"We must build a kind of United States of Europe (emphasis added). In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing."
The above quotation is from Winston Churchill's famous European Union speech, made in Zurich on the 19th of September 1946. It was not his first statement on European union. He had written as early as 1930 on the subject. But that immediate post WWII speech concerned his belief that France and the defeated German nation needed to lead and partner together so as to create a community of European countries to rebuild in the aftermath of war. His purpose was primarily to avoid further wars in Europe. In this proposed union of nations, he did not include his own United Kingdom. The speech was made the year prior to the announcement of the United States Marshall Plan for economic relief, which was designed to rebuild a war ravaged Western Europe. Churchill and others had an eye to the future and hoped to avoid the consequences that flowed from Versailles after the First World War. They also had an appreciation of the history of conflict over centuries on the continent.
Churchill began his Zurich speech as follows:
I wish to speak to you to-day about the tragedy of Europe, this noble Continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth enjoying a temperate and equable climate, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of the Christian faith and Christian ethics.
And included: What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety, and in freedom.
And: Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day.
Winston Spencer Churchill is a hero of mine. Has been. I've read much of his histories and other writings. And I greatly appreciate his comment - something on the order that he wasn't worried about what history would have to say about him since - "I will write the history", or some such.
Now I wonder what Ole Winnie would be thinking, or saying, today.
I think he might admit error in Christian judgment.
The French and the citizens of The Netherlands have just rejected a proposed constitution for a united Europe. Other nations, 25 now in all, are in many multifaceted stages of acceptance, rejection, or postponement of consideration of that same constitution. The principal protagonists as well as partners, as well as clearly the most powerful members of the present European Union, France and Germany, have leaders in Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder, who appear to have lost their citizens' support.
So what happened on the way to a United States of Europe, kind of?
A small start at controlling the coal and steel industries in 1951. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with six members - France, West Germany, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands was followed in 1957 with The Treaties of Rome, when the same six countries came together to do other greater and grander things.
Additional members later joined in further treaties. A European Commission, a Council of Ministers as well as the European Parliament became a part of the process. A fairly weak addition concerning the desires of the confused citizens of this group was added in 1979, when citizens (the people) of the member states were allowed to vote in direct elections for candidates to the European Parliament.
But, in hindsight to many, the elite, this seemed something of a travesty... that is, letting people vote. Clearly, something had gone wrong. And they understood.
The "they" that understood, "understood" only that the way to success in this endeavor was by treaty...why should the people vote?
And they continue to believe that way.
In 1992 with The Treaty of Maastricht they again decided. And the European Union was formed. The "community" became the "Union" and then it was agreed that here would be a common currency-called the Euro. At least it was to be common to some of them. And, too, at a point they agreed, at least part of them, on common border and visa regimes... a thing called a Schengen Visa.
And in all of this some agreed, some not. And sometimes, occasionally, these matters were put forth to the plebiscite.
And then came the constitution. Largely a work of the French (with input from the Germans? A little?) Interestingly, all in accordance with what Churchill had seemed to have want transpired.
But along the way... I wonder. Did Churchill imagine it all by treaty?
In the continuum, from beginning in the early 50s, a time for doing small steps (perhaps with large import) to the constitution, there were particular matters that could be assigned to treaty between nations and their diplomats. And there were other matters towards the end of the continuum that could only be decided by the people.
Arrogance led those who had ruled to believe like monarchists. For mostly over the years these monarchists had become fat, happy, and dumb to all but their own needs to regulate, and in so doing, to attempt to control the masses and perpetuate the need for their services and salaries.
Arrogance led these same people...in a democracy they would be the servants of the people...to want more.
These people believe they should have one voice for all the people, now the 25 nations of people, in foreign affairs.
These people believe they can create a potential reserve currency from a union that has many separate tax systems to support varying degrees of their welfare states.
These people believe in regulating trade and free trade at the same time. Their agricultural subsidies illustrate the point.
These people want a lot of things. I speak of the monarchists. And I say this understanding the meaning of the word monarchist.
These people, collectively, but still in small numbers, seek to rule as absolutists over peoples not as enlightened as they are.
Is this Winnie's kind of a United States of Europe?
Ukraine
Ukraine, a nation of people, has only recently found sovereignty after centuries as mostly a subject people.
Ukraine has an educated populace but it is poor.
The nations of the European Union are being asked to give up sovereignty. Those who gather in Brussels, given the choice, will not hesitate to deny the vote to the people. They prefer their own, the few, to decide for others their futures.
The nations of the European Union have some considerable wealth. But they are welfare states with diminishing returns on the limited capital they have remaining. Hopefully, more enlightened policies can prevent further deterioration and lead to rejuvenation of their nations' collective economies.
The wealth of Ukraine has been stolen. It has been stolen by its leaders and their cohorts. The wealth of Ukraine has a chance of being replenished...if corruption can be reduced. Ukraine has an aged population, but is not burdened by huge social costs (a travesty from its own constitutional promises, but nevertheless not a huge economic albatross as exists in many of the older member nations of the European Union).
The European Union has much to offer Ukraine, in alliance and cooperation that is. Ukraine should strive for the good things that union stands for. Ukraine should raise its standards of doing business in order to compete with and trade with the European Union as well as other countries of the world.
It is said that European Union consideration of Ukraine as a member is at least 10 years away.
Ukraine should use that 10 years to raise its standards in business and economic matters. Ukraine might do better at this mostly on its own. A significant reduction in corruption will allow Ukraine and its people to do business and attract investment from many places, not just the European Union.
Ten years is a long time.
Much can happen.
Ukrainians, having found sovereignty after low these many centuries, should not willingly subjugate to any union whether residing in Brussels or elsewhere.
Ukrainians should always be able to vote on matters that concern their individual freedoms.
Ukrainians should be careful when they delegate power to their elected leaders to enter into treaties, lest they lose their individual freedoms.
There is no "kind of" United States.
And when it comes to "shelf life", Ukrainians should consider investing in themselves and their nation rather than "kind ofs".
|
