tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 12, 2016 12:30pm-2:16pm EDT
women are making less to begin with. that's what we're talking about today. so that means they save less, less money in social security. secondly, they live longer. that's great, but it means they're going to have less money. and then finally we have the fact that they are often a single breadwinner. 40% of the households, the fact that they have -- take time off often to have children, that's the third factor that leads to less savings. so what we should be doing is how we can address that savings gap and there's ways we can address it with making it easier to save and making it easier to set up 401(k)'s and ira's and looking at the millennials and how we can respond to what is an increasingly different economy for young people. but we also can simply make sure that women make the same amount as men when they do the same jobs. it was the late paul well of my state who famously said we all
do better when we all do better. and i still believe that's true today and so do my colleagues who join me. we need to be focused on how we can help more women share in our economic growth and share in the american dream. i ask my colleagues to support and pass the paycheck fairness act. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak up to five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor with my colleagues, the senator from minnesota and my colleague senator murray from washington along with the other women who have been here to talk about this important issue of paycheck fairness. it is truly shameful this kind of discrimination still exists and you've heard the statistics by my colleagues what the pay gap means but literally over someone's career, over a 40-year career in my state, a woman could lose as much as $500,000 of income and an ainian american
week can lose $700,000 over a 40-year career and a native american woman can lose as much as $900,000 over the same time period. ms. cantwell: yes, when women are discriminated against, it costs them and their families. that's what this issue is. it's a family issue. women are bread winners, too. women today still earn only 79 cents for every dollar paid to a man and this means less food on the table or clothing for their children or insurance premiums. and so what we need to do is make sure we're listening to these stories and acting. one student or one constituent of mine talked about when she was a student, a woman from olympia when she said i was in college in 1993 and i was working at a restaurant. the job enabled me to pay my way through school with no student loans. but a young man several years younger than me with less experience was making a larger wage. when i found out about this, i politely asked the owner why he was making more money. the owner was caught off guard
and gave me no reason whatsoever. in fact, the thing that really stuck in my craw, she said, was the fact that the young man said that he had the job so he could support a gaming habit. she said on the other hand, i had no other recourse to pay for my college education than to work seven days a week for five years to get my bachelor's degree. unfortunately this story isn't unique. wage discrimination affects a wide range of professional fields. realtor, educators, administrators, even c.e.o.'s. for example, males earn 37% more per week than their female counterparts. in real terms the female surgeon turns $7 -- $756 less per week than her male colleagues and this adds up. so women are 94.6 of secretaries, administrative assistants yet they still earn only 84% of what their male counterparts urge. my colleague, senator murray, brought up the women's national
soccer team who helped bring this issue to the forefront. this -- besides being more successful, more viewers, the u.s. team is still paid 25% less than the men's team. one of my constituents last week, an 11-year-old girl from washington said, if i keep playing sports, am i going to get a fair pay, too? young women are asking us to do our job, to make sure that we pass legislation that helps. that's why we commend senator mikulski for introducing the paycheck fairness act and her tireless efforts on this legislation. i'm proud to be one of its cosponsors. the paycheck fairness act requires us to pay for the job, not to discriminate against the gender. it would strengthen the penalties for discrimination and give women the tools that they need to identify and confront unfair treatment. it would make sure that we recognize that women are bread
winners, too, and that we will get the equal pay that we deserve. that's why my colleagues are coming to the floor today to say that we should pass this bill this year, that we don't need to commemorate another day of what women have done for our country but what we need to do is receive the equal pay for the equal work that we are doing. so i thank my colleagues for helping to bring attention to this, and i encourage the passage of this legislation. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate the previous order the senate >> the senate in recess that senators can attend a weekly party caucus meetings. they will continue are on the federal aviation administration programs and policy bills. senators spoke on the floor about filling a supreme court seat of justice antonin scalia.
chop grassley at breakfast with merrick garland. the presence nominee to the supreme court. he posted this photo on instagram along with the message had pleasant breakfast with the judge garland can't explain why the senate will not be moving forward with his nomination. next president will decide after the people have a voice. >> madamadame secretary, we proy give the delegates to the next president of the united states. [cheers and applause]
>> next look at the future of the european union and the possibility of britain leaving the eu. refugees entering europe and the eu's approach to foreign policy. the discussion was hosted by the hudson institute. >> what is the future of european, that's what we're talking about today. what does it mean to say european union as the democracy deficit? super national conference compatible with democratic self-governance? will the british leave the eu in june? if so what does this mean for the european project? will terminate the indispensable motor of european integration pullback from the dream of european political union? love cultural, political and security challenge of radicalized islam both within europe and abroad strengthen or weaken the eu?
what effect does vladimir putin's russia on the politics of the eu? what does the refugee my good crisis ultimately mean for european political integration and the concept of an ever closer union? what is the future of the eu mean for the united states and the transatlantic alliance? we will be trying to enter somebody's questions this morning. we have an outstanding panel of experts with differing views on these issues and with differing views on the european union itself. now, i'm tickled interest in the democracy question. the european union represents a new form of governance beyond the nation-state in general and the on the democratic nation-state in particular. before we get started i'm going to quote three european leaders from the left, right and center, who in the very early days right after world war ii were concerned, this is before charles de gaulle and margaret
thatcher voiced their reservations. these three were concerned about the future of democracy and an integrated europe. from the left, in opposition to the creation of european coal and steel community in 1950, british labour prime minister declared that britain quote, would not accept the most vital economic forces in our country should be handed over to an authority that is utterly undemocratic and responsible to nobody. from the right, and at the same time in france, the leader opposed quote, delegating our powers to a stateless and uncontrolled democracy of experts. soviets later in 1957, in opposition to the founding documents of the eec, which was the forerunner of the union, the founding treating of rome doctor former french premier stated,
quote a democrat may abdicate by getting interventional to cater ship but also by delegating his powers to an external authority. that was his opposition to the treaty of rome. our first speaker is todd huiziinga, director of international outreach at the aspen institute for study of religion delivered in grand rapids, michigan. he is the author of the brand-new book. the book is entitled, we'll be discussing it today it's entitled the new totalitarian temptation, global governance and the crisis of democracy in europe, published by encounter books. i urge everyone to get a copy. it's in my view, as i've written my review, the best book written to date on the european union. he was an american diplomat for 20 years. he served as the political counselor at the u.s. mission in brussels the european union and
as deadly chief of mission in luxembourg and an american embassies and consulates in hamburg, munich and frankford come in dublin, costa rica and mexico. t-shirt on the european union desk at the state department in washington, d.c. he knows the european union as few scholars and statesmen do. i believe it to mr. huizinga. >> thank you, john. thank you, everyone for coming. i appreciate your interest. things don't look too good right now in europe. before the summer is out britain might decide to leave the eu. greece is de facto come little more than a protectorate of international monetary fund. the european commission and the european central bank. the system of travel across borders within the eu is in
danger of being abolished. devastating terrorist attacks have occurred regularly in europe since the 2004 mattered train bombings. how's brussels and paris recently shall ask him the threat of jihad is to risen remains palpable throughout europe. so how did this all come about? in my book i continued the european union's commitment to super national, pan-european governments overriding the sovereign powers of its members states is eroding democracy in europe, threatening human rights and putting the eu in principle on a collision course with the united states. there are five major arguments in the book. first, the eu is transforming europe from a continent of democratically accountable nation-states into the post-democratic order in which voters have little say in how they are governed.
second, the eurozone crisis, the micro crisis increased risk of terrorism in europe are all intrinsically connected with the eu's pursuit of its globalist supranational dream. third, because at the different views on national sovereignty and democratic accountability, the united states and the european union are in principle on a collision course. and forth, the fact that europe is largely post-christian while the u.s. system of government is based on the judeo-christian worldview, accounts for a radical difference between american and european views on the role of government. and fifth, many of the new human rights promoted by the eu are actually harmful to human rights because they contradict tradition, human nature and the fact that human beings are not just individuals but are also embedded in family, religion and community.
i would like to concentrate on two things as the basis for discussion. first i'd like to give i a litte overview of what i believe what makes you tick and makes some comment on how it takes. second of like to examine the clash of visions between the united states and the european union. first an overview of the eu. what is the eu in its essence? that is the question. it is very hard to say what the eu is there anyone who attempts it is taking a big risk i guess i'm taking a big risk. there are so many different views, interests, goals, languages and people that coexist within the eu. also the eu is unprecedented. nothing like it has ever existed. certainly european union is unlike any other international arrangement or organization that otherwise exists. for example, some people think of the eu as a free trade bloc or a customs union, but the eu
is much more than, say, the u.s., canada and mexico under nafta. neither is the eu like any other international organization that first glance might see this might seem comparable to take the organization of american states, the oas. both the eu and the only a original organizations organizations. and just as the oas, an american including all of the states by the western hemisphere, so the eu is close to being pan-european. but they are the similarities between the oas in the eu in. the 28th eu member states with her constant coordination on every possible policy issue and they're powerful, institutions in brussels and luxembourg are much more closely integrated than the member states of the oas or any other international organization. so the eu is much more than a garden-variety international organization. but neither is the you anything like a federal-state.
the eu is not a united states of europe. the eu member states continue to exist as independent nations. so what is the eu? when all is said and done, my belief is that when it comes down to is that the eu is a super nationalist project. the eu member states in the interest of realizing an unprecedented degree of peace comes to build and prosperity are pooling and those really pushing significant elements of their national sovereignty. they are ceding large aspects of their government and lawmaking powers to the super international, super nationalist institutions of the eu that are distinct from eu member states and function independently above the national level. the essence of european project, not just the nuts and bolts of how the eu works but the hope behind the european dream, the
heart and soul and mind of the eu is precisely this super nationalism. the process of european integration arose out of the ashes of world war ii. and the determination of european leaders that war should never again rise of european soil, that file the conflicts among european nation-states, especially between france and germany, should never happen again. and this was a noble vision. above all, this was an understandable vision, given the devastation wrought by world war ii and shortly before that by world war i. and despite all the problems that it has caused, this remains a powerful vision today. the vision of a harmonious and peaceful europe united in the european union with instant cypriots and germans and french and spaniards and everyone else a working together for better europe and a better world.
but the european union is not just about europe. this vision of the eu, this super nationalist approach as a model for a new way, is a model for a new way to order the world. the eu's super nationalism is all about global governance. putting the eu's form of supranational governments into practice on a global scale in order to realize world peace by overcoming the unlimited sovereignty of nations which the eu believes is the root of war among nations. and. as a model for global governance, the eu has real credibility. after all, the eu is is the only functioning model of how such global governance might work. so what is global governance? most definitions that you'll yol easily find are very technocratic. they don't get to the heart of the matter. here's how i would define global
governance following john fonte seminal work on this topic global governance is attempt to introduce a global rule of law in the interest of achieving an unprecedented degree of worldwide peace, stability and prosperity. not via a one world government but rather by the development of an ever more comprehensive network of international institutions that administer an ever greater body of international law to which nation-states are subject. that binds nation-states not only in their foreign policy, but also in substantial areas of their domestic policy. they key to global governance is the development of a global rule of law whereby the windows exactly what is global rule of law look like in the end, if in and is even meant to be achieved. they key thing about the global governance ideology is also the eu has process.
constant process. constant becoming. never necessarily ending, reaching an end state. so back to the european level for a moment. how does the eu attempt to build a supranational democracy, this model for global governance actually work? as you don't works primarily, be a powerful institutionalizing institution over and above the member state governments and distinct from the member state government. i would likely -- like to quickly summarize the nature of the eu and it's important to keep in mind. first, the european commission. this is the eu's executive corporate it implements and enforces eu regulation throughout the eu. it also has an important legislative function with rare exceptions, it is the only institution in the eu that has the power to propose eu legislation. this file is called the right of initiative in eu parlance.
the right of initiative means that, that means two things. that eu legislation starts with unelected technocrats who are working in the european commission. and that the eu executive arm has perhaps the most important legislative power. thus violating the separation of powers in a way that damages democratic accountability. second institution of elected talk about is the council of ministers. the council of ministers is the institution within which representatives of the member state governments work together to coordinate almost all policies in their domains come domestic and foreign, political and economic. the council of ministers, important thing to know, as a single entity that it meets in 10 different formations depend on the policy area. there's the fourth affairs council where the foreign affairs ministers meet your the environmental council of environmental affairs ministers me. the economic and finance
ministers meet, et cetera. so another typical thing about the eu that kind of muddies the waters, it's one institution. yet the arcane basically completely separate formations. another important thing about the council is that the council of ministers is bold and institution. the members of the council both represent the governments but also act as members of a supranational institution, a supranational eu institution. that is distinct from their governments into which they belong in a much closer would then they would belong to committees in any other international organization. so this brings a lot of lack of clarity to the counci council cf ministers. forelock include again is typical of the eu. it further muddies the waters of democratic accountability. then we have european parliament.
