The European Union – Catalyst for the Next War in Europe
March 20, 2019
Here I continue discussion of the causes of the new conflicts in Europe. Previously I discussed some of the conditions under which the next war in Europe may arise and whether a European Army will facilitate a power-grab in the EU by a totalitarian EU Government: Brexit And The Next War In Western Europe.
The following is part of a discussion which has been taking place on another blog.
_______________________________
Thanks for your view of history. I have seen many on all sides of the debate coming to recognise there are fundamental problems with the Union as currently constituted.
Brexit seen in context is a symptom of those problems. It is not the British. It is a symptom just as the gilet jaune in France are and other social, economic and political problems across the EU along with the rise of the far right across the EU.
Neither the UK nor the EU leadership come out of the present mess with much credit. Its the people who always end up paying the price.
It is a mark of the competence of the UK leadership and media that the EU has so far escaped being called to account.
The current games are a distraction from what is wrong.
So let us see what is known about the EU leadership just before Brexit – and remember the EU is roughly only two decades old and in that time has lurched from crisis to crisis whilst being the architect of a factual matrix which underpins social, political and economic problems across the EU geographically and politically for the PIIGS and from the Baltic States in the North East to Portugal in the South West.
Turn the clock back only a few years in the EU’s history to 2015. The year before the Brexit referendum – that is how close in time the EU’s woes are linked. It is not coincidence. It is mismanagement.
Even you rail at austerity which is also not just a British problem but describe it as such “The brutal austerity measures initiated by Cameron and Osborne”.
Austerity is a ridiculous and damaging EU wide policy forced on Member States. It has much to do with what is happening across the EU today. The losers are the people and it is taking Europe into conflict as now seen in France.
Austerity is deliberately imposed. The overall political objective is not clear but the symptoms of it we see in France and across the EU are and were a predictable outcome. Brexit is a predictable outcome – the ultimate expression of dissatisfaction with the EU.
Are the problems it has caused intentional or merely a by-product of creating more wealth for the very wealthy? Is the social political and economic destabilisation an objective or side-effect?
Economist Professor Yanis Varoufakis former Greek Finance Minister and someone of ability wrote of his experience of negotiations with the EU during five months in 2015 during the Greek debt crisis:
“…. a titanic battle is being waged for Europe’s integrity and soul, with the forces of reason and humanism losing out …. to growing irrationality, authoritarianism and malice. ….. Europe has twice in the past hundred years dragged the planet down into an appalling quagmire. It can do so again. ….. Leonard Schapiro … on Stalinism: … ‘the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade. But to produce a uniform pattern of public utterances in which the first trace of unorthodox thought reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
….. I bore the brunt of precisely this type of propaganda. My attempts ….. were met with a concerted effort to turn our sensible proposals into …. a jarring dissonance.”
Angela Merkel during the crisis and in relation to it stated that we did not want to see another war in Europe. That is how bad it was then. The problems today are not much better.
And there is a war taking place in the EU being fought without armaments and troops – at least not yet – France is on the brink.
Brexit is one of the battlefields. It is not the only one and it is the people of Europe who are paying the price of this war.
As with all wars there are costs.
But some things never make it onto the balance-sheet.
That root and branch reform of the political and administrative structures of the EU is thought to be needed by some on the one hand and on the other the frustration that it would ever occur with the system as it is, is another aspect. Uncertainty about the social, political and economic stability of the Union is another factor.
And how can one put a price on this? A Syrian in a rebel enclave was asked why he was fighting his Government and he answered that freedom is too important. Easy to forget its importance after many decades of relative [but not absolute] peace in Europe. There has been war and it was NATO which was deployed in case the conflict spread. It was not the EU nor its predecessor. That did not prevent war in Europe.
What has kept the peace in Europe has been increasing prosperity and economic development since the 1939-45 conflict. Neither the Common Market nor the EU were the cause of that. It would have happened with or without them.
What is causing lack of prosperity and economic problems is the EU and its austerity. The EU is turning into the architect of new conflicts flaring up in Europe. The clock is ticking. It is just a matter of time.
The irony is acute that the EU wrongly attributed with being a mechanism for peace appears is the architect of the new conflicts.
And put a European army at the disposal of Brussels and we will be on the brink of tyranny. The very kind of tyranny of governments Thomas Jefferson described in the context of the right to bear arms under the US Constitution.
As for your perspective of the history of the Brexit negotiations: “a patient accommodation of the more outrageous demands of a succession of Brexit negotiators” is not accurate.
From a very early stage the Prime Minister’s government conceded practically all the demands of the EU. There was rapid capitulation by the UK including to the payment of £39 billion without knowing what the framework of the future trading relation was to be.
And the context of what Barnier said could not have been clearer: “I’ll have done my job if, in the end, the deal is so tough on the British that they’d prefer to stay in the EU”.
You however write: “I’ll have to reserve judgement on exactly what was meant by M Barnier when he said this.” And then go on to praise him.
You go on to write: “As far as I can see, there has been no breach of Art 50, which simply provides the mechanism by which a member state may exit the Union.”
I cannot tell quite how far you can see. What I can say is that since I last posted here the validity of my legal arguments on the lawfulness of such conduct is coming to be accepted by others with the knowledge to appreciate the legal niceties.
You write “you mean like the “Led By Donkeys” campaign”.
No I don’t.
Please don’t mention ‘May’ again. That is as close to a four letter word as you can get for the numerically challenged but linguistically gifted. Much the same could be said about “Davis” as “Fox”.
And her “red lines” came long after the Withdrawal Treaty text had been finalised so again your version of the history needs attention. The finalised version of the Treaty was since then approved by the EU Parliament and in November last ratified by the Council.
I disagree that “In fact, a little thought on this matter should make it evident that extending anywhere near as advantageous conditions to non-members as to members, would undermine the very foundations of the Union.”
Why should it? Non-members cannot be full participants and can play no part in how the Union develops. Non-members are thus seriously disadvantaged.
And a moment’s thought reveals the wisdom of such an approach. It is better to have a club of contented members than malcontents so not forcing membership of those who wish to leave is a sensible approach – more likely to lead them to return – and in the negotiations one can create a framework to ease the return whilst in the interim effecting change to ensure the club is suited to the common objectives of its membership. A golf club with inadequate golfing facilities is likely to lose members to a club with better facilities but it can regain them if it puts needed change into effect.
What you are really saying is that the Union is an unhappy club run by individuals with issues which raise doubts over their suitability and a track record of failure such that the only way the club can stay together is by shackling the members in an economic prison – neither content to be in and worried of the consequences of being out.
The EU would be a better place if its Member States were content to be members rather than being locked into an economic cage with a key inside but from which they fear to escape. Like a caged bird remains even when the cage door is opened.
This makes no sense “Also, technically it was impossible to negotiate a future trade deal with the UK while it was still a member”.
“Negotiate” is form of talking. How can it be impossible for the UK and EU representatives just to talk to each other? And the UK is still a member and was when people were talking about Norway + and Canada + and suchlike.
In fact it is actually impossible to agree the framework of the future relationship without agreeing the principles of what the future relationship is to be. So again what you say about it being impossible to talk is not consistent with the express requirements of Article 50 for the parties.
This also is a non sequitur and logically flawed: “it is only when the Withdrawal Agreement has been finalised that the detailed aspects become clear of what is to be negotiated in terms of an extensive trade deal.”
It is necessary to know the framework of the future relationship in order to agree what must be done to withdraw.
And Article 50 addresses the future relationship – which does not necessarily include a “trade deal”. It does include things like continuing co-operation on security, arrest warrants, air and other travel.
You don’t need to withdraw from arrangements which are agreed to continue after withdrawal but you do need to know what the future relationships are to be to agree about them.
This is not correct: “Obviously, this process could have been accelerated if the UK demands and red lines had not been entirely internally inconsistent (also known as “cakeism”).” How can this be accelerated? The red lines did not appear until late in the day after the Withdrawal Treaty had been agreed by the UK’s negotiators but not by the UK Parliament. And thank all that is good it was not left to the Prime Minister and her Cabinet.
“The EU …. is constantly renewing itself.” It is not and that is a fundamental problem already noted above.
