Recently Viktor Yanukovych stated that the European Union today is the optimal model of social development. “We see the European Union as the optimal model of social development, the economy, public institutions, and, ultimately, as our common home… We are determined to achieve these goals without fanfare,” LIGA.BizInform reports.
This is the latest, but far from the only, statement by Yanukovych about the benefits of the European Union. One can be certain that these are not just perfunctory words and, certainly, not a way to “calm the public.” Let us recall that all our authorities, regardless of their electoral declarations, soon found themselves in the role of “European integrationists.” Such is the inexorable logic of the system. And while Yanukovych, generally speaking, was not observed engaging in overtly anti-European and anti-Western rhetoric, Kuchma began his presidential career precisely by doing so. And nothing came of it. Shortly after he took office, engagement with the IMF began, and then with all other Western institutions, and soon Kuchma himself became the “locomotive of European integration.”
One might tell me that the topic of integration, and specifically integration into the European Union, is rather an abstraction—a distant prospect with no practical significance. I will agree about the abstraction, but not about the rest. “Abstractions” inevitably determine our current behavior, set benchmarks, and serve as criteria for evaluation. Comparisons of “how things are there” are a mandatory feature of any political controversy. And if our inevitable future membership in the EU is taken as an axiom, then “everything that exists in the EU” is considered good. This sometimes leads us to astonishing arguments like “in order to pay taxes like in the European Union, give us salaries like in the European Union.” These peaks of wisdom illuminate our discussions, and the debaters cite them as self-evident truths. All this is not good, but very bad.
I want to clarify my position immediately. I am an unconditional supporter of “European values,” if by this we mean respect for human rights and dignity, the habit of living within one’s means, not meddling in other people’s lives, being a responsible citizen, and so on. Moreover, I am categorically “for” any “economic integration,” that is, for the elimination of those obstacles that states create on the path of exchange between people. And, perhaps precisely for this reason, I see no connection between our EU membership and these virtues.
Western “integrationists” call people like this “Euroskeptics.” However, I experience no “skepticism,” but rather a firm conviction that the European Union brings nothing good.
Why Do We Need This? A Myth
The author of these lines has written repeatedly that “European integration” lives in our country in the form of a myth. There is nothing wrong with that—myths are inevitable. However, if these were aliens, GMOs, or something else of that sort, I would not have written this note. The point is that we are dealing with a process that, if left unchecked, will inevitably end in the embrace of the European Union, so measures need to be taken.
It seems that there is a contradiction here—a myth in itself cannot lead to joining the EU. This is true. The myth lives in society. But it is our bureaucrats who practice real European integration, even if slowly. This is the worst possible variant of integration.
The signs of a myth are as follows. First, the absence of “Euroskeptics” on the political arena. Everyone wants to integrate into the EU, even the communists. This means that no one knows or wants to know anything about the EU. Second, and more importantly, society has not only not discussed, but has not even posed the questions without which it is meaningless to make a decision about joining somewhere. These questions are as follows: what problems does joining the EU solve? Can they be solved without the EU? Is the EU the best way to integrate? What specifically needs to be done for accession? What is the expected price, and what will we have to give up?
Let us note that “Europe” or “the West” actively permeates our everyday life—they are, as we have said, an inexhaustible source of examples and arguments. But you will search in vain for a coherent discussion of even one of the questions listed above. This is precisely what indicates that we are dealing with a myth, and, in practical terms, “European integration” concerns few people.
Why Do We Need This? The Keeper of the Keepers
I think one of the main reasons for the belief in the European Union is our desire to somehow call Ukrainian bureaucrats to account. It is believed that in the European Union they will not be allowed to run wild, as there will be a Euro-bureaucrat over them who knows his job. To this is added the belief in the magical power of laws that, as is believed, should and can operate automatically. Most are convinced that if we have laws like in Europe, then we will live like in Europe too.
Why Do We Need This? New Communism and Legitimacy
People cannot live without faith in certain goals. An ordinary person can be satisfied with faith in certain lofty ideals, in and of themselves. Our person differs in that these lofty ideals must be embodied in some very specific “social system” or organization. Communism took root so well in our lands precisely because it gave simple and heartwarming answers to all questions—when, how, and at whose expense universal happiness will arrive, and what specifically needs to be done for this. Again, “capitalism” takes root so poorly precisely because it is not a doctrine at all and not only does not answer these questions, but does not pose them at all.
Faith in the European Union is the modern replacement for communism. The European Union is when everything is good. Moreover, this “good,” unlike communism, can even be seen with one’s own eyes.
If a person has a worthy goal, one can endure much for its achievement. European integration, which the authorities pursue at least in words, is one of the foundations of legitimacy of our regime. People do not like to rebel and are willing to believe in certain things that seem important to them. “When we are in the European Union, they will give all these goats their horns bashed”—our person reasons and therefore agrees to endure the goats as long as they are “heading to Europe.”
Why Is This Needed by Bureaucrats? Arbiter and Legitimacy
In reality, the idea of “European integration” gained such support among bureaucrats at the dawn of independence because these bureaucrats simply did not understand what to do now. They had no experience, no knowledge, no desire. The country fell on their heads as a result of a historical cataclysm. It had no leaders and, much less, no social movements that would seriously think about how everything should be arranged in the event of gaining independence.
The idea of European integration meant approximately: “We are here, as it were, not for long, we will integrate into Europe, and then let them deal with us.” Public consensus on this point was one of the reasons why the elite managed to transition to the plunder of the country so easily.
Moreover, the bureaucrats immediately figured out that “European integration” is the “centuries-old dream of the Ukrainian people” and therefore it must always exist. Legitimacy is a serious thing.
From a practical standpoint, bureaucrats are the only group actually interested in European integration and trying to take steps in this direction. The reasons are clear—on one hand, these are the interests of our exporters and the gas transit industry, and on the other—all the same desire that “the goats get their horns bashed.” Bureaucrats need clear rules of the game no less than ordinary citizens, and if they cannot agree among themselves, they can only hope for a foreign lord who, as is well known, will judge everyone. Our presidents and ministers have long perceived Brussels as their boss and would be very pleased if these relations were legalized.
Common Denominator. A Simple Logical Error
Thus, we can safely say that at the heart of “European integration” in our country lies the desire to shirk responsibility. Both “authority” and “the people” are absolutely united in this.
This is easy to notice if one tries to reconstruct the cause-and-effect connections by which ordinary people explain their desire to immediately attach Ukraine to the European Union. “People there live better and therefore we need to go there”—this is how our person reasons. There is no error here yet. The error begins when, instead of leaving for EU countries where things are “good,” our person begins to think that Ukraine’s accession to the European Union will produce the same effect. The latter looks much more convenient—without any hassle and risk, at home, without stirring from one’s spot and without making any effort, to get Europe for oneself. Joining the EU is such magic that transports us all together “there” without any labor.
There is another simple mental exercise that allows everything to be put in its proper place. Let us imagine that suddenly, for some reason, we got honest and incorruptible officials, judges, and other parasites. Everything works well. Do we then need the EU? Many of our people pause at this point, because in such a case, those previously unasked questions that I mentioned above come into play. In our person’s head, a calculator immediately switches on and a simple question arises: “and what does this give us?” Thus, the myth of European integration once again testifies that our person cannot do anything on their own. Nor do they want to.
Where Are We Integrating? Two European Unions
However, as we have already said, the process of European integration is underway, and if it is not stopped, sooner or later it will end in the European Union. In this process, some decisions are made every day, laws and other documents are being tied to “EU standards.” For example, in Yanukovych’s program and his government’s program, they constantly refer to very specific European Union documents.
What does all this mean, and is it even possible to have the same attitude toward all these processes? Here one must recall the evolution of the European Union, which, generally speaking, began as a “common market.” That is, initially it was an activity aimed at reducing obstacles to exchange. However, the vector then changed—from the early 2000s, the construction of a supranational state has been underway. It is clear that a common market does not need any superstate and, essentially, the second process completely contradicts the first; however, under “European integration” we understand both. That is, in practice, one must always analyze what we are dealing with in each specific case. If the matter concerns the elimination of obstacles, such documents can only be supported, but if these documents are connected with additional regulation or the construction of a supranational state, they cannot be joyfully welcomed as milestones on the “path to Europe.”
European Union of Soviet Socialists
Now let us look at the organization into which “European integration” will inevitably lead us. I will not dwell on the widely known facts of bureaucratism, utterly excessive and petty regulation, and, on the whole, the socialist policy of the EU. Personally I do not like it, but one can theoretically assume that it may change. True, in that case many EU institutions will be left without work, so most likely no changes should be expected.
I want to say only two words about the obvious results of such policy. Václav Klaus, a well-known Euroskeptic, cites such data: in the eurozone countries, that is, in the heart of the EU, GDP growth was 3.4% in the 1970s. This indicator has steadily declined and now stands at 1.1%. Let me note that the GDP indicator is constantly used in EU calculations; it is their criterion of success. It turns out that the union cannot achieve the goals for which it was formed.
One cannot but be concerned about how the EU is being formed and what goals are being set in the process. Let me remind everyone of the story with the Lisbon Treaty, which the EU now operates under.
When after the dissolution of the USSR the number of EU participants grew from 15 to 25, the question arose of the manageability of this assembly. In 2001, the discussion of the European Constitution began. It envisioned the establishment of the post of President and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the EU, the abolition of the principle of “one representative from each country” in the formation of the European Commission, limiting the veto right of member countries, and the redistribution of the competence of the governing institutions of the Union.
This constitution would enter into force after approval by the member countries, in some of which a referendum was envisioned. France and the Netherlands voted against the Euro-constitution in a referendum, thereby burying this document.
However, this did not stop the bureaucrats. They invented amendments to the founding treaties of the EU, which they called the Lisbon Treaty. In essence, these amendments were the same constitution, only now the procedure for their approval was simpler. The fact is that the Euro-constitution would replace all founding documents, while the Lisbon Treaty simply amended them.
True, it turned out that even in this form the Irish constitution does not allow for their adoption, and that the Irish needed a referendum. The referendum in Ireland took place and the people voted against. And so? Well, nothing. As is well known, if the result does not suit the bureaucrats, it is considered incorrect. The Irish were threatened with cuts to subsidies. Simultaneously, privileges were promised in exchange for a new referendum. Well, and already at this referendum they voted as they should.
However you look at it, but personally I do not like this story at all, and the prospect of being under the management of Euro-bureaucrats who behave exactly the same as my own bureaucrats does not please me.
In general, a supranational state is now being formed, which already has the right to conclude international agreements and other such attributes. A European police force and other institutions so familiar to us, controllable by practically no one, will be established. The Lisbon Treaty introduces a complex system of decision-making that takes into account GDP, population size, etc., that is, a system based on purely arbitrary criteria. From November 1, 2014, this system enters into force.
After this, the European Union finally turns into a mega-office for the redistribution of resources between countries. This bureaucratic paradise is especially pleasant because the structures of the new EU are practically unaccountable to the votes of the national electorate; a significant number of senior Euro-bureaucrats will be appointees rather than elected officials. By the way, we somehow talk little about the fact that one of the goals (which in Europe they do not hide) of all this beauty is the ability to compete equally with the USA and China. That is, it is assumed in advance that the new mega-state will provide support to “its own” corporations against “foreign” ones. It turns out that the very goals of the new state already contain socialism.
And here is something else interesting. One can leave the EU only with the consent of the other members. Like in a collective farm.
Conclusions
It is high time we removed “integration into the EU” from the list of slogans and, all the more, slogans approved by default. It cannot be considered a holistic and homogeneous phenomenon.
No European integration will replace the need to put our own house in order ourselves.
If we do not change our attitude toward what is happening, we risk one day getting a whole pack of new bosses over us. A nation-state is bad. But when there is also a supranational one above it—that is completely unacceptable. I will be told—What about, they will say, the possibility of fighting one’s own state through European structures, like various human rights courts and so on? The answer is simple—all these respected institutions do not at all need the existence of a new European mega-state to function; they worked perfectly well before its emergence. And the idea that our bureaucrats will be controlled by “their” bureaucrats, and that this will be good, leads into a vicious cycle, because immediately the question arises—who will control “their” bureaucrats? As we can see, everything is going in the direction that no one will.