 |
| Picture credit: Horatiu Ferchiu |
Fellow blogger Horatiu Ferchiu has posted an interesting article on the case of the UK in the EU, titled "Soft secession in the EU?". Here is the 'short' comment I left on his blog:
This is a very interesting approach indeed. I shall leave the parallels with the American state-building process and its related struggles to others who are more knowledgeable on the topic. Allow me to add a few more words on the theme of the euro-bloc which is of particular interest to me and which is among the main themes of my blog (by the way, thanks for the link).
The ideas on federalism notwithstanding, European integration was initiated as a project of international (intergovernmental) cooperation, effectively falling within the spheres of 'foreign affairs' and 'international trade'.
Though one may identify a number of ideas behind the initiation of the European integration process, it is my humble opinion that a thoroughgoing inquiry into the matter will leave us with two fundamental principles underpinning all things 'European':
- National sovereignty: The governments of member states were eager to enjoy the 'increasing returns to scale' deriving from accession to a broader economico-political community. Nevertheless, none was prepared to overcome the powerful social imaginaries that dominate European statesmanship at least since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) and the French Revolution (1789), viz. state sovereignty and nationalism (the latter term is not used to describe 'far-right' parties–this is a misunderstanding and a misuse of the original term, since in its actual meaning it refers to the precedence one offers to the perceived collective ontology of the 'nation' over individuals domestically or of nations/individuals abroad). This was mainly made manifest in the praxis of consensus politics, or more lyrically if you wish, with the respect of–and search for–the Aristotelian golden mean,
- Economic liberalism: The Member States would harmonize their policies to dismantle trade barriers among them, so as to realize the potential of a free (free-er) market in Europe (Western Europe at the time). However, contrary to the liberal doctrines, the ends of free trade would be achieved by the meticulous application of mercantilist means. States agreeing to 'mutually' remove barriers to trade are not challenging the principle of such restrictions, but only reconsider its scope and extent. This is important as it does not remove the possibility of such barriers being reintroduced, should conditions, perceived or real, necessitate such action. The case of migration controls that you mention is but the tip of the iceberg and the issue certainly transcends the UK problématique since other Member States have also resorted to similar modes of conduct. The point is that the idea of mercantilism was never challenged as such, but was merely reconfigured to suffice the political ambitions of the time.
For reasons which I need not enumerate in the present comment, this system was rather sclerotic and could only result in maladministration or, even worse, end up in what we may call 'planned chaos'. Whatever progress was achieved in the years between the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht was in large part thanks to the rulings of the European Court of Justice. For instance, it is the ECJ's jurisprudence that consolidated the four freedoms of the single market.
The limitations of the original modus operandi were readily apparent, so with the Treaty of Maastricht European leaders took the timid, yet radical, decision to shift from the principle of consensus to the praxis of enhanced cooperation. The creation of the Economic and Monetary Union (the Euro) was the epitome of this change in approach and, most importantly, it heralded the start of what may I may term "Eurocore politics", i.e. the idea of a European two-level state emerging within the EU architecture, eventually usurping the latter.
I will not delve on the Eurocore politics here, since this is something I effectively do on a regular basis through my blog posts. What I may say is that the direction Mr. Cameron has pointed to is but the counter-force to the momentum of integration that has been developing ever since 1992.
The important particularities and detail complementarities aside, what we are witnessing here is a mutually reinforcing dynamic of divergence, while the Euro-state emerges as a sovereign entity on the continent, smaller in terms of membership than the EU, but far more significant in all other respects.
Thanks,
Protesilaos
The above was just the prolegomenon to a more elaborate analysis I intend to write in the coming days, so stay tuned if you happen to be interested.
Copyleft (ɔ) 2013 Protesilaos Stavrou—All wrongs reserved
Article source: http://www.protesilaos.com/2013/01/uk-secession-eu.html
Protesilaos Stavrou—Analyses on European Union politics and political economy by Protesilaos Stavrou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. All original works are hosted on www.protesilaos.com
The full scope of this license may be read at www.protesilaos.com/p/rights.html, while further permissions can be requested at www.protesilaos.com/p/contact.html
Article source: http://www.protesilaos.com/2013/01/uk-secession-eu.html
Protesilaos Stavrou—Analyses on European Union politics and political economy by Protesilaos Stavrou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. All original works are hosted on www.protesilaos.com
The full scope of this license may be read at www.protesilaos.com/p/rights.html, while further permissions can be requested at www.protesilaos.com/p/contact.html
Protesilaos Stavrou
A rerun of an historical event namely the American civil war by the EU was a given as it rolled ever forward to federalism.That it will not be so violent or bloody is also a given but it will have a similar profound effect on the nature and make up of the EU is certain. The UK's current doubts about the advisability of remaining a member of the EU was also predictable. The UK from my experience limited as it is tells me that UK and the continental Europeans are poles apart on matters economic the Anglo-Saxon model is anathema to most continentals. Also culturally the UK being an Island has traditions and a mindset that differs more between them and the continent than is does between continental states. I do not see this current move by the UK as the start of an EU wide civil war that will come very much later. What is happening here is more in the mould of that which American territories went through prior to them gaining statehood. I doubt that in the end the UK will leave the EU not because it should not, it should for the benefit of both the UK and the EU, because it will turn out to be too impracticable to do so. I say that the UK should leave, apart from it is in the best economic interest of the UK to do so, the UK remaining in will always be a thorn in the EU's side and makes an EU wide civil war more likely. As a continental European you will no doubt be puzzled by my economic reason for the UK leaving you would argue the opposite. However as I see it the continental mind set is no where near as free trade as is that of the UK just to mention one reason there are many more of course but this comment is over long already.
