The European Union has been one of the most interesting experiments in federalism of the post-World War II era. At present, the EU is a very weak federal government, if one can all it a government at all. In some ways, it is even weaker than US government was under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution. For example, unlike the the US government under the Articles, the EU lacks an armed forces and a common foreign policy. On the other hand, EU regulatory authority has gradually increased, and many European elites envision eventually turning it into a full-fledged federal state that could rival the United States in power and influence. In this Washington Post op ed, political scientist Charles Kupchan (an admirer of the EU) argues that the Union is dying because of the recent resurgence of nationalism which has been exacerbated by current economic crisis:
The European Union is dying — not a dramatic or sudden death, but one so slow and steady that we may look across the Atlantic one day soon and realize that the project of European integration that we’ve taken for granted over the past half-century is no more….
For many Europeans, that greater good no longer seems to matter. They wonder what the union is delivering for them, and they ask whether it is worth the trouble. If these trends continue, they could compromise one of the most significant and unlikely accomplishments of the 20th century: an integrated Europe, at peace with itself, seeking to project power as a cohesive whole….
Europe is hardly headed back to war; its nations have lost their taste for armed rivalries. Instead, less dramatically but no less definitively, European politics will become less European and more national, until the E.U. becomes a union in name only. This may seem no great loss to some, but in a world that sorely needs the E.U.’s aggregate will, wealth and muscle, a fragmented and introverted Europe would constitute a historical setback.
Many of Kupchan’s points are valid. It is certainly true that nationalism is making a comeback in Europe, and that the richer nations are becoming more reluctant to pay the cost of increasing integration. He is also correct to point out that the recent economic crisis has greatly undermined the EU’s public support.
On the other hand, Kupchan’s prediction of the “death” of the EU seems overstated. Even if the Union never becomes the sort of super-state envisioned by its most enthusiastic advocates, it will probably survive in a less ambitious but still very important form. The two greatest achievements of European unification over the last several decades are the creation of a continent-wide common market and freedom of movement. It is important and very impressive that goods from any of the 27 nations can be sold in any other without trade barriers. It is an even greater achievement that citizens of any one nation can live and work freely in any of the others, despite large differences in income and culture. Most American libertarians and conservatives dislike the EU, and there is indeed much to criticize. But the establishment of free trade and freedom of movement throughout Europe are two of the greatest advances of freedom in the recent history of the Western world.
These two crucial elements of the EU are likely to survive the current economic crisis and nationalist backlash. All but the most extreme European nationalists seem willing to leave them in place. In that important sense, the Union will not “die.” It will remain a very weak federal system, but one strong enough to continue to provide these two great benefits to the people of Europe. The EU will also likely continue to engage in a variety of regulatory and redistributive initiatives, albeit perhaps fewer than today. It may not become a true unified nation, but it will be far from being a “union in name only.”
On the other hand, it is certainly possible that European integrationists’ dream of creating a superstate will die. Europe has far less cultural and ideological unity than the United States, and less sense of a common identity. As a result, the integrationist project may not survive the impact of crisis and nationalist backlash. Unlike Kupchan, I don’t lament that possibility. As he admits, the absence of a strong EU central government is unlikely to lead to the return of nationalist warfare between Europe’s nations. The combination of freedom of movement and a high degree of member state autonomy will enable to Europeans to “vote with their feet” for the government policies they prefer. Kupchan points out that nationalist pressures in the wealthier countries are likely to curb transfers to poor and inefficient economies. As a result, each national government will have stronger incentives to adopt policies that both promote economic growth and are attractive to migrants in other ways.
That said, I am not sure that the superstate project is as dead as I hope and Kupchan fears. The institutions created by recent European agreements such as the recent Lisbon Treaty may well survive the current crisis. If they do, European political elites can use them to gradually promote greater integration over time, even as public opposition wanes due to the return of relative prosperity. Repeated economic crises and bouts of populist opposition have not prevented long-term progress towards European integration over the last fifty years. It’s too early to say that this time will be different.
UPDATE: I should mention that Kupchan is also correct that the enlargement of the EU to include most of Eastern Europe over the last 15 years has made it more difficult to get consensus on deeper integration. On the other hand, it has also extended the benefits of free trade and freedom of mobility to tens of millions of additional people. The Eastern Europeans may be reluctant to accept the idea of a fully unified European nation. But they also strongly support the EU in its current form, if only because of the substantial economic benefits to them.
Mikhail Koulikov says:
Even if the Union never becomes the sort of super-state envisioned by its most enthusiastic advocates, it will probably survive in a less ambitious but still very important form. The two greatest achievements of European unification over the last several decades are the creation of a continent-wide common market and freedom of movement.
But that’s just the thing – Kupchan is not measuring the EU simply in terms of its quantifiable achievements. Those come and go, and what seemed amazing once can also seem meaningless a few years later. The common market and the freedom of movement are elements of the EU, but the EU itself is more of an idea – or ideal. As pretty much usual, reality fails to live up to the idea(l); the question then becomes whether to blame those who originated and promoted the ideal, or those who failed to live up to it.
August 30, 2010, 1:38 amPassing By says:
There are two problems here–the Kupchan doom-mongering and the Somin libertarian utopia.
Kupchan’s article is utterly unconvincing. He draws a powerful conclusion(“The European Union is dying”) but his evidence amounts to: The EU is a federation, not a unitary government, so it’s decision-making processes are messy. And EU governments are run by self-interested politicians with self-interested constituencies.
Neither of those is new. Kupchan offers no evidence that matters are messier, or more selfish, than they were in the decades since the EU’s predecessor was formed in the 1950s.
For example, Kupchan emphasizes how the Germans whined about bailing out Greece; but skips over the key point … that they did it. Not because they’re nice guys or pushovers, but because it served their self-interest. Just as the Eu generally serves the self-interest of Europe’s government’s and populations.
Somin recognizes that, as well as another element that Kupchan ignores: irreversibility. As he notes, it would be very hard to re-raise the old barriers to trade and migration.
But Somin dreams of an EU that keeps only the elements attractive to a libertarian. What he ignores is that keeping those barriers down requires active energetic governance and regulation from Brussels. (Just as it does in the US … the Federal courts regularly strike down state legislation designed to advantage local interests over those in other states.)
And he ignores the practical irreversibility of the Euro. As the recent crisis showed, a common currency strongly favors coordinated fiscal and financial policies. Rather than withering away, the Brussels bureaucracy is likely to be exerting more control over both national governments’ fiscal policies and (perhaps via Basel) over national banking systems too.
In short, the EU, for all its maddening flaws, is likely to stick around. Get used to it.
August 30, 2010, 8:14 amLitigator London says:
Declaring my interest as a pro-Europe Britain, I think this post is a little over-simplistic.
It is true that ”Most American libertarians and conservatives dislike the EU” and it is also true that many American corporations do as well, because the EU is now not only the biggest trading partner of the US in terms of goods and services (with the USA running a deficit) but also the biggest single trading bloc in the world (for which purpose there have to be added the EFTA countries plus Switzerland and all the associated states). The single market in goods has inevitably led to common European standards (to which US industry has to conform) and those EU standards are rapidly becoming the de facto world standards. Once can add to that the developing impact of the single market in services and fact that the EU negotiates trade and services issues as a single bloc (ask the US airline industry about the impact of that) and one can see why a large body of US opinion regrets the fact that the USA is no longer able to dominate the economies of the free world as it once did post WW2.
The European Union is a treaty-based confederation and therefore the member states only share such sovereignty as the member states care to cede. It is also very much a work in progress. The impact of the single markets in goods and services movement of persons has led to a common healthcare and welfare safety net, and the creation of a single judicial space in the sphere of civil and criminal justice, and the common human rights guarantees ultimately enforceable at European level.
The vast majority of Europeans see those as benefits.
August 30, 2010, 9:12 amLitigator London says:
I agree that the development of EU common foreign policy and common defence policy are as yet embryonic, but they are developing and may be expected to do so further.
The biggest future change is likely to be in Defence policy. It was already clear that with the collapse of the soviet bloc, NATO had become an organisation without a clearly defined role and my view NATO is something which will eventually die away (as the WEA has already done) and integration of military capability will take place at EU level – something which has already begun. Since the EU states will never agree to spend the same proportion of GDP on Defence as the US spends, they will be constrained to seek cost efficiencies by intra EU arrangements. Further, after the damage done by the Bush Administration, its GWOT™, its Enterprise of Iraq™ and the ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan, it has now become very clear that it will be difficult for ECHR member states to sign up for any future US-led “coalitions of the willing” until there is a change of approach by the USA to its human rights obligations. Therefore the EU has to build a capability to deal with regional issues without depending on US participation.
August 30, 2010, 9:17 amAnderson says:
I am not sure that the integrationist dream is as dead as I hope
Why do you hope this? It’s a “very weak” government you say, and thus presumably preferable to a stronger government.
Does Prof. Somin prefer nationalism? Conflict? World wars?
Exactly how much human suffering does the libertarian daydream require?
August 30, 2010, 9:22 amMartinned says:
That’s one of the things American observers, both pro- and anti-EU, don’t get. Unlike the founding of the US, the EU was never supposed to be a dramatic one-off innovation. That’s why I love the Schuman Declaration so much, because it emphasised that very point.
At this point, as usual, I’ll have to link to the FT’s Gideon Rachman explaining why the EU will inevitably take over the world, through the G20:
August 30, 2010, 9:24 amMartinned says:
Why? I don’t see why collaborating with the US would necessarily get an ECHR High Contracting Party in trouble with Al-Sadoon, Al-Skeini, etc. They are the ones required to follow the ECHR standards, not the US, and even then they’re only required to follow them in facilities they directly, permanently and lawfully control, such as military bases and prisons. Jurisdiction under art. 1 ECHR does not extend to occupied territory, and it does not extend to any place where control is shared with the US.
August 30, 2010, 9:30 amerp says:
Memo to the EU, don’t call us next time you get into a jam.
August 30, 2010, 9:33 amTamerlane says:
Two major misconceptions floating around here: First, there’s an awful lot of parochial trade protectionism buried in the bowels of the EU. The Union’s agricultural protectionism makes US agricultural policies seem like they were written by Adam Smith.
Second, aside from free trade and personal movement the EU and its bureaucracy should be a libertarian’s nightmare. In the EU there is not even a right to life: Self-defense is not a legal defence against a homicide charge. No citizen has the right to take the law into his own hands by defending himself or his property. People who exercise these two most fundamental Common Law rights can be tried as criminals in the EU.
