In varietate concordia? - Thoughts on the European Union

Looking back at the last one and a half years, I guess that I can safely say that I’m living the life that I always wanted. I work for one of the largest and most prestigious IT companies in the world, live abroad, and can afford not only some of the more expense products of said company, but also regular flights to my parents and abroad, so many in fact that even a frequent flyer card is paying off for me. The best part of the whole affair is the ease of my move abroad, to Ireland in this case. It isn’t the first move in my life, but it has by far been the easiest. No customs issues to deal with, no visa and residence permits to get, hell, not even a different currency to get used to.

All in all, the advantages of a unified Europe, which I had seen since my school days in Austria, really became clear to me over the last year. Along with that came a very profound revelation: That it is possible to freely travel, trade, and settle within a continent who’s citizens had continually been at each other’s throats for the best part of the last 2000 years. War, genocide, racism and religious hatred and fanaticism have been the continuous modus operandi within Europe ever since the collapse of the Roman Empire, and even that mighty power hadn’t exactly been a bastion of peace and tolerance. Furthermore, all participating powers joined together willingly, unlike in Roman times, where consent to a political union was “kindly requested” at the point of a sword, spear, or any other assorted weapon.

So why is it that so many people around Europe want this union destroyed? Why has the European Union turned into an apparent enemy for large parts of the population? The reasons are manyfold, and some of them need to be laid on the doors of the EU itself. But I’ll start at the beginning:

In the beginning, the Earth was without form, and void...

Damn, went too far back again! What is commonly known as the European Union actually started in 1952, just seven years after the fires of World War 2 had subsided on the continent.  As early as 1950, Robert Schuman, the french foreign minister had put forward the Idea of putting the coal and steel production of France and Germany under joint control, effectively removing the possibility of a unilateral rearmament and attack. Needless to say, this concept was less than popular in both France and Germany, both countries still filled with the rampant nationalism that had seen them at each others throats for so many times over the last centuries. Still, despite these obstacles, the European Coal and Steel Community went ahead, being formally established by the signing of the Paris Treaty on April 18th, 1951. It was the first step towards a unification of Europe, and had been intended that way from the start by minister Schuman.

Robert Schuman, one of the fathers of European Integration
Image:  Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-19000-2453 / CC-BY-SA

Over the decades, the originally limited union began to expand, as the concept of a unified Europe took hold. 1957 saw the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, as well as Euratom, the European Atomic Energy Community, which was to channel and harmonize the civilian utilisation of nuclear energy. A further step towards unification was taken in 1967, when the Brussels Treaty merged the up to now separate governing commissions and councils for each of the separate communities into a single body, the European Community. 1973 saw the first territorial expansion of the European Community, when Denmark, the United Kingdom, and Ireland joined the original six signatories of the treaties of Paris and Rome, France, Germany, Italy, as well as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In 1979, the first elections for the European Parliament, which had been meeting since 1958, were held. The 1980s saw the entry of Portugal, Spain, and Greece into the Community, was well as the ratification of the Schengen Agreement, which paved the way for the abolition of border controls between the signatory nations.

The 1990s saw further expansion of the EC, both territorial and in the integration of the member countries. The Copenhagen Criteria, set up in June 1993, established a fixed set of conditions and rules countries aspiring to join the Community. Then, on November 1st, 1993, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, laying the legal groundwork for the European Union as it stands today. It also set in motion the establishment of a single European Currency, the Euro. Further territorial expansion throughout the 1990s and 2000s further expanded the Union, which at present numbers 28 member countries.

Now, what does all this diplomatic gobbledygook mean for the average citizen? Well, for a start, any EU citizen can settle in any member country without requiring a visa or a residence permit. It is possible to drive all the way from Cadiz in Spain to Rovaniemi in Finland, or from Kalamata in Greece to Kiruna in Sweden without any border checks. You can pay in one currency whether you’re in Turku, Finland, or in Tralee in Ireland. Sending a parcel to your friend in Austria? You won’t need to worry about any customs documentation. With the economies of the member countries interwoven in such an intricate fashion, the original aim of Robert Schuman, to make war between the countries of Europe impossible, has been more than achieved.

