Here’s how the conversation went. As is the norm these days, the incident occurs – in this case a truck is driven into shoppers at a Christmas market in Berlin – and folk take to social media to observe and comment. Like it, or not, that’s what happens.
I popped out of the woodwork and said I feel instinctively that there is a certain insanity associated with the peoples of the European Union choosing (do they really choose?) to live without national borders, in the names of peace and prosperity …
A good friend of mine, a citizen of another EU country on mainland Europe – let’s call him Daan – responded by asking, do you really think the US would have been the superpower it is today if all states had their borders still closed with 50 separate currencies?
I think the point Daan was making was that there is a case for unifying the nations of Europe into a single, USA-like state with a single currency in order to strengthen the European Union. In Daan’s view, I think, national borders are part of the problem; removing them is part of the solution. Daan has a point, but I’ll come back to that.
In response to Daan’s question above I responded by saying that the US has a single currency, controlled by a single, elected federal government with 50 states and 320 million people living under a single Constitution with just 2 international borders. For as long as the European Union comprises 28 countries with their own governments and laws, an enforced currency union without a government (crippling some of its users with no prospect of relief) and 37 bilateral borders some of which include nations overtly hostile to the peoples of the European Union, then the EU will be quite unable to mitigate the threat to its very existence that is now pervading the continent.
I went on to say that, as a soldier, I learned very quickly that to remove or destroy any threat to your territory you must contain that threat geographically; you must seal off one part of your territory from another (which means having hard national borders in the EU’s case). Open national borders within the European Union are a gift for the terrorist – like driving a truck from Poland to Berlin and slaughtering a whole load of people doing their Christmas shopping without the prospect of ever being stopped and checked. It’s hard enough preventing terrorism inside a single national boundary. Preventing pandemic terrorism across a continent without internal borders, a continent fragmented economically, legally, culturally, socially, militarily and politically, is an absolute non-starter.
I finished by saying pity the peoples of the European Union for they have no control over the decisions about how their countries and their continent are organised – and so they have no control over the extent to which they will be terrorised over the coming generation. But the men in Brussels will be just fine though, thank you.
So, returning to Daan’s point, I would say this. Either the 500 million people of the European Union must express their democratic desire to form a state without internal borders, in the way that the United States of America is not a grouping of nation states, as such, and is united (under a federal government), or the European Union’s political elites must impose a single state on the peoples of Europe. In the absence of either of these options – a democratic decision to form the United States of Europe or a United States of Europe created by diktat – then everything I wrote above stands.
In other words, for as long as the European Union remains a political shambles then the terrorists now permeating that continent will proceed to destroy the European civilisation, for that is their mission, be under no illusion. Daan has a point.
Since publishing this post, it’s become clear that the driver of the truck almost certainly hijacked the vehicle in or near Berlin, ie he didn’t drive the vehicle unchecked from Poland. Notwithstanding, the thrust of my views above remain unchanged.