In 1806, Napoleon Bonaparte stated that “peace between European nations would have become easier [if] the United States of Europe [were] a possibility.” Many times in the past, men have considered the possibility of a united Europe that would create unity between the various nations.
Now, over 200 years later, we are seeing its effects, and national leaders are still in constant conflict with one another, just as they were at the times of Napoleon. But they have put away their warhorses, and the weapon of choice is now a whole lot of finger wagging. What the technocrats who brought about the European Union as we know it today failed to do, though, was learn from the lessons of the French emperor: for Europe to be united, it requires a strong leader. To do it through war, as history has shown, is difficult; to do it through diplomacy, as we are now seeing, has proven just as challenging. But it’s not impossible.
When the crisis in the Eurozone reached its nadir last year, some economists asked themselves why, never bringing cultural differences into the discussion. But that is exactly the reason why the EU is struggling: it is trying to pretend every country is like Germany, fiscally, and politically, when the truth is they are not.
Countries like Italy and Greece have never been fiscally sound, so when they were brought into the Eurozone, who expected them to suddenly become fiscal hawks and tackle all their problems for the sake of the union? It made no sense to expect change overnight, or change at all. To say that Italy and Greece are worse at managing their economies is not racial or supposed to ‘rank’ nations, it is a simple historical fact. For a union to have a single currency, it must also have a single monetary policy throughout.
But Brussels — the headquarters of the EU — apparently got the memo last year, and demanded tough fiscal change in both Italy and Greece. The problem was, these countries’ leaders — already facing internal pressure — had no intention of implementing such unpopular measures. What happened was unprecedented. The leaders of Italy and Greece both agreed to step down, but with one caveat: they would do so as soon as the economic measures imposed by Brussels were passed by their parliaments. Both measures passed, both leaders stepped down, and their successors were both hand-picked by Brussels.
The EU headquarters had not only succeeded in implementing the fiscal change they wanted, but they also replaced two state leaders who were hostile to their demands with two men who would have their ear more easily. It’s fascinating since the current fiscal policy and the leaders of both Italy and Greece were not elected or chosen by their people, yet no one has come out with chants of trampled democracies.
Maybe, if the implementation of Brussels-mandated economic reforms is successful, future decisions made by the EU headquarters can carry more strength and impact, and more power can, in the future, go to a central government. It sets a precedent, and shows that, for all its differences, a European federation with a single central government may not be met with as much resistance as some have previously thought.
Napoleon would be proud.
