Why is the European Union project failing?

[hashtag46]

Why is the European Union project failing?


I read many interesting points of view, mostly around issues such as economy, authoritarianism, national sovereignity and so on.

But I just came across this interesting passage from J.R.Saul's "Telling truths about Canada ", which reminded me of another perspective that I came across. To which I might add:

That one of the reasons for EU's failure
- might well be it's attempt to create the EU in the image of a large monololithic nation- state. (similar to the US model)
- while reconstructing each individual european country from monolithic to the "polymorphic" South American or Canadian model, so to speak (Christianity as the main state religion to be replaced by a multitude of religions, different ethnicities and new migrants to exist withing their own enclaves instead of assimilating to the local culture and so on)...

 

[hashtag46]

This is the passage that I was referring to in the OP: :


"1.The US is the beloved child of European history. It is the full expression of the Enlightenment project.
- It announces itself, in its various declarations of independence and of constitutional order and of legal rights, to be the favourite child of the Western nation-state project. It was erected as the new Eden; a place where the apple-biting of the European could be eliminated.
- The rise of European-style nation-state nationalism in the early nineteenth century also was transferred with its most energetic expression to the US and then to the rest of the Americas.
If you add to that the broad temperate space the United States was lucky enough to be built around, you can easily understand how it came to so dominate the available imaginative space.

2.Central and South America have at various times attempted to embrace that same project; but for them the senior mythological space on this specific ground can't help but go to the US.
- It could also be argued that much of the difficulty Latin American countries have had making this model work comes from their reality - an Aboriginal, Metis, immigrant tension - which is deeply unsuited to the Enlightenment project. Their reality has more in common with Canada's than with those of Europe or the United States.

That Canada has tried at various times to go down the same road as our neighbour we know well.
- But the basis of this Enlightenment and nationalistic project is the monolithic nation-state, which Canada has never been and cannot become. For 400 years we have had repeated proof that attempts at a monolithic reconstruction of Canada can only bring internal strife and the real threat of disintegration. We have therefore gone down a highly original, even revolutionary, non-monolithic road.

3.Looked at from the outside, the effects of Canadians refusing to embrace the atypical nature of the Canadian experiment are startling.
But once you accept that the US is rightfully the primary inheritor of the European ideal and that we don't fit into that model, you have the basic elements for a very different approach."



A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada
by John Ralston Saul
https://www.amazon.com/Fair-Country-Telling-Truths-Canada

 

[KingOrfeo]

The Eurozone, at any rate, is failing because it is a currency union but not a fiscal union.

- while reconstructing each individual european country from monolithic to the "polymorphic" South American or Canadian model, so to speak (Christianity as the main state religion to be replaced by a multitude of religions, different ethnicities and new migrants to exist withing their own enclaves instead of assimilating to the local culture and so on)...

The states of Europe were heading in that direction anyway, the EU has nothing to do with it.

 

[Rightguide]

It fails because it isn't united.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It fails because it isn't united.

Bear in mind that the EU started out as a simple tariff union among three or four countries. From that point, as it has grown in membership, it has been gradually inching towards larger functions and greater unity, with several setbacks rooted partly in nationalist backlash and partly in leftist resistance to what leftists see as the institutionalization of capitalism on a continental scale. We can't judge it a failure just because it is not yet a fully sovereign federal government like the USG.

 

[Radiohead]

Common enemy(ies) defeated, so go back against the old enemies.

And it was currency first, ag second, and nothing was ever going further.

You cant get reelected approving any free trade deals that wipe out a local industry. Especially when they are big and have been protected forever.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Because all noble causes are schemes for one faction to fuck its competition. Its all you need to know about the EU or the Commonwealth or your religion or your partner.

I usta keep a sign on my desk: SHE DOESNT WANT YOU SHE WANTS YOUR JOB.

 

[oggbashan]

The EU is not a failure if you consider it against its original principle which was to prevent future wars between France and Germany.

