This is a brief true history of the current “EU”, and the names of idealists worth remembering

Why you need to know the pre-EU history?

To understand the present in EU terms, you must learn and understand about the past. If you do not, then you come into this sub-Continent’s game halfway, and you cannot really know what others’ intentions were and are.

Many are coming late into this game, this drama of the European Union ‘project’ with

• a view that this ‘project’ somehow differs from political others and is not natural
• a horrible feeling of unease that ‘something is now badly wrong’
• that as after world War 1 and World War II, something with overtones of the totalitarian is developing before our eyes.
• and that this is an entity riven with uncontrollable potential for arrogant bureaucracy, incompetence, and fraud on a huge scale.

There is a feeling that the future for Europe is now somehow adrift, and that a true future lies with ‘the coalition of the willing’, with the fully informed, who should have ‘direct democracy’, and not by today’s supine acceptance of decisions made as it were ‘in our absence’.

The core debate about ‘the European ideal’ ie a ‘United States of Europe’ has always been whether it stands for ‘inter-governmental co-operation’ and a hugely rewarding ‘ Free Trade zone’...

OR....

 the closest possible integration of the European nation-states and supra-national decision-making?

Inter-governmental means ‘by agreement, arrived at by hard bargaining, much behind the scenes’. And recent IGCs (conferences of the heads of states and advisers) have resulted in exhausting ‘after midnight’ agreements.... democratic results nothing like whiter-than-white.

We, the various electorates, of course understand that politics today is often a dirty business, ‘an unsavoury accommodation of interests’, and for the most part, satisfaction of personal egos, which have always dominated, working firmly for ‘the universal common good’ always slipping from mind.

But, to re-emphasise, the original ideals for a unified Continent were taken over by ideology. And the history of today’s “EU” did not start in 1957 (the ECSC). Since then it has been a shadowy progression into what has become, and promises to be further political, economic, legal and even cultural dictatorship. Fortunately, by now, this Year 2005, the seeds of its own destruction have sprouted and there are signs its relentless ‘progress’ is being halted. Democratic deficit and direct democracy are discussed as vociferously as the EU abuse of power, corruption, the regulatory tyranny and the penchant of civil servants in Britain to ‘gold-plate’ what needs to be kept simple.

It is now more widely known in the UK that “British fair play” is slyly laughed at, abused and taken advantage of by some EU countries (creating last-minute local barriers against British bids for business projects is a favourite). They are amazed also at the peculiar efficiency of UK civil servants, who gold-plate EU Regulations “in order to be ahead of the game” ie anticipate further regulatory developments.

The old ideal for a peaceful Europa

The initial, heart-felt, true-emotion “Ideal” was among idealists working for a peaceful Europa. No more Wars on the Continent. And co-operation promising increasing prosperity among Europe’s nation-states.

The ideal started before and after 1918 and attained its highest visibility and influence during the Nineteen Twenties, even into the start of the Nineteen Thirties.

But the ideals were hijacked. Great and natural and honourable concepts among many, aimed at dissolving “a thousand years of strife”, were overtaken by horrendous European-and-World events, and eventually hijacked by a few, whose attention never wavered from the smaller, “a United Europe”.

But there was no scene-of-crime. It all evolved, progressed move by move, step by step. And from that hijacking, by several political players who genuinely deeply felt their secretive views were for the best, today’s “EU” has arisen.

It is an artificial construct, arrived at by stealth and hidden agenda. Electorates were not consulted. There was, in the period 1918 to the late 1920’s, a lot of doubt among the more prescient cognoscenti that “the nation-states and their leaders could ever work together”.

There was the negative belief that those who led, those in political power, could work for a great common cause only fitfully; there could never be unanimity; some would always want the safety of the veto; human nature was so fallible – political power was the Devil’s forks on which the powerful, the natural leaders, were speared.

From 1957 to the last few years, there has always been a hidden agenda. Now it is out in the open – the ultimate aim is supra-national authority and integration of “Europe’s states” – whether they be the original Six, or 27 (soon to be) or even more!

The Great Dream has long dissolved and its replacement is a humdrum, bureaucratic technocracy. Corruption follows, a large percentage of the political would-be’s end up in the pigswill.

Based on a website biography

Take Great Britain, in many ways today a highly confused Society, materially prosperous but needing a new vision of itself.

But in 1975 most Britons who voted FOR continuing in the European project (66 per cent) believed they were voting to become a member of “a Free Trade” area.

