
Is Europe Disintegrating? - themgt
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/is-europe-disintegrating/
======
muninn_
You can't have short-term, mass migration without having something happen or
change. We will see a huge change in European political landscape within the
next few years. People have to slowly assimilate into a culture in order to
allow for a gradual, peaceful change in that culture. Shocking these types of
systems with any sort of migration is a recipient for instability.

Please keep in mind that this isn't any sort of stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric,
just a geopolitical observation. I think if you look at the United States
you'll see a model of Muslim integration.

~~~
kuschku
> You can't have short-term, mass migration

Well, luckily, we don’t have that, eh?

In the 90s and 2000s, Western Europe took over a million refugees from the
balkans – by 2005, all of them were deported back.

There was no wave of nationalism back then, no political change.

Even today, in Germany, most are in favor of the current refugee policy.

I don’t see why any of what you said has to happen. It hasn’t happened the
last time this happened either.

~~~
muninn_
Why were they deported? Is that the same situation as now? Will Germany deport
these new refugees back as well? Or are they hear to stay?

~~~
akjainaj
1\. Refugees are not citizens. They are to be deported when the "risky
situation" in their zones of origin ends.

2\. Balkan refugees were not problematic and were fully identified. The
opposite is the case of current refugees from the Middle East. That's why
these problems are arising now.

------
mpweiher
No.

Pro EU sentiment increased markedly in pretty much all of Europe post-
Brexit[1], and hopefully national politicians will stop playing the silly "do
bad/unpopular things and then blame them on the EU"-game.

This game was thought to be without cost, now it is clear that it is not, and
the ones who played it most extensively are paying the biggest price.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-
causes-...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/brexit-causes-
resurgence-in-pro-eu-leanings-across-continent)

~~~
yellow_viper
Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit. But it's still very high, and will
likely continue to rise once Brexit is settled. It's clear

>and hopefully national politicians will stop

They won't.

~~~
mpweiher
> Yes anti-EU rhetoric went down post-Brexit.

Nope, anti-EU _rhetoric_ went up. It just wasn't effective as pro-EU
_sentiment_ in the population rose (from mostly already high baselines).

------
alphonsegaston
Europe is learning the same thing that the United States did in its early
days: it's impossible for a union of disparate states to survive without
strong, overarching federal authority. It's as unpalatable to member states
now as it was to the original colonies, but the alternative is to be subsumed
by some outside, more centrally organized power. The Russians understand this,
which is why they work to encourage nationalism among EU members. Once the
infighting has weakened everyone, they can swoop into the vacuum and become
this central authority.

~~~
dogma1138
The problem is that the EU was founded on the principle of never superseding
national sovereignty or identity.

~~~
alphonsegaston
The US was founded on similar principles with regard to its states and had to
revise its entire political system just thirteen years into its existence.
When faced with various existential threats throughout its history, the US has
always renegotiated these terms towards more centralized federal power. Europe
faces a similar challenge now, and will either peacefully arrive at more
centralized political authority, or dissolve and watch its former members be
subsequently swallowed up by some larger outside power.

~~~
dogma1138
You have 2 nuclear powers in Europe, and a few other countries that host nukes
under the NATO nuclear arms sharing treaty which gives them discretionary
access to said arsenal.

You have NATO and even without a centralized government the European Economic
Area and the European Free Trade Association which together form one of the
largest economies in the world.

Europe would do just fine if it decides to scale back on the pan-European EU
government faculties and just go back to it's let's make trade, not war roots.

And lastly there isn't a single outside power wanting or being capable of
swallowing Europe, Russia doesn't have plans to expand westward beyond it's
immediate strategic needs (mainly a warm water port), it only cares about
security and mobility as well for the EU not to overstep and have NATO on
Russia's borders or try to circumvent Russia's economy by taking control of
the caspian and near east oil and gas routes.

Trade prevent war, the benefits of a central government beyond that are fairly
limited, the Federal government didn't stop the US civil war from happening it
might have initiated it, but the US had their civil war and came out stronger,
and Europe had it's own share of not so civil wars and also came out stronger
in the end.