it's not really a parliament. it doesn't give me things that most national parliaments do. it does have the power to levy taxes, for example. most importantly the european parliament does not draft legislation. the european commission does that. its approval is necessary for legislation together with that of the council of ministers. but the legislation is drafted by the commission. i know that the european parliament and the council of ministers can both amend legislation as drafted by the commission. they can amend it. here's another twist that many people forget really about the european parliament that renders it completely unparliamentary in the traditional sense. there is no majority party or coalition in the european parliament representing the government party. and there's no minority party or
coalition representing the opposition, as in other parliaments. because there is no government in the eu and no opposition. rather come everyone covers together in a hybrid system of supranational governance. a final example from my experience in the state department, although foreign policy supposedly, according to the eu treaties, a domain at the eu member states and not of the eu, the eu itself has become a huge foreign policy player. first, the eu member state foreign ministers meet monthly to coordinate their foreign policy is as close as possible in the fourth affairs council that i mentioned a minute ago. second, the eu has created its own de facto foreign minister. a title of high representative of the european union for fourth affairs and secured a policy. she chairs the monthly fourth affairs ministers meetings and sets the agenda for those
meetings. she also travels extensively as the foreign policy representrepresent ative of the eu. she was john kerry's principal european partner, for example, it the nuclear negotiation with iran. serving the high representative the eu has also created its own de facto foreign ministry, the european external action service. day today i would say from my personal experience, the eu as as important foreign policy part to the united states as germany, france or great britain. it is usually certainly in terms of day-to-day interaction of high level u.s. diplomats more important than the midsized or the smaller eu member states. this is an amazing thing. want of the u.s.'s most important foreign policy partners is something that's not the country with a government that's not the government, a foreign minister who is not a foreign minister, at diplomatic corps that is not a diplomatic
corps, with all of these elements making and implementing foreign policy our behalf of an organization that no one, including europeans themselves, has ever been able to define in a way that everyone can agree on. so that was my overview of the eu. the eu is completely different from anything that has ever existed before in the world. was at the root of all this? how did this strange new thing called the eu come about? that brings us to the site of the two topics i'd like to cover, the trans-atlantic clash of visions between the u.s. and the eu. this is a complex topic of course but in principle what america's must understand is that the eu and the u.s. have fundamentally different visions of the world. the u.s. vision of the world and of international affairs is that of the world of sovereign nations. the u.s. hopes to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous world by promoting democracy and rule of
law so that the world system is tested with by democratically accountable governments of nation-states, accountable to their citizens that cooperate peacefully with each other. the eu's vision, on the other hand, as of a post-nation-state world in which war and conflict between nation-states are overcome because of the full sovereignty of nation-states has been relinquished to a system of global governance based on a growing web of international organizations, administering international law. so even though the western and central european countries remain that translates most important allies, and i want to emphasize that, europe remains the most important ally, this difference come this class -- this clash put us on a collision course. in principle if not, thank god, always in practice. for one thing, anti-americanism is an inevitable outgrowth of
the european idea. if one thinks logically. as the world's most powerful nation-state and one that jealously got its national sovereignty, the united states by its very existence is the big gorilla that stand in the way of the eu vision of a world that has a bold beyond the nation-state. there are many factors that have led to this difference between the u.s. and the eu. matches the european experts of world war ii and the desire to do away with conflict between european nations. i would like to mention a central factor in this difference, one that i've delved deeply into in my book. this is the religious difference between the u.s. and eu. the u.s. is the most judeo-christian of the modern developed societies of the world. the eu by contrast is largely secular. the u.s. system of government is based on a very sober, very judeo-christian view of human nature and thus the government. this is the whole reason for the separation of powers in the
checks and balances foreseen in the u.s. constitution. it is striking to me how into the editor to christianity, for example, the anthropology, implicit in the federalist papers is. regardless of whether the authors were those believing christians or not. hamilton, madison and john jay accepted that human beings will capable of great good were also flawed and limited. sinful as christians would put it. therefore, the power of human government had limited and separate into multiple centers. i would argue these views on human nature that inform the federalist papers and data from the u.s. constitution are still the prevailing and instinctive view of most americans today, regardless of whether most americans are believing christians or not. culturally in th this sense, america still more
judeo-christian than not. the eu's super nationalism, on the other hand, a secular, social democratic the of human nature. out of the idea that social justice can be achieved through government action and through government planning. this is not just a can, can be achieved. this is a must, must be cheaper for most people in post-christian europe, answer me for the governing elites, this world is all there is a. out of that flows the presupposition of -- the highest justice must be determined by human beings and pursued via politics and government. so this is a radical clash of visions between th the u.s. ande eu. the clash between democratic sovereignty raised in the nation-state and global governance rooted to a significant degree and a clash between a religiously informed worldview in the u.s. and the nonreligious worldview in the
eu. i would like to give you one example of how this difference plays out. i had three but for the purposes of time i will give one. how this clash of visions plays out, how the ideology of the global governance though unrealistic has real world consequences. i know the phrase war on terror is as much disagreement. this is been the number one form policy since september 11, 2001. and in many ways the eu has been our most important ally in this struggle. but at the same time, the eu has often and repeatedly been our worst antagonist. why? because the advocates of the global governance ideology want to subject the u.s. struggle to the war on terrorism to a potentially crippling regime of
international law. i will name just one of many examples of this. the war in iraq. the popular mythology is that the controversy over the war centered on the question of whether they were actually weapons of mass destruction hidden in iraq. but before the invasion almost everyone, including the french, the germans, for good measure the russians, believe that saddam hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction. the real dispute was whether a preventive attack was justified under international law and whether war could be legitimate, with the approval of the u.n. security council. in other words, whether the u.s. could do what rightly or wrongly thought necessary to protect the lives of its citizens without the explicit approval of the other four permanent members of the u.n. security cocil. this was truly a battle of world views centered on the question
of the legitimacy and authority of super national governance. and the advocates of global governance belief that the u.s. did not have the right to protect its citizens without a permission slip from russia and a permission slip from china. to put bluntly. to say nothing of a permission slip from france. honest people of goodwill disagree on iraq. and how much of what the united states has done to combat terrorism since 9/11. there's been little fallback. the information on which to base policy decisions is severely limited and often unverifiable. issues are very complex. we are dealing with all shades of gray in the war on terror and we may never know what we did was the right thing to do. the global governance is don't want to deal with the real world of uncertainty and complexity. their ideological blinders are firmly set in place. they want to realize their globalist vision based on a
caricature of reality of that agenda has been hindered by the prosecution of the war on terror. so, what is it that you? most people don't know. i'm going to be, i'm going to go out on a limb here and i'm going to say most europeans don't know. most europeans that i have talked to don't know. i've lived in europe for much of my life. most educated, intelligent, but it is to europeans who do not live in brussels do not know what the european union is. but its beating heart, what motivates its supporters is the idea of achieving peace through super national governance. and extended globally, the idea of achieving peace through global governance. and as john mentioned, in his introduction, the question of democracy is at the core of all this.
the eu has never squared the circle to the super national governance with democracy. it has never figured out how it's super national governance can be made democratically accountable to an adequate degree. the problem i believe is that the circle can't be squared. so where are we now and what is the future of the european union? let me finish with a few brief summary remarks on the destabilization of domestic politics and the eu member states, the phenomenon of cultural exhaustion in the eu, and the continuing power of the european dream. the heart of the question is the british people's right to govern themselves. the issue is one hears about such as british concerned about the cost of social benefits for non-british eu citizen living in the uk or protection of the city of london from eurozone overregulation are important but
they are not the main point. the main question is whether the british people have the right to govern themselves and whether self-government is more important to the british people and the perceived benefits of being in the eu. the destabilization of domestic politics in the eu, for a long time and accelerating since the may 2014 european elections, pro-eu establishment parties throughout the eu have been hemorrhaging support, and anti-eu protest parties have been gaining ground virtually everywhere. some but not all of these protest parties are on the far right and far left fringes. i think that's important to note. they are not all on the far right and far left fringes. unfortunately, few among the established elite and that you seem to have drawn the real conclusion from this state of
affairs, after 65 years the eu has conclusively shown itself to be inherently undemocratic, unaccountable and unresponsive to voters. and the voters want political power transferred back to the national governments. the ones abate the in and vote out, and those the ones that are or at least should be accountable to them, the people they claim to serve. the first final straw that fueled this ongoing political upheaval was the eurozone crisis and the severe economic hardship engendered by the politically motivated decision to establish a common currency for hugely different economies. the second final straw was and is the ongoing immigration crisis, and all the disruption it is causing. the latest final straw is a terrifying vulnerability of a europe with open borders to deadly terrorism, as we've seen in brussels and paris in the last few months. the question is how many more final straws in the eu take?
