tv Discussion on the Future of the European Union CSPAN April 8, 2016 10:00am-11:46am EDT
and with really abuse. and opioid abuse. they will discuss the vaccine and anti-vaccine movement. dr. ruth bell will join us talking about ebola and the zika virus. joining us will be dr. thomas the 70thtalking about anniversary and the future of the cdc. we will close with the head of the center for injury talking about a test about opioid addiction. morning, live to a conversation on the future of the european union hosted by the hudson institute. foreign policy scholars will discuss the possibility of great britain leaving the eu,
the jury of the european political union? will the cultural and political challenges of radical islam strengthen or weaken the eu? what does the future of the eu mean for the united states and the transatlantic alliance? we will be trying to answer those questions this morning. the european union represents a new form of governance beyond the nationstate in general and beyond the democratic nationstate in particular.
before we get started i will quote three european leaders from the left, right, and center -- who after world war ii were concerned -- before charles de gaulle and margaret thatcher voiced their resignations, they were concerned about the future of democracy in an integrated europe. tom the left in opposition the creation of the poland steel communion, clement atlee declared that rigid "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." , thethe right in france leader of the national assembly opposed "delegating our powers to a stateless and uncontrolled you talk receipt of experts."
1950 seven, in opposition to the founding documents to the forerunner of the european union, former french premier may abdicaterats by giving in to internal dictatorship, but also by delegating his powers to an external authority." that was in opposition to the treaty of rome. speaker is the director of international outreach at the acton institute for the study of religion and liberty in grand rapids michigan . he is the author of a new book. the new is entitled totalitarian 10 tatian: global governance and the crisis of democracy in europe --
temptation: global governance and the crisis of democracy in europe. in my view it is the best book to date written on the european union. he was the political counselor at the u.s. mission in brussels, the european union, luxembourg, and in munich, hamburg, frankfurt, mexico. he served on the state department in washington dc he knows the european union as few scholars and statement -- statemen do. >> thank you, john. thank you for coming. i appreciate your interest. things do not look good in europe. before the summer is out, britain might decide to leave
the eu. facto little more than a protector of the international monetary fund, and the international monetary bank. schengen is in danger of being demolished. devastating terrorist attacks have occurred regularly in europe since the 2004 ledger and train bombings. the threat of jihadist terrorism remains throughout europe. how did this come about? and my book i contend the european union's commitment to ,an-european governments overriding powers of member states is eroding democracy in europe, threatening human rights, and putting the eu on a collision course with the united states.
there are five major arguments. the first, the eu is transforming europe from democratically accountable nationstates into a post democratic order in they have little say in how they are governed. the migrant crisis increases the risk of terrorism in europe and eu pursuitd with the of a globalist supranational dream. because of different views on national sovereignty and accountability, the united states and european union are, in principle, on a collision course. europe is largely post-christian , while the u.s. government is based on a judeo christian worldview. it is a difference in the role of government. fifth, many of the human rights
promoted by the eu are harmful because they contradict tradition only human nature, and the fact that human beings are not only individuals, but embedded in religion, family, and community here ever like to concentrate on 2 things. an overview on what makes the eu tick and comment on how it ticks. nsen the clash of visio between the united states and the eu. what is the eu in essence? it is very hard to say. anyone who attempts is taking a big risk. there are so many different goals, interests, languages, and people that coexist. the eu is unprecedented. nothing like it has ever
existed. the european union is unlike any other international arrangement or organization that exists. for example, some people think of it as a free trade or customs the, but it is more than u.s. and mexico under nafta. like any othereu international organization that may seem comparable. take the oas. the eu and oas are regional organizations. is pan-american with all of the states in the western hemisphere, so is the eu close to being pan-european. there, the similarities end. member states with their coordination on policy issues
and powerful, and institutions in brussels and luxembourg are more integrated than the oas or any other international organization. the eu is more than an international organization. neither is the eu like a federal state. it is not a united states of europe. as independentt nations. what is the eu? my belief is what it comes down to is that the eu is a super nationalist -- supra- project. ing ande pool relinquishing elements of their sovereignty. they are succeeding large amounts of their powers to the super national institutions of the eu that are distinct from
member states and function independently above the national level. the essence of the european project, not just the nuts and bolts, but the hope behind the european dream, the heart, soul, and mind of the eu is the super nationalism. the process of integration arose out of the ashes of world war ii and the determination that war should never arise from european soil. that it should never happen again. this was a noble vision. it was understandable given the devastation brought by world war ii and world war i. , it is ahe problems powerful vision. a harmonious and
peaceful europe united with french, germans, and spaniards working together for a better europe and world. union is not only about europe. the vision of the eu, the supranationalist approach, is a model for a new way to model the world. the super nationalism is a new governance, putting the super national governance in practice on a global scale to realize by overcoming the unlimited sovereignty of nations, which the eu believes is the root of war. here is a model for global governance, the eu has real credibility. it is e only functioning model
of how a global governance might work. what is global governance? both definitions are technocratic without getting to the heart of the matter. here is how i would define global governance. the attempt to introduce a global rule of law and interest of achieving an unprecedented degree of world peace and prosperity -- not via one government, but by the development of a network of international institutions that administer an ever greater body of international law, to which nationstates are subject. states in nation their foreign-policy and substantial areas of domestic policy. the key is development of a
global rule of law. no one knows exactly with the global rule of law will look d is in the end, if an en meant to be achieved. process, constant process, constant becoming. never ending. back to the european level, how does the eu attempt to build a supranational democracy? as you know, it works primarily powerful centralizing institutions over state governments and distinct from member state governments. i would like to characterize the most important institutions. commission.uropean arm thatexecutive
enforces regulations throughout the eu. it has an important legislative function. with rare exceptions it is the only institution in the eu with the power to proposed legislation called the right of institution. -- the right of initiative. it means two things. witheu legislation starts elected technocrats in the european commission, and that the eu executive arm has perhaps the most important legislative power, violating the separation of powers that damages democratic accountability. the second, the council of ministers. is an institution in which representatives of member state governments work together to form policies in their domains. the council ministers is the
but meets in 10 different formations depending on the policy area. the foreign affairs council, the environment council, the economic and financial counsel, etc.. another typical thing about the eu that muddies the waters, it is one institution that has separate formations. thing aboutrtant the council is the council of ministers is a both hands institution. the members of the council both represent the governments and act as members of the institutionl eu that is distinct from their governments and in which they belong in a closer way than they
would in any other international organization. this brings a lot of lack of clarity to the ministers. a lack of clarity is typical of we have the european parliament. it is not a parliament. it is not do the things that most do. it is not levy taxes, for example. it is not draft legislation. the european legislation does. it is drafted by the commission. parliament and ministers cannot amend legislation. forget twist that many that renders it on parliamentary
in the traditional sense, there is no majority party or coalition in the parliament representing the government party, and there is no minority party representing the opposition as in other parliaments, because there is no government and the eu and no opposition. everyone governs together in a hybrid system of supranational governance. a final example from my experience in the state department, although foreign policy is supposedly according hashe eu treaties, the eu become a huge foreign-policy player. the ministers meet monthly to coordinate policies as closely as possible in the foreign affairs council. the eu has created its own de
with theeign minister title the high representative of the european union for foreign affairs and security policies. she chairs the monthly foreign affairs ministers meetings and sets the agenda. she travels extensively as their representative of the eu. she was john kerry's principal european partner in the negotiation with byron. -- with iran. it is also created its own de facto foreign minister, the european external action service. i would say from my personal experience the eu is an important foreign-policy partner for the u.s. as germany, france, or great britain. in terms of day-to-day interaction with high-level u.s. diplomats more important than the midsized or smaller eu
states. one of the u.s.'s most important partners is something that is not a country with a government that is not a government, a foreign minister is not a foreign minister, a diplomatic corps that is not a diplomatic corps, with all of these elements on behalf of an organization that no one has ever been able to define in a way that everyone can agree on. eu. is my overview of the it is different from anything that has ever existed before in the world. what is at the root of all of this? how did the eu come about? that brings us to the second topic, the transatlantic clash of visions between the u.s. and eu. , but a complex topic
americans must understand that the eu and u.s. have different versions of the world. world's vision of the of sovereign nations. the u.s. hopes to achieve a more peaceful and prosperous world by promoting democracy and the rule of law so the system is distinguished by democratically accountable governments accountable to their citizens that cooperate peacefully. the eu's vision is of a post-nationstate world in which war and conflicts are overcome because the full sovereignty of nationstate is relinquished to global governance based on a web of international organizations and a body of international law. even though the western and central european countries remain the most important ally to the u.s., i want to emphasize that europe is our most
important ally, the clash of vision puts the eu and u.s. on a in principle if not always in practice. ani-americanism is inevitable outgrowth of the european idea if one thinks logically. as the world's most powerful nationstate that jealously guards its sovereignty, it is the guerrilla in the way of the -- the gorilla in the way of the vision to the u.n. state. not just the experience in world war ii and the desire to do away with conflicts in european nations -- i would like to mention a central fact. the religious different tween the u.s. and eu. the u.s. is the most judeo-christian of the modern
developed societies. is largely secular. the u.s. system of government is based on a sober judeo-christian view of human nature and government. this is the whole reason for the separation of powers and checks u.s..lances in the it is striking how deeply indebted to christianity the anthropology in the federalist papers is. regardless if the authors were believing christians are not. hamilton, madison, and jay ,ccepted that human beings while capable of good, were flawed and limited. sinful, as christians would put it. government had to be separated so the flawed human beings that held governmental power did not impose a tear in need.
i would argue the views on human tyranny. impose a i would argue these views on human nature are the instinctive view for americans, regardless if they are believing christians or not. cold surely, america -- culturally, america's more judeo-christian than not. social democratic view of human nature that social justice can be achieved through government action and government planning. this is not just a can be achieved, it is a must he achieved. for most people in post-christian europe and the governing elite, this is all there is. then the presupposition all conviction that the highest justice must be determined by human beings and pursued via politics and government.
this is a radical clash of visions between the u.s. and eu. the clash between democratic sovereignty in the nation states and global governance rooted in the clash between the religiously informed worldview of the u.s. and a nonreligious worldview in the eu. i would like to give you one example of how the difference plays out. i had three, but for the purpose of time, i will give one. how it plays out, the ideology of global governance, though unrealistic, has real-world consequences. my example for this real-world consequence is the war on terror . whatever you want to call it, i know the phrase war on terror has been subject to this agreement, this is the number one foreign policy of the united states since september 11, 2001. in many ways the eu has been our most important ally in the
struggle. at the same time the eu has often, and repeatedly, then our worst antagonist. the advocates of the ideology want to subject the u.s. on the war on terrorism to a crippling regime of international law. one of many examples, the war in iraq. the popular mythology is the controversy over the war centered on the question if there were weapons of mass distraction in iraq. before the invasion, almost everyone, including the french, germans, and russians, believed saddam hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. the dispute was if a preventive attack was justified under international law and if war could be legitimate with the approval of the eu security council. if the u.s. could do if it
thought was -- could do what he thought was necessary to protect its citizens without the approval of the four permanent members of the eu security council. it was a battle of worldviews centered on the authority of supranational governance. they believed the u.s. did not have the right to protect its citizens without a permission slip from russia and china, to put it bluntly. to say nothing of a permission slip from france. people of goodwill disagree on iraq and the combat terrorism and the information on which advance policy decisions is limited and unverifiable. the issues are complex. we are dealing with shades of gray, and we may never know in
many cases if what we did was the right thing to do. the global governance is to not -- the global governance is to not want to deal with uncertainty. the blinders are set in place p are they want to realize their vision based on a character of reality and that has hindered the prosecution of the war on terror. , what is the eu? most people do not know. be going out on a limb and say that most europeans don't know. i've lived in europe for most of my life. most educated, intelligent, politically astute europeans that do not live in brussels do not know what the european union is, but it's beating heart is the idea of achieving peace
through supernational governance and extended globally the idea of achieving peace through global governance. as john mentioned, the question of democracy is at the core. the eu has never squared the circle to fit supernational with the democracy. it has never figured out how it's supernational -- it supernatural governance can be made accountable. i believe the circle cannot he squared. where are we now? what is the future of the european union? brief finish with a few summary remarks on the brexit, the destabilization of domestic politics in the eu states, cultural exhaustion in the european union and the european dream. brexit -- the heart of the
brexit question is the british people's right to govern themselves. the issues that one hears about, non-british citizens living in the u.k., or rejecting london from regulation, are important but not the main point. the main question is if the british people have the right to govern themselves and if self-government is more important than the perceived benefits of being in the eu. the destabilization of domestic politics in the eu. for a long time, and accelerating since the 2014 european elections, pro-european establishment parties have been hemorrhaging support. protest parties have been gaining ground. some, but not all, of the are on the far
right and far left fringes. few among the established elite have drawn this state of conclusion. after 65 years the eu has shown undemocratic, unaccountable, and unresponsive to voters. they want the power transferred back to their governments. they should be accountable to those they claim to serve. the final straw that fueled the ongoing political upheaval was and thezone crisis economic hardship in gendered by the politically motivated decision to establish a common currency for differing economies. the second final straw is the ongoing migration crisis and the
disruption it is causing. the latest final straw is the vulnerability of the europe with open borders to deadly terrorism, as we have seen in .russels and france the question is, how many more final straws can the eu take? the migrant crisis shows into relief the impression of a dying civilization that has jetted from the believes that birthed it, throwing open the gates to worldview that shows itself capable of throwing a politically correct europe aside and establishing something different on the ruins of the european dream. the european dream and the persistence of the european dream. the european dream is not dead. lost in their focus on hard
european version of "it's the economy, stupid." have been toos complacent. if they are dismissing ever closer union as unrealistic aspirations that will never come to pass and be ignored, if they have proven anything, they have proven that they underestimate the power of ideas, dreams, and world views. there is no justification for the pragmatists to indulge in underestimating the power of the , however much the european fiasco and migrant crisis has exposed the inherent quality. -- inherent folly. evidence that many british elites still refuse to accept that the eu has never been about economics, and they reveal again
that many economic elites have bought into the idea that supranational should trump patriotism and democratic sovereignty, because they brings integration markets and buyers closer to them. the majority of the european political class is in favor of the european integration. andindifference acquiescence of the majority of european voters may be too strong of a counterweight to the determination necessary over the long haul to roll back the eu to a more modest respect for national sovereignty. proven to beften blessings to the cause of european integration. the jury is out on if that includes the most recent crises. so far, elites have taken advantage to transfer unprecedented hours to the eu level. they are trying to do the same
with the migrant crisis, and it is unclear if they will fail. you for your interest. i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> are we on, adam? the next speaker will be dalibor rohac, a research fellow at the american enterprise answer to where he studies central eastern europe, the european union, the eurozone. relations and the post-communist transitions from post-communism. dalibor: i should begin by stating that i have a conflict of interest. i have my own book about the