Currently there about zero chance of war happening in Europe between European
powers, whilst there is a lot of Euro-skepticism the worst that may come out
of it is bye bye to the European Parliament and a few other institutions. The
EEA would still be there, the Council of Europe would still be there and
everyone would go their merry way.

~~~
alphonsegaston
Well, I hope for all our sakes that a historically expansionist, authoritarian
regime exercises as much restraint as you ascribe to them. I'm personally more
skeptical. In an era where the US seems to be rapidly cozying up to Russia,
denigrating NATO, and withdrawing public support for former allies, things are
impossible until they are not.

------
DrNuke
European Union is not working because too many different economies are in the
eurozone. I was a fervent Pro-EU, now realising a federation of independent
countries might work better than a superstate.

~~~
bostand
EU in its simplest form is harmonization of rules and a bigger market for you
to sell your goods. That part works _exceptionally_ well. I don't see a single
reason where that could be a negative in a mid to long term.

The euro zone, which tries to connect some very different economies is not
working that great but EU countries can decide to stay out of that part.

~~~
kristianc
The problem is that it's exceptionally difficult to have 1/ that functions
well without 2/

The Euro was designed as a bulwark against currency speculators and people
trying to arbitrage between imbalances in the different European economies.

~~~
bostand
Not difficult at all, many EU countries have decided to stay outside the euro
zone. They are doing just fine.

~~~
walterstucco
not many, of the original EU founders only Sweden hasn't adopted euro.

The other 6 out of 25 that are not using the euro are all ex communist
countries. and other two (Monte negro and Kosovo) adopted euro without being
part of EU.

~~~
blibble
what? Sweden joined in 1995.

Denmark and the UK are examples of other EU states that were not communist
that do not use the Euro

~~~
walterstucco
UK has never been EU. Sweden was among the founder states when Euro was born,
not the original states forming EEC in 1957. Denmark is in ERM-II and its
Krone has a EU controlled exchange rate against euro. It is possible to be
outside euro, but not advisable, the main market for the east non-euro
countries is the EU zone, if euro falls down, their fragile economies will
follow.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> UK has never been EU.

What? I'm trying to find any context where that statement makes sense, and I
can't do so.

UK has never used the Euro, but that's not what "EU" means.

------
MarcusBrutus
It most definitely is and it takes a very starry eyed sort of person to expect
otherwise. The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages,
religions, mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow
achieve monetary or much less political union under the rule of an un-elected
and un-accountable bureaucracy of "commissioners" who rule by means of
"directives" (you couldn't make it sound more soviet-y even if you tried) was
beyond ludicrous from day 1. A modest trade union with some freedom of
movement for qualified workers was achievable and maybe in the end it will
settle to just that. In fact I think the soviety approach to building the
whole thing ensured its demise. Diverse people can collaborate productively
and profitably under win-win free market arrangements. But in the EU system
there's too many zero-sum games being constantly played and decided on a
purely political level (rather than by market forces) and that creates a lot
of bad blood pretty quickly. The reluctance of Germans to bail out southern
Europeans is just an instance of that.

~~~
kuschku
> un-elected and un-accountable bureaucracy

So tell me, what is this?
[http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/zhVYPwN.jpg)

And what is this?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhafgcPeXes)

Or is it maybe actually elected, actually held accountable?

> The idea that 20 or so different people with different languages, religions,
> mores, histories, frames of reference, economies could somehow achieve
> monetary or much less political union

Aha, so how did the US do it? By the time it was formed, not even half of the
people spoke a common language (There was quite a large amount of German and
French immigrants in those days), it was full of groups with different
religions and traditions.

~~~
MarcusBrutus
The US did it by virtue of it being a lot more homogeneous when it was first
created. Last time I checked they didn't need any translators when they were
debating the constitution, nor is the US constitution printed in 17 official
translations like all EU documents and treaties are. Also, most people
actually came to these shores having nothing but bad memories (if not outright
contempt) for the countries they left behind and they were eager to embrace a
new identity. The new land had a dominant cultural identity and they quickly
aligned to it. Finally, the experience of the revolutionary war and a few more
major wars down the road helped with "bonding" \- to use a cute phrase. None
of above conditions hold for Europe. The French are not eager to shun their
national character and start speaking German and the last time they went to
war they fought against the Germans and the Italians, not alongside them.

Additionally, crossing the Atlantic served as a filter to select only those
people that were truly desirous of becoming Americans. Disgruntled EU voters
have the nasty habit of lingering around.

