Quoting Monnet
March 25, 2009 by Ken
Filed under EU Ministry for Propaganda, The Constitution of the EU, The EU
The important point to remember about Jean Monnet is that as one of the early major promoters of a unified Europe, without any shadow of doubt he fully supported the aims and beliefs of the founding fathers of the European Project. These were that Europe should become one nation state along the same lines as the United States of America with one overarching federal government.
That Monnet did subscribe to these sentiments is not an issue; some proof of that with these quotes of Monnet.
“There is no future for the people of Europe other than in union.” — Jean Monnet
“There is no real peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on a basis of national sovereignty. (…) They must have larger markets. Their prosperity is impossible, unless the States of Europe form themselves in a European Federation.” — Jean Monnet (1943)
As the peoples of the member states would never have agreed to creating a unified Europe at one stroke, the plan was to create a unified Europe by small steps each progressively adding to the creation of a single political entity of the United States of Europe. This was all clearly set out by Robert Schuman in the Declaration of 9 May 1950 when he made it clear that European Unity would not be achieved by one major step but a series of much smaller seemingly unconnected moves, but all with the eventual destination of a united Europe
“Through the consolidation of basic production and the institution of a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and the other countries that join; this proposal represents the first concrete step towards a European federation, imperative for the preservation of peace.”
“Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity”
The French put paid to the political integration plans of Monnet and Shuman when the European Defence Community (EDC) was rejected by the French National Assembly in August 1954.
It was then that Monnet developed the gradualist approach for constructing European unity which became known as the Monnet Method, here the idea was to build political unity through the vehicle of trade and economic methods.
Thus Monnet`s misquote;
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
Epitomises the aims and the methods to be employed in order to bring about a united Europe, the project born in secrecy was to be pursued by the same devious clandestine methods because that would be the only way it would be possible. Hence misdirection and deceitfulness were to be the watchwords for the creation of this new Unified Europe.
Because the eventual aim of the project was a united Europe all the systems were designed to eventually become a full government structure, all the foundations were put in place initially, with the clear intention of building on them by gradually transferring power from the member states to the central organisation. Thus we have a whole series of European Treaties, each one transferring some power away from the member states governments, each one tightening the grip on unity, each one progressively making it harder for a member state to function in isolation.
The misdirection and deceitfulness continues to this day as the argument now being advanced is that OK the Founding Fathers might well have envisioned a united federal Europe like the USA back in the 1950s but that was then, as it happens things have turned out differently, we now have a Europe very unlike that which was planed.
This argument of a disparate EU relies on the as yet unfinished projects such as the currency, the Schengen agreement, ect. Thus proposing these unfinished projects as proof of a different end point of the Project than that which was originally envisioned. In reality all these show is that the project is not complete at this point in time, rather than a different vision because there simply is not a different vision of the EU on the table. The British Conservative party like to talk a lot about a different settlement but in reality the only way to achieve that would be to leave the EU, and that is something they are not prepared to countenance.
This theme has recently been advanced again by Clive Mathews and this time he uses the hook of the above Monnet`s misquote, which it is claimed allows Euro sceptics to justify the ongoing belief in the veracity of the idea behind the belief
and
Anyway, even though the “Jean Monnet said it so it must be true” line of argument of the eurosceptic types convinced that the superstate is the EU’s final destination is utterly thwarted by the fact that a) Monnet didn’t actually say most of the things they attribute to him.
The problem with this argument is that it is your typical straw man, in that we “eurosceptic types” do not base our argument on what Monnet said but on what we can see happening. Take Monnet out of the equation and you can still see an overarching system of European Government in the process of being constructed almost on a daily basis.
We already know the EU was envisioned to become one single state, that was Federal in nature, this point is also raised in the post;
Ah, the F-word… Federalism to a eurosceptic is like the proverbial red rag to a bull (despite the key attribute of a federation being, erm… the self-governing nature of the component states, with the central federal government’s powers often being highly limited – but sssh!)
The self governing nature of component states?
But under the control and at the direction of the central Brussels Government, in fact the only way we could claim to be at all self governing is to leave the EU. Back to Wikipedia which says
A federation (Latin: foedus, ‘covenant’) is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (“federal”) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.
So the “self-governing nature of the component states” becomes “partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (“federal”) government” but with the self governing bit being decided by the central (“federal”) government.
Of course the other little bit of concern is that which pertains to the constitutionally entrenchment of the limits to the central governments powers, which may not be altered by the central government: a quick peek at the Lisbon treaty shows us that the Treaties and therefore the Constitution can be altered by the central government unilaterally.
Including the Council of ministers as an institution of the central government makes our own ministers part of the new EU´s institutional framework and places them under an obligation to the Union, to promote its values and advance its objectives and serve its interests and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions, and says “The institutions shall practice mutual sincere cooperation.”
The European Council thus becomes in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members will be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.
