fbpx

Doubling Down on Failure: Advocates of the EU Dismiss Liberty and the Rule of Law

Returning to my house in France after a prolonged stay in England, I was at once struck on reading the French press by how differently the current economic, and indeed existential, crisis in Europe is conceived on either side of the Channel, at least by the commentariat. For the British, the problem has been caused by an overweening but incompetent centralizing political class and bureaucracy that saw in the common currency a means to extend its own power, a currency union not being long viable without a political union: a union that in the circumstances would have to be mandated bureaucratically rather that democratically. And indeed, the European political class has long sought to escape from the tedium of democratic interference.   

For the French, on the other hand, the problem has been caused by rogue banks that have been allowed by governments to operate without proper control or regulation. It is hardly surprising that the solutions favored are rather different: the British favor a dissolution of the political powers of the European Union, the French an extension of them.

From my own British perspective, what is so remarkable about the French commentary is its lack of concern about constitutional checks and balances. There seems to be very little worry, at least among those who write in the newspapers, about the exercise of unbridled power by supposedly beneficent authority. For example, in Le Monde for 27 June, there is an article by an eminent jurist, Mireille Delmas-Marty, under the headline, “Let us create a European magistrature: It is necessary to fight against fraud.”

In essence, the article proposes one legal system for the whole of Europe. We read:

It has become clear that we will only solve the present crisis

by strengthening integration, that is to say political Europe.

But political Europe can be reduced neither to the governance

of the Euro nor to a European tax system. It must also consist

of the fight against the fraud that systematically empties the

coffers of the European Union.

This is a remarkable passage, not least because it manages to skate over the obvious fact that systematic fraud is not a mere deformation of the European Union but very nearly its raison d’être, and that an organization whose auditors have never once, in its entire history, dared to sign its accounts as being a true and accurate representation of its financial situation is unreformable except by abolition, by far the surest, easiest and most efficient solution.

Even more remarkable is the unexamined assumption that administrative uniformity is the answer to the crisis, an assumption so obvious to the author that, in her opinion, no reasonable person could doubt it. ‘It has become clear…’ says the author, without deigning to say to whom it has become clear.  Le tout Bruxelles, perhaps? In fact, it is clear to precisely the kind of people who overrode their populations’ subsequently vindicated misgivings and imposed the Euro upon them, thus creating the crisis in the first place.

The author is unconcerned about the legitimacy of the source of the proposed uniform laws of Europe. For her it is not even a proper question to ask. She admits that it is unlikely that all the states, by which she means the governments of all the states, of Europe (the people simply don’t come into it), will agree to such a legal system, but continues:

Conversely, it is possible to use the route of ‘strengthened

co-operation’ recently invoked by the German Chancellor,

Angela Merkel: ‘We must not rest stationary because one or

other state is not ready.’

If the language does not send shivers up your spine, I suggest you apply for a job in Brussels.

The author calls on France to assume leadership:

If France launched the process, it would be easy to find at least

eight other states in favor of going ahead.

The corollary of this would seem to be that it would be equally easy to find a number of states (not to mention peoples) not in favor of going ahead; but they could safely be overruled, at least until the great Yugoslavian denouement at an unspecified date in the future.

Well, one article is only one article, you might say; it does not make policy. But it helps to create or strengthen the Zeitgeist. On the same page is an article by two leaders of the European Confederation of Unions titled “A new social contract to strengthen cohesion and solidarity in the Union.” The linguistic resemblance to Pravda is probably not coincidental.

Here we learn that:

 Such a contract must be founded on three pillars: social

democracy – that is to say, importantly, respect for collective

bargaining – economic governance at the service of lasting

growth and good quality jobs, and lastly economic and social

justice (by means of policies of redistribution, taxation and

social protection).

In other words, you can have any policy you like, so long as it is ours. (They do not demand a one party state, merely a one policy state.) There is not a word about political freedom in the article, nor about the permanent need for flexibility according to circumstances, nor anything about the role of economic liberty both as a moral ideal or as a stimulant of economic growth. Nor does it ever occur to them that the protection of some is the defenselessness of others. You cannot discriminate in favor of everyone.

