The election of Jean-Claude Junker on 15 July 2014 as president of the European Commission represents a very important moment in the long rise of a unified Europe. With this event, the EU has effectively become a parliamentary democracy, not too dissimilar from Germany. It signals the beginning of a new phase of unification and integration. With Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, we can expect that this integration will eventually lead to the formation of the United States of Europe. I discuss the implications of Junker's election as well as the long-term prospects for the EU. I also discuss the eschatological implications.
It is said that the best way to hide something is to place it where nobody can overlook it. So often something important happens and most people do not even take notice. Something like that has just happened - some major news channels did not even report on it! A new parliamentary democracy has arrived on the world scene. A new giant has been born. The EU has just elected its first leader. Although there is still a lot of denials, and most commentators have not yet understood or at least spelt out the full implications of this event, a new day has arrived in the long march towards a truly unified union in Europe.
The election of Jean-Claude Junker as president of the European Commission may seem to be just another day in the EU where so many things happen all the time. In fact, it is not. It signals a dramatic shift in power in the framework of the EU away from the European states to the European Parliament. After a long process which took decades to accomplish, the EU has eventually become a parliamentary democracy - not too different from Germany, for example. And this is not the end of the road; it signals the beginning of a new phase in the unification and integration of the European Union.
The resilience of the European project
Doomsayers have often forecasted the decline or end of the European project. I remember the time when the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union as well as the Euro, was signed in 1992. In the period before that treaty was agreed, the Anglo-American media often said that the European project would not succeed and that it was just a matter of time before it would become derailed. After the treaty was signed they went ballistic. It was a step too far, too soon, they said. For months they moaned and groaned.
When the economic crisis of 2008-12 stroke, there were again many voices - especially in the Anglo-American media - who predicted that the EU or Eurozone would break up or at least that it would become a declining power. And again, these academics and commentators have been shown wrong. Instead, the crisis provided the impulse for further integration and both the Fiscal Compact (2012) and the Banking Union, which was recently agreed, was the direct outcome of that crisis. Although the British leader strongly resisted both the Fiscal Compact and Junker's election, the rest of the union (with the exception of the Czech Republic) proceeded in the face of this fierce opposition with these steps towards an "ever-closer" union.
Although the EU has reached a certain limit on the road to the stated goal of "an ever closer union" with the Treaty of Lisbon (signed in 2007), it has at the same time started with a new phase towards further integration. That treaty, which increased the power of the European Parliament and created the posts of President of the European Council as well as High Representative for the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, also signalled the end of the road for Britain. The long process which started with the signing of the Treaty of Rome 1958 had come to its climax. It would not be possible to take all the EU countries further on the road to more integration. But that treaty also contained the seed for a new phase in the unification of Europe.
Junker's election
After the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon, the centre of power in the EU was still firmly in the hands of the European Council, comprised of all the leaders of the states in the EU. This means that the countries which belong to the EU were to a large extent in control of the processes involving the EU. Although they had to involve the European Parliament in discussions about most issues, they could make the important decisions. Especially, they could decide who would be the leader of the European Commission. The commission introduces most of the initiatives in the union as well as drafts for laws to the European Parliament. Now, this has changed.
In the run-up to the last European election, some leaders in the European Parliament introduced the idea of "lead candidates" ("Spitzenkandidaten"). Each party nominated a "lead candidate" to lead them in the election campaign, with a general agreement that the candidate of the party who won the election would become president of the commission. This is also how the German parliamentary system operates. Although the EU treaties do not say anything in this regard, there is also no reason why it could not be done - as long as most countries went along with it. Junker was nominated as the candidate for the European People's Party (EPP) to which the party of German Chancellor Angela Merkel (the Christian Democratic Union) also belongs. When that party got the most votes in the election, Junker effectively became the first choice for President of the European Commission (if he could win the necessary majorities in the European Council and the European Parliament).
Although the European Council was at first reluctant to accept the outcome of the Spitzenkandidaten process, pressure from all over Europe (and especially from within Germany) swayed them to nominate Junker on 27 June as candidate (for the first time a vote was necessary in this regard; Britain was outvoted) - which effectively means that they had given up on their right to nominate that leader. In future, the choice of the people of Europe, who elect not only the various parties to the European Parliament but also the candidates for the post of President of the European Commission, will decide this. The EU will therefore in future have an elected President of the European Commission who is elected in exactly the same manner as the German Chancellor. The only other requirement would be that such a candidate must have a ruling majority in parliament. Junker managed that also: on 15 July he was elected by a large majority in the European Parliament to become the next president of the commission.
An important shift in power has happened in the EU. The leaders of the countries which comprise the European Council have lost their powerful hold over the European Commission. In future, the president of the commission would not serve their interests per se, but rather that of parliament. Although Junker presented his program for the next few years to the council, he also held meetings with all the parties in the European Parliament to convince them that he would take their interests into consideration. He is therefore especially responsible to parliament. If he loses his majority in parliament, he would also lose his job.
Although the European Council suggests candidates for the various posts on the commission, the final decision must be negotiated with the president-elect of the commission. These candidates must also appear at hearings of parliament who decides if they are suitable candidates. Since the commission is henceforth responsible to the European Parliament (via their president) and the laws which the commission proposes are negotiated in close consultation with parliament, the MEC's (Members of the European Parliament) would probably gain the upper hand in this process. Although the parliament does not initiate laws on their own as in other parliamentary systems, they have gained a large measure of control over this process.
We can therefore say that the EU has become a parliamentary democracy where parliament elects the president of the commission and is directly involved in the whole process of law-making. In future, the President of the European Commission will effectively be a "prime minister", the commission will operate as the executive arm (i.e. like a cabinet), the European Council will operate very much like an Upper House or Senate whereas the European Parliament is effectively the Lower House of Parliament.
As elected president of the commission Junker would have more power than the various leaders of the EU, even the German Councillor, since he is duly elected to that post! Whereas they are elected merely in their respective countries, the president has been elected by all the peoples of the EU. Junker himself is a very experienced politician, who was the prime minister of Luxembourg from 1995-2013 and headed the Euro-group from 2005-2013. He has both the authority (being elected) and the experience to stand up to the leaders of the EU countries. With him, the EU would become a coherent and powerful force on the world stage.
The future of Europe
When the leaders of the EU agreed to nominate Junker as president of the commission, they also accepted that some countries, like Great Britain, would not participate in any further integration. They agreed that the expression "ever closer union" in the EU treaties allows for different paths of integration for different countries. Countries like Britain who do not want deeper integration, therefore do not have to participate in any further integration, but can also not stop other EU countries from pursuing such a path. This means that the future EU would incorporate various levels of integration, with Britain (if she stays in the union) at the lowest level.
In his acceptance speech in parliament, Junker spelt out what he has in mind for his term at the helm. He accentuated that further integration would take place in the framework of the Eurozone. He said that the countries which share the euro must have their own budget and be "represented by one single chair, one single office". We can, therefore, expect that a single post for Eurozone affairs would be established - maybe even in the next few years. He praised those European leaders who in the past played important roles during the dynamic periods of EU integration, namely Jacques Delors, Francois Mitterand, and Helmut Kohl - the commission president, and the French and German leaders, respectively. On the other hand, Junker has previously mentioned that he is willing to renegotiate Britain's position in the EU. So, while the Eurozone would begin another process of integration, some countries in the EU, like Britain, would become even less integrated. This will eventually lead to different zones of integration in the EU.
In my opinion, this new phase, which has started with the election of Junker, will eventually lead to the United States of Europe. The Italian prime minister, Matteo Renzi, who is one of the leading lights in the EU after his good performance in the last EU elections and who just took over the rotating presidency of the EU, presented his vision for Europe in his State of the Nation speech in May 2014. He called courageous leaders to work towards a United States of Europe: "For my children’s future I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe". He appealed to EU leaders to show "not in the cold language of technocracy, that a stronger and more cohesive Europe is the only solution to solve the problems of our time.”
The formation of a true United States of Europe would take many years to construct. The period from the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1958 to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon took more than 50 years! We can expect this new phase, which effectively started with Junker's election (since the European Parliament will now start playing a more dominant role), to also take many years to complete. But eventually, some countries in the Eurozone will also, just like Britain now, reach the limit of their willingness to surrender more power to Brussels.
I foresee that eventually there would be a third phase in European unification and integration. This is the phase when the United States of Europe would become an empire. In this regard Europe would proceed in the same manner as Britain and the US (and many others before them) who first became unified entities (Scotland joining England in the union of Great Britain; the northern and southern states joining after the Civil War) and then became empires (who would dispute that the US is effectively an empire although they do not always show the same enthusiasm to project power?). Until now the EU only projected soft power. I believe that the new phase that has just begun would require the EU to also develop a hard component in its power projection. Countries like Germany would slowly but steadily leave behind their reluctance to engage military. In the empire phase, this projection of hard power - in an ever more unstable world - would become dominant.
One can expect that the empire phase would start in the same way as the current phase, namely with a change in the leadership structure of the united states in Europe. Although Junker's election provides the EU effectively with a prime minister, this role falls far short of the power that the presidents of France or the USA, for example, has. They do not only have control over the day to day affairs of their countries (this role is often assigned to a prime minister who stands under the authority of the president); they also have effective control over foreign and military affairs. In my opinion, the United States of Europe would also eventually appoints (or elects) such a leader, be it an executive president, king or even emperor. We should not forget that Europe has a unique history in this regard going back to the old Roman Empire. It is possible that future generations would see themselves as the heirs to that empire.
Which countries would proceed along this road? These would be the countries that are the most willing to relinquish sovereignty. These countries would be those who are willing to join their economies and eventually join forces politically. In this regard, we can take the countries who are willing to introduce a financial transaction tax (FTT) as a barometer. They want to introduce a tax which is supra-national and would create a European tax-base. This is one of the most important characteristics of sovereign states: they can tax their citizens. On 6 May 2014, ten out of the initial eleven participating member states (all except Slovenia) agreed to seek a "progressive" tax on equities and "some derivatives" by 1 January 2016. They aim for a final agreement later in 2014.
Eschatological implications
Christians have been expecting for many centuries that the Roman Empire would be reborn at the end of days. They interpret the prophecies in the Biblical books of Daniel and Revelation in this manner (see [1] for the different views). Although we are definitely not even close to that happening, it seems that the developments in the EU are slowly but steadily moving in that direction. There can be no doubt that Junker's election is a very important step along that path. If my interpretation is correct, we have just entered a totally new phase in the unification and integration of the EU which can lead to the formation of the United States of Europe in accordance with many pronunciations in this regard (Renzi is not the only EU leader talking like that) and eventually to an European empire.
At this stage, those who are sceptical about the eschatological dimension could argue that it is a mere coincidence that Europe is rising again. This may be the case. Over time the picture would become clearer. The prophecies referred to give particular details - and we can watch out for the time when those things start happening [1]. These details include the appearance of ten leaders/countries at the helm of a re-established Roman Empire (i.e. the ten "horns/toes" of the prophecy) as well as the Antichrist who will appear in the period directly before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Although many antichrists have appeared in the past, it seems that the prophecy speaks of a particular person who will appear right at the end of days. I do not think that the appointment or election of a president (or king or emperor) to lead a future United States of Europe would be the Antichrist, but I do think that the growth of that empire could eventually lead to the point where such a leader appear.
The problem for our generation is that these things lay in the distant future and it is unlikely that we would live to see it happening. The type of evidence that could possibly sway the sceptic would therefore not be forthcoming in the near future. The success of the unification of the EU, in spite of great resistance and against all odds (i.e. contra many predictions in that regard by learned academics and commentators), is, however, a good reason to be open-minded and to not dismiss this possibility out of hand. The fact that so many other countries have followed exactly the same path to become empires (in the last few centuries: Britain, the US in all but name), with the difference that Europe has a great history in this regard, seems to suggest that the EU could very well also proceed along that path. If we take the Roman history of Europe into account, it seems quite possible that future generations could take inspiration from that. They could eventually view themselves as the descendants of those great and mighty leaders (Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar etc.). All of this seems to suggest that we have good reason to think that this interpretation of the prophecies is correct and that they will eventually be fulfilled in this manner [2].
Conclusion
The election of Jean-Claude Junker as President of the European Commission is a very important moment along the way towards an "ever closer union". Although it might seem to be just another event among many others happening in the EU, it is, in fact, a watershed moment. To some extent, the power has shifted from the leaders of the EU states to the European Parliament. The EU has effectively become an elected parliamentary state. This introduces a new phase in the integration and unification of the EU which will probably lead to a United States of Europe. Although many doomsayers have predicted the end of the union or the Eurozone as we know it, I have consistently said over the past three decades that we will see exactly the opposite, namely that the EU will become stronger and stronger (based on my interpretation of the prophecies). This is exactly what has happened so far.
I have divided the long road towards full unification into three phases. The first phase resulted in the formation of the EU with a powerful European Parliament, a President of the European Council as well as a High Representative for the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The second phase, which started with Junker's election, would lead to the formation of a United States of Europe. The last phase would lead to the rise of a European empire, which could view itself as heir to the Roman Empire. It is within this context that the Biblical prophecies regarding a re-established Roman Empire may go into fulfilment. Although this would clearly take many years to happen, it seems that we have good reason to think that it would eventually come to pass.
[1] The rise of the final world empire: the different views
[2] Bible prophecy: predicting the distant future?
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
Showing posts with label european union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label european union. Show all posts
Thursday, 31 July 2014
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Britain and the EU: what future?
"The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone." – David Cameron
The speech by the British prime minister, David Cameron, on the future of Europe is of great importance for all who are interested in future developments in the European Union (EU). He presents not only the British position, but also gives important clues regarding the future direction that the union will take. In this essay, I discuss Britain's relationship with Europe, the possibility of Britain leaving the union, the new structure of the EU that will probably evolve over the next few years through treaty changes, and what the EU of the distant future would look like. And how Turkey and the Muslim democracies of the Arab world will eventually be included.
An important new phase has started in the long process of constructing the European Union (EU). A process that could totally alter the form of the union as we know it today. This new phase is already long in the making, but the speech of the British prime minister, David Cameron, on 23 January 2013 has officially opened this new discussion on the future of Europe – a discussion that will lead to treaty changes and a total restructuring of the EU. Cameron wants "a better deal for Britain", and "a better deal for Europe too". The question is: What will this new Europe look like? In this essay, I make some proposals in this regard.
Britain and Europe
When one read David Cameron's speech, it is clear that Britain's involvement with Europe was, is, and will probably always be, very ambivalent. On the one hand Britain shares a long history with Europe, but on the other hand, it views itself as an "island" off the coast of Europe. This basic observation, namely that island states and continental states view geopolitics very differently, lies at the heart of its ambivalent relationship with Europe. Island nations like Britain (and Venice or Tyre before it) has become influential through trade – and to this day Britain is primarily a trading nation. Continental states traditionally became influential when they gained control over the surrounding areas with its resources and access routes – which requires political unification.
In Europe, this conflict of interest – with Britain trying to stop continental states like (Napoleonic) France or (Nazi) Germany from becoming too influential and thereby endangering her own commercial interests; with the continental states trying to form alliances or consolidate power in opposition to Britain – has lead to many European wars. And Britain knew how to play these continental powers against each other to further her own interests (see my article Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles). But after the last great war, the main continental states decided to build a Europe of peace – a Europe that will be united politically and therefore never be able to fight each other again. And they (especially general De Gaulle) originally tried to keep Britain out of the union – because they knew that Britain would try to sabotage the whole project. But Britain saw both a threat and an opportunity in this – the threat of an opposing power rising next door and the opportunity of a great market for trade. The result was that Britain eventually joined the union - but only after the process of unification was irreversible.
Britain, a country with a proud history – and without the motivation of European powers like Germany and France to unite – always had a problem to surrender sovereignty. And the closer the union grew, the more Britain became uncomfortable with the goal of an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" as is stated in most treaties since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (which established the European Economic Community). With the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 (in force since 2009), which gave the union a legal identity, increased the power of the European Parliament, established a President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Britain has reached the limit of its willingness to surrender sovereignty to Brussels. In fact, she wants to take some of those powers back. And maybe even leave.
