I had an interesting and long discussion about the United States of Europe. Meeting with a high ranking official of the European Commission in Brussels was originally on another topic, but his incidental remark „I wasn’t a defender of the United States of Europe, but after 2008 financial crisis I am.“ changed it. As it turned out, it is much easier to claim something vague and broad than defend such stand against concrete arguments.

Ultimately, even the author of abovementioned claim acknowledged that. When you look at this opinion closely, even if it sounds logical and reasonable at first (“let’s solve problems together”), you’ll get its defenders to the corner. Usually it signals a quasi argument, to which are they sooner or later forced to resort. United States of Europe are supposedly necessary because nobody listens to fragmented Europe and it should speak with a united voice, it should have the secretary of foreign affairs who would represent the united Europe with over 500 million citizens in negotiations with other superpowers. Such argument is very convenient for its opponents, because its idea, that centralization of EU’s policies can solve anything, is very shaky.

Let’s take an example of Syria, recently most discussed foreign political problem. Imagine that we currently live in the United States of Europe, what would be „united“ European position to the possible intervention in Syria? In case of any scenario, whether supportive of intervention or not, the existence of „European“ secretary of foreign affairs with strong competitions wouldn’t change anything about the fact, that some European countries would be in these issues strongly against, some strongly for, and some would keep restrained position. „Common“ European position would either respect this fragmentation of opinions and fail to fulfill the expectations of the rest of the world about united voice of Europe, or wouldn’t respect it, lean toward one of the alternatives pleasing one group of European states and anger many others. This Europe with common voice is more a wish of some intellectuals than of broad classes of citizens. In a recent opinion survey conducted on request of European Parliament ended up the question of EU’s influence on international scene with five percentage points on the last position in the priority ladder.

Similarly, we can discuss one policy after another, monetary, budgetary, tax, social, energy, industrial, etc. It’s not at all clear to me, why those who vigorously defend principle of biodiversity, defy it when it comes to the institutional diversity. In other words, the key for positive development of our institutions is their diversification, not artificial reduction to one kind. Euro crisis has shown to many that one monetary policy, and one interest rate for all is not a good idea. Do we need to experience on our own, that the effort to have the same tax rates, welfare payments, retirement payments, wages for all countries will end up badly?

Jűrgen Stark, former member of executive council of European central Bank, recently publicly warned against the risks of centralization. We shouldn’t leave it on others. Warning against the risks of centralization of decision-making on international level should be our duty with respect to our negative experience with it.

Ján Oravec, published in a journal .týždeň no. 40 (30th September 2013)

Translated by Peter Blaha