Some twenty years ago -at the start of my career- I did a traineeship at the European Council of Ministers. The European construction by then was all about creating a single economic market. There were no talks yet of the Euro, but their was a monetary stability pact with some level of political integration, as embodied in the painfully adopted Maastricht Treaty. The thing is, back then there was still quite some excitement about what Europe tried to move into (even if you were against it).
Despite a couple of crises, the model was not put to the test so far. Europe is still a relatively well functioning single market, and in some areas it even speaks with a single voice to the outer world (which I see as a sign of political integration). Surely, the excitement has gone, but good sense dictated that the European construction was all in all a good thing.
The current crisis is changing even this latest statement. Even rational people are building arguments to defend the deconstruction of Europe -not only of the Euro. The question 'where is Europe heading' now turns into 'does Europe has a future?'.
There are different scenario's at hand. The editor of The Economist in the video beneath seems to think Europe will 'muddle on' (read: solve small problems piece by piece, without overall grand vision or direction). Possible. My feeling however is that the second scenario, where just a handful of countries would retract and build a more integrated zone, seems at least as likely and -in my eyes- more preferable. After all, it's only when you provide a concrete example of what you try to achieve, that you will motivate other countries to change in order to join the club. In a way, that's how the European construction started, so maybe that's how it could reinvent itself as well...
No comments:
Post a Comment