...[UK strikers], demonstrators in Paris and the recalcitrant electorate in Germany are waking up to the consequences of what two generations of European ideologues have thrust upon them: the burden not just of their own economic problems but also the obligation to accept the consequences of their neighbours' debts and failures. Each country is true to its own history in the way it expresses its rage: in France, they take to the streets and throw things at the police, in Germany they threaten the stability of the coalition government, and here, we revive the tradition of wildcat strikes.
The Commissars and Gauleiters of Brussels respond to workers threatened with foreign EU scabs with "accusations of foolhardy protectionism or racist nationalism" while the US is being urged by Obama to "buy American" while Janet says "I eagerly await the condemnation of his proposal for US economic isolationism from all those European leaders who were so anxious to see him elected." It all boils down to the death of democracy by a thousand cuts from Brussels' faceless functionaries while Janet explains how such a grand plan could come into being. Was it a fit of absent-mindedness on the part of European leaders when they signed up to give away sovereignty and autonomy?
In the grand abstract terms of the enlightenment, the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed, and therefore no government should have the right to hand over its authority to some external body which is not democratically accountable to its own people. So when the framers of the EU arranged for the nations of Europe to do exactly that, they were repudiating the two centuries old political struggle for the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens, of government "of the people, by the people and for the people". It has always been my view that this was a quite conscious decision by the EU founders who, in the wake of two world wars, came to believe that the infamous national crimes of the 20th century could be traced directly to the democratic revolutions of the 18th century, and that the only long-term solution to this was to replace democracy with oligarchy. [my emph.]
So the national leaders of the member states of the EU find themselves in a devil of a quandry:
here we are, with a generation of European political leaders who almost all accept the terms in which their predecessors gave away the most important principle of that great democratic pact between a free people and its government. While times were good and there was enough prosperity to keep everybody distracted and happy, the loss went almost unnoticed except by a few persistent and despairing critics. Well, not any more. The American government may be committing itself to a policy that is economically unsound and even irresponsible, but its insistence on maintaining the compact with its own voters – on putting their concerns first – will at least ensure that democracy will survive there. I am not at all sure that will be true in Europe.
Americans will not allow their government to unseat govt "by, for and of the people" without a great struggle. For the Europeans, who are exhausted after a century and a half of internecine strife [five hundred years, to be more encompassing], may be simply willing to once again submit to the rule of bureaucratic elites, much like Austria-Hungary, Wilhelmine Germany, and Tsarist Russia before the two world wars and Cold War completely left them epuise, as the French put it.
In the meantime, I am applauding the resistance of British, French and German workers to the imposition of foreign scabs subsidized by the Brussels Politburo.
No comments :
Post a Comment