Everybody, Peter Zion here coming to you from France. And I figured as long as I was here, we should probably have a conversation about the future of France in the European Union and how things are going to unfold over the next decade or two. The European Union is a post world war two construction that was designed to bring unity, peace and democracy to Europe. And I would argue that in that it has been very successful. But the challenges of the future are not the same as the challenges of the past. And the France of now is not the same as the France of yesteryear. And the same holds for everybody else in Europe. Sorry, this requires a lot more eye contact with the ground than I was expecting. So things are gonna have to change. So let’s talk about how we got to where we are. For most of recorded European history, there has been a state of war on the continent, with the various powers of the Northern European plane, those would be France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Russia, basically duking it out for supremacy over that space. And if one of them had ever been able to win, the amount of resources that he could brought to any problem would have been continental in size, and they could have easily then become the world power. So it was always about those five going out at one another, then you had powers on the fringes, who controlled meaningful zones, who would always try to disrupt this process of military unity. Because you know, if it was stopped, then they would be safe. That’s, of course, the United Kingdom, Italy, that Spain, Turkey CMR region, and the Scandinavians, the Americans would bump in from time to time, basically align with those outer powers against whoever was trying to dominate the inner core, oh, sale anyhoo. After a few centuries of this, we had the World Wars, which were no fun for anyone. So many stairs. And at the end of the war, the French had the ideas of what if we were to do this unity thing again. But this time, instead of as a military dictatorship and conquering empire, we do it in a peaceable manner. And so the first stage of what would become the European Union was the European Coal and Steel Community, I believe, in 1948. And the whole idea was you remove some of the economic competition that drove the wars, especially the most recent wars, as the continent started to industrialize, and the late 1800s, where they discovered that all of the resources you needed for industrialization were not all in one place. So specifically, the iron ore was on the French side of the border, and the coal was on the German side of the border. So they formed the Coal and Steel Community to basically share the resources so that they won’t have to fight over them. And over the next few years, there’s turned into a trade association, that it also involved the Italians, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Luxembourgers, Luxembourgers. Luxembourg boy, we can voice people from Luxembourg. And that was the original European community, those six countries. The second phase of it was making sure that the German has never tried any of that crazy worship again. And the way they did that was basically by placing a while there’s no other word for it, it’s a tax. But basically, they got German industrialists with all their efficiencies, who are no longer building tanks to pay a portion of the proceeds to French agriculturalists. So the French basically built out the subsidy system that the Germans had to pay for. And everything else that has happened in the European Union since has been a modification of that original deal. So that’s where we were in the 40s and 50s. By the time we got to the 70s. The decision was made that it was time to enlarge Europe to take this what has been my broadly successful experiment and expand it to involve more parts of Europe, working from the theory that the more of Europe that is involved, you get two things out of that, number one, some of those secondary powers are going to be less likely to turn to disrupt the process as they have in the past. And to who, the one where countries have low ceilings, I don’t know if you guys knew this, the French are very tall. The more countries that are involved, the less chance you know, you’re gonna have a disruption. And also, the more countries that are involved the more economic and political heft that Europe has, the more powerful of a player it’s going to be outside of Europe. So you know, it’s France, ego was involved, but very pragmatically. So the 70s were about bringing in new countries, especially the more advanced countries, such as, say Denmark, and the United Kingdom. You get to the 80s and they realized that this is maybe not going to like us When the labor coming along, and the decision was made to bring in some of the poorer countries of southern Europe, Spain, Portugal, and Greece specifically, and then you get to 1992. And the cold war happens, and the Europeans realize a couple things. Number one, the United States really is an economic superpower. Regardless of what you think about its politics or its culture, it is huge. And the only way that Europe can compete in a post cold war environment, was to bring itself closer together. So we got the Maastricht Treaty of 92, for ever closer union. And the creation of the monetary union, which ultimately over the course of the next decade would be phased in as the Euro the common currency that we now know. They also brought in several other countries that had been neutral during the Cold War, Sweden, Finland, and