Terms and Their Meanings
Politics increasingly relies on buzzwords. This resonates well, otherwise it wouldn’t be done. The substantive direction is thereby obscured. A commentary by Karl von Habsburg.
The concept of subsidiarity – which has been written about multiple times in this blog – is often used to distract from European policy and to strengthen one’s own national policy. This may be well-received by many voters, given the numerous bureaucratic decisions elevated from national to European level to push them through away from public scrutiny, but it misses the actual point. Ultimately, it merely deflects from the unwillingness to confront the true challenges.
A classic example in the category of misusing a term is “conservative”. Conservative expresses a set of values based on freedom and personal responsibility, family, fundamental attitudes and principles, property and the rule of law, respect and esteem, tradition, etc. Yet, how often have we witnessed Soviet hardliners in Moscow, conspiracy theorists living in the past, or structural preservationists being labelled as “conservatives”?
United States of Europe?
A buzzword also frequently used in discussions about the future of the EU is that of the “United States of Europe”. Some use the term because they wish to convey the hope for a European state with an economic government, a debt union, and a social union. Others use the term as a deterrent against a centralised Europe. For them, the nation-state is the ideal. In doing so, they conveniently forget that today’s nation-state is considerably more centralised and bureaucratic than they accuse the EU of being.
The EU treaties enshrine the goal of an “ever closer union”. But what does an ever closer union mean? When this formulation was included in the treaties, it expressed the hope of finally eliminating war in Europe and creating peace and freedom for its citizens. Today, this goal definition – much like the United States of Europe – is seen as a threatening scenario of an all-regulating Europe. The fact that the existing paternalistic welfare state at national level is nothing other than this, merely on a smaller scale, is often overlooked. The state was considerably more modest when this “closer union” was pursued. The regulatory density of that time would probably be considered a precursor to anarchy by today’s bureaucrats. With the tax levels then in place, today’s welfare ideologues would probably fear that citizens, with the greater portion of their income remaining, would make entirely wrong investments, as they are apparently incapable of taking responsibility for themselves and their families.
European Border Protection
Similar observations can be made in the many speeches delivered today about the further development of the EU. Since the uncontrolled wave of immigration in 2015, there have been constant declarations of commitment to European border protection. If one looks closely at what is apparently meant by this, then border protection (contrary to the original intentions when the Schengen area was created) is to remain in the hands of the nation-states, but cooperation is to be intensified. One should then not be surprised if the EU Commission exposes these wishes as rather expensive.
In reality, European border protection would mean forming a European border protection unit, equipped with all necessary resources, from technology to personnel. Duplication at the national level could thus be eliminated. But which interior minister would want to relinquish this competence?
It is not to be held against responsible politicians if they continue this policy of buzzwords, as long as the desired effects – namely votes in elections and thus access to offices, money, and power – can be achieved. However, the multitude of unresolved challenges we face in Europe demonstrates that this policy is short-sighted and therefore dangerous.
If we want to solve these challenges, then we must again be prepared to engage in tough political discussions that go beyond these buzzwords. It will then also be necessary to clearly define what is actually meant by certain terms. This is also a challenge for a mature civil society.
The article originally appeared on the website of Karl von Habsburg.