The Treaty places the National Parliaments in a subordinate role in the constitutional structure of the new Union by placing them under an obligation to “contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union”
And also gives the new Union self-empowerment and treaty amendment powers:
The enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause where if the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity. The Lisbon Treaty extends this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union’s policies directed at attaining its much wider objectives.
Also the proposed “Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure” which permits the European Council to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union”
The “passerelles” which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas such as judicial cooperation in civil matters, in criminal matters, in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor, and in a number of other areas.
Rather than proving the aspirations of the funding fathers has not been met and had been displaced with an alternative, all we see is a continuation of the European dream or nightmare depending on your point of view.
We are still a very long way from even producing an alternative to the inevitability of a fully federal EU, this point was made by Dan Hannan who said of the Conservatives attempts to form a new said, block in the EU parliament;
“What this is about is creating a bloc of parties who, instead of wanting to give more and more powers to Brussels, want to push powers down to the lowest possible level. Once you do that you break the cartel, a federal Europe ceases to be inevitable and becomes just one among a series of competing ideas.”
So far there are no competing ideas all we see is a regard action that is bound to fail, until and unless one does emerge and begins to gain credence then what Monnet did not say is still the only game in town, no matter what spin EU adherents wish to put on the present situation.
“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.”
And the only way we will see a different union is if the present one fails and falls apart we can but keep our fingers crossed.
http://www.no2lisbon.ie/media/LisbonAlternativeGuide1.pdf
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773
“Perhaps you could point to the ones which returned power to the member states?”
Maastricht enshrined the principle of subsidiarity, as has every treaty since. The Commission has even started to act on this principle during the last five years by scrapping various silly laws and seeking greater deregulation at EU level to give powers back to the member states and regions – one of the few good things the Barroso Commission has achieved.
Your belief in some kind of divine teleological providence guiding the EU to a predetermined destiny is charming, it really is. But the EU is a complex series of institutions with no single guiding hand, trying to reconcile the conflicting demands of 27 different countries. Its course is even less clear now than it has ever been.
Were it still just made up of the original six members then it’s possible that you might have a case. But as soon as Britain and Denmark joined back in ‘73 (not to mention Ireland with its specific constitutional requirements that have so hampered the progress of the Lisbon Treaty), the likelihood of the EEC/EU ending up as a single unified state became greatly diminished – not least because of the UK’s ongoing ties to the Commonwealth, something inadequately dealt with during the entry talks.
There are TWENTY-ONE more countries involved now than when Monnet, Schuman and co went about setting up the thing – which was OVER HALF A CENTURY AGO. Most – if not all – of the EU’s founders are dead and buried, along with the post-WWII, early Cold War ideals of the era in which they were working. And yet you think that somehow their alleged grand plan for a superstate has been maintained all this time? Who by, for God’s sake? Seriously: I don’t get who it is you think has enough influence – let alone over the EU itself, but also over the governments of every single EU member state (and their opposition) to boot.
What you are suggesting IS a conspiracy – and a conspiracy mostly based on out of context quotes from 50+ years ago. Yes, it is possible to look at the current EU and see some of the things included in its various (failed) draft treaties of recent years as pointing towards a superstate. But to do that you have to ignore so much other evidence to the contrary as to make it laughable.
I’m not saying it’s not a possibility that a superstate is where the EU will end up – hell, anything’s possible. But I am saying that it is not part of the current plan. Because there IS no current plan. To think that there is would be to ignore the failure of Nice, of the Constitution, of Lisbon; it would be to ignore every stalemate, every failure, every continuing veto; it would be to conflate meaningless legal niceties (like calling us “citizens” – even though it grants us no more rights or obligations than we had before, and even though we remain subjects of Her Majesty) with serious progress.
What you are doing is assuming an end-point – a European superstate – and picking your evidence based on that assumption. It’s a classic technique used by whig historians for years, and can make for a nice and easy to understand narrative. But when historians do it, they tend to wait for the end-point to have actually happened. Your end-point isn’t even likely – not in the current circumstances.
So we can assume that none of the treaties has returned power to the member state, and when I say power I do not mean that allowed by the central government, but a power beyond control or influence of Brussels. Thus every treaty has moved in the same direction towards unification and each agreement is then ratcheted in place by the Acquis and every treaty has weakened the power of the member states parliaments in favour of the EU institutions.
The Principal of subsidiarity
And exactly how many times has this achieved anything ? er I think you will find none! but then it was never intended to be a meaningful control on the power of the EU over that of the member state.
Oddly considering your wish to confine the fathers of the EU to the dustbin of history by attempting to create the impression that the EU is now on a different track from their framework that you should use Spinelli`s toothless political device to advance your notion. All it is good for and all it has ever been good for is as a propaganda tool to create misdirection about the loss of power to the centre, as you are attempting to do here.
Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twenty-Fourth Report
The Protocol is important in that for the first time national parliaments would have a formal role in the EU’s legislative process. However, we regard the proposal as inadequate because objections by the specified proportion of national parliaments could simply be overridden by the Commission.
As it happens the principal was not enhanced and it remains the case that the Commision can simply ignore any claims under this principal. Always assuming that there can be enough time for the required number of member states parliaments to get together to produce a claim of subsidiarity in the first place. Which introduces the fact that the British parliament could not on its own claim that it objected to some policy or other under this principal, as it would need to get other member states parliaments onboard.
Which also introduces the point that subsidiarity is an artefact of federalism as it is the central government that has the power to decide at which levels decisions will be made. This is advancing the federalists cause by forcing the states to work together thus reducing their individual sovereignty, it is not standing out against federalism or creating a different EU than the original plan.
The system is designed to be self supporting and self advancing, you ask who well you for one support this present system although you try to argue differently.
I am not assuming an end point based on the quotes of founding fathers but on the facts of the present day, there is no serious alternative and none will be allowed.
You point to the failure of the Constitution, but ignore the fact that it only failed because it was voted down by the people, and rather proving the point of a one way street, the Constitution was re-worked and came out as the Lisbon treaty, which has so far only stalled because the Irish, who were the only ones allowed, voted no, but they will be asked to vote again.
Every stalemate, veto etc are only temporary and are evidence of the building blocks being put in place rather that an alternative eventual outcome. Citizenship of the EU is also a foundation on which the EU intends to build; it is not a meaningless addition to our own British citizenship but something that is intended to eventually supplant it, also it is being used as a vehicle for further integration.
“[Monnet] fully supported the aims and beliefs of the founding fathers of the European Project”
Actually, he only FULLY supported the aims and beliefs of ONE of the founding fathers – himself. There was a good degree of disagreement among them – largely because, unlike the founding fathers of the United States of America, they were all working largely independently, and had various conflicting aims among the details.
“Monnet`s misquote… Epitomises the aims and the methods to be employed in order to bring about a united Europe”
Erm… Only it wasn’t a misquote. It was something made up by someone who believes the same things that you do about how the EEC/EU is progressing – things based on a misunderstanding of what “the United States of Europe” (Churchill’s phrase) was intended to mean (i.e. united in common purpose, not united as one country), an apparent inability to think of any federal system of government other than a heavily centralised one like that of the modern USA (take a look at Switzerland for an alternative model, for example), and an inclination to see the EEC/EU as a monolithic organisation characterised primarily by groupthink in which everyone thinks the same thing and wants the same thing. If the latter (in particular) were truly the case, do you really think it would have been stuck in a rut for the last two decades, unable to move forwards with this grand plan of continental poitical union?
As such, your initial claim about what the EU’s founding fathers were really after is, erm, nonsense. I can give you a brief run-down of what the various chaps usually considered the founding fathers (or at least, those listed by the EU itself) were after, if you like:
- Schuman – merge those parts of the economy necessary for war to prevent future conflict
- Monnet – take this further by encouraging cultural co-operation and cross-border friendship among the people (again to prevent war)
- Spaak – use binding international treaties to prevent war
- Hallstein – create common economic institutions
- Adenauer – prevent war through ever-closer co-operation and friendship
- Spinelli – introduce a loose federal model to aid economic co-operation
- Gasperi – merge western European economies as closely as possible to prevent fascism and communism taking hold in weaker areas
- Churchill (yes, THAT Churchill) – “We must build a kind of United States of Europe” (though please note the “kind of”…)
So when you claim that the founding fathers hoped “that Europe should become one nation state along the same lines as the United States of America with one overarching federal government”, what you really mean is that one of the founding fathers (Winston Churchill) suggested something along the lines of one European state along the American model, and that another of them (Altiero Spinelli) pushed for some kind of federal structure.
Conflating the views of two people with a made-up quote from a third to arrive at a grand conspiracy. Nice – thanks for proving my point, old boy!
That was an interesting defence of the proposition, one however that in no way refutes the present day ongoing and constant moves towards a united Europe.
To claim the Project has been stuck in a rut and has not moved forwards towards its goal of a united state in the past two decades is very far from the truth of the matter, we only have to look at the treaties introduced in that time to observe the misdirection in that assertion, twenty years ago we were not even citizens of this construct.
Perhaps you could point to the ones which returned power to the member states?
Whatever the various divisions and spins you care to attribute to the Funding fathers you are trying to argue that there is a different outcome to the basic plan to unite Europe under one government, when there is nothing else on the table and when each succeeding treaty follows that exact plan. The only way there will be a different outcome is if the present construction falls apart before it is completed.
I do not need to conflate any historical quotes to come up with any grand conspiracy! as I said you can take Monnet and for that matter all of the historical figures out of the picture and you will still be left with one option after looking at what is actually happening and that is a united Europe.