THE NEWS IN BRITAIN, where I visited in May, was dominated by
the plight of the euro, the single currency adopted by 17 European
countries. Greece has been a big problem, but it’s possible that
Spain will be worse. Recent polls suggest that most Greeks want to
stay with the euro, which makes sense. Within the eurozone, Greeks
may reasonably expect the European Central Bank to bail them out.
Spain is too large for that and looks set to cause the greater
problem.
It’s risky to comment on still unfolding events. But the uniting
of Europe has been the preeminent project of the ruling class since
the 1950s. Now it’s in serious trouble. European leaders took a big
risk by installing the euro and abolishing most national currencies
a little over a decade ago. There’s a real question whether this
grandiose, deceptive, and foolhardy project can survive. For those
who distrust elitist schemes, it’s an interesting moment.
The attempt to unite Europe has been “the biggest disaster of
the continent in my lifetime,” wrote Charles Moore, the former
editor of the Daily Telegraph and biographer of Margaret
Thatcher. So how did Europe’s vaunted leaders manage to get the
continent into such a mess?
In Britain, the European project has been supported by
television outlets, including the BBC, which is by far the most
influential news medium in the country; by newspapers, like the
Guardian and the Financial Times; and by many
other institutions. It has also been supported, for obscure
reasons, by Britain’s feckless Prime Minister and Tory Party
leader, David Cameron. His government won’t do anything without the
approval of its coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats. They, in
turn, practically define the conventional wisdom on everything from
Europe to global warming. They seem to be quietly running the show
in Westminster.
European unity has been opposed by the Daily Telegraph
and Daily Mail, and by a substantial majority—perhaps
two-thirds—of the British people. But apart from a 1975 vote on
staying in the Common Market, no referendum has been allowed.
Britain has retained its currency, the pound sterling, so it’s not
directly affected by the euro crisis. But if there’s a sustained
bank run—capital has already fled Greece and Spain for safer
countries—everyone will be hit.
The European Union has been a liberal project, using the word
“liberal” in the American sense of something that intellectuals who
are not explicitly conservative are likely to support. Despite the
radicalism inherent in abolishing national currencies, the euro is
still portrayed as something that only extremists would oppose.
Decidedly undemocratic, the European authorities recently forced
unelected leaders upon Italy and Greece, and, as Charles Moore
wrote, “entire states, such as Ireland, are mortgaged to European
control in order to save banks.” Nearly half the youth of southern
Europe are unemployed. In elections all over the continent, voters
have thrown out incumbents—this being one of their few options
remaining. A happy exception was Boris Johnson, the mayor of
London, who recently won reelection in a close race. Conservatives
are hoping that he will eventually become prime minister.
The ultimate aim of “Europe,” although long concealed, has been
to merge the respective countries, despite their different
languages, traditions, and customs, into a United States of Europe.
Then it would be able to compete with the USA. Size was assumed to
be the prerequisite for such a challenge.
What started as a Common Market became the European Economic
Community, with Brussels as its notional “capital,” filled with
inaccessible eurocrats armed with supervisory authority and
rewarded with tax-free salaries. The Treaty on European Union was
signed in 1992.
The author and commentator Christopher Booker has referred to
the European Union as the “Castle of Lies,” and his book The
Great Deception is well worth studying. He reports that Mrs.
Thatcher herself was deceived as to the European project’s true
goal: the abolition of nation states. As late as 1989, she said in
the House of Commons that “economic and monetary union would in
effect require political union. That is not on the agenda now, or
for the foreseeable future.”
But local currencies were abolished anyway. Independent nations
were still unwilling to be merged (abolished). But as the political
commentator Peter Oborne wrote recently, the overriding purpose of
the single currency was political. The eurozone ringleaders were
determined to use the euro to promote political union, to push the
separate countries into a reluctant embrace. And that has been its
undoing.
A single currency is like a chain that ties runners together,
forcing them to move at the same speed. The fastest has been
Germany, and the dawdlers, such as Greece, Spain, and Portugal,
have tumbled or soon will, and must either be saved or cast loose.
Separate currencies with flexible exchange rates would be a more
workable arrangement (as Milton Friedman argued a decade ago).
But today’s remedies all aim to preserve the euro. The new
French president, François Hollande, has called for more “growth,”
less austerity. But growth will require more government spending,
which means more borrowing at the high interest rates now
prevailing for the “slow” countries. The rate Spain must pay
investors to buy its bonds is over five percentage points higher
than that of comparable bonds issued by Germany.
A call for eurobonds, which would allow improvident nations to
tap into the low interest rates yielded by German savings, has been
wisely rejected by Angela Merkel. “The French and Italians want
eurobonds precisely to put Germany on the hook for their future
spending,” a Wall Street Journal editorial noted.
The die-hard supporters of the euro have but one recommendation:
more of the same. Nations must move quickly to surrender more
sovereignty to Brussels. But the vast majority of people still
don’t understand what “Europe” is all about. They think of their
governments as being based in London, Paris, Madrid, or
Berlin—certainly not Brussels. And they will keep on thinking that
for a long time.