Niguel Farage had as usual a good way to phrase it. In his final address to the European Unions parliament he stated that he loves Europe but hates the EU. Although astonished your correspondent must subscribe to this assessment.
Why be surprised by my own surprise"? Just before the Stalin era ended at the start of a new cleansing" we were as deportees waiting for them" to liquidate us". At that stage an adult opined that We would not be here if there would be a United States of Europe". All agreed. Consequently it astonishes the writer that while Europe is close to becoming a state he finds himself in opposition to the real-life version of what he had been taught to wish for as a kid.
If the European Union survives her crisis in the form wished by her ruling class it will as a global player be in a tense relationship with the USA. This deserves scrutiny.
As an opener let it be admitted that the EU is a good idea with a worsening praxis. Even so it is not likely that the EU will collapse in the manner of the Soviet Empire -even if some detractors depict it as its successor state". If this is correct then the question is in what direction will the EU evolve"? Will those prevail that wish it to be a common market of the nation-states of a confederacy? Or will the future bring a non-national federation of provinces administered by a central organs officials? Will sovereignty be held by cooperating states or will power rest in a center that governs constituent provinces?
It is the perception of the looming centrist dictatorship that causes countries that fear domination to not only resent the threatening scenario but prompts these to resist the move to a centrally ruled entity.
The reaction to centralization provokes reactions. One is that of those states and elites that hope to gain power in the system centralization produces. Experience demonstrates that no European nation can control the entire continent. Therefore power needs to be exercised indirectly. Optimally that means an instrument that hides its true director and so avoids to provoke the resistance of the voluntary" unions nations. France aided by Germany comes to mind. Then there are the cosmopolitan elites whose power-base is insecure in their own nation. From Brussels run by bosses that are appointed and not elected local resistance can be overridden. That makes its elite independent of the barefooted electorate. Third comes to mind the opposition of countries that rate national sovereignty highly such as the V4". Their camp grows in influence because the resistance crystallizes and the parties associated with it are gaining weight in national legislatures. Italy is a good example and so is the UK that opted to abandon the EU.
The uncommon denominator" of the centralizers and the nationalists is recent exposure to suppression. Europes west had a protected experience in the world war and escaped foreign domination by its liberators. Except -this is said facetiously- for military protection and billions injected to fuel an economic miracle". In contrast there is the fate of the V4 the Baltics and others. Here the national socialist occupier was replaced by the national communist one. The sun" around which the satellites had to circle has curtailed independence and attacked the identity of subservient nations. Consequently personal dignity liberty nationhood and cultural identity became inseparable. The EUs west disdains everything it accuses to be national". Meanwhile the new" countries see themselves as national communities and commit to protect their identity which they again perceive to be under attack.
To the American reader this has an interesting ramification. In the leading circles of Western Europe America First" is seen as revolting and racist. In the continents east the slogan affirms what they wish to practice. It is comforting that the USA is a power aware of its interests and that it is as an ally predictably prepared to defend these unencumbered by PC. America First makes it unlikely that a challenge is met by submission after which the capitulation is declared to be a moral victory.
A power acting in its national interest instead of demanding that foes be appeased will back its commitments. In contrast the mantra-led west of Europe is not trusted as a protector-in-need of national independence against powerful challengers. Would western Europe be prepared to die for say Estonia or risk Berlin for Budapest? For that matter can one be certain that Paris or Berlin would defend itself?
History lurks behind the questions about the shape Europe is to take. Is the cause of the troubled past (wars) the lack of unity expressed by a multitude of nationalities and languages? Or are the tremors caused by attempts to impose more unity than comes naturally? The EU began as a tool to enhance cooperation in the context of unalterable diversity. The Eurocratic elite that emerged has concluded that centrally dictated uniformity will remedy inherited ailments. These alternatives might ignore the true cause of the EUs crisis. Bureaucracies like to expand their sway. More personnel to regulate widening fields and more power to run what might work without interference could be driving the strived-for extension. The EU is a construct that gives hard-to-contest power to the apparatchiks" that run it. Sovereign nation states are a limiting hindrance and they appear to be an enemy of the experts" about to create the best of worlds they can lord over.
Analyzing the centuries of modern times we discover that along with innovation and democracy nationalism has been their driving force. Whatever that hindered it has been destroyed such as the Ottoman the Habsburg and the Czarist Russian and Soviet Empires. Hitlers ruin fits the pattern. He smashed the Soviet forces and was thereafter defeated by the Russian Army.
As such nationalism is neither good nor bad. A nation is a community held together by a loyalty based upon similarities. Thus the realistic goal of for a stable Europe -and viable alliances- is to find an arrangement that accommodates the natural wish of persons with a bond to their brothers" to secure their entity. Such a country is comparable to a familys homestead. To avoid the fear of populations organized as countries that their existence could be abolished a structure for cooperation to avoid conflicts is needed. National states and orderly relations between these are no contradiction. This is the original role foreseen for the EU.
Instead of creating an interacting community of the divergent" the EUs dominant class of alchemists strives to create a state without a people". That implies that the missing glue to unite parts has to be replaced by big government and voluntarism with ordinances. As things stand we are headed toward a nascent state of its beneficiaries that assumes the role -and fate- of earlier supranational empires that fought nationalism as a form of tribalism. Call that construct a prison of peoples.
The pursuit of the theme what is wrong with the EU?" which inspired this essay has its roots in a recent experience. Your correspondent saw the last meeting of the EUs plenum in which the departing British participated. Led by Mr. Farage the English with little Union Jacks on their desks explained their motives. It was to end with swinging their flags. Although Farages time was not up his mike was turned off and the chairman told the islanders to put their flags away. That they refused. So. sternly the lady in charge asked that the Brits take their flags with them as they leave.
All-in-all a classical bad show delivered in bad style. Beyond that there is a personal perspective that provokes resentment. The writer recalls how his family rooted for the English as they alone defied during the war the power that controlled the subjugated continent. Thus now unfair and insulting" comes to mind. All this leads to conclusions.
Fighting all forms of nationalism without a compelling need weakens the EU and burdens transatlantic security arrangements. The EU elites power in their home countries is weakened by the inadequacy of their policies. The attempt to fend off a domestic threat from Brussels is predestined to fail. The struggle against nationalism even if it is equated it with Nazism -a nationalism gone wrong- is prone to fail. So have comparable earlier attempts. The loyalty from the kinship-based identification with the community firms the resulting societies. An organization that lets the support of its parts work for itself emerges as strengthened. The EU chose the wrong enemy by ignoring this. This more than a policy that misses an opportunity; it is a form of prolonged slow-motion political suicide through dissolution. Brexit might find imitators.