I will not continue addressing further lacunae. It has been an interesting exercise despite all. And thank you for your comments which have required me to think about the issues and refine my thinking further.
Nobel Prize Winner’s Court Challenge to Brexit Withdrawal Agreement’s Validity Before It Is Even Made
March 10, 2019
I explained in a prior post that the Withdrawal Agreement appears to be be unlawful in its entirety, not valid and so not legally binding. Anyone can apply to the Courts to challenge it. If that happens and a Court agrees then the UK and the EU – particularly those Member States doing the most trade with the UK could all be jumping off the cliff top together even if Theresa May got her Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament. See EU Illegal Brexit Tactics – Invalidation of Brexit Withdrawal Agreement – Business Can Sue February 27, 2019.
And now someone is challenging the Withdrawal Agreement in the Courts.
Lord Trimble (the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize) who was an architect of the Good Friday agreement has been named in connection with a legal challenge to the UK Government in Court. The challenge is on the basis the ‘Withdrawal’ Agreement seeks to alter the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom without the express consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
It is also now being explained via the Bruges Group’s blog that the creation of the backstop breaches the EU’s own principles and those of other European and international organisations. In particular it breaches the principle of Self-Determination: How the “Backstop” breaches international treaties
It is explained in the blog that imposing taxation without representation, via the customs union that the Backstop would establish, is not in keeping with the “European values”. The Backstop would place the EU-27 in breach of a number of their international obligations, including:
– The 1952 Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which ensures “the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature”;
– The right to self-determination expressed in Article 1 of the UN Charter and expanded upon in various UN Resolutions including: the Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States (UN Resolution 2625(XXV)), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries (UN Resolution 1514(XV)), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN Resolution 2200A(XXI));
– and The EU’s own treaty provisions, including “good neighbourliness” (Article 8 TEU) and the progressive abolition of trade barriers (Article 3(5) TEU) and citizen’s rights to participate in the democratic life of the EU (Article 10(3)).
These are examples of the wider and more general principles I set out on my law blog: EU Illegal Brexit Tactics – Business Can Sue – Invalidation of Brexit Withdrawal Agreement
Brexit And The Next War In Western Europe
March 5, 2019
I discuss some of the conditions under which the next war in Europe may arise and whether a European Army will facilitate a power-grab in the EU by a totalitarian EU Government. This is in an abriged comment I posted on a discussion on ResearchGate:
25 minutes ago Clifford Miller Added a reply
Hi Harish,
Thanks for your thoughts.
Yesterday I met with some Hungarian friends who are visiting London with their two primary school age children.
We discussed the EU. We have common concerns. None of them are about the gradual slipping of anything by any country. And the UK remains rated the fifth largest economy in the world, although I am very pleased to see India’s success and development along with the long needed development of many countries including that we now see in Africa since the end of the Cold War.
The union that is the USA and the current union in Europe are very different economically, politically, constitutionally and by maturity. The EU with its own currency, the Euro with the common economic controls on Member States which that entails, has existed for less than 20 years. The union in the USA you say has existed for over 230 years. The rise of the union in the USA could not have been more different and it has had time to develop and grow. Its population 230 years ago was very small but with substantial natural resources including land mass.
The USA has a State of the Union address from the President. The union in Europe could benefit from an annual independent, objective and public State of the Union audit.
In its absence let me give you some examples of what might be part of such an audit.
My friends and I can see and fear the rise of totalitarian government centred on the EU. We can see and fear new wars in Western Europe.
The lack of effective control over abuse of power at the centre of Europe, ignoring the rule of law, such as we see as part of Brexit, combined with the rise of an EU army controlled from Brussels and the civil unrest associated with economic mismanagement caused by a decade of the economically ridiculous and counter-productive austerity policy are all part of an unhealthy picture.
In parts of the EU there is 60% unemployment. The gilet jaune [Yellow Vest] movement in France is new and extensive, provoked by economic, political and social mismanagement. But with a European Army perhaps troops from countries like Bulgaria and Romania might have fewer qualms about shooting Frenchmen dead in the streets to help quell unrest?
One view of Europe is a region with Germany at its centre. Germany is surrounded by satellite states. There can be little doubt that one reason for Germany’s economic success is its geographical position. Germany’s location means it can benefit from the assets and resources of its near neighbours for labour, goods, services and the intellectual capital of educated work-forces.
My Hungarian friends have homes in Hungary and in Germany. They live and work in Germany and commute every few weeks home the 700km to Hungary. A drive of 5 hours.
They tell me that educated Hungarians with language skills find work in Germany. This obviously thereby depletes the intellectual capital of the local labour market and potentially inhibits local economic development in Hungary. However, currently the greatest immigrant population in Germany is from Italy, [and not Turkey as many might be misled to think].
Instead of investing in the economies of the satellites, the EU has literally sucked the life out of countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These countries have virtually no young people. They have left to find work and not come back. The remaining populations of these countries are literally dying on their feet. Their economies cannot develop in such conditions. So much for the benefits to them of the EU!
Let us compare the location of Portugal. Portugal is at the edge of Western Europe with a long coastline bordering the Atlantic. It does not have the benefits of Germany’s geographical location. Portugal is one of the unhappily named group of European countries called the PIIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain. All are associated with economic problems and the need for financial bailouts of their economies. Greece’s economic problems threatened the stability of Europe with Angela Merkel at the time stating publicly that no one wanted to see another war in Europe.
So Merkel at that time could see where economic instability was leading Europe.
When on vacation in Italy a couple of years back after the substantial fall of the British pound after the Brexit referendum I was surprised at how inexpensive Italy is. Italy is poor. It is poorer than it was before. Italians have been leaving in search of work. Many do not come home. The local economies are not being developed and countries like Germany benefit from the outflow of workers.
And so to the stupidity of the austerity policy being pursued by the EU with the benefit of financial controls on Member States required to maintain a common currency, the Euro. The UK has also stupidly pursued austerity firstly under Prime Minister David Cameron and the Chancellor George Osbourne.
The UK is a smaller version of the picture seen throughout the EU. Despite being the fifth largest economy in the World, the North has been economically neglected. The industries were run down since the 1970s. There is poverty. There is a large disaffected population in the North-East and many other areas. The South-East centred on the economic power house of the City of London prospers – for the moment at least.
So what has austerity achieved? Mainly economic mismanagement and an increase in a disaffected population which is and feels poorer now than before.
To pay for the fall in economic activity which austerity encourages the national debt has been rapidly rising. In a few short years it rose from around £900 billion when Cameron’s Government came to power and introduced austerity. One estimate puts it now at about £2.2 trillion.
Had the UK instead of pursuing austerity over the time of this £1.3 trillion increase invested it in infrastructure projects and education and training new skills for C21, the UK would been in a much better place today. The monies invested on infrastructure would have stimulated the economy and returned to the Government in taxes whilst the work-forces in the neglected parts of the UK could have been provided with the skills national and international businesses seek. Instead we have an increase in poverty in the neglected areas with an increasing number of families relying on food-banks to feed the children and parents.
A contrast is the success of education with the focus in Scottish universities on computer gaming technology. This was not a Government initiative. One report suggests Scotland’s software and electronic publishing sector employs around 20,000 people and contributes about £1bn to the economy. So investment in infrastructure and education can and does work.
Is a Federation of EU States potentially good? There is no doubt about that.
Is the current form of union in Europe good? No. One must remember that the present political structure was designed to create a common market to aim at freedom of movement of labour, services, goods and capital. The Commission’s job was to create the laws to establish common standards throughout Europe of this common market – a free trade area. The Parliament had little or no power, although that has changed in part. The Commission was supposedly overseen by the Council comprised typically of a Minister representing each Member State.
This political structure is not appropriate for a Federation of States. And it has been mired in corruption and abuse of powers for decades. It is a system open to manipulation by external interests. And we can see that every day.
What no one thinks about is this – how much poorer are European States under the European Union and how much are their economies held back from developing compared to what could have been achieved without the current form of EU government riding their backs and holding them down.
A political friend told me that the record of economic growth in the EU region historically is second only to Antarctica – which is mostly inhabited by penguins.
cliffordmillerlaw 