tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674436630368640459.post7240202204646777646..comments2022-04-09T06:11:40.453+02:00Comments on The World According To Victor: When will the Europhiles learn their lesson?Victor van der Sterrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02366924832454100159noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674436630368640459.post-85491629336041950892012-05-31T22:14:23.622+02:002012-05-31T22:14:23.622+02:00(2/2)
The matter at hand is that you blame the sc...(2/2)<br /><br />The matter at hand is that you blame the sceptics for this. First of all, in this case “the sceptics” refers to “the democratic majority in every single member state”. Are you seriously saying that the EU failed because the people didn’t meekly shut up and did as they were told by the bigshots in Brussels?<br /><br />Cause it sounds a lot like that’s what you’re saying: because the people rejected the idea of even more centralized power, they ruined the European plan, or so you say. But that’s just ridiculous. It’s an invalid argument. Basically, it’s like saying “I wanted to take away all your sovereign power over your own affairs, and you wouldn’t let me, so I could only take half your freedom, and now we’re in an unstable ‘half-way’ system… so that’s YOUR fault!”<br /><br />See the problem with that reasoning? The initiator of a process that the people did not want (yet?) is blaming the one he was trying to force into his scheme for its failure. Did you know communists used much the same reasoning when their system failed? It was the people who failed the system, they reasoned, not the other way around. That prompted Brecht to quip sardonically that “if the government doesn’t like the people, why doesn’t the government elect a new people?”<br /><br />Truth is that it’s not the sceptics’ fault that there is so little popular support for the EU. The ones trying to sell it should be coming up with a better “product” instead of what they’re offering, because the people don’t want what’s on offer now. The people were fine with the EEG, but the EU was several steps too far. It was clear that the majority rejected it, but it was still pushed through (case in point: the 2005 referendum). Don’t blame the resulting mess on the sceptics: they gave fair warning.<br /><br />You make some attempt at justifying unification by pointing at history. Let me point out then that the greatest bloodbaths in the history of our continent were the result of some damned fool trying to unify all or most of Europe under a single government. It always created resentment, and that’s what it is doing now as well.<br /><br />For me, European (and, for that matter, global) cooperation, free trade and the mostly unrestricted movement of individuals is the way to the future. Forced unification (or “integration”, as it is euphemistically referred to) is another matter altogether. It is not a force for good, but rather a dangerous and often tyrannical instrument that results in oppression and injustice.<br /><br />So let us dismantle the EU, for it is a failed experiment. Start over again, but this time – do it from the ground up, instead of from the top down. It will take a damned sight longer, but the result will be stable and lasting. Which cannot be said for the EU, I suspect.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />VictorVictor van der Sterrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366924832454100159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674436630368640459.post-62655464291928566222012-05-31T22:13:09.134+02:002012-05-31T22:13:09.134+02:00Hey Joost,
Feels a little weird to have this disc...Hey Joost,<br /><br />Feels a little weird to have this discussion in English – considering we’re both Dutch, and know each other off the web – but for the purposes of internationalism, I’ll continue this in English nevertheless.<br /><br />I apologize in advance fo having to split up this reply into two parts: there's a max. character limit, and I wanted to offer a thorough reply to your observations and opinions.<br /><br />I’ll start off by responding to your preliminary remarks:<br /><br />1) I realize that the Euro and the EU are not the same, and I don’t think I’ve claimed at any point that they are the same thing. Nevertheless, I believe both the Union and the Currency to be structurally flawed due to overextension: there are nations involved that cannot handle the responsibility of membership (yet). Dismantling the Euro is, in my opinion, not enough to solve this problem. The entire EU should be split up. That way, nations can develop at their own pace.<br /><br />2) You are being rather cynical and unfair in regards to the sceptics. I’ll grant you there are many populists that now use anti-EU sentiment as a means of vote-harvesting, but there are also many sceptics who have been honestly and dutifully pointing out the problems for years. They certainly did offer a constructive solution: slow down a little. Give “Europeanism” time to grow naturally, from the ground up. I can think of no better advice. It was the Europhiles who pushed for more, and faster, and still more, still faster… All the while alienating the people and in fact creating more Eurosceptics.<br /><br />3) This is a blatant falsehood, and I have some trouble believing that you are truly gullible enough to stand by such a statement. There has been a clear movement in support of Eurofederalism, and to deny this would be ridiculous. Please read Guy Verhofstadt’s latest book, which he actually refers to as “the case for the United States of Europe”. He, and his staunch supporters, clearly have a plan for far-reaching unification. And it has nothing to do with ‘consensus’, ‘modesty’ or ‘sovereignty’. Sure, that’s how European cooperation got started, but you confuse the original idea of free trade and open borders (which I support!) with the later goal op poltical union (which I reject in the short term, and would only support in the long term if it comes about from the ground up).<br /><br />Next, you explain why the EU is “good”. Rather, you only explain why everything up to the EEG was good. And I’m not disagreeing with that – at least not by much. I reject the EU, but support the idea of an EEG. My only complaint is the inequality of member states, so I’d suggest an EEG for Northern Europe, which excludes the South until it gets “up to speed”. (Tomorrow, I’ll be posting the second part of my article, which deals with an alternative to the current EU. It deals with the issue of internal inequality in some depth; never let it be said that the sceptics offer no alternatives, eh?)<br /><br />You’ll note that up to the EEG, the peoples of Europe were, by and large, positive about Europeanism. Or actually, you didn’t note that at all. You instead claim that “There was never a 'grand scheme for Europe', which is probably the reason why people dislike it so much.”<br /><br />The opposite is true. When the EEG was forcibly turned into the far more centralized and top-heavy EU, *that* was the point when “a plan for Europe” was introduced. That was when men like Verhofstadt started talking about the “U.S.E.”. It was also when the people turned against the EU. So again, I make the case that it was the Eorophiles themselves who poisoned the European idea. They pushed for far too much, in far too short a timespan. What they forced upon the people was indeed a system with “some serious flaws”, as you say. Those flaws are, I think, far more serious than you seem to believe – but that is another matter.<br /><br />(1/2)Victor van der Sterrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366924832454100159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674436630368640459.post-77093326186782926232012-05-31T19:44:24.068+02:002012-05-31T19:44:24.068+02:00As an International Relations student, I feel obli...As an International Relations student, I feel obliged to respond. <br /><br />First of all, I have to make a few remarks: <br />1.) the Euro (and consequently the Monetary Union) is not the same as the European Union. Although the two concepts are interrelated and mutually dependent, these developments stem from different ideas.<br /><br />2.) Sceptics are always right when things go wrong, that is the funny thing with them. However, that does not make them visionary or smart. Eurosceptics have done nothing but complain rather than providing constructive answers to the very core of the problems Europe, and democracy at large, are facing nowadays. <br /><br />3.) There has never been a 'Europhile-plan' for Europe. Since the people who are involved in the European Integration process realise that the European Union was built upon consensus, modest aspirations, functional cooperation and the recognition of sovereignty, which is actually explicitly mentioned in the Lisbon Treaty. It is the national politicians which do not understand Europe, misjudge it and characterize it as something bad because it sells. In fact, European Integration is a very difficult process to understand, which is probably the reason why many politicians are wary of 'explaining' this to the public. <br /><br />Why European Integration is good: <br />The European integration process started in 1952 with the ECSC. In the aftermath of the atrocities caused by WW2, and realizing that absolute sovereignty was part of the cause, the member states deviced a process of interdependency which was to halt any triggers for escalation. In essence ECSC was simply created, because coal and steel were the main 'ingredients' for war. The believe was that creating a regulatory body for this would increase interdependence and make war an extremely costly matter. In fact, these ideas were all born out of practicality and the commitment to prevent any future wars. When this process took shape, and proved to be very succesful, technical and functional 'spillover' occurred. Not by 'grand ideas of europhiles' as you claim, but by rather modest, functional ideas of improving cooperation. There was never a 'grand scheme for Europe', which is probably the reason why people dislike it so much. The European Union is vague, unnoticeable and has no plan to it, which was exactly it's power.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the European Monetary Union has some serious flaws in it, which were indeed made painfully clear by the financial crisis. However, this is not because the technocrats in Brussels made a stupid mistake. It was the cling to financial sovereignty of member states which produced a 'half-way' plan. A revision of this system is indeed needed. But simply 'going back' to the pre-WW2 ideals of "sovereignty above all" is not only costly and foolish, it's also dangerous. History has shown us what can happen on this continent when everyone starts thinking about themselves. For me, European cooperation (and integration) still is the future.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12597347659613311668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-674436630368640459.post-31536079874954670072012-05-31T11:43:37.279+02:002012-05-31T11:43:37.279+02:00Reality has a terrible habit to enforce itself on ...Reality has a terrible habit to enforce itself on those who deny her.Kassandra Troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08807916829602751413noreply@blogger.com