cultural exhaustion, the migrant crisis throws into sharp relief the impression, impression, of a self hating dying civilization that is jettisoned the belief that first bit and is no longer having children, throwing open the gates to young, committed representatives of a worldview that might prove itself fully capable of shoving a politically correct europe aside and establishing something completely different a top of the ruins of the european dream. finally, the european dream itself and the persistence of the european dream. the european dream is not dead. lost and a focus on hard facts and to focus on european versions of its economy, stupid, the pragmatists in the eu have always been too complacent. if the pragmatists in europe dismissing ever closer union and such things as unrealistic
aspirations that will never come to pass and thus can safely be ignored, if they have proven anything over the past 60 years, they have proven that they seriously underestimate the power of ideas, dreams, and worldviews. there is no justification for the pragmatists to indulge as usual in underestimating the power of the european idea. however, much of the eurozone fiasco and the migrant crisis have exposed its inherent folly. the economic arguments of the pro-eu side in britain, for example, and the brexit debate evidence that many british elites to refuse to accept that the eu has never been above desperate about economics. and the review once again between economic elites have bought into the idea that super national integration should trump patriotism and democratic sovereignty because they believe integration brings markets and buyers closer to them. also sizable majority of the european political class remains in favor of of european
integration. and the continued indifference and acquiescence of the majority of european voters may prove too strong a counterweight to the persistence and determination will be necessary over the long haul in order to roll the eu back to a more modest respect for national sovereignty. and crises have often proven to be blessings to the cause of european integration. the jury is still out on whether that includes the most recent crises. so far, eu elites have taken advantage of the eurozone crisis to transfer unprecedented powers to the eu level. and they are trying to the same with the migrant crisis and it is not certain that they will fail in their they may well succeed in that. thank you very much for your interest and i look forward to the discussion. [applause]
>> are we on? okay. next speaker will be dalibor rohac, a research note of the american witness to what he studied european and economic trends, he's working on central eastern europe, the eurozone, usb relations and the post-communist transitions from post-communism. >> do you want me to talk -- >> either way. you can go up to the podium if you would like. >> thank you. i should probably begin by stating that a conflict of interest of source of this event. i have my own book about the european union coming out next month. [laughter] and insofar as most people probably aren't going to limit their purchases of du related books to just a few pieces the
year. it's in my very direct me to interest to dissuade you and strong as possible from purchasing his book and encourage you to buy my own book. it's out on the 11th. both in hardcover and paperback, reasonably priced. [laughter] if you are keen on doing your christmas shopping early, i think this would make for a wonderful gift. but on a more search know, john invited me. he said i would find a lot to disagree with the book, and he was right. indeed, there is a lot in the book that i do disagree with. but i thought at the same time that this was a very interesting, thoughtful, readable book. it was very often correct in its diagnosis of what has gone wrong during the eurozone crisis come and mrs. merkel's handling of the refugee influx into europe and quite correct oftentimes in
diagnosing various dysfunction of the eu such as democratic deficit to the one thing that struck me once i picked up a copy was the title. new totalitarian temptation. i'm going on with him the panel today who was actually born and brought up in a totalitarian regime in czechoslovakia. it was a country where dissidents were jailed and people were trying to escape were shot at the border without warning. so i think there is some merit in reserving the term for those forms of government that do require complete and those who are subservient dissidents cannot just use it loosely as a catchall phrase for conservatives and the like. that title isn't there just to provoke the title does relate to the main argument of the book as we just heard, which is about the european integration is a deliberate attempt driven by
ideological considerations which aims to replace democratic decision-making in nation-states by a far less form of governance at the super national level. i suppose such ideology exists and disposed people that went into to such ideology may be doo be a time and place to direct an apartment at the end. but i don't think that you're going to get a lot of mileage from this argument in trying to describe and understand what the eu is, how it is come about, what are his problems and potential solutions. just very superficial observation that one gets after skimming the few first couple of pages of the book is that the slippery slope argument is there some sort of empathetic relationship between european and integration and democracy. i think runs in the face of the fact that the 70 years of european integration has also been 70 years that have by
historical standards coincided with an explosion of democracy in europe. i know there are issues with the project, democratic deficit, overreach, et cetera. but compared to what europe had known before, we are living in the best of all possible times, i would say. and also, quite superficial if you look at the events of the past couple of years, numerous crises that europe has found itself in, it's very difficult to argue that these were accompanied, having accompanied by some unprecedented transfer of power to brussels. the eurozone crisis has not led and is unlikely to lead to the formation of a proper physical union. they have not acquired taxing powers. the refugee crisis is a reaffirmation of national level politics on a grand scale. and even on matters of foreign policy, it wasn't federal because who negotiated the minsk
the greatest with poroshenko. it was european leaders. i think, cities are sort of superficial observation but i think the art deeper problems running through the argument which to me suggests this might not be the best way to frame the discussion. once you start equating sovereign nation-states with democracy and global governance with erosion of limited government is not -- i think you run into all sorts of -- largely unexplained. here's one. how is it possible that so many pro-limited government, pro-market voices have been consistently in favor of restraining national sovereignty in one way or another quick in 1939 he for the outbreak of the second world war von hayek, the dean of the free market
movement, wrote a little essay called economic conditions of interstate federation. ended the book he argues that the main problem of 19 century classical -- was it didn't take into account the problems that arise with the lack of a common interstate structure of international security. so you can't really realize how many interest between citizens of different states have come from other national security. it goes on display what he means. by that he means a common federal government in europe. is very unambiguous. he says that if the government, since it's defined powers are transferred to a national authority. in his youth there is no conflict within this idea, and that of limited government and free enterprise. indeed he says that the two are mutually reinforcing that, in fact, open markets are a necessary prerequisite for successful federation, and vice
versa. it is a logical consummation of the program. by liberal opinions obstacle. hayek does not an excuse. he was on the fringe. you find the same claims come the same argument in the works of others. they argue swiss federalism should be scaled up to the european level, to provide a common framework of government. no less a limited government, ideologue if you will, consulted for the pan-european union and argued that the alternative to a european federation without unrestricted sovereignty, what i quote, ultimate subjugation by power. so that some 1944. i hope he doesn't take it as a micro-aggression, but when lady
thatcher campaign in favor of the uk's membership in 1975, she did so with a very good understanding if it meant raising limits. she compared european communities to nato and she says, look, we are sovereignty, a bill to make decisions is restricted by our nato membership. here's the quote from a speech he gave in north london in 1975 before the referendum. she said it is the sense of distinction that's the anti-europe campaign plays when it promised independence. that ignores the fact that on with every major nation has been obliged to pull sovereignty so as to get more effective use. that's lady thatcher. i think that as long as you are going to claim that you are part of the same intellectual tradition, yet be part from these people on a point of
substantive importance, i think you have to do some explaining that i didn't really find in the book. it is a subsidiary argument that this claim about, actually european governance replacing national level democracy. that claim has to do with religion. the book argues this european id represents a utopian commitment on the part -- it cannot be reconciled with christianity. there's no place for christians in the project. and to substantiate that claim, the book walks us through the use of various legal documents, the lisbon treaty, which is compared to just constitution, to the polish constitution, to the federalist papers which all make some reference to religion and christianity. might be meet reaction was it
didn't really pass the smell test. we know for a fact that european society is far less religious than poland, on average. european society is far less religious than the united states. so that's reflected in the documents. to me that's a more compelling, far simple explanation than the one that invokes the european ideology. if you are going to claim come if you're going to claim that european integration has been somehow instrumental in the erosion of christian beliefs in europe, you didn't have to grapple with the fact that the founding fathers of this ideological, the founding fathers of antiquated europe, jonbenet, robert -- others come also the leading figures of european christian right, these were all practicing catholics were very serious about the religion. in 1961 before the beginning of
negotiations of the treaty of paris, they met on the rhine for a dip meditation and prayer. he said on the christian -- all moderation, through ingenuity and democracy. of view of human dignity and use that as the directive. so 1954, the prime minister of belgium, the founding father, buildings named after him in brussels, ask the following questions are uniquely to need me to remind you that if you sometimes think differently you all pray in the same way? it's the same gesture that realize, the same words which console you, call me as she reached death. these are the founding fathers of post-christian eu, if you will. the pope came in support of the european project repeatedly in
many speeches. pope john the 23rd in 1961 discusses with some of of detail. this constant, different context attribute almost by were. if you're going to make the case for both christians nature of the european project, you have to explain what it is that you see about the project that these people didn't see. either way i was quite surprised to see how much space the book dedicated to this issue, which is interesting but timmy is not really at the heart of all the political, economic and social troubles plaguing europe today. so there are four or five chapters dedicated to the issues of religion, sexuality, lgbt rights, compared to two chapters about the useu crisis. babied index, made 50 mention of
the euro, and 19 mentions of lgbt rights. i understand where he's coming from. and a respected. but i didn't understand why he is making this basic a centerpiece. by any account these issues, it's not the case that the eu is imposing same-sex marriage. ireland help the referendum. when you look at any opinion polls there has been a massive shift in public opinion, social logical should come cultural shift which is endemic to the western world. whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, 61% of eu citizens center in favor of same-sex which converted 60% of americans compared to 64% of australians. so it's not come everything you -- it's extremely limited in this area. trailing far behind all those
controversy in member states. i'm going to stop now and i want to stress that there are merits to the book i enjoyed reading it. i think i learned a lot just reflecting on it, what other pages of the i also think it's a missed opportunity to ask support questions about european integration. by what i don't think todd was a fundamentalist into exposure of his skepticism. it doesn't say it fulfills no useful role whatever and she just disappeared he says he wants to transform into a platform for sovereign nation-states. but the book doesn't really tell us what is meant by that in practical terms. the reason why it doesn't tell us is because i think the intellectual framework, this sort of binary choice between a sovereign nation-state level democracy and global governance doesn't give you much mileage in getting at the answers.
