Really the "Major league" comes first?

These are hard times for those who want to discuss objectively about the European Union. Nevertheless talking about this huge institution has become part of the everyday talking. All parties, political and not, are using the finest form of proselytism . They are constantly coming up with new proposal and political solutions. Although this seems to be regular, it still makes a certain impression.

Anyway politicians know very well how to take advantage of this new kind of market, by their baron anti politics skills. This anti-politics feeling today shows a new look that goes a bit further than the regional and nationalist demands. This new kind of anti-politics is able to go beyond the national borders, using profusely this new anti-European wind. Which it is not a new invention, it comes from the Union past, build up on critics and judgments from both sides.

 Therefore the European Union is changing.  It goes from being a common civil value, a search for a union of different peoples under one flag, to a front of furious and anger, thus suddenly easily blamed. However It has to be specified that this intolerance, is not coming from nothing. It is sufficient to recall that goods and services have begun to travel freely within the union long before human beings together with their feelings, ideals and political beliefs.

Parties, on the other hand, organized and changed their selves following the current people’s social taste and likes. Besides their managers and curators of the image, which are fierce followers of the media logic, wink at this new way of revolution. They skillfully exploit this popular malcontent, competing to praise the credentials or scuttle the EU's credibility. To criticize or to praise the union, in all its aspects, seems to have become a natural part of every political program and now all the parties can be divided between Europeanists or Eurosceptics believer. These affect the economic and financial structure of the whole union on the basis of an election victory or a rally. We can take the last Dutch political elections or press releases by the German Prime Minister as examples.  

However, it really worries that the political competition has moved from a national level (between national parties) to a more European level (between states).  This real clash between member states, omitted for years, is now  clearly exploding as a bomb whose fuse is the financial crisis. This financial shock does not really have a real name. In fact, it can be defined in several ways: the sovereign debt crisis, eurozone crisis, etc ... The inability to agree on a single title it’s really symptomatic. The crisis and its consequences should not be treated as a unit. It 's true, the entire European continent is in turmoil and it seems impossible to find a lasting end to this chaos. But the crisis did not come from nothing, it does not materialize without precise causes. Causes that are inherent of the traditional culture (political as well as economic, created and increased over the past decades) of each member state. Besides, one cannot forget that the international economic environment has globalized, so the huge amount of investments can travel freely from one state to another, with no apparent controls. Therefore, as well as the globalization can create wealth it can, as well, easily remove it.

This process selects states on the basis of the efficiency of their economic systems. In other words the latter parameter is dependent on the credibility that global investors attribute, by their actions, to the economy of the state itself.

As a good student of politics, I cannot, got to this point, not remember what happened in Argentina in 2001. More generally, I cannot forget what was the Washington Consensus and which kind of terrible damages it caused. Which led Argentina to make choices similar to those that today the European leaders are picking. Rigor, efficiency and liberalism seem to be the only useful ingredients in order to create an antidote to avoid this contagious. In addition, without going too deep in this topic, it has to be underlined that a phenomenon of cataloging is now commonly used within the Union. All the states mostly affected by the crisis are passing through such a trial. These latter are literally labeled as major league States and minor league States, Innocents and guilty, those who should be rewarded and those who deserve to be punished. Deliberately forgetting that even if united, the economic apparatus of the Euro zone countries are deeply different. Also at official levels it getting usual to speak about weak states that should be helped and strong states that should be rewarded only because not in such deep troubles.  As if to judge the efficiency of two different economic systems with the standards of one of them was reasonable. In saying this I’m absolutely not justifying the lies of the Greek state or defending the unreliability of the Italian one, but I am convinced that in order to really be united we must first recognize the diversity of each one. The approval does not lead anywhere, It rather destroy every sense of inventiveness and genius.

Well, unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, we arrived at a crossroads. Now we, who are the basis of Europe, we have to choose whether to become slaves of the public finances, to have a perfect balanced budget and so entirely rely on the market whose administrated by the monsters of finance. Or follow a more social way, in which the state does not disappear from the lives of people, hiding behind the excuse of rigor, but rather encourages and proceed with them, despite the many difficulties.

For the moment it seems that few elements that keep the several Member States together are left. Now it seems more than obvious that what unites us is no longer a common ideal, a dream to be realized or the hope of a better future. What gathers the peoples of Europe today is fear and terror. The anguish of losing their wealth, their leadership, their own vices and the convenience of a life based on economic power. This releases the most wild souls. Crowds, then, show their worst part, as happened in Greek in these days. Not only a common sense of anti-Europe widely spread, but also a sense against a single state is rising up. Community actions cease to exist and the leaders of governments get personally in the field, ready to play the match as players, against another team, but not together.

Among this different news one that hurts and undermines the very foundations of that little young European people that was going forming, is shoot by news agencies and even ends up on the TV news. The funds required for the European exchange project  Erasmus are over. This does not mean that the project will fade but from now on will be increasingly complicate to offer to all the winners of this scholarship appropriate compensation. In these days the Commission announced that they will do the best to find the amount of funds needed. This shows that once again the European institutions and not the Member states are trying to solve these troubles.

However, I’d like to focus a bit more on the social aspects and consequences of this event.
In fact, the Erasmus represents, in my opinion, one of the most direct and most successful  way to build real relationships and collaborations between young Europeans and thus making the Europe of tomorrow. With the elimination or reduction of funds will be obviously harder to spend a semester or two of study in another country within the Union. It will be increasingly difficult to get in touch with the real transmigration of concepts that seem so intangible as the European Community or European youth.
It’ll be always harder to pick up where we left off, get back on the right path toward the creation of a real European unity first culturally then economically.

Young people  today have to face with more challenges instead of hopes and dreams. The next young Europeans generation will really be able to solve all these new and complex issues?

Some say that without hope there is no future. I’d say that without young who are able to hope, no futures are possible.

Furthermore, how can we possibly imagine a better Europe whether in times of crisis a “all against all” kind of conflicts are unleashed? And if in time of need instead of helping each other in finding a solution a hunt where those of the Major league  blame the minor league of not doing enough?

And then, who says that the major league comes first?

Nader Moukarzel