The Political Regression Of The European Union

Peter Hamilton Shayne Clarke English 150 The conception of United States of America was so declarative, so unique, that it may never be matched. Broken down into its individual concepts, it establishes the protection of a large nation, yet ensures the familiarity of a localized government. This interaction of state and national governments has inadvertently set the grounds for a new nation. A European Nation. One which has jokingly been coined “The United States of Europe.” The European Union has come a long way in the past few years, but how much further does it have to go for its presence to be taken seriously? How much further can it go? The European Union will never function as efficiently and effectively as the United States of America due to its history and the cultural differences. Now is a time when the balance of power in the world influences our lives daily. September 11, 2001 can be a direct response to how Al Qaeda viewed the balance of power. The fact the USA went into Iraq without the approval of the UN shows the imbalance of power and the variance in ideology due to cultural differences. Just as the UN could not properly govern its members, the EU will never be able to properly govern its members. Its most prominent members will never submit to a decision they are opposed to. There exists a level of pride and cultural conflict which has made cooperation between these countries nearly impossible. Jacque Chirac, the prime minister of France, is infamous for his “nationalism.” His insistence upon preserving the French language has resulted the support of his countrymen, and the annoyance of the rest of the world. He has been known for his insistence that French be spoken to the degree that English is. He requests translators when speaking before an English speaking or international audience, though he was educated in the United States and has no difficulty expressing himself in English. He once met privately with George W. Bush and insisted on bringing a translator. In another instance he was set to speak in a meeting with the EU. As no official translators were available, he insisted that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of

Peter Hamilton Shayne Clarke English 150 the UK, translate for him throughout the meeting. He once attended an important EU meeting, dealing with economic issues between the nations. When a fellow Frenchman began to present the situation in English, Chirac asked him why he was not speaking in French. The man responded that English was the language of the business they were doing. Chirac promptly stated it was not the language he does business in and left the meeting. This lack of cooperation in a simple issue such as language is only magnified in international agreements. If a man like Chirac won’t surrender his territory concerning the language used to communicate, how can one expect him to compromise in a situation of any importance? The rivalry between Germany and France has become so ingrained in the culture of the two that it may be a long time before they learn to cooperate with each other. In the past 150 years, the French and Germans have waged war 3 times, and each time the French lost. This prideful wound may never heal. The last thing any Frenchman would ever do is to let the Germans triumph, even in a political disagreement. To compromise would be to admit defeat, yet again. Likewise, the Dutch have held a position of social and economic independence for such a long time that the idea of compromise seems to have been forgotten. The recent attempt by the EU to ratify a European constitution was entirely defeated by the Dutch government. The lack of ability to compromise combined with the intense levels of cultural difference leaves the EU in a situation where there seems to be no obvious solution. Without an agreement on a constitution, the EU is little more than a collection of economic and political treaties, when the ultimate goal is for a unified Europe. The biggest failure of the EU has been the free movement between nations in the EU. The impoverished immigrants from eastern European countries have full right and ability to legally live in Western European Nations. Once citizenship has been attained in a participating

Peter Hamilton Shayne Clarke English 150 country, an immigrant may travel freely between nations and live wherever they please. Yet there is no universally established criteria for citizenship, which allows an immigrant to become a citizen of a country such as Poland, where citizenship laws are relatively loose, and live in a country like Belgium. Immigrants account for the majority of crime in any big city, and the free travel between countries undermines any attempt that a nation might have in controlling this issue. The recent riots in France by immigrants wrecked havoc for weeks. Joe Van Holsbeeck, a Belgian youth of age 17, was stabbed to death on April 12, 2006. His attackers where of North African descent, but had become citizens of Poland and had since moved to Belgium. Perhaps this would not have happened if the open border laws had not been in place. Due to the extensive historical prejudice, modern day politicians and other government officials seem to fear nothing worse than being branded as a racist or a prejudice. Jean-Marie Dedecker, a senator for the Belgian Liberal Party, pointed out that “you will sooner get punished for riding a bike without the lights on than for stealing a bike. [...] Policemen look the other way in order to avoid being accused of racism – because nothing is more detrimental to their career – and also to signal that they hold no prejudices. They behave in exactly the opposite way when they suspect decent citizens of some misdemeanor.” Any action taken to control this immigration is prohibited. Daniel Féret, the leader of the Belgian anti-immigrant party Front National, had been punished for his efforts to control immigration and decrease crime. He faces a potential 10 months in jail for publishing racist pamphlets. This continual fear to offend others of different nationality, coupled with the intense nationalistic pride of each country, leads to a split in the country itself. Half the country puts cooperation as its number one priority, to the point where they are willing to give up their right to control and govern themselves. Others have

Peter Hamilton Shayne Clarke English 150 no desire to cooperate. What is left is a situation with two extremes, and a middle ground viewed as an impossibility by each. So where can the European Union go now? With a joint constitution an apparent impossibility, cooperation and compromise an impossible middle ground among the extreme political views, and a universal fear of losing ones culture, a unified Europe looks to be highly unlikely. The success of the Euro as a common currency shows that it is possible to unite, but it seems that the cultural differences will make unity difficult. For the European Union to function as a “United States of Europe,” it will require more than politics and politicians can offer. It will require centuries of war, of conquest, and of prejudice to be undone. No, it is not impossible, but it is neither probable nor simple. As such, the EU will never be viewed as a single unified power.