Anyone who isn’t aware of the Union’s exorbitant PC restrictions on free speech shouldn’t bother posting on this issue until they become so.
And the elitist, unelected EU bureaucrats that Passing By seems to think are the bulwark for ensuring civil liberties in the EU are precisely the people who have crafted these and other similar travesties.
August 30, 2010, 9:33 amMartinned says:
Why not? Do you honestly think it wouldn’t be in America’s best interest to bail us out if we got in trouble? Putin reaching the Atlantic would be very very bad, just like it would have been very very bad if Hitler had taken over all of Europe. The only question is whether there is a larger-than-negligible chance that this will happen. I’d say no, but you’re welcome to spend all your income for the first couple of weeks of January making sure you’re prepared, just in case.
Alternatively, this situation could be modelled as a credible commitment problem, akin to bank bailouts. I guess your preference depends on how cynical you are. Door No. 3 involves the assumption that not even the US believe that Europe is under any realistic threat from anyone. US defense spending is not for the benefit of Europe, but for the purpose of projecting US power in the Americas, (East-)Asia and the Middle East.
August 30, 2010, 9:54 amLitigator London says:
What I find extraordinary is that Professor Somin feels able to assert ” Europe has far less cultural and ideological unity than the United States”
Insofar as the USA may be said to have any culture at all, it is derived from the common European heritage. Professor Somin teaches US law which derives largely from the Anglo-Norman tradition of England. He presumably also teaches that inherited body of law in a language which has at least some degree of commonality with that used in my country (even if Professor Higgins did say that it had not been used in America for years).
So far as unity of ideology is concerned, I would say we are much less split I Europe than is the USA. The idea that it is the task of the state to provide from progressive taxation a welfare safety net for the poor sick and disabled is universal across Europe. My healthcare card works across the whole of the EEA. It is also generally accepted that the gap between the very rich and the very poor should be decreased.
The phenomenon known as “one nation Toryism” has come back after the Thatcherite flirtation with Reaganomics.
Also Europe is generally a far more secular society than the USA. While we still have some officially recognised national religions: eg: Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism in England, Greek Orthodoxy, Bulgarian Orthodoxy etc the real political influence of religion is declining quite rapidly. We do not have to any extent the “happy clappy” or “rapture ready” fundamentalism which so infects the US political scene.
Yes, there are some anti-EU extremist groups , just as the USA seems to have its Tea Party movements, and both seem to have some common traits: xenophobia, racism, and nostalgia being three of them.
But the same UK blue-rinsed Tory matrons who campaigned against the abolition of the death penalty and the abolition of corporal punishment in our schools are those who are Eurosceptic now. But this is an aging part of the population and they are already far less numerous than they were in the 50’s and 60’s. They are now a “lunatic fringe” as the UKIP results in the last UK elections showed.
August 30, 2010, 9:57 amMartinned says:
Euh, it really isn’t. The EU and the US are comparable in this regard.
It is in every jurisdiction that I’ve ever heard of.
Wrong again. You’re allowed to take reasonable measures to defend your own property. Those just don’t include causing (serious) bodily harm, since here in Europe we have the strange idea that people are more important than things.
Exaggerate much? I’m not a fan of those laws either, but you have to remember the difference between law in the US and law in Europe. In the US, the law only ever shoots cannonballs. Here in Europe, the law also shoots bee-bee guns. Welcome to the wonderful world of proportionality analysis.
Euh, that would be the elected members of Parliament? (Not to mention the citizens who voted on the referendums to pass the various treaties.) Or do you have a problem with civil servants as a concept? People vote for this stuff because that’s what they want.
Also from Charlemagne: If only it were that easy: American comments about Turkey betray a lack of understanding of the European Union
August 30, 2010, 10:06 amLitigator London says:
But the ECHR does extend to the detention of foreign nationals in UK custody overseas – which is why there are over 500 claims from Iraq and Afghanistan wending their way through the UK Courts ad why there are suits pending in connection with UK complicity in US torture and/or inhuman and degrading treatment.
August 30, 2010, 10:08 amMartinned says:
Well, that’s an interesting philosophical question, isn’t it? Which election should one use to assess the position of UKIP? European Parliament elections or Westminster elections? As a matter of law, the only way to obtain their goals is through a win in Westminster. But on the other hand, it makes sense that Europe is only a real campaign issue in EP elections. So how much support does UKIP really have? 16,5% or 3,1%?
August 30, 2010, 10:10 amMartinned says:
Indeed. But there’s nothing stopping the UK from complying with the ECtHR’s case law on this point, whatever it will turn out to be. If the Court says that detainees have to be treated in manner X, Y or Z, that won’t get in the way of Britain participating in any future NATO missions.
August 30, 2010, 10:12 amSoronel Haetir says:
It requires only that suffering which people are either willing to put up with or unable to throw off. As for your list of evils, yes, I think those are mostly for the greater good, conflict drives progress. Whether that conflict is between nations, companies or individuals isn’t terribly important.
August 30, 2010, 10:13 amBob from Ohio says:
Not much chance of that. Russia can’t even fight forest fires.