As a free trade area it worked reasonably well - and that is what the UK joined.

The Euro currency union was flawed from the outset because several countries joined even though they didn't meet the financial criteria for joining. For some it was creative accounting and wishful thinking that allowed them to join. For Greece their government lied to their EU partners and to their population. Greece's economy was a mess and their currency was overvalued when they joined the Eurozone.

As with every large organisation there is tension between the centre and the outposts. The European organisation did not fully recognise that the nation states that joined were themselves fragmented and had differing federal or union structures. What might be good for Germany might be bad for Bavaria; what might be good for Italy might be bad for Sicily...

The EU made a nod towards 'subsidiarity' - the idea that things could work differently in parts of the EU and even parts of individual countries - but they didn't really appreciate that the differences were so wide and traditions so strongly held. Increased centralisation made those local differences an irritant that impacted on the popularity of the EU. The fractures in some countries e.g. Belgium are almost unbridgeable without EU conflicts between countries.

Free movement of trade and people was a great idea but wrecked by uncontrolled immigration from outside the EU. Germany wanted more workers and had a tradition of gastarbeiter (guest workers) who were exploited and didn't share the rights of native Germans. They saw immigrants as more gastarbeiters to replace their ageing population. France already had a massive number of disaffected and marginalised people from their former African countries. Those unemployed in France and the gastarbeiter in Germany saw the immigrants as a threat to their few opportunities to better themselves.

The EU would NOT change its policy on free movement. That was a sticking point for the UK's negotiation before the Brexit referendum. Without some change on free movement the UK government couldn't sell remaining in the EU effectively.

In practice the free movement has already been wrecked by countries closing borders against immigrants, but the central EU doesn't accept the reality that free movement of peoples has to have some regulation if only to stop criminals and terrorists from exploiting open borders.

The EU is flawed, slow to react to reality, reluctant to change but cooperation is still better than confrontation. It might improve to become a European nation state - but not in my lifetime...

 

[Rightguide]

Bear in mind that the EU started out as a simple tariff union among three or four countries. From that point, as it has grown in membership, it has been gradually inching towards larger functions and greater unity, with several setbacks rooted partly in nationalist backlash and partly in leftist resistance to what leftists see as the institutionalization of capitalism on a continental scale. We can't judge it a failure just because it is not yet a fully sovereign federal government like the USG.

There's no presumption of sovereignty in their member states either, a major difference in any comparison to the US.

 

[Sean]

Vettebigot the EU expert that thinks Britain uses the Euro.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There's no presumption of sovereignty in their member states either, a major difference in any comparison to the US.

The EU member states have far more sovereignty and retain far more governmental functions relative to the EU than U.S. states have relative to the USG. E.g., there is no EU welfare state, the EU has no continental social programs at all; it is mainly concerned with setting standards for bottled jam, etc. There is no EU personal income tax, AFAIK. There is no EU Army or Navy.

 

[Rightguide]

The EU member states have far more sovereignty and retain far more governmental functions relative to the EU than U.S. states have relative to the USG. E.g., there is no EU welfare state, the EU has no continental social programs at all; it is mainly concerned with setting standards for bottled jam, etc. There is no EU personal income tax, AFAIK. There is no EU Army or Navy.

Do they have control of their state borders? So why do so many in Europe rebel against its loving disinterest in their member's affairs?

 

[oggbashan]

... There is no EU Army or Navy.

Yet. It is an EU proposal that the UK saw as weakening NATO.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yet. It is an EU proposal that the UK saw as weakening NATO.

You know, it would make some sense for the U.S. and Canada to withdraw from NATO, and make the remainder of it the military arm of the EU.

 

[oggbashan]

You know, it would make some sense for the U.S. and Canada to withdraw from NATO, and make the remainder of it the military arm of the EU.

If the EU could successfully organise a piss-up in a brewery? That might be feasible. It is hard enough for NATO commanders to get units to work together now. An EU military? Which country would provide the leaders? Germany? France would object. France? Germany would object.

