Debating the European Union

May 6, 2023 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty 

(Editor's Note:  Dan is a prolific writer, and I love much of what Dan publishes, but he ends this commentary saying: It’s good to favor globalization, but that does not imply support for global governance.  I posted this comment:  If you favor globalization it means favoring global governance, since that’s the intent behind globalization. Here’s reality. If you play straight with cheaters, you lose, whether it involves economics or politics. If countries aren’t playing straight, then don’t play. Because if you do, they get bigger, richer and more dangerous, and the straight shooters get poorer, smaller and defenseless.  Nixon and Kissinger opening China to the world is the perfect example. After Mao’s Cultural Revolution China’s economy, and the Chinese Communist Party was heading for the ash heap of history. Nixon prevented that and now we’re seeing the consequences. RK)

Most Americans pay little or no attention to the European Union and its various bureaucratic and political arms in Brussels. 

But that’s unwise. What happens in Europe can have an impact on policy in the United States.

For instance, I have been very critical of the European Union because the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels push for dirigiste policies such as tax harmonization and climate protectionism.

And I was a huge fan of Brexit (the United Kingdom voting to leave the E.U.).

On the other hand, I have tepidly written that E.U. membership may make sense for nations from Eastern Europe.

It seems like I can’t make up my mind, but my views are simple and (I like to think) very rational.

• If E.U. membership will push a nation in the right direction, I’m for it.
• If E.U. membership will push a nation is the wrong direction, I’m against it.

Given my interest in Europe and the European Union, I was understandably interested when I saw that Reason published a pro-con article on the topic.

Dan Hannan, a former member of the European Parliament from the U.K., argues that the E.U. was a mistake.

Unlike NAFTA or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the EEC was not a free trade area but a customs union, controlling all commerce on behalf of its members and artificially redirecting trade away from the rest of the world. …it was a club of nations rather than a superstate. …That changed when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 1993. …it stopped being the EEC and became the European Union. …A big polity can prosper, but only if it behaves like a confederation of statelets. The supreme exemplar is the U.S., the only large nation that gets anywhere near the top of those GDP rankings… I’m not wild about the direction the U.S. has been taking… But the U.S. is starting from a much better place. It was designed according to Jeffersonian principles. Power was dispersed, decentralized, and democratized. The E.U., by contrast, was designed to weld nations into a supranational bloc. …Where the Declaration of Independence promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, its European equivalent, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, entitles people to “strike action,” “affordable housing,” and “free healthcare.”

Dalibor Rohac of the American Enterprise has a more optimistic assessment.

The Brussels machinery is bureaucratic and largely insulated from accountability. When it comes to new markets and new technologies, European institutions regulate first and ask questions later. The E.U. controls a sizable budget, part of it wasteful—including generous agricultural subsidies and transfer programs… Yet the E.U.’s existence is infinitely preferable to its absence. …The relevant comparison is between the E.U. and the politically plausible alternatives. Those alternatives almost certainly involve protectionism, heavy-handed industrial policy and planning, or state aid to politically connected companies… If it weren’t for the pressure of the European Commission in the late 1980s, it is fanciful to think that Italy or France would have just given up state ownership of utilities, banks, or their industrial giants. …Conversely, the United Kingdom has not become a free market paradise after leaving the European Union. Quite the opposite. …the E.U.’s “single market” is far from perfect. …it often goes hand in hand with harmonized European rules rather than with simple mutual recognition of national standards. …Has the E.U. lived up fully to the ideals of Hayekian international federalism? Of course not. But it is blindingly obvious that it has performed better than the relevant alternatives.

What’s my two cents.

I’m on Dan Hannan’s side and I think he made good points, but I would have made different arguments. My main concerns with the E.U. is that it is not only a protectionist club, but it also is far too supportive of harmonization, centralization, and bureaucratization.

Simply stated, the culture in Brussels is dirigiste and “public choice” tells us that it will get worse over time.