However, there is another component to the European Integration. A side that has never really been touched on in all the high level talks: The regular citizen on the street. While all the political paperwork is of course important, any such project is doomed to certain failure unless you can swing around the mind of the average joe. For much of the time, this is where the European unification process has failed. While holidays abroad have been a fact of life for most countries on the continent since the late 1950s, these were mostly limited to pre-arranged package holidays for one or two weeks in the summer. Any attempt to “roam” throughout Europe was long blocked by the prohibitively high air and train fares, as well as the availabilities of cars and the state of the roads in post-war Europe. There was also the pesky little fact about available paid holidays.

In my eyes, real and sustainable integration on the level of the ordinary citizen did not begin until the 1990s. By that time, the transport infrastructure was finally advanced enough to enable journeys between the different EU member states without too much of a hindrance. Furthermore, wages had increased to a level that made these trips affordable. The, admittedly piecemeal deregulation of the airline market had an impact as well. Things only really took off however with the increased availability of low cost air fares, that made even “longer” trips a possibility for almost all income groups, and the advent of the Internet to enable customers to plan their trips for themselves without resorting to travel agencies. It is not too much of a stretch to say that Michael O’Leary of Ryanair, Stelios Haji-Ioannou of Easyjet, hell, even Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google have done as much for the unification of Europe as Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman, or Francois Mitterand. 

With all these possibilites and chances, where does this hostility toward the EU come from? From several sources, as usual with such a highly complex issue. First of all, there’s the issue of the open borders. For a lot of people, these borders meant security. Not so much in the sense of that you could control who was in your country, but on a more emotional level. They provided a reference, a sense of identity, something that one could connect to. With the abolition of border checks between the signatories of the Schengen Convention, the most visible part of this frame of reference has disappeared. Many people, especially older generations, miss the stabilising factor of these borders, are insecure, and tend to react aggressively to the bodies that brought about these changes. However, the fact that they long for the reinstatement of the traditional border regime does not automatically make them nationalists, racists, or nazis. I’ll get to that category later on in the article. 

These open borders are also a major problem for the agricultural sector. Traditionally, farmers have been very protective of their economic interests. They’ve long enjoyed significant political leverage in their countries, and have used this leverage to great effect, diverting large amounts of state funds into their hands as subsidies. With the increasing integration of Europe, these subsidies have come under scrutiny, as they pose a significant obstacle to the common European Market. As transition agreements designed to ease the transition of national agricultural schemes into the Common Agricultural Policy end, and the money available to farmers is reduced or bound to certain conditions, the political bodies representing farmers turn to increasingly anti-European rhetoric to protect their own interests, if not so much those of whom they are supposed to represent. A similar farce is playing out at sea with regards to the fishing industry, where the additional issue of quotas for each specific species causes further conflict. So, while the lobbyists for the major fishing countries in the EU, mainly Spain and France, continue to try to influence EU policy in their favour, the respective national bodies rally the malcontent among their countrymen to oppose the “dictators” in Brussels. The atmosphere is vicious enough that a lot of fishermen resort to hostile actions against the Fisheries Patrol Vessels fielded by many European navies. Rammings, ramming attempts, attempts to run over the RHIBs carrying naval boarding parties, deceiving of inspectors or threats against them are regular occurrences. I am honestly surprised that there hasn’t been any sinking of a fishing vessel yet due to their aggressive actions.

Protectionism in general is one of the biggest sources of resistance against the EU, even outside the agricultural sector. Markets that have traditionally been closed for outside competitors are now being forced open by the EU. Take the railways for example. Traditionally state-run enterprises that were mostly immune to even national competition, let alone competition from abroad, these companies found themselves in a completely new environment as the harmonisation of the national economies opened their previously locked markets to domestic and foreign competitors. Different countries have embraced the situation differently. While Germany has slowly but surely opened its own railways to non-state operators, especially in the cargo sector, less so in passenger rail, other countries have used every tool at their disposal to keep foreign railway companies out of their markets, especially France. While the french national railway company SNCF is operating throughout Europe with numerous subsidiary companies, the french network itself remains locked up tighter than the reactor compartment of a nuclear submarine. 

Another aspect is altogether more sinister. While Europe has for the most part enjoyed a period of pretty much unparalleled freedom over the last decades, the spectres of past horrors have been lurking below the surface, waiting for their chance to get the continent back into their death grip. Now that the expansion of a united Europe has removed the borders that were a comfortable frame of reference for many, the followers of the disastrous ideologies of the past have seized the opportunity and latched on to the insecurities of many citizens. These insecurities are the power base of the new right wing movements that keep springing up throughout the continent. Not only does it give them a subject they can exploit, it gives them something altogether more sinister and dangerous: legitimacy. It gives them an inroads into mainstream politics and an opportunity to move the focus of any political debate in a direction that suits them. The worrying thing is that this seems to work, as the centre of the political spectrum in Europe has continuously moved to the right over the past several years. The United Kingdom is a prime example for this. While the focus of the political spectrum in the UK has been rather more to the right ever since Margaret Thatcher started her political killing spree in the 1970s and 1980s, the last couple of years have seen the rise of the United Kingdom Independence party, or UKIP for short. This party, feeding of a wave of anger and frustration that stems from the simple fact that the UK cannot simply dictate its terms to the world anymore, has basically been dictating the terms of politics to the other parties over the last year and a half. And it’s not just UKIP. Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) in Germany, FPO in Austria, Front National in France, all these parties are now working on the same principle. The Jobbik movement in Hungary is a step further, having shed the thin veneer of civilisation, and showing its true face as a reincarnation of the fascist mobs of the 1920s and 1930s.

However, it would be grossly unfair to lay all the blame on the doorsteps of greedy agricultural functionaries, disoriented citizens or neo-fascists. The EU, as much as I support it, does have to shoulder a sizeable section of the blame itself, though not exclusively. Quite frankly, for many people, the EU is just that bunch of bumbling, greedy bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg, The closest many people ever get to the EU is the European Flag that is now printed on the cover page of all passports issued in the EU, or the Euro bank notes in their wallets. The actual mechanisms behind the EU remain shrouded in secrecy for many, and an outreach program designed to clear up the many misconceptions about the EU doesn’t seem to exist. I for one haven’t seen anything of that nature, and I have been actively looking for it out of my own personal interest. If someone who is actively looking for it is unable to find anything, then how do you expect that the wider population will get any information?

This ties in directly with another issue, the sometimes comical, and sometimes idiotic directives being issued by the EU commission. From the allowable arcing of bananas to the use of incandescent light bulbs, many of these directives are petty and over the top. Indeed, some of them remind me of passages in Andrew Gordon’s excellent book The Rules of the Game - Jutland and British Naval Command. The book details how decades of peace-time overregulation led to the Royal Navy losing the edge it had gained after the Battle of Trafalgar and the end of the Napoleonic wars, leading to the incredible mistakes that caused the British a sure victory at the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Some of the examples, like years of bureaucratic paperworks for the acquisition of a few extra buckets of paint, or the whitewashing of coal at the Royal Navy base in Gibraltar bear more than a passing resemblance to the directives and rules emanating from Brussels. While I understand that these rules and regulations have the aim of making life safer for the citizens of Europe, I cannot help but wonder if any of the members of the EU Commission, the “government” of the EU have ever heard the saying “less is more?”

The EU Commission is a subject in itself. Tracing its root all the way back to the first commission of the European Economic Community in 1958, the Commission serves as the executive arm of the European Union. As mentioned above, it is in effect the government, having the power to propose legislation to the European Parliament. However, unlike the parliament, it is not directly elected. The President of the Commission is appointed by the European Council, taking into account the results of the last elections for the European Parliament. The other commissioners are appointed by their respective countries, with one standing for each country. It is easy to see why this arrangement is considered vague and non-transparent. Indeed, coupled with the fact that only the President of the Commission can dismiss individual commissioners, it makes it clear why people who are patently unfit for their Job can have a long career there.

The Berlaymont Building in Brussels - Home of the European Commission, and aim of many a heartfelt curse.
Image: Sébastien Bertrand, CC BY

This brings me to my last point in this matter, an obvious lack of interest by the member countries of the Union. I do admit that it does sound strange at first, especially considering how often politicians, especially those belonging to government parties, like to bask in the glow of ongoing European integration. If you look a bit more closely however, you will find that this isn’t the whole picture. In fact, it appears as if many governments use the European Union, especially the European Commission, as a long-term storage solution for politicians that have, either through incompetence or simply poor timing become untenable in their home countries. Once appointed to the commission, they have a well-paid post, don’t have to show much competency, and have no real fear of dismissal. Meanwhile, any government in the Union will be able to point to Brussels any time an unpleasant piece of legislation comes up, and say with a straight face, that theory are required to bring this legislation through to be in line with EU regulations.

However, there is also the issue of the European Parliament itself. It is the branch of the European Union that is most easily changeable by ordinary citizens, due to the regular direct elections conducted simultaneously in all EU member countries. One would think that, given the increased importance of the EU on the average joe on the street, the opportunity given by these elections is heavily utilised. Unfortunately, and sadly, this is not the case, on the contrary. Every election for the European Parliament conducted since 1999 has seen a continuous voter turnout of less than 50%. The prevalent view seems to be that those guys in Brussels do whatever they want anyway, so why should we even bother voting? Well, first of all it is your right, even if you live abroad, to take part in European Elections and, in my humble opinion, this type of right should always be exercised. Second, political apathy almost invariably means that the extremists in the political spectrum, both on the left and on the right, will gain more ground. Thirdly, and most importantly, a high voter turnout, indicative of a large interest by the voting public, sends a message to the parliamentarians that they are under scrutiny. 

Voting, and engaging with parliamentarians is the best way to stop excesses, idiotic policies, and a detachment of the general public and MEPs. However, this can only be one part of exerting control. A united Europe will only work to the benefit of all its citizens when not only the Europeans themselves, but also the respective national governments are fully backing this project. The current nationalistic posturing by individuals like Nigel Farage or David Cameron in the UK, by the far right government of Viktor Orban in Hungary, or the True Fins movement in Finland, serves only to undermine and derail the development of the European Union. While it may be a good way to get votes and power in the short term, in the long run, this type of policy will deprive any country that engages in it not only of the real and tangible benefits of the EU, but also leave them standing for themselves in an economic and political landscape that is increasingly dominated by supra-national blocks. Indeed, this type of historically motivated policy will only lead to the same type of result that we have seen several times before in Europe: Large swathes of desolate landscapes and cities with countries large and small trying to rebuild without sufficient resources for that job. Quite frankly, the age of the nation-state is ending, and it is in the interest of every European country not to be left without the protection of the European Union or another similar block.

One of my all-time favourite TV shows, Babylon 5, opened with the lines The Babylon Project was our last, best, hope for peace. While the EU does not bear much resemblance to that five mile long space station orbiting a distant planet, the parallels are indeed striking, with both projects being born out of the ashes, chaos and suffering of a disastrous conflict borne from ignorance, arrogance, fanaticism and hubris. We here in Europe have learned from the mistakes of the past, of that horrible war, and the European Union is the result of this learning process. It is not perfect, far from it. It has serious flaws, is inefficient, and at times embarrassing. In short, it is all too human, for all those flaws can be found with in every single one of us as well.

These flaws, like the flaws within us, will not go away if left alone. We must constantly work to correct them, to improve ourselves, to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield, as Lord Tennyson wrote in his poem Ulysses. We owe nothing else to the EU project as well, for in the end, it is up to us whether this project succeeds or fails. We decide the makeup of our national parliaments, and as such, our national governments as well. We decide the composition of the European Parliament as well. Thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and other similar platforms, we are closer than ever to both our national parliamentarians and to our MEPs, and it is solely up to us to make use of that unprecedented opportunity, and engage with them, to exercise our right to vote, and to participate in shaping the future of Europe.

I was born in Northern Germany into a mixed German/Austrian marriage. I experienced first hand what borders are when my family moved to Prague, and then again when I was sent to a boarding school in Austria. Having lived in three different countries before I even turned 18 has made me appreciate just what a major achievement a United Europe is, especially considering my employment and residence situation that I touched upon in the opening paragraph of this article. For me, these experiences have led to the point where I consider my German citizenship nothing more than an administrative detail. I see myself as a European. The European Union, with all its faults, has been a major success story so far. It is upon all of us to ensure that it keeps on being a success story!