there are roughly two pages at the end of dedicated to the russian of european reform. it's not a coincidence. the question isn't buying it. the question is whether we want sovereign nations to a global conference. the question is how the economist calls globalization trilemma. the states that at some fundamental level, national sovereignty, democracy and deep economic integration are mutually compatible. you can have any point, you can two out of the three but you can never have all three simultaneous edible. so once you adopt that alternative mindset, which by the what is the most economists i would argue think about european issues, you don't see a grand battle of good and evil. you don't see trade-offs. do we want more sovereignty, future economic ties, more democracy? maybe that's not the right framework or i'm not making a case for it but if you're going
to present the alternate i think i to engage in some ways with the literature on the subject of you have to explain why your alternative discussion leads to a richer presentation of what the problems and solutions are. i don't quite see that done in this book, unfortunately meet i just sort of embittered and i'm saying that out of my own mutual interest. remember, it's out on may 11. thank you. [applause] >> next we will have nile gardiner, director of the margaret thatcher center for freedom at the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. he's worked with the heart of washing policy for over a decade, and before joining heritage, he served as an aide to former british prime mr. margaret thatcher, advised her on her first, her final book, statecraft strategies for a changing world.
>> i'm sorry. it's good to be out the hudson institute and the fantastic new building. and i would like to start by saying that hobbes book that really terrific. it's i think one of the finest books written so far on, dare i say, the evils of the european project. and it's about that my former boss margaret thatcher would have loved reading. she went up the power at the. i think she would have enjoyed it thoroughly. and it's a very, very insightful look into the current state of affairs with regard to the european union. shortly not a pretty state of affairs by any stretch of imagination. the word disaster i think could easily be applied to the current state of affairs with regard to the eu. i would like to talk this morning about the brexit debate in britain, that is moving forward, what the issues are and
where that's going to into. also i would like to address the refugee crisis, a national security threat in europe, and also i would like to talk about what the next u.s. president, the next u.s. administration should be doing with regard to europe. i would like to advocate a complete reversal of traditional u.s. support for the european project. i would like to begin those by placing you into the heart of what is really at stake in europe with regard to national sovereignty. i'd like you all to imagine now if the united states was part of a pan american project, the equivalent of the european project with one stretching from argentina up to canada. ..
imagine if there is pan american commission in mexico city, shaping potentially 2/3 of u.s. law. imagine a pan american court in buenos aires rooting over the u.s. supreme court? imagine, if there was a drive to create a pan american army as a competitor to the nato alliance, drawing in crucial u.s. military resources under the command perhaps of venezuelan or brazilian generals? imagine if the united states
sent members of parliament to a pan-american parliament in a south american city. would those members parliament lecturing the american people on how they should be living their own lives. this is really the reality on the ground in europe today with regard to, to the european project, and the european union is nothing less than a huge surrender of national sovereignty within europe. and of course britain is not part of the shen again agreement which covers 22 members of the european union and 26 members of the european countries in total but britain like every member of the european union is part and parcel of the european project and the "brexit" referendum in britain held on june 23rd that will decide britain's future in europe is all about
whether or not the british people are going to reject the european project, whether or not the british people will reassert self-determination and national sovereignty and this is about britain really being once again a truly sovereign and independent nation. if 2/3 of your laws originate in brussels, you're not a free country. if your courts are subject to the rulings of a court in luxembourg, you're not a free country. i don't think the american people would ever subject themselves to the super nationalism of something like the european union and i doesn't think that, you know, the american people should, should accept the idea that the british people should have their sovereignty submergeed a european project that exemplifies the sort of big
government and mind-set of at the heart of europe and, when you ask a lot of british people what they think of the european union, what does the european union actually mean to them, many brits will tell you that the european union means foreign bureaucrats, european courts telling the british people what to do. the european union also has become a symbol of big government corruption, inefficiency, a lack of democratic accountability. european union is also about the absence of border controls and the ability to be able to control who comes into your own country. these are all huge issues for the, for the british people. the latest opinion polls show that the "brexit" campaign and the romaine campaign are basically -- remain campaign are basically neck-and-neck. if you look at polls that focus
on voter turnout and voter enthusiasm, some of those polls show a significant lead for the "brexit" side. in fact one recent poll showed a 8% lead for the "brexit" campaign over the remain side. i think the "brexit" debate is shaping up as a battle between, in large part the grassroots of particularly the grassroots of the conservative party and the political elites and political establishment, david cameron, the british government, officially supporting britain staying inside the european union. there are five cabinet rebels who are campaigning for "brexit." used to be six. smith recently resigned from the cabinet. also the mayor of london, boris johnson, joined the "brexit" campaign and about half of conservative mps are backing "brexit" and about 70% of the conservative party members but
this has become, i think, a tremendous battle between largely grassroots conservatives combined with, you know, sizable chunk as well as labour party as well who are in support of britain leaving european union. between the grass roots and political elites in britain and business elites as well. there has been a great deal of controversy this week with regard to david cameron's government spending 9 million pounds on leaflet campaign aimed at everyone of the 27 million households across britain, using government money and printing company actually owned by a german firm that receives a large number of e.u. subsidies and hand crowds. so the irony there is not lost on the british people but, i do think that, the british people are being offered the opportunity to jump on a lifeboat being thrown off the side of the titanic. that is all the european union really is today.
