A United States of Europe will Never Prevail

Euroscepticism2-EUby FJ Rocca7/6/15
George Washington once said, “Someday, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe.” Since the end of the Second World War, Europe’s various political leaders tried repeatedly to unite. Their efforts ultimately resulted in what is now known as the European Union (the “EU”).

The European Union has suffered much praise and much criticism. It was founded on the belief that a united Europe would produce not merely a vast zone of equity and free trade, but also of permanent peace. After all, how could Germany, France, Belgium, Italy et al. desire war when they are all allied in a wonderful mixture of economic and civil growth, sharing borders and cultures, and operating on a single currency?

But the premise of a single European “family of nations” may be false at its root. First of all, families fight amongst themselves. One brother may be richer than another, one sister more beautiful than another, and one sibling vastly more talented than all the others put together. Thus, jealousy can ensue quite naturally and discontent is inevitable when the entire family group must support a single incompetent, indigent or uncivil member. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So the recent situation with Greece proved when other nations made a deal demanding an austerity program in exchange for sufficient loans to keep Greece afloat, and the Greeks voted in a government that scrapped their part in the agreement. Now the Greek people are in serious trouble, unable to pull their savings out of bank accounts or even hard cash from their safe deposit boxes. Greeks now popularly want Greece to resign from the EU. So much for family solidarity.

Most of the criticism of the EU is economic. Alan Greenspan has doomed the idea of a single European currency and others have said that without a United States of Europe, under a single government, the Euro will eventually fail. Taking turns, various member countries have experienced economic problems and have had to be bailed out, threatening the very basis for the EU. Wars tend to generate from national discontent which is always has an economic root. Jealousy among and within nations has often lead to wars, ethnic cleansing and other euphemisms for cruel persecution and genocide.

The American Civil War was based on economics, too, involving a largely agrarian South that used slave labor and a largely economic North that was industrial and popularly abolitionist. But the union prevailed, slaves were emancipated and the US healed its rift among the states. While many Americans complain about various policies and are tossed and turned by political feuding, the US is very stable, both as a nation and as a community. Moreover, to be American does not require nationalist ethnicity. Americans are varied in ethnic and cultural origins, united by a culture of individual freedoms and rights secured by the very documents upon which the American nation was founded. We are not Americans by ethnic unanimity but by political and the cultural unity of inalienable human rights.

But Europe is an entirely different proposition. While the US was created out of the struggle against archaic European tradition, on the basis of a philosophic idea, Europe was not. In fact, Europe was not created at all. Europe is a large region in which tribes grew into ethnic factions, which in turn grew into ethnic nations ruled historically by despotic monarchs. America fought its revolution against these forms to become a nation based on the single greatest idea ever had by mankind: individual freedom for each and every person. While European nations have had their turns establishing free republics, vestiges of the old cultures remain.

No matter how many republics it declares, France is still France, and, despite its parliament, England is still England, and Spain still Spain. They struggle with the ideas of free principles, but they still bear the weight of millennial royalism, feudalism, dictatorships and other traditions that no set of treaties amongst them will overshadow.

In the end, unless they are able to shake off the burden of thousands of years of history impressed upon the European consciousness, they will be unable simply to merge as parts of a new whole. The very idea that a Frenchman or an Englishman would consider himself to be a fellow national with a Greek or German is probably tenuous at best. My father was French by birth and we are Italian by ancestry. My father came here as a young man of 19 and grew into his American identity. He was proud of his American citizenship, but deep inside, he retained the vestige of his “Frenchness” with French inclinations, a love of French food and a great pride in the history of his native country. He described America as the most beautiful country anywhere, but Americans were to him a naïve lot with an insufficient history to make them a truly great culture.

I was lucky to be born here. I had my Americanism by birth. But I also learned it in school and in church, in Boy Scouts and on the sandlot baseball fields of my childhood. It was taught to me by my uncles, aunts, brother, sisters and friends. But my father is the one who said it outright. “I am American by choice. No one can become a Frenchman by choice.” I’ve heard that said many, many times in my life.

