Původní anglický text:
The European Integration process has brought us many benefits. It helped us to develop social and economic ties across most of the European continent. It helped us to create opportunities. It helped us to travel more freely. And many other things.
However, the integration process, which is today called the European Union (or the EU), is not what it used to be in the past. Since its beginnings in the 1950s, the process has significantly evolved. It used to be a peace project which was very successful in the era after the Second World War, also because of its economic underpinnings. The common budget of European Economic Community (which was the name of the project at that time) used to be financed exclusively by direct financial contributions from the member states. At the same time, many areas were kept to be a strictly national matter.
The situation now is drastically different, the EU bureaucrats have taken the opportunity to make an excessive number of regulations and have radically expanded the areas in which the EU is participating or governing I should say.
Therefore, I argue that more integration is not better, in this case. I will dedicate most of my speech to the no. 1 problem of the European integration which is the heterogeneity between the countries.
We need to keep in mind that the EU now consists of 28 countries. And more countries with different cultures, opinions, values, and preferences mean that it is more difficult to find a compromise. Therefore, from a definition, it is not viable to keep deepening the integration process. It would work only under the assumptions of homogeneity of these factors, which is not the case. That’s why the situation of the United States of America is not applicable to the EU.
Do you think that let’s say a lifestyle of people from the Southern countries of the EU such as Greece, Portugal, or Spain is the same as a lifestyle of people from the Northern countries such as Sweden, Denmark, or Finland? Of course, it is not. Some of you probably swim a lot, while the latter group of people may enjoy skiing or other similar activities more. Simply, because there are different environments. And this is interconnected with everything – with social dimensions, with economic dimensions, with culture, values and so on. When such notable dissimilarities exist, it is, logically, more difficult to find a compromise when dealing with complex issues on a supra-national level. This is the case of the European Union. As a result, the EU has been paralysed when trying to manage complicated issues such as fiscal policy or migration policy.
For all human history, there have been significant differences between various groups of people. Later on, we have formed national states. And the reason was this: it is more efficient when the world is fragmented. And I know that probably today it sounds awful, but it is still the case and it always will be the case. It is human nature. At least to some extent. That is why national sovereignty is so important. Every state is pursuing its own goals, even though sometimes they are trying to look like they do not do this. And the same goes for every individual by the way. Of course, we do not mean to harm other people, but I would say for most people, their interests mean more for them than the interests of others. We, economists, would argue that selfishness is great because it promotes efficiency. This is absolutely true, but it is not applicable in the situation of trying to find a political compromise when the actors do not have the same voting power. This is one of the paramount reasons why more integration is not always better.
So, what did the members of the European integration process do? In the 1990s, they were very aware of the fact that socialism has ended and that more members states will take part in the integration process in the future. I am referring to the 1989 fall of Communism or socialism. This is also the case of the Czech Republic. Very soon, beginning with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, the older and more developed countries decided that they do not want to lose influence over the integration process, and they began to reform it. After the last almost constitutional treaty – The Lisbon Treaty – it is very clear that the older and bigger states, mostly Germany and France have the most control and power over the integration process. The European bureaucrats use the argument that voting needs to be efficient, so larger and more developed countries have a significant advantage. As a result, they have suppressed many aspects of sovereignty and the whole process began to move away from its initial purpose.
Now, let me provide you with two examples of the fact that more of something does not always mean that it is better. One is from real life and has nothing to do with economics. While the second one is directly connected to the EU.
So, the first example is considering nutrition. It is said that “The dose makes the poison“, or in other words: everything is toxic in unreasonable quantities. This is also the case of one of the most vital life elements, which is water – H2O. If you drank excessive amounts of water, you would die. The symptoms of water poisoning include headaches, tiredness, sweating, vomiting, stiffness, convulsions, disorientation…. and a brain swelling in the end.
The second example is the case of freedom vs. central planning. The humankind is experiencing endless circles or fluctuations of levels of freedom in a society. Some periods were freer than others. In my opinion, one of the reasons which apply to the modern era is that a constant effort to make society and economy work better, which creates a vicious circle. Only naïve people think that we can tweak and change basic fundamental systems of society – democracy and capitalism. Or the people do not realise that it is being challenged. So, what is happening is that we are gradually losing more and more personal freedom as the governments or the European Union, is trying to manage more and more things. We already know that this is not possible, as all the communist or socialist experiments went terribly wrong. The Czech Republic is a prime example of it. The only cure was to let people be free and manage most of the things by themselves. It may be harsh but it is working.
There is a saying that democracy is not perfect. Capitalism is not perfect either. But it does not mean that we should replace it.
Our society still draws from its capitalist fundamentals – the free markets, the freedom of speech of choice etc. However nowadays it is being significantly weakened and the European Union, unfortunately, plays a prominent role in the process. When it comes to smaller EU member states, even democratic processes are being gradually suppressed. We are speaking about the so-called democratic deficit in the EU.
If we do not wake up, the EU countries and its people (we) will suffer. History tells us that even great and mighty entities such as the Roman Empire will fall if they are not able to adapt to constantly changing circumstances and manage its society properly. The EU should go back to its economic roots, stick with them, and not try to create the so-called United States of Europe.