european union coming out next month. in so far as most people probably are going to limit their purchases of eu-related very materialn my interest to dissuade you from purchasing his book and encourage you to buy my own book . it is out may 11 with roman and littlefield in hardcover and .aperback, reasonably priced if you are keen on doing , itstmas shopping early is a wonderful gift. on a serious note, john invited me here, and said that i would disagree with him. he was right. i thought this was a very book, andg read of a
was often correct on the diagnosis and what had gone merkelnd the angela handling of the refugee influx. quite often diagnosed ms. tions ofs -- mis-func the eu. what struck me was the new solitary and is in -- the new totalitarianism. i was the only one on the panel brought up in a totalitarian regime, czechoslovakia. where people were trying to escape. there are some areas in reserving the term for those that do governance require this subservience of its
citizens, and not a catchall phrase. , it is an just to provoke relates to the main argument, european integration is deliberately driven by ideological considerations to replace democratic decision-making in nationstates by form of governance at the supernational level. i suppose such ideology exists, and those here for that ideology think there would not be a time workplace for argument for them. you will not get a lot of mileage from this argument to understand what the eu is, how it came about, it's problems, and potential solutions. a superficial observation after skimming the first couple of pages, the slippery slope
argument that there is a relationship between european runsration and democracy in the face of the fact that 70 years of european integration has been 70 years that has coincided with a flourishing of democracy in europe. there are issues with the project, democratic deficits, overreach, etc. -- but compared to what europe new before -- knew before, we are living in the best of all possible times. , looking at the events of the last couple of years, the numerous crises europe has found itself in, it is difficult to argue these were transfersd by power to brussels. the power transfer has not led and is unlikely to lead to the
formation of a fiscal union. the refugee crisis is a reaffirmation of national level .olitics on a grand scale on methods of foreign policy it thatot frederica mor was negotiating, it was european leaders. these are superficial observations. the problem running through the , which may not be the best way to frame the discussion, democracy and global governance with the erosion of the government. i think you run into the problems that the book leaves unexplained. how is it possible that so many limited government and
in-market voices have been favor of national sovereignty? in 1939, the outbreak of the war, the dean of the free market movement wrote an essay called on economic conditions of interstate confederations. he argued the problem with classical liberalism is it didn't take into account the thelems that arise with lack of a common interstate structure of national security. you cannot really realize interest of different states until you have a framework of international security. let me explain what he means. a common federal government in europe. he says under the government, citizens define international authority.
there is no conflict with this idea and thought of limited government and free enterprise. he says they are mutually reinforcing. open markets and a successful federation and vice versa, the logical consummation of the liberal program, he means classical liberalism. extremist.an we find the same arguments in landis growth economics. he argued federalism should be scaled up to the european level to provide a framework of governance. it is no less a limited for thent consultant theiran union and argued
services to the european federation was sovereignty and "subrogation by military powers." over doesn't take it as a micro-aggression. was in favortcher of the u.k. membership in 9075 she did so with a clear understanding it meant international sovereignty. our sovereignty to make decisions by our nato membership and from the speech that she gave in north london and 9075 before the referendum was that she was a differing kind and the anti-europe campaign -- that every nation
have been obliged with sovereignty to grade more effective political units. as long as you are going to claim your part of the same intellectual tradition apart ,rom these people of importance you have to explain that he did not find in the book. , actuallyry argument european governments replacing national level democracy, the claim has to do with the religion. the european idea is a utopian commitment. it is reconciled with christianity, there's no place for christianity. europe is a post-christian nation. eu book walks us through the various documents which are
compared to the u.s. constitution, the polish constitution, the federalist somes, which all make reference to christianity and religion. fact europe is far less religious than poland on average. it is less religious than the united states in the 18th century. , that is a more compelling explanation than one that invokes the european ideology. if you are going to claim european integration has been instrumental in the erosion of christian beliefs in europe, you have to grapple with the fact that the founding fathers of the ,deology, integrated europe
also the leading figures of the european christian rights, catholics who are very serious about their religion, before the beginning of negotiations at the treaty of paris they met at the monastery on the rhine for prayer. only christians guarantee justice and the liberty of individuals in a democracy. directive fore economic and cultural life of the people. 1954, a founding father with buildings and after him in brussels asked the question -- if you think differently, we all pray in the same way, the same
gesture and word will call me a -- will calm you. these are the founding fathers of those christian eu. there in support of the european project in many features. 1961 both discussed the content in different contexts is repeated. an argument by authority, if you're going to make the case for it, the christian nature of the european program, you have to explain what it is that you see that these people didn't see. i was surprised to see how much space the book dedicates to the issue. it is interesting, but, to me, not the heart of the clinical
and economic trouble plaguing europe. four or five chapters of the book were dedicated to religion. two chapters about the euro zone crisis. 16the index i counted mentions to the euro. writes, understand where he's coming from and respect it, but don't know why he is making this about the eu. it is not the case the eu is imposing same-sex marriage on hapless european countries. there has been a shift in public , which is endemic of the environment. 61% of eu citizens are in favor
of same-sex marriage compared to 64% of australians, 91% of the dutch. institutions are trailing behind the controversies in the united states. there are merits for the book, i enjoyed reading it. i learned a lot reflecting on it , but it is a missed opportunity to ask important questions about european integration. a fundamentalist and the there's, he doesn't say no use for it whatsoever, he says he wants to transform it into a platform for sovereign nationstates. he doesn't tell us what he means by that in practical terms.
framework, thel binary choice between sovereign nationstate level democracy and global governance doesn't give you much mileage at guessing at the answer. roughly two pages at the end were dedicated to european reform. binary, ifn is not we want sovereign nationstates or government, it is what economists call the globalization trilemma. the estates at a fundamental level, national sovereignty, democracy, and economic integration are mutually incompatible. at any point you can have two of the three, but not all three simultaneously and in full. most economists think of
european issues, you do not see a grand battle. you will see trade-offs. do we want more sovereignty, more democracy? i'm not making the case for a framework, but if you're going to present the alternative you have to engage with the literature on the subject to explain why your alternative leads to a richer presentation of the eu's problems and solutions. i do not see that done in this book. maybe i am just i -- em bittered with my own material interest some of which, remember, is out my 11. [applause] -- next wehave nile have nile gardiner.
he has wrecked at the heart of washington policy for a decade. formered as an aide to british prime minister margaret thatcher and advised her on her final book, stagecraft: strategies for changing world. thank you. it is great to be here. a fantastic new building. todd'start by saying book is terrific, and one of the finest books written on the evils of the european project, and one margaret thatcher would have devoured. she would have enjoyed it thoroughly. it is a very insightful look into the current state of affairs in regards to the european union, not a pretty
state of affairs by any stretch of the imagination. the word disaster could be applied to the current state of affairs. i would like to talk about the brexit debate. how that is moving forward, the issues, and where that is going. crisis, thefugee national security threat in also, what the next u.s. president and administration should do with regard to europe. advocating a complete reversal of traditional u.s. support for the european project. i would like to begin by placing you into the heart of what is really at stake in europe with regards to national sovereignty. i would like for you to imagine
if the united states was part of a pan-american project, the equivalent of the european project. stretching from argentina to canada. schengenf there was a -style agreement eliminating border controls between almost every country in south america and north america. complete movement between these countries across a pan-american european project-style institution. imagine if there is a pan-american commission in --ican city chafing 2/3 chafing 2/3 of american laws. imagine a pan-american court in buenos aires ruling over the u.s. supreme court. imagine if there was a drive to create a pan-american army as a ,ompetitor to the nato alliance
drawing in resources under the command of perhaps venezuelan or brazilian generals. imagine if the united states sent members of parliament to a in american parliament south american city with those members of parliament lecturing the american people on how they should be living their lives. this is the reality on the ground in europe with regard to the european project. the european union is nothing less than a surrender of national sovereignty within europe. britain is not part of the schengen agreement, which covers 22 members of the european union and 26 countries in total, but
britain, like every other member of the european union, is part and parcel of the european project. the brexit referendum on june 23, which will decide britain's isn't aboutrope, whether or not the british people will reject the european project, whether or not the british people will reassert self-determination and national sovereignty -- it is about britain being once again a truly sovereign and independent nation. ws two thirds of your la originate in brussels you are not a free country. if your ports are subject to the rulings in luxembourg, you are not a free country. i don't think the american people whatever subject themselves to the supranational that the american
people should accept the idea that the race people --british people to have their sovereignty submerged in the european project that exemplifies the big government mindset at the heart of europe. when you ask a lot of these people what they think, the european union mean to them, many brits will tell you the european union means bureaucrats, telling the british people what to do. the european union has a big government, corruption, inefficiency, lack of accountability. european union is about the absence of border control and the ability to be a control into your own country. these are all huge issues for the british people.
the latest opinion polls show the brexit campaign and the remaining campaign are basically neck and neck. if you look at polls that go to turn out and enthusiasm, some of those polls show a significant lead for the brexit side. there was a lead for the brexit campaign. debate is abrexit battle between in large part the grassroots of the conservative party and the political establishment. the government is supporting britain staying inside the european union. there are five cabinets campaigning for brexit. there was a resignation.
the mayor of london join the brexit campaign. about half of the conservative mp's are backing brexit. about 70% of the conservative party members. it has become a tremendous metal between grassroots conservatives combined with a sizable chunk of the labour party. the battle between the grassroots and the political elite and the business elite as well. to has been a lot of talk -- there has been talk about david --usingand's government government money and a printing company that receives a large number of eu handouts.
the irony is not lost on the british people. i do think the british people offered an opportunity to jump on a lifeboat that is being thrown off the side of the titanic. that is what the european union really is today. i do not think it will survive in the current form, actually. i think that for millions of british people, this is a fundamental issue of self determination and sovereignty, and the ability to control their own borders. president obama will be traveling to london in a couple of weeks reportedly to tell the british people how to vote in their own referendum. there is been a backlash already in the british press over this. i do not think the role of the u.s. president to be telling the
british people how to vote in their own referendum. i think that president obama is completely wrong with regard to the european union as a whole. the obama administration has been a supporter. many previous administrations of abacked the idea federal europe. u.s.might be the last administration to do that. i will talk more about that later. the message from the british people should be that president obama needs to mind his own business when it comes to the british referendum. is not his role to tell the british people what they should be thinking. it has been suggested by president obama and others across the world that britain would struggle to survive
outside of the european union and that britain would be a weaker partner of the international stage. that is nonsense, frankly. great britain today is the fifth-largest economy. 2030 asake germany by the largest economy in europe. it is a nuclear power. a country with one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the earth. the idea that britain cannot survive outside of the european dubbed projecten fear, that a nature and once held sway over 1/3 of the world's surface could not survive outside of this club.
the argument of the remaining side based upon fear mongering is not being bought by a majority of the british public. if indeed the british people decide to leave the european union, i would hope the united states would do all it can to ensure that the special relationship remains strong, is greatly strengthened further, that the united states finds a free trade agreement with the united kingdom. and i think brexit is a tremendous opportunity. a britain freed from the shackles of the european union will be a far stronger ally for the united states on the international stage. that has been a suggestion it would weaken the nato alliance or national security for great britain.
i disagree with that. i hardly think vladimir putin loses sleep at night over the european union standing up to his aggression in ukraine, for example. the eu is a paper tiger. he understands the strange of the special relationship. but the european union has k-kneeda week -- wea force on the international stage. it would strengthen the nato alliance rather than weaken it. it will give britain more leeway to be able to stand up to the russian bear. i think national security
advantages for great britain, not the least the ability to decide who comes into the country. --europe border support 1.8 million border crossers last year, six times the previous record. a staggering number of citizens fight isis. many have returned. they are given the freedom to move within much of the european union. i i think the agreement has become one of the biggest facilitators of the world of islam's terrorism, allowing them to child from one european country to the next. attack would not have been possible if we do not have a schengen style agreement.
europe refugee crisis in is vast, immense. doesn't threaten the fabric of european society in the future. germany has taken over a million migrants in the past year. 200,000 migrants entered germany in february and march this year. over 200,000 refugees in bavaria alone. they did this without any consultation with the german people. she then went on the european g otherrving -- urgin countries to take migrants. the vast majority of the country
refuse to do so. germany isn't really the heart of the european project. we will witness significant german decline. i believe if britain leaves the european union, you will see antain overtaking germany as economic force in europe. remembers the refugees coming into germany today, once they become german citizens, they have the right to move over to the united kingdom and other european countries. a self-made crisis on the part of angela merkel. those refugees have the right to move to the united kingdom. that will be a big factor in
this brexit referendum. just to conclude, with regard to u.s. policy toward europe, i would hope the next u.s. president would embark on a review of america's backing for the european project. we need a new u.s. approach to europe based on approach for nationstates. inrica has no interest backing the creation of a european superstate. i do not believe a superstate is in the interest of european countries themselves. the next u.s. president, i think, has to reinforce the transatlantic alliance, which president obama has not done. sending a clear message to the russians. aggression will be halted. and the united states needs to
stand up for the principles of determination, economic freedom, national sovereignty in europe. the same principles the american people believe in. what is good for america is good for europe, as well. i would hope the next u.s. president embarks upon a policy that is fit for the 21st century or not tied to to the 1950's 1960's. thank you. [applause] john: jeremy rabkin is a professor of law at george mason university. he was a professor of government at cornell university. the u.s. institute of peace, appointed by president
bush, reconfirmed by the senate. the author of another great book on sovereignty, "a alaw without nations." jeremy: thank you. i want to thank john for establishing my credentials as someone who is written a book about sovereignty. i am for it. [laughter] stung: but i was little that mrs. thatcher would have loved todd's boook on the eu. i like it. i think my remarks are the kind of thing mrs. thatcher would have called "wet." sorry. the antonin scalia school of law is not proposed a
doctoral outlook on any of the professors. we can say anything. i want to briefly discuss three things that make me a little uneasy about the way it is presented, this challenge from the eu i think he is putting a lot of weight on the form of government. argument, going back to aristotle. to be thenot able decisive force in modern life that it sometimes appears to be in this book. obvious example worth thinking about, norway, is not in the eu. if you ask how does norway compare to denmark or sweetened
or finland -- or sweden, for things that this book talks about. declining religion. declining family life. declining fertility rate. growth of utopian fantasies. growth of social spending. i think norway is not at all different from the countries in the eu. if you taken a larger view and ask, what about canada? countries.ke eu if you look at the united states, and looks like eu countries. just a few countries further back. onrs on the same -- we are the same trajectory. to insist that america is in a different place from where europe is. it is just a little bit healthier. a little bit that are off.
many trends seem to be trends of the modern world. theree the sense that -- is a lot going on in the modern world which is not caused by the eu. previously.oned so it was the u.s. supreme court that imposed same-sex marriage. not the european court of justice. there are trends that i do not think really map onto the eu way of looking at the world. that is first thing i want to say. the subtitle of this book is "the new totalitarian temptation." rohac. with mr.
on europee net effect , they are probably a little worse off. they are not better off. it is not a word that fits the people in brussels. they were spitting out all these regulations. the central problem is that it is silly. they have a fantasy that all the countries could be yolked together and of course they cannot be yolked together. the characteristic problem is that it is weak. this in the way they deal with challenges. they're supposed to do with crisis at the border in ukraine. they do not do anything. selling this flow of -- suddenly this flow of refugees
is a big challenge. they are not doing anything effective. it is telling if you want to talk about totalitarianism. this is the capital of the eu. what are they doing to protect at least the eu ministries from terror attacks? the answer is, there issuing documents and -- they are not in a position to be totalitarian. it doesn't quite fit. it is an opportunity lost. imagine it can control everything. it can control everything without much force. a number of people have said this, and i think rightly. there is a way in which it is postmodern. but that means it is some -- it somehow forgotten the has
lessons of the modern world. - itnts to have a - doesn't have police. it was time authorities that do not win popular support. there is something about it that is fantastical. in the end, this is not a successful experiment. i don't think the way to categorize it is -- the last thing i want to talk about his, if you set this up as sees of visions -- america the world this way. the suggestion is we have better partners if the eu basically disappeared or was reduced to an extent where it didn't have much influence so we can partner with individual countries. i am kind of skeptical of that.
