The Disunited States

Nah, not the US of A. I’m referring to the Disunited States of Europe. Seriously, how could anyone have expected a continent that gave us the concept of Balkanization to create a federal system of disparate nations under a single constitution? There might be some visionary who sees the unification of Europe as an effective counter-balance to American hegemony, but it clearly isn’t about to happen tomorrow. And it certainly won’t happen if the people themselves rather than the governments are expected to ratify the details.

The French, in their under-informed but correct plebiscite decided last week not to ratify the EU constitution. The Dutch, just a few days later did the same. Now, if you’ve got a document for solidarity that neither the stolid Dutch nor the dissolute French can accept then you’ve really got a problem on your hands. Editorialists in every newspaper have pontificated eloquently on the underlying causes of the failure, but few have put their finger on the crux with the efficiency of George Will. Maltese Turkey The mere idea that a constitution needs 485 pages and should devolve to details as mundane as housing costs in Malta should be cause for Euro-alarm.

There is a very basic principle of politics and it goes all the way back to John Locke. Governments get their power not from “divine right” but from the consent of the governed. That leads very quickly to the conclusion that power will only flow when the unwashed masses can see a clear benefit. If the people of the electorate don’t discern a personal gain from a particular policy, there’s a very good chance that the power is going to be withdrawn.

Although we don’t share a lot of common views, Trudy Rubin cuts to the chase very effectively when she notes that there is a lot of difference between one end of Europe and the other. Likening the EU constitution to a homogenization of very diverse cuisines is an apt metaphor. McEurope as a Nation

The EU is a great concept. But the concept must clearly relate to societal advantage. After World War II, with the continent in ruins, it made a lot of sense to eliminate trade barriers whenever and wherever possible. The European Coal and Steel Community was an easy starting point. Common interest prevailed and therefore it wasn’t a major problem to negotiate the details.

Over the intervening years Europe has flourished, first in the free-market west and for the last decade and a half in the formerly Communist east. Trade grows when tariffs whither. Dropping protectionist economic policies among European neighbors made sense. Eliminating the lost time at customs houses along the many borders allowed commerce to flow with profits for all the players.

As time goes on, however, the simple problems are all solved and the more thorny issues can’t be grappled with as quickly. The creation of the Euro as a common currency was not a slam dunk. Taking away the nationalistic symbols of a sovereign entity begins to get a little emotional. Money is more than a means of exchange. Look at the bills and coins in your pocket and notice the history, the patriotism and the pride which the images project. Giving up your heritage for the sake of efficiency is not necessarily an easy trade. Then, consider the relinquishing of a government’s ability to manipulate markets and manage the local economy. By turning the currency over to an international conglomerate a nation sacrifices a lot of political power. Yet, the Euro is a fact.

But, there are underlying currents that can’t be ignored. While much progress has been made by the eastern nations, they still lag behind the remainder of Europe. In reunified Germany, the burden of attempting to elevate the former DDR without simultaneously adversely impacting the quality of life in the FRG is causing considerable political friction. As both Rubin and Will point out in their editorials, the welfare state attitude of the French coupled with their historic nationalism means they don’t want their comfortable boat rocked nor do they want to be compared with Romanians or Bulgarians. The bottom line is that the necessary clear benefit of adopting the constitution doesn’t exist today.

There is appropriate suspicion that the EU constitution is going to institutionalize an oppressive bureaucracy. The ephemeral concept of a “way of life” that many nations appreciate is in jeopardy. Redistribution of wealth across the union might be a noble concept, but as an actual practice would be too painful to bear. And, of course, there is the total destruction of the sovereignty of the member states. It’s a cliché in political science that sovereignty, like pregnancy, is a unitary concept. You can’t be partially pregnant or sovereign.

And, we haven’t even begun to address the question of a unified military for the EU.