A Second Best Argument in Favour of Staying in the EU

Image credit

I had made this comment here.

You fear the anti-democratic forces in your country? What could be more anti-democratic than the EU? You seem to be inclined toward staying in the EU out of fear that the EU will retaliate upon your country for leaving the "club". I dare not judge the economic wisdom of bowing to this threat, but it is an indubitable sign that membership is based on repression and that this Europe is all about bullies versus underdogs.

For Luboš Motl reply see below (with my responses highlighted in blue.)

Dear Georg, first, I think that there have been more undemocratic entities than the EU, such as the USSR and Nazi Germany. They have also repressed their constituents more brutally than the EU does. More nondemocratic things may exist on the future European continent, too.

Ad 1: The presence of even more undemocratic regimes is irrelevant in assessing the anti-democratic nature of the EU. Joining the EU has been a major blow to democracy in the member states. We have had high and satisfactory democratic standards before joining the EU. It is our duty and a matter of prudence to restore democracy in our countries. The EU is the result of a political Minsky-effect (stability creating instability). People have been well served by their democratic political systems and have been enticed by their trust in the longstanding political order into allowing the political class to introduce the EU without democratic affirmation (practically past the demos). As a result we are being governed by institutions (Commission, ECB) that are not subject to democratic control and whose power cannot be taken away from them by the electorate. Unsurprisingly, the corridors of Brussels have become a power club reserved for politicians and their corporate and other moneyed clients (special interests). This anti-democratic coup is unacceptable, irrespective of how vital democratic traditions in Europe may still remain compared to the democratic deficits of other countries, regions or epochs.

Second, yes, the membership in the EU involves repression and bullies winning over underdogs. But it's not always quite clear who will win - Visegrád just won a battle, and it was viewed as an underdog. Moreover, the fact that the top dogs are more likely to win than the underdogs is a law of Nature, not just the EU. We can't really change *that*.

Ad 2:  A pluralistic and democratic political order is tasked with the challenge to avoid the abuse or maldevelopment of power. The fact that the structure of political power is always perfectible does not justify indifference, even more, acceptance of a highly defective state of affairs (see ad 1).

The design of the EU is fundamentally defective. The flawed construct is bound to create destructive and dangerous imbalances within the Union (including Germany's perennial excessive and illegal but unpunished external surplus) and pit European country against European country thus creating frictions and animosities that would not have otherwise arisen in Europe. The EU takes sovereignty away from the peoples of Europa and replaces it with the fiat of unelected technocrats and a constitution that takes away from governments the ability to pursue responsible fiscal policies, instead forcing them to engage in pro-cyclical economic measures that provoke, enhance and prolong economic downturns and cause untold economic damage and personal misery. By forcing a foreign currency (the Euro) on previously sovereign currency issuers, the membership countries become dependent on financial markets and European bureaucrats (both of which was not the case before).

In 1938, Czechoslovakia was castrated and broken to pieces - Nazi Germany was given a piece - after a conference in Munich where the Czechoslovak representatives didn't participate at all. Who participated? Well, four nations - Germany, France, Britain, Italy. The Munich Group or Munich Four. If you look at the list, you will notice that it happens to be the list of 4 most powerful countries in Western Europe. And there was no EU at that time. But the countries that could do such decisions were the same. So you can't blame everything on the EU. Something is a matter of common sense. More powerful entities are more likely to impose their will on the less powerful ones. That fact is true even in the EU relationship with countries outside the EU.

The right response to the fact that bullies sometimes win over underdogs is to be strong, not to leave the EU.

I venture to argue that to be strong requires a clear perception of the unacceptably flawed nature of the anti-European EU. I lack the competence to be able to judge what Czechia should do ( — and Czechia has wisely not given up currency sovereignty, which makes a difference). But if states like Czechia, Poland, Hungary — who embody, live and defend more good European traditions than the decadent heavies like Germany or France — are consistently strong, as you demand of them, this will elicit illegitimate pressure from the powerful states in the EU, create additional friction and eventually lead to the dissolution of the sick EU-Leviathan. What concessions you get from the EU are owing to its weakness (resulting from its contradictory character) and not to a spirit of fairness and evenness in dealing with its member states. The EU is ultimately an attempt of the political elites of Europe to circumvent democracy, but it is also dangerous due to the economic irrationality built into it.

Incidentally, there will always be people in the perceived underdog countries that will be bought - either by explicit money i.e. subsidies in the EU or some "chance that such money and influence could flow" - by the bullies. So our prime minister Babiš boasts about the canceled quotas, he teamed up with V4, and so on. He presents himself as a big warrior against migration in Czechia etc. But he gave an interview to Le Figaro where he said somewhat different things. Europe should look like Asterix and Obelix, because those were French and all non-French nations suck, and he - Babiš - is a big warrior against far right parties such as SPD in Czechia. Holy cow. So in Czechia, he's clearly nurturing the picture that he's their ally but in France, he's their archenemy?

What to do with such people? But such people will always exist, even if we're outside the EU or even if the EU doesn't exist at all. The stronger is the indication that the likes of France want to bully us or someone else, the more collaborationists they will induce in countries like mine. That's how it always works, too - it's common sense that has nothing to do with the EU. For example, after the Munich treaty mentioned above, the collaborationists with the Nazis started to feel strong in Czechia, too - for obvious reason. Their actual ally, Nazi Germany, just managed to steal 1/3 of the territory from the democratic government in Prague. So they rejoiced and tried to extend that power, which they did, of course, because in March 1939, the whole country was occupied. And there was no Fourth Reich then (the EU), although, one must admit, there was the Third Reich which was somewhat analogous. ;-)