Angela Merkel’s Bid for a Tighter European Union
Addressing the annual congress of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Leipzig on November 14, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for further political integration within the European Union as a means to ending the sovereign-debt crisis. “The task of our generation now is to complete the economicand currency union in Europe and, step by step, create a political union,” Merkel said in an hour-long speech to more than 1,000 CDU delegates. “It’s time for a breakthrough to a new Europe.”
Merkel’s statement came at a crucial moment for the EU, with the eurozone in constant crisis and the future of the entire Union uncertain. The notion that a tighter political union is the cure is not new, but in view of Germany’s pivotal role and strength Frau Merkel’s words carry special weight. She took pride in the fact that Germany is the “anchor of stability” and “engine of growth in Europe,” but added that Germany cannot be strong without Europe because Europe is the foundation of German prosperity. And yet, she warned, “Europe is now in one of the darkest hours, perhaps in the darkest hour since World War II.” If the euro fails—Europe fails, she said, and her mission is to save the “historic” EU project. Her proposed solution is radical:
The job of our generation is now to complete the economic and monetary union in Europe and to create a political union step by step. […] We need to develop the structure of the European Union which means: not less Europe but means more Europe; which means Europe designed in such a way so the euro has a future.
Merkel also called for automatic sanctions when a country violates the fiscal rules, giving the EU the right to intervene and even institute legal proceedings against such countries. Her finance minister, Wolfgang Schauble, has spoken repeatedly of the need to transfer additional powers to Brussels and to revise both the Lisbon Treaty and the German constitution to make the new, tighter Union possible. He says that Germany will insist on a “quick agreement on the structures for a fiscal union,” to be reached within months rather than years.
Truly, events are now moving at a dizzying speed. “Who would have thought two years ago,” wondered The Daily Mail editorialist on November 19, “that Greece and Italy would be run by unelected EU technocrats and the Irish budget would be passed in advance to the German parliament— presumably for its prior approval. Indeed, given the vice-like grip they have taken on much of Europe, it’s unsurprising that puffed-up allies of Chancellor Merkel are declaring that ‘Europe is talking German’ now.”
“Germany wants a strong European Union with 27 members,” Merkel said, “and a strong 17-member eurozone that inspires confidence. We are prepared to give up a piece of national sovereignty to achieve that.” This is a clear sign that Germany is committed to a two-track Europe, with the eurozone countries surrendering the remaining vestiges of their fiscal independence to the German-dominated European institutions.
Her call for tighter union will likely be on the agenda when European leaders gather for a summit on December 9, and the dividing lines are already known. British Prime Minister David Cameron said on November 14 that the Euro-crisis offers an opportunity for countries to “ebb back” from Europe to nation states. Without mentioning Merkel by name he said, “We should look skeptically at grand plans and utopian visions; we’ve a right to ask what the European Union should and shouldn’t do.” It should have “the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc,” he said.
Merkel is known to be impatient with the British lack of integrationist zeal and willing to divide the EU into an inner, tightly integrated core, with the ten member countries outside the eurozone relegated to an unintegrated periphery led by Britain and Denmark, the only two members of the EU with a legal opt-out from the euro. Her two-sped project is supported by EU President Herman van Rompuy who is expected to present the EU summit with a timeframe for the further strengthening of the euro zone that may include possible treaty changes. The EU is thus about to move even further away from the Gaullist concept of l’Europe des patries, a concert of nation-states brought together by common interest but retaining their substance and identity regardless of the institutional arrangements. Merkel views Europe as an organic whole and this whole, to be healthy, prosperous and efficient, requires a single source of decision-making authority.
What Chancellor Merkel is proposing amounts to the most significant quantum leap since the Single European Act (SEA) which came into effect in July 1987. She seeks further centralization of power in the direction of a German-controlled European super-authority, rather than super-state. The distinction is essential. The standard Euroskeptic argument that the proponents of political union are plotting the creation of a single federal state is simply incorrect. Throughout the process of creating an ever-tighter union in terms of institutional mechanisms that have chipped away the power of national governments, the Euro-integralists have never wanted the end result of that process to be a super-state modeled after the United States. In the context of pan-European federal statehood, the institutions and officials running them would be held more accountable and would come under far greater public scrutiny than is currently the case.
For Germany to exercise not only influence but also effective control over the eurozone, the optimal strategy is for the states of the future Inner Core to be gradually drained of the remnants of statehood and the power transferred to various German-dominated European “institutions”—notably the ECB—but without the unwelcome visibility, trappings and limitations of super-statehood itself. In order to “save the euro,” 17 nation-states of Europe will be goaded into political union and a degree of external control unimaginable only a decade ago.
In the long run, however, a two-speed Europe would be but a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans. As I noted in this column last April, “Squaring the circle of operating a single monetary policy and uniform interest rates for a widely different group of countries will continue to produce periodic emergencies all along the periphery. The alarms will take different forms at different times—a fiscal crisis here, a banking collapse there, a property slump everywhere—but like the erupting lava finding its way through the Earth’s crust, the crises will never stop and can never be resolved.” Once it is accepted that the euro has always been a political project not justified by economic considerations, Europe’s historic nations may gather courage to say "no" to Merkel's latest diktat—and consider the advantages of reverting to the drachma, lira, peso and punt.
Entries(RSS)
Angela Merkel is attempting to resurrect the Carolingian Holy Roman Empire as it would have looked with the Reconquista complete and Italy back under the sway of the Emperor. But for either Brussels or Berlin to be the capital of this new construct there is no cultural or historic justification, only economic and military intimidation. And this new Empire has shed any semblance of cultural unity through either Catholic Christianity or even the Augustan Imperial Cult.
I can tell everyone exactly what is left that unites this new European empire, but these days, to say so might well cost one one's job.
Mr. Moses,
C.S. Lewis wrote the following:
"For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men."
The Carolingian Holy Roman Empire emerged as Europe struggled to conform to the reality of the times with such knowledge, self-discipline and virtue which were available in those troubled times. Merkel's "solution" is a construct to subdue reality and not to submit the soul to it. We know who is incarnate in these various forms of the Hobbesian state: he who refused to submit and was cast out.
Dr. Peters, I am a great admirer of Charlemagne and I completely agree that Merkel's Europe is but an inferior parody of this former's, hollow and silly at its very best and as you suggest outright malevolent at worst.
By the way, the egomania of some applied scientists notwithstanding, I cannot completely diss applied science out of hand, provening (is that an English word?) as I do from a family of chemical engineers. Sometimes it's just about the playfulness of the human creature.
For the love of Pete, even Turkey over the past 6 years sorted themselves out as Turks, have beaten their own inflation and their economy is booming. They brought government spending under control, figured out a workable tax system for themselves as Turks, and they stopped printing money. Plus I like their tobacco. And everyone knows the salutary effects of tobacco in moderation. Only each country, for Pete's sake knows their own actual economic considerations for who they are, not some super-authority. Even the British seem to know this.
That spirit which possessed Mr. Lincoln now seems to possess Frau Merkel. She wills to have "one" Europe with the dual stalking horse of an abstract notion of "union" and the pedestrian needs of the bankers, stock jobbers, speculators and paper aristocracy, namely money in the form of the Euro.
Quite the contrary spirit is reflected in the following passage from the mind and the pen of Novalis (Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg), a German of the Romantic Movement with a goal of re-establishing through art and literature the Medieval synthesis which had broken asunder in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, a goal in which they failed.
The quote is taken from "Christenheit oder Europa." The translation is mine.
"Es waren schöne glänzende Zeiten, wo Europa ein christliches Land war, wo Eine Christenheit diesen menschlich gestalteten Weltteil bewohnte; Ein grosses gemeinschaftliches Interesse verband die entlegensten Provinzen dieses weiten geistlichen Reiches."
(They were beautiful and bright times, when Europe was a Christian land, where a single Christentianity indwelled this man-wrought part of the world. A wide-spread communal interest bound the most distant provinces of this far-flung spiritual empire.)
The Europe of which Novalis spoke had been a Europe, flawed though it was, whose unity lay not in state monopoly on coercion but in a union of subsidiarity which marks the one Bride of the Christ.
I agree with you Mr. Peters. However the Medieval time which was by *compaison a light age to the gathering darkness since---(one always has to say compared to what-?-just as in the extreme, and mundane, God and his Son Jesus Christ are counterpoint to our world)---the system all over Europe fell to might alone makes right as the kings and nobles took from the Church and her peoples their accumulated wealth and land. So few did this to so many one wonders how it could have been possible they got away with it. We've suffered, and suffer through many perhaps unnecessary evils since, to know the answer, the appropriate answer to what was the weakness (chain only as strong as its weakest link), that permitted and permits it, IF in fact it wasn't God's will. I'm Tradition bound, meaning tradition complements reason when she's reached her limits, and reason complements tradition wherein her own might crop up. We need both for a healthy civilization, and so that is our *rational perspective. So in our Tradition where might have been our weakness that perhaps we did not, perhaps yet do not see? In the abscence of that revelation and adjustment, all since in the West has been desperate, superficial, if necessary reactions to the real question: what is that weakest link, in our own tradition? How do we return civilizationally from the law of the jungle that might alone makes right; and what do we adjust traditionally if possible, that it should not happen very soon, again? If it is all already determined anyway, inclusive of it's changing back again at the appointed time-?-Well, then this post has little if any import. It reminds me though of Stalin's quip, how many divisions (now add to that, money printers) has the Vatican.
If "might" does not make "right," does it make "wrong"? Is "might" always "wrong," or is it to be ruled by "the ends do not justify the means"? How do we determine if the "ends" justify the "means"? Are "just war principles" valid? If so, what are the valid "just war principles" we should use to determine what "means" are appropriate to achieve any particular "ends"? Or should we just "turn the other cheek" and accept our fate?
As for how and what to do, no, might does not always make right, but when you are right (in both senses of the word), then for Heaven's sake, GET the might and USE it! Did Theodosius declare Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire and leave visible Pagan institutions of learning, worship and cultivation intact? NO. Vestal virgins? Disbanded. Feast days to honor false gods? Change them into festivals to honor Christian martyrs. No wonder the standard history of late Rome has been told from a Christian perspective: the Christians behaved as the victors they were.
But Francoist Spain never really tried to wipe out the leftist academic and cultural apparatus. For example, Spanish Communists abroad were granted provisions to facilitate a Spanish education for their children without any of the Catholic or nationalist core. That is not charity toward one's enemies; that is being "nice" to the point of being unkind. And yes, they had international PR considerations, but at the same time such cowardice helped feed the popular impression that it is unacceptable for a Catholic state to refuse to facilitate atheist education while (as was and is the case in France) it is acceptable for an atheist state to coerce Catholic parents into giving up their children to an atheist education.
And we wonder why the losers of the Spanish Civil War got to write the history of it all. Because in the last analysis, they WEREN'T REALLY DEFEATED! Why do Catholics Cuomo, Gillibrand, De Lauro, Kerry, Santorum and Kennedy wreck such destruction upon our political and cultural system? Because their bishops refuse to excommunicate them. Why is everything wholesome and decent being trampled on? Because we lay face-down and take it!
No, when we get power, we cannot, as our enemies do, use it to coerce. But we can use it to create an apparatus that excludes anyone and anything who facilitates evil.
Back to Merkel. She got the power, and she's using it to advance her particular social, economic and political worldview. DUH. Maybe if in those moments when we had a little bit of power we asserted our authority likewise, we could mount a formidable challenge to the likes of Obama, Merkel, Sarkozy, Chavez and the like. People like seeing assertiveness. For crying out loud, why are conservatives, who profess to love authority, order and distinction between the sexes, so loath to be what the people WANT to see? FIGHT, MEN!
MOSES, Nicholas - great post. I hope everyone reads it right above this one. Spinoza pointed out we always run into the Religio-Politicus. Why? Because in religion and its civilization there can only be One not two. If there's two one will win, making the point there can only be One. (By the way for his work Spinoza was excommunicated from Judaism by the Elders of Zion. See? There can only be One.)
Justice includes piety not vice versa. And if you permit 500 years of injustice to your own people and call it piety that's a pious fraud. Turn the other cheek once because we're Christians (we only have two cheeks.)
In other words, if your right, you better have the might to defend yourself. Whatever happened to "the meek. . . shall inherit the earth"? (Matthew 5:5)
Cooperation includes competition; meekness includes avarice. If for example we don't cooperate with one another can we till the soil? If I burn down your crop to drive up the price of say sugar to benefit my financial situation on Wall Street in some heightened, greedy form of competition, does it also negate the cooperation that allows us to produce in the first place? Fortunately it does not. Cooperation and meekness BECAUSE they inherit the earth, make sin possible. Sin doesn't make cooperation and meekness possible. What are you saying Van Sant? Isn't it a sin-?-to pluck something out and set it up without context as an idol "meekness" as if it's alone some be all and end all answer? If an eye is plucked out and held in the palm of one's hand do we then ask, whatever happened to "eyes see"? However I agree war is usually nonsense. Peace includes war. War all the time to drive munitions stocks up on Wall Street because we have a war economy is sin. Unending war for peace is profane. War if a last resort in being proactive in behalf of justice for our own and ouselves, may then be inevitable. If you're saying it's better traditionally to be a pacifist in ANY case, that's ok, you're not alone, but then SAY that. Otherwise what you did say strikes as being blasphemous in unwittingly setting oneself up as if a god. Are you the god of meekness? Is meekness your God?
It's a bit surprising the conversation stopped here with your non sequitur and no one answered you so I have. However if one is going to err well at least better for meekness? Although in such a context or its lack I hope you don't expect inheritance. From whom, why? The best pacifists have been slaughtered for it, sadly.
I often fail to see how a person can divest him/herself from their past - unless their present/future actions are so Draconic (as to be compensatory in nature). Frau Merkel was of some modest interst to me, and I learned that her early days in DDR (Eastern Germany) she was a member of FDJ (Frei Deutsches Jugend), - while in my ears anything "Jugend", coming from any part of Germany is to be feared. Although the FDJ was akin to the Russian Komsomol (The Communist Youth), it still required some degree of indoctrination and compliance. Additionally (if Wikipedia is to be trusted) Frau Merkel (née Kasner) was an active member of the East German communist Agit-prop. Not to say that Putin's rank with KGB is a much smaller evil (he at least failed to produce any mega-Draconic measures to impact the world - or Europe, in the way Frau Merkel did. I am not sure I condone the German rule of Europe by peaceful (or any other) means - but that's what it seems like.
Well, the sermon on the mount is the word of Christ, and we should be living our lives in conformance with His word. Believing there are cometing values involved, I'm trying to get at how we should balance or trade-off those competing values. I don't believe the country has done a good job of that in any area, especially foreign and domestic policy.
Perhaps I understand what you mean, and if so I agree. Thanks for the reply.
I'll just add that in our tradition of the incarnation Jesus is God who walked the walk not just talked the talk. The most difficult thing in this world is to realize being one with God while simultaneously realizing we also are not God. So roles are different and when competing values appear in our own awareness, pray, ask seeing we're not Jesus and that through the Holy Ghost He might if appropriate meet us where we are.
If more were like you from what you have indicated, in my opinion well, I hope things would be better than they are apparently today. I hope I become, God willing a better Christian, is my little prayer. Why? Best way I know toward an appropriate spiritual condition and relationship with the Almighty who's also sincere about human beings. We're off topic, or maybe not.
Mr. Peters,
I am grateful for your translation in and of itself, as an introduction to a writer I otherwise never would have suspected was so sympathetic to a beloved form of our civilization; but even more so as it is from that language which my father knew, and forgot, leaving me with only a forlorn handful of words and a lifelong feeling of what might have been, had it only been passed on to me.
I hope you get an opportunity to talk more of that epoch.
In the meantime, I'd be grateful to know your opinion on how relevant to the breakup of the "Christenheit oder Europa" was the antagonism between peasant and nobility. Just perusing some of the literature on the peasant uprisings of the 14th century, I wonder how much of the smashing of Christendom was the result simply of the hatred and violence between these groupings. Man's vices running away with him, rather than his reason "liberating' him from "superstition". The fact that so much of this violence predates Tyndale, Luther. et al, makes me wonder about that.