Europe and German Imperialism – A reply to Pat Mizak

It is somewhat peculiar to see an economics professor use the argument of German Imperialism in the EU debate. However, I thank you for it, as it actually shows how few economic arguments there are against the European Central Bank, and how weak they are. As nearly every economics undergraduate is taught (or should be taught), the arguments for and against centralised monetary policy should be based on the degree of integration amongst member states. In the EU, many countries are so intensely related in terms of trade and economy, that regions within a single country can be more different in economic terms, than two regions in two different EU countries. Therefore, if EU countries were to have power over their own national monetary policies, then by the same token, those regions should also have power over their own regional monetary policies. Hence the argument for EU member countries ‘giving up’ their power over their own monetary policy is a very weak one. With the exception of maybe Britain, which can be considered as having close relations to the US economy. Yet, it's Britain's own fault for depending so much on the US economy over which it has no control whatsoever.

Secondly, member states are not about to “surrender their monetary and fiscal policies to Brussels and the German economy” (Pat Mizak). In fact, they are liberating themselves from the great influence the US economy still has over the individual member states of the EU. Only if the EU achieves the same economic muscle as the US, by creating a single economy, will it be possible to relieve the European economy and financial markets from the pressure of the US and particularly of Wall Street.

At best, the rejection of the Nice Treaty by the Irish has shown one thing: People are ill informed. The turnout of less than 40% shows how little the people of Europe know about what is going on, and what is important. This brings me to my second point:

The Nice Treaty, which would eventually have lead to majority voting in the EU and abolished the tiresome task of veto voting, is a great step forward for the EU. It would improve the efficiency of decision making immensely. There is a reason not to have veto voting, and it is the same reason that there is no veto voting in the House of Commons, or for that matter in any other parliament (that I know of) in the world: It leads to countries being too preoccupied by their own interests and too little concerned with looking for a win-win situation for all countries involved. This is especially true of Britain, a keen addict of vetoing in the EU. Majority voting, which would be needed if the EU wanted to enlarge and actually make effective decisions, is one of the most important steps that has to be taken, if the EU wants to become equal to other world economies such as the US and booming China.

I feel truly European. I believe that the EU and its members can only retain their political power and economical wealth, if it becomes a ‘European Superstate’, despite the fact that this word will probably earn me little respect in Britain. Only if we will be able to show the same political and economic strength as the US and China will in 10 years, can we sustain our standard of living in the future to come.