Churchill and the EU
Timothy Garton Ash says that Europe needs a new Churchill to add “dynamism” to the moribund EU:
The European Union is still the world’s largest economy. It has enormous resources of hard and soft power, at present much bigger than those of the emerging great powers. But the trend is against it, and it punches far below its weight. If it still wants to shape the world in the interests of its citizens then it must close the gap between its potential and its actual power. It’s not doing so. Why?…
Instead, we have a set of new rationales for the project. They include global challenges such as climate change and the globalised financial system, which increasingly impact directly on the lives of our citizens, and the emerging great powers of a multipolar world. In a world of giants, it helps to be a giant yourself…For standard of living and quality of life, most Europeans have never had it so good. They don’t realise how radically things need to change in order that things may remain the same.
It would take a new Winston Churchill to explain this to all Europeans, in the poetry of “blood, sweat and tears”.
Ash seems to think that Churchill acted mainly as a cheerleader, and that Europe’s present deficiency is primarily a lack of pep talks. Churchill did, of course, function somewhat that way, in remarkably eloquent prose and delivery. But what gave him his extraordinary gravitas, conviction, and force was not just messaging or communication skills—it was the principles and beliefs behind his message. After all, he was much the same eloquent genius back in the 30s when he was warning Europe of the Nazi menace and no one was listening (in fact they were laughing at him). And after the war, the British wasted no time in throwing him out.
If you’re asking what Churchill would do right now about the EU, my guess is that he’d say “disband it, it’ll never work.” Only he’d say it much more gracefully (and/or bluntly) than that.
We can’t know, of course. But the British welfare state and the EU are the result of trends that began with the immediate postwar repudiation of Churchill, not as war leader but as economic leader.
Ash thinks the later EU drive was fueled by memories of the devastation of WWII and a desire to combat Communism, as well as to rehabilitate and integrate Germany. No doubt he’s correct as far as that goes, but it doesn’t go far enough. The forces that led to the EU included a leftist economic system and the desire to get away from the pesky troubles of nationalism, and it is my firm opinion that neither impulse would be one Churchill would get behind.
One of the comments to Ash’s article notes that Europe doesn’t need a new Churchill, it needs a new Thatcher. But perhaps it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other—either would probably give the same message, and it wouldn’t be one Europe would like. If Churchill or Thatcher miraculously returned to speak in full-throated voice, would Europe be interested in listening? That’s the real question.
[NOTE: I realize that Thatcher is still alive, so technically she could speak on the issue. But unfortunately, like her friend and colleague Reagan did before her at the end of his life, she now suffers from dementia.]
Churchill was no Thatcher and Thatcher no Churchill. He alone was able to give Great Britain the backbone to fight alone when all seemed lost. When Churchill became prime minister after the war (the second time) he did not take any steps to undo the labor policies of the prior government. I think he may even have agreed with many of them. His focus was on world events and not on how much money was to be allocated to national health care. Thatcher was a dynamo from the lower middle class who broke through the very class conscious Tory party to preach individual initiative and lead the country to economic gain. She was not afraid to take on the unions. She even helped support Reagan (no time to go wobbly).
We need a Thatcher. What a woman!!
On more reflection neither Churchill or Thatcher would do the job. Europe needs a voluble Dr. Spock. What they need, and soon, is a heck lot more Europeans. The populations of the nations of Europe are declining very rapidly and only the large influx of mostly muslim immigrants is keeping their moribund economies alive. As Mark Steyn points out in his book America Alone, there will too soon be too few to pay the costs of maintaining the European welfare state. The debacle in Greece is only the tip of the iceberg but a dire warning of what is to come.
Steve G: I certainly didn’t mean to imply that Churchill and Thatcher were peas in a pod. But I do think they both, at this point, would be against what’s happening with the EU and the economy of Britain. Thatcher was more interested in financial matters, to be sure, and more conservative in that respect. But I still believe Churchill would also be aghast at what’s happening now (not during the 50s, but now), and would be taking steps to reverse it.
I can’t be sure, of course.
I don’t think the Europeans would listen. Among many other factors, they have internalized the intellectual/ artist message that their ideas are superior, be they diplomacy and pacifism or environmentalism or human rights and equality.
I even think anti-Americanism plays a role. They don’t know who they are and resent any country that does, unless, of course, the others are third world countries that need their enlighted benevolence. As Occam’s mentioned the other day, they have a hard time achieving a middle way.
His own words declare where Churchill stood on the matter, then and now:
“Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.
We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” Winston Churchill
While not a Churchill or even a Thatcher, Britain has its voice of reason regarding the EU and the circumstances that confront Europe; Gerald Warner.
“The EU is as doomed as its currency — let’s get out from under this collapsing monstrosity”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100040178/the-eu-is-as-doomed-as-its-currency-lets-get-out-from-under-this-collapsing-monstrosity/
No, it isn’t. North America is. If we’re going to start comparing regions instead of nations, let’s do so consistently. Implicitly calling the EU a country doesn’t make it one, anymore than calling a dog’s tail a leg makes it one.
Are there perhaps two European Unions? And I’m only aware of one of them?
Bottom line: the EU is done. It’s been an abject failure across the board, diplomatically, militarily (Bosnia), culturally, and now economically. My guess: the EU will unravel within the next 18 months, with the operational definition of “unraveling” being losing one or member states, and may even implode, with “imploding” operationally defined as losing Germany.
seems few remember the architects of the EU and the quotes from 20 years before it was done.
Twenty Years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU is a Reincarnation of the Former Soviet Union
english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-11-2009/110289-berlin_wall-0
and
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4157
and
and of course the liberals in the US want changes that all add up to copying the soviet constitution
As a matter of fact, there are so many similarities between the old Soviet Union and the EU that mere coincidence is unlikely. Bukovsky argues the EU was designed to be like the old USSR. The architects of the EU? Mostly social democrats, whom Stalin quite aptly called “Social Fascists.”
Most Europeans have not yet understood this. Most are still indifferent, but their indifference will soon vanish when the full weight of repressive EU policies and EU taxation doing its destructive work will be felt.
Sooner than anybody now thinks, the only way to vent criticism of the EU will be in the form of jokes. No doubt many of the characteristic old Soviet jokes will be dusted off and given an anti-European Commission twist.
By that time, all Europeans except for the privileged class of “eurocrats” will be prisoners in the EU. However, they will certainly have a wonderful Constitution.
by the way, like mitrokhen bukovsky carried out lots of soviet documents from AFTER the fall
bukovsky-archives.net
today, no one seems to care about the history that is repeating…
Claire Berlinski wrote a book Menace in Europe in which the last chapter was entitled To hell with Europe. She found it to be a self-indulgent cloister of anti-Americanism and antisemitism (excuse me anti-Zionism). And she noted as Mark Steyn did, the population is no longer reproducing. Unlike Steyn she considers this a good thing as it will get rid of the moral vomitorium called Europe. In short the EU will have a happy ending.
I hope we Americans can still visit whatever is left over in order to see statues of naked people so we can claim to be cultured. That way Europe will serve a useful purpose.
In 1991 I asked my friend, an economist, what are the prospects of privatization. He answered: “It is easy to privatize assets and profits, since everybody wants to have them. What is a real chalenge is how to privitize debt and losses, since nobody wants to own any bit of them”. Nobody wants now to have Greek bonds, but many big banks have them and now seek ways to get rid of them without depriciating them even more.
EU looks now alike Communist bloc in 1989: hopelessly in debt, with stagnant economy and incapable to reform itself.
Sergey were you describing the communist block of 1989 or contemporary California. I know the big difference is that one hated socialism.
Yep, and it’s not the one with the sunshine.
I don’t see europeans or American liberals ready to listen anytime soon. Their whole existence seems to rely on their political views being right.
Sometimes I’m amazed just how crazy everything has become. The people I know live in a dream world. They have no concern whatsoever about economic collapse, war with Iran, terrorism, etc.
But what if they are right? What if I’m the crazy person thinking that everything is going to collapse?
I’ve led a charmed life. So is there some kind of science-fictiony rule that says that there must be “balance in the universe” (i.e. Flash Forward, Fringe), and that I’m doomed to end my life trying to catch pigeons in the park?
Me too. People will look you right in the face and spout the most errant nonsense imaginable, as if its validity is self-evident. We need to adopt the policies that made Detroit great? You betcha. The only problem is that reality bats last.
Geert Wilders!
Even Churchill was not able to convince British people that the war is inevitable untill Dunkirk catastrophe. Wishfull thinking will last untill something undeniably terrible will actually happen.
TGA article is full of contradictions. It in itself demonstrates how ideology trumps common sense even in well informed and smart people. In one phrase he writes about EU leaders that they “are rearranging chairs at Titanic deck lecturing world about ocean navigation” and in next paragraph looks for better ways to rearrange these chairs.
