The (Not So) Ugly Face Of Nationalism Haunts Europe--Again

The European Union is once again facing crisis.  Well, more than one crisis to err on the side of accuracy.  The better known one, the crisis which attracts all the ink both real and virtual as well as the attention of those great beasts collectively named "The Market," is the one involving another round of EU bailouts.  The lesser volume crisis attracted the attention of EU chief magistrate, Herman van Rompey, who delivered a speech last week in which he equated the growing scepticism concerning the Union with an explosive and destructive increase of the dreaded creature from the depths of hell: nationalism.

The Eurocrats of Brussels are contractually obligated to put loyalty to the structures of the Union over national affections.  Even elected national officials are required to put the interests of their governments and people subordinate to the needs and policies of the One Big Union.  Beyond those obligations there is a sentiment abroad in the "elites" of Europe to the effect that the days of the petty nation-state are over, replaced by the One Great Society and Polity called "Europe."

The presumptions of the Euro-fanatics have prevailed even when the great hordes of the unwashed, the hoi polloi, have made it clear--as in the famed case of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty--that they want no truck with a supranational entity, another and quite suspect layer of government.  Whenever the voices of the lesser orders have shouted loud and clear, "No!," the Eurocrats and Euro-fanatics have simply changed the rules and insisted on another turn at bat, another chance to assure that the peasants get it right.

The rolling thunder of default crises which have and continue to strike the Eurozone have had the net effect of engendering an ever greater distrust in the minds of the peoples of Europe regarding not only the legitimacy of the fiat currency, the Euro, but of the political scheme which resides behind it.  Greeks have quite literally taken to the streets in opposition to the dictates of the Eurocrats which accompanied the bailout of the Greek deficit mess.  The same has occurred in Spain and Portugal.  And, threatens in Ireland.

The Irish, who are not noted for a lack of national identity and pride in that identity, have already made it plain to the Lords Protector of the EU that infringements on sovereignty are unacceptable.  The demands made by Brussels that the Irish restructure their corporate tax rate as a part of the price of Eurozone assistance is over the edge.

Imagine that, a government seeking to protect low corporate tax rates!  What is happening in Dublin?  Has the Irish parliament been taken over by a branch of the Tea Party movement?

No.  The Tea Party has remained safely confined on this side of the Atlantic.  Rather, the Irish government is well aware of the depth of hostility held toward the EU by the average Irish voter.  The government is also aware that raising the corporate taxes would be akin to severing the Irish financial jugular.  Also, comments from members of the Dail hint strongly that even the Irish political hoi olligoi is not immune to the powerful attractions of nationalism.

Even in Germany and France, the two strongest proponents of economic and political potency through international cooperation--that is, through the mechanisms of the EU--have been showing an increasingly steep tilt toward national primacy.  German taxpayers are not thrilled at the prospect of paying for Greek or Spanish or Portuguese policies of social spending largess.  The French, who have long believed that government exists only to strip the individual of his last sou and final shred of liberty, are more and more willing to see the One Big Union as being the worst malefactor in these twin threats.

Herman van Rompey is far from being alone in seeing a direct line connecting doubts about the efficacy and legitimacy of the EU to the rise of aggressive nationalism and its inevitable handmaiden, war.  Of course, van Rompey and the others of his ilk are as wrong as a cat barking.

Austria is a member in good standing of the EU.  Neighboring Switzerland is a complete non-participant in the One Big Union.  Yet the Austrian army is not mobilized on the border ever vigilant, waiting for the Swiss legions to pour across.  Nor is EU member Sweden deploying enhanced border protection against the nocturnal commando raids from non-member Norway.

Somehow, go-it-more-or-less alone Norway and Switzerland among others have managed to elude the embrace of the Union while not becoming aggressive exemplars of the sins of nationalism.  As Mr van Rompey must know in his more rational moments, there is no necessary tie between primacy of loyalty to one's home country and pursuit of that country's national interest and warfare.  The EU is not a necessary mechanism for the restraint of nationalism.  It is not a requisite for peaceful intercourse among the several European states.

The long ago precursor of the EU, the European Iron and Coal Community, was a creation, or, more accurately, a reaction to the extremes of economic and political competition which had laid the foundations for both parts of the Great European Civil War of the early and mid Twentieth Century.  The original concept actually was formed before German tanks rolled across the Polish border and was well rooted in a proper but narrow interpretation of the conditions which had brought World War I.

The initial Iron and Coal Community worked well.  It worked so well that it quickly expanded into the Common Market.  The Common Market, as the name makes explicit, was a customs union.  As such, it worked to the mutual benefit of its members.  But, as it was a limited institution, it made no claim upon the primary loyalties of individual Europeans.  It made no political demands.

Even in its limited role, the Common Market did not enjoy universal approbation.  French farmers, Italian factory workers, German industrialists all found more than a few reasons to oppose the Market.  Nonetheless, the Market was reconceptualized as a political as well as economic institution.  Leaving aside all the fits, starts, zigs and zags, the Common Market ultimately morphed into the EU.  Along the way, the Eurozone was fabricated, a common currency without the mechanisms of a central bank or an aggregate device of economic governance.

In both its initial and later, Lisbon Treaty based form, the EU was the creation of the political and opinion molding elites of the member states.  The people of Europe were not consulted.  At no time other than the Irish referendum did the hoi polloi have a seat at the table.  This was not oversight.  It was intentional as the self-appointed sophisticates of the elites did not trust their own citizens.  That was true at the beginning; it is true today.

The EU in both its dot one and dot two forms were crammed down the collective throats of Europeans generally in a manner identical to the passage of Obamacare here.  Not surprisingly, the peasants have not been pleased, with the result there is a strong current of resentment, a strong desire to vomit the cram down back in the faces of those who did the cramming.

The current and continuing deficit contretemps has given both a motivation and a focus for those who feel strong discontent with the Union.  The Eurocrats are well aware of this.  The European Parliament as well as the executive entity have attempted to deflect the worst effects of popular rejection by developing a series of ploys which can be seen as a European version of the American federal government's technique of unfunded mandates.  The idea is to displace both responsibility and political blame to the national governments, which are required by the Union to undertake unpleasant and expensive actions.

Nifty, heh?  By displacing all unpleasant and politically costly actions onto national governments, not only is the EU held harmless but is actually enhanced.  Popular anger directed at national governments can be massaged to become support for the Union.  The EU regime can be portrayed credibly as the savior of the common man in a way resembling the elevation of the US federal government as a moral pinnacle compared to the reactionary state governments during the salad days of the civil rights movement.

Whether the Eurocrats will win is both unclear and debatable both as to probability and longer term effect.  Should the stresses on the Eurozone cause the collapse of the Euro as a credible circulating medium, the shock waves will not be good for the Union.  However, should the Union fail, the failure will be limited to the overreach of entering the sphere of politics, of power over the lives of individual citizens of European countries.  In effect, this would mean the Union would revert to the days of the Common Market.  It is arguable that this would be a very real benefit for Europeans both as individuals and as nation-states.

As President Obama meets with leaders of the Union's member states (for a scheduled two hours) on the sidelines of the NATO conference, he might be advised to consider that the EU and his administration are staring failure in the face for the same reason.  Both he and the Eurocrats held the views and convictions of the average citizen in contempt.  Both he and they refused to accept the voice and views of the citizens, listening only to like minded members of their respective elites.

Or to put it very simply: Both President Obama and the Euro-fanatics forgot that the common citizen, the hoi polloi had minds--and votes--of their own.  Both Mr Obama and his counterparts in Europe must now pay the price.  And, so Mr Obama has.  And so they will.