Europe: The Rushed Projects

“Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs XXIX)

People do strange things in the pursuit of visions, and when that vision looks obtainable people often try to grasp it without analysing or preparing for trouble, often to catastrophic consequences.

There have been three major projects to bring Europe together – three great and beautiful visions all implemented within the last twenty years; enlargement (political union), the Schengen zone (a borderless continent) and the Euro (monetary union). All three were possible at the time and are still possible; some consider them a natural conclusion to a long drawn out historic process. But in all three projects, the vision went ahead of the planning and the EU jumped head first, rushing them in fervent pursuit of the ideal of a unified Europe.

Hindsight is wonderful in politics; and in hindsight Italy and Greece should never have joined the Euro. Both countries failed to meet the criteria of entry, both had inexplicably high and unstable debt to GDP ratios and both had dubious accounting standards. But for the sake of the great project of European harmony and unity they were allowed in. (Out of curiosity, why is the Eurozone not suing Goldman Sachs for illegally massaging Greek finance books? Surely they are just as responsible as the Greek government).

Hindsight can also show us another now obvious truth; fiscal union must not only come with but come before monetary union. So obvious now, but the vision of a continent torn by war just sixty years earlier and divided by ideology for forty five years was too grand to let up – so the project was rushed; countries that should never have joined and failed to meet the criteria were allowed in, no provisions or risk preparation for emergencies such as the need for one country to devalue (as in Greece) was planned, no fiscal union was discussed and the accounts were not shared. The right questions were not asked in fear they would be seen as anti-European and jeopardise continental harmony.  The flawed design and rushed operation of the Euro alone did not contribute to the current state of affairs, but more planning and scrutiny could have helped the situation.

The same is true of the Schengen Zone; the vision of a Europe without borders, where citizens can go where they want without passports or border checks, the free movement of people and workers. And of course necessary if Europe is to tear down national boundaries, open up and go beyond the nation state as an entity.

But what if something happens? What if there is a flux of immigration? How does this fit in with Eastward enlargement? What if borders are needed for a short time? There were no provisions for emergency, and so when a situation came along in the form of the Arab Spring and mass migration from North Africa, a crisis arose. First it was a migration crisis, which precipitated housing and employment crises, but then became a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of North Africans flooded to Malta and Lampedusa in Italy to try and get to France; former President Sarkozy wanted to stem this flow, followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. Say what you want about immigration, but a mass influx of poor immigrants all at once in times of economic crisis strains the work market and the purse of the state.

Again, in Greece extreme measures are being taken because of the Schengen agreement. There are cells nothing short of concentration camps to stem the flow of migration from the Middle East. But again, there’s no provisions in these situations; the regional government in Flanders resorted by coming up with a humorous and somewhat controversial leaflet to Moroccan immigrants on how to behave (“Flemish people go to bed at 10PM”; “it does not rain money” and so on).

A common, borderless continent requires a common migration policy, and the realisation that the needs of one state are different to another; Eastern and Central Europe needs immigrants, Western Europe doesn’t. The vision of a Europe without borders goaded politicians to push ahead without proper planning, and the result is tragedy that betrays the values Europe was built on.

As with enlargement, the EU is over-eager to accept members and grow before countries should join, and whether countries should join at all. Between 1954 and 1991 there were only twelve members, another three joined in 1995, but then another twelve joined in 2004 (ten) and 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria); the EU's population and geography exploded in the space of twelve years, it's responsibilities suddenly built up when it was not prepared.

Cyprus should not have joined in 2004; it means Turkish membership cannot be reasonably denied on geographic terms and worse the EU has put itself head first into a political crisis that has no foreseeable solution. Cyprus is a divided nation; the northern third declares independence while the rest refuse to recognise this. In 1989, Europe saw the collapse of a wall, but in Cyprus we see the building of a new wall – and the EU drove itself head first into it.  

Malta, with a population of less than half a million, probably should not have joined; it cannot benefit anything to the EU nor gain anything from it.

Bulgaria and Romania have a natural place in the EU family. But their membership in 2007 was far too early and they should have waited at least another five years. Corruption is rife, funds are misappropriated or go missing and the treatment of Roma is questionable at best. They were not ready, the EU was not ready and now the EU has to deal with problems it could have and should have avoided. The dream of a united continent and the chance to realise that dream through Eastward expansion could not be missed, so again things were rushed ahead of time.

A lot of comparisons have been made between the EU and a boat. One recommendation I would make is Fintan O’Toole’s Ship of Fools. It’s a great comparison, the EU is like a boat; it allowed people to jump onboard and sail without the proper checks and without lifeboats. Now we’ve hit a few snags that could have been prepared for.

The best way to silence the critics is to make it work; Europe can work. There can be a continent without borders, with a common currency and with the Balkan nations in the community, but for these visions to become realised there needs to be planning and Europe needs to take its time. The dream of Europe need not be a hallucination or a nightmare, as long as it is thought out.

There is one word perpetually associated with the European project; potential. Potentially, Europe can become an economic powerhouse. Potentially, Europe can turn the tide of neo-liberalism. Potentially, Europe can dominate world affairs. Potentially, a united Europe can help its citizens. ‘Potential’ will always be the word of Europe until it starts to take its time and stop rushing into things.

“A common failing of man is to never anticipate the storm when the sea is calm” – Machiavelli.