Bob from Virginia:
I think you’re basically right, although I would not describe that as a “happy ending”.
If the Europeans are not willing to fight for their lands and produce a new generation willing to do the same, they will move aside for people who are willing. (They will not be given a choice in the matter.) And the most likely candidates for such a takeover are those who name their sons Mohammed.
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist a reference to yesterday’s “everybody draw Mohammed” day.)
Will we see a Muslim France, a Muslim Belgium, a Muslim Greece, in our lifetimes? Mark Steyn thinks we will, and he makes a convincing argument.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I just watched a recent movie about Winnie, during and after the war. Starring Brendan Gleeson who did an excellent job, and Janet McTeer as his liberal long suffering wife.
At the end of the movie, the movies explicitly portrays Winnie lamenting that the British people have had it, with the wartime Winnie, and were choosing a “NEW” way of British life (THE WELFARE STATE). I couldn’t believe my ears. They even called it “The Welfare State”. He was a prophet.
Prescient.
And Winnie was a strong critic of the communist and socialist state. Any wonder WHY one of Obamba’s first acts as president was to pack up the bust of Anti Commie Winnie, man of honor, true strength, and virtue, and sent it back with a slap in the face to the British people.
I’ll bet there’s a replacement bust of Mao sitting up there in it’s place, to go with his “holiday” tree Commie herooe bulbs.
Yeah, when the Greek citizenry is rioting because people are threatening to take away things they can’t afford to pay for, it says a lot about the overall attitude in all too much of the EU.
The EU is going to collapse. The key question is, what will take its place?
Eurabia? Or The Next Reich?
The next fifty years will be… interesting… in the apocryphal Chinese sense of the word.
Jim Kearney NYC, that is a keen observation about the Churchill bust. It would fit the psychological pattern of Obama the Marxist, anti-democracy, weakling. The type of person who would hate Churchill for his greatness achieved by representing everything Obama detests, with being a great writer to boot. A greatness Obama wants but knows at some level, he is merely an empty fraud.
In one phrase he writes about EU leaders that they “are rearranging chairs at Titanic deck lecturing world about ocean navigation” and in next paragraph looks for better ways to rearrange these chairs.
this is a human thing that amazes me, and even here.
where you explain the history of something that completely changes the ideas that are being discussed from a basis of fantasy (common fantasy, but fantasy), and right after they concede and go wow… they are back to the races on the same path.
i dont get as frustrated now, but if you read me here earlier, when tere were more stubborn mentalities who would not change a position because doing so would A) mean they lost the debate B) would mean that the fantasy they are clinging to is just that.
when i see things like this, i imagine few academics having an auto breakdown in snake country.
while waiting for another car… they notice a snake, and they start a debate as to whether its a coral snake, or its less toxic mimic.
both decide that for some point of academic self referencing information, that it must not be the poison one.
as they do this, the driver looks and says, watch out for that coral snake…
to which one of them picks it up, and says its not a coral snake, and then gets bit.
driving down the road is their savior… another academic in a woody… water and feul go around, and as the driver fixes their car..
the two academics start to discuss… is that REALLY a coral snake, or did he happen to have a heart attack right at the moment he picked it up.
and they are back off to the races.
of course the driver who knows and has common sense is ignored, the dead are ignored, the whole of it is ignored.
they are having too much fun listening to their arguments and talk resonate in their heads and htey just dont have time for such trivial people.
good thing that they decided to pick it up and bring it to their friend the herpetiologist back at berkley.
memorial services were held later that week.
I believe that this is called a “displacement activity.”
How many desks get meticulously cleared off and tidied up in the runup to April 15th?
i dont know… i have a cluttered mind and a cluttered desk…
if a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind
what is a clean empty desk the sign of?
I am not all that knowledgeable about history & economics and I invite those who are to weigh in, but it’s my impression that Churchill was a less than successful Chancellor of the Exchequer. By questioning whether we’d want him overseeing the economy, I do not mean to disparage his indispensable historic greatness.
My impression is that Churchill was brilliant: brilliantly right and brilliantly wrong and, perhaps, sometimes insistent on displaying brilliance in situations better suited to stodgy competence.
Maggie Thatcher is just the man they need over there. Or perhaps Ludwig Erhard, who presided over the rapid reconstruction of West Germany after WW2.
I dont speak on many websites which come across but MY SPOUSE AND I felt I couldn’t pass by the opportunity with that one. Nice post. I can only wonder should really be writing in the future.