Publications
Partners
TODAY and on Sunday several millions of Europeans will flock to the voting booths to elect a new European Parliament, the legislative arm of the European Union (EU).
The executive arm is, of course, the European Commission, but real power is still wielded by the government leaders who meet at least once a month in the EU’s Justus Lipsius Building in Brussels’ Rue de la Loi.
However, the voting percentage is likely to be low. There are several reasons for this.
In the first place, people’s memories are short. They have forgotten that the EU and its predecessors were forged in the bloody cauldron of the Second World War, and that ever closer union – the stated objective – was meant to prevent anything like that from happening ever again on the continent.
Perhaps this is natural. The older people who actually experienced the war are dying out; a younger generation with different ideas and preferences are taking over.
Secondly, the sense of a common European identity is very poorly developed. The basic departure point of identity is still the nation-state, with regions a close second. A Brit will feel closer to an American than to a Romanian, and a Dutchman will have more in common with a German than a Bulgarian.
The consciousness of Europe as an operating concept hardly exists. This does not make people very anxious to vote.
The third reason flows from the second: “Brussels” is seen by many to be too expensive, not democratic and transparent enough, having too much power and meddling in all sorts of fields where it doesn’t belong.
A notorious example, much cited, is the EU regulation forcing cucumber producers to bring forth only straight cucumbers – a measure repealed only after a hue and cry lasting several years.
No wonder most governments, under pressure from their electorates, are trying to return some of the powers they ceded in the past to Brussels back to themselves. It seems as if the dream of a United States of Europe will remain just that, and that the future will belong to General Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a “Europe of fatherlands”, rather than a full-blown federation.
For right-wing populist parties like the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Freedom Party) in the Netherlands, the Front Nationale (National Front) in France and the UK Independence Party (Britain), this election will be their chance.
They are capitalising on the general dissatisfaction with the EU. Opinion polls indicate that they will do rather well.
Euro under fire
One of their biggest targets is, however, the euro. All of them want either to go back to the traditional national currency (the guilder, franc, etc), or keep what they have (the pound sterling).
This is a rather convenient target, as even well-known economists have serious reservations about the position of the euro.
It is easy to see why. The euro, after all, was not built on economic logic. It was driven by politics – to neutralise the Germans.
Remember that Germany reunited in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This happened in spite of the fierce opposition of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as well as the misgivings of French President François Mitterrand, who simply did not trust the Germans.
In the end, Germany was allowed to reunite, but it had to pay a price – the abandonment of its beloved Deutschmark. A resurgence of the German hegemony which had brought about two destructive world wars had to be prevented. And, therefore, Germany had to be submerged in Europe. Hence the euro.
What the political leaders of the time did not properly realise was that a single currency calls for a single state – and that rapidly became a bridge too far for their electorates.
The economic crisis which started in 2008 was actually made worse by the fact that those countries most affected - like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland - could not devaluate to improve their exports. They remained locked in an iron grip of the northern European economies.
Of course, calls for the abandonment of the euro are folly. While one may agree that the establishment of the euro was a mistake, it is now a fact of life. And abolishing it will cause so much disruption that this “solution” will bring about many more problems than benefits.
There is another problem. There is very little leadership. European countries are at present not led by visionaries like De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Winston Churchill. The only leader who really tries to look through the trees at the forest is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The rest - ranging from François Hollande (France) to Matteo Renzi (Italy) or Mark Rutte (Netherlands) - are small-minded people who would make rather good second-hand car salesmen. They tend to look only as far as the next election in their own country.
These are the reasons why relatively few European citizens will turn up at the ballot box - and why the European elections will not bring about much change.
- Fin24
* Leopold Scholtz is an independent political analyst who lives in Europe. Views expressed are his own.
The executive arm is, of course, the European Commission, but real power is still wielded by the government leaders who meet at least once a month in the EU’s Justus Lipsius Building in Brussels’ Rue de la Loi.
However, the voting percentage is likely to be low. There are several reasons for this.
In the first place, people’s memories are short. They have forgotten that the EU and its predecessors were forged in the bloody cauldron of the Second World War, and that ever closer union – the stated objective – was meant to prevent anything like that from happening ever again on the continent.
Perhaps this is natural. The older people who actually experienced the war are dying out; a younger generation with different ideas and preferences are taking over.
Secondly, the sense of a common European identity is very poorly developed. The basic departure point of identity is still the nation-state, with regions a close second. A Brit will feel closer to an American than to a Romanian, and a Dutchman will have more in common with a German than a Bulgarian.
The consciousness of Europe as an operating concept hardly exists. This does not make people very anxious to vote.
The third reason flows from the second: “Brussels” is seen by many to be too expensive, not democratic and transparent enough, having too much power and meddling in all sorts of fields where it doesn’t belong.
A notorious example, much cited, is the EU regulation forcing cucumber producers to bring forth only straight cucumbers – a measure repealed only after a hue and cry lasting several years.
No wonder most governments, under pressure from their electorates, are trying to return some of the powers they ceded in the past to Brussels back to themselves. It seems as if the dream of a United States of Europe will remain just that, and that the future will belong to General Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a “Europe of fatherlands”, rather than a full-blown federation.
For right-wing populist parties like the Partij voor de Vrijheid (Freedom Party) in the Netherlands, the Front Nationale (National Front) in France and the UK Independence Party (Britain), this election will be their chance.
They are capitalising on the general dissatisfaction with the EU. Opinion polls indicate that they will do rather well.
Euro under fire
One of their biggest targets is, however, the euro. All of them want either to go back to the traditional national currency (the guilder, franc, etc), or keep what they have (the pound sterling).
This is a rather convenient target, as even well-known economists have serious reservations about the position of the euro.
It is easy to see why. The euro, after all, was not built on economic logic. It was driven by politics – to neutralise the Germans.
Remember that Germany reunited in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall. This happened in spite of the fierce opposition of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as well as the misgivings of French President François Mitterrand, who simply did not trust the Germans.
In the end, Germany was allowed to reunite, but it had to pay a price – the abandonment of its beloved Deutschmark. A resurgence of the German hegemony which had brought about two destructive world wars had to be prevented. And, therefore, Germany had to be submerged in Europe. Hence the euro.
What the political leaders of the time did not properly realise was that a single currency calls for a single state – and that rapidly became a bridge too far for their electorates.
The economic crisis which started in 2008 was actually made worse by the fact that those countries most affected - like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland - could not devaluate to improve their exports. They remained locked in an iron grip of the northern European economies.
Of course, calls for the abandonment of the euro are folly. While one may agree that the establishment of the euro was a mistake, it is now a fact of life. And abolishing it will cause so much disruption that this “solution” will bring about many more problems than benefits.
There is another problem. There is very little leadership. European countries are at present not led by visionaries like De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, or Winston Churchill. The only leader who really tries to look through the trees at the forest is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The rest - ranging from François Hollande (France) to Matteo Renzi (Italy) or Mark Rutte (Netherlands) - are small-minded people who would make rather good second-hand car salesmen. They tend to look only as far as the next election in their own country.
These are the reasons why relatively few European citizens will turn up at the ballot box - and why the European elections will not bring about much change.
- Fin24
* Leopold Scholtz is an independent political analyst who lives in Europe. Views expressed are his own.
