(I) Logic Europe

Missing a few hours to finish this fateful year. A year of transition, to see if or worse to a brief glimmer of hope on the horizon. First impressions are more pessimistic than optimistic, but one thing is clear: we are experiencing the dawn of a new era and a time of change.

In the architecture of history, we are starting the new century. The twentieth century ended with the fall of the Wall in 1989, but the twenty-first century away from starting in the 11-S, is starting his steps in the last three years. The global financial crisis, seasoned by a complete failure of global governance of states, is the death of democracy as we knew, what we are experiencing? And a technological revolution in communications and electronics as never before experienced ( revolution involves not only his existence, but the mass consumption of the same, never before this had occurred), are developing a new social ties, economic and anthropological, which are being studied in the future and also completed a landscape and a social custom, totally different than we are accustomed.

But the point of this post is talking about hope and not despair (which is every walk something), but sometimes it costs so much.

Speaking of Europe, at present, is an exercise in exaggerated optimism, but highly necessary. Matter of faith, perhaps. I'm sick of hearing that everything that happens is the fault of the EU. You ever do the Recoil? Make it ... It gives chills, right?

Without a supportive community structure, countries like ours would already ravaged by the crisis, not just ours: Italy and France would have serious problems, not to mention all the countries of former Eastern Europe.

But after this year's rebuke economic, political disturbances and TOTAL lack of political leadership in Europe, it is disheartening to see the presidents and prime ministers of each of the 27, met at the European Council, were put collective duties, and return to their countries inveighed against the European Union. Because the EU are all, and its center of decision are the sovereign national governments is what it says the Lisbon Treaty, and what ever they want to explain to the population. It should, for the shortsighted minds of our leaders, have someone to blame, to atone for our sins.

Is quite dull and architecture community, and to incite the population against it. But no one does pedagogy, what would have happened without the EU. Of what had happened, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, how we would have faced economically and socially, and how other countries had cut out of it. But since this is a political fiction, I will refer to a few facts.

It is difficult to pedagogy in Europe when a European citizen who reports that the Common Agricultural Policy, eats 40% of the EU budget, about 53,000 million euros to be exact (yet the idea is that in 2013 it reaches 33%, a lot, but nothing comparable to 74% of 1984). But more difficult is to explain that until a year ago, the cultivation of snuff was subsidized , and that the largest producer of snuff is Spain (particularly the northern province of Cáceres): Certainly a bad snuff (neutral in the jargon producers), it does not add flavor, or any special feature. The trouble is that each kilo was funded with € 2 coming out of our pockets. And this is our daily bread: far from protecting the European countryside, what we do is make it more inefficient and less competitive, sewing to import tariffs that we make in developing countries.

Question: We have to re-establish the internal management system of European aid, thinking of a single territory and not selfish views in 27 (and its many regional subdiviones), which also involves a restructuring of the European countryside from an integrative perspective and globally competitive and not from ultra defensive positions. Ah! and not a matter of treaties and regulations, it is politics differently, using existing tools.

In three days comes the EEAS, the European External Action Service , and is born lame. Born bad for three basic questions:

• Born without enough budget to have an infrastructure to match the representation or appear to be maintained.
• Born as a product of intergovernmental dialogue more focused on national interests and share of power, to create a structure that clearly "blue". Not to mention the complex system of recruitment between officials of the Commission. It remains to see the role that the European parliament will control and influence as a counterweight to the role of member state governments.
• And finally, is born with a cancer called Ashton . The inane High Representative of EU Foreign Policy (discuss EU foreign policy and form a rather obvious oxymoron, complex).

However, the EEAS is an opportunity, and although a work tool more interesting is a problem of very serious birth.

Second question: in order to influence international and political and economic territory, we need to acquire effective military power (do not say offensive, but integrated). Perhaps you think, dear reader, that China's power is achieved only with the balance of payments exports and buying sovereign debt in international markets. His influence makes diplomatic pressure, because behind the system has to guarantee its power: a growing army, with an accent to be the American alternative. Already, he thinks, the EU will not play that role, nor intended (true), but to be a regional power, you have to play that game. Examples: India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Venezuela Turkey, Iran ... Everyone wants to play and know the importance of military weight in the power equation. In Europe it was the duster with the war in the Balkans in the 90, we were unable to defend and settle our territory, had to be the Americans who took us off the hook. On the other hand, have become accustomed to the international community to be who reconstruct what others destroy, and do nothing to defend. Think of Gaza or in other settings. If we start military power integrated "blue" under the EU flag, will never be taken into account. We need a European army, to have one voice in international forums. But this requires that Germany, France and England to realize that you do not paint anything on the international stage by themselves. We are at a crucial moment in history, to safeguard a social model, which is not a reference or China, or India, or Brazil. They are inventing their own, and these are far removed from ours.

And speaking of a single voice in the international political level, what if we agree and create a single EU tax. That is, we do that EMU is a reality. We are left with the Euro, like guarantor of it, and in the end all we got was a single monetary policy, far from uniform, really. Maybe then need to drop the Euro, for from the ground collapsed it, first create a tax policy and from there, creating a strong currency and consistent. I do not know, is just a feeling.

Third Question: And this is really important. Advancing a common EMU, is to advance economic governance intergovernmental truth, not the imitation of what is now. It's about creating a system of financial control and tax for citizens and businesses, where the rules are clear and transparent. This is not a model, to safeguard our economic interests only. We are talking about saving our democratic systems. The majority felt, increasingly, is that states do not control the financial system or economic flows, which is what interests people. For 52% of global GDP is controlled by a dozen multinationals, who are developing strategies corporate governance more transparent to their customers, citizens, that what they are doing the majority of governments and states. You have to reinvent the European agora if we want to save the system.

To close I will say that this year we saw a few days ago was born in the European Parliament, the European Citizens' Initiative , which I have spoken a lot on this blog , to give European citizens a channel to develop legislative initiatives and give real voice to all the inhabitants of this space is an intergovernmental Europe, and should move towards a more citizen and inclusive.

The point is that Europe will always play a necessary ambivalence. On the one hand the ongoing legacy of its birth and development, step by step, making it extremely complex eyes of the vast European population, which makes many of its measures are not clear, nor precise. That's the beauty of its logic illogical, is a set of ch ecks & balances (such as stress whites) that make it cold and needed to par.

But above all, Europe is more necessary than ever. I hope somewhere in Europe right now, someone is thinking like Europeanism spark again. We are not aware of the urgent need is for our survival as a multicultural entity.

I refuse to let a chapter failed most of history, do you?