i think eu in its current form won't les and won't survive, and nor should it in it is current form actually. and i think that, you know, for millions of british people this is an issue, a fundamental issue of self-determination and sovereignty and the ability to control their own borders. president obama will be traveling over to london in couple weeks time reportedly to tell british people how to vet in their own referendum. needless to say there is furious backlash already in the british press over this. and i don't see the roll of the u.s. president to be telling the british people how to vote on their own, in their own referendum. needless to say as well i think president obama is completely wrong with regard to the european union as a whole and this administration, the obama administration has been a steadfast supporter of euro federalism.
it has to be said that many previous u.s. administrations also backed the idea of a federal europe but perhaps this might be the last u.s. administration to -- i will talk a little bit more about that a bit later. but the emfattic message i think from the british people to president obama he needs to mind his own business with regard to the issue of the british referendum. and it's not his role to be telling the british people what they should be thinking on a fundamental matter of british national interests. it is also being suggested by president obama, number of leaders in europe, many across the world, that britain would actually struggle to survive outside of the european union. and that, britain would be weaker partner on the international stage. i have to say that's really
nonsense frankly and, you know great britain today is the world's fifth largest economy. will probably over take germany by 2030 as the largest economy in europe. it is a nuclear power, current member of the u.n. security council, a great trading nation. a country with one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the either. the idea that britain could not survive outside of european union is beggar's belief and as part of what has been dubbed in britain, project fear, the idea that a nation that once held sway over a third of the world's surface can not survive outside of this european club, and i think the whole argument of the remain side based upon real fear-mongering and scaremongering, isn't being bought by a majority of the british public. and if indeed the british people
decide to leave the european union i hope the united states will do all it can to ensure that the anglo-american special relationship remains strong, is greatly strengthened further, that the united states signs a free-trade agreement with the united kingdom, and i think that the "brexit" will offer tremendous opportunities actually for u.s.-u.k. cooperation. britain freed from the shackles of the european union will willa far stronger ally for the united states on the international stage. there also has been a suggestion that a british exit from the european union would weaken the nato alliance or weaken national security for great britain, weaken national security in europe. again i fundamentally disagree with that. i hardly think that, you know, vladmir putin loses sleep at night over the european union standing up to his aggression in ukraine, for example.
the e.u. is really a paper tiger. putin understands the strength of nato alliance. he understands the strength of the angst low-american special relationship. but the european union as far as russians are concerned has become a feckless weak-kneed force on the international stage and i have no doubt that a british exit from the european union would only strengthen the nato alliance rather than weaken it. it would give britain actually far more leeway as well to be able to stand up the to russian bear in europe in terms of sanctions that can be imposed against the russians. i think there are significant national security advantages for the great britain, not at least the ability to decide who comes into the country? and the e.u. border agency admitted earlier this week that europe's borders are so porous that 1.8 million illegal bored
crossingses were made last year, six times the previous record set in 2014. they also declared a staggering number of e.u. citizens traveled to syria to fight with isis. many of those returned and under the shengen agreement they're given to move with freedom among the european union. the agreement has become one of the biggest -- in the world of allowing islamist terrorism. allowing islamist terrorists to slip through the net easily to travel from one european country to the next. the paris attacks and brussels attacks would not have been possible if we did not have a shengen style a agreement. the scale of the ref goo crisis in europe is, it's vast, it's immense. it's really does threaten the fabric i think of european, of european societies in the future.
germany alone has taken over a million refugees. they're actually migrants in the past year. 200,000 migrants entered germany in february and march this year. this is costing germany 20 to 30 billion euros a year according to german mps. there are over 200,000 refugees in bavaria alone. angela merkel did all this actually without the consultation, without any consultation with the, with the german people. and then they then went on the european stage urging other european countries to take on large numbers of refugees and migrants and the vast majority of those countries refused to do so. we've seen the limits of german power in europe. and germany isn't really at the very heart of the european project but i think we will witness in the next two decades a period of significant german decline.
and i believe that, if britain leaves the european union, you will see britain significantly overtaking germany as an economic force in europe. and, let's remember that the refugees coming into countries like germany today, once they become german citizens after a period of five years, they will have the right to move over to the united kingdom and other european countries. so the refugee issue in germany, which is largely a self-made crisis i think on the part of angela merkel here, those refugees will have the rights then to move to the united kingdom. that is going to be a big factor as well in this "brexit" referendum. just out of time here but with regard to the future of u.s. policy towards europe, i would hope that the next u.s. president will embark on a fundamental review of america's
traditional backing for the european project. we need a new u.s. approach to europe based upon support for national sovereignty and nation states and america has no interest in backing the creation of a european superstate. and i i don't believe such superstate is in the interests of european countries themselves. and, the next u.s. president i think has to reinforce the importance of the transatlantic alliance with president obama has not done, rebuild u.s. military power in europe, sending a clear message to the russians that their aggression will be halted. and, the united states needs to stand up for the principles of self-determination, economic freedom, national sovereignty, in europe, the same principles that the american people themselves believe in. what is good for america as a sovereign nation is good for
europe as well. and i would hope the next u.s. president embarks upon a policy that is fit for the 21st century and not one that is tied to, to the 1950s and the 1960s and the origins of the european project. thank you. [applause] >> jeremy rabkin is a professor of law at antonin scalia school of law at george mason university. love to say that. but for two decades he was professor government at cornell university, he serves on board of directors at u.s. institute of peace, appointed by president bush but reappointed i guess by president obama, reconfirmed by the senate in 2011. the author of a great book, another great book on sovereign at this, "law without nations quote. >> thank you.
i particularly want to thank john establishing my credentials as somebody who has written a book about sovereignty. i'm for it. but i was a little stunned by nile gardiner saying that mrs. thatcher would have loved todd's book on the e.u. beuse, i mean i like it, but, i think my remarks are the kind of thing that mrs. thatcher would have called wet. sorry. being the antonin scalia school of law does not impose a doctrinal outlook on any of the professors i can just say anything. so i just want to briefly discuss three things that make me a little bit uneasy about the way todd presents this challenge
from the e.u. and the first is, i think he is putting a lot of weight on the form of government. i mean i know this is an old argument boeing back to aristotle how important the regime is but i think the e.u. is not able to be the decisive force in modern life that it sometimes appears to be in this book. just obvious example worthying about, norway, it's not in the e.u. but if you ask how does norway compare to denmark or sweden or finland, the things which this book talks about, declining religion, declining family life, declining fertility rate. growth of utopian fantasies,
growth of you know, social spending, i think norway is not at all different from the countries of the in the e.u. if you just step back and take in a larger view and ask, what about canada? it looks like e.u. countries, the truth is if you look at united states, it looks like e.u. countries a few decades further back. but you can see we're on the same trajectory. we of course have a declining birth rate and to insist that america is in totally different place from where europe is, is not a totally different place. it is just a little bit healthier, a little bit better off but there are many trends which seem to be trends of the modern world, for better or worse and i share the sense most of them are for worse but there's a lot going on in the modern world which is not the fault of the e.u. or
particularly caused by the e.u. it was mentioned previously by mr. rohac, do you say? yeah. it was the u.s. supreme court that imposed same-sex marriage. it wasn't the european court of justice. there are trends across the modern world that i don't think really map on to the e.u. way of looking at the world and the u.s. way of looking at the world. that is the first thing i want to say. the second thing is, the subtitle of this book is the new totalitarian temptation and, again i have to say i agree with mr. rohac, i don't like the e.u. i think it is creepy. i think, i think the net effect on europe is probably, if you net it all out, if you could net it all out they're probably a little worse off. they're sure not a whole lot better off.