If this kinda arrogance is common, maybe we ought to help Putin?
August 30, 2010, 10:17 amLitigator London says:
What absolute B*LL**KS! In the EU we recognize the right to life rather more effectively that in the USA since there is no EU state which permits capital punishment. All EU states have the concept of justifiable homicide. All EU states permit the use of proportionate force in self defence or in defence of property. And we in England invented the Common Law.
August 30, 2010, 10:19 amB.D. says:
It would be nice if we had only one person to call in Europe over trade issues and foreign policy. It would also be nice if Europe took responsibility over its own backyard.
That said, perhaps Europe is not as post-modern in its ideas about nationalism as people thought. Sure, the wealth transfers from rich (Germany) to poor (Greece) would be maddening enough even for people who didn’t care about nationalism. But the bulk of euroskepticism seems to center of way-of-life concerns and the fear of surrendering sovereignty to Brussels.
FDR attempted to “retire” Europe from history. The EU helps control some of those impulses that have caused Europeans to make history. Even for all its faults the EU accomplishes American objectives and thus has staying power. Adding Turkey might change things, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
August 30, 2010, 10:21 amKen Arromdee says:
It’s a matter of degree–the worse your attitude towards the US is, the greater the degree of trouble it’ll have to be in before the US is willing to bail you out. Something like an invasion by Putin would be so bad that you’d have to turn into North Korea before we’d refuse to bail you out, but it’s certainly possible there could be less cooperation on Bosnia-level emergencies or severe economic problems.
August 30, 2010, 10:21 amMartinned says:
Exactly my point: Why spend almost three weeks GDP defending yourself against that guy?
August 30, 2010, 10:24 amerp says:
What the EU has to worry about is that Germans don’t decide to join the fun and stop supporting the rest you. Putin a threat to us! Surely you jest.
We don’t have to worry about an outside threat. What we have to worry about is home grown elitist socialist would-be overlords who are trying create a utopia for themselves by putting all the rest of us little cogs into our places in planned housing warrens, taking public transportation and carrying our groceries in mesh bags while they congregate in their aeries congratulating themselves that they let us live until we are no longer cost effective.
Ain’t gonna happen here, but if that’s how you want to live on your side of the pond, enjoy — just don’t expect us over there to pull your chestnuts out of the fire again. First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on us. Third time – we’ll pass.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
August 30, 2010, 10:24 amGary I. says:
All EU states permit the use of proportionate force in self defence or in defence of property. [gator]
Eh? Like with butter knives? Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.
August 30, 2010, 10:28 amLitigator London says:
On this you are absolutely right. Some of this is at popular request particularly as regards agriculture and manufactured food products. We have concerns about genetically modified food products, hormones in meat and certain additives in food and in these sectors popular opposition actually inhibits the EU bureaucracy.
August 30, 2010, 10:29 amMartinned says:
@erp: Funny how we socialists sell the capitalist wallhalla that is the US somewhere north of € 500 bn worth of stuff more than you sell us.
Trade balance EU-US, goods only, in millions of euros:
2001: -501416
2002: -538348
2003: -514041
2004: -568666
2005: -665526
2006: -702427
2007: -623555
2008: -588071
(source: Eurostat)
August 30, 2010, 10:33 amMartinned says:
Sure it is, in the same circumstances that you can plead self-defense if you’re charged with fellon-in-possession in the US. You’re not allowed to own a firearm on the off chance that you might be attacked some day, but if you are actually attacked, and you find yourself holding a gun, you’re allowed to hold it and use it. In all jurisdictions that I am familiar with, self-defense requires an imminent threat, so I don’t see how you could ever plead self defense as a reason why the government should let you own a gun.
August 30, 2010, 10:35 amCaptain Eurotrash says:
What you’re referring to is not intra-EU but extra-EU protectionism. While still protectionism and still a travesty, it doesn’t conflict with the OP’s claims, which were that goods and services flow freely within the union.
Is there an EU law specifically preventing one from doing exactly this? If I were to guess, I’d say no. What you’re referring to is tradition and law that exists in each country, regardless of their being in the EU or not. The EU doesn’t have a Bill of Rights or a 2nd amendment stating these rights for all its citizens. Is that “fault” attributable to “too much EU”? No, it’s exactly the opposite (though I don’t see it happening any time soon).
Again, you’re confusing the union with some of its states. Just because you can’t walk around without being harassed by the police in Arizona if you’re brown, I don’t claim the US is therefore some apartheid “papers please” society. Can you point to exactly which EU laws limit speech in the way you claim? No, because there aren’t any.
Your points are probably applicable to a lot of EU countries, but not the federal state, as it were. It has, overall, had a massively liberalising effect on Europe and things would be so much worse if there wasn’t a ECJ that enforces these laws and ensures the rights of the citizens in accordance with them.
August 30, 2010, 10:45 amGary I. says:
Martinned, parody?
August 30, 2010, 10:48 amGary I. says:
Just because you can’t walk around without being harassed by the police in Arizona if you’re brown, I don’t claim the US is therefore some apartheid “papers please” society. (Cpt. Eurotr)
Hillary’s State Dept. does, sorta, in a bad us/US report to Daddy UN.
