You are in:
- Contents » Propaganda
Attack Of The Clones
Today's Europeans might be attached to old-fashioned things like national identity and governments but in future, a growing sense of European identity, particularly among the continent's elite, could see these awkward issues swept aside for good.
At least, that is the hope voiced by the Eurofanatic academics and administrators interviewed for an overview of European identity in yesterday's International Herald Tribune.
Apparently, more than a third of young adults see themselves as European rather than Italian, French or German.
So what is this European identity? According to observers, it values democracy, though mainly in the form of a "social safety net", quality of life and environmental concern - as if these were unique to Europe. Opposition to the use of military force to achieve political goals is said to be a defining figure of (presumably the new) European identity - opposition to the liberation of Iraq, which divided national governments but appeared to unite citizens across the continent, is cited as a defining moment in the creation of this identity. One wit reckons that George W Bush has done more to create a unique European identity than any number of Brussels-inspired measures. Indeed, the feverishly anti-American environmental pressure group Greenpeace, which has an office in the Euro-capital, is cited as an ideal example of an initiative run on European principles.
Who's going to manage this new identity, then? The EU has been quietly building an army of Euro-droids through its Erasmus student exchange program. Since the scheme was launched in the 1980s, 1.2 million students have taken part. This "Erasmus generation" will be taking the reins of political and business power in the next ten or twenty years, and EU supporters believe that under them, "there will be less national wrangling, less Brussels-bashing and more unity in EU policy making."
Creating a clone army of technocrats prepared to build an Earthly Euro-paradise is one thing - persuading those among us who didn't make Party Standard to go along with their leadership is quite another. Unless, of course, building a European identity means limiting the power of voters to halt integration.
Much of the opposition to the European referendum in France, for example, is led by young people. In Holland - a long time quiet believer in the European project - Euroscepticism is growing daily. From obviously different political wings, people in Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom feel that their social and economic models are threatened by Brussels' standardisation.
Economic differences will not go away simply because the guy in charge spent a year having sex with interesting foreigners in Hamburg, Bologna or Barcelona: Far from being "sharp differences of opinion", the vision of Europe offered by Britain and by France are wholly different and wholly incompatible.
Most reasonable people in Britain see no harm and much good in a social safety net that allows workers down on their luck to live decently until they are able to find work again. However, most would question the sanity of hugely protective schemes in France, where unemployment sits at ten percent (22 percent among the young) which prevent jobs being created in the first place. As France's president Jacques Chirac said last week, France would never accept the British social model. Britain has rejected France's. These models cannot be combined: To build a new Europe, one has got to go.
Now with wings
A European identity might work only in theory, but you have to hand it to the governments for trying. Latest, and biggest manifestation of this vision was yesterday's maiden flight of the Airbus A380, the world's largest passenger plane.
One would have to have a heart of stone not to be impressed by the sight of this "super-jumbo" taking to the air, and it was hard not to be moved by the pride of the workers in Toulouse, France, as they watched their plane circle overhead. This must have been what it was like for workers in Clydeside, in east Belfast and on the Tyne when the great Atlantic liners were launched in the first half of the 20th century. Sure enough, there was barely a negative word among the newspapers this morning, although the Telegraph in its leader did point to the potential misery of waiting at check in or at a baggage carousel with 839 other passengers. Only the EU Referendum Blog, happily with a heart as black as EURSOC's own, poured scorn on the flight.
In fact, the mainstream media made even more of this first flight than it might be expected to. Built largely with taxpayers money as a pan-European project, the Airbus is the manifestation of a truly European industrial policy. Remember industrial policy? That probably takes you back to the 1970s, the early 80s, perhaps even Rover today if you live in the Midlands.
However, government participation in business is an article of faith for much of the EU.
The BBC was not alone in giving this airborne manifestation of European identity blanket coverage: French evening news shows dedicated much of their airtime to the Airbus flight, which was timed neatly to give the EU constitution vote a much-needed boost. Chirac himself is off to Toulouse today to extract some pro-constitution mileage from the launch. The symbolism wasn't lost on members of his government, either: France 2 saw the culture minister leave a cabinet meeting claiming that it was "A triumph for France, a triumph for Germany, a triumph for Europe."
Airbus rival Boeing is already moaning about European governments' huge subsidies to Airbus - the Europeans retaliate by claiming that Washington's military purchases from Boeing amounts to a colossal indirect subsidy.
It remains to be seen whether or not Airbus will recoup some of the taxpayers money pumped into the project over the past decade. Airbus claims its sales are on target, and hopes that expansion in the far east will push it over the 280-odd planes it needs to flog to break even. There's always the possibility that the Airbus vision of 800-seat monsters delivering passengers to "hub" airports before they are ferried to their final destination in smaller planes is flawed - after all, governments did play an important role in the plane's concept, and governments do not always have a good track record in this sort of thing.
Even if Airbus only breaks even, there is every chance that European voters would support huge industrial projects like this one, particularly when well-paid techie jobs are being created. Conventional wisdom has it that western Europe shouldn't be building things anymore: Europeans, however, are reluctant to give up manufacturing and Airbus represents a triumph for many against the forces of outsourcing and the threat posed by cheaper industrial rivals in China.
It's hard to put a price on pride. However, it would be a mistake to believe that politicians bringing expensive, job-creating subsidies to their supporters is a peculiarly European characteristic: Just look at the voting record of any US congressman for evidence.