France is a wonderful place. I’ve been there a couple of times, once to visit the place where my father was born and lived for the first two decades of his life. I love French food myself. I also love Italian food which my grandparents taught me how to make. But my culture is American. There is just no other way to describe it.

The Euro has been an uncertain experiment. I’ve heard economists say that you can’t have a standardized currency when there are so many considerations that make it nearly impossible: natural resources of value located in disparate regions, an internal trade network that cannot be regulated properly, which inevitably results in overregulation. And again, there is the pesky idea of ethnicity. Greeks are Greeks, Hungarians are Hungarians, and Portuguese are Portuguese. As the French say—albeit in another context—vive la difference!

I say why not disband the European Parliament which seems unable to do much good anyway. Let the members go home to their own countries. Keep the borders as open as possible but let the locals control their own countries as they have done for millennia. And if they can’t make the Euro work, let them go back to the Franc, the Mark and the Austrian Shilling. The system of currency exchange worked well enough for centuries. Why not let it go on for centuries to come.


FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com. • (1088 views)

Share
FJ Rocca

About FJ Rocca

FJ Rocca was born the day after Pearl Harbor in the same hometown as Johnny Appleseed. He is a trained classical musician, a published illustrator and a prolific writer of fiction and non-fiction. His website is candiddiscourse.com.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to A United States of Europe will Never Prevail

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    During this 4th of July holiday, there’s obviously been a lot written about America and who we are…and whether we’re still America anymore.

    The answer is: large sections of America are no longer America in any meaningful way. And regarding the European Union, it may be somewhat of a moot point if the Germans ultimately don’t get along with the French, the French with the British, and all of them become poor Greeks because of socialism.

    According to this article, The Islamization of Belgium and the Netherlands in 2013:

    Belgium is home to an estimated 650,000 Muslims, or around 6% of the overall population, based on an average of several statistical estimates. The Netherlands is home to an estimated 925,000 Muslims, which also works out to around 6% of the overall population. Within the EU, only France (7.5%) has more Muslims in relative terms.

    Belgian and Dutch cities have significant Muslim populations, comprised mostly of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants, as well as a growing number of converts to Islam.

    The number of Muslims in Brussels—where roughly half of the number of Muslims in Belgium currently live—has reached 300,000, which means that the self-styled “Capital of Europe” is now one of the most Islamic cities in Europe.

    In 2013, Muslims made up approximately 26% of the population of metropolitan Brussels, followed by Rotterdam (25%), Amsterdam (24%), Antwerp (17%), The Hague (14%) and Utrecht (13%), according to a panoply of research.

    Muslims are outbreeding the native populations, many of which are way below replacement levels of reproduction. The real problem in Europe isn’t the countries trying to embrace each other. It’s that they are turning into a Muslim continent.

    There’s much denial about this, but there’s a good article at FrontPage by Bruce Bawer which notes, among other things:

    According to the Telegraph, Spain’s foreign-born population rose from 3.2% in 1998 to 13.4% in 2007, and in Brussels, “the top seven baby boys’ names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza.” . . . As for Norway, the Norwegian website document.no reported on September 5 that just over 38% of all newborn babies in Oslo now have “mothers with foreign national backgrounds.”

    That’s Brussels, the center of the European Union’s Leftist mindset. The crumbling European Union is the least of their problems. Europe has about 15 years, tops, to find a benevolent Hitler who will (as peaceably as possible) undertake a mass exportation of all Muslims in Europe — and then immunize themselves against any future foolishness by embracing a view of life beyond “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall retire for life at 55 on someone else’s dime.”

    Bawer concludes:

    The only thing it overlooks is reality – indeed, a long list of realities, among them the fact that most Europeans never wanted to join the EU (which was forced upon them by elite types like Garton Ash himself); the fact that the EU, far from bringing Europeans prosperity, peace, and so on, has proven to be a formula for economic disaster; and – above all, putting all else in the shade – the grim and looming reality that Europe is undergoing a relentless process of Islamization. 

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      “Europe has about 15 years, tops, to find a benevolent Hitler who will (as peaceably as possible) undertake a mass exportation of all Muslims in Europe — and then immunize themselves against any future foolishness by embracing a view of life beyond “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we shall retire for life at 55 on someone else’s dime.”

      When it unravels, not if, it will be quick and painful for the social democrats who have promised that there really is a free lunch. My belief is that it was doomed from the start. Its that pesky German problem. Not that the Germans will invade the rest of Europe again. This time they don’t need to, the rest will collapse around the Germans who will just pick up the pieces.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Not that the Germans will invade the rest of Europe again. This time they don’t need to, the rest will collapse around the Germans who will just pick up the pieces.

        That sounds quite plausible, Steve. My best sources tell me that despite Germany’s embrace of socialism, multiculturalism, and all the rest of that junk, that there is still something hard-working and excellence-oriented in the German character that will ride it out.

        I have my doubts. But certainly your scenario sounds plausible. It’s my belief that Europe has been infected with an AIDS-like retrovirus. Normal viruses can easily be fought off (given time). But the AIDS virus is tricky because it subverts the immune system. And that’s what has happened to Europe and to America (we elected and re-elected Obama, for instance).

        We might be angry that Obama lied about being able to keep your healthcare plan if you wanted to, and that costs wouldn’t rise but would reduce, but there no longer exists any principled way to object to this movement. Once you become a sheep, all you can do is “baaa” perhaps a little louder. And that, really, is how I see most conservatives as well. We might get online to bitch and complain and vent a little. But who is actually doing anything to change things?

        That’s why I mentioned a “benevolent Hitler.” Only a top-down solution out of this mess is possible. We must be saved from ourselves. Granted, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. We’re not likely to find another George Washington, nor will Europe. But that’s what it will take. It will take a strong man to “fundamentally transform” society away from where it is now. And this is so because, for all intents and purposes, Leftism has instilled a child-like mind into people. So it will indeed take a strong adult, playing the roll of societal parent, to fix things.

        The chances of this scenario working out are very remote. But I believe it is the only alternative to Western civilization itself dissolving. We have been turned into a dependent people. We are getting used to being told what to do. That being the case, we just need someone with the right principles to tell us what to do. We just need someone with a strong hand who will force us to do the right thing rather than to keep on down this destructive track of socialism/Leftism.

        None of this fits the mold of either conservative or libertarian thought. But the world doesn’t necessarily arrange itself for such niceties. If Europe wants to remain Europe — even if it’s still just a touchy-feely “social democratic” Europe — it has to eject its Muslim population before it is too late. Islam is completely and forever incompatible with our way of life. And despite the touchy-feely aspects of “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” it’s also fundamentally at odds with a Leftist/Progressive way of life as well.

    • FJ Rocca says:

      It frightens me to realize how right you are. I’m not sure what can be done, but something must stop Global Islamization in its tracks!

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    There are a few good reasons why the USA succeeded (for a while, anyway) where the EU is a failure. For one thing, nationalist feeling for Virginia or New York wasn’t remotely comparable to nationalist feeling in France or Greece. For another, the USA allowed far more in the way of states’ rights than the EU allows its countries (in fact, I think this remains true even as states’ rights have nearly disappeared here). Another is that the USA assimilated its immigrants (which remains somewhat true today), whereas the EU (thanks to the leftists who have dominated it) chose not to. This leads to the Islamization of Europe that Brad points out.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    We are not Americans by ethnic unanimity but by political and the cultural unity of inalienable human rights.