i want to briefly articulate the other way of looking at this. most of those countries are small. if they are not part of some larger project, i think the tendency may be to say, our uck.tegy is to d let me give you an example of the netherlands. should they go along with this treaty with ukraine? this was not a treaty promising to send troops. it was ukraine, let's have trade any partnership, and we want to encourage you. it was not something that should have been controversial. people insisted on a referendum. very unusual with a treaty like that.
andave it voted down corresponding with somebody involved. 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 lay low do not have problems. if you think, that doesn't make sense? this is where the netherlands was in 1939. until they were invaded in the first three months. this is where they were through the 19th century. we are a small country. if we scrunched down a little, we won't have any problems. we can just be neutral. this was appealing to many countries in europe, including belgian, denmark, norway, spain
and portugal in the 20th century. let's not get drawn into big power politics. if you can imagine if the eu falls to pieces. you have 28 independent states that are largely independent states. with this be better for the united states? would we have partners we could rely on? i am skeptical. i do not think it follows we should be campaigning to tell the brits they should stay in the eu. i am not saying that. we should be a little cautious about being able to reject what kind of world would serve our interests or the world's interest. there is a reason why small countries wanted the with a larger entity. i think it is important as a matter of intellectual clarity and as a matter of national self-respect for people to have
awareness of sovereignty. but maybe we should be a little cautious about telling countries in europe, this is exactly what you want to do, and then you, too, will be a super power. i want to say that todd's book is a good read. it is fun. a lot of things in it that were new to me. we do need to think about this. it is an important challenge in the world. a very clear articulation of a certain perspective on this that makes it a valuable book. so, thank you. [applause] we will have a little discussion before we open up the questions. i will give todd a chance to respond to various comments. take it away.
todd: thank you, john. had a couple of acoustical problems hearing back here. with i like to start out jeremy's comments about canada and norway and so forth. i remember i was at a cocktail party. we diplomats go to cocktail parties and have fun. taxpayers pay for it. head of theg to the north america office and the european commission. the foreign, ministry let's say, of the eu. 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? when his canada going to join the eu anyway? that would be my answer to that. i thought it was funny. you are right, jeremy. the eu is characterized much more bites weakness then it's strength -- characterized by its weakness then its strength. trends are not connected necessarily. part of the thesis of the book ,s that global governance is new a manifestation of a kind of post-christian, postmodern development in the form of a christian west, and that it is important to recognize it as such if one is a
thinking person, thinking about what is happening in the west as a whole and how can they understand it and how can we try to deal with it. two, as john points out in his work, global governance may seem to be weak. i am reminded about stalin saying, we are the european the european are union's army? if you're concentrated on worldviews, it is a very attractive and powerful ideology. it exerts a huge amount of power over the elites in the european union and over those who are involved in other international organizations like the united
nations. it exerts a huge amount of power over the left in the united states. it is part of the post-christian, postmodern attempt to remake the world in its own image. and therefore the eu is not significant for everything. but it is significant as an attractive manifestation that is dangerous to democratic accountability and to self-government of postmodern, close christian worldview. another thing about the book. the program said it was 280 pages. actually 50 pages of that are notes. more than 200 pages you have to generalize. one of the problems very often
with dealing with political issues that are bigger than single political issues is the fear of generalization. you have to have general understanding of what is generally going on in order to understand the thing in the larger significance. , i could hear you that i could hear othersless, dalibor. it was quite typical of many of met in-eu people i have brussels and elsewhere in europe. this pragmatic view. part of which is, is not really working, so what you are saying
is not valid. thesis something about how the euro zone crisis is not going to lead to a fiscal union. the fiscal contact made between all the member states except the was arepublic and the uk big step in the direction of fiscal union. it seems to me strains to defend the eu -- this happen so often.. defend the eu in a certain sense, what are you talking about? let's see. i want to say something about the section on the eurozone and on human rights and so forth that was larger than the section on the eurozone. someone in the audience helping
with the chapters on the eurozone. you know what you are. i appreciate that very much. the eu is not about economics. it is not about economics, it is not about the eurozone. , with my way of looking at the world, what is happening to the idea of human rights, what is happening to the idea of self-government, what is happening to the idea of democratic accountability and the developments against all those things that are feetaching with little cat in the eu is much more important than whether the eu is economically a good thing or bad thing. i think it is basically a bad thing, but, you know, the economics part is part.