Political integration, and supra-national decision-making, were seen by very few as secret and ultimate threats to our democratic way of life.

We the people of Britain were “conned” in 1975. Without realising it into, we voted half-heartedly to allow our political representatives to in effect surrender our history and power of sovereign self-government, to a new style, secret-intent, supra-national government then emerging.

UKIP says that the British voted for the Common Market “in good faith”. We were told it was going to be a genuine association of independent freely trading national-states. Instead it was a leap forward for the hidden embryo “EU”. “It dictates policies we would never vote for in an Election!”

One factor often commented on was that considerable funds were available to finance a stronger persuasive campaign for the “For” vote than the predominantly emotional and amateurish “fair play”campaign for the “No” vote.

We should beware – for the same situation is arising in 2005 in Britain. The “For” lobby again has access – unfairly - to more money than the “No” vote.

The Blair government says it will not take such advantage. To throw back at them the subject of one of their recent (February 2005) General election advertisements: Pigs might fly!

The centuries-old British sense of “fair play” and “to participate, in the game, is all that is asked” is no longer of importance. Politics is even more immoral than it ever was – such is the world today. Blair, Brown, Bush, Chirac, Schroeder have no smell of British “fair play” nor has our subdued servile civil servants. Howard has, but he is powerless.

With Britain ‘sown up’ in 1975, joining France and Germany and other less powerful Nations, it was the real ‘beginning of the end’ of a slow motion coup d’etat that began in 1918, some say 1914.

Britain ‘joining’ (we could have joined much earlier, but were not allowed to by Continental influences) was the foundation-block of that rise into the light of that coup d’etat.

It had been intellectually and ideologically designed and practically-implemented, secretly, from 1918 to 1957.

1950-53 saw the rise of the ECSC – European Coal and Steel Community, the first with a “supra-national High Authority”.

One authority arising over Coal and Steel industries, and the emergence of a pseudo Common Market were two seemingly innocent sign-posts.

The League of Nations arose and by 1946 fell, with a nondescript record; and the United Nations arose in 1945 and .... well, you judge its effectiveness since then to today?

************

Back to the start, after World War 1

The Great Ideal, after World War 1, grew in popularity. It was imagined and written about voluminously. “Never let War arise again between Nations on this Continent”. The hopes of millions were pinned on The League of Nations (it flourished, then was swept aside by events and foundered in the Nineteen Forties).

From 1918, the ideal arose – One Europe. Many made significant contributions to the great ideal... Louis Loucheur, Giovanni Agnelli, Count Kalergi, Gustav Streseman, Aristide Briand, Karl Tupolsky, Joseph Retinger and others explored and passionately promoted “Europa”, “pan-Europa” and some form of “United States”. Sometimes in the centre, other times on the fringes were two great men, a thinker and civil servant, and a businessman, diplomat and arch-facilitator, Arthur Salter and Jean Monnet.

Arthur Salter

The goodwill for inter-governmental agreements reach its peak by the early 1920’s, and Loucheur’s vision by that time, for a Europe with integrated Coal and Steel industries, was complemented by Mayrisch’s International Steel Agreement. This created Europe’s first supra-national authority, a major voluntary step forward. Loucheur also went further, in 1927, proposing a ‘Common Market’ for Europe, based on a Customs Union. And today, sadly, we are to understand that “the EU” started in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome.

Even Winston Churchill thought it was all a good thing, in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Churchill believed in the need for a United Europe but because of the British Empire did not see that we in Britain needed to be integrated into such a movement. Truly, the world turned. The Empire vanished, the Commonwealth is not a pretty thing.

De Gaulle, always striving to protect France’s best and longer-term interests above all - nothing has changed! - reportedly said in 1963: “The British simply do not fit in with the Continental way of looking at the world. England is .... maritime, linked to most distant countries through her trade, markets and supply lines... in all her doings she displays very marked and original habits and traditions. England’s nature, structures her very situation differs profoundly from those of Continental countries.”

Eurosceptics could not put it better.

-------------------

Back in the Nineteen Twenties, the dream of a united Europe was an intellectual and heartfelt concept striving to find practical reality. The achievement would, naturally, be based on political democracy (integration and supra-nationalism were mere words).

The dream was the subject of large Conferences for more than a decade. But two men and their closest colleagues, played their organisational parts in these discussions and Conferences – but had no confidence that political democracy would achieve goals of a united Europe.

Arthur Salter and Jean Monnet were prominent as senior executives in The League of Nations. And they had access to all leading players in the rise of the ideal of a united Europe.