The authors are as much in favor of uniformity in taxation as Le Corbusier was in favor of uniformity in architecture. No country in Europe should be permitted a different tax regime from any other (all taxes should be high, of course), because such competition is inherently unfair: it works to the disadvantage of drones everywhere. Again, the authors seem unaware of how their proposals might be received in Ireland, where their implementation would mean penury for decades, since low corporation taxes, along with its unfairly excellent and unprotected workforce, are its principal, though by no means certain, hope of salvation.

Reading Le Monde I feel like Lincoln Steffens, in that I have seen the future. And in Europe it is fascism.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on July 02, 2012 at 09:04:13 am

It is difficult (impossible?) to propose any similies that o0ver-arch those of the good doctor. But here goes on the French (and other European) attitudes:

The alleys of time through which they are now having to pass have the distinct smell of garbage and indications of Hazmat. On that they are right.

They next conclude that this is due to the garbage cans in the alleys; but, they "blame" the cans for their contents rather than acknowledging the sources which produced those noxious (and hazardous?) contents.

Concentration is directed to "better cans, with better lids," with little or no attention to what is to be done with the continuing production of the noxious and hazardous wastes; nor, indeed, to "sanitize" the existing cans and their contents.

read full comment
Image of Richard Schweitzer
Richard Schweitzer
on July 10, 2012 at 08:21:20 am

It is blatantly obvious to any educated observer that the drive for a One World Government (New World Order) has been ongoing for well over 100 years. The Globalist and Elitist megalomaniac families,who want to rule the world, are trying to achieve this goal by way of the Banking and Monetary systems. By creating 1st the EU and then the Euro, the Globalists,in their Brussels headquarters, have attempted the time old method of 1st. economic control followed by political control of first nations and then the world. By having a European fiat currency monopoly and then using that monopoly to put into unsustainable debt sovereign nations . And then to financially pressure those nations into handing over their sovereignty to the central authority in Brussels,and thus handing power to the Elitists behind the scenes who want to rule the world is the step by step method for the achievement of a One World Government. These methods will first be attempted in Europe,followed by America and then the rest of the world. In the future,once there is established a one world monopoly on money,banking and credit then the goals of the elitist Globalists will be met. That goal being the establishing of a One World all powerful fascist Government. All this can be achieved,in the Elitist's mind, with a monopoly on the creation of money and credit out of thin air. Take that power away from the Elitists and they will be completely disarmed of all their power. As was the old Soviet Constitution, a new European Constitution will be superfluous. For in the end the real Law and Power will be held by the "Man behind the curtain." That man being the face of the international banking cartels that control the issuance of money and credit. If these One World Government power seekers achieve their goals, I'm afraid that the world will enter into a new Dark Age in it's history. A pity.

read full comment
Image of libertarian jerry
libertarian jerry
on July 22, 2012 at 18:06:03 pm

re: "Second of three pillars of new EU social contract ---economic governance at the service of lasting growth and good quality jobs"

This week in France, Peugeot's CEO Philippe Varin, was understandably questioned by the new French Industry Minister about Peugeot’s recent announcement to close its Aulnay plant. This plant employed 6,500 workers. Workers and their families will join the ranks of those hurt by economic reality.

Why did this happen? Mr. Varin testified: The factory was operating at less than 50% capacity and was hemorrhaging losses. Car sales have slumped. Recovery is not on the horizon.

The minister's questions raised new questions. Was the company's decision tainted? Is this the tone the new government intends to take? If so, who would wish to start a French business and be grilled like this?

read full comment
Image of Beth Martin
Beth Martin
on July 23, 2012 at 03:03:12 am

The British are the people who developed liberty/freedom. The French had "presumed guilty until proven innocent".
Europe has adopted Leftist values which allegedly value "equality" over "freedom". I say "alleged" because it is equality for the rest of us but privileges for the privileged few, like Michael Moore's beloved healthcare system in Cuba for example. (See Dennis Prager’s book: “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Need American Values to Triumph”). America inherited their tradition from the British.

read full comment
Image of TMay
TMay

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.