, youu understand the eu understand it is not about economics. nothese 28 countries will become a partner -- you did not mention nato. firstly, as todd was of the eurozone transparency come as you say, it is not really about economics, it is about policy. a political project come about centralization of political power. said, thet thatcher idea of creating a european super state is the greatest folly of the modern era.
thatcher's part of argument against the european union in more recent times were that it is ae idea political project more than anything else. jeremy's remarks, it doesn't make a big difference between whether the u.s. is a collection of nationstates or a political entity. i would argue that america is far better off dealing with a collection of nationstates than it is dealing with an entity such as the european union. increasingly, i think that farming governments are out there foreign policy to brussels, and that is a dangerous thing.
the last thing you want on earth is to have bureaucrats in brussels shaping your national security strategy. these bureaucrats in brussels cannot even defend brussels, let alone the rest of europe. i think europe would be far better off if national governments had complete control over their own national security, foreign policy and all aspects of government. the european union is a collection of the lowest common denominator and doing the least amount possible to deal with a particular crisis. i think america would be in a far better position to deal say germany under bg issue or poland with regard withsing -- say germany the refugee issue or poland with
the rising -- it would be far an entity inthout europe today and instead dealing with european capitals and working collectively together through the nato partnership. >> you have some comments to add. >> as i said in my opening , the lack of evidence for the eu evolving towards some , asked actual superstate than that idea to the extent to which there is no credible intellectual case being made for the european superstate, by burrows, not even mr. -- none of their intellectual
allies are making this case. is thatlem with the eu it is overreaching, overextending itself trying to do too much. it is also fairly weak. that is the fundamental mismatch between its ambition and what it can actually do. to solve that, i don't think we can easily go back to the europe nationstates, but we can try to apply some way of thinking viewed by many people in the conviction, -- free market tradition, to go back to federalism. many economists argue that there are public goods that should be provided at different levels of government.
goods, national public local public goods. -- havethese layers are absolute sovereignty. many oflies nicely to the european problems except there are few people who are making that case today. with regard to the physical act -- other than making a defense of the eu in my opening statement, i was just making a descriptive observation come if you see the eu on a slippery , the to a superstate fiscal pact is nothing but an extension of the previously agreed on subsidy of growth act. it was not respected by member
states. >> you have a book. we will take questions. benjamin? benjamin: thank you. thank you, john. i'm a fellow here at the hudson institute. i have a couple remarks and questions in three areas. the first is on foreign policy. you say you are in a collision , at the heart of this eui-american project -- the as a huge power and foreign policy. i don't think you will find a single person in europe who thinks that.
time, the u.s. has supported european construction for the last 60 years. bipartisan a effort. construction has gone hand in hand with nato enlargement. at countries after the fall of the soviet union -- you took the example of the iraq war. i think you made a disingenuous case. some european countries supported the u.s. in supporting troops to iraq. france and germany opposed the war and the arguments in favor of the war come i don't to get has much to do with going to the security council. 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'll find a lot of french and germans who don't staying out of iraq. , plus couple years ago hollande and david cameron wanted to intervene in syria -- francois hollande and david cameron wanted to intervene in syria. downs the u.s. who backed from syrian intervention. as every american president from john kennedy to ronald reagan to george w. bush been delusional and promoting european enlargement and integration? tosecond question relates the when you talk about the lack of democracy, you often foe to a majority of voters against the
project -- referred to a majority of voters against the project. i don't know where you find this majority of voters. i'm a french citizen. media, shely in the has never gathered more than 18% in the presidential election. . is politicalere unionum in the european around public discourse and the electorate -- the brits have yet to say. they will in a couple of months. in any see a majority country of the european union so far in favor of dismantling the european union or getting out of the european union. i understand your perspective, but i don't see where you find this constant majority of voters you are referring to.
my third point, you have not , the question of totalitarianism. i think words matter. it is the title of your book "the new totalitarian temptation." define, it is used to nazi germany and the soviet union. do you believe the european union is compared to adolf hitler and josef stalin? >> you have a lot to chew on. --first of all, the iraq war we could make assertions against each other, keep doing assertions all day. i just want to tell you that no how the euerstands
actually works foreign policy was can possibly say that if the representative does not -- before the treaty, they had high representative power. i was not focusing on the eu there come i was focusing on the ideology of global governance. how it has hindered the war on terrorism. arguing by saying the big conflict was about the idea of legalr preventive war is
and whether you approval is required for the u.s. to invade iraq legitimately. , many ofl governancers them in the eu were the ones arguing that we needed a security council approval, otherwise it was not legitimate. in the book and as i fullhere, the eu is still of all kinds of different ideas, believes, peoples, etc. you can always find a counterexample. the heart and soul of the eu project is the belief in developing supernatural -- super national governance, developing a system of global governance. that's what i was talking about with iraq. the second?
majority of voters. i want to apologize if i ever used the phrase "majority of voters." i don't think i did. if i did, please accuse me. what i'm saying is not that the majority of voters have spoken against the eu, what i'm saying is that voters have had very little say in very little understanding of what's going on at the eu level. the fact that someone like lepin has gotten up to 18% is a true happening,o what is arele in the eu realizing what's happening in and they are even voting for
people like lepin. i know to amend the u.s. constitution, you need several types of super majorities. that is the way it should be, in my view. governments should have no right to change the system of governance without consulting the voters. you need a super majority to change the constitution. that is not the way it is in the eu, and that is the way it should be. the master treaty which led to the euro was ratified in a countries,by many including france. we do'