And they came to share a hard-nosed viewpoint that politically and socially, Europe could be a united Europe, united only if nation-states gave up their authority over their own peoples and their national sovereignty, whatever form it took.... with these views, democracy however soft and vulnerable it historically had proven to be took a nose-dive into one of Plato’s other forms of “government”.

Salter, an Englishman, believed completely that only a dedicated Secretariat of civil servants, whose allegiance was to the body of any proposed organisation for unity and not their individual nation-states.

Monnet, a Frenchman, also believed that the sovereign loyalties and thinking of individuals leading the nation-states could never be put aside. Patriotic sentiments, national independence and self-government would always remain paramount. Salter thought through and wrote about what was organisationally essential and Monnet developed his concepts of integration and supra-national leadership.

Yet both these camps, inter-governmental co-operation and power-centralisation, were halted in their progression. Firstly, by the economic climate which resulted in the huge Depression, affecting America and Europe, resulting in social dislocation, poverty and misery for millions.

Then by Hitler’s national socialism, dynamic and dogmatic and dangerous, which started its rise to dominance in Germany during the Nineteen Twenties.

Hitler and Nazism arose, held sway and power for a decade and were vanquished. Millions died, millions lived in misery. History points sadly to innumerable tragedies where ideas become ideology and powerful men impose themselves, work openly to persuade others - or secretly - to achieve their ‘dream’ of what is ‘right’.

And cause havoc among millions who have modest goals and often exist just to live.

-------------------

Salter and Monnet’s ideology came to strength after World War II.

• Commendably, that the Continent should be united and never again sink degradingly into a Continental-wide war, which would entail misery for millions, was always present.
• That the Continent, as they saw it then, could have peace AND prosperity only by the achievement of firstly economic integration and supra-national decision-making, then total political leadership via the same route.

Monnet recognised this decades before 1957, when he headed the new European Coal and Steel Community.

During his League of Nations career, he was bitterly against the veto, seeing it as the prime defence of national egoism. After World War II he implemented his success by stealth, using what became know as gearing or engrenage... conceed the principle, obtain small steps forward, then let the central institution increase its powers of ‘competence’ or unmovable authority.

In the age between his early realisation and his marvellous achievement in raising the ECSC, there were many other leading players, before and after 1957.

Right or wrong, as European politicians in their evaluations, they included (in no order or preference or deficit) de Gaulle, Paul-Henri Spaak, Konrad Adenauer, Robert Schuman, Kohl, Schroeder, d’Estaing, Chirac, Heath, Thatcher, Major and of course Blair.

Monnet died in 1979 as his goals were well on the way to realisation (Salter died in 1975, the Baron Salter).

Monnet was a man of considerable achievement, and gave his (worldly) life to a path started by “How May We Stop Another War?” Salter was one of life’s great achievers, his intellect seemingly ruled, and his vision was of among the greats of the many tempestuous decades.

Unfortunately ......

Today, many millions in the electorates see the “EU” as an artificial construct, another 20th century aberration.

Historians and UKIP see it as “one of the largest confidence tricks in political history.

-----------------

Democracy in any form encompasses (as Shakespeare would have it) unperfect actors and, he would surely have added, imperfect politics: its manager/actors may well believe intellectually and passionately that “they know”, they also can believe that “no further discussion is needed” – and that is when the wheel of human life turns and democracy disappears for a while.

Nearly 100 countries today have access to some form of democracy. Uneven, imperfect democracy, to be sure. For some there is a history of steps forward, steps back. From the time of Plato, true democracy has been a dream. It was not complete democracy in his society. Today the ideal of true democracy would allow populaces to meaningfully and effectively contribute, when an overwhelming percentage of them obviously want to do so (public demonstrations, media reportage, institution papers ands reports and so on).

It has never been the intention of the power-players that the EU should enjoy democracy.

So for many millions of those may want the EU to continue and become successful, there is a question: can meaningful reforms take place?

It is not a subject eurosceptics ( and maybe euro-realists) can seriously consider. Reform of the EU? Vested national interests, they say, make it impossible for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy to move even a step forward. Fraud has not been stopped. The British fishing industry – the only large island with seas all around - has been devastated by arbitrary Commission decisions and sheep-like MEPs’ approval; Spain, among its benefits of EU membership, now has a far more flourishing fishing industry.

So it is that question (considerable Reform?) and the answer perceived, that makes Withdrawal a possibility, hopefully a probability – when the British people find their voice.