Dalibor Rohac made good points, to be sure, and he is right that the E.U. has been a net plus on some issues. And he’s also right that some nations might be further to the left if the E.U. didn’t exist.

But, on net, I think it leads to more statism rather than more markets.

P.S. Here’s a description of why “mutual recognition” is a good framework for international economic relations.

P.P.S. It’s good to favor globalization, but that does not imply support for global governance.

P.P.P.S. Rohac is right that the U.K. has not prospered in the post-Brexit years, but leaving the E.U. was a way of creating the opportunity for a better approach. The fact that British politicians have been increasing fiscal burdens simply means that the U.K is not taking advantage of the opportunity.

A New Calculus Is Being Tested on the Race for London’s Mayor

Our Brexit Diarist Reports Has His Eye on New Party Founded by Nigel Farage 

By Stephen MacLean, Special to the Sun | April 26, 2021  

As the date of local elections looms in the United Kingdom, we may be witnessing a remarkable new political calculus that is testing the waters in the race for mayor for London. Might Conservative-minded Britons, repulsed by the Conservative Government, be willing to support other parties that support their values and value their support?

One such is Reform UK, founded by the hero of Brexit, Nigel Farage, and now led by his lieutenant, Richard Tice. Reform is the latest iteration of the Brexit Party (itself an outgrowth of the UK Independence Party), now engaged in political reform at Westminster. Its objective is greater political accountability. Among its aims are an elected House of Lords and MP recall. Some of its aspirations, like a popular peerage, may need a rethink, but keeping politicians’ feet to the fire is a good thing.

Another promising entry on the right is the Reclaim Party, led by actor-turned-activist Lawrence Fox. Americans will know him as “Detective Sergeant Hathaway” from the PBS-series, “Lewis.” Himself a target of “cancel culture” for his outspoken views on freedom of speech, Mr. Fox founded Reclaim on the issue of the right to speak one’s views, free from coercion and intimidation. He is running as a candidate in London’s mayoral election on May 6..............To Read More.....

My Take - Understanding British politics is painful, kind of like stabbing yourself all over with a spoon.  I've never really understood it, and I think it's because England doesn't have an American style Constitution as does America to use as a touchstone.  Their "Constitution", is described in this way:

Though not codified, the UK's constitution is written in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, court cases, and in documented conventions. Its essential principles are Parliamentary sovereignty, the rule of law, democracy and internationalism.

Britain, and many of it's former colonies, use something called the Westminster system, which seems to me to have been created to accommodate all the different countries that made up Great Britain.  Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc., weren't like America's states. 

That, along with their Parliamentary system, and while officially there are only two parties, they seem to be made up of multiple factions.  It can get really complicated for Americans.  

The Israeli's have a parliamentary system and the last time I looked there were 13 political parties, maybe more now, and government coalitions have to be created to form a government.  Some of those parties have diametrically opposing views, yet share power.  

It boggles my mind how anything gets done. 

 

 

Can Nigel Farage Reform the Tories After Brexit?

By STEPHEN MacLEAN, Special to the Sun | January 11, 2021 

No one will accuse Nigel Farage of letting the grass grow under his feet. Now that the United Kingdom is free from subservience to the European Union, a fact of independence largely due to Mr. Farage, the leader of the Brexit movement is taking the next step in bringing freedom to the British people: Reform UK.

The new force in politics is built upon the structure of the Brexit Party, itself formed in January 2019 to press for UK independence “from within” the European Parliament in Brussels. Mr. Farage was jubilant at hearing that the Electoral Commission approved the name change.

“This is great news and the perfect time in the New Year,” he said. “The need for Reform is greater than ever as we try to recover from Covid. We have a huge opportunity as a nation post Brexit, but there are many areas of the UK that need real, bold reform: our economy, House of Lords, BBC, civil service, the voting system to mention a few.”...........To Read More.....