August 30, 2010, 10:52 amCaptain Eurotrash says:
Right to gun ownership is not the same as the right to defend yourself against an attacker. You’re allowed to defend yourself, with lethal force if necessary. If you do that using a gun you’ll be charged with unlawful possession if it is in fact unlawful. But you won’t be charged with murder for defending yourself. The fact that you did so using a gun is a completely separate matter.
August 30, 2010, 10:56 amMike P. says:
I am not a fan of “nationalism,” but a healthy patriotism. We need to recognize that the European countries are different in many ways; indeed, most have far bigger gaps than between the U.S. states (to point to the obvious: the language gap). They have different histories, cultures, and politics. If I was living in these countries, I would be extremely worried about abandoning my sovereignty to the E.U.
This is not to say that the E.U. is all bad, but I hope we can avoid simply calling all opposition to E.U. integration “dangerous tribalism.”
August 30, 2010, 10:58 amTamerlane says:
Litigator London:
Then please explain this: Tony Martin.
August 30, 2010, 10:59 amCaptain Eurotrash says:
I don’t think it’s loss of sovereignty that worries people, but a loss of identity. Pooling sovereignty is a purely practical matter, losing your identity is emotional. But, that’s the risk you take when you attach your identity to something you can’t control (the nation).
August 30, 2010, 11:02 amLitigator London says:
The USA was very late for WW1, quite late for WW2, and so far as the Cold War was concerned, it quickly became very clear that the USA was not going to go to war with Soviet Russia if it invaded Western Europe, NATO Treaty or no Nato Treaty. That is the origin of the hang-up in both the UK and France about having our own nuclear deterrent – which it may now be impractical to continue.
ERP also said:-
“What we have to worry about is home grown elitist socialist would-be overlords who are trying create a utopia for themselves by putting all the rest of us little cogs into our places in planned housing warrens, taking public transportation and carrying our groceries in mesh bags while they congregate in their aeries congratulating themselves that they let us live until we are no longer cost effective.”
Given the very ugly sprawl around most American cities, I’d say a bit of sensible town planning would do much to improve your quality of life. Ditto mass transportation.
August 30, 2010, 11:05 amCaptain Eurotrash says:
I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t sound to me like his life was in danger.
August 30, 2010, 11:06 amMartinned says:
The explanation is right there in the wiki page you linked:
He was not defending anybody. He was using deadly force against burglars who were attempting to flee, without any effort to avoid killing them. I agree with the appellate ruling that murder is harsh, but manslaughter seems reasonable.
August 30, 2010, 11:06 amTerre Haute says:
Europeans have cooked up a Brussels sprouting of bureaucratic regulation of everything from butterpat size to advertising speech (gaia and allah forbid it be sexist, for example, as in depicting a woman baking a cake or Mr. Clean on a home product.)
Who stands to really economically gain from the expansion of the mandarin and minion classses and the shrinkage of individual and commercial discretion? It’s the same rarified stratum of better-thans who have concocted this vision of collective clout to be wielded as a club to get more of what they already have. The rest have been bought off with promises of increasing living standards and “free” this and that. How’s that working out?
No matter, and no way is the EU going to go away.
August 30, 2010, 11:15 amCaptain Eurotrash says:
Anti-Marx, is that you?
August 30, 2010, 11:17 amMartinned says:
Any chance any of this is actually rooted in reality?
When EU lawmakers enact laws specifying “butterpat size”, they do so only to replace national laws that would hamper trade, and only if they can’t get there with mutual recognition. As for advertising (speech), I’m not sure where you came up with that one. AFAIK that is exclusively a Member State competence.
August 30, 2010, 11:21 amLitigator London says:
There is no need for me to explain. Read the Judgment of the Court of Appeal Martin -v- R. [2002] 2 WLR 1, [2002] 1 Cr App R 27, [2003] QB 1, [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 Neither the Jury nor the Court of Appeal believed that Martin fired in self defence. “Reasonable force” to protect self and property
August 30, 2010, 11:22 amis not a licence to gun down any trespasser who comes onto private property, particularly one who is trying to escape.
Martinned says:
In the US, all the GDP increase of the last few decades has gone to the top 1%. In the EU, with lower growth, it’s been spread out more evenly. So I’d say it’s working out pretty good. GDP growth isn’t very useful if the additional value created all ends up in Scrooge McDuck’s pockets.
August 30, 2010, 11:23 amAnderson says:
As for your list of evils, yes, I think those are mostly for the greater good, conflict drives progress.
Wowzer. “War is the father of all” is now a libertarian motto.
August 30, 2010, 11:27 amMartinned says:
As a matter of history, it is certainly true, though. Part of the reason why Europe dominated is that its unique collection of rivers, mountain ranges and peninsulas made it impossible for one to rule them all, the way the emperors of China, the Mughal in India or the Aztecs in Mexico did. IIRC, one of the Ming emperors forbade any further trading with India and Africa, and that was that. Two or three centuries later the Europeans came and crushed them like a bug. The Chinese had gunpowder but no incentive to develop ever better cannons, they had ships but nothing to stop the ruler from banning long-distance sea travel.
