Union Here and Over There

by Jørn K. Baltzersen
by Jørn K. Baltzersen

In 1787 a union of free and sovereign states was established on North American soil, replacing the union based on the Articles of Confederation. In 1957 the Treaty of Rome was signed, and the European Community was established. The European Coal and Steel Community was established already in 1952.

What in 1787 was quite limited is now the world's only superpower with little left of the original limitations on government power. In 1952 we had a limited coal and steel community. Now, we have the European Union. The project of European integration does not seem to have an end.

We are told that the union of the United States of America and the European Union are two so very different phenomena. Perhaps they are more similar than we like to think?

I often hear that the European Union was established as a voluntary union, while the United States of America "is" and "was" established as a union from which one could not secede. Who teaches these people history? Let's consider the dictum that history will repeat itself. In the summer of 2002 I attended a lecture by former federal German Chancellor Dr. Helmut Kohl at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. He described the European Union as a railway engine. The speed can be adjusted, but there is no stopping or turning around. Moreover, secession is not an option. The question is if we already have reached the point where secession is not an option, i.e., there is no getting off.

Today, actually many people rightly believe that the European Union is a voluntary union. The European Union does not have military power on its own to crush secessionists, but how long will that last? The union on the west side of the North Atlantic was established as a voluntary union and remained so until Abraham Lincoln was let loose on the sovereign states. How long will it take for something similar to happen on the east side of the North Atlantic? No one today believes that a Member State of the European Union will try seceding. Nowadays, most European national governments are interested in getting into the union – sadly, including Estonia and Cyprus, countries with sound policies on free trade and bank secrecy – staying there, or getting even more integrated. But what will happen when an attempt of secession is made? I think the answer depends a whole lot on when it happens. Or perhaps the ghost of Abraham Lincoln has a stronghold over Europe as well as over the United States of America; thou shalt not secede from a union of democratic states?

When we hear about the differences between Europe and the U.S., the national differences in Europe come up. Well, it is true that most European nations have much longer pre-union history than did the states that unified in America. Moreover, the languages are completely different. Although groups in the United States have had little or no knowledge of the English language, it has always been the dominant language of the union. When it comes to being, e.g., first of all Greek and then European, this is not dissimilar to how it was in the early days of the American union. For instance, Virginians were Virginians first.

From critics of the European Union in the U.S. one often hears that the problems of Europe are a result of the European tradition of being ruled from above. Well, are they trying to tell us that Americans, who let the federal government tell them what size their toilet tanks can be, are not ruled from above? There is a democratic deficit in the European Union, we hear from time to time. There is too little accountability. Unaccountable bureaucrats have too much power. The solution, we are told, is more democracy. So the democratically elected European Parliament must have more power. What happened in the United States when the people were guaranteed the right to vote for U.S. Senator? Was it for the better? It seems that in our present day world many problems of government amount to too little democracy, and so we order more democracy. This is a perilous approach indeed.

In 1994 Norway had a referendum on joining the European Union. The European Union was turned down in this advisory referendum. Perhaps even more interesting than the EU debate itself was the debate on whether to respect a simple majority in the referendum. Members of the Norwegian Parliament were actually considering voting against membership even if the people had voted for. These were decried, and requirements for qualified majorities were generally argued to be in place to ensure that a popular majority is behind the decision, and that it is not just based on an arbitrary majority in Parliament. The fact that the Constitutional Convention back in 1814 to a great extent based its work on a proposed constitution containing a requirement for a two-thirds majority referendum for constitutional amendments does not fit in the democratism of today, and hence, such facts are ignored. People who believe that every plebiscite should be respected, should be asked: what if the issue were the abolition of property rights?

Back to bureaucrats: they are not only in the Berlaymont building in Brussels, they are in Athens, Paris, Berlin, Stockholm, and in the other national capitals of the European Union. There are not many EU bureaucrats compared to all those working for national governments around Europe. Similarly, the tax money that goes through the EU organization is little compared to that which goes through national governments. As Paul Clark has pointed out, the EU organization is much smaller than the federal government of the United States. So why not embrace the European Union? Of course, the EU itself does not have much means to force members into compliance, and not all members comply equally, but harmonization is going on, and one should not underestimate the power of the "gentlemen's agreement excuse" for implementing EU regulations through national governments.

As David Dieteman, among others, has pointed out, the ability to vote with your feet is a check on tyranny. As the European Union moves into deeper and deeper integration, there will be less and less institutional competition. The European Community was at the time of the first Norwegian referendum on joining about trade. The Norwegians said no. The Brits said yes. Not long ago I heard a Brit saying that they were fooled. They were told that it was about trade, but now it's about a lot more.

Part of what the European Union is about is assuring equal terms of competition. If France has a minimum wage and Portugal does not, this is unequal competition. If Germany has protection of labor "rights" and Greece does not, this is unequal competition. One could push this further by saying that if Sweden has a VAT or GST of 25% and Denmark a VAT of 24%, this is unequal competition. This is a total perversion. As Tibor Machan has pointed out in his article on Ryanair's Charleroi affair, business is not some kind of fair distribution process.

Sweden's Prime Minister recently told the new members from Eastern Europe that they had better start taxing their rich. Officially, there is no tax harmonization in the European Union, yet, save harmonization of VAT or GST. However, it is obvious that the socialists of Europe in their hearts demand an income tax of what they would call "civilized", i.e., it must be considerable, and it must at least be proportional. Of course, a progressive tax is better. What these socialists do not understand, or at least give the impression that they do not understand, is that even with a proportional system rich people pay more than average. There is today no tax harmonization, and there is no EU income tax. Those United States of America were once without a federal income tax. Will history repeat itself? Is it already repeating itself?

The European Union has set up a Charter of Fundamental Rights. It was a part of the Treaty of Nice. The Irish turned this treaty down in a referendum. Of course, there was another referendum within short time, and the Irish accepted it. Hence, there will be no new Irish referendum on the Treaty of Nice. This is sort of like when a Southerner tells us in Gods and Generals; if we lose, we really lose; if they lose, they just go home [wording not exact]. The charter welfare state "rights" and the charter is made in a way that seems to give the impression that the politicians believe popular issues to be important, but at the same time give no obligations at all. Property rights are for instance stated in an article with such provisions that the article is rendered meaningless.

Now, a new European Constitution is in the mold. To think that professional politicians would set up something that actually would limit the powers of politicians is quite naive. Moreover, the proposed constitution is not a single document. It consists of several documents, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights is one of them. I have heard several people argue that this proposed constitution is bad handiwork, it were better if it looked more like the U.S. Constitution. Well, to be frank that hasn't been such a great success. Although Europe has a lot of history from which the United States can learn, more than they have up until now, I believe Europe also has something to learn from the history of what was meant to be a constitutionally limited federal republic. Moreover, what force is magically to transform a society just by setting up a constitution like the American one?

I listened to a lecture by a Member of the European Parliament last November. He thought the proposed European Constitution was perhaps not a good constitution for a nation, but still a good constitution for a multi-national organization such as the European Union. I think Europeans of today have big problems comprehending how similar the European Union is to the Union on the other side of the North Atlantic about 200 years ago. Of course, there are differences. The world has advanced technologically. We now live in a democratic and egalitarian age. We didn't then. There are lots of other differences, but we need to focus on the similarities to avoid repeating the errors of history.

The proposed Constitution for the European Union has a provision for metacompetence. The European Union itself is not to decide what issues it can meddle in. Doesn't that sound like the enumerated powers clause of the U.S. Constitution? What significance does it have now? In addition comes a flexibility clause in the proposed constitution, which opens for unanimous usurpations.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to the states. So if Norway were to join the United States, we would have to abolish the monarchy. If we join the European Union, we would not have to do so. However, the European Union demands democracy for all Member States. There is a similarity. The U.S. demands a republican form of government. The EU demands democracy. The proposed EU Constitution preamble opens with a quote from Thucydides; "Our Constitution ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands of not of a minority but of the greatest number." There is probably one little country in the heart of Europe that will have to change the basic principles of its government to be allowed to enter the European Union, namely the Principality of Liechtenstein. The EU demands democracy, and liberty must go.

The process of reaching an agreement on the EU Constitution failed under the Italian EU presidency last year. The Spaniards were among the opponents not willing to compromise enough with the majority of Member States. Now, we may see a new attitude from Spanish politicians. Sadly, for quite some time I think we will see the European Union falling into deeper and deeper integration.

From time to time I hear the argument that the European Union must serve as a global check on the power of the United States of America. First of all, both the United States and the European Union represent Western civilization. They have more in common than they like to think. The philosophical cradle of American capitalism was in Europe. The best thing Europe could do is to return to these sound roots. How is it at the same time to serve as a balance against the United States? The other, but unsound, option is to turn to more and more socialism, but how is Europe then to compete? By the U.S. doing the same?

The conception that because there is one large power in the world everyone else should unite to balance that power is perhaps a nice thought, but what would be the result of that? Probably that we see larger and larger political units, giving less and less institutional competition. In the end voting with one's feet will no longer be an option, because there will be no place to go.

April 12, 2004

Jørn K. Baltzersen [send him mail] is a senior consultant of information technology in Oslo, Norway.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com