Previous posts in this discussion:
PostA United States of Europe? Not a New Idea (Eugenio Battaglia, Italy, 12/11/19 4:03 am)
I wish to thank José Ignacio Soler for his kind and well-informed, if strongly worded essay of 9 December.
First of all, I am convinced we both believe in the dream of a European Union. The difference between us is that José Ignacio believes in the chances of the present EU while I consider the constitution of the present EU to be completely wrong.
Our differences remind me of the diatribe in Europe starting in April 1929 when Asvero Gavelli began publishing the magazine Antieuropa (Against Europe) through 1943. The name of the magazine seems contrary to a European Union. It was actually pro-Union, but...
We may say that the dream of a United Europe is more than one thousand years old, but in modern times Giuseppe Mazzini on 15 April 1834 founded the Giovine Europe (Young Europe). The first members of this association were delegates from Poland, Germany and Italy (all not yet unified or existing states) to create a federation of the various European peoples against the Europe of the Kings united by the Holy Alliance of 1815. Giovine Europe was first of all a spiritual association with the respect of the peculiarities of each people and had nothing to do with the materialism of Marx. Unsurprisingly, Giovine Europe and its national divisions were strongly persecuted by the kings.
Victor Hugo in 1849 proposed the United States of Europe. On 5 September 1929 the French PM, the Masons and Nobel Laureate Aristid Briand also proposed a United States of Europe. Also Lenin, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, Edward Herriot, Winston Churchill and the Italian antifascist Spinelli while at the "confino" proposed the same thing. Italians presently tend to believe that all the credit goes to Spinelli (sic).
But all these proposals, even if theoretically fascinating, were not sound ideas, as is the case with the present EU.
Asvero Gravelli wanted a European Union based on homogeneous nations with their traditions but without egotism, and already with the same political system based on authority, order and justice. Otherwise the Union cannot work; see Historica n° 3/2019.
At present the EU has a huge amount of silly economic rules and a single monetary system, the euro. Unfortunately the euro is based on the quicksands of different welfare and taxation systems, financial reserves, costs of living, social measures, bureaucracies, abysmal differences in wages which lead to the monkey business of multinational firms going from one state to another to find the cheapest producers to get the maximum profit. Unless these differences are nullified, the Union cannot work. Apparently the differences are increasing.
On top of this, the egotism (hidden racism) of the various leaders makes them fight each other, mostly along party lines, while they fill their speeches with sacred words such as union, democracy, integration, liberalism, rights, etc.
Therefore a new "Antieuropa" is needed to reach a real united Europe with the principles of faith, discipline, sacrifice, justice and duty and without the present confusion of looking only towards individual rights and profits--which at the end means no rights and no profits for the majority.
JE comments: Weren't the Romans the first to seek a United Europe? Eugenio Battaglia is correct, however, that such a vision has so far only been achieved through conquest.
Did "Antieuropa" have a fascist agenda, with the "anti-" part referring to a World Order after liberal democracy? By the way, when was the last time a political leader succeeded with a call for discipline (ouch) and sacrifice (double ouch)? Kennedy (ask not what your country can do for you) gave us a tepid appeal for sacrifice, but I know of nobody in the last half-century. Jimmy Carter modestly asked us to turn down our heat, and voters punished him for it.