Ads


Does the EU Have a Future?

Referendum? No referendum? A special parliamentary vote? A unity government? Greek prime minister George Papandreou doesn’t know what to do. Which is not surprising. The Greek debt crisis now exposes the fundamental weakness of the European Union—its democratic deficit.

R.R. RenoFrom its beginnings in the early 1950s as a common market of coal and steel, post-war efforts to unify Europe have been based on the presumption that interlocking economic interests would lead to a new and harmonious international system. As Robert Shuman, the French foreign minister who designed this first common market, once observed, the aim was to “make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.”

In 1979 elections were first held for a European Parliament, an exercise that few took very seriously because it was a body of precious little consequence. But the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 beefed up the authority of the European Parliament, created the European Court of Justice, and most significantly set in motion the process of monetary policy that led to the Euro, which replaced national currencies in 2002.

The outcome has been a supremely complicated system of governance that layers EU bureaucracies on top of the political systems of each member state. Before the financial crisis of 2008, this complexity tended to be more a source of amusement than affliction. Yes, some were troubled as the European Court of Justice overruled local legislation. Genuine self-rule seemed to be draining away, replaced by administration from afar. But for the most part we just chuckled when reading news stories about an EU commission that categorizes cheeses and regulates the size of plum tomatoes.

The Greeks are not laughing these days. On the contrary, they are rioting. The reason is simple: the social contract in Greece is being ripped up and a new one is about to be imposed by a consortium of international financial institutions coordinated by EU bureaucrats, the same ones who said, in effect, “Entrust your future to us, and you will be comfortable and secure.”

Policy experts and economic managers can avoid—or at least soften—economic difficulties. But to more reliably fulfill their promises they need more resources, greater authority, and wider reach. Thus the basic dynamic of the last twenty years in Europe: a transfer of sovereignty—especially economic sovereignty—to international experts.

It didn’t happen without hesitations. Danish voters notoriously gummed things up by rejecting the Maastricht treaty the first time it was put to a vote. French voters narrowly approved, and England, while part of the EU, has remained outside the monetary union.

However, these were exceptions. For the most part Europeans accepted the new social contract as a natural extension of the old social democratic approach in which national authorities mediated between economic interests to ensure social stability and prosperity. If German and French economic ministers could manage relatively productive and stable economies, balancing the needs of labor and capital and formulating good monetary policies, then why not expand upon their success by bringing the entire Eurozone under the dominion of policy experts?

At first it worked very well for the Greeks. As promised, the policies of the European Union—which included access to low interest borrowing under the widespread assumption that the Eurozone would rise and fall together—allowed Greece to remain insulated from threatening economic realities, not the least of which were its own out-of-control government deficits subsidizing middle class life.

But then came the financial crisis of 2008. Greece teetered, and the EU came to the rescue with bailouts. The Greeks now must drastically cut spending and raise revenue. This amounts to a change in the social contract. The nation was promised that membership in the EU would bring prosperity and stability. Now they are getting “austerity,” a clinical word that in twenty-first century Europe (and America for that matter) means the end of subsidies to the middle class.

Thus George Papandreou’s dilemma. Is he in fact the leader of a sovereign state? Perhaps not. Meanwhile, lacking political legitimacy, the technocrats and economic managers can only threaten to withdraw their benevolent rule (e.g., kick Greece out of the EU), which if you are a middle class Greek might sound more like a reward than a punishment. And in any event, kicking out Greece puts Portugal, Spain, and Italy in a precarious position. So the crisis becomes political and not just economic. Who can legitimately demand sacrifices—and make them stick?

The candy man doesn’t need political support. When you are giving out goodies, nobody asks what gives you the right. Thus we come to the nub of the problem. The EU economic managers have run out of candy, and without political legitimacy, the central bankers cannot impose any lasting (and inevitably painful) solution to the sovereign debt crisis. They cannot impose austerity on the Greeks (or the Portuguese or Spanish or Italians). Nor can they force the frugal Germans to subsidize everybody else.

The architects of the European Union had a plan. They believed that if they could create a zone of common economic prosperity, then slowly but surely a common political culture would evolve to nurture and protect the shared wealth-making machinery. It was in this sense the finest expression of the grand dreams of modern liberalism, which imagines itself in possession of new tools of scientific management of human affairs, tools that can allow us to transcend the passions and irrationalities of political life (“making war unthinkable”).

As the EU unravels, we may find ourselves ruing this dream. I fear that, having neglected the need to build political capital, Europeans elites will find themselves largely impotent. What will fill the vacuum? Modern European history is not reassuring.

R.R. Reno is Editor of First Things. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

11.7.2011 | 3:59am
Michael PS says:
A fascinating detail of the foundation of the EU was that its main architects were all Catholics from marginal German-speaking areas: Adenauer (Rhineland), Schumann (Alsace), De Gasperi (Trentino Alto Adige). De Gasperi actually sat in the Vienna parliament pre-1914

De Gaulle, from Lille, was of Flemish extraction: the family name was originally De Waal.
11.7.2011 | 10:16am
Jane says:
Prof. Reno, thanks for a great piece on this subject. You raise good questions about the "European" project. Could Europe have focused more on building political institutions instead of economic integration as the starting point? In the immediate postwar period, probably not. A "democratic deficit" existed at the national level in many European countries at that time (particularly Germany), and some other EU countries have only joined after democratic transitions (Spain in the 1980s, former East Bloc countries more recently). Hence, the economic incentives have been more powerful, I would argue, and are certainly broadly shared. For many countries, EU membership also has security and political freedom implications as well - rule of law, respect for human rights, and being part of the western alliance, along with NATO. Plus, during the Cold War, the contrast between the communist planned economic model would have also clarified the benefits of the western social contract. The Euro definitely changed the social contract - for countries on the periphery (the so-called PIIGS), the social contract pre-Euro depended upon the ability to devalue the national currency, to maintain domestic competitiveness, control imports by making them expensive, and basically reduce labor costs and personal consumption without overt "austerity." So, Greeks or Italians or others had lower purchasing power, without Germans or the IMF telling them to cut back. Which is better - to be governed by market forces (including the harsh forces of globalization, aka competing with the Chinese or having China as your main creditor) or by Brussels? The European project focuses heavily on "convergence" - the idea that offering similar economic advantages to all member states in exchange for adopting the same policies will mitigate against conflict. Let's hope it works, or at least has a soft landing if it doesn't, as the last thing the US needs is these countries slaughtering each other again.
11.7.2011 | 12:44pm
MichEl says:
Many think the only way the EU will survive is full economic and political integration. If they start down this road, it will be interesting to watch how moral issues get handled. Already, we have seen the EU courts undermine traditional Christian values in the name of human rights. With full integration, this will likely excellerate.
11.7.2011 | 3:32pm
I seem to remember that when the European Union was trying to hammer out a constitution, one of the stumbling blocks was the mention of God. So our Creator got thrown out of the EU. So to ask whether the EU has a future, the answer is obvious. Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain.
11.7.2011 | 4:08pm
Torontonian says:
The European Union will ultimately stand or fall on the support of the populace of its member countries. Elites in the EU have until now gotten their way by repeatedly holding referenda on, say, membership, parliament, currency, constitution until the voting public gives them the "correct" answer, but this tactic has increasingly diminished prospects. True, the Germans could try to force the IMF on the Greeks, but it is that country's "vox populi" that will likely resist and defend their sovereigninty. Voters in other countries, including Italy and France, could probably follow suit. Reclaiming national sovereigninty would be a blessing to Europe and a victory for democracy.
11.7.2011 | 5:44pm
Frank Pray says:
Uniformity of laws and economic regulation should benefit everyone as it reduces the uncertainty and costs of international transactions. Treaties and economic summits have served this purpose for centuries, but the EU took that basic idea to another level in creating an umbrella government for all signatories. The present problems would likely be much worse but for the international commitments of the member nations in time of crisis.

Of course, the centralization of power creates greater opportunity for abuses of power and magnifies the mistakes that can occur in economic policy. Frankly, I see the present trend as setting the stage for the eventual ascension of an "anti-Christ" expressed as an individual, or cabal that will control the economic system when the current well-intentioned efforts eventually fail on a grand scale.

But to be clear, I am declaring that the "sky is falling" or predicting the end of the world. The "trend" of which I write is one I see occurring on a timeline much longer than current events, and is the subject of esoteric references in Scripture I cannot begin to unravel.
11.7.2011 | 8:26pm
DrLawry says:
Europe has a whole array of multinational institutions that provide means of regional cooperation. The Council of Europe and NATO, both predating the ECSC, along with more recent creations such as OECD, CSCE, are much looser in structure and have limited purposes. They do not aspire to the level of state sovereignty. They are not perfect, but have more mechanisms of democratic expression. Europe could abolish the EU, leave the other non-EU institutions in place, and continue to find ways to cooperate, trade, enhance mutual security, etc without establishing a continental sovereign power. It would be messier and pluralistic, but probably more effective than the EU structure. Note how the leading powers already go outside EU channels when something important needs doing.
11.8.2011 | 11:15am
My question has always been: How can you have a national currency (Euro) without a nation? It does not make sense. It would be as though the United States had a national currency (the dollar), but said to every state, "Don't worry about balancing your budget; the federal government will bail you out."
11.8.2011 | 11:29am
Mick Leahy says:
I'm in Ireland, one of the peripheral counties that has been supposedly bailed out by our 'friends' in the EU. More accurately it can be described as Irish citizens bailing out the German banks which lent wrecklessly to (private) Irish banks, thus fueling the most perfect housing boom in recorded history. I now personally interpret recent events as the establishment of the Fourth Reich; Germany's previous attempts ended catastrophically, but now she seems to be succeeding without firing a shot. Look at the facts; an effective coup d'etat in Greece, deposing the Prime Minister, arrogantly dismissing the possibility of a referendum of the Greek people; now the same is being attempted in Italy, as Germany's EU agents attempt to manipulate the deposing of their Prime Minister. Meanwhile, while imposing 'austerity', or rather the transfer of funds from the subject nations to German banks, via taxation of the people, Merckl announces tax cuts for German workers-the spoils are being shared already. I am sure Americans remember their very generous Marshall Plan which revived Germany from the wreckage of World War II. It would have been better for Europe long-term if every cent had been demanded in damages. Germans evidently still consider outsiders as potential indentured slaves. I would, however, be optimistic that the Fourth Reich will fall like the previous ones, but there will again be an unholy mess.
11.8.2011 | 8:37pm
Michael Lewis' book, "Boomerang," on the mess in Europe basically makes this point: Germany now calls the shots in Europe.
11.12.2011 | 11:36pm
Dr. Norm says:
The problem is the wide disparity in economic culture between the southern tier of countries and those of the north. A strong currency kills the ability of the south to accommodate their relatively weak cultures. Germany is phenomenally productive and a huge fraction of the German GDP is exports. This leads to a cruelly strong euro. (Cross of gold, anyone?) Maybe the answer is not to kick Greece out, but to kick Germany out.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact