A civil union?

The European Union’s many shortcomings

By Toby Frankenstein
From the September 2005 Print Edition

The birth of the European Union (EU) in the ashes of World War II was the embodiment of the best ideals and intentions of liberal politics. In 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman set out on an ambitious project — to unite Europe in an unprecedented political and economic union. “World peace,” he said, “cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

Almost 60 years hence, Schuman’s vision of a united Europe remains incredibly forward-thinking and visionary. As the global economy grew and integration and cooperation became essential to an effectively functioning global community, the EU was the seemingly perfect example of countries coming together for common benefit. The cooperation went beyond economic issues; the EU accomplished ambitious goals of coordinating environmental policy, migration, law enforcement issues, and much more.

But after the recent French and Dutch constitutional rejection, Europe is in serious crisis. I was fortunate enough to be in Paris for the five months leading up to the French vote, and as a result, I was privy to the French constitutional debate from an internal perspective. While political scientists and bureaucrats will continue to debate the root causes of the French non, the facts are simple: Europe and its leaders have refused to acknowledge modern political and sociological realities, most notably concerning the economy, and thus have lost touch with the citizenry.

Before we tackle the issue of the economy, it is important to note problems that have been simmering in the EU for some time. As the summer bombings in London demonstrated, the issue of immigration and integration has created a fervent debate in Europe. While European governments welcomed millions of immigrants during the 1980s and 1990s, most notably those of Muslim faith, they not only allowed immigrant populations to be marginalized and stagnant — fomenting resentment and distrust — but they failed to stand up to radical and hateful elements within and against these communities. European governments were calling for the countries of Europe to unite and to integrate, yet were unwilling, or perhaps unable, to apply that same pressure to their immigrant populations. Europeans are now furious that their governments have allowed immigration to continue at high rates without dealing with the already present problems of integration, tolerance, and social cohesion. With the prospect of Turkey joining the EU, Europeans fear that their governments will fail again in their attempts to integrate non-Europeans into the European way of life.

Another problem is that of nationalism. The most recent, and perhaps the best, example is France’s Jacques Chirac telling the French they have no reason to envy the English, despite a far better economic situation in that country. There is no shortage of anecdotes of EU leaders making snide comments about another country’s people or culture. During the EU constitution debate in France, the “Polish plumber” became a pejorative symbol of the threat of cheap labor from Eastern Europe. European leaders cannot call for continental integration and simultaneously use insulting and offensive images.

The most important issue that must be acknowledged, however, is the European economy. The most appalling statistic I can cite is that of unemployment, floating between 10 and 12 percent in Europe. One can only imagine how easy it would be to defeat an American president if he presided over an economy in which 11 percent of Americans were unemployed.

But European leaders, rather than opening an honest debate with their citizenry about the need to reform economic and social norms, have insisted on blaming external factors, most notably “Anglo-Saxon liberalism.” At the same time, the EU has expanded far to the east, incorporating the emerging economies of Eastern Europe, where growth is soaring as companies move their enterprises to countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, places where liberalism and entrepreneurship are alive and well. Businesses are moving in droves to these countries because identical tasks can be performed at a fraction of the cost and hassle that are customary in much of “Old Europe.”

Furthermore, the incorporation of the euro as a common currency has had mixed results. While it succeeded in reducing transaction costs within Europe, individual countries have been forced to adopt a continentwide policy that can — and has — set interest rates at a sub-optimal level for individual countries’ needs and concerns. Instead of engaging in a debate on the currency issue, EU leaders who have suggested revisiting the idea of a common currency have been branded as heretics by their colleagues.

Many political analysts and economists have said that Europe is dead. Such a proclamation is too monolithic for an issue as complex as the EU. Europe is terribly wounded, though, and badly in need of new leadership. It should come as no surprise that the most popular up-and-coming politicians in Europe right now are those who espouse the need for economic overhaul and a re-evaluation of immigration policy and the processes of integration. The longer European leaders put off the debate on the issues, the longer we will see Europe enveloped in crisis rather than moving forward with the rest of the world.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot