Les insaisissables fondements de l’unité européenne

May 15, 2014 Ian Buruma

NEW YORK – D’après les derniers sondages d’opinion, les grands vainqueurs des élections parlementaires européennes de ce mois-ci ne seront autres que ces partis populistes de droite qui partagent une haine commune de l’Union européenne, en premier lieu desquels le Front national français, le Parti néerlandais pour la liberté, ou encore le Parti pour l’indépendance du Royaume-Uni. Bien qu’il soit peu probable que cette droite eurosceptique remporte une majorité de sièges, sa force collective porte bel et bien un coup à la cause de l’unité européenne. Comment expliquer qu’un projet né de si grands espoirs au lendemain de la Seconde guerre mondiale se heurte aujourd’hui à une telle résistance ?

Le succès des idées populistes de droite en Europe découle non seulement d’un malaise vis-à-vis de l’UE, mais également d’une vague de ressentiment à l’encontre d’élites libérales ou de gauche accusées d’être à la source de nombreux aspects anxiogènes : immigration, pression sur les économies, extrémisme islamique, et bien entendu prétendue domination de l’ « eurocratie » de Bruxelles. De même que les partisans du Tea Party aux États-Unis, un certain nombre d’Européens affirment avoir le sentiment que leur pays ne leur appartient plus désormais.

Les populations sont confrontées à une sorte d’impuissance politique, au sein d’un monde semble-t-il de plus en plus contrôlé par de grandes entreprises et bureaucraties internationales sans visage. C’est ainsi que le populisme trouve écho en laissant penser que la situation serait bien plus favorable si chaque pays pouvait prendre à nouveau le contrôle de son propre destin.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

Celt Darnell Aug 14, 2014

I'll take national sovereignty thanks.

Hume was an empiricist; Locke was not.

Hume wins.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Giorgi Kankava May 23, 2014

Is it so clear what is a person's "enlightened self-interest"? If Locke presented it to us, the problem with which the paper is concerned would haven been resolved in the past--it would not be a problem at all; "love of French wine, German opera, and English and Italian literature" is a good thing, yet it cannot exhaust it, indeed. however one would claim that nationalism is out-dated and just "populism," the fact remains that it has got the one into troubles so far. The paper is a good example of this kind of things. Actually, it is a flaw of nationalism studies in the end. What is nationalism? How personal "self-interest" is connected with it, if ever, and if yes, how this echos at a political level? Politically, we have known nations and their nation-states. Imagine now that the connection is positive. Then how you could establish a European state without establishing a European nationality at once? Is it thinkable given the current state of affairs, though? The problem is that neither on the right nor on the left there is no clear understanding of why it matters at all--only sentiments on the one hand and explanations incapable of leading to consensus with the former, on the other. It seems that until the answer is absent the trouble with establishing a realistic or reliable European integration project will endure. Knowledge is power-no?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 18, 2014

Mr. Buruma, Bill Clinton said in his 1992 presidential campaign: "It's the economy, stupid"! And this may as well be "the trouble with Europe"!
More than half a century ago, it was the disastrous aftermath of World War II which underlay the imperative to forge stronger ties among nations in Europe to guard against any such devastation recurring. French statesmen Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman were the architects of the principle that the best way to bring nations closer together was by developing economic ties.
Today it's the economy again, that might spoil this spirit. In times of economic downturn, citizens in each country believe they should look out for themselves. As nationalism is on the rise, so are resentments towards the EU policies, especially in economic issues. A tug of war between nationalism and European federalism is unfolding ahead of the election.
Pundits predict that "the big winners in the European Parliament election later this month will be right-wing populist parties that share a common loathing of the European Union". True, yet although they share the same anathema, they don't always have the same agenda and they try to outdo each other.
Recently an open warfare has broken out between two of Europe's leading Eurosceptics. Marine Le Pen, leader of France's National Front (FN), has accused Nigel Farage, head of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) of labelling her party "racist". Farage had rejected ties with the FN for its "anti-Semitism and general prejudice".
Le Pen belittled the UKIP, saying its members were "a bunch of drunks and racists", a phrase used by David Cameron and insisted Farage were no better. She blamed it on an old rivalry "between France and England", as both couldn't agree on who should be the top dog after the election. Indeed recent polls have showed that Eurosceptic groups are posing a threat to established parties. UKIP and FN are said to come top in their own countries. Likewise Italy's Five Star Movement and other far-right fringe parties elsewhere.
But the Le Pen-Farage row also highlights the difficulties that Eurosceptics may have in forming a cohesive bloc in the European Parliament. UKIP has rejected ties with parties with far-right reputations, like the FN and Geert Wilders' Dutch Freedom Party (PVV). Yet in turn, others like Germany's Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) distances itself from UKIP, saying its views are too extreme.
Paradoxically FN seems to garner support in France among immigrants, who might vote for this party. Le Pen's rhetoric is based on using policies of the left - like protectionism - to wrest sympathy from left-wing parties. She reckons the FN will be able to ally with the Dutch PVV as well as nationalist parties in Austria, Italy, Belgium and Sweden.
The question is whether the tensions over anti-EU policies and the traditional prejudices between national interests and pan-European populist movements would be an obstacle to any meaningful co-operation between Eurosceptic parties.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Remler May 18, 2014

Let us think the unthinkable: Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders etc are right. Let us say the thoughts the Euro elite thinks is at best proto-fascist. The indigenous peoples of of Europe like French, Dutch and other local tribes have rights that should be enforced to protect their their fragile culture and lifestyle from the depredations or transnational organizations and squatters from over crowded neighboring civilizations they find alien.
Breathes there the man with soul so dead
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
...
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonored , and unsung.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Thomas Beyer May 18, 2014

The Euro was a big mistake. Germany not only exports VWs, BMWs and Bosch equipment but also unemployment to its weaker neighbors. Italy, Spain, Greece, Ireland all need their own currency to compete effectively. This lack of adjustment of currencies coupled with a huge fourth layer of bureaucracy stifles most European nations.

Unlike China or US where everyone speaks the same language and shares similar culture , Europe is far more divergent, as shown by 12+ languages and different vastly different cultures.
- Mark Taylor May 21, 2014
  
  The Euro in itself was not the mistake, the error was in how it was implemented. Far too ambitious, far too many countries, and far too many of those countries included due to political expediency rather than economic common sense.
  The weaker European economies (i.e the PIIGS) did not have the modern, efficient industries that could compete with their more effective northern neighbours. Thus they lacked the strength in exports to maintain a stable and sustainable balance of payments. That Brussels allowed it to go on for as long as it did suggests a degree of collusion or incompetence that beggars belief.
  Though hindsight might be a wonderful thing; did none of them possess the foresight to suggest a much smaller, more workable alternative? Notably one that included, France, Germany, The UK, Benalux, and possibly Denmark. Six to seven first rate, first world economies with a combined population of around 250 million people. The economics would have been sound, but the politics would have made it an impossibility.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Hofman May 18, 2014

The Euro skeptics are no threat to Europe. What they will do is lay a basis for the emergence of an Opposition in Parliament, which up to now is still completely missing. What they will also do is bring the fears, opinions of the common people to the foreground,which so far are completely ignored, thereby strengthening the democratic process.
Furthermore, the skeptics in their current form cannot persist. Aside from the obvious contradiction of putting MEPs in place who's stated objective is to dismantle the very structure they are elected to, they also show their contempt by being absent from the proceedings while accepting the very generous remunerations. This obvious contradiction will be their undoing.
The rise of the populists is obviously based on the dissatisfaction of the people with the various policies and solutions that are forced upon them, so It is not the integration process that is in danger but the ruling elite's sole domination of the political process, their ideas and ideals, and the ignorance of the common people's wants and needs. For Europe to properly develop it must put the founding ideals to the side and start working with the population's situation on the ground.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MK Anon May 16, 2014

What unifies Europe? Well, we could start with something called "democracy". Basic rules are that every country can put a veto on any law or change.
So let's look for example at the most prominent case: the european constitution. It was rejected by two referendum, and however, 99% of its content was enacted. How democratic is that? And now, there are no more referendums

Democracy should also let poeple call referendum. In many countries, more than half thepopulation is against the TTIP.. but they will do their best to impose it anyway. What about the new regulation that allows worker to be on country A for social security, but work on country B? The ultimate goal is to make countries in competition, not cooperation. Was there a referendum for that? What about the "bokenstein" law? Was there a referendum? What about a REAL financial regulation that would definitely get rid of speculation or high frequency trading? Don't you think that 99% of the population would stand behind such policy ??

Now in brussels, there are 700 MPs and more than 4000 registered lobbiest, most of them from big corp. Draghi himself is a former goldman sachs director

I just have one thing to say: it is totally outrageous to have to vote for far-right extremesit parties in order to get "democracy" !! No traditional party stands for democracy anymore. And I mean what I say: there is no democracy anymore.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Wallace May 16, 2014

The broader trend behind today's populism is the close of the window of prosperity opened by the industrial revolution. While the Black Plague made labor scarce, and later developments made skilled labor positions possible, those higher incomes are disappearing as we return to an age of concentrated capital and over-abundant, and therefore exploited, labor.

Increasingly, it appears that the rise of plural economic society was a bubble of its own, resulting from a specific mix of labor supply, demand and technology. Mass employment of skilled and semi-skilled labor is now a thing of the past in the West, with the surviving industrial core unable to generate sufficient employment.

The welfare state was an answer by the elites to the threats of socialism and communism. With those vanquished, there is no disguising the myriad attempts on both sides of the Atlantic to privatize and/or eliminate social protections. In a chilling return to the past, even heretofore progressive voices are beginning to advocate the end of the minimum wage as the best way to increase employment.

All the while, the achievements of the cash-flow enabled are taunted as examples of individual initiative in isolation from society, as if those with wealth had invented all the cultural and physical infrastructure key to their achievements. It is their financial well-being that is and has been totally protected from loss or erosion.

These folks place a pea on top of a pyramid and call it a monumental achievement. Rather disgusting, actually.

The neo-liberal economic revolution is beginning to be perceived for what it is, a cold doctrine of protection for capital and of aggression toward labor.

I am reminded of the cynical conservative support in Germany for the Nazi party as a way to head off more liberal movements. That such a move should prove inevitably wrong and disastrous for all is something that ought to be kept in mind by those now financing the Tea Party and its European equivalents.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Val Samonis May 16, 2014

The EU is a Crooked Pisa Tower that needs to be rebuilt from fundamentals or we will have a catastrophe, a repetition of the European history!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann May 16, 2014

Our main problem is that we still try to solve everything from top down.
The whole European Dream was lost because the founding leaders only cared about markets, finances and profit, ignoring the diverse, many times chaotic nature of the continent the author is describing.
Economists like Thomas Pikketty try to offer solutions using economics, this article is offering either political solutions or some kind of a social contract.
But nobody is thinking why would people accept anything, why would people want to change, when they lost trust, they turn back to extremist ideologies and are prepared to vote for separation?
Before we want solutions, before we want to ask people's opinion (provided the public still matters) those people need information, need a chance to understand where they are, what conditions they are facing and they need a truly free choice to make a decision.
We are at very fragile crossroads, we do not have many chances to get the next steps right, if we make the wrong turn we could run off the cliff, triggering one of the many destructive scenarios surrounding humanity today.
In a global, mutual manner, open free and transparent for everybody, we all have to start a discussion, information exchange about the global, integral system we evolved into, with all of its consequences and principles.
We have to help people to start sensing, tasting what it means to be interconnected and interdependent so they could devise systems to make it work optimally.
We all have to discuss and understand without bias and lobbying what it means to exist in a natural system that cannot be exploited in order to fuel a totally artificial and unsustainable economic and financial model.
Finally we have to start building from the ground up, in full awareness of our external and internal conditions, being ready to fundamentally change everything we built or believed in before.
There is no more time or chance for instinctive reactions, or "kicking the can" or "burying the head in the sand" policies.
We are in an unprecedented state nobody has experience for, we do not have the tools or methods.
But if we try understanding this new evolutionary state and work out a solution for it mutually together, we will succeed and elevate ourselves onto a previously impossible and "not even dreamed of" level of life.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/ZdPd8JMfr

Cookies and Privacy

Les insaisissables fondements de l’unité européenne

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Les insaisissables fondements de l’unité européenne

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification