The EU Needs To Get Clear On Its Interests

There is a lot that could be said about the issues you raise:
1. a lot under the heading “long history” — to wit, Europe’s colonial relations with Africa and Asia matter and continue;
2. neoliberalism is a pretense — it is hard to speak or even think realistically in neoliberal terms and this is a feature of neoliberalism that makes (perhaps ironically or contradictorily) it an attractive framework for political coordination. “It’s complicated . . .” is a neoliberal mantra.
3. the EU is hardly a monolith: it does not have unitary interests and it is simply foolish, even on an elementary level of discourse, to speak as if it does.
3a Under cover of the rhetoric of neoliberal coordination cum obscurantism, various subterreanean ideas and interests are constantly burrowing. See 1. for one set which is easier to identify from afar because the history of colonial exploitation is clearer. (Europeans themselves can be amazingly self-deceived about colonial relationships — think of the Brits who think India misses them.)
3b The EU is divided against itself: the creditors against the debtors; the top-income countries against those in the middle-income trap; the complex and ambivalent national histories, especially in relation to liberal democracy and nationalism.

Immigration is an impossible issue for the EU on so many dimensions at once, it almost cannot be described. Of course, Turkey and Belarus, among others, use border control as a cudgel or lever.

Both China and Russia, which have political structures that can rationalize a national interest and coherent strategies, will look to exploit the “underbelly” of European contradiction. The Chinese road-and-belt strategy is systematically taking over neglected southern ports in Greece, Portugal, Trieste? Fiume? The Russian gas is vital to Germany (where the younger generation is being slowly screwed).

There are more than a few obstacles to the EU “getting clear on its interests”.

The EU is a joke. It was based on the con that if European countries integrated their economies their political systems would follow, and one day everyone would wake up and there would be a Europe, all shiny and new and so much better than those vulgar Americans. But it never happened.

There is an unelected Euro-trash bureaucracy that makes rules and regulations but there was never any plan. Most of the commonsense regularization was done years ago. Now it mostly persists because that’s what bureaucracies do.

Brexit wasn’t just a case of “What can you expect from those crazy Brits?” The exit of the EU’s second largest economy was a major failure of the EU which the EU didn’t prevent, duly ignored, and learned nothing from.

In a lot of ways, it is the story of a screwup foretold. It has been largely airbrushed out of history but France the super EU country almost rejected the founding EU Maastricht treaty in 1992 with it passing in a referendum with only 50.8% voting yes. Then there was the adoption of the euro in 1999 which heavily favored exporting countries like Germany and screwed everyone else. Then there was the Greek debt crisis that began shortly after the 2008 financial meltdown where Germany hung out to dry and managed to kill off a fair number of Greeks, all for a backdoor bailout of some of its banks. This was followed by a bank crisis that has never really ended in most of the EU’s southern tier of countries. Negative and non-existent German leadership and aid as well as the complete absence of any European leadership has led to the the EU’s whole eastern tier going increasingly authoritarian. Add into this Germany’s disastrous and cynical handling of the 2015 immigration crisis, and top it off with the arrival of covid. With covid, the EU essentially disappeared –with its individual countries thrown back on themselves to deal with it.

The EU needs to stand up and go its own way? Seriously? Germany pays 1.4% of its GDP on defense. And why not? Real leadership takes commitment. And it takes money. Germans and Germany just find it cheaper to leave all that lowly stuff to those silly and often obnoxious Americans, or in a crunch those arrogant French,

The point of this screed is that Europe has bad neoliberal leadership like the rest of us. They are just even more reality disconnected even than we are.

There is a difference between ” the EUropean countries” and the EU bureaucracy system of rule ( and probably the Corporate Globalonial Plantation Lords it exists to serve).

In other words, EUrope harbors a vampire succubus on its body called the “EU Commission OverLord Government” or whatever the vampire succubus is called. If EUrope cannot exterminate this entity, the EUropean countries can never make any national sovereignty or even Greater Regional sovereignty decisions. If the EU vampire succubus feels that it can get the most long term power for itself by selling EUrope to China, that is what the EU vampire succubus will do. And China will graciously allow Europe to live on as a cultural petting zoo for the delight of Chinese tourists and branch managers of China’s New Euro Plantation. And that may be a better deal than anything the US can offer.

Meanwhile, Russia will try to preserve its separate sovereign existence in the teeth of all this. Russia will try to keep its relationship with China as an alliance of equals. If Russia can prevent hundreds of millions of illegal Chinese settlers from building illegal Chinese settlements all over Siberia, we will know that Russia is succeeding. If China starts calling Siberia the ” North Bank of the Amur River” (or just the “North Bank” for short) then we and Russia will know what China intends for Siberia and for the relationship.

There are Americans who would like to abolish burning coal for electricity. Right now, they have zero power at the national level. Regionloads of them may have some “cultural economic warfare” power at their regional levels, if they decide to adopt the mission of developing separate secession-ready political-economic societies in their own regions, featuring the zero-use of coal derived electricity.

Ian Welsh has viewed with dismay the fitful rise of “exterminationist rhetoric” in American society. As it becomes more clear that the only way to solve certain problems is to exterminate the groups and classes of people who are causing these problems for their own profit and power, Ian Welsh will hear more “exterminationist rhetoric” coming from America.

Communazi China is playing a game of Skycarbon Chicken, as I have noted before. The Communazi Chinese goal is to exterminate all industry existing outside of China, and especially all renewable industry existing outside of China. Since the International Free Trade Conspirators will keep money serving this Communazi goal until all industry has been exterminated outside of China, the only way to save any industry and especially renewable energy technology industry outside of China is to win the kind of civil war which would allow us to round up and physically exterminate every free trade perpetrator and supporter, in their millions, to remove their opposition from restoring Protectionism and Autarky to big countries and multi-small-country regions. That is the sort of “exterminations rhetoric” which people will hear more and more of until it becomes accepted as analysis and then becomes put into practice.

If not, America will become one of Communazi China’s “overseas Tibets” and EUrope will become Communazi China’s cultural petting zoo.

I am sure the Tibetans are happy to donate their water to China, just as those who live along the Mekong are proud to see this once river turning into a mudflat all for the betterment of China. And no doubt those farseeing Chinese have already factored in how much of their landmass will become uninhabitable from their wise, wise decision not to let climate change get in the way of their profit margins.

You know Hugh, the shame of it is that sometimes you have interesting things to say. I only realized that recently because I make it a habit to scroll past the things you post because you have such a sour, petty, pointless negativity toward anyone who presumes to have information or a perspective that varies from your rigidly held biases. If you could just make your points and then leave other people enough breathing room to make theirs, you could be a delightful addition to the conversation. Chill out and have a beer maybe.

The EU was a constitutional project, but its proponents were always reluctant to engage with hostile national publics or adapt their design to enable democracies. An idealism of sorts insisted on a nominal EU Parliament in Strasbourg, but its members are never allowed to do anything. And, national governments are limited by the Courts and the Euro. The European Courts have assumed a judicial supremacy that is hard to find anywhere in the constitutive treaties. And, the Euro!

Krugman in questioning the wisdom of the Euro is not endorsing Wynne Godley and the accessible insights of MMT, no he is invoking the high esoterica of “optimal currency areas”, an impenetrable doctrine that, if it does anything endorses constraint of government fiscal capacity. At this point, when a neoliberal like Krugman is wringing his hands, he is not offering any kind of viable solution, any path out of the destruction of Greece or the slow-motion grinding down of Italy.

The Euro is problematic not because of its use across many countries, but because its design deprived national governments of fiscal sovereignty and the Euro itself has no fiscal agency to create a hedge instrument of “zero-risk” bonds or to spend Euros into existence as needed. That creates, as in Italy, a deflationary cycle that depresses activity and exacerbates risk in the banking system.

Years ago on Crooked Timber I was asked directly by another commenter, what a real, non-neoliberal fix might look like. We were all feeling the weight of the practical impossibility of the kind of pie-in-the-sky solution being pressed in vague outline by people like Krugman: a centralized “spender” on the EU federal level. My answer was simple and direct: let national governments manipulate their harmonized VAT to impose what in effect would be modest tariffs on intra-EU trade and to use the funds flow to finance Euro bonds. A chronic-deficit country like Greece could right the balance of their terms of trade with Germany. The smooth flow of goods would continue but with a thumb on the scale of the balance of trade that would mitigate the financial problems caused.

Of course, such a fiscal regime would empower democratically controlled national governments to act to solve economic problems and chart a strategic course. It would arguably change fundamentally the nature of the EU as an anti-democratic neoliberal project.

I am not touting that particular idea. I am just using it as an example of what a non-neoliberal “solution” might look like, if one could make it into the public discourse.

The EU could be restructured from a debtors’ prison and its democratic deficit remedied if European leaders could accept that the optimal democracy area might be quite small. Create a structure that decentralized and let Scotland, Catalonia and Bavaria lead the way.

I’ve got news for you Hugh. You’re not as smart as you think you are. China emits far less carbons per capita than the US and also serves as 30% of the world’s manufacturing. Most importantly their population will drop to about 700 million by 2100.

Hugh’s position, taken logically, also argue that the US should not emit more total carbon than Canada or Luxembourg, since population doesn’t matter and each country is only judged on its bulk emissions. I believe Plague Species is another one here who regularly argues upon those lines. I supposed if they actually walked their talk and emitted Luxembourg carbon footprint divided by US population, they might be something other than just nasty, racist trolls using ostensible green arguments to keep the global South from developing and while handwaving the US’s active sabotage of useful curbing of carbon emissions. Of course, they would have to be stationary trees to manage that, because the US military, by itself, emits more carbon than most countries, so one would have to be a carbon sink just to make up for the US carbon expenditures on the military and infrastructure maintenance.

In addition to demographics and the fact that the US exports its carbon emissions through outsourcing, China is also coming towards the end of its major building boom and made official announcement to that effect. They’ve built enough roads, rail, subways, and residential blocks to more or less serve its population. So I suspect there will be tapering of carbon emissions from domestic consumption too. Even wealthy Chinese urbanites (and Europeans) typically don’t pollutes nearly as much as North Americans, since they have smaller homes and have good public transit for both short and long distance travel and they eat a lot less meat/dairy per capital. Their major carbon footprint contribution comes from international travel and imported foods, and Covid is actually doing a lot to curb that.

Mahbubani is asking a sensible question, but he spent his career working for Singapore, which is on the opposite extreme of the spectrum as the EU project. Singapore has singular clarity of purpose. Bruce’s excellent points highlight that the EU has multitudes of contradictions and is burdened with a framework that cannot tackle those contradictions.

Singapore is intentionally and mindfully authoritarian. Singapore is dominated by one ethnicity and one family. Singapore knows it must act nimbly amongst its larger neighbors to survive. Singapore has no prehistory before Stamford Raffles and knows no history before Lee Kuan Yew. Sunday May yet fail for all kinds of reasons, but probably not because it has too much history and culture.

The EU cannot do what seems natural and reasonable to objective outsiders, because of the cussedness of large groupings of human beings with different histories and interests.

Excellent retort, Hugh.

Of course Hugh you failed to respond to Astrid’s logically correct invocation of per capita pollution. You also neglect to account for off shored pollution. This doesn’t make China into saints but it certainly represents a reasonable starting point for discussion. Of course we would like to see massive emissions cuts globally but isn’t it reasonable that every person share equally in the burden. When Americans reduce their per capita footprint to that of the Chinese accounting as well for the off shored pollution then you might be right in criticizing the Chinese for any recalcitrance shown. But my guess is that they will have already started reducing long before we get anywhere near sharing person to person the pain. Astrid made perfectly clear the absurdity of your do called logic. I bet you would argue that the American senate with two senators from each state is a fairer distribution of power then is the House of Representatives.

But what is anyone supposed to do about China’s carbon pollution? Tariffs? Well that is possible I suppose.

And then there is the problem that almost any state that would do something are themselves bad faith actors as seen at Cop26. I mean maybe somewhere like Denmark isn’t, but they are bit players. So we either have bad faith actors or bit players in the cast that might “do something” pretty much.

China is complex because in so many ways it’s so innovative, so advanced. Almost all it’s cities run on electric busses. Is the U.S. even capable of that. Laughable. An authoritarian state can beat a fake democracy anytime. But even with all that the carbon output can still be too high.

So Hugh am I right that you think the us senate is a fairer distribution of power?

Hvd, you aren’t right about much of anything. You are rather an example of the noise that accompanies discussion of so many modern problems. You aren’t interested in climate change. You are only interested in China getting any blame for its being by far the biggest carbon emitter on the planet. All you’ve got is look over there distraction. China produces far more CO2 than anyone else. So let’s look at per capita. Is it particularly relevant to climate change actually happening? No, but it does change the subject. Oh wait, that didn’t shut down the China criticism? Well, let’s not look at how much carbon China is and will put in the atmosphere. Let’s change the subject again and talk about it in historical terms. You will do anything to Not look at the problem here and now, because you can’t do that without making China the centerpiece of it.

As I said, this is the affliction of our age. Trump, the anti-vaxxers, the China is wonderful crowd, it is not about solving problems. It is about avoiding blame for them. It is about lying as the natural response to any inconvenient question or stubborn fact. It isn’t just where we are. It is where too many want and feel entitled to be.

Hugh: ‘The Europeans learned so much from that tragic experience and got so clear on their interests that they repeated it on an even bigger scale twenty years later. ‘

Historically, a better way to understand it is that WWI and WWII were the same war, with the combatants suffering so much attrition and destruction in the first phase that they had to take twenty years off to rebuild and recoup before they could go at it again.

“they might be something other than just nasty, racist trolls”

Do they have mirrors where you’re from, Astrid?

Hugh so once again you childishly resort to name calling rather than addressing your conspicuous logical fallacy. Why is it that you believe that the senate represents a fairer distribution of power than does the house? Well actually I know that you don’t believe that just as I know that you recognize the logical fallacy of your argument re: china. What I can’t figure out is why you keep blustering and calling names rather than actually engaging the argument. Not that our discussion here will actually do a damn thing about climate change but don’t you think the Chinese would be more amenable to reducing their carbon output if we actually acted on the fact that they haven’t yet caught up to the carbon load we are responsible for and if we actually made a dent in the carbon load each of our citizens adds as compared to each of theirs. Or is equity not a word you are familiar with?

Back on topic, and as if on cue —

‘Belarus threatens to cut gas deliveries to EU if sanctioned over border crisis’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/11/belarus-threatens-to-cut-gas-deliveries-to-eu-if-sanctioned-over-border-crisis

‘Alexander Lukashenko has threatened to cut deliveries of gas to Europe via a major pipeline as the Belarusian leader promised to retaliate against any new EU sanctions imposed in response to the crisis at the Poland-Belarus border.

‘Backed by the Kremlin, Lukashenko has struck a defiant note after inciting a migrant crisis at the border, where thousands of people, mainly from Middle Eastern countries, are camped out as temperatures plunge below freezing.

‘Meanwhile thousands marched through the streets of Warsaw to mark Poland’s Independence Day, including far-right groups calling for the government to prevent migrants from entering the country illegally. The city government had banned the march but those orders were overturned by the national government, which is dominated by the conservative Law and Justice party.’

If the EU wants to prevent several hundred thousand immigrants arriving through Belarus, the EU is going to have to authorise Poland to build a Big Beautiful Wall. And the EU is going to have to pay for it.