House of Cards

October 27, 2010 at 5:26 pm (tWP) (, , , , , , , , , , )


In my many discussions with Europhiles, they’ll often tell me that not everyone in favour of Europeanization is an idealist and that the project is also brought about for pragmatic reasons. Much to my amusement the recent controversy between the Commission and the French government serves to keep fresh my accusations that the Eurocrats’ promotion of the European project, however self-serving is grounded on a fundamentally idealistic assertion.

The Roma community is loathed throughout Europe for its persistent refusal to assimilate the culture of its host societies and for its overall lack of hygiene. This is not a prejudice, this is reality. I have travelled through Europe and have observed it. Of course there are exceptions to the norm but it remains the norm nonetheless and I believe that even the most radical leftist would have little problem recognising this. I am unsure as to how legal the French government’s actions were in regard to the Romanian Roma in France but what I do know is that the average EU citizen’s appreciation for the Roma is very low and that therefore it is no surprise that a government is finally taking action against a group of people who are less than welcome.

I find the French government’s actions justified if for nothing else, the principle of sovereignty. The French state has the right to decide who it lets enter its borders and who it does not. In principle ethnic discrimination is wrong but the left’s mistake is to refuse it on a matter of principle and to ignore all the practical consequences. It is a well known fact that the Roma people do not integrate and end up becoming a burden on France’s most generous welfare system, not to mention less legal enterprises.

What I find amusing in this affair is that many people on both the left and the right understand the actions of the Sarcozy government but are ashamed of admitting it. What is unbeknown to them but which they intuitively suspect is the unsustainability of the multicultural model. Like many theories it looks good on principle and morally ideal but in practice the multicultural society is a fiction and it was never put into practice very successfully for very long. As I’ve previously discussed this is not to say that we all should live apart in exclusivist societies, but cultural differences cannot coexist as easily as the model would indicate. Any attempt at forcing the coexistence of dramatically different cultures without any tradition to sustain it is nothing but social engineering.

Yet this is exactly what the EU is all about: to engineer a diverse, democratic and humanitarian ‘good society’ in the European continent.

The European Union though is a house of cards. Its growth/integration is built on incompatible cultures, on divergent legal systems, clashing strategic interests, and an ever growing lack of orientation and strategic thought – if there ever was one. In September I asked a panel of EU experts what the strategy of EU enlargement was, they smiled and rhetorically asked what the strategy of the EU itself was – the strategy was just the success of the project. They continued to smile, I did not. This is the typical pink destiny blind faith that Liberal Internationalists always display, believing themselves to be the creators of an end-of-history chronological exception which will generate paradise on Earth. I refuse to reckon an ounce of rationalisation in people who dismiss the need for strategy in a civilisational revolutionising endeavour.

The truth is that the humble origins with the coal and steel accords made sense in the context of the Cold War since the absence of war and the progressive economic integration were crucial for the cohesion of the western alliance and the resistance against the Soviet bloc.

West Germany however is not today’s Germany and the EEC is not the EU. West Germany was the most mutilated German state since the 1800s and existed basically as a Rhein Confederation of the XX century, serving the strategic and economic aims of the Allies against the USSR. Bonn was strategically par with Paris and together they formed the ‘European core’ par excellence which kept Europe valid and rational.

Post 89 Europe is a different world, with reunited Germany first among equals and the USSR gone as a raison d’être for the rallying together of western Europe. The 90s expansion of NATO and the EU was driven by the idealistic conviction in liberal democracy as a Hegelian final synthesis, and by moderates echoing Cold War maxims. The West’s ‘Moral Commitment’ – not my words folks, I just pass the europhile concept along – has led it to strategic overstretch and über-democracy sacrifices strategic imperatives for social endowments – Hervé Morin the French MoD has recently come to public criticizing the widespread cuts in defence that have been taking place throughout Europe but what is most hypocritical is that the same European leaders who formally make the case for European integration and the devolution of national competencies, later complain of threats to the national interest such as the sacrificing of strategic sector budgets.

This is one of the most important paradoxes in Europe’s fundamental inconsistency: more democracy and more integration only seems to cause more widespread euro-scepticism and less propensity for intervention abroad.

In fact this causes a certain federalist angst which ends up propelling a vicious circle of integrationist self defeating hyper-action. Appeals to the fight against the ‘democratic deficit’ and demands for more powers to European institutions are the pavlovian response of the universalists in charge of the Union. If the different European peoples feel disconnected from the EU then the problem cannot lie in the EU’s natural lack of legitimacy but rather in the supranationalist project’s lack of enhanced democracy, enhanced authority over the states and enhanced human rights initiatives. These in turn only make the EU appear even more over bearing on the different nations of Europe.

Realpolitik has also been named as one of the problems with the European project by the European Liberal Internationalists. According to them, realists only care about short term gains and their ‘lack of vision’ weakens the dream of a united Europe. This is of course a complete perversion of the Realist school and its critique of the European integration. It is true that Realists have little faith in the EU but their scepticism derives from historical empiricism, not electoral populism. Quite to the contrary, Libints are the ones who have been piggybacking on the benefits of populism: it is after all they who take advantage of the citizens’ disinterest in politics to advance Europeanization and legitimise it only later and through persistent referenda. It is they who use value based politics to acquire popular legitimacy and it is they who make use of personality politics by creating media darlings who fight corruption, legislate against monopolies and zeal for the Europeans’ health, while blaming national governments for failures such as irresponsible spending: as one Eurocrat famously put it ‘the Commission does not make mistakes, it acquires new experiences’.

Another nefarious consequence of the europhiles’ reliance on populism is the rise of the ultra-nationalist and Europhobic fringe parties throughout Europe. How did this come to pass? Not as you might think because the national governments blame the EU for the economic downturn and take credit for its successes. This too happens but then the EU plays the same game. No, it happened because the politically correct line of every mainstream party in Europe has involved unconditional support for more integration for the past decades, leaving the true critique of Europeanization to the extreme parties.

So do please allow Viviane Reding to proceed with her plan of referring France to the European Court of Justice and let the Court fine France for its non-compliance with EU Law. It is after all only logical that a member-state’s illegal actions should have consequences in a system where EU Law takes precedence over national legislations. It wouldn’t even be the first time: the EU subverted Austria’s political system in 2000 by diplomatically isolating Vienna in order to pressure for the end of the governing coalition that included the ‘right-wing extremist’ party of the infamous Jörg Haider. Hence let an indebted EU core-state be penalised for exerting its sovereignty; I look forward to it, I welcome it, I promote it, I will relish it fully, for the humiliation of one of the two essential states in the European integration process will foster one of the most Eurosceptic waves in the history of the European project and will wound it further.

As I’ve stated, European cooperation would be essential to the strategic success of the different European nations in a world of civilisation-states. To have delegated that strategic goal to universalists will unfortunately prove to be a historic mistake of epic proportions.


  1. M. Silva said,

  2. M. Silva said,

    The EU wants everybody to copy it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: