Tag Archives: European integration

To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

img1To Be, or Not to Be (in the EU)? That is the question

At last we have a definitive timeline to determine our future. Do we want to be ruled by a Germanic invasion of Europe for the third attempt in a hundred years, or do we rely on our historic past and save Europe from a model that was broke the day the Euro was introduced?

Having not yet analysed in full the proposed deal agreed by David Cameron last week, I can only comment on what he says he has achieved, having twice listened to his claims. The first alarm bell was the excessive use of Aristotle pathos during the Andrew Marr interview Sunday morning. Invariably a sign of a weak argument.

Let us quickly deal with benefits as this is only window dressing at just £30m or thereabouts per year. The UK net membership contribution is some five times this amount per week – some £2 per head of every man, woman and child in the UK. And what about the money sent to support families in places such as Africa, India and Pakistan every year. Add to this people from places such as Switzerland who come here to retire to take advantage of our NHS, our subsidised travel costs for pensioners, and our substantially lower cost of living – what have they contributed to our country? I would argue that child credits should be paid to every worker at the same level assuming they are paying UK taxes. The fact that their children are in another country should be seen as a saving as they receive their education and healthcare outside of our system. If these children lived in the UK then they would not only receive child credit but also incur costs for education and healthcare. This would amount to considerably more Government support than £21 per week. People who come here only to sponge on our benefits system, or even our NHS, should most certainly be refused entry.

His scaremongering essentially revolves around trade and defence. I found it bizarre that he puts our membership of the EU on the same context as our membership to the UN, NATO, G7, etc. This is comparing apples and bananas. We sit at the top table at the UN, NATO, G7, etc whereas we are a secondary player in the EU, tolerated primarily because of our historic influence in the world, and our substantial contribution in membership fees (without which the EU is likely to collapse). Last week the German Foreign Minister, speaking on Radio 4, clearly stated that the UK leaving will substantially reduce the influence of the EU in the world. He recognised that the UK is a primary driver in global influence of the EU, and we would most certainly retain our influence. We are the fifth largest economy in the world, and we benefit from an historic trans-global approach to the world. I find the EU extremely introspective. Ask someone in China where is Brussels, and then where is London – the easiest example to support my argument.

As for trade, we constantly hear from politicians wishing to stay within the EU that the EU is our largest trading partner, and indeed some claim that the EU is the largest trading bloc in the world. Rubbish and rubbish. We import some £300 billion per annum in goods and services from the EU – about two months worth of our overall trade. We sell considerably less to the EU. Our largest investment market is the USA, and we would be far better served in exports by nurturing our Commonwealth nations who constitute some 1.85 billion people as against some 340 million people in the EU. Politicians in the EU would impose trade barriers against the UK at their peril – of their own corporate leaders. Ask the USA, whose corporates are still trying to recover from the ill-considered trade barriers set by the USA in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

Our finance sector is another scaremonger tactic. I found the statement, purportedly from HSBC, that should the UK leave the EU then they will have to establish investment banking activities in Paris as ludicrous as moving their headquarters back to Hong Kong. They might decide, as is normal practice in banking, to establish themselves within a market – but Paris? I also do not expect Deutschebank to reduce its presence in the City of London any time soon as the EU will need the capital raising capability of the City.

What Cameron did not achieve is any real movement in our sovereignty, as it is referred to, and the primary reason declared for Boris Johnson electing for the out of Europe campaign. Our legal system is considered as one of the best in the world, especially for trade and finance – and thus the dominance of the City of London. Its strength is that it grew with the market, and continues to rapidly evolve as is required to meet new challenges – and it is trusted. The continuing imposition of EU law can only impede our ability to retain this dominant position, and thus the dominance of the City – as has been attempted twice during my life as a banker. Germany has never been trans-global in its finance policy, and is invariably behind the curve on matters economic. For example, they dithered for some 3 years about quantitative easing meaning everyone within the Euro suffered.

The only applause to Cameron is for forcing the EU to agree a new deal in time for the referendum to occur whilst Angela Merkel is still in her final weeks of office. Politically well played – that is until Merkel’s response to the refugee crisis went sour. Had Merkel not lost her support within Germany she would have done whatever necessary to avoid the EU collapsing on her watch. There are now whispers that two other net contributor countries are considering following our lead out of the EU. Will the unelected grey suits in Brussels get the message? Today my vote is for Rule Britannia.

More to follow as the detail evolves.

Advertisement

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

German Domination of Europe – When will they learn that there is a better way

The poignant D Day events of last Friday reminded me that this year is also the centenary since the start of the First World War, or the Great War as it is more commonly known. Although I have many good friends in Germany, and hold absolutely no prejudice against the German people of today, it occurred to me that, for 100 years, the elite of Germany have attempted to mould Europe in their own image, initially through two catastrophic world wars, and currently through self-serving political and economic influence within the European Union.

It cannot be disputed that the engine-room behind the introduction of the Euro was Germany, and in spite of the so-called stringent rules of entry into the Euro, Germany allowed such rules to be significantly relaxed to allow countries to participate where compliance with the entry rules would result in such countries otherwise unlikely to qualify for entry for years to come. It is no secret that Germany has significantly prospered under the Euro – at the expense of the other member nations. These nations now seek financial support, and the German Government have a hard time selling these bailouts to the already over-taxed German people, albeit a problem created by Germany in its self-serving quest for the domination of Europe.

Sometimes I reflect that Germany, having left Europe devastated in 1945, forgets that much of their subsequent prosperity was built on their substantial participation in the Marshall Plan (whereas the United Kingdom, as victor, did not qualify for any such support and has been required the swallow the cost of the wars, and rebuild using its own resources). As with the so-called super-model of Japanese prosperity in the 1980’s I do not subscribe to the German economic model of today, and certainly would strongly oppose this model being at the centre of the European Union. The current German economic model has a fundamental incestuous instability at its core, just like the proverbial pack of cards, and just as with Japan before its economy collapsed.

And this week the German elite are flexing their self-serving muscle again by instruction Angela Merkel to support a tame federalist like Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission president, a move that is counter to the fundamental reforms needed by all donor nations – except Germany.

I have just noticed a news headline  ‘German chancellor Angela Merkel has cautioned David Cameron not to use threats of a UK exit from the EU in his campaign to block a federalist candidate from taking the helm of the European Commission.’

Without these reforms my view is that the UK should not threaten to leave the EU, but make it very clear to Germany through the promised referendum that the people of the UK do not see their future dominated by the German vision of Europe. Maybe then the UK will have to pick up the pieces of an imploded Europe for the third time.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Common Judiciary

EU Flag

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Common Judiciary

The Judiciary of a nation state is the organ of government that should provide oversight of the legislative and executive (government), and is a comprehensive and integrated structure able to delivery stable legal security according to the laws of the State.

In this blog we will quickly propose an outline legal framework for a common democratic legal system for our United States of Europe that will provide a secure legal structure for all people.

The judicial structure is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the nation state. The judiciary should have the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution, or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law. Thus the judiciary needs to be fully independent of the legislative and executive, and the judges be conferred on merit, not election.

The judiciary usually consists, at its head, a court of final appeal called the ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘Constitutional Court’, together with various levels of lower courts.

Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the judiciary does not make law, which is the responsibility of the legislative, or enforce law, which is the responsibility of the executive, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case.

This organ of the state is responsible to provide equal justice for all under law, including human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The judiciary also provides the mechanism for the resolution of civil disputes, and a criminal justice system.