Will Britain leave the union?
It is clear from Cameron's speech that he does not want Britain to leave the union. He said: "I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU". Although there are many voices – especially from the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) – that want Britain to leave, this is unlikely to happen. Why? For the same reasons that Britain has joined the union in the first place. It is not in Britain's strategic interest to leave the union altogether. Such a move would leave Britain adrift on the large and dangerous sea of international politics – and result in it becoming a second Venice. Nice to visit – but without any political power.
The reasons for Britain to stay in the European Union are straightforward and Cameron has mentioned them in his speech. First of all, it gives the Anglo-American establishment some influence in the future process of development in the union. Britain, with its special relationship with the USA, is effectively the voice of those interests in the EU. One of the greatest fears in these circles is that the EU would develop into a political block which is independent – and even in opposition – to the USA. This is a real fear – some French voices (in the Gaullist tradition) have proposed working towards a multi-polar world in which the USA's power will be effectively restricted. Britain's involvement as a major player in Europe serves as an effective hedge against any future developments in this direction. Without Britain in the EU, it is even possible that the Anglo-American alliance can unravel because the USA might not see the use of it any more. Direct alliances with the EU would be better.
The second reason is that the City of London – the heart of Britain's commercial power – provides access to the European Market. Many businesses and countries outside the union use the City of London as a springboard into Europe. David Cameron mentioned that "Britain has been the destination of one in five of all inward investment into Europe" since 2004. If Britain does not have influence in the union – even if she still have access to the market in a way similar to Switzerland or Norway (who have "no say at all in the setting of rules; it just have to implement its directives") – the whole strategic position of the City would be undermined. Outsiders (Britain would be one of them) would rather use other channels in the EU to facilitate their interests. When the City loses its influence, Britain will lose her's too. So, although Cameron has promised an in-out referendum for 2017 if he is re-elected, the chance of Britain actually leaving the union is very slim. There are powerful interest groups that will do everything to stop that from happening. With a new arrangement on the table, voters will probably choose to stay put.
Building a new Europe
The real fear of the Anglo-Americans is that the measures that the Eurozone countries have taken to overcome the financial crisis will eventually result in a two-speed Europe (it actually already has), with a strong group of European countries (which will not include Britain) gaining political cohesion, leaving the others behind. That countries like Britain, who is outside the core, will have much less influence in the union; that they will not be able to stop the rest from taking decisions that could in principle be harmful to British interests. Cameron tried previously in 2011 to veto the Fiscal Compact, but the Eurozone countries and other countries who joined them, bypassed his veto by agreeing to an inter-governmental treaty, i.e. outside the EU (although compatible with EU law). Since the financial crisis all talk has centred around the Eurozone - this after more than 50 years during which it centred around the EU (and the European Economic Community).
With his speech, David Cameron is trying to influence the process of change in Europe while he is still in a strong position. The Eurozone countries have so far tried to integrate aspects of their economies without EU treaty changes – but eventually, they will need some changes. And this is the opportunity that Cameron wants to use to negotiate a better deal for Britain. What Cameron proposes, is that the "core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the Single Market". The Single Market – with Britain at its heart, must be the foundation of Europe. Upon this structure could all the various diverse structures of the union be built: "We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members... some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration". He mentioned the Schengen group of nations which excludes Britain but includes even some outside countries like Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland. He also mentioned the military alliance between Britain and France, both countries who are "willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali". His proposal is not too different from that of Tony Blair, a previous British prime minister, who proposed a community of European "clubs".
What Cameron does not want, is a "two-speed" Europe. But it is too late to stop this from happening. The European Union has effectively developed into two groups of countries, namely those who are part of the union but do not participate in the Euro, and those who do. The Eurozone countries form a core group of countries which are integrating their economies more and more – working towards a full monetary, fiscal, banking and economic union. With the introduction of the Euro, the monetary union became a reality. And now, during the financial crisis, important steps were taken towards a fiscal union (with the Fiscal Compact), banking union (agreement was reached in December 2012) and economic union (this year will probably see some steps to equalize economic policy). The EU is beginning to look like the "core Europe" as proposed by Wolfgang Schäuble and Karl Lamers in 1994.
So, there are two proposals as to where the "core" should be. The Germans and French want to see a core group of countries which move towards full economic and, eventually, political union. The British want the Single Market to be the "core", as Cameron said in his speech: "At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the Single Market". So where will the core be? Cameron actually made another interesting remark, namely that the Single Market should be the "foundation" of the European Union: "Let's start with this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the Single Market rather than the single currency". He proposes that the Single Market be the foundation upon which all the European clubs are built – even the Eurozone. In a future compromise, it is possible that we will indeed see the Single Market (which the Germans also strongly endorse) being established as the foundation upon which the central core of Eurozone countries, and later the political union, is built.
Pieter Bruegel's tower?
The main problem that the Europeans have with Cameron's proposal, is that he wants Britain to stay in the union, but with some powers that have previously been transferred to Brussels, returned to London (they don't like the idea of "cherry picking"). This implies that he wants to create another grouping in the union (if other countries were to join Britain in this regard) which would be even less integrated with the union than those European Union countries who are not part of the Eurozone! This means that we will have countries like Britain who are part of the European Union, part of the Single Market, but at a lower level of integration than the present European Union countries which have not yet joined the Eurozone.
