The EU: Too Big Not To Fail

The EU emerged as an ambitious, yet modest, enterprise in 1957. Just six nations -- Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands -- signed the Treaty of Rome and created the Common Market. In 1973, Denmark, Ireland and the U.K. joined, bringing the number to a still-manageable nine. Greece was admitted in 1981, Spain and Portugal five years later -- an even dozen. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden were brought in, yet to this day, the official blue flag of the EU has just 12 stars. As the new century dawned and the euro became an established currency, an expansionist urge took hold. Ten more countries were admitted in 2004, two more in 2007, and the last one -- Croatia, just three years ago -- brought the membership to a whopping 28. Not only are the numbers staggering, but the 13 new members -- from Eastern Europe and the Baltic states -- are completely out of sync with the other fifteen: economically, politically, historically and culturally. At best, there should have been a two-track system, allowing the new states to integrate gradually. Instead, a kind of Affirmative Action mentality prevailed regarding the newcomers, resulting in the hiring of hundreds more interpreters and translators, and the daily production of reams of documents to cover all 24 languages. Presently, there are 50,000 people working in the various EU headquarters and agencies in Brussels and Strasbourg, earning huge salaries and enjoying lavish fringe benefits. A few years ago, I met Daniel Cohn-Bendit (known as Dany the Red during the student uprisings of May 1968, and a frequent delegate to the European Parliament). I asked him if he didn't think the EU had expanded too fast, admitting too many members who were so dissimilar. "Oh, no", he exclaimed. "The more the merrier!" Rather, the more the messier. Unanimity is required on every resolution, so progress is slow, often impossible. Moreover, issues range from the grandiose to the trifling, from agricultural subsidies to the labeling of olive oil. In all of this, there are no consultations or referendums among the citizens themselves, so their complaint that the EU is "undemocratic" is not so far wrong. Britain's Brexit vote has, understandably, sent a shock wave through Europe. The divorce, even if rapid, will be painful. At best, it will encourage a complete reassessment of the EU -- its purpose, its problems, its modification or reconstruction. At worst, it will provoke a wave of disillusion and rancor that will play into the hands of nationalistic movements. And the U.K., above all, will not be spared the disruption. It will have to deal with a divided nation: England and Wales in favor of leaving the EU, Scotland and Northern Ireland wishing to stay. It will have to forge much closer ties with the Commonwealth nations to make up for the loss of Europe. Already, the British pound has lost value and the future of London's financial center, the City, is in doubt. Ironically, two of the politicians who spearheaded the Brexit vote have announced their retirement from politics: Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. "Après nous, le déluge" they are saying, as they wash their hands of the affair. It is a shame that Britain's royal family, which was known to favor EU membership, could not have spoken out before the fatal vote was taken. Of course, they are denied political intervention, yet one must hope now that "God Save the Queen" will become "God Save Britain".