~~~
alphonsegaston
That's a quite humorously inaccurate depiction of early American unity. Under
the Articles of Confederation, the burgeoning country almost collapsed because
individual states pursued independent agendas that undermined the efficacy of
the whole. The British would have loved for this to continue so they could
sweep in and rest back control. Thankfully, the states later organized around
the more centralized, federal authority outlined in what we today call our
constitution.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Articles_of_Confederation&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#The_United_States_of_America_under_the_Articles)

------
samdoidge
Based on the following graph[1], yes. If the UK has voted to leave the with an
EU favourability rating of 44, Greece at 27 and France at 38 will not be far
behind.

[1]([http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-
br...](http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/07/euroskepticism-beyond-
brexit/pm_2016-06-07_brexit-00/))

------
Mikeb85
Based on my recent experience of visiting Europe - yes, it is. I stayed mostly
in France, was there during the Brexit vote, and everyone I spoke to was
pretty keen on exiting the EU, voting right-wing, and seeing it all crumble.
They also have several separatist movements, especially in Brittany, which
seems to be more anti-EU than anti-French...

~~~
akjainaj
Living in one of the PIGS, I can tell there's not much going on here about
leaving the EU. Nobody has seriously brought it up. That said, I see important
problems in the EU going on now that must be solved:

1\. I know the EU is completely against the "two-speed Europe". But that MUST
be put in place if the EU is to survive. There's a clear divide between
regions in the EU. It is a cultural divide in the way work is seen, perceived,
in the way money is handled, on how corruption is seen by citizens, etc.
That's why after decades the economies of the PIGS have not adjusted to the
rest of the EU, and they probably will never adjust. It's a cultural thing
that won't change.

Also, I suppose rich and poor countries don't equally agree with the amount
socialism/interventionism the EU should be establishing. For example being
from one of the PIGS I like interventionism from the EU because I see local
politicians/courts/etc as useless. If you go to court and the verdict is
stupid, you can go to a European court. But I suppose people from the north
like their local politicians and courts and don't like it when the EU
interferes.

2\. Many people don't like immigrants. Whether that's racism or not, or
whether those people can be educated or not... that's irrelevant. The EU is
literally shoving immigrants down people's throats. Immigration from A8
countries MUST be regulated (end of Schengen) and also countries should be
able to decide if they want Muslim refugees or not.

Remember this is just my opinion and what I've seen around me as a citizen of
one of the PIGS.

~~~
pound
for those wondering: PIGS - Portugal, Italy, Greece & Spain (some people jump
to comments)

~~~
tritosomal
Yeah, trying to google that acronym would have been utterly futile.

Why do smart people assume that their own familiarity with a subject is a
suitable guideline for tossing around opaque acronyms without prior
definition? Why are people just supposed to know the acronym?

~~~
grzm
The article defines the acronym:

 _He points to the acronym PIGS, coined for four crisis-torn, Southern
European debtor countries of the eurozone: Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain._

------
BjoernKW
The EU and its member states will have to adapt. If they don't then yes:
Disintegration and a return to rampant nationalism might be the consequence.

The EU in its current incarnation as a centralised, geographically-defined
bloc could be considered a relic of colonial, pre-globalization times (as much
as nation states are a remnant of pre-industrial, pre-Information Age times).

In order to be able to address the issues of the 21st century we need a much
more decentralised structure, more devolution of government to the local level
and more cooperation between these decentralised entities.

Large cities in different countries and their respective populations often
have much more in common than people from rural regions have in common with
these city dwellers (as evidenced by Brexit). Yet through arbitrary national
borders they're simply lumped together. The same applies to border regions.
Why shouldn't companies and other organisations from different countries be
able to work closer together more easily?

