(Pamphlet 9 of The European Economic Community - Berlin 1942)
"It cannot make sense to join all the European countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level, if required."
Few people realize that the project of a European Union began in earnest after World War I. It had two powerful strands, the International Socialist Pan Europa movement of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and the German National Socialist plan for an EEC. In many ways WWII, including the holocaust, can be seen as a civil war between the proponents of these two views. The Pan Europa movement survived WWII and is still very active. At the opening of the Strasbourg Parliament it was credited with a major role in the movement towards the creation of a European Union. However, it was the German experience of running a united Europe after 1940 that provided some of the practical background for the first efforts towards a united Europe, especially the integration of coal and steel industries in the 50s. A translation of Pamphlet 9 of the German plan for a European Economic Community (Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft) is presented below.
Few people understand that the fascist Axis was composed of a number of voluntary members: Italy, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland, Japan and Vichy France. Countries such as Spain were ideological fellow travellers and Yugoslavia was briefly a member. It was a European ideological movement, not just the Germans. The Lesson to be drawn from the fact that Fascists and Nazis found an EEC to be acceptable is that the EU is not an antidote to fascism and fascism can be Internationalist.
by Prof. Dr. Heinrich Hunke
Economics Committee Adviser of the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency. [After WWII he was General Secretary, Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ARL) in Hanover, advising the German Government on Treaty of Rome etc. and a member of the Lower Saxony State Parliament for the BHE and acted as a senior official in the Ministry of Finance of the State of Niedersachsen , most recently as Deputy Director.]
New Learning and Thought
Since the start of World War I, Germany, Europe and the whole world has had an object lesson in economics and economic policy full of truly bitter experiences for all concerned and which, on the other hand, provides new perspectives of unimaginable magnitude. True, crises happened before the world war; the wealth of great nations’ had been wiped out by violent conflicts and in the American Civil War, economic warfare emerged as a new weapon. But the last 25 years have shaken the spiritual and practical structure of the economy in such a way as no other period.
In August 1914, the world held as absolutely true the belief that the economy was something that existed on its own and was a law unto itself. It was the President of the Issuing Bank and the men of commerce, professors and lay-people who noted from the inexorable increase in global trade both the signs and the nature of a new economic era. Now, 25 years later, the economy has become controllable, one used to serve its people, and now experts and theoreticians are involved in gaining more knowledge about economic and political life.
We in Germany had to deal with the problems of economic reconstruction very early on, so we were the first to get away from the idea of everything being determined by the automatic laws of economics. It was National Socialism that was first to recognise that work represents the foundation and wealth of a social economy. This means that work has to be the corner stone of any future moral order. Here, then, is the Archimedes Principle that can turn the whole capitalist economy upside down. We have also learned that the main tasks ahead can be recognised and affirmed without the belief that they can ultimately be achieved. What is required is a clear understanding of what stands before us, without which the desire to tread new economic paths will never be present.
In 1923 in Germany the ever-depreciating reichsmark created a feeling of impossibility and moral derangement. The creation of the ‘stabilised mark’ was an unexpected miracle for most of us. In 1932 we all saw that we had to solve unemployment, but the old doctrine failed to see any possibility of doing this. It started with the crystal clear understanding of a few people about economic processes, then the faith of many people and the iron resolve of one individual who sought the solution of this massive task, which flew in the face of all previous experience.
Today we are faced with similar tasks together with the other European nations, such as rebuilding the European economy, mobilising our agricultural sector, industry and transport. Solving these problems keeps providing us with new perspectives and challenging the theories and practices of the past.
Two things appear necessary to us now: firstly, everyone needs to be made aware of the tasks that face us. Therefore it pleases me that it has been possible for our leading experts to discuss here the economic problems of labour deployment, agriculture, industry, transport, currencies and European co-operation. Then these tasks have to be recognised, understood and carried out unanimously. This is the most difficult thing. In this period of new thinking it is more important than ever before to create a link between word and deed, because the effective solution of a problem relies on it first being unanimously recognised.
Finally I want to make some basic observations about the situation today regarding the economic problem in Europe and try to establish a direction for the solution of the political and economic problems. In doing so, I hope to make a significant contribution to the problem of our enlarged area. To me they appear all the more important when this important concept lies hidden under other issues and is exposed to the same dangers.
The Starting Point for the European Task
Three Eras
In considering this question what has to be held true is that the creation of the European economic community is a totally natural manifestation of the regeneration of the old continent. A quick look at the last 450 years since Christopher Columbus landed on the Coral Island in the West Indies shows this clearly.
Firstly there is an argument that Europe lived up to 1942 from its own energy and built up its own great culture and economy. This fact remains beyond doubt. In purely economic terms, the discoveries had absolutely no significance for the European economy for the centuries preceding us. The only exception being the importation of spices and precious metals.
In his book ‘Recent World History’, Dietrich Schäfer, in agreement with every other historian, quite rightly says, “ The New World, which today is flooding the Old World with its products and threatens to kill off production in Europe, has nothing to offer its discoverers. The animals it uses to create a large part of its wealth emanate from Europe. Maize was the only indigenous type of cereal to America, which along with the potato were the only two crops that the New World could supply to the Old World. It is well known that it took centuries until these crops grew in sufficient quantities to feed local populations. Even the tropical and sub-tropical produce, which America sells today, were totally lacking in the first one hundred years after its discovery or were only available for export on too limited a basis to produce a profit. Sugar cane brought over from Europe was first grown in Tahiti, but after the three centuries of Spanish ownership the yields still remained limited. Europeans, we know discovered tobacco in America, but took time to develop a liking for it. So there was absolutely nothing in the beginning that could be traded profitably or in sufficient quantities. Emigrating to India was impossible, whereas to America it was possible on a limited basis.”
The exploitation of the overseas territories only actually happened in the last century and a half, made possible by European people and their inventions, which turned these territories in to an overseas Europe. White people crossed the “pond” and were followed by machinery, the railways and other means of transport. All European nations worked together in this task. Germany, above all others, provided the New World with its organisers, soldiers and workers. It was undoubtedly an impressive achievement within just a few generations to provide an entire new world with a new population, a new spirit, a new culture and civilisation.
We still believe that it was only in the 19th century that the overseas territories became truly significant for Europe. What we must also accept is the fact that the achievements of Europe overseas were accompanied by its disintegration. Three facts immediately stand out: the emergence of the global economy spelt the loss of Europe’s economic sovereignty; the amassing of huge colonial possessions led to the destruction of the Reich; and the success of the Anglo Saxon economic principles signified the end of the European economic community. Three theses, then, that should be easy to demonstrate.
The Character of the Global Economy
I mentioned that Europe’s economic sovereignity was destroyed by the emergence of the global economy. It cannot be denied that Europe lost all interest for its people in a very short space of time due to the wonderful opportunities overseas. Even at the start of the 19th century, it was possible to transport the entire cotton crop of the USA on board one ship since the output was so small then. More and more rapidly Europe’s food and raw material basis moved to the New World and to other continents, so that we soon became dependent on that which we used to make ourselves. Suddenly our cereal and our cotton became America’s cereal and cotton and everyone said: “ What does America have to say?” For thousands of years before, though, it had been very different!
This development would have posed no danger if the new global economy had represented something real, something lasting, that gave all European nations the same opportunities. Not so, this one lived off the world power of England and turned the other European nations into provincial areas of the English Empire. Today all this is evident to us, strange as this may sound, as we now recognise that the creation of a global economy can never be equated with the society of any nation. The domestic, urban and social economies are all supported and formed by somebody. Family, community, nation. As long as mankind, in the political sense, remains no more than a concept, the global economy will not become reality. Instead it will remain dependent on political power for its foundation and order. What the global economy means and how long it will survive depends on its creator. We can see clearly that our efforts to establish labour division throughout the world have undermined our very own existence.
Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of English World Superiority
The decisive point is that Europe’s loss of economic sovereignty entailed the loss of its political sovereignty. At the time of the discoveries around the world, the political order of our continent began to decay. The German Reich had provided this order for centuries, which had guaranteed its social, cultural and economic values. As the Reich fell apart, the emphasis moved out to the nations on the edge of Europe – to Spain, France, Holland and finally to Great Britain. What is really decisive, though, is that Great Britain believed that the only way to create and maintain order overseas was to render Europe politically weak. The English Prime Minister, Salisbury, for example said in substantiation of the Balance of Power Principle In Europe, “We do not seek to divide territories, but to break down any dominant power.”
Mr. Eden echoed these words in November 1936: “The extent of the political empire’s responsibility in the world necessitates its close involvement in European affairs. Through its free position, England has come to accept three main principles in its relationships with Europe.
1. No power can be allowed to challenge its natural superiority in the North Sea and the English Channel.
2. Small nations must never be allowed to fall into the hands of large powers.
3. Large powers must not be allowed to gain superiority in continental Europe, as this would pose a threat to Great Britain.
Thus we see that England regarded European political weakness as a pre-requisite for its economic dominance and also that the question of Germany does not feature at all. Expressed more succinctly, all of England’s global economic plans will endeavour to quash Europe’s attempt to regain its political and economic sovereignty with every means available.
Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National Economy
Following on from the above two points there then came the infiltration of Europe by the Anglo-Saxon economic view, which disguised itself as the modern global economic theory and was thus widely observed. It represented the following principles:
1. Market forces determine everything that happens on earth. Price is responsible for regulating economic affairs and decides the fate of nations and individuals. It replaces the need for social ideals, moral ties and state requirements.
2. The owner of capital is in control of economic goods, production and consumption. Capital represents the commanding position in our economic life.
3. International freedom of movement is the be all and end all. Everyone should be able to settle where they see the best place for their commercial activity I.e. where there seem to be the cheaper production conditions and the lowest transport costs.
There is no doubt about the huge significance of these three principles. The world has practically lived and breathed this view without looking at its foundation and detecting its side effects – until they were revealed to everyone by the great economic, political and spiritual crisis. In my opinion, the English economy is determined totally by this prevailing Anglo-Saxon economic view, as England’s economic greatness ultimately relies on the belief of its people in the rightness and singularity of the British principles. Thus, either consciously or unconsciously, England guided the economic development of all nations along it own lines. Experts were dominated by this powerful theory. The dominance of the London Stock Exchange and the hegemony of the English Pound were also the expression of England’s spiritual power, just as the old economic science of England was. It is also true that even up to our time there was the belief that capital shaped the economy and that the theory of comparative costs was the pivotal instrument of global economic theory.
As a result, people failed to recognise what really shaped their lives; and that is people and room – not international markets. What also happened was the automation of Europe. In a farming village it is taken as understood that everyone depends on each other and help each other, but in Europe each nation, each person’s job and each business lived just for its own interest. Europe had become a geographic concept.
The Foundation of the European Economic Community
Now, though, Europe cannot exist purely as a geographical concept. Instead, its foundation of existence lien in its political power and its consciousness of political unity.
I will totally ignore the fact that geographers cannot even define Europe properly. Carl Ritter, the old expert on geography, concluded that Europe, as the ruler of the other continents, “could quite rightly provide the highest classification concerning the world’s historical and political condition, placing it into two main categories:
a) the European world, to which even the europeanised one belonged. b) the non-European world, which was not advanced to the level of European civilisation.”
Regarding the question of the boundaries of the European continent he said, “ the eastern border has been decided by the development of history” and “ Europe’s natural border coincides with that of its people, its way of life and civilisation.” Today our Leader himself has again pointed out that Europe has no geographic definition, just a national and cultural one. To him, its borders are simply defined by the West’s history to date and he pointed to Europe historical emergence, which originated from that island in Greece, coming via the Roman Empire to the west. To him, Europe was the area “of a family of people, amongst whom the political organisation and objectives might be quite divergent and different. In blood and cultural terms, though, it represents overall a unity that is complementary to itself.” From this realisation that Europe is not a geographical concept a number of conclusions have to be drawn, which are of crucial importance for the future economic and political co-operation of the people of Europe.
1. Theoretically, concepts such as an enlarged area and its economy have to be rejected because they are vacuous and undefined. Nothing is said about the area itself, other than it is of a particular size, one larger than has been generally the case. We are not helped by the mere introduction of an unsubstantiated concept in economic arguments.
2. The decisive things in the new unity of Europe are the type of co-operation and way of living within this unity. Important political conclusions stem from this statement. Firstly, that it is only possible for Europeans to live a European life if the struggle between nationalities of this area is limited to the spiritual sphere and nothing else. Then there is the spiritual and political solidarity, even a community relating to the area which is the decisive feature of the new structure. Finally, that the only aim of economic co-operation can be the European economic community.
3. The decisive economic and political conclusion, therefore, is that Europe does not become, say, a so-called enlarged area in the sense of a smaller global economy pervaded by the old Anglo-Saxon economic laws. Instead the European economic community has to be shaped according to new political categories, so it will look different to the economy of the past.
Categories within the European Economic Community
Europe, the geographical concept, is therefore in the process of making room for a political fact. The decisive economic categories of this development will consist of replacing the individual with society, global market with living area (‘Lebensraum’), capital with organisation of the workplace. The success of these three principles will herald an economic and political development of revolutionary magnitude.
Three Principles
Society Replaces the Individual
This means that an economy’s objective becomes totally different and the unbridled urge to earn money is no longer the regulator of the economy. In its stead is the controlling authority of the community, which safeguards the tie between economy and society. This must be kept separate from the organisational restrictions, otherwise damage will be caused.
Living Area Replaces the Global Market
To clearly differentiate between these two concepts, it is best to compare the views of their two great proponents: that of Adam Smith and Friedrich List. According to Adam Smith’s theory of free trade through free competition each country produces those goods which it can produce best I.e. most cheaply. Each country can then buy most efficiently and sell to best advantage. Friedrich List, on the other hand, held that division of labour within nations, and not between nations, brought about the best performance. For him, an economy does not consist of mathematical values or exchange values; rather it grows from the availability and use of latent productive forces among the people and is synonymous with the awakening of all the productive forces of the nation. The following table serves to show the two opposing economic views:
Adam Smith: represents the market theory, whose highest value is the value of the market or the exchange value, international labour division is the route
to wealth, the aim of Adam Smith and of free trade is harmony between all individuals.
Friedrich List: represents the theory of productive forces, whose highest value is the productive force, confederation, I.e. the pooling of productive forces is the route to wealth the aim of Friedrich List is thedevelopment of the energy of the people.
Adam Smith’s thinking is cosmopolitan, Friedrich List’s and our thinking is political.
There can be no doubt that the two economic views are theoretically and practically poles apart and that is why the outcome of the present struggle will be of utmost importance in economic and political terms for every European nation. A note about the concept of living area itself, which I have briefly outlined as follows: to Germany, its living area is:
1. A sufficient area for it to be able to live and grow in an enclosed settlement in Europe.
2. The shift in focus of Germany’s economy to within its actual national area.
3. The recognition of the development of a mainland European economic community, which allows the utilisation of its inherent economic forces, and ensures mutual supplementation through economic achievement between friendly neighbouring nations.
4. The extension of a colonial economic area, such as is common and possible elsewhere in the world.
We see from this definition that living area is not identical to the area of the nation. We also see that the liberal view, which says that economic supply is totally independent of the politically governed area, is erroneous and can be rejected, in the same way as the mercantile view of the identity of the national and economic area is rejected. This view of living area clearly establishes the economic relationship with the other nations of Europe, for if we demand living area for Germany, this also affirms living area for other foreign nations. The aim of the theory of living areas is simply to form a new European order, which guarantees all nations its own living area.
Thinking in the Workplace Replaces the Theory of Capital
As I said before, here lies the Archimedes Principle, which gives us power to construct once again a new culture, a new economy on our continent. For ages, it has been recognised that work is the source of wealth, a fact only overshadowed in more recent generations by a fateful superstition that said that capital somehow had some determining influence on work. From this was born the unhealthy consequence that a nation could have too many workers. Only falteringly do people start to realise again that the limit of a nation’s wealth depends on its ability to organise its work.
It is obvious that these three principles, mentioned above, will have their practical effects. I have to point once again to the example of the revival of the south-east European economies after 1933. This shows how new methods used in these countries produced real indisputable successes. You see, Germany did not suffocate its partners there with financial dependence, or make them financially indebted. No monocultures were demanded or caused; prices were not held down. Germany just bought goods, paid for them properly. Germany released and developed the productive forces in these countries in the sense of Friedrich List.
A New Era
The final constitution of the European economic community could be something along the following lines:
First of all there will be a general change in ways of production through the utilisation of productive forces of the people. What is produced will be determined by the energies of the nation and its area, not by the price that the world markets will pay. One could perhaps say that freedom of work replaces freedom of the economy meaning that those national monocultures that are controlled by price would practically come to an end. It cannot make sense to join all the European countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level, if required. It would unnecessarily disturb and jeopardise the natural coalescence of the European economies if customs barriers were suddenly removed in Europe today.
On the other hand, the objective of future economic co-operation is to create a community of living space i.e. it cannot be, say, the task of the new economic policy to destroy monocultures and replace them with impossible insularities. If the German Reich had pulled back the emphasis of its economy to its national area then that would send a strong message to the rest of Europe. The small nations of Europe must never remain in any doubt that they too are dependent on their neighbours and must take them into consideration. In 1932 Sering rightly pointed out that the strength of the American economy would break as soon as customs barriers went up on all of the 48 states’ borders, as in Europe. Not only that, that the European nations would run the danger of being suppressed economically and losing their political independence if, one day, a new structural group came along and stopped the economic deterioration of the individual nations.
There will be two fundamentally new manifestations in this European economic community: full employment and self sufficiency in essential goods. For me, there is no doubt that the experiences of the German people will lead them to teach other nations ways to achieve higher employment. Nor do I doubt that the success of European tasks, which are determined by the exploitation of large parts of the continent, will call into play energies, which can be barely imagined today. In doing so, as Bernhard Köhler once said in relation to the German people, the people of Europe will liberate themselves from proletarian restlessness and build a new life for themselves. Equally important will be the requirement that essential goods must always be available if this requirement is adopted as a principle in people’s consciousness, and thus adopted into the practice of the economy. The requirement is itself final, because what other meaning could the concept of living area have other than permanent access to essential goods! The development of all inherent economic forces of a nation and their supplementation by friendly neighbours are therefore the normal economic foundations and the necessary links in the security chain of a nation.
Clearly, these effects of the European economic community will herald a totally new era for Europe and the implementation of the new principles will have many obstacles to overcome. The development of many processes of economic control and economic trade between nations shows the careful approach to solving problems that is necessary. The difficulties in Europe are in peoples’ mind, not in the economic world.
Today it probably would not occur to anyone to take delivery of the earnings for a community and divide it up until that money is used. It would all be worked out on paper and each person allotted his amount. Even up to 100 years ago, for example, brick workers had their earnings distributed, where the ‘Meister’ used to take delivery all the money and place it in a pot before his colleagues. Then he and the foremen would take what and this was kept separate from the amount in the ‘pot’. Then, starting with the ‘Meister’, each worker would take their coin in turn. The distribution of the small silver and copper coins continued until the money had finished. The workers tended to watch the working out on paper with distrust, as it could be wrong. However, there was no error in this method of calculation. Nowadays we tend to laugh at this method of payment, because it is different to what we are used to. Our attitude towards many management related issues related is influenced by the same type of distrust, but eventually it will give way to a greater level of understanding.
Going back to the problem of clearing peaks, it is understandable that there are still those people who regard them with deep distrust. They would prefer to be in the position of those brick workers, being paid bit by bit, whereas in reality the situation is clear:
1. It goes without saying Germany is at the moment struggling to meet its contractual obligations in the way it did before, because it is striving to achieve a final victory.
Besides that it must be observed:
2. Early on in the war Germany trusted its neighbours to deliver later. Here the word is ‘trust’.
3. Even longer ago, the individual nations were creditors to foreign countries, but with the difference that settlement was to be in gold and foreign currency. So basically nothing has changed except for the fact that today this type of settlement system would be extraordinarily difficult, because very few nations regard this method as acceptable and practical. If gold and foreign currency were available then there would be no hesitation in entering these values in the balance sheet and to claim as cover for cash. An agreement made in a treaty is today considered by individual partners as a risk or a burden because their expectations have already been dashed.
4. This is the decisive point. Today the German economy continues to supply incredible quantities of goods and its capacities still easily exceed the demands that are being placed on it.
The problem regarding clearing peaks that I mentioned basically relates to decisions to do with the new Europe. The significance of the power of Germany’s economy sets the conditions for the game that has now started. You see, management is all about balancing out, but you can only do that if you have the appropriate opportunities. Beyond that, the prerequisite for bringing about and developing the European economic community is making people familiar with the new world of ideas.
Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future
On our way to creating a community with living area we must not get diverted by the minor obstacles. A quite unusual stage has been reached on our way to the new Europe. Looking back we can clearly see as follows: we could recognise common European problems through our shared plight. It started in November 1932 with the Europe Congress in Rome to discuss the subject “The European Crisis” and to review spiritual unity, economic domination and the continent’s cultural questions. Then last year in the autumn the anti-Comintern Pact was formed in Berlin. That is real progress in engendering the physical forces of Europe in the fight to maintain European culture! For me there is no doubt that no nation in Europe can avoid the great question which is being fought over today.
More importantly though, our shared plight brought about spiritual and political movements of the same orientation throughout the diverse nations in Europe. Almost simultaneously and independently of one another, men in all European nations rose up and formed groups, fronts and movements. This was simply an expression of the time that had come. They formed new ideas and, in the most important countries, gave the state a new face. I deliberately refrain from citing examples. Agreement is so profound that the one party system is the new political form that is right for Europe, in contrast to the multi-party one. In the area of economic control such unity also prevails.
In this time of disruption, difficulties and defence that we have to face it is only natural that we keep remembering our shared past. Our common cultural basis will slowly grow into a European consciousness.
The decisively important thing that is going to happen on our way to a new future for our old continent is co-operation. Prussia, and with it the Reich grew from the colonisation of all those of German origin. I believe that nothing will promote and shape the European economic community more than future co-operation with the east European nations.
There is no doubt about the seriousness of the hour, nor the great opportunities that exist for the whole of Europe. Today we are fighting for our very lives. Much of what was created overseas by European people is now lost. Fate has left us with home, family and work, which are now being defended in Europe by us. It now depends on us whether we can once again build a new world and safeguard a new life and wealth for ourselves. Ahead of us the outlines of this new world can be made out. Whether we build that land ourselves, or not, is up to us. It depends on our will and how we develop and utilise our strength.
See also Secret report shows Nazis planned fourth Reich in EU
Link to this article in Twitter with http://tinyurl.com/ptdo7vt
"It cannot make sense to join all the European countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level, if required."
Few people realize that the project of a European Union began in earnest after World War I. It had two powerful strands, the International Socialist Pan Europa movement of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and the German National Socialist plan for an EEC. In many ways WWII, including the holocaust, can be seen as a civil war between the proponents of these two views. The Pan Europa movement survived WWII and is still very active. At the opening of the Strasbourg Parliament it was credited with a major role in the movement towards the creation of a European Union. However, it was the German experience of running a united Europe after 1940 that provided some of the practical background for the first efforts towards a united Europe, especially the integration of coal and steel industries in the 50s. A translation of Pamphlet 9 of the German plan for a European Economic Community (Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft) is presented below.
Few people understand that the fascist Axis was composed of a number of voluntary members: Italy, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Austria, Finland, Japan and Vichy France. Countries such as Spain were ideological fellow travellers and Yugoslavia was briefly a member. It was a European ideological movement, not just the Germans. The Lesson to be drawn from the fact that Fascists and Nazis found an EEC to be acceptable is that the EU is not an antidote to fascism and fascism can be Internationalist.
The Basic Question: Europe – Geographic Concept or Political Fact?
by Prof. Dr. Heinrich Hunke
Economics Committee Adviser of the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency. [After WWII he was General Secretary, Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ARL) in Hanover, advising the German Government on Treaty of Rome etc. and a member of the Lower Saxony State Parliament for the BHE and acted as a senior official in the Ministry of Finance of the State of Niedersachsen , most recently as Deputy Director.]
New Learning and Thought
Since the start of World War I, Germany, Europe and the whole world has had an object lesson in economics and economic policy full of truly bitter experiences for all concerned and which, on the other hand, provides new perspectives of unimaginable magnitude. True, crises happened before the world war; the wealth of great nations’ had been wiped out by violent conflicts and in the American Civil War, economic warfare emerged as a new weapon. But the last 25 years have shaken the spiritual and practical structure of the economy in such a way as no other period.
In August 1914, the world held as absolutely true the belief that the economy was something that existed on its own and was a law unto itself. It was the President of the Issuing Bank and the men of commerce, professors and lay-people who noted from the inexorable increase in global trade both the signs and the nature of a new economic era. Now, 25 years later, the economy has become controllable, one used to serve its people, and now experts and theoreticians are involved in gaining more knowledge about economic and political life.
We in Germany had to deal with the problems of economic reconstruction very early on, so we were the first to get away from the idea of everything being determined by the automatic laws of economics. It was National Socialism that was first to recognise that work represents the foundation and wealth of a social economy. This means that work has to be the corner stone of any future moral order. Here, then, is the Archimedes Principle that can turn the whole capitalist economy upside down. We have also learned that the main tasks ahead can be recognised and affirmed without the belief that they can ultimately be achieved. What is required is a clear understanding of what stands before us, without which the desire to tread new economic paths will never be present.
In 1923 in Germany the ever-depreciating reichsmark created a feeling of impossibility and moral derangement. The creation of the ‘stabilised mark’ was an unexpected miracle for most of us. In 1932 we all saw that we had to solve unemployment, but the old doctrine failed to see any possibility of doing this. It started with the crystal clear understanding of a few people about economic processes, then the faith of many people and the iron resolve of one individual who sought the solution of this massive task, which flew in the face of all previous experience.
Today we are faced with similar tasks together with the other European nations, such as rebuilding the European economy, mobilising our agricultural sector, industry and transport. Solving these problems keeps providing us with new perspectives and challenging the theories and practices of the past.
Two things appear necessary to us now: firstly, everyone needs to be made aware of the tasks that face us. Therefore it pleases me that it has been possible for our leading experts to discuss here the economic problems of labour deployment, agriculture, industry, transport, currencies and European co-operation. Then these tasks have to be recognised, understood and carried out unanimously. This is the most difficult thing. In this period of new thinking it is more important than ever before to create a link between word and deed, because the effective solution of a problem relies on it first being unanimously recognised.
Finally I want to make some basic observations about the situation today regarding the economic problem in Europe and try to establish a direction for the solution of the political and economic problems. In doing so, I hope to make a significant contribution to the problem of our enlarged area. To me they appear all the more important when this important concept lies hidden under other issues and is exposed to the same dangers.
The Starting Point for the European Task
Three Eras
In considering this question what has to be held true is that the creation of the European economic community is a totally natural manifestation of the regeneration of the old continent. A quick look at the last 450 years since Christopher Columbus landed on the Coral Island in the West Indies shows this clearly.
Firstly there is an argument that Europe lived up to 1942 from its own energy and built up its own great culture and economy. This fact remains beyond doubt. In purely economic terms, the discoveries had absolutely no significance for the European economy for the centuries preceding us. The only exception being the importation of spices and precious metals.
In his book ‘Recent World History’, Dietrich Schäfer, in agreement with every other historian, quite rightly says, “ The New World, which today is flooding the Old World with its products and threatens to kill off production in Europe, has nothing to offer its discoverers. The animals it uses to create a large part of its wealth emanate from Europe. Maize was the only indigenous type of cereal to America, which along with the potato were the only two crops that the New World could supply to the Old World. It is well known that it took centuries until these crops grew in sufficient quantities to feed local populations. Even the tropical and sub-tropical produce, which America sells today, were totally lacking in the first one hundred years after its discovery or were only available for export on too limited a basis to produce a profit. Sugar cane brought over from Europe was first grown in Tahiti, but after the three centuries of Spanish ownership the yields still remained limited. Europeans, we know discovered tobacco in America, but took time to develop a liking for it. So there was absolutely nothing in the beginning that could be traded profitably or in sufficient quantities. Emigrating to India was impossible, whereas to America it was possible on a limited basis.”
The exploitation of the overseas territories only actually happened in the last century and a half, made possible by European people and their inventions, which turned these territories in to an overseas Europe. White people crossed the “pond” and were followed by machinery, the railways and other means of transport. All European nations worked together in this task. Germany, above all others, provided the New World with its organisers, soldiers and workers. It was undoubtedly an impressive achievement within just a few generations to provide an entire new world with a new population, a new spirit, a new culture and civilisation.
We still believe that it was only in the 19th century that the overseas territories became truly significant for Europe. What we must also accept is the fact that the achievements of Europe overseas were accompanied by its disintegration. Three facts immediately stand out: the emergence of the global economy spelt the loss of Europe’s economic sovereignty; the amassing of huge colonial possessions led to the destruction of the Reich; and the success of the Anglo Saxon economic principles signified the end of the European economic community. Three theses, then, that should be easy to demonstrate.
The Character of the Global Economy
I mentioned that Europe’s economic sovereignity was destroyed by the emergence of the global economy. It cannot be denied that Europe lost all interest for its people in a very short space of time due to the wonderful opportunities overseas. Even at the start of the 19th century, it was possible to transport the entire cotton crop of the USA on board one ship since the output was so small then. More and more rapidly Europe’s food and raw material basis moved to the New World and to other continents, so that we soon became dependent on that which we used to make ourselves. Suddenly our cereal and our cotton became America’s cereal and cotton and everyone said: “ What does America have to say?” For thousands of years before, though, it had been very different!
This development would have posed no danger if the new global economy had represented something real, something lasting, that gave all European nations the same opportunities. Not so, this one lived off the world power of England and turned the other European nations into provincial areas of the English Empire. Today all this is evident to us, strange as this may sound, as we now recognise that the creation of a global economy can never be equated with the society of any nation. The domestic, urban and social economies are all supported and formed by somebody. Family, community, nation. As long as mankind, in the political sense, remains no more than a concept, the global economy will not become reality. Instead it will remain dependent on political power for its foundation and order. What the global economy means and how long it will survive depends on its creator. We can see clearly that our efforts to establish labour division throughout the world have undermined our very own existence.
Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of English World Superiority
The decisive point is that Europe’s loss of economic sovereignty entailed the loss of its political sovereignty. At the time of the discoveries around the world, the political order of our continent began to decay. The German Reich had provided this order for centuries, which had guaranteed its social, cultural and economic values. As the Reich fell apart, the emphasis moved out to the nations on the edge of Europe – to Spain, France, Holland and finally to Great Britain. What is really decisive, though, is that Great Britain believed that the only way to create and maintain order overseas was to render Europe politically weak. The English Prime Minister, Salisbury, for example said in substantiation of the Balance of Power Principle In Europe, “We do not seek to divide territories, but to break down any dominant power.”
Mr. Eden echoed these words in November 1936: “The extent of the political empire’s responsibility in the world necessitates its close involvement in European affairs. Through its free position, England has come to accept three main principles in its relationships with Europe.
1. No power can be allowed to challenge its natural superiority in the North Sea and the English Channel.
2. Small nations must never be allowed to fall into the hands of large powers.
3. Large powers must not be allowed to gain superiority in continental Europe, as this would pose a threat to Great Britain.
Thus we see that England regarded European political weakness as a pre-requisite for its economic dominance and also that the question of Germany does not feature at all. Expressed more succinctly, all of England’s global economic plans will endeavour to quash Europe’s attempt to regain its political and economic sovereignty with every means available.
Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National Economy
Following on from the above two points there then came the infiltration of Europe by the Anglo-Saxon economic view, which disguised itself as the modern global economic theory and was thus widely observed. It represented the following principles:
1. Market forces determine everything that happens on earth. Price is responsible for regulating economic affairs and decides the fate of nations and individuals. It replaces the need for social ideals, moral ties and state requirements.
2. The owner of capital is in control of economic goods, production and consumption. Capital represents the commanding position in our economic life.
3. International freedom of movement is the be all and end all. Everyone should be able to settle where they see the best place for their commercial activity I.e. where there seem to be the cheaper production conditions and the lowest transport costs.
There is no doubt about the huge significance of these three principles. The world has practically lived and breathed this view without looking at its foundation and detecting its side effects – until they were revealed to everyone by the great economic, political and spiritual crisis. In my opinion, the English economy is determined totally by this prevailing Anglo-Saxon economic view, as England’s economic greatness ultimately relies on the belief of its people in the rightness and singularity of the British principles. Thus, either consciously or unconsciously, England guided the economic development of all nations along it own lines. Experts were dominated by this powerful theory. The dominance of the London Stock Exchange and the hegemony of the English Pound were also the expression of England’s spiritual power, just as the old economic science of England was. It is also true that even up to our time there was the belief that capital shaped the economy and that the theory of comparative costs was the pivotal instrument of global economic theory.
As a result, people failed to recognise what really shaped their lives; and that is people and room – not international markets. What also happened was the automation of Europe. In a farming village it is taken as understood that everyone depends on each other and help each other, but in Europe each nation, each person’s job and each business lived just for its own interest. Europe had become a geographic concept.
The Foundation of the European Economic Community
Now, though, Europe cannot exist purely as a geographical concept. Instead, its foundation of existence lien in its political power and its consciousness of political unity.
I will totally ignore the fact that geographers cannot even define Europe properly. Carl Ritter, the old expert on geography, concluded that Europe, as the ruler of the other continents, “could quite rightly provide the highest classification concerning the world’s historical and political condition, placing it into two main categories:
a) the European world, to which even the europeanised one belonged. b) the non-European world, which was not advanced to the level of European civilisation.”
Regarding the question of the boundaries of the European continent he said, “ the eastern border has been decided by the development of history” and “ Europe’s natural border coincides with that of its people, its way of life and civilisation.” Today our Leader himself has again pointed out that Europe has no geographic definition, just a national and cultural one. To him, its borders are simply defined by the West’s history to date and he pointed to Europe historical emergence, which originated from that island in Greece, coming via the Roman Empire to the west. To him, Europe was the area “of a family of people, amongst whom the political organisation and objectives might be quite divergent and different. In blood and cultural terms, though, it represents overall a unity that is complementary to itself.” From this realisation that Europe is not a geographical concept a number of conclusions have to be drawn, which are of crucial importance for the future economic and political co-operation of the people of Europe.
1. Theoretically, concepts such as an enlarged area and its economy have to be rejected because they are vacuous and undefined. Nothing is said about the area itself, other than it is of a particular size, one larger than has been generally the case. We are not helped by the mere introduction of an unsubstantiated concept in economic arguments.
2. The decisive things in the new unity of Europe are the type of co-operation and way of living within this unity. Important political conclusions stem from this statement. Firstly, that it is only possible for Europeans to live a European life if the struggle between nationalities of this area is limited to the spiritual sphere and nothing else. Then there is the spiritual and political solidarity, even a community relating to the area which is the decisive feature of the new structure. Finally, that the only aim of economic co-operation can be the European economic community.
3. The decisive economic and political conclusion, therefore, is that Europe does not become, say, a so-called enlarged area in the sense of a smaller global economy pervaded by the old Anglo-Saxon economic laws. Instead the European economic community has to be shaped according to new political categories, so it will look different to the economy of the past.
Categories within the European Economic Community
Europe, the geographical concept, is therefore in the process of making room for a political fact. The decisive economic categories of this development will consist of replacing the individual with society, global market with living area (‘Lebensraum’), capital with organisation of the workplace. The success of these three principles will herald an economic and political development of revolutionary magnitude.
Three Principles
Society Replaces the Individual
This means that an economy’s objective becomes totally different and the unbridled urge to earn money is no longer the regulator of the economy. In its stead is the controlling authority of the community, which safeguards the tie between economy and society. This must be kept separate from the organisational restrictions, otherwise damage will be caused.
Living Area Replaces the Global Market
To clearly differentiate between these two concepts, it is best to compare the views of their two great proponents: that of Adam Smith and Friedrich List. According to Adam Smith’s theory of free trade through free competition each country produces those goods which it can produce best I.e. most cheaply. Each country can then buy most efficiently and sell to best advantage. Friedrich List, on the other hand, held that division of labour within nations, and not between nations, brought about the best performance. For him, an economy does not consist of mathematical values or exchange values; rather it grows from the availability and use of latent productive forces among the people and is synonymous with the awakening of all the productive forces of the nation. The following table serves to show the two opposing economic views:
Adam Smith: represents the market theory, whose highest value is the value of the market or the exchange value, international labour division is the route
to wealth, the aim of Adam Smith and of free trade is harmony between all individuals.
Friedrich List: represents the theory of productive forces, whose highest value is the productive force, confederation, I.e. the pooling of productive forces is the route to wealth the aim of Friedrich List is thedevelopment of the energy of the people.
Adam Smith’s thinking is cosmopolitan, Friedrich List’s and our thinking is political.
There can be no doubt that the two economic views are theoretically and practically poles apart and that is why the outcome of the present struggle will be of utmost importance in economic and political terms for every European nation. A note about the concept of living area itself, which I have briefly outlined as follows: to Germany, its living area is:
1. A sufficient area for it to be able to live and grow in an enclosed settlement in Europe.
2. The shift in focus of Germany’s economy to within its actual national area.
3. The recognition of the development of a mainland European economic community, which allows the utilisation of its inherent economic forces, and ensures mutual supplementation through economic achievement between friendly neighbouring nations.
4. The extension of a colonial economic area, such as is common and possible elsewhere in the world.
We see from this definition that living area is not identical to the area of the nation. We also see that the liberal view, which says that economic supply is totally independent of the politically governed area, is erroneous and can be rejected, in the same way as the mercantile view of the identity of the national and economic area is rejected. This view of living area clearly establishes the economic relationship with the other nations of Europe, for if we demand living area for Germany, this also affirms living area for other foreign nations. The aim of the theory of living areas is simply to form a new European order, which guarantees all nations its own living area.
Thinking in the Workplace Replaces the Theory of Capital
As I said before, here lies the Archimedes Principle, which gives us power to construct once again a new culture, a new economy on our continent. For ages, it has been recognised that work is the source of wealth, a fact only overshadowed in more recent generations by a fateful superstition that said that capital somehow had some determining influence on work. From this was born the unhealthy consequence that a nation could have too many workers. Only falteringly do people start to realise again that the limit of a nation’s wealth depends on its ability to organise its work.
It is obvious that these three principles, mentioned above, will have their practical effects. I have to point once again to the example of the revival of the south-east European economies after 1933. This shows how new methods used in these countries produced real indisputable successes. You see, Germany did not suffocate its partners there with financial dependence, or make them financially indebted. No monocultures were demanded or caused; prices were not held down. Germany just bought goods, paid for them properly. Germany released and developed the productive forces in these countries in the sense of Friedrich List.
A New Era
The final constitution of the European economic community could be something along the following lines:
First of all there will be a general change in ways of production through the utilisation of productive forces of the people. What is produced will be determined by the energies of the nation and its area, not by the price that the world markets will pay. One could perhaps say that freedom of work replaces freedom of the economy meaning that those national monocultures that are controlled by price would practically come to an end. It cannot make sense to join all the European countries through a customs union just to build a smaller version of the English global economy full of the same mistakes. Customs unions are a useful means of removing unnecessary difficulties between two national economies of the same level, if required. It would unnecessarily disturb and jeopardise the natural coalescence of the European economies if customs barriers were suddenly removed in Europe today.
On the other hand, the objective of future economic co-operation is to create a community of living space i.e. it cannot be, say, the task of the new economic policy to destroy monocultures and replace them with impossible insularities. If the German Reich had pulled back the emphasis of its economy to its national area then that would send a strong message to the rest of Europe. The small nations of Europe must never remain in any doubt that they too are dependent on their neighbours and must take them into consideration. In 1932 Sering rightly pointed out that the strength of the American economy would break as soon as customs barriers went up on all of the 48 states’ borders, as in Europe. Not only that, that the European nations would run the danger of being suppressed economically and losing their political independence if, one day, a new structural group came along and stopped the economic deterioration of the individual nations.
There will be two fundamentally new manifestations in this European economic community: full employment and self sufficiency in essential goods. For me, there is no doubt that the experiences of the German people will lead them to teach other nations ways to achieve higher employment. Nor do I doubt that the success of European tasks, which are determined by the exploitation of large parts of the continent, will call into play energies, which can be barely imagined today. In doing so, as Bernhard Köhler once said in relation to the German people, the people of Europe will liberate themselves from proletarian restlessness and build a new life for themselves. Equally important will be the requirement that essential goods must always be available if this requirement is adopted as a principle in people’s consciousness, and thus adopted into the practice of the economy. The requirement is itself final, because what other meaning could the concept of living area have other than permanent access to essential goods! The development of all inherent economic forces of a nation and their supplementation by friendly neighbours are therefore the normal economic foundations and the necessary links in the security chain of a nation.
Clearly, these effects of the European economic community will herald a totally new era for Europe and the implementation of the new principles will have many obstacles to overcome. The development of many processes of economic control and economic trade between nations shows the careful approach to solving problems that is necessary. The difficulties in Europe are in peoples’ mind, not in the economic world.
Today it probably would not occur to anyone to take delivery of the earnings for a community and divide it up until that money is used. It would all be worked out on paper and each person allotted his amount. Even up to 100 years ago, for example, brick workers had their earnings distributed, where the ‘Meister’ used to take delivery all the money and place it in a pot before his colleagues. Then he and the foremen would take what and this was kept separate from the amount in the ‘pot’. Then, starting with the ‘Meister’, each worker would take their coin in turn. The distribution of the small silver and copper coins continued until the money had finished. The workers tended to watch the working out on paper with distrust, as it could be wrong. However, there was no error in this method of calculation. Nowadays we tend to laugh at this method of payment, because it is different to what we are used to. Our attitude towards many management related issues related is influenced by the same type of distrust, but eventually it will give way to a greater level of understanding.
Going back to the problem of clearing peaks, it is understandable that there are still those people who regard them with deep distrust. They would prefer to be in the position of those brick workers, being paid bit by bit, whereas in reality the situation is clear:
1. It goes without saying Germany is at the moment struggling to meet its contractual obligations in the way it did before, because it is striving to achieve a final victory.
Besides that it must be observed:
2. Early on in the war Germany trusted its neighbours to deliver later. Here the word is ‘trust’.
3. Even longer ago, the individual nations were creditors to foreign countries, but with the difference that settlement was to be in gold and foreign currency. So basically nothing has changed except for the fact that today this type of settlement system would be extraordinarily difficult, because very few nations regard this method as acceptable and practical. If gold and foreign currency were available then there would be no hesitation in entering these values in the balance sheet and to claim as cover for cash. An agreement made in a treaty is today considered by individual partners as a risk or a burden because their expectations have already been dashed.
4. This is the decisive point. Today the German economy continues to supply incredible quantities of goods and its capacities still easily exceed the demands that are being placed on it.
The problem regarding clearing peaks that I mentioned basically relates to decisions to do with the new Europe. The significance of the power of Germany’s economy sets the conditions for the game that has now started. You see, management is all about balancing out, but you can only do that if you have the appropriate opportunities. Beyond that, the prerequisite for bringing about and developing the European economic community is making people familiar with the new world of ideas.
Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future
On our way to creating a community with living area we must not get diverted by the minor obstacles. A quite unusual stage has been reached on our way to the new Europe. Looking back we can clearly see as follows: we could recognise common European problems through our shared plight. It started in November 1932 with the Europe Congress in Rome to discuss the subject “The European Crisis” and to review spiritual unity, economic domination and the continent’s cultural questions. Then last year in the autumn the anti-Comintern Pact was formed in Berlin. That is real progress in engendering the physical forces of Europe in the fight to maintain European culture! For me there is no doubt that no nation in Europe can avoid the great question which is being fought over today.
More importantly though, our shared plight brought about spiritual and political movements of the same orientation throughout the diverse nations in Europe. Almost simultaneously and independently of one another, men in all European nations rose up and formed groups, fronts and movements. This was simply an expression of the time that had come. They formed new ideas and, in the most important countries, gave the state a new face. I deliberately refrain from citing examples. Agreement is so profound that the one party system is the new political form that is right for Europe, in contrast to the multi-party one. In the area of economic control such unity also prevails.
In this time of disruption, difficulties and defence that we have to face it is only natural that we keep remembering our shared past. Our common cultural basis will slowly grow into a European consciousness.
The decisively important thing that is going to happen on our way to a new future for our old continent is co-operation. Prussia, and with it the Reich grew from the colonisation of all those of German origin. I believe that nothing will promote and shape the European economic community more than future co-operation with the east European nations.
There is no doubt about the seriousness of the hour, nor the great opportunities that exist for the whole of Europe. Today we are fighting for our very lives. Much of what was created overseas by European people is now lost. Fate has left us with home, family and work, which are now being defended in Europe by us. It now depends on us whether we can once again build a new world and safeguard a new life and wealth for ourselves. Ahead of us the outlines of this new world can be made out. Whether we build that land ourselves, or not, is up to us. It depends on our will and how we develop and utilise our strength.
See also Secret report shows Nazis planned fourth Reich in EU
Link to this article in Twitter with http://tinyurl.com/ptdo7vt
Comments
I tend to stand back and look at the bigger picture, who gains and in fact has been gaining, in these changes since 1969? The Corporates, who did a deal on 'Free Trade' in 1969 and just after, sent all their manufacturing overseas, for bigger profits. What the working man did, was sell his job, UK lost hundreds of thousands of jobs; Ship building, Steel workers, Coal mining, the sell off, of 'Utilities' to foreign corporations, led to job cuts. Car manufacturing went as cheap foreign manufacturers where allowed in, something that didn't happen to USA till 1995, which is why 'Detroit' is now a 'dead' city!
Here we are looking at TTIP, allegedly a 'deal for Trade', yet the biggest growth nations, BRICS, aren't involved in the talks? The TTIP will see all power handed to Corporations, including Public Service rights, this again will see mass job losses in the public sector, as they look to maximise profits, which makes this a policy for Slavery. This is my mind, lets look at the 'economic world'. UK and US are both suffering mass immigration, for different reasons, but the same plan. UK need immigration because of the way the economy is set up, 'Debt' is growth and the more people that borrow create debt. The UK government have failed to build houses in order to create a property bubble, as the 'high mortgages' increase GDP, we have 19m people classed as 'Economically In-Active', this includes 'housewives & students', now why would it include these people, especially when students have to 'pay' for tuition? Could it be these 19m can't 'borrow', they are deemed Economically In-Active?
Now China have moved into top slot as the largest economy, 3 years before prediction, and along with Russia and the rest of the BRICS nations, want OUT of the 'dollar' system, as they feel it's 1. Fraudulent and 2. It destroys local business as the big Corporations move in. To this end, the US find themselves in a dilemma, two of the biggest nations, who between them hold a vast majority of US Debt, are in direct opposition to US concerns. This is the reason for the Ukraine coup and why they also threaten Syria, Venezuela and Iran. They have found Putin wont play ball and fire the first shot, so they now challenge China, in the South China Seas, as they need a war to hide their collapse behind!
Why does one think IMF keep finding 'Greek accounts' with money in that Greece knew nothing about? Last Friday 5/6/2015, they found a further €1.3bn that stopped Greece 'defaulting'. You see, when Goldman Sachs cooked the Greek books, they then sold masses of CDS [Credit Default Swaps] If Greece defaults, half the US banking nation collapses and EU falls. If Greece are allowed a 'hair-cut', Spain, Italy and Portugal will demand similar and EU falls. They want the EU to remain after the 'reset', so will keep finding pockets with money in with Greece's name on it?
We in The Netherland have an appropriate saying which literally translates: The bite of a cat is just as painful as a dog's bite. In other words "who gives a damn"?
In western democracies it is the job of our elected politicians to protect us against the excesses of either system, whether the Anglo Saxon free market or the National Socialist model.
But there is a third trend at work here, which is globalisation, The Anglo Saxon model is better suited exploiting this trend. That means the sovereignty of the nation state has become more illusion than reality. Kippers and Tory Eurosceptics still dreaming about their long lost empire hear all this talk about being the 5th or 6th economy in the world and think Britain can whether the storm alone. Reclaim it's role as a superpower, sitting at the top table of every international body.
Others (Including the late Sir Winston Churchill I dare say) think that it is time to poole sovereignty to pack a bigger punch together in a united Europe against emerging global powers threatening to overwhelm us.
Coming from a small nation state as the Netherlands, us Dutch have no illusions that our old colonial past, somehow means we can still punch above our weight. Being the fifth economic power in GDP terms might sound to kippers they can still have a go, but if you look in terms of geography and population size we in Europe are all dwarfed by the shape of things to come..
That is why the EU is not an outdated fifties concept, it is more relevant today than it ever was. It can be our anti-dote against the excesses of both world views expressed above and a buffer against storms we haven't even anticipated yet.
Just as the Dutch increase the level of their sea defenses against rising tides, we member states need to make the EU's democratic processes stronger, not weaker because we see them as a threat.
Cooperation on defence does not require total loss of sovereignty, moderate global trade does not require total globalisation. We can cooperate and trade without handing over our democracies to the EU Council. See http://pol-check.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/the-european-union-what-happens-on-1st.html