The moral question is whether any of this is enough reason to think war is a good thing. Cue Nietzsche in 3, 2, 1…
August 30, 2010, 11:33 amLitigator London says:
The EU has regulations which define the sizes in which certain everyday products must be sold to consumers – usually convenient fractions of a kilo or a litre for good sold by weight or volume eg 250g, 500g,750g, 1kg. This makes price comparison easier than if you have to compare 485 grams to 325 grams. So yes, when I go to the supermarket, I find all the different butters are in 250g and 500g packs and its easy to compare prices. There will also be a label on each saying precisely what has been added to the butter. I like it that way and so do most housewives,
There is nothing in EU legislation which prevents a packet of cake mix depicting a woman baking a cake. It can even carry the words “Betty Crocker”.
August 30, 2010, 11:43 amTerre Haute says:
Here
and here.
In this case, it was a non-binding vote by the Legislature on advertising speech, but the regs regarding food and other products and services are getting legion and lesions. Wish I had time to research it for you.
August 30, 2010, 11:45 amMartinned says:
@Terre Haute: Are you really going to make me look up some examples of the monumentally dumb resolutions that the US Congress adopt in any given week? Parliamentarians in all legislatures vote for this stuff because they know it’s a non-binding way to get it on record that you support whatever some interest group supports.
August 30, 2010, 11:57 amLitigator London says:
Ah! One of those! Well, I’m all for the advertising industry behaving better. I do remember a time when advertising interests tried to prevent television companies using black entertainers. It’s still more tricky when nearly all advertising seeks to exploit either sex, envy or greed. But that’s a national thing not an EU competence.
What the EU is concerned with is product content and labelling and it is getting more restrictive and forcing more disclosure and that is what the consumer interests (as opposed to the corporate interests) want.
August 30, 2010, 12:05 pmerp says:
Thanks London, but given the quality of your council housing estates, I hardly think you’re in the position to comment on our urban sprawl and you miss my point on coming to your aid again. Wilson forced us into WWI and FDR into WWII in both cases for the greater glory of the Soviets. Of course, we wouldn’t go to war against the Soviets (that’s why we waited until Hitler invaded them before getting into WWII), our leadership was rooting for them to win.
August 30, 2010, 12:27 pmA. Criminal says:
The U.S. has bailed-out Europe a couple of times, in case you’ve forgotten, and continues to do so to this very day – see below.
You’re welcome.
And, no, it wouldn’t in the US’s best interests to bail out any European country suffering from financial problems. It’d be a waste of money.
You’re both wrong. Tamerlane appears to be referring to formerly-Great Britain, where deadly self-defense and defense of property are essentially illegal. Not that this is a national policy, but one guy there, who’d been burglarized a couple times, was “ordered” to take down a fence because the burglars might hurt themselves on it.
The EU banned dwarf-tossing, thereby proving that the administrative organization is essentially ridiculous. I predict the EU will implode in a generation of two, the U.S. will (continue) to come to the rescue once again, both financially and militarily.
August 30, 2010, 1:05 pmPeter Gerdes says:
It’s inevitable that the EU will turn into a unified single government much as the United States did and the reasons are similar. Common markets and free movement tie people together across national lines. Once it’s easy to take a job in a neighboring country the number of people who marry outside their home country or develop strong friendships outside that country substantially increases. This effect, combined with a unified currency, means that the rest of Europe is unlikely to simply let member states sink or swim when they face a crisis. The greek bailout is one good example and in the future I don’t doubt that a truly serious earthquake in Italy or other disastor wouldn’t result in substantial assistance from the EU at large. But once the federal government starts stepping in to help it will inevitably demand greater power to regulate just as the EU demanded austerity measures from greece. If out of control wildfires in a member state require substantial EU assistance to rebuild after the damage then the people of the EU are likely to demand centrally imposed fire control regulations and so forth.
In effect federal power is a one way rachet and various emergencies or unexpected conditions inevitably arise that cause people to support giving more power to the federal government.
Moreover, common markets and free movement drastically undermine the power of the state to regulate which inevitably pushes all matters of consumer protection and product regulation up to the federal level. As time passes a larger and larger part of the regulations which affect people on a daily basis originate federally so they start to care more about the federal government and turn to their federal representatives when they need something handing even more power to the federal government.
However, far from being a harm to libertarians I think this is actually a boon. Yes, having many state labratories could theoretically be beneficial but practically speaking it’s not the case that nations copy the policies of the successful nations rather than the unsuccessful, e.g., poor nations often seem inclined to turn to socialism despite the fact that the rich countries are capitalistic. On the other hand since a federal government must make rules for more diverse range of people the rules are likely to be more libertarian in spirit rather than mandating the cultural norm of a single nation.
August 30, 2010, 1:29 pmIlya Somin says:
But Somin dreams of an EU that keeps only the elements attractive to a libertarian.
I made no such prediction. To the contrary, I pointed out that the “The EU will also likely continue to engage in a variety of regulatory and redistributive initiatives, albeit perhaps fewer than today.” I also noted that even the superstate project may not be as dead as Kupchan claims.
August 30, 2010, 1:59 pmGary I. says:
Peter Gerdes: “On the other hand since a federal government must make rules for more diverse range of people the rules are likely to be more libertarian in spirit rather than mandating the cultural norm of a single nation.”
As happened in the Soviet Union, yes? At any rate, your conclusion is willfully naive. Quelle simplisme.