but, totalitarian is not a word that fits the people in brussels who are spinning out all these regulations. seems to me the central problem of the e.u. is not that it is sinister but that it is silly. they have this fantasy all these countries can be yoked together and have common policy and of course they can't be yoked together and they don't have a common policy. so the characteristic problem is not that it is overbearing but it is weak. you see this in the way the e.u. dealt with challenges as opposed to deal with crisis on the border in ukraine and doesn't know what to do. so effectively it didn't do anything. suddenly this flow of refugees or migrants, this is a big challenge. ah, ah, they don't know what to do and they're not doing anything effective. terrorism. they don't know what to do, they're not doing anything effective. it is really telling to talk about totalitarianism, the capital of the e.u. is in brussels.
what are they doing to protect at least the e.u. ministries from terror attacks? the answer is, uh, i don't know, they're issuing documents and communiques. they're not in a position to be totalitarian. i think that doesn't quite fit. i think it is opportunity lost because what makes the e.u. utopian is not that it imagines it can control everything. it is that it imagines it can control everything without very much force. a lot of, number of people said this, and i think rightly, there is a way in which it is postmodern, but postmodern means it somehow forgotten the lessons of the modern world but in some way some people said neo-medieval. it wants to have authorities that don't have troops. it wants to have authorities that don't have police. it wants to have authorities that don't have to actually win secure popular support.
there is something about it that just fantastical, and i think in the end, you know, this is not a successful experiment but i don't think the way to characterize this as, oh, it is totalitarian. so just the last thing i wanted to talk about with is, if you set this up as clash of visions, america sees the world this way and the e.u. sees the world that way, the suggestion is, we'd have better partners if the e.u. basically disappeared, or, was reduced to an extent that it doesn't have much influence until we partner with individual european countries. i'm kind of skeptical of that. so i want to just briefly articulate that other way of looking at this. most of those countries are small. if they are not part of some
larger project, i think their tendency may be to say, our grand strategy is to duck. let me give you an example of the netherlands. it is in today's papers have stories about the referendum they had yesterday, should the netherlands go along with this treaty with ukraine? now this was not a treaty promising to send troops. it was not a military alliance. it was just ukraine, let's have trade and let's have a partnership and we like you and we want to encourage you. it was not something that should have been very controversial. why was it so controversial? the people insisted on referendum, very unusual to have referendum about a trey like that. and then in the referendum to have it voted down. just from reading about it and corresponding with somebody who was involved in this, there is a lot of people in the netherlands who think this eu-sponsored understanding with ukraine is a provocation to putin.
why would we want to provoke putin? we should try to get along with putin. we should try to lay low and not have problems. if you think, gee, that doesn't really make sense. why should -- this is where the netherlands was in 1939. where they were in 1940 until they were invaded in the first three months. this is where they were, you know, through the knitth century. we're a -- 19th century, if we are a small country we just scrunch down we won't have any problems and just be neutral. that was very appealing to many countries in europe including belgium. including denmark. including norway. including for practical purposes spain and portugal in the 20th century. let's not get drawn into big power politics some if you can imagine a world which the e.u. just falls to pieces and so you have 28 independent states or largely independent states
there, would this be better for the united states? i mean would we then have real partners that we could rely on? i need to say i'm skeptical. i don't think it follows that we should be campaigning to tell the brits that they should stay in the e.u. i'm not saying that but i think we should perhaps be a little bit cautious about being able to project what kind of world would serve our interests or the world's interests. there is a reason why small countries want want to be in soe larger entity and, i think it's important both as a matter of intellectual clarity and as a matter of kind of national self-respect for people to have awareness of sovereignty as something that matters you want to hold on to but maybe we should be a little bit cautious telling countries in europe, this is what you want to do and you too will be a superpower and they will not believe in the netherlands or belgium and it
won't be true but i do want to say that todd's book is very good read. i mean it's fun. there is a lot of interesting anecdotes. there are a lot of things in it that were new to me and it's be we really do need to think about this it is an important challenge in the world. it is very clear articulation of a certain perspective that makes it a valuable book. so, thank you. [applause] >> we'll have a little discussion here before we open it up to questions. i will give todd a chance to respond to various commenters. so take it away. >> thank you, john. i had a little, a couple of acoustical problems hearing back here, so i will use that as an excuse for not answering everything. maybe i would like to start out with just, with jeremy's
comments about canada and norway and so forth with an anecdote. i remember i was at a cocktail party. we diplomats, we must go to cocktail parties and have fun. taxpayers pay for it. in brussels, when i was talking to the head of the north america office in the european commission at the time was called directorate general of external relations. so kind of the proto foreign ministry of the e.u. head of the north american office. this was during the bush years. he was saying, canada is so easy to work with. why can't you guys be more like canada? and i said, so, gunter, when it canada going to join the e.u. anyway? that would be my answer to that. i thought it was funny.
i mean you're absolutely right, jeremy. the e.u. is characterized many ways much more by its weakness rather than its strength. but, and there are all kinds of trends that are going on that i talk about in the book that are not necessarily connected directly to global governance. but part of the thesis of the book is that global governance is one, a, a manifestation of a new kind of post-christian, postmodern development in the formerly christian west and it is important to recognize it as such, if one is a thinking person, is thinking about what is happening in the west as a whole and how can we understand it and thus how can we try to deal with it. one. two, as john points out in his
work on global governance, global governance may seem to be weak. i'm reminded a little bit of stall -- stalin, where were the pope's armies, where are the european union's armies? if you're concentrated on the power of world views about what people believe about what they're committed to the e.u.'s analogy of global dove nance is a very attractive and. it exerts a tremendous. amount you power over elites in europe. it exerts a tremendous amount of power over those involved with other international organizations like the united nations. it exerts a huge amount of power on the left in the united states because it is all part of this post-christian, post-modern attempt to remake the world in its own image and therefore the
e.u. is not significant for everything but it's very significant as a very important and attractive manifestation that is dangerous to democratic accountability. that is dangerous to self-government, of the postmodern, post-christian world view. another thing about the book is, you know, it says, i noticed in the program it said it was 280 pages. i want to assure you, actually 50 pages of that are notes. so for, in a little bit more than 200 pages you have to generalize, and i think one of the problems very often with dealing with political issues that are bigger than just single political issues is the, the fear of generalization. you have to have a general
understanding what's generally going on in order to understand the thing in its larger significance. my comment on dalibor's remark, i could hear you less unfortunately than i could hear others but, i just want to say that it's, from what i did understand of it, it was quite typical of many of the pro-e.u. people that i have met in brussels and elsewhere in europe. you know, kind of this pragmatic view. well, you know, we're, part of which is, well it's not really working so what you're saying is not valid. for example, you said something about how the eurozone crisis is not going to lead to a fiscal union. well, the fiscal compact for one made between all of the member-states except at the time the czech republic and the u.k.,
was a big huge step in the direction of fiscal union but even so it seems to me strange to defend the e.u., as happens so often, part of what you were saying too, jeremy, defend the e.u. in certain sense from -- it is really not working, so what are you talking about? let's see. and i want to, i want to say something too about the whole section on the eurozone and then the section on human rights and so forth that was larger than the section on the eurozone. first of all there is someone in the audience who really, really helped me with the eurozone chapters. i want to thank that person. you know who you are. appreciate that very much. but second, part of what i'm trying to say in the book is, the e.u. is not about economics. it is not about economics. it is not about the eurozone.