Finally, why should organisations such as the EU be defined in terms of
geography instead of in terms of shared values? As of now, Canada for instance
would be a much better fit to the EU economically and in terms of values than
some of the Eastern European member states.

There are a few interesting articles about this subject and 'neo-medieval'
overlapping authorities and multiple identities as a possible outcome:

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-
of-n...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-
is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/)

[https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-
possibility/](https://stratechery.com/2016/the-brexit-possibility/)

[https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-
the...](https://fieldnotes.mike-walsh.com/brexit-and-the-rise-of-the-city-
state-d501a0354773#.y8yl3190c)

------
badwulf
> What Orbán has done, for example in his takeover of the media, undermines
> democracy itself.

Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be
regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president.

Orbán was the first politician who had the balls to call out the West on their
irresponsible immigration policy, while everyone else was too busy being
politically correct. The Austrian media blasted him, however when Austria
started doing the same exact thing, they reported it differently.

Look at the Buzzfeed "reporting": they knew the document was most likely fake,
yet they decided to publish it anyway.

~~~
majewsky
> Those of us who actually lived in Hungary know that the media needs to be
> regulated to prevent the media from picking our next president.

So it's better if the president picks the next president?

------
geff82
Integrating all countries of eastern Europe at once and much too early was the
beginning of the end. The countries that had been members before were getting
so close economically and culturally that I think the current situation would
not have been possible and a real united state might not have been only a
dream. Politicians wanted too much and too early and did not take the
population with them. I love my polish colleagues, but on a macro scale it did
not really work.

~~~
0xD3ADB33F
Yes, the geopolitical motivations were pretty obvious. Of course you were
labeled a hopeless conservative or conspiracy nutjob by the europhiles if you
brought it up.

------
neom
I feel very weird that most of my recent comments have been book
recommendations, never the less, as usual peripherally related. And yes, i
know Europe is not a nation. Hence peripherally. :)
[https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-
Prosperity/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-
Prosperity/dp/0307719227)

------
tehabe
I really hope this rise of Nationalism is just a phase. If not it won't end
well for Europe and the world.

~~~
rbanffy
Last time the body count was 25 million, right?

I'm afraid we got much better at increasing body counts recently.

------
dkb
Interesting article. I do believe that the EU will collapse, and that it is
only a matter of time. First of all, there is not a single instance in History
where a common currency, such as the Euro, succeeded. It always has collapsed.
Different people in France have developed about this exact subject.

I believe that more and more people are in favor of existing the EU. In the
case of France, the first thing that people need to understand, is that a
referendum was held in 2005 in France, and that the people have been asked if
they wanted to integrate the EU. The No won by over 55%. Even though, Sarkozy
signed the treaty and put France into the EU.

EDIT: People also realize that people who run for presidency, only present a
program that is actually the program of the EU... In the case of France, there
are some specific laws and orientations that the EU is trying to push on the
country, on different areas, such a Work law, or GMO. Those laws goes against
what generations and generations of people fought for. Other people who run
for president also put in their program stuff that would go against the EU
program, and that is NOT APPLICABLE. If those were applied, the country would
be fined heavily by the EU. Which I think, makes those politics either liers,
or incompetents.

The second thing is that more and more people realize that the way it works
isn't sustainable, and this for a simple reason; having 28 countries together,
who have to obey to the same set of rules (EU treaties), in different area
such as Education, Immigration, Finance, Farming, etc... is not possible. Why?
Because the interest of Estonia in Immigration are totally different than
France's interests in that same area. Italy interests in finance are different
than UK, etc... You cannot apply the same rules to everybody.

A simple metaphor to understand the problem is this: \- If you own your own
house, you can do whatever you want and paint your outside walls as you like.
\- If you own an apartment in a 6 stories building, you probably wont have the
freedom to put whatever window you want on it, and there will be a few rules
that every story of the building will have to follow. \- Now take a building
with 28 stories, is it now harder to make everyone happy? or easier?

If there is a leak under the roof, the owner of the last story will be mad and
will want to do something about it. However, it won't be the others owners'
priority to fix that. If the first floor has an issue of recurrent flooding,
the people for the above stories won't have that as a priority either...

Now, if you want to modify the European treaty, you must have the unanimity of
all its members. How is that possible, knowing that each country does not have
the same interests/concerns, in any area? It's not. And this is probably why
UK tried to negotiate with the EU on a different set of topics, before
actually holding the referendum.

Not to mention that countries who are not in the EU, but are in Europe, are
doing way better on a lot of aspects, than countries who are part of the EU. A
lot of novel prices of economy also stood up and explained that the EU will
collapse, and one of them even resigned from the BCE (Banque Centrale
Europeenne), and joined a French political party who wants France to get out
of the EU, using the Article 50 of the treaty.