If this level represents those countries who are only interested in joining the basic Single Market (and not the rest of the EU structure), then we can envision a future EU structure where this serves as the foundation upon which all the other levels of integration within the union are built - each upon the other. This means that the various layers will build upon each other like that of a ziggurat or step pyramid. Such a structure will correspond to some degree with the proposal that the union should become a "concentric circles Europe", with some countries at the periphery, others somewhere in the middle and a core group of countries at the center (as proposed by Michael Mertes and Norbert J. Prill, advisers to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl). This reminds one of a painting by Pieter Breugel of the tower of Babylon (painted in 1563) which have been used on an EU poster in the period when there were 12 countries in the union (1986-1993) (these were represented with twelve stars – of which only eleven were visible – in the sky above the tower). There is, interesting enough, a Brussels-based think tank named after the painter! The British idea of clubs would ensure that these layers are interconnected in various ways, like structures within this larger pyramid.
Such an EU structure could be built through negotiation between the core and the periphery – between the continental countries and Britain. Since Britain's inclusion in the union an unspoken rule has regulated her relation with the other EU partners, namely that for every step of "widening" (enlargement of the Single Market), there would be an equivalent step of "deepening" the union (with growing political cohesion). The best example of this is the enlargement of 2004 when 10 new countries (mainly from Eastern Europe) joined the union, which was followed with a considerable deepening of the union through the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 (after years of difficult negotiations).
But this process has reached its limits – Britain does not want to participate in any further deepening of the union. I propose that the rule will in future be applied in a different way: for every step to deepen the union (allowing a core group of countries to move towards economic and political union), an equivalent step of widening the union through enlargement, i.e. of adding more countries to the Single Market (as the "foundation" of the union), would follow. In this way, the deepening of the core will go hand in hand with a widening of the base. Once Britain takes a step backwards from its present arrangement with the union, many other countries (still outside the union) could in principle join her to become part of the European Union on that basic level.
Such a European structure will solve another problem – how to accommodate Muslim countries like Turkey in the union. Although Turkey's application for membership has been accepted, there are many countries (especially France) who do not want Turkey in the union. The reason is simple: if a large country like Turkey joins the union, the whole balance of power in the union would change. Suddenly France and Germany will not have the prominent position they always had (Turkey would have more votes in the union than any of them); Britain's position will be considerably strengthened because Turkey's interests will align for the most part with hers (Turkey will obviously not be part of the core). But a new arrangement that allows such countries to enter the union without upsetting the balance of power in Europe – maybe their voting power will be restricted to issues regarding the Single Market – would allow them to join. For Turkey it is important not to have an inferior position in the EU; in this scenario, Turkey will be on the same level as Britain.
Under such circumstances, it is possible to envision many of the other countries surrounding the European Union joining it over time. Not only countries like Turkey and Ukraine, but many of the countries of the Arab Spring could one day join the EU. In the same way that the Eastern European democracies joined the union, one can envision the Arab democracies joining. And in the same way that the union was dramatically deepened through the Lisbon Treaty, one can envision a dramatic deepening of the core – proceeding eventually to form a real political union. Although this basic structure could become visible in the next decade, the above-mentioned things will not happen so soon – for the next few years, it is mostly Balkan countries that will join the union. All of this will change Europe into an enormously important player on the world stage. With the financial crisis of 2007-2012 forgotten, the restructured economies of Europe growing strong, and the new Europe taking shape, the world will be a very different place from today.
Conclusion
David Cameron's speech is an introduction to the discussion on the future structure of the European Union. Although this is but a small step, it is the beginning of a new phase in Europe – a phase that could eventually see a totally new Europe being born. As he said, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe. And "at some stage in the next few years, the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the Euro". Britain still has a lot of influence in the union – she even has a veto right in various areas. She is in the position to make proposals, especially regarding her future role in Europe. Although some EU countries are sceptical about her commitment to the union (in which they are right), she is in fact very committed to the Single Market. Britain does not want the changes in the Eurozone to restrict her access to that market.
The structure that Cameron proposes, one which includes various clubs built on the foundation of the Single Market, will not be realized. The rest of Europe is moving in the direction of a "core Europe"; for many of the continental states (Germany excluded), the market is not of special concern. But some compromise will eventually be reached between the "Europe of clubs" and the "concentric circles Europe". David Cameron is right in saying that "the European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body... transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone".
What I propose in this essay is that the structure of the future European Union will look a lot like the ziggurat in Pieter Bruegel's painting. There will be various levels of integration, all built on the "foundation" of the Single Market. These levels will include various countries which are willing to integrate only up to a certain level. In the centre will be a core group of countries which will proceed to form a true political union. Most countries in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire will be included in this structure – it could easily become some sort of new Roman Empire. But that is very far in the future. None of our generation will live to see it. But the slow process of forming an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" will continue for generations to come.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
Articles on the internal power struggles in the EU
Articles on the EU in eschatological perspective:
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
The euro countries move towards a fiscal union – an eschatological perspective
On Friday, 2 March 2012, 25 of the 27 EU countries accepted a fiscal compact that has important implications for the future of the European Union. It allows the 17 euro countries (who share the euro as currency) to partially upgrade their monetary union to a fiscal union. This effectively brings about a multi-speed European Union – some countries like Britain sit out while the others proceed to further integrate their economies. I have foreseen these events in my book on the Arabic uprisings in August 2011 (“Die Arabiese Opstande”). From an eschatological perspective (i.e. the study of the end times), this event is of great importance since it could well be an important step towards the eventual formation of a restored Roman Empire, which will arise on the scene in the end times according to Bible prophecy.
