Did all 40,000 EU officials get their maths wrong on the Single Market? History, economics too!
Can the EU officials count Birthdays? Don't they read history or economics books?
This year, all the EU institutions celebrated the thirtieth Birthday of the European Single Market. Yes, Commission, Council, Parliament, Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions.
Were they all drunk on the same mind-bending tipple or drugged in the same wild, narcotic party?
Really? Among the around 46,000 EU officials are there none who can count? They are supposedly selected for outstanding higher education of European history, economics and law. Are there none who know when the first Single Market was created? Or are they all afraid to speak the truth when their political masters spout obvious disinformation? Where are the honest officials?
The creation of the first single market spearheaded a revolutionary change in Europe’s history — not only to defang its in-bred belligerency but in creating the richest economy in the world. At one stage the European Community system was the greatest economic bloc in the world, outstripping the USA and USSR.
Now it is in a tailspin economic decline — because officials do not know the history of their institutions or even care about its purpose: peace on the European continent.
Marshall your facts!
Contrast that with what happened immediately up to 1950. The archives show that diplomats thought that Europe was headed into inevitable decline and chaos such that it had never seen in five centuries since the Renaissance. Not only the diplomats, but the think tanks. Not only the think tanks, but the military. They were preparing for war that they considered inevitable: world war 3.
All this was in spite of the Marshall Plan.
Some said it was aggravated by the Marshall Plan.
Firstly, the generous, post-war US aid of $13 billion went to national governments. Whatever its help in reconstruction, this money greatly increased nationalist policies. The receiving governments competed even more fiercely against each other as they rebuilt their economies on nationalist lines. Frontier barriers went up. Customs controls were strict. Money could not be taken across borders.
Secondly Marshall Aid was due to end in December 1951. What would happen then? Another nationalist fight? The European governments competed like trained boxers against each other, especially to gain precious dollars. They tried to outdo each other in exports to USA in cut-throat competition. Many knives were out, many throats to be cut to gain fair or unfair advantages.
When the muscle-building Marshall dollars stopped, politicians feared European nations would again enter into a similar boxing match as had occurred in the interwar period — and led to world war. The Red Army was poised at the frontiers to invade weakened, angry States and gobble up further tracts up to the Atlantic. The Communist party was the largest political party in France and Italy. Riots against the Marshall Plan were communist-led.
That seemingly unstoppable move to nationalistic wars — economic, political and military — was stopped with the break-through of creating a European Single Market in 1953. Thanks to the European Community!
Apparently no thanks today come from the European Commission! The EU leadership is selling a lie!
Missing Maths
Is there not one official who knows how to count at primary-school level? One, two, three…
There is no way the period from 1953 to 2023 can add up to thirty years.
Here we are entering the forbidden zone of political censorship. In 2002 politicians decided behind closed doors not to renew the 50-year mandate for the European Coal and Steel Community. A stupid decision. The industrialists wanted to rid themselves of the 1% peace tax. It was a disaster. They also rid themselves of Community protection. They removed anti-cartel protection from citizens. Europe was open to dumping by cheaper mass producers of steel. Some industries attempted to rebuild cartels, but the key industries were sold out to foreigners, like India and China. China!
Disgrace! No wonder that the institutions are too shame-faced even to mention Europe’s first supranational innovation. It broke with the dirty, closed-door politics-as-usual that brought wars.
The pioneering institution that brought peace and prosperity was written out of official history. It was replaced with the myth, an obvious fib, that the 1958 European Economic Community brought Europeans their unprecedented prosperity.
That untruth leads to the self-delusion and dishonest propaganda of the present political elite.
Hence:
My letter to EU Commissioner Thierry Breton
17 March 2023
Dear Commissioner Breton,
I am an accredited journalist and attended your press conference today virtually, but was not able to ask my question. I would appreciate an answer to the following.
1. Normally a birthday is not numbered starting at the fortieth in order to get to 30 today! I have written a number of books about Robert Schuman's life and work, so I appreciate your reference to the Coal and Steel Community as an important agency pioneering Europe-wide mineral industries and strategic, geopolitical thinking. The Single Market was not initiated in 1993. Three strategic Single Markets were the breakthrough that opened up closed national economies in 1953. That makes the Single Market 70 years old, not 30!
The first was scrap metal market across the Community. This is significant because the first Single Market was involved in Europe-wide recycling.
In the following weeks the Coal Single Market was opened initiating the Energy Single Market. Schuman also spoke in 1950 about bringing Russia into a Community system based on energy. Later in 1990 the Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers proposed and the governments agreed to a European Energy Community that would include countries like Russia and Ukraine. It came to naught for lack of strategic, geopolitical vision.
The third Single Market established in 1953 was the Steel Single Market, steel being a critical input into war machines. Putting Coal and Steel under supranational institutions made sure that war became 'not only unthinkable but materially impossible,' as the Schuman Proposal says.
My first question is: Why does the Commission refuse to recognize the strategic Single Market began in 1953. It would allow the public to see and learn from a living experience.
2. The Commission takes ad hoc soundings about the needs of the Market from so-called 'stakeholders'. They are not so defined by the public. The choice is not democratic or really effective.
The CECA had a much better strategy. The Consultative Committee was created to permanently advise the Commission with in-depth analysis, stats and facts. It was composed of three equal sections representing industrialists, workers and consumers -- the active economic agents.
Unfortunately in 1952, no European associations of industrialists, workers or consumers existed. The Council therefore came up with a temporary arrangement (not exactly according to treaty articles) whereby it nominated national members for these sections. It is dishonest to continue this maneuver today.
This undemocratic and abusive system has rendered the Consultative Committees (Economic and Social Committee and Committee of Regions) ineffective.
The original concept was for all European associations in the sectors should be registered. Given a single vote per association, they would elect the members of the Consultative Committee. The elected members would then represent all members (elected or not). If they did not gain the respect of the membership they would be replaced at the next election.
The beauty of arrangement is that
Associations of industrialists could provide expertise of technical matters and future advances without being beholden to any particular company.
Consumer associations could criticise the price structure and safety issues.
Workers' associations would make sure that price reductions did not hurt workers wages.
In this way the Consultative Committee helped create European social policy, for example, building houses for poor miners.
The sections also kept careful track of finances and oversaw them. The financial budget was simpler, based on a levy on production, thus removing temptations to fiddle the books related to 'profits'.
Commissioner Breton, I would appreciate having your response to these two questions.
Many thanks for your presentation today. I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
David Price
Editor, Schuman Project