August 30, 2010, 2:01 pmTim says:
I wonder why nobody ever talks about the monetary policy. If there’s one thing that will be the end of the EU, as I see it, it’s going to be intimately connected to the monetary union. Nationalism and politics might play a part, of course, but between the unenforceable fiscal spending limits and the lack of monetary sovereignty, I tend to think it’ll be a source of serious friction in the future.
August 30, 2010, 2:42 pmPetB says:
For me, EU achieved everything I hoped for and more. That’s why it cannot move ahead – for me and my generation, there is no need for any additional integration.
This will have to wait for my children.
August 30, 2010, 3:09 pmCareless says:
*snicker*
Wow.
August 30, 2010, 3:11 pmChris Green says:
Personally, I think you guys over their in Europe are great. Compassionate, cautious, weary of GMO’s (for better or worse), always looking out for the less fortunate, non-interventionalists, hey we in America could do a lot worse for a best friend. What are our alternatives, China (totalitarian, sells weapons to anybody willing to pay, dangerously rising sense of time-to-take-our-place-as-a-superpower nationalism that is already causing problems with India, Vietnam, and Japan), Russia (napoleon complex, drifting toward totalitarianism, sense of sphere-of-influence entitlement toward any country within 200 miles of its borders)? You guys are Scully to our Fox Moulder, Wilma to our Fred, Lisa to our Bart Simpson. A salute to our friends across the pond!
August 30, 2010, 3:31 pmlukas says:
I live in the EU (Ireland to be precise) and I buy 227g and 454g packs of butter. If there’s an EU reg forbidding this, they forgot to tell my grocer.
August 30, 2010, 3:40 pmJoseph Slater says:
After your first post, “fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us” I was going to ask if it was really your opinion that U.S. involvement in WWII (late as it was, as per London Litigator) was something the U.S. should really be ashamed of, but now I see what you think. Thankfully, not only is your history wrong but I can’t think of any significant political group in the U.S. that agrees with you.
And I heartily second what Chris Green says about Europeans. Remember when U.S. conservatives used to speak about “western culture” generally in a positive way? It must be lonely to be a U.S. conservative now — in their view, Europe is a horrid socialist dystopia, heck, much of the U.S. is the same way or heading there. . . .
August 30, 2010, 4:01 pmAllan Walstad says:
Kupchan
Ah yes, “project power” — i.e., back to the golden age of imperialism, not to be outdone anymore by the US.
“Aggregate” simply means “sum.” The aggregate is same whether or not under central control. A lack of central control helps avoid visions of imperialism leading to self-bankrupting military interventionism.
August 30, 2010, 4:13 pmAllan Walstad says:
Passing By
It’s not clear how the bailout serves the best long-run interests of anyone, even the Greeks. All it does is generate the usual moral hazard in which less responsible regimes benefit at the expense of more responsible ones.
Fiat currency and central banking! They’re sowing the wind.
August 30, 2010, 4:17 pmThe Drill SGT says:
A couple of comments to add to the discussion:
- as others have mentioned, one of the failings of the EU is that it appears to the common resident, that it is an undemocratic institution. As the ‘Crats in Brussels grow in power, their legitimacy falls.
- the author mentioned the rise of nationalism. I’d point out that the EU has in fact to destroy nationalism, by fostering subunit identities within nations. Fostering the Walloons and Flemish instead of Belgium. Fostering Scots, Welch, etc, instead of UK, Basques, Catalons, etc…
hasn’t worked well.
August 30, 2010, 5:29 pmleo marvin says:
Not for Pat Buchanan’s lack of trying.
August 30, 2010, 5:33 pmLitigator London says:
There are derogations permissible for the UK and Ireland because we were not metric countries on accession 227g is the metric equivalent of 8oz and 454g the metric equivalent of 16oz. The UK has gone metric on butter and sugar, for example, but beer is still sold in pints as is some milk. I think the UK is ahead of Ireland in grocery transitions.
August 30, 2010, 5:56 pmLitigator London says:
Thank you for your observation on Erp’s comment. Of course, Roosevelt faced opposition from a number quarters to US involvement in WW2. Some was principled, There were, however, many in US banking circles who were pro Axis: “fine chap that Mussolini – makes the trains run on time – fine chap that Hitler – has the right ideas – we can do business with these people.” I recall that Prescott Bush was among them. Unsurprising. These were probably the same people who opposed the immigration of displaced persons after WW2 – “not the sort of people one would want to have admitted to our country club”. There were fascists in the UK too. Sir Oswald Mosley and most of the BUF were of course, interned during the war and one of the reasons the former Edward VIII then Duke of Windsor and his duchess, Wallis Simpson, were sent to Bermuda during the War was because they were suspect and it was felt better to have them out of the way.
August 30, 2010, 6:21 pmJoseph Slater says:
Indeed, Litigator London (sorry for getting your name backwards in my earlier post). I’ve just never heard the claim that the primary motivation for Wilson and FDR’s intervention in the two world wars was to help the Soviet Union. Beyond that, your post reminds of of the Elvis Costello song, “Less than Zero” with the lyric, “Calling Mr. Osward with the swastika tattoo. . . .”
August 30, 2010, 6:32 pmLitigator London says:
I don’t think you quite get this one. The EU policy is to support the survival of ethnic and linguistic identities. I think it is desirable to have languages such as Welsh, Scots and Irish Gaelic, Basque and Catalan survive and flourish.