ReplyDeleteI am not inclined to see a civil war in the EU appearing now or later in time. Primarily because today you don't need to take up arms to make a point of this magnitude, things could be solved out way easier by means of economic and diplomatic cohersion. What I was implying in the article Protesilaos commented on is that on a different scale, and without being at all violent, reasonably similar types of reasons can be applied to the specific situation we find ourselves in, and a comparison with the US Civil War can be made, albeit the pronounced and obvious differences.
ReplyDeleteI did not mean to imply that a military type civil war would occur but that it is inevitable that a schism will develop and will cause turmoil within the EU. I cannot predict what will cause that schism (update; you will see later that I do have an idea of one reason that may) but it is an inherent feature of superstate building especially the EU whose states are far more diverse than those of the USA and yet they had a very acrimonious split. When it comes it may well be quickly healed by diplomatic and economic cohesion though I doubt it. However the split will not be totally acrimonious and may well be handled as gently as the splitting of Czechoslovakia. To me this crystal gazing about splits is academic because the crystal ball tells me there are far more pressing and dangerous forces at work that are working against the completion of the EU project. They are the euro-zone crises and the highly centralised, technocratic and undemocratic structure, processes and institutions of the EU, To me the euro-zone as it exists is unsustainable as at the end of the day the the Northern states are not going to allow their wealth what remains of it to be siphoned off to the peripheral states so it will collapse killing the EU project stone dead. The EU construct in fact has been constructed to produce a schism as liberals and free marketeers fight with statist and protectionists (I am contradicting myself I know but as I developed my reply it fell into place) (the UK EU current spat is a prime example of this) and that will also kill off the EU.
ReplyDeleteThese are some very interesting remarks. I believe we all agree that the schism exists and that it is widening, even though it might never actually end in blood and tears. Indeed the case of Czechoslovakia does offer a clear example of a peaceful political split and in the future we may witness something similar for the UK and for any other state that may follow (in general I don't perceive of this case as an isolated phenomenon, as somewhat irrelevant from the debates that are held in other parts of the continent).
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if an exit of the UK will be beneficial for the country or for the EU, but even if it is good for both sides, my real concern is what kind of narrative will continue to guide those who control power in the EU. Which forces will prevail in the internal "ideological struggle" of defining what is 'Europe' and what shall be its function and aspirations.
In fact the eurocore politics I made reference to, is the presentation of a series of accomplished facts before the peoples of Europe. One aspect of this is the rapid integration of the euro area, as a technocratic core within the EU edifice to be made dominant on all things European, as against all the rest who have their reservations, including those who may still be part of the euro, even if their membership entails nothing substantive, other than a subservient role.
Just like the Greeks, the Portuguese, the Irish, the Spanish etc. were never really offered the chance of choosing their own fate in those infamous bailouts and troika programmes, so do many British feel that the concentration of powers in Brussels-Paris-Berlin deprives them of this much-needed freedom of choice.
One may ask what is the ultimate end of this desire to concentrate ever-more power at the European core? While I have no definite answer, nor can I predict the future in any sense, I may speculate that if "integration" is the end for its own sake, then it will eventually evolve into European hegemonism.
In my humble opinion integration is the means not the end. The ultimate objective is to maximize the freedom and welfare of the people and this is something that cannot be realized in the presence of an omnipotent technocracy, or in a system of centralization.
I have always believed that an EU type arrangement for Europe was the right idea. However I am sadly disappointed by the institutions and processes that have been used to achieve it.However I believe though that the EU project would not have got where it has to day by any other means. If it was just a means to an end and demonstrably so I would not now be calling for it's demise but cheering it on. Unfortunately because it is a centralised technocracy and technocrats/bureaucrats do not give up power easily once they have it, who does, I do believe the end result will be European Hegemonism and a "centralised" federation. Europeans have had centuries of struggle to reach the levels of democracy and personal freedoms they now enjoy some of them have in recent times experienced the yoke of an overbearing state. That mixture may be lethal for centralists and technocrats and the final section of the EU construction may well be built by them. We can at least hope so. In any event I do not believe the EU can continue with business as usual the flaws are easy to spot and thanks to the UK opening up the debate maybe the slow business of addressing them will commence. Important among them though nothing to do with UK is to have a more sensible approach to the euro crisis further integration does not hack it without some dead wood being cut away.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree. I think this is a sound approach. I lament that today there is no such position being expressed in Europe, at least not to satisfactory degree. The most 'liberal' (progressive?) approach is one that effectively wishes to see the formation of a superstate, which in my view has little to do with 'liberty' in any sensible way. At times it seems to me as if we never really learn from history...
ReplyDeleteI think we can all agree that technocrats in Bruxelles have a bad "representative" record. And in that respect it's easier to explain the rift between the European Populous and central EU administration.
ReplyDelete