the eurozone is a symptom of a far larger thing and for me, with my, way of looking at the world, what's happening to the idea of human rights, what is happening to the idea of self-government, what's happening to the idea of democratic accountability, and the developments against all of those things that are going, that are approaching with little cat feet in the e.u. is much more important than whether the e.u. is economically a good or a bad thing. i think it is a bad thing but economic part is part but if you want to understand the e.u., you need to understand that it is not about economics. >> nile, why don't you pick up, jeremy was saying, well, these 28 countries -- better to have the e.u. around as a partner for
the united states than have 20 separate countries. he didn't mention nato of course but you may want to pick up at that point? >> yes. just firstly, as todd was saying, the european union, the idea of, you know the eurozone single currency, as you say it is not really about economics. it's about politics. the european project is a political project. it is about the centralization of political power and, as margaret thatcher said, you know, the idea is creating european superstate is perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era and, i think that, you know, central part of margaret thatcher's arguments against the european union in more recent, recent times, you know, were based on the idea that the
eurozone crisis is really a political project is more than anything else and but with regard to jeremy's remarks, does it make a big difference between whether the united states are dealing with a collection of nation-state or a political entity formed by the european union? i would argue america is far better off dealing with a collection of nation states than it is dealing with an entity such as the european union. because increasingly i think that european governments are farming out their foreign policy to brussels and that's very, very dangerous thing. the last thing you want on earth i think is to have bureaucrats in brussels shaping your foreign policy and your national security strategy. and you know, these bureaucrats in brussels, they can't even defend brussels let alone the rest, the rest of europe. i think that europe would be far
better off actually if national governments had complete, full control over their own national security, foreign policy, and all aspects of government. and i think the european union is really a collection of, well it is really all about the lowest common denominator and doing the least amount possible actually to deal with a particular crisis. and i think america would be in far better position if it could deal directly with say germany on the refugee issue or poland with regard to the rising menace of posed by russia and what unites of course both sides of the atlantic is really the nato alliance. and i think that would be far better off actually without super national entity in europe today and instead dealing with individual european capitols and working together through the
nato partnership. >> dalibor, we'll have comments. then go -- >> clarify what i said in my opening remarks about, about the lack of evidence for the e.u. evolving towards some kind of actual superstate. i think i stand by that idea, to the extent to which first of all, there is no credible intellectual case being made for european superstate not by anybody, even most ardent promoters of the european union. mr. baroso or any of the bureaucrats or, their intellectual allies are making their case. the problem with the e.u. is, in my opinion, that it's both overreaching, overextending itself trying to do too much and it is also fairly weak. i mean that is the fundamental mismatch between its ambitions and between what it can actually
do and to solve that, i don't think we can, you know, easily go back to europe of nation states. what we can do reasonably is try to apply some way of thinking that was used by, actually many people in the free market liberal government, conservative, intellectual tradition which is to go back to the idea of federalism. i'm not talking about federalism in the conventional european sense, as sort of a catch-all fries for more integration but federalism in the defense of the -- many columnists argue there are public goods that should be provided at different levels of government. that euro-wide public goods, national public goods and local public goods. we need a system of government where none of these layers has some sort of absolute overarching sovereignty. we need to match these levels of
governments to sort of public good. we need that. i think that applies nicely to many of the european problems except there are very few people who are making that case today. with regard to the fiscal facts, i wasn't making a defense of the e.u. in my epopenning statement. i was just liking just a scriptive observations if you see the e.u. slipper slope to a superstate, developments don't lend much credence to the belief. the fiscal impact is nothing but an extension of the previously-agreed on stability and growth package which was part of the master treaty but absolutely lacked teeth. it was not respected by some of the leading member-states and partly why the eurozone gointo it is present mess. so i'll stop here. i have more to say but i don't want to hijack the discussion. >> you have a book. >> and i have a book. >> right.
we'll take questions. benjamin. >> thank you. thank you, john. i'm benjamin hadad. fellow here at the hudson institute. i have, i have a couple of remarks and questions actually, three areas. first one is on foreign policy. so you said e.u. and states are on collision course and basically e.u. was at heart of this sort of anti-american project. i have a few points. but first you also said e.u. had huge poll power in foreign policy and -- had huge power. i don't think you find a single person who believes that including the madam mogari. but anyway on at same time united states supported european construction last 60 years. it has been a bipartisan project in the european or united states to support european construction. european construction enlargement usually gone hand in
hand with nato enlargement if you look at central and eastern europe and countries fall of soviet union. took example of iraq war. made a disingenuous case of iraq war had nothing to do with european union. some european union countries supported united states, sent troops to iraq, u.k., poland, italy, spain, portugal. other countries like france and germany opposed the war and arguments in favor of the war. i don't think it had much to do going with security council. going to security council was decision of u.s. diplomacy decided to print the resolution. the second resolution was not supported by some members of the security council on the basis of justification for the war. i don't think you will find a lot of french and germans who regret not going to iraq today. same time four years before, there was intervention in kosovo, supported by european
country with the united states. just a couple years ago, francois hollande and david cameron wanted to intervene in syria outside of the security council. it was the u.s. that backed down on the intervention after the use of chemical weapons. i think example of iraq war is really fits in this. so my first question i guess is, has every american president. from john kennedy to ronald reagan to bill clinton to george w. bush been delusional in promoting european integration and european enlargement? my second question, relates to when you talk about the lack of democracy and you often referred to voters, a majority of voters. voters are against the project. but i don't understand request where you find this majority of voters. i'm a french citizen, for example. if i want ply country to get out of the european union, i can vote for her. she is running on this she is constantly in the media.
she has never gathered more than 18% in presidential election, like her father. probably will get more. i do agree there is political momentum in european union among public discourse and the electorate. the brits have the opportunity to say whether they want to stay in the european union or not in a couple months. but, i don't see any majority in any country of the european union so far in favor of dismantling european union, getting out of the european union. so that it is your perspective on this, i understand, but i don't see where you find constantly this majority of voters that you're referring to. i think it's, i don't think that's real. my third point because you haven't addressed this. both dalibor and jeremy addressed this brilliantly, totalitarianism. i think words matter. the title of your book, the new
totalitarian temptation. i will probably be more blunt than our two speakers. totalitarianism used to define the 20th century, nazi germany and soviet union. simply do you believe the european union is the heir to stalin and -- >> first to the iraq war, we could make, assertions against each other, you know, keep doing assertions all day but i just want to tell you that, no one who understands how the e.u. actually works, foreign policywise can possible say that the e.u. high representative, even before there was officially a high representative under the lisbon treaty does not have power.
javier solano, beef the lisbon treaty had tremendous amount of power and influence. catherine ashton and fred reek mogrini. that is simply a fact. the iraq war, i wasn't saying that the e.u., i wasn't focusing on the e.u. there. i was focusing on the ideology of global governance and how the ideology of global governance has hindered, has hindered the war on terrorism. and using, and. >> we're going to break away from the last few minutes of this. take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate where they continue work on setting federal aviation administration policy. live coverage now on c-span2. xtd expensing limitations and for other purposes.