~~~
nommm-nommm
Your house/building analogy is flawed because there are extremely significant
rules/regulations about what your house can look like and what materials you
can use to build it leveed by all sorts of levels of government as well as
HOAs. Doubly so if you live in a historical neighborhood.

And somehow people do manage to live in skyscrapers without flooding the first
floor.

I'm not sure if anyone ever attempted a currency something like the Euro
before.

~~~
krona
> I'm not sure if anyone ever attempted a currency something like the Euro
> before.

Well, from 1865 to 1927 there was the 'Latin' monetary union, which failed
because some countries (e.g. Greece) simply couldn't afford to produce the
coinage and instead debased the currency.

~~~
dkb
USSR had one as well, the Soviet Ruble. You are right about the Latin Monetary
Union, it is one of them. There was also the Scandinavian Monetary Union
(SMU), and many more.

------
sean_patel
> For now there is crisis and disintegration wherever I look: the eurozone is
> chronically dysfunctional, sunlit Athens is plunged into misery, young
> Spaniards with doctorates are reduced to serving as waiters in London or
> Berlin, the children of Portuguese friends seek work in Brazil and Angola

How much truth is there, to this statement i.e. "young Spaniards with PHDs are
serving as Waiters in London or Berlin."

Anyone? I find it quite shocking and want to know if the Author is engaging in
fear-mongering, or if Europe is indeed falling apart and the part about
Greeks, young Spaniards and Portuguese peeps is true.

~~~
licnep
This is just anecdotal but I know that spanish people have trouble finding
jobs and often stay in school longer while living with their parents.

I know two spanish people with a BA, one went au-pairing in france, another
one couldn't find a job and moved to morocco cause it was cheaper.

So while it may be exagerated, there's probably some truth to that statement.
The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies.

~~~
akjainaj
>The euro has destroyed the mediterrean economies.

That's implying Mediterranean economies would be better off without the Euro.
I beg to differ.

~~~
walterstucco
Coming from a Mediterranean Country, I agree with you.

------
0xD3ADB33F
As long as austerity is enforced under the eu-mark the disintegration is a
certainty.

The only way it could be saved would be to jettison the euro or at least the
convergence criteria. Germany doesn't seem keen on a succesful EU, perhaps
there's some underlaying anger over those last couple of attemps to ruin
Europe. One can only guess.

------
powertower
edit: -deleted- this thread has been moved from the front-page, back 5 pages.
There is no point making (nor leaving) good arguments in dead threads that no
one can see nor take part in.

~~~
adrinavarro
Huh? It's about creating an identity, a single market, and in the process,
creating peace. I don't feel it is attempting to destroy national identity, if
anything, it allows it to thrive (as long as it is compatible with the EU
idea). Same goes with individual and national rights. EU policy provides a
common framework, and if anything, it only overpowers states in favour of its
citizens (see ECJ).

~~~
krona
> It's about creating an identity

Sorry, that sounds like socialist nonsense.

> A single market

The single market was and is designed for a collection of industrialized
nations that no longer exist. 2/3 of the EU economy today is driven by
services (80% in the UK) and yet there is no single market in services worthy
of the name.

Even the EU commission admits that the single market is a dysfunctional mess;
of course their answer to the productivity problem Europe has is 'more single
market!'

> and in the process, creating peace.

It's only been through the interests of the US that peace has been maintained.
The expansionary EU threatens that.

> it only overpowers states in favour of its citizens

In what world is it a good idea that unelected and unaccountable judges can
_overpower_ the elected and accountable governments of member states?