After the British prime minister David Cameron stormed out of a meeting of European leaders on 8 December 2011, it buzzed in media circles about a so-called “multi-speed” European Union (EU) coming into being. This event, which left Britain on the sidelines, has been described as “a major turning point in the history of the EU”. Since then the EU has been divided into two groups, namely a core that proceeds with further integration and an outer group, who follows Britain’s lead to sit out. With the signing of the fiscal compact on 2 March 2012 this multi-speed Europe is about to become a practical reality.
The basic framework of this multi-speed EU appeared years ago when a group of EU countries introduced the euro as currency – leaving the other EU countries whose economies were not ready, outside the eurozone. This resulted in two groups of EU countries, namely those that introduced the euro as currency (there are 17 euro countries at the moment) and those that kept their own currencies (there are 10 such countries at the moment). This arrangement was agreed to within the framework of the EU and is regulated by European treaties that all EU countries agreed to. The only difference today is that Britain does not aspire to join the eurozone any more. As a result, Britain's objectives have become more and more removed from those of the other EU countries.
What makes the present fiscal compact, called the “Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance”, so important, is that it enables the other EU countries to proceed with the integration of their economies, even giving the European Commission some oversight over their budgets. And this happens in spite of Britain’s opposition to it. It allows a core group of countries to proceed with further integration – although not within the normal EU framework. Even so, they may use the institutions of the European Union, like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, to enforce this compact. This development creates a precedent that has important implications for the future of the EU. I will now discuss these as well as the eschatological implications thereof.
The fiscal compact of 2 March 2012
The fiscal compact that was signed by all the 17 euro countries, as well as eight other EU countries (excluding Britain and the Czech Republic), includes the following:
1. The goal is to foster greater coordination of budgetary policy throughout the EU. This will stop euro countries from falling into excessive debts that could endanger the future existence of the euro.
2. All euro countries are compelled to write into law (preferably into their constitutions) that they are forced to pass “balanced” budgets. Their debt may not exceed 0.5% of their GDP (gross domestic product). These should include automatic brakes which, when activated, would lead to a correction.
3. The European Commission will monitor the enforcement of the compact and countries that are suspected of bending the rules, could be brought before the European Court of Justice, who can impose a fine of up to 0.1% of GDP.
4. Only the countries that sign the compact into law can borrow money from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – a permanent fund that is financed by the central banks of EU countries. It will be established in June 2012. This will force the EU countries to approve the compact as soon as possible.
5. The compact will come into force when 12 of the 17 (i.e. 70 % of) euro countries have approved it.
6. Although it is an intergovernmental treaty that is agreed to outside the formal EU treaties, it is compatible with EU law and is effectively managed by EU institutions.
The main reason why Britain rejected this compact, is that they are not willing to allow the European Commission to have oversight over their budget – and eventually also over financial institutions like the Bank of England in the City of London. (On the City, see my article posted on 8 January 2012 on this blog, “Predicting a war against Iran? An inquiry into war and peace cycles”.) Although Britain could in principle veto the use of EU institutions to monitor the compact, they did not do so because that would have excluded them from any further involvement in the ongoing process of fiscal integration in the EU. Such a step would also not stop the other countries from proceeding with their plans – it would only result in Britain losing its influence in the EU.
The implications of the fiscal compact
Although this compact will not result in a full fiscal union whereby the whole eurozone is managed as a single economy, it is still an important step in that direction. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, said: “It is the first step toward a fiscal union”. Various other measures are also foreseen for the future, including the issuing of euro bonds, underwritten by all euro countries, the enlargement of the ESM (the stability fund) to E 1000 billion, an expansion of the role of the European Central Bank (ESB) to become a lender of last resort (the ECB is already involved in buying the bonds of euro countries like Greece and Italy), as well as some form of financial tax. Countries like Germany and France do not want to move too fast with this process of fiscal integration since that will reduce the pressure on countries with large debt burdens to restructure their economies. The sword that hangs over those countries because of the present financial crisis is forcing them to make the necessary structural corrections that they will not otherwise do.
The most important outcome of this compact is that it allows a group of countries within the framework of the EU to proceed with further integration in spite of the opposition from other countries. Although the compact falls outside the formal EU treaties, EU institutions like the European Commission, the EU Court of Justice en possibly the ECB (the central bank) are nevertheless involved in the implementation thereof. It may well be that this compact sets a precedent according to which some euro countries could integrate even further in future, and still make use of EU institutions. In this regard one could remind oneself of the objective stated in most of the previous EU treaties, namely to move towards “an ever closer union”. One could think that a group of countries would eventually take the step towards a full political union, forming a “United States of Europe”.
What is also important, is that this treaty (in contrast with the EU treaties) come into force when enough (i.e. not all) countries have approved it. When the parliaments of 12 euro countries have approved it, it will come into force. This solves the problem of treaties being stalled when they are rejected in some EU countries whose constitutions require referendums. It is expected that other similar treaties will follow this example in future. This will result in an acceleration of the process of integration within the framework of the eurozone.
Another important precedent set during the euro crisis is that unelected leaders came to power in those countries overwhelmed by the crisis, namely in Greece and Italy. This could in future open the door for other leaders to use crisis situations to come to power. Such crises would not necessarily be of a financial nature – think of military crises. In the time of the Roman Republic, it was exactly during periods of military crises that the generals took over the reins – and this led to the establishment of the Roman Empire.
