But that trick never works.
Posted on 02/09/2006 11:16:42 AM PST by lizol
New iron curtain divides Europe
MatthewLynn
Friday, February 10, 2006
When eight countries from the old communist empire in the east joined the European Union in May 2004, the rhetoric was all about healing historic divisions. And now? The relationship between eastern and western Europe is increasingly fractious. The easterners are becoming truculent members of the EU, while the westerners are growing ever more suspicious of their new partners in trade.
An iron curtain is descending across Europe once again. The old one was political, the new one is economic. "This is one of the big issues facing the EU," said Johnny Munkhammar, a director of the Swedish economic think- tank Timbro in Stockholm.
"There are disagreements over the movement of people, over tax, on many issues. You are seeing a protectionist reaction from western European countries that are no longer as competitive as they were," he said.
It's starting to become painfully obvious that a heavily centralized, integrationist EU will struggle to hold together two European regions that are developing in different directions.
The relationship has soured since the new members joined.
First, Poland, the Czech Republic and Cyprus - a new EU member that wasn't part of the Soviet empire - blocked a proposed change to value- added tax rates on home construction, and some other services. Under EU rules, VAT is meant to be charged at a minimum of 15 percent unless all 25 members agree to an exception.
Next, Poland has been wrangling with the EU over the planned takeover of one of the country's largest banks by UniCredito Italiano as part of the Milan- based company's acquisition of Germany's HVB Group. The EU has already approved the deal, but that means little to the government in Warsaw. Poland doesn't see any reason why it should accept the EU's rulings as binding.
Meanwhile, the eastern European countries show little sign of making the necessary preparations to join the euro area. They should be bringing their budget deficits under control to qualify for the common currency. Nothing is being done. On both sides, it's about as hard to find the EU spirit of fraternal togetherness as it is to hire a Polish plumber in rural France.
At one point, France and Germany ganged up on eastern Europe over its attractive tax rates. When he was French finance minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, now interior minister, demanded minimum EU corporate-tax levels, and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder condemned "ruinous" tax competition.
Out of the 15 nations that were already EU members before May 2004, only Sweden, the UK and Ireland have agreed to let eastern Europeans work in their countries without major restrictions, and there is little sign of that changing. Even when they are allowed to work, they aren't always popular - perhaps because they are industrious and cheaper to hire.
An Irish Times poll found 78 percent of respondents in Ireland wanted work permits to be reintroduced for people from the new EU member states. And in December, about 100,000 demonstrators protested against replacing Irish workers with cheaper labor from other countries.
The new member states are in no mood to be pushed around by the old ones. "The eastern states aren't going to accept any restrictions from the EU, such as raising taxes," Munkhammar said. "They have a very strong will to create free, competitive economies."
The EU is trying to merge two very different groups of nations that have less and less in common. The eastern European states are high-growth, free-trade and low-tax nations, while western Europe is high-tax, high-regulation and low-growth.
There are three reasons why they aren't finding much to agree on. The first is that the eastern Europeans are developing a less interventionist approach to economic and social issues. They have a different starting point and destination. As the British have found over more than three decades, it is hard to fit into the EU when you don't share the same basic political culture.
Next, they are at very different stages of development. Fast-growing economies require policies and tax regimes that low-growth nations don't offer. Eastern Europe is interested in building new economic powerhouses, while western Europe mostly wants to preserve old ones.
Lastly, resentment in western European countries has risen as they lose jobs and investment to the more dynamic economies in the east. So far, it has mostly been factories that have moved across the borders. As eastern Europe develops first-class infrastructure, the pull of flat taxes and lighter regulation will draw more high-value-added business services. Then the German, French and Italian squeals of "unfair competition" will rise to a crescendo.
The EU could adopt a much looser structure, turning itself into a free- trading confederation. That would hold it together. Yet it won't do that.
The EU is about closer economic and political ties. It will carry on trying to fit eastern Europe into that mold - until the strain on both sides becomes intolerable. Eastern Europe has already split from one failing economic structure. It won't be long before it does the same from another.
Perhaps after a time and many hard lessons that will unite Europe.
The EU is a dead state walking - and has been for a while.
Funny how the ex-oppresed get it.
The old Soviet Bloc countries are in no hurry whatsoever to get back under the totalitarianism of one central authority. Good for them!........
But that trick never works.
Eastern Europe, who just through off the yoke of repressive communism (thanks again FDR) wants the basic freedoms of democracy, while Western Europe is blindly running TOWARD communism and few freedoms.
Someone pass the popcorn.
(socialism, communism - a distinction without a difference)
I think leaders in the western parts of the EU (France, Germany, et all?) expected the east to act as client states, as opposed to equal partners with their own voice and agendas.
Let's face it, EU is just another utopia. To build a country based not on a cultural and socio-political kinship, but on a some extra-national ideology is simply going against the laws of nature. EU institutions are humongous, ineffective and marred by gross corruption. Brussels passes the laws and regulations that are often at odds with national interests of EU Member states. EU does not take into account an individual character and history of Nations it comprises. The very concept of EU as a back-door superstate is simply not working.
Go Poland! Stick it to the EU!
Officially the EU supports subsidiarity (even in its botched "Constitution.") In practice the old members and the Brussels bureaucracy have practiced just the opposite.
The problem is that it would work, but not for all EU-members. Wolfgang Schaeuble, the German minister for the interior (BTW - a staunch conservative), came up with the idea of a European "core" a few years ago. That means that a limited group of EU-members start a confederation. The likely candidates for such a core are: France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Spain. They would merge their millitary and their foreign policy. Decisions over econonic and other issues would be made to a certain extend by the local "regions". Somehow a federal state.
The negative outcome of the recent referendums in France and in the Netherlands over the "constitution" were in first line a political rejection of the planned admission of Turkey and Romania. Furthermore the French are fed up with Chirac and simply wanted to kick his a** (I think that is something that can be understood). The important thing is, that the result of such a referendum is propably completely different if you would ask after such a "core". Most people in western Europe are indeed interested in further European integration as long as it is restricted to the powerful members of the EU.
Personally I am convinced that a core will come in the long run (probably sooner than later). If we watch the development of the EU since the 60ties, everything gotten much deeper and closer we all were ever able to think of. Espechially the ties between France, Germany and the Benelux countries are really very close. To me it is also clear, that it is not possible to countries with a extremely strong national foundation -like Poland i.e.- to loose their souvereign privileges by joining such a European "superstate".
I am well aware that there is much dynamite in such a development. What will happen with the EU? What will happen with the relations to the US? What will happen to NATO? The crux of the matter will be the agenda which the "nations" of this still virtual "superstate" are going to define. Will this "superstate" be ruled by morons like Chriac or Schroeder or will the new faces like Merkel and Sarkozy play their game? Will it be possible for those who can't or are not willing to join into such a confederation to keep their good political and economical relations with the "confederation states"? And - will it be possible to define the relations between the US and old Europe into something new that is going to be fruitful and good? On the other hand the members of this new "conferderation" can do many reasonable things like combining their millitary or use their bigger political weight to take influence on certain issues of their interest. The old dictum of "divide and conquer" will not work anymore for powers from the outside. Maybe we are even able to get rid of some useless administration. Who knows?
One thing is for sure: History will never end.
It would work for all if the west would be willing to let free market do its job. Europe doesn't need a superstate, it needs a common free market and some sort of limited "state" that would serve this market. Until the western Europe doesn't get rid of the welfare state and throws the ideology of "social market economy" out of the window this will not be possible.
The problem is not "national foundations". The problem is in economy. You can create a nation only when you have either of the two (and preferably both) things:
1. cultural, religious etc. affinity
2. mutual interests.
We write off the first item so we can only rely on the second: mutual interests.
BTW I don't know why you think that the ties between France, Germany and the Benelux countries are really very close. Maybe from the German point of view it looks like that but I doubt if the French share that point of view. You know, France is like Britain, it has no constant allies, only constant interests. So again it all comes down to economy. Are you sure that French and German economies are so closely tied that no major crisis in intereuropean relations could break those countries apart?
I don't agree. The problem with this constitution was that it had too much ideology in it. All those social rights etc. Rightwingers could misinterpret it as too socialist and socialists could misinterpret it as too liberal. If it had no ideology in it nobody could misinterpret anything.
Constitution should be a bare-bones set of rules how to manage the political institutions of EU. Like a manual for a DVD player. Or like the constitution of the USA ;)
1. cultural, religious etc. affinity 2. mutual interests.
As a real insider* of the German-French relationship I can tell you that most of the Frogs indeed see cultural affinity between Germany and France. I.e. all of the Alsatian people can speak German since it is their mother tongue no matter if they feel themselves as real Frenchmen or not. Most of the French are fed up with their central gouvernment and would prefer a more federal structure. Therefore the idea of the "Europe of the regions" is something that seems to be extremely "sexy" to them. Espechially to those who move something. Same thing in Germany. We Swabians (Germans from south-west Germany) are totally pi**ed to help people in the German east that are ethnically really completely different (every guy from the Alsace is for sure much closer to me than a "compatriot" from Brandenburg i.e.) with roundabout 1,5 trillion (not billion - trillion) Euros! It would give us the chance to free ourselves from old structures to start something new and better. Something with more capitalism and more freedom. I do not have anything against a blown-up welfare state in the east German "regions" or anywhere else, as long as they pay themselves for it.
This is something that only very few from the "outside" can understand: The capable and effective parts of Germany and France hope to be freed from their national structures. Ask a Bavarian if he feels Bavarian or German. He will tell you: "Mir send mir" (dialect: "We are we" - that means he is a Bavarian and nothing else). The German nation is a artificial product of Prussian Realpolitik that doesn't work anymore. It is a sad truth: Those who bring performance in western Europe are sucked out by a swarm of parasites from the poorer parts. This is not different between Germany and France. Therefore a economical splintering into regions could be the key to a fundamental system change.
Furthermore it is obvious that a confederation of two middle powers like Germany and France plus the Benelux would create a much more powerful "global player" that can defend its interests with more plausibility than in the moment.
I am well aware that many of your compatriots feel such a development as a threat. One thing is for sure - neither Germany or France are a danger to their neighbours anymore. We are healed from our auto-erotic phantasies of world dominance. If such a "confederation" comes true, it will be because of internal reasons and for sure not because of millitary power i.e..
As somebody who is believing into the possibility of a better Europe I think that it is important for Poland to keep all doors open. During the past 40 years we had a fundamental change between the attitudes of Germany and France. This will also be possible with Germany and Poland if the right people are "writing the plot". We have to overcome the faults of the past and have to start building up something new and better. I have to admit that in the moment the biggest deficits in this process are on the German side, since the "Bundesländer" near the Polish boarder are ruled by idiots, but this is no reason not to start every day a new try.
In the current situation this "core" is something that will not be enforceable by democratic means in Poland. I am well aware that the new found national sovereignty is something really precious to Poles. Furthermore the current economic state doesn't allow a membership either. This will change soon and I believe that the cultural affinity will move towards western Europe and in return to Poland (from the western side) which would be no fault. Than you can decide what you want to do or not. You Poles do not have to be a member of such a conferation but you can if you want to.
* My uncle is living near Paris with his French wife and French kids and I am doing lots of business in Alsace-Lorraine.
Yep! I believe that. We Germans are completely dependent on the French and they are for sure completely dependent on us. This relationsship is in the moment much more fundamental than anything else in Germany. America is still needed in Germany, but is not in the foreground anymore (BTW - this is something that many in Washington realized and therefore they cool down the relationsship a littelbit). Thank God Merkel is changing to a more friendly verbalism, but that can not cover the changed heading of German politics and economics.
Wow! This is really something. I have the impression that you must be rather a minority among your countrymen. German nation an artificial product? Well, maybe in southern Germany this attitude is more widespread, but I really doubt if majority of Germans share that view.
But more important point is that most of nations of Europe are not ready to see their nationhood as an artificial invention, and first among them is in my opinion France. What you say about Europe of regions is a beautiful utopia, but how are you going to convince the French, many of whom voted for LePen that their nation is an just an artefact?
From all the nations of Europe the Germans seem to be best equipped (due to their history) to form federation of regions (though I doubt that it looks as rosy as you've made it out), but all the other nations - and France and Britain in the first place- want simply an organization that would make the trade and business easier and would serve as a straitjacket for all those who'd think about WW III in Europe.
As to the core of EU - I'm not against it, I think Poland would be even better off in such situation. I just doubt if this can be done. And if it can be done it may mean the end of the EU as we know it. The core would probably do everything to isolate itself from the outer EU - they would have to guard their welfare state socialism against the evil Polish plumbers and other barbarian scum.;)
In conclusion: we don't need a very tight union that doesn't work, we need a loose union that actually works. Free-trade European zone would be best.
:) Well German-alsatian relations, I can believe that:) I also heard that many Germans learn and speak French but the number of ethnic Frenchmen who speak German is lower than those who speak Arabic. Cultural affinity? Be serious. There are two main traits of every culture that can be a base of affinity: language and religion. You have different languages and you have no religion. So what's the base of this affinity? Belief in the religion of tradeunionism or the human rights? Get a life.
The only glue that can hold Europe together is money and free trade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.