The E.U. the new Rome?

So far I have hesitated to get involved in the E.U. debate largely because of its ever evolving complexity. I have looked at the E.U. as a threat to Britain's sovereignty, freedoms and everything we stand for. Speaking with friends on Europa many of them would agree with this standpoint. 

With the characters from the 90's that were set to run the show, people with any care for their country saw Europe's direction laid before them and didn't like it. Poorly governed member states and the greedy small time operators saw the E.U. as an opportunity to get rich quick. But it wasn't just the small fish that eyed their slice, the big fish thought that this was their time to make Europe pay for their villa, Porsche and caviar. 

In 1957 the Treaty of Rome was signed. A Belgian politician Paul-Henri Spaak said that "we felt like Romans on that day. We were consciously recreating the Roman Empire once more". Winston Churchill said that this was to be the United States of Europe. 

These men were scarred by a war that ripped a hole in the world. They took up the challenge of never allowing this to happen again, of never seeing the continent fall in the hands of war and divide. They sought to build a Europe in the image of America, a well constructed democracy, secure and economically supreme. 

After WW2 Europe was broken up and split between two ideologies, the Soviets in the East and the Allies in the West. Germany was at the centre of this battle of ideals. Was this because of her looks or her ability to get back up and become the centre of attention? 

The leaders of that era knew that the German people are tough, hard working and conscientious. This could not be more true than it is today. Germans get things done economically. 

When the founders of the E.U. set about this dream, as I mentioned before, they built it in the shadow of the American dream. They built the E.U. with the idea of uniformity, that we as a continent would be the same as the U.S. But America was built on the opportunity for a fresh start, it was a new land where the new could grow without the interference of the old. 

On the premise of uniformity, I can see why those leaders decided to use this model. They saw a Europe that needed order. Europe had rejected the communist ideal. The day I was born the Berlin wall was to come down and throughout that January former Soviet states had decided on independence. The people of Europe had chosen their path. They wanted freedom and to be governed under new democratic principles.   

So what's happened? For a start the founders set about conjoining Europeans like Romans. This was not a bad thing. Europe supposedly needed a common identity, something to cling to. Yet how many people when asked where they come from say that they are from Europe? 

The Romans conquered Europe into submission, they were wise to recognise the intense variety of the people found in Europe. Almost anyone could become Roman. All that was required was you accepted their rule. In return the Romans would allow each region to retain their beliefs, traditions and more importantly, their identity. 

The Romans brought with them something to admire. They brought with them new toys, gadgets, heated flooring and bathhouses.

The Romans had a vison of where they were going and this was a long term strategy. 

I return to mediocre modernity and the E.U. If the European Union was never destined to be just a trade pact, how then did it really intend to unify Europe? Just what did Tony Blair and Van Rompuy and co think they could bring to the table when compared to the Romans? Misery, debt bondage and divide, all by stealth.

Pope Benedict XVI and John II both said that "one cannot think about building 'a common European home' ignoring the identity of the people of our continent. In fact, it is a matter of historical, cultural and moral identity even more than a geographical economic and political one". I agree with this although all these points are equally important. 

I started off being a Eurosceptic, now I see a just cause for a unified Europe. Not in it's current state however. The E.U. for the last 20 years has spent billions on trying to make each and every person and nation conform to its purpose. An alien purpose to most democratic Europeans. 

This was misguided. The individual nations of Europe like a family have traits that should be celebrated and perfected with a long term strategy. Essentially these pseudo Romans failed to use one of the key corner stones that made Rome. Take Spain for instance its wealth historically came from its connection to North Africa. The E.U. should have had a long term plan to develop North Africa and revive the Moorish relationship. Instead of littering the place  with golf courses, time shares and failed construction projects. 

A Leader of Europe should look at each nation's historical roots and successes and build on them. How is it right that Poland produces 'Greek' yogurt, Germany Spanish Chorizo? How is it right that Britain's refined judiciary and courts are being eroded by something completely new and untried. 

These are just some of the things we take pride in. I know this is a simplistic approach, but Europe needs to concentrate on producing well made traditional and locally sourced goods, putting pride back in the provinces. This gives a sense of belonging and collective success. This is the future of Europa. Let us clear out the trash of the last decade and build on the quality that we are famed for and take pride in these things. 

The E.U. like the Roman senate has the ability to provide a longterm strategy. It needs to redefine itself and the way it is presented. More importantly it needs to remember the original purpose which should have nothing to do with either Fascism or Socialism. Both have lured Europe into situations that any Roman emperor would have been murdered for. 

Eurosceptics are an important counter balance that were essential in preventing a monolithic monster getting out of control. And will now flip the coin.

The truth is Europeans don't trust the E.U. You could argue that this at the heart of matter even before the economic issues. The despicable policies of previous governments dragged Europe in to their so called "mistakes". Blair, Berlusconi and Sarkozy, like Emperor Elagabalus, are firmly out of touch with the populus. Angela Merkel stands out from the others and has remained dignified and conscientious. This is why it is so wrong for people to criticise Germany and this reaction could have been handled better. Germany could usher in a more compassionate approach and other members states could be more compliant. 



The E.U. needs a face and a beating heart. At the moment it is sterile and faceless. It is no wonder that most Europeans can't identify with it. We don't wear it and we don't love it. In spite of all the propaganda, I don't see anyone buying E.U. cushions in Peter Jones and Ralph Lauren hasn't put it on his polo shirts yet. 

I have always been pro Europe, now I see the opportunity be pro E.U. Not for what it has done but for what it could do. Why now when the E.U. is probably at its lowest point ever? Because this is the time when the counter balance can at last change the outcome. Thus putting the EU on different trajectory.

I am a great believer in small is beautiful but here is a thought, if a united Africa were to function better than a united Europe how would that make Europeans feel then? We should remember that Europa is one of the most fertile regions in the world, climatic stability is an enviable blessing and blessings should be counted. 


Small print: In no way do I advocate Tony Blair as the next Emperor!