An eschatological perspective
Although this compact is but a small step on the way, the implications and the example set by it, are of great importance when it comes to the eschatological study of end time events. In my book, “Die Arabiese Opstande” (The Arabic Uprisings) (Aug. 2011), I proposed that such a multi-speed Europe would come into being, allowing the euro countries to proceed with fiscal integration in spite of British resistance. This is exactly what happened since December 2011. I also mentioned in an article written during the height of the financial crisis (in contrast with the view of many other observers) that the crisis will not lead to the disintegration of the eurozone; it will rather lead to further integration of the eurozone (see the article posted on 10 October 2011 on this blog: “Gaan Griekeland in die Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief). This is exactly what happened.
But why is a multi-speed EU important from an eschatological perspective? The answer is simple: it allows some EU countries to proceed with integration, leaving others behind. This could eventually lead to ten countries in the heart of Europe deciding to proceed towards full political integration – which will be a fulfilment of Bible prophecy that a kingdom of ten (symbolized as ten toes or horns) will arise in the end times within the framework of a restored Roman Empire. Geographically speaking, the EU is already beginning to look more and more like such an empire. (See my article on 22 January 2012 on this blog: “Die tien horings van Daniël 7, waarna verwys dit?”). When these countries appoint a leader over them, he could very well be the final Antichrist. In this regard, it is remarkable that the recent appointment of unelected leaders over some euro countries could set a precedent for the countries that proceed with political integration, to also appoint a leader over them. If the events from the time of the Roman Empire are an indication, one can expect someone like the Roman emperors of old to eventually come to power in the EU.
Final thoughts
The fiscal compact that was signed on 2 March 2012 is a very important event in the framework of the EU. It allows a core group of countries to proceed towards a fiscal union, with their economies centrally managed – and that in spite of Britain's opposition. It set a precedent according to which an even smaller group of countries could also eventually integrate politically. It is in this regard that these events correspond with our expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies – according to the prophecy in Daniel 7 about the ten horns (or the prophecy in Daniel 2 about the ten toes) there will eventually be a group of countries that will rise within the framework of a restored Roman Empire. Furthermore, the appointment of unelected leaders in some euro countries sets a precedent according to which countries that integrate politically, could also appoint a leader over them. This will agree with the prophecy according to which the mentioned ten “kings” will appoint a leader over them. When such a person is appointed, and he (maybe not the first one to be appointed) begin to operate like the emperors of old – being above all presidents and kings – we can expect the time of the final Antichrist to be at hand.
Although the time of the end has not yet arrived, it is clear that the current events could be an important step in that direction. We will have to wait and see how the situation unfolds further, and whether these prophecies will be fulfilled in our own time.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
After the British prime minister David Cameron stormed out of a meeting of European leaders on 8 December 2011, it buzzed in media circles about a so-called “multi-speed” European Union (EU) coming into being. This event, which left Britain on the sidelines, has been described as “a major turning point in the history of the EU”. Since then the EU has been divided into two groups, namely a core that proceeds with further integration and an outer group, who follows Britain’s lead to sit out. With the signing of the fiscal compact on 2 March 2012 this multi-speed Europe is about to become a practical reality.
The basic framework of this multi-speed EU appeared years ago when a group of EU countries introduced the euro as currency – leaving the other EU countries whose economies were not ready, outside the eurozone. This resulted in two groups of EU countries, namely those that introduced the euro as currency (there are 17 euro countries at the moment) and those that kept their own currencies (there are 10 such countries at the moment). This arrangement was agreed to within the framework of the EU and is regulated by European treaties that all EU countries agreed to. The only difference today is that Britain does not aspire to join the eurozone any more. As a result, Britain's objectives have become more and more removed from those of the other EU countries.
What makes the present fiscal compact, called the “Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance”, so important, is that it enables the other EU countries to proceed with the integration of their economies, even giving the European Commission some oversight over their budgets. And this happens in spite of Britain’s opposition to it. It allows a core group of countries to proceed with further integration – although not within the normal EU framework. Even so, they may use the institutions of the European Union, like the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, to enforce this compact. This development creates a precedent that has important implications for the future of the EU. I will now discuss these as well as the eschatological implications thereof.
The fiscal compact of 2 March 2012
The fiscal compact that was signed by all the 17 euro countries, as well as eight other EU countries (excluding Britain and the Czech Republic), includes the following:
1. The goal is to foster greater coordination of budgetary policy throughout the EU. This will stop euro countries from falling into excessive debts that could endanger the future existence of the euro.
2. All euro countries are compelled to write into law (preferably into their constitutions) that they are forced to pass “balanced” budgets. Their debt may not exceed 0.5% of their GDP (gross domestic product). These should include automatic brakes which, when activated, would lead to a correction.
3. The European Commission will monitor the enforcement of the compact and countries that are suspected of bending the rules, could be brought before the European Court of Justice, who can impose a fine of up to 0.1% of GDP.
4. Only the countries that sign the compact into law can borrow money from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – a permanent fund that is financed by the central banks of EU countries. It will be established in June 2012. This will force the EU countries to approve the compact as soon as possible.
5. The compact will come into force when 12 of the 17 (i.e. 70 % of) euro countries have approved it.
6. Although it is an intergovernmental treaty that is agreed to outside the formal EU treaties, it is compatible with EU law and is effectively managed by EU institutions.
The main reason why Britain rejected this compact, is that they are not willing to allow the European Commission to have oversight over their budget – and eventually also over financial institutions like the Bank of England in the City of London. (On the City, see my article posted on 8 January 2012 on this blog, “Predicting a war against Iran? An inquiry into war and peace cycles”.) Although Britain could in principle veto the use of EU institutions to monitor the compact, they did not do so because that would have excluded them from any further involvement in the ongoing process of fiscal integration in the EU. Such a step would also not stop the other countries from proceeding with their plans – it would only result in Britain losing its influence in the EU.
The implications of the fiscal compact
Although this compact will not result in a full fiscal union whereby the whole eurozone is managed as a single economy, it is still an important step in that direction. Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, said: “It is the first step toward a fiscal union”. Various other measures are also foreseen for the future, including the issuing of euro bonds, underwritten by all euro countries, the enlargement of the ESM (the stability fund) to E 1000 billion, an expansion of the role of the European Central Bank (ESB) to become a lender of last resort (the ECB is already involved in buying the bonds of euro countries like Greece and Italy), as well as some form of financial tax. Countries like Germany and France do not want to move too fast with this process of fiscal integration since that will reduce the pressure on countries with large debt burdens to restructure their economies. The sword that hangs over those countries because of the present financial crisis is forcing them to make the necessary structural corrections that they will not otherwise do.
The most important outcome of this compact is that it allows a group of countries within the framework of the EU to proceed with further integration in spite of the opposition from other countries. Although the compact falls outside the formal EU treaties, EU institutions like the European Commission, the EU Court of Justice en possibly the ECB (the central bank) are nevertheless involved in the implementation thereof. It may well be that this compact sets a precedent according to which some euro countries could integrate even further in future, and still make use of EU institutions. In this regard one could remind oneself of the objective stated in most of the previous EU treaties, namely to move towards “an ever closer union”. One could think that a group of countries would eventually take the step towards a full political union, forming a “United States of Europe”.
What is also important, is that this treaty (in contrast with the EU treaties) come into force when enough (i.e. not all) countries have approved it. When the parliaments of 12 euro countries have approved it, it will come into force. This solves the problem of treaties being stalled when they are rejected in some EU countries whose constitutions require referendums. It is expected that other similar treaties will follow this example in future. This will result in an acceleration of the process of integration within the framework of the eurozone.
Another important precedent set during the euro crisis is that unelected leaders came to power in those countries overwhelmed by the crisis, namely in Greece and Italy. This could in future open the door for other leaders to use crisis situations to come to power. Such crises would not necessarily be of a financial nature – think of military crises. In the time of the Roman Republic, it was exactly during periods of military crises that the generals took over the reins – and this led to the establishment of the Roman Empire.
An eschatological perspective
Although this compact is but a small step on the way, the implications and the example set by it, are of great importance when it comes to the eschatological study of end time events. In my book, “Die Arabiese Opstande” (The Arabic Uprisings) (Aug. 2011), I proposed that such a multi-speed Europe would come into being, allowing the euro countries to proceed with fiscal integration in spite of British resistance. This is exactly what happened since December 2011. I also mentioned in an article written during the height of the financial crisis (in contrast with the view of many other observers) that the crisis will not lead to the disintegration of the eurozone; it will rather lead to further integration of the eurozone (see the article posted on 10 October 2011 on this blog: “Gaan Griekeland in die Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief). This is exactly what happened.
But why is a multi-speed EU important from an eschatological perspective? The answer is simple: it allows some EU countries to proceed with integration, leaving others behind. This could eventually lead to ten countries in the heart of Europe deciding to proceed towards full political integration – which will be a fulfilment of Bible prophecy that a kingdom of ten (symbolized as ten toes or horns) will arise in the end times within the framework of a restored Roman Empire. Geographically speaking, the EU is already beginning to look more and more like such an empire. (See my article on 22 January 2012 on this blog: “Die tien horings van Daniël 7, waarna verwys dit?”). When these countries appoint a leader over them, he could very well be the final Antichrist. In this regard, it is remarkable that the recent appointment of unelected leaders over some euro countries could set a precedent for the countries that proceed with political integration, to also appoint a leader over them. If the events from the time of the Roman Empire are an indication, one can expect someone like the Roman emperors of old to eventually come to power in the EU.
Final thoughts
The fiscal compact that was signed on 2 March 2012 is a very important event in the framework of the EU. It allows a core group of countries to proceed towards a fiscal union, with their economies centrally managed – and that in spite of Britain's opposition. It set a precedent according to which an even smaller group of countries could also eventually integrate politically. It is in this regard that these events correspond with our expectations about the fulfillment of Bible prophecies – according to the prophecy in Daniel 7 about the ten horns (or the prophecy in Daniel 2 about the ten toes) there will eventually be a group of countries that will rise within the framework of a restored Roman Empire. Furthermore, the appointment of unelected leaders in some euro countries sets a precedent according to which countries that integrate politically, could also appoint a leader over them. This will agree with the prophecy according to which the mentioned ten “kings” will appoint a leader over them. When such a person is appointed, and he (maybe not the first one to be appointed) begin to operate like the emperors of old – being above all presidents and kings – we can expect the time of the final Antichrist to be at hand.
Although the time of the end has not yet arrived, it is clear that the current events could be an important step in that direction. We will have to wait and see how the situation unfolds further, and whether these prophecies will be fulfilled in our own time.
Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud. (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)