In the last few years, quite a few people have come »out of the closet » to say that the European Union is not sustainable as an organisation.
They are right.
Why? Not because of the concept of Europe which is stronger then ever with massive breakthrough in both the fields of transportation (think the massive rise of low-cost flights all over Europe) and communication, but because the European Union have become the opposite of the same concept of freedom. I do actually think that Ryanair and Easy Jet had done more to European peace then any statist organisation in the last decade.
Again, for me being an Euroseptic does not being a nationalist at all. As a fact, at a personal level, I speak fluently three European languages and I can read a few other European languages.
I do believe the opposite of euroscepticism based on nationalism, as the European Union in its current form had become a super nation-state all but in name. And as opposite to the argument of some socialists, the European Union is the antithesis of classical liberalism and free markets, especially based on what it had become in the last 20 years.
This is not the UE of your parents or grand-parents anymore.
A super-state which loves being a nanny for all Europeans in the name of the »common good », a institution which is becoming less and less transparent and had leaded to a creation of new levels of entitlements both for those working for the European Union, then those working because of it.
Economically, institutions of the European Union had played with fire more then once by thinking in the short run for the next five years.
Why are the people at the European Central Bank, made a currency union with a massive amount of countries, without realizing then each country have different social policies?
Is this fair in any way to see that some regions of Germany are being the spine for a whole currency? This is crazy as a policy and instead by bringing freedom and prosperity, it only brings jingoism and borderline racism.
Was this fair that a country like Greece was accepted in the Eurozone even if it did not respected the main criteria for entering the Eurozone as a vacation destination? No, and all the technocrats who supported this decision should be taken into account.
One thing is sure for Europeans, free trade was a great success and a positive step through more freedom. Even countries were are more Eurospectic in nature (such as the UK) had a strong belief in European free trade as a key to prosperity. I would like the day when more and more countries will believe that unilateral free trade (as radical as this idea may sound at first glance) will lead to prosperity for all as a win-win situation and a less intrusive government for everyone.
More then everything else in foreign affairs, free trade is the most substaniable of policies and countries having good trade relations tend to build peace.
Protectionism is an arbitrary, incoherent and coercitive kind of policy which only favours cronyism.
However, does the same concept of free trade means having a big, interventionnist state doing laws for lobbyists which makes the tax code looks like a gossip magazine in term of pages? Thousands of pages for a EU policy on cabbage? This is non-sense.
Also, in some areas, the European Union had made things worse. For example the agricultural sector in many countries in Europe is so subsidised with laws made by the EU, that it’s nationalized all but in the name. We’re talking a lot about international development, but could the best thing to help less developed countries is to scrap protectionism especially in agriculture?
To conclude this part, I am strongly for Europe and I believe that Europe is stronger then ever as a concept.
However, I don’t see how the European Union in it’s current form have any substainable future.
The way the game is played right now at the UE, this only brings more jingoism and low-brow nationalism.
And the creation of the Euro as a currency had opened a Pandora box which people knew where it started but this without knowing where it could lead us.
One thing is sure, any problem in Europe will have great consequences all over the world especially in this day and age.
The problem was not with free trade or more free borders, but another »too big to fail » statist program which was the Euro.
Since a few weeks and months, some people based in the UK have written about a possible merger between the Conservative Party and the UKIP considering that the UKIP is close to 10% in the polls by becoming Britain new third party.
The MEP Dan Hannan is one of them. Ironically, he was one of the first to say that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat would be a workable solution.
As an humble spectator, a merger could be feasible, but with some reservations.
Generally, in terms of party preferences, most (but not all) supporters of the UKIP are former Tories, which is quite similar to the former Reform Party in Canada which was formed by a number of ex-members of the Progressive Conservative Party. But again, not all former members of the Reform Party of Canada were former rank and file members of the PC just like that some people implicated in the UKIP are not former Tories.
Again, some will not accept the merger, just like the case of the merger between the Liberals and the SDP to form the Liberal Democrats. But remember, in the late 80’s, the new Lib Dems had a period in wilderness, for a few months they were actually in single digits at the polls.
But for the UKIP one thing must be understood.
To have a successful merger, the party should not brand itself as a parking lot for disentenched Tories or just a single issue party in the style of the »Against the European Union party ».
I know that in the last few years the UKIP had done great efforts to ditch this stereotype, but the UKIP should not fall into the trap of being an »Little Englander » party. Some people could intepret this as something quite opposed to a liberal and open-minded argument against the European Union. To summarize, the party should also involve people from all spheres in Britain, who have one thing in common, make Britain as a more free and prosperous place. Many people of various origins (who could be considered immigrants) in the UK are entrepreneurs, why not target this clientele? They are generally very open to freedom and personal initiative.
Many will find this example strange, but the UKIP should take the Green Party for example, in countries where this party is well rooted and something more then a protest vote, they need to talk of other subjects then the environment.
Even through the UKIP have a robust manifesto, the main figures in the party seems to have difficulty commutating in the media other policies of the party which makes the party looks like a quasi-protest vote party outside European elections. You tend to see a member of the UKIP in the media when it’s the question of European Union, but it’s sad that they don’t have a strong visibility for other parts of their manifesto.
So, in conclusion, a merger could be a good thing, especially as the Tories don’t not have a very large number of »naive Europhiles » in their ranks then in the 1970’s for example, but on the other hand, the UKIP should not do the easy mistake of being considered nothing else then a single issue lobby.
Many smart and articulate people (and especially a few very smart and quite articulated young women) are working for the UKIP, and I think the two parties playing together as a team could only be more benefical to have more freedom based solutions in Britain.
In politics (and I am taking both about ideas or more organized parties), without a good base of young people, you don’t go very far in time.