    We may not have “ethic unanimity”, but we have had linguistic unanimity. This is probably the single most important unifying factor of any nation and is something which the Left has intentionally been trying to destroy. The United States of America cannot exist if the populous is permanently segregated into different languages. Every nation which has two or more official languages has underlying tensions as a result.

    Switzerland and Singapore may have handled this problem best.

    Furthermore, the political and cultural unity of inalienable human rights came down to us through an interplay of British and French thought which developed in a quite distinct manner as compared to that of any other European nation or heritage.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Note that Singapore is overwhelmingly Chinese in population, so that I’m not sure they actually have a multi-language problem. Switzerland’s cantons are as important as US states were, and most of them are monolingual, which helps them survive (and they did have some problems in the 19th Century that I think resulted largely from language disputes). Of course, the liberal pushing the US into bilingualism would be happy to see the country collapse as long as their own lives aren’t affected (which they think they can pull off).

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Note that Singapore is overwhelmingly Chinese in population, so that I’m not sure they actually have a multi-language problem

        All official documents and many others, in Singapore are written in four languages, Chinese, Malay, Tamil and English. English is the language through which most the different ethnic groups communicate with each other.

        When I first moved to Singapore in 1979, even the Chinese were split into linguistic groups. The largest group was probably those who spoke Hokkien, the second would be the Cantonese or Chew Chow speakers. There were also the Hakka, Hainanese and a few Mandarin speakers. In the eighties, the government had numerous campaigns to stamp out dialects and force all Chinese to speak Mandarin. I can well recall many signs exhorting Singaporean Chinese to “Speak More Mandarin Less Dialect”.

        When I lived in Singapore the Chinese made up about 77% of the population, the Malays about 17%, the Indians about 6% and some Westerners the balance. But this does not present a true picture of the linguistic concerns of Singapore.

        Singapore is a drop of Chinese in an ocean of Malays. They have Malaysia to the North and Indonesia to the South and West. Both have large Muslim majorities. So Singapore is very sensitive to language and culture.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Switzerland’s cantons are as important as US states were, and most of them are monolingual, which helps them survive (and they did have some problems in the 19th Century that I think resulted largely from language disputes)

        I believe the Swiss Cantons have more power vis-a-vis their Federal Government that the US States do to theirs. In fact, the power is spread very deeply into local communities.

        As to language, the original Swiss Confederation was formed by several Central Swiss Cantons. I believe it was during Napoleonic times that the French and Italian Cantons were added.

        From my experience, I would say the feelings between the German and French speaking Swiss would be a little less fraternal than that between Southerners and Yankees in the 1950-60’s. That may have changed somewhat, but I don’t think it has changed very much.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Much of the French and Italian area had already been added before the French revolutionary period (I think Geneva was already Swiss during the Reformation). There were also allied and dependent cantons at that time according to the map in The New Cambridge Modern History Atlas, and these might have been among them.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            It is somewhat more complicated than that.

            Much of what might today appear to be French or Italian was earlier German speaking. Fribourg is a good example of this and although French is the most commonly used language today, German is still one of the two official languages of the Canton. Geneva and most of the other areas in question were not members of the Swiss Confederation, rather they were allies or associates of some sort. They were not citizens of the Confederation or of any Canton within the Confederation.

            Graubunden an eastern Canton, is interesting as it has three official languages, German, Italian and Romansh which was once described to me as a legionnaire Latin. Rome gave many retired soldiers land there. Although it had close relations with the Confederation through history, it did not become a Canton until Napoleonic times.

            And Ticino, although annexed by the Confederation did not become a member until Napoleonic times.

            Going back to the question of the importance of language as a unifier, even the differences in the spoken German dialects from valley to valley in Switzerland can be extreme. And until today, the people from each area can be very chauvinistic.

    • FJ Rocca says:

      Right you are! Having a single language on the national level is a vital tenet of American culture. It is the underlying unifying factor. God it’s good to be able to converse with intelligent, aware people. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *