes devant l’Eternel. Samuel Huntington l’avait écrit de manière prémonitoire durant ’90s (niée par nos langues de bois européennes et démocrates US). Ses dires d’alors sont-ils encore si faux aujourd’hui? A relire!
Oui l’U.E. risque sérieusement de s’étouffer sous sa bureaucratie et le CONSTRUCTIVISME invoqué par l’autre alias Hannah 5/01 16:02 .
De plus en plus de d’euro-citoyens refusent explicitement les « productions » de comités d’idéologues nichés dans nos hémicirques® européens!
A qui incombe les grosses fautes et déviances risquées des années Delors puis Santer-Prodi-Barroso? De mon observation attentive: à la co-décision octroyée durant ’90s à un parlement européen absolument pléthorique (jeux subtils et rusés entre « blocs de CENT partis ligués » qui y figurent, souvent idéologues et opportunistes entremêlés).
La Commission procure des apports parfois positifs: le drame depuis 20 ans : elle ne s’est JAMAIS REFORMEE (pas d’approfondissement, errements de l’élargissement). Il faut tamiser le plus et les nombreux moins!
Enfin : de mon opinion, l’issue de secours restera dans l’Europe des NATIONS, respectueuse des cultures/identités, de leurs situations spécifiques et disparates, par des élus encore assez proches des 500.000.000 de leurs citoyens.
Devinons l’organe institutionnel?
Ben tiens, le CONSEIL EUROPEEN. Celui-ci où trop de français et d’ignorants accusent les Merckel-Sarkozy-VanRompuy de devoir y faire des pirouettes!
Réfléchissez bien avant de vous prononcer sur des vues fragmentaires. A tout coup, la solution européenne ne viendra pas de l’INTERNATIONALE SOCIALISTE et des clowns!
Quand je lis les forums économiques, il devient presque impossible de trouver quelqu’un qui comprend la situation globale de la zone euro. J’ai l’impression d’être confronté à illuminés qui voient conspiration et nationalisme comme sources de tous leurs maux sans être le moins du monde capables de saisir les subtils équilibres actuels… Qui comprend encore que l’Allemagne ne PEUT PAS économiquement agir autrement qu’elle ne le fait sans sombrer à son tour? Qui comprend que l’apparente bonne santé allemande est en réalité liée intimement au système européen et qu’elle est dans un terrible jeu d’équilibriste entre ne pas couler à cause du système (et donc ne pas trop prêter) et ne pas couler avec le système (trop prêter) sans pouvoir sans départir puisqu’il est la condition même de possibilité de l’économie allemande? Qui comprend, de façon plus générale, que l’europe est déjà morte économiquement car la structure mécanique de la crise ne peut plus être modifiée?
Sur les forums de presque tous les pays, plus personne ne comprend rien et ça, ça fait terriblement peur.
Même les « spécialistes » sont des a-lettrés incapable de produire autre chose que de la propagande idéologique sans aucun sens.
C’est finalement la triste plus grande réussite de l’europe d’avoir réussi à ôter toute capacité de raisonner à ses citoyens.
La question véritable est : combien de temps cette saloperie idéologique européenne mettra t’elle de temps à crever définitivement?
I have certainly learnt from Guy on the subject, and am appreciative for Guy’s writing in English. The ‘progressives’ in America seek to emulate Europe’s failure in a quest for power; because power over democracy’s imperfections was the very reason for Europe’s new construction. Once this fact is realized all of Brussels’ structures and impediments make sense; no wonder ‘progressives’ point to Europe as the new righteousness. There is also a dream of “world order” that appeals to not just Democrats but Republicans as well, where rule of law would be governed by international standards, rather than the precepts of our Constitution. To fight off this evil we need Guy and many more like Guy to sound off the alarm. Could it be that in a not too distant future, Europe might actually teach a powerful lesson to the United States? As in “don’t make the errors we’ve made and return to your constitutional (near) perfection”? Europe would teach us besides itself, yet there is much to be learnt by failed examples.
Thanks Guy for the article.