Funny, but the Edinburgh Tattoo was on the goggle box this evening (the Edinburgh Festival is on) and there were bagpipes being played by pipers from a military academy in South Carolina (in their own tartan) as well as by pipers from the Ghurkas (just back from Helmand), from the Jordanian Army (HM King Abdullah II taking the salute at the parade) as well as by the Scots Guards (also just back from Afghanistan) Personally, I prefer the sound of bagpipes going away, but our limited British experience in matters military suggests that to foster diversity and to ensure soldiers have a connection to a particular county, regional or ethnic group etc is good for morale and fosters the esprit de corps.
The UK is not a single nation. Scotland, for example, is a separate nation within the United Kingdom and most Scots would be pretty pissed off if you suggested otherwise.
August 30, 2010, 6:48 pmlukas says:
Hmm, I wonder, is this a case of
August 30, 2010, 6:58 pm1) Ireland, again, is getting away with just about everything in the EU (it’s a fun ride, thanks Europe! You want us to drink beer by the half-litre? Come again in 2150 why don’t you.)
2) UK elites latch on to EU regulations to push through their own technocratic designs for a better, metric, world.
3) Different consumer preferences in the UK vs. Ireland, where the conservative Irish tend to prefer the old tried-and-true units.
DSDan says:
After I read this post, I saw a preview on a game site for the upcoming Citzalia: The Online RPG of the European Parliament.
August 30, 2010, 8:48 pmApparently, “you can be a Member of the European Parliament (MEP), a journalist, a student or any role you want to create.”
Instead of speculating about the future of the EU, you all should use this to run simulations to determine the truth. :-)
bhaal says:
Sadly, you are correct, as illustrated by a recent UK Supreme Court judgment (the Human Rights Act in Britain simply makes the ECHR directly enforceable in national courts, so the question was directly linked to the interpretation of the Convention by the ECtHR):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7862765/Supreme-Court-ruling-British-soldiers-abroad-not-protected-by-human-rights-laws.html
August 30, 2010, 9:25 pmLitigator London says:
(1) I think Ireland has done very well out of EU membership. (2) Of course there is resistance to any change in things like units of measurement. I well remember the furore over decimalisation of the currency in 1971. There was one local shop near me run by two old ladies which flatly refused to have anything to do with the “new money” until 25 years after the changeover. The pint will, hopefully, remain sacred for my lifetime- but since the pubs went non-smoking, I buy more and more in cans (which are metric) for garden consumption. (3) So far as butter is concerned, the UK imports much more than it produces and it makes sense for it all to be metric – and Irish brands sold here are in metric packaging.
August 30, 2010, 10:23 pmLitigator London says:
I agree with the Supreme Court decision. It is already onerous to extend the ECHR obligations to bases in conflict zones which we do control. But when you go into “hostile” territory, then there is no place for the territorial application of the Convention. So we must observe convention principles for detainees in our custody on our bases. So no “enhanced interrogation”. But the case in issue was on the different issue of the duty of care the Government has to its soldiers when off base and in combat situations and when you take the Queen’s shilling it is not practically possible for the government to implement health and safety at work legislation as if you were on exercise at home.
August 30, 2010, 10:39 pmMartinned says:
IIRC, a lot of the art. 2 ECHR stuff, including Al-Skeini, is not about the state’s duty of care while the person is still alive, but about their duty to conduct an independent inquiry once something happens to them. That doesn’t seem too onerous, even in occupied territory.
August 31, 2010, 7:13 amMartinned says:
Make no mistake, we’re very grateful.
Nope, a mayor in France banned it. The EU has no competence in this area, and unlike the American Courts the ECJ watches the limits of the EU’s competences like a hawk. (The key precedent is the tobacco advertising case, which the Community legislature tried to pass of as a harmonisation measure instead of a health measure, since they only have the power to make binding law in the former area, not the latter.)
That French case is actually very interesting. It went all the way up to the Conseil d’État. (Link to analyse on CDE website.) The legal question is similar to that of the recent SSM case in California: Is (mere) moral disapproval enough to support legal action by the state? The Council held that respect for human dignity was part of public order, and that the Mayor was entitled to uphold public order by banning the practice of dwarf tossing. This does not mean, however, that morality per se was the basis of the Mayor’s decision. Quoting the analyse:
BTW, according to wikipedia there are specific laws against dwarf tossing in New York and Florida. The site also says there was a lawsuit, but I can’t find it in Westlaw. (Yes, I know, I should go back to work now.)
August 31, 2010, 7:32 amLitigator London says:
Thank you for educating me about “dwarf tossing”. I had no idea that such a degrading practice existed. Still, I suppose it is only 150 years ago that poor Joseph Merrick aka The Elephant Man was exploited by exhibition in a freak show until he was rescued by Sir Frederick Treves, GCVO, CH, CB (later Surgeon to HM King Edward VII) and afforded asylum at the London Hospital.
The phrase of my childhood, “It’s wicked to mock the afflicted” comes to mind. No doubt Animal will bear that in mind.
By coincidence, Yahoo is running a series of photographs of banners taken at Tea Party rallies under the title Teabonics. I hesitate to comment further because its wicked to mock the afflicted
August 31, 2010, 7:23 pm