France has a nuclear capability. The only other European country that has is the UK, and the UK's nuclear arm is linked to US policy.

France could easily withdraw from NATO. They have before. France could take their military toys home if an EU commander offended them.

The UK's objection to an EU military is that it would weaken NATO without providing anything nearly as good, and the command would be fractured so many ways that the EU military would be a broken sword.

Added: In NATO the real situation is that the US calls the shots because it has the greatest forces. NATO gives the US political clout well beyond its borders. Cooperation with other NATO forces gives more legitimacy to US actions.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do they have control of their state borders?

Well, neither do U.S. states, the USG alone controls those.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The Eurozone, at any rate, is failing because it is a currency union but not a fiscal union.

Bear in mind that the EU started out as a simple tariff union among three or four countries. From that point, as it has grown in membership, it has been gradually inching towards larger functions and greater unity,

It's not inching towards greater "unity" lol....it's inching towards greater power, like all government entities it's end goal is totalitarian control over everything.

It failed because it's trying to become more than a currency union and the people don't want that.

You know, it would make some sense for the U.S. and Canada to withdraw from NATO, and make the remainder of it the military arm of the EU.

LOL.....not much of a military.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Well, neither do U.S. states, the USG alone controls those.

You must not have ever come into California, because that's simply untrue.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . like all government entities it's end goal is totalitarian control over everything.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You must not have ever come into California, because that's simply untrue.

I have, but only by plane, and I did not have to go through customs or anything. If I drive to CA, do I have to go through a border check? I never have encountered one, driving within the U.S., and I have driven across a lot of state lines.

 

[oggbashan]

Do they have control of their state borders? So why do so many in Europe rebel against its loving disinterest in their member's affairs?

No. There is complete freedom of movement within the Schengen zone.

I can drive from France into Belgium, to the Netherlands and into Germany without noticing that I'm in different countries except for the road signs.

The UK is NOT in the Schengen zone. At the ferry or Eurotunnel terminal I have to show my passport to border control (in the UK to French officials; in France to UK officials). At the other end I just drive off and go anywhere with no checks at all.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's as true today as it was in ancient times.

If you do not keep the powerhouse in check it will steam roll the people. At least "that" part of the population.

If I drive to CA, do I have to go through a border check?

Yes you do.

I never have encountered one, driving within the U.S., and I have driven across a lot of state lines.

Most states don't give a shit, but if they wanted too they absolutely can.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's as true today as it was in ancient times.

In ancient times, despotic governments existed, but were not totalitarian, and were content with obedience. They were not at all like the dictatorships that emerged in 20th Century demanding enthusiasm. The only pre-modern governments I can think of approaching that were the Inca Empire, which was not a bad government to live under, and Sparta, which was.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In ancient times, despotic governments existed, but were not totalitarian,

There you go lying to yourself again.

They were not at all like the dictatorships that emerged in 20th Century demanding enthusiasm.

They did demand enthusiasm anywhere they could apply it. You'd have to have never turned on the history channel (much less studied any history really) to believe otherwise.

The reason it's more pressing in modern times is because the governments have more power and thus control.

The only pre-modern governments I can think of approaching that were the Inca Empire, which was not a bad government to live under, and Sparta, which was.

1) Sparta was the shiznit....and

2) the Incans were a bunch of fuckin' savages every bit as cruel and bloody as the Greeks.

 

[KingOrfeo]

1) Sparta was the shiznit....and

Not even for the citizen caste was it a good government to live under.

2) the Incans were a bunch of fuckin' savages every bit as cruel and bloody as the Greeks.

I was referring to their government, not their culture (which was not really very cruel -- human sacrifice was done but was minimal, and I've never heard of torture in their society). It was a sort of pre-industrial socialism -- all goods produced were collected and distributed by government accountants. Worked pretty well, actually. And of course the emperors were considered divine, but so were the rulers of several other ancient states.