So much for a democratic judicial system definition but the complexity of the various legal structures currently used throughout the EU nation states is mind-boggling. We have Common Law, structures based on Napoleonic Code, Civil Law, Basic law, etc. In the USA there is Federal Law as the legal foundation, and then there is State Law superimposed upon it. The overall legal platform is based on English Common Law which was adopted from the English Legal System. However the USA has subsequently over-complicated this system in their overly litigious society, and we should avoid this. As an example an identical contract drafted under US Law (50 pages), English Law (5 pages), and Swiss Law (3 pages). Any consideration of a legal system needs to learn lessons of the past and to keep it simple and relevant.

For business to effectively operate throughout our United States of Europe there must be a common legal platform. The complexity of the current EU multi-legal systems adds a cost burden to business which ultimately reflects in the price of product or service to the consumer – the people of Europe. But what system to adopt?

My argument for the above structure starts with a global perspective. Our United States of Europe will most certainly want to engage in business with the wider world. If we look at trade in oil & gas, commodities, manufactured trade, international securities, all of these have standard legal packages throughout the world which also provide trusted international arbitration. These legal structures have all been derived and evolved out of English Law, are drafted in the English language, and jurisdiction will be either/and/or English Law and US Law. These systems were devised to create a common and safe platform for international trade, are widely used, and banks prefer these tried and tested structures for their involvement in transactions.

Thus I propose that the legal structure as regards business, commerce, and finance be English Law. As the foundation of the English legal system is Common Law then our Legal System for the United States of Europe would be based on Common law, also known as case law or precedent, and is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals. One third of the world’s population (approximately 2.3 billion people) live in common law jurisdictions or in systems mixed with civil law, and thus this proposed system would be compatible with many major trading partners in the world, including the USA and India.

However I would not propose total adoption of the English Legal system as I would see our new model as a golden opportunity to significantly revise some of the historic anomalies in the process of English Law, not least the removal of the barrister/solicitor structure which adds significant cost to the process of law. Another example would be the abolition of much of our Family Division law and replace it with something more akin to the structure in the German legal system, and the German inquisitorial process (Civil Law) in the lower courts would also be more relevant and cost effective, and thus ensure that remedy in law is available to all. Common law courts tend to use an adversarial system, in which two sides present their cases to a neutral judge. In contrast civil law systems use an inquisitorial system process, where an examining magistrate serves two roles by developing the evidence and arguments for one and the other side during the investigation phase, and which could be heard as litigant in person without fear of being overawed by an opposing lawyer.

I have actually experienced the confusion of examination under an unfamiliar legal system in a language unknown to me as a witness in a case in the Austrian Courts where protocol dictates that the case should be heard in Austrian-German. The proceedings were conducted under civil law and thus the judge was the primary examiner. After about one hour (of a 5 hour examination of my evidence) the Judge, who obviously was fluent in English, was becoming increasingly frustrated with the translator of my testimony which was frequently being corrected by the lawyers to both the claimant and the defendant. Having determined that all of the key people spoke English the judge dismissed the translator, and the hearing was continued in English. This judge was clear in his objective to get to the truth of the matter, and was not about to allow out-dated protocols to compromise his objective.

In Switzerland it is now common to hear cases in English, and which was initiated by cases involving international trade.

A key requirement of any modern democratic system is the rights afforded under habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a writ (legal action) that requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. The principle of habeas corpus ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention—that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner’s aid. This right originated in the English legal system, and is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. The jurist Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the British Habeas Corpus Acts “declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty”. There are nation states within the EU, and new members under this model who do not use habeas corpus, and thus my reference to its fundamental role in the United States of Europe.

Habeas corpus essentially means that you are innocent until you are proven guilty. There are some exceptions to this, e.g. consumer banking law where a customer who has a dispute with a financial institution can, in equity, reverse this situation in that the bank will be assumed in the wrong unless the bank can prove itself in the right. An ordinary consumer cannot be expected to contest a bank having vast resources with which to frustrate a consumer claim. It could be argued that this removal of habeas corpus should be applied to all service sector corporates, especially energy and mobile phone providers. In this age of automaton account management mistakes are common putting the consumer under much stress and distress dealing with intransigent corporate customer services who believe that their computers are always right. It would be more equitable if the corporate was required to prove that the data in their computers is legitimate.

Thus my proposal for the judiciary of the United States of Europe would be:

  • An independent constitutional judiciary based on merit, not election
  • A European Supreme Court where the judges comprise the senior judge of each of the nation states. The President of the Supreme Court would be determined by election by the Supreme Court judges on a 2 year re-election
  • A legal system based on  English Common Law with appropriate elements of Civil Law
  • Modernised court processes including removal of barrister/solicitor protocol, and introduction of the inquisitorial system in the lower courts
  • Member states to have their own courts subordinated to the Supreme Court
  • Member states to have own assemblies able to enact State law, by-laws, and ordinances consistent with constitutional law
  • Intrinsic rights to all under habeas corpus, albeit with the specific exclusion of terrorists
  • Service sector corporates to have no right to habeas corpus in consumer disputes

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

This blog is part of a series of blogs called ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?’ and which examine the framework for a truly United States of Europe, and what would be needed to achieve it. Look at the archive index to find other blogs in this series.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the ‘thumbs up’ below. You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – Republic versus Monarchy

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Republic versus Monarchy

There has always been a general view that a united Europe will be some form of a republic, but is this a reasonable and widely held premise? Most of the republics around the world leave much to be desired in the stature of its president, or the continuity of national pride. This subject should not be an assumption for the future of Europe, but tested with the people, as should every facet of such a European integration process. In this blog we will quickly look at this issue in order for people to look at the possibilities.

The difference in formalising a United States of Europe and our template of the formation of the United States of America is that, in the case of the USA, it was a completely new venture, whereas Europe has functioning nation states with much historic ‘baggage’, extending back centuries in some cases. This ‘baggage’ will be a major emotional issue in creating a united Europe, as has been shown in the current EU/Eurozone model. Furthermore the integration of Europe looks more like a creeping expropriation of the sovereignty of nation states conducted by a faceless, unelected bureaucracy rather than an open integration by a consensual electorate. It might be worth mentioning that some of the countries of Europe seemingly have a long history but, in fact their history, as the nation state is today, can be little more than 100 years. I think of Italy and Germany as examples.

As an example of the legitimacy of this subject the UK has a constitutional monarchy having a current popularity rating around 87%. A further complication is that the Queen has a constituency of some 1.6 billion people throughout the world spanning some many countries including Canada, India and Australia. If reports from the USA are correct a free vote amongst the American people to adopt the English monarchy as the constitutional monarch of the USA would increase this constituency by a further 300 million or so (there were some 26 USA TV channels in London for the Queen’s Jubilee celebrations, and the marriage of William and Kate). Compare this with the total population of the existing EU member states, and the fact that if it came down to a choice by the citizens of the UK between full integration within the Eurozone (essentially becoming part of a republic) and retaining our monarchy – retaining the monarchy would certainly win. We are already seeing this obstacle in the attempt by the Scottish National Party to devolve Scotland from the UK – most of the people of Scotland do not wish to lose their link to the monarchy.

A recent referendum in Australia regarding changing to a republic resulted in an overwhelming vote to retain the monarchy such that any further discussion has been shelved during the lifetime of the Queen.

For the republicans amongst you the reason why the UK has such a high regard for the monarchy can be readily defined in a simple example. Since WWII the UK has had only two what could be called ‘world statesperson’ leaders, namely Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher. In between these two statespersons the UK has endured political leaders ranging from awful to passable. However the line was held throughout these periods by the steadfast presence and continuity of the monarchy with a Queen who has shown herself to be an extraordinary stateswoman. And it only costs some 50p p.a. (Euro 40 cents) per head of population of the UK to retain this safety net – no more expensive than a President, or even a cup of coffee. Politicians come and go, but a steadfast and committed monarchy maintains continuity, even in the bad times.

There is also a much loved and active monarchy in Spain, and there are more low key monarchies in other European countries such as The Netherlands, and Sweden.

I am reliably advised that many Romanians would happily restore their monarchy which was very closely connected through marriage to the British and former German monarchy. Romania has maintained the stunning Peles Castle at Sinaia throughout the communist years, and it is still functional today.

In contrast look at the shambolic collections of political heads of state in the republic states of Europe and the USA over recent years, riddled with sex scandals, fraud, and abuse of office. Do any in Europe stand out as a true ‘world statesperson’? I would willingly concede to Helmut Schmidt, but then I start to struggle unless I have missed anyone. Angela Merkel is showing some mettle, so the jury is still out with respect to her.

It would be very interesting to conduct a census of all European people about the restoration of a constitutional monarch based on the English model (being the oldest and having by far the largest constituency), and which was originally German (House of Hanover) in any event. As some countries already have a monarchy, and I think that I am safe in saying that Poland would vote in favour, I would not be surprised if the odds are in favour of a monarchy, especially if the various royal families can agree how to integrate into a single constitutional monarchy for Europe.

Thus I suggest that we cannot assume that our new United States of Europe will be a republic if the people have their say on the matter. Indeed we cannot assume that all nation states within the current structure consider a presidential democracy as a preferred option.

Could a monarchy of Europe be a focal point for integration by the people, especially as it would not be soiled by mistrust of the political process? When the politicians are totally out of favour the people need something they can look to for that comfort factor.

What do you think?

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the ‘thumbs up’ below. You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – Why Integrate?

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Why Integrate?

Why does Europe need to integrate, or even unite, especially now that the reasons behind the original Common Market have long been overshadowed with more pressing issues – explain. This was a message from an economist friend, having read my blogs on the EU/Eurozone, who felt that I should at least make some attempt to justify yet another grand plan for Europe after so much pain, misery, and expense of existing failed plans. As he is a professor of economics I feel obliged to take note and thus attempt to explain the logistics behind my interest in this subject.

As Europeans we do have choices regarding the future direction of Europe. We can disintegrate the current debacle, and return to independent nation states. The other extreme is to totally unite into a new United States of Europe – the idealist model in this debate. What I do not think we can do is to continue with the current model of part this, part that, one foot in …….. crazy system of fudge upon fudge which has wreaked havoc on weaker members, and to which the people of Europe feel totally disenfranchised. The basic tenet of a democratic system is that it is created ‘by the people, for the people’ and the current situation does not even remotely look anything like.

Where does Europe sit in the World today, and where does it see its future in the grand scheme of the world? It is steeped in history. It is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and technology. Its pioneers explored the world, and provided answers to many unknowns across the spectrum of the sciences, medicine and philosophy. It developed global trade and finance. It is the cradle from which mankind developed democracy, free speech, and equality for all. But this is all in the past. The various empires created have essentially gone, and new centres of power and creativity have emerged in other parts of the world challenging the once might of Europe.

Can the individual nation states of Europe hold their own in the world of today, and more importantly the world of tomorrow? The short answer is that probably only two or three of the current nation states could be influential, whilst the others become second division players. Is this really the end of a long and proud heritage? There is no question that the nation states of Europe have suffered some serious differences throughout history, and some horrific differences within living memory, but what of the future? There are current distractions such as the current sabre rattling from Spain regarding Gibraltar which echoes of ‘The Mouse That Roared’. Will Europe really just wallow in the past and make the future for its children, and grandchildren, one of ‘we were once at the centre of the world, and at the forefront of progress – but that was yesterday’. Or does Europe reinvent itself, and takes its rightful place as a key player in the world of tomorrow?

Thus there is a case for an integrated Europe.

Recent pioneers have recognised that Europe needs to do something to stay influential in the world, and, to date, Europe has tried market integration, economic integration, trade integration, monetary integration, etc. but national self-interest, and the vested self-interest of the various politicians, in varying degrees, have created such an unmanageable hotchpotch of multi-dimensional chaos and unintended consequences that the people no longer understand what the plan is, if they ever did, and feel that they have little or no say in their own destiny. The people from the Eastern European states must think that they have emerged out of one fire, into another. All the European people really know is that it is all very expensive, painful, and with little obvious benefit.

A quick look at some of the (real and perceived) issues that stir great resentment by the British people to what is happening in the EU/Eurozone show that they do not have apathy, but hostility – and hence the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who polled enough votes in the most recent political elections to demonstrate that these votes were not just a protest vote. For example a common view is that it feels like the whole process of the creation of the Eurozone was engineered by the Germans, in favour of Germany – they could not capture Europe by military force, so they now they try by economic force. There are still many people alive in the UK who can remember the misery of rationing and other shortages they experienced whilst the UK had to rebuild itself after the last War, selling state assets and begging for loans while Germany was being rebuilt using $ billions under the Marshall Plan, and of course people will always quote that it was 2 British army officers who engineered the first Beetle car starting a successful rebuild of the German car industry.

This attitude by the British people is very unfortunate and unhelpful as it breeds distrust and suspicion of the whole process, but it has foundation and thus requires sensitive consideration when looking for support for an integrated Europe. It does not help that Germany, until 2 years ago, was the clear winner from the introduction of the Euro, albeit that the disciplines associated with the Euro exposed hidden cracks in the economic condition of a number of the Euro nation states. I can remember in 2011 that, contrary to market sentiment, Eurozone interest rates rose to offset inflationary pressures within Germany causing much pain to other Euro members – not the way to win support. Sometimes one has to ask if Germany just arrogantly believes that their way is the only way, or whether it is just a cultural problem. Years ago Germany imposed withholding taxes within Germany on some types of International bonds that are specifically designed to be tax neutral, and then surprised with the number of Germans crossing the border into banks in Luxembourg to buy and sell these bonds to avoid the taxes. The recent attempt, led by Germany, to introduce a transaction tax on banks trading within the EU is another classic example of an ambivalent attitude to the global nature of banking and its importance, not only to the UK, but to the whole of Europe. As the UK is second only to Germany as a net contributor to the existing EU budget they have good reason to be concerned at this behaviour, and have no desire to become just another federal state of Germany – indeed this would be  seriously counterproductive to the desired outcome. I have many German friends, and clearly Germany is a successful country, but a nation is more than an economic machine and thus I think integration requires a new way of inclusive thinking, as was required by the founding fathers of the USA. Indeed Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission between 1985 and 1994, stated that ‘Europe needs a soul’. A further important consideration is that one cannot ignore the important historic influence of the UK throughout the world as a valuable asset to an integrated Europe. For both Germany and the UK integration will be 1 step back to take 2 steps forward – probably painful for both, but necessary for the peaceful co-existence of all nation states.

Can the current situation be fixed so that Europe can obtain a reasonable degree of integration that works without suspicion of vested interest by any nation state, and enables an appropriate external status in the World to be influential? For many this is probably akin to attempting to solve a Rubik cube blindfolded, and many, including nation state leaders, know this. For example while there are a multitude of nation state leaders all voicing their own views to the world, and seeking self-promotion, the outside world will not understand what an integrated Europe really means.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has stated that if his party are re-elected at the next General Election, then he will give the British people a vote in 2016 on whether or not to stay in the EU. As a senior banker understanding the economic and trade benefits of integration my vote would still be ‘no’ in the expectation that, without the UK, the current European model will implode, and then we could start again with a seriously less wealthy Germany. I remember when Margaret Thatcher was being forced by her colleagues to take sterling into the European Rate Mechanism (ERM) – but she managed to include a time bomb which eventually imploded the ERM – another expensive, ill-conceived European political experiment that did not work.

Thus we are back to the underlying tenet of my proposed model. First seek the ideal situation, and then see how close you can get to it in practice without loss of integrity.

Many will say that full integration, i.e. my United States of Europe model, is not a new idea. This is very true – Jacques Delors, probably the founding father of the idea of a fully integrated Europe, constantly promoted this idea. But has anyone ever been able to explain and sell this idea to the people in a way that they can understand the benefits to them, their children, and their grandchildren, and thus fully embrace the transition? To date the debate has been about the technical issues of economic benefit, trade, financial stability, national sovereignty, no borders, etc. etc. etc.

Has any politician told the people that a fully integrated Europe, i.e. a United States of Europe, will:

  • be 2nd only to India as the largest democracy in the world;
  • will be a larger economy than the USA;
  • will have less overall debt than the USA (if the politicians step away and let the bankers solve the debt issues);
  • will be the centre of the global financial system;
  • will have superior, and less expensive organs of government per capita (if they get it right) than any other major power;
  • will be a major force in the global arena;
  • significant economies of scale should lower the cost of living, i.e. a better lifestyle for all;
  • will provide substantial new job opportunities as more international companies seek to be part of such a large market;
  • will certainly be a major, if not the strongest force in sport throughout the world;
  • etc etc.

People can understand these statements, and thus they can feel a sense of real value and belonging as a new European citizen.

We should look to the speeches of Winston Churchill during the Second World War. He was from an aristocratic family, and went to the top private schools – but he knew how to speak with the people to galvanise and instil resolve towards a common goal, especially in the dark days. In the hour of need cometh the man, but where is he/her today?

So back to our model to see if we can show the politicians what the people see as an integrated Europe, and thus what they could be prepared to buy into.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the ‘thumbs up’ below. You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Model Outline

eu_flag_flag5

The EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

A Model Outline

Following on from my Intro blog yesterday what is the future for Europe – do we need a new European model, or can we fix the existing model? To date the politicians have held the cards, but is it now time for the people to speak. Even the countries of the former Soviet Union now have had enough time and understanding to know what is possible, and what they would like to see as a sustainable future. Do we revise the current model, or just as with the EEC and the ERM, we put it down to experience and start again with the benefit of hindsight? I am looking for input so I would like to start with a provocative statement or two as I would like to encourage discussion and comment on the future of Europe for our children and grandchildren.

I hope that this will be an evolving blog where interested parties feel that they can contribute to the debate with comments, and be heard. Non-Europeans are welcome to participate as all input is valuable input. The resulting model for Europe should not be insular, and it is important both in relations and trade that the outside world sees a friend and partner with whom it can engage politically, and conduct business.

For the purpose of this discussion can I propose that we call our new model the United States of Europe. I have an utter dislike of any name using the word ‘Federal’ (sounds like a police state), and any reference to the word ‘Republic’ automatically removes any debate about a monarchy, and I am far from convinced that many people in Europe feel that a republic is the only option. Furthermore I would suggest that the United States of Europe is fully inclusive of all countries in Europe, as with the United States of America.

So let us start with the provocation.

  • I believe that it is a fact that the EU has no democratic legitimacy. Has any member state to date asked the people to vote on whether or not their country should become a member? This should not be confused with referendums for treaty ratifications.
  • For over 2 years now the politicians have attempted to solve the financial problems within the Eurozone. I would suggest that if you put some of the best banking minds into a room for 4 – 6 weeks, devoid of politics, vested interests, and with open minds, workable solutions to the financial problems of the Eurozone can be achieved. The pills may not be sweet, but they would be equitable and sustainable in the long-term. For example Germany was by far the economic winner with the introduction of the Euro – now it must deal with the appropriate reciprocity.
  • We must start with the tenet that a democracy consists of a framework of a Government freely elected ‘by the people, for the people’ with oversight from an independent judiciary built on merit, not election. This Government needs to build a social and legal framework based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, free speech, respect for International law, and equality for all. In return the electorate need to respect the law, and take responsibility for their role in society.
  • A secure, self-sufficient, free market economy consists of a sustainable supply of raw materials and energy, a relatively cheap labour force, innovative skills (excellent education), technology transfer skills, manufacturing, marketing, with stable and effective financing (banking).
  • The existing EU/Eurozone is built on political, over economic, sensibilities, fractured by pandemic compromise, with political and national interests as serious constraints to sustainability.

A cursory comparison of the above with the structure of the current EU/Eurozone will reveal that the current structure shows that it:

  • fails to satisfy democratic legitimacy;
  • is incapable of resolving the existing financial problems, and responds too slowly in any event;
  • does not meet the recognised basic parameters of a democracy;
  • does not meet the requirements a self-sufficient free market economy; and
  • is constrained by the vested self-interest of the political leaders of the member states.

Rather than start by debating ‘Start Again or Plod On’ I would suggest that we start with a blank sheet of paper and identify what the people see as a credible European integration by building a model of an equitable and sustainable United States of Europe. Having developed and agreed such a model we can then compare it to what we have today to determine if we can adapt what we have to what we need, or whether we adopt our new model and move into it, leaving any unnecessary baggage behind in the old model. The other option, which is certainly on the table, is to completely abandon European integration.

Please forget ‘what is’ today in your thinking as details such as what side of the road we drive on in different countries is irrelevant to the future of our children and grandchildren. At the risk of alienation the green lobby can we also ignore what could be in energy terms and just look at the resource base that already exist. Too many people in Europe are currently below the bread line, distressed, and hungry. This problem must be addressed as a priority over any new initiatives. Indeed one of my drivers for this exercise is to divert wasted money in the existing EU into growth generation to create jobs for the millions currently without income. Dignity and self-respect derive from self-sufficiency, not charity. Also let your mind have free rein when considering all of the components of a self-sufficient free market economy. I would suggest that there are countries that could be invited to the party to strengthen self-sufficiency.

The classic method of solving complex multifaceted problems is to:

  • Understand the problem, and subdivide into logical components for analysis
  • Analyse each component part – Create an ideal solution
  • Adapt the ideal solution as little as is needed to make it work

When considering the way forward could we concentrate on what we need in our model to create a sustainable, prosperous, and equitable future for all, rather than what we want. Many people want a Ferrari car, but they do not need it to live their life in peace and prosperity.

I would like to propose 2 templates to guide us through the process. The first is the creation of the United States of America in terms of some of the hard decisions and compromises that had to be made to ensure inclusion of everyone. As the creation of the USA had the benefit of no historic baggage to deal with I want to use Switzerland as a second template being a country which functions in 4 languages, has a 700 year history, not currently fully compliant as a democracy, and has an unconventional government structure. If anyone would like to propose any other template I am open to suggestions.

In order to make the process manageable I propose to load a series of blogs over time, each one addressing a separate pillar of democracy, e.g. structure of government, judiciary & legal system, taxation, etc and throw in other considerations such as common language, nationality, republic versus monarchy etc. to complete the whole picture.

This is a serious attempt to find answers to the problems that politicians seem unable to resolve. Having spent some 30 years addressing complex problems using lateral and progressive thinking I can attest to the methodology which, on first sight appears too simplistic, impossible and/or unrealistic – but they said this about Keynes at Bretton Woods – until they sat and really thought about his ideas. We still benefit from his thinking today. The fall of the Berlin Wall was an unthinkable piece of lateral thinking after too many years of political bluster. I believe that the collective thinking of people from all walks of life seriously interested in the future of Europe can contribute to solutions to the problems that face Europe. If you have friends or contacts that you feel would find this process of interest then get them involved as well. Think the unthinkable, and enjoy the process.

I will attempt, in no particular order, to start the first discussion blog in the next few days. If you click on the ‘Follow’ tag you will receive an email as each blog is posted.

Thank you for reading my blog, and I hope that you feel it worth the effort.

Related articles