Austria. And the idea was that history has turned. It’s a new chapter, and we need to adapt. And so we had our first inklings of conversation about a European superpower. And discussion throughout the 90s. In the early 2000s, were all about how do we deepen the union. So that acts more like a federated single nation state, we can all have debates over how practical that goal was, and how far they’ve made it. But the conversation had turned. And by the time you get to 2004, to 2008, the Europeans were bringing in other European countries that used to be under the Soviet yoke. And that’s everyone from Estonia, to Poland, to Bulgaria, and then gives us more or less the shape of the Europe that we know in its current field. Of course, in the last decade, things have gone a little Wanko. The Brits have left, we’ve had a European financial crisis. And the Europeans have, I don’t want to say risen to the occasion. That sounds a little blustery. They’ve muddled through. They’ve done things, they’ve created institutions to deal with their issues, in a way that a lot of people, myself included, were certain that they could have done 20 3040 years ago. Now, they face a hot war in Europe, which is a very, very different proposition. The European Union was originally designed to promote democracy to create great greater economic integration, to prevent democratic backsliding. But now, like during the Cold War period, there’s a hot war going on, right at the doorstep. The nature of the challenge has changed. And in the past, almost decade by decade, the nature of the goal, enlargement to this group or that group, for example, determined what success looked like and what the tools were for achieving that. That’s not where we are now. Now, it’s a different fight. Now, it’s all about how many howitzers can you get to the line? And what’s your ammo flow? And can your military industrial complex start to stand up to the old Soviet weapons depot? It’s a different series of questions that Europe wasn’t designed for. And if the next phase of European expansion is designed to cope with this, you’re talking about bringing the countries in that are not nearly as wealthy, although the GA, and most importantly, Ukraine, which would be from a population point of view, the largest country that the Europeans have absorbed since Britain in 1973. It’s a very different proposition. And the tools that they have had to achieve everything that they’ve achieved to this payment, no longer exist. Remember back to that original deal of bleeding the Russians to pay for Europe for the French version of Europe, over time that evolved to pay for agricultural funds for infrastructure funds for economic development funds, basically use German economic strength to pay for the unification of Europe. And the Germans went along with this, not just because they were told to, but in the aftermath of World War Two, we had two generations of Germans were basically born saying, Sorry, how can I make this right? And the French always had an idea. But that’s not the environment we’re in now.
After a century of some of the fastest globalization on record, the Germans are literally running out of people, their birth rates been dropping for century, the birth rate has been below replacement labor rate for the better part of seven decades. And this next decade is the decade where the last worker generation they have ages into mass retirement. And so the Germans are going to go from the piggy bank that has paid for everything to a country that actually absorbs European funds. And when the biggest contributor to the system becomes the biggest taker, we are in a very different economic environment. And in that environment, when we’re now dealing with a hot war, as opposed to trade issues, the need for the cash is going to be huge. And if you can keep the current system of Europe, the European version of socialism, the European idea of bringing the poor you remember is up to snuff. The cash isn’t there for that. So the French are going to have to make a choice. Do they continue with the current system knowing it’s going to go bankrupt knowing that they they are no longer going to be a taker nation, but a contributing nation contributing more much more than the Germans ever did. In order to pay for German retirements. We’re gonna try something new. Nothing against the European Union, I think it’s been wildly successful, especially considering the relatively narrow goals they set out back in the 40s and 50s. But it was a piece of infrastructure that was built for another age, like these goddamn stairs. Anywho. So if the future of Europe is needed to fight a war, to put together a series of political agreements that allow them to preserve the gains that they’ve made in terms of democracy and governance and unity and lack of war among the Europeans, that’s not an economic union. That’s a political and a military union. And that to be perfectly blunt, that’s where France shines. France is a unitary system. Paris controls everything. It’s one of the reasons why they’re always quick with something because they don’t have to really deliberate like everybody else does that usually don’t have coalition governments. They have a strong presidency. They’re ICANN economy is not based on free trade. It’s relatively nationalized, which makes them less efficient than, say, the Germans, but you know, the Germans are another people under age 60. So it really doesn’t matter anymore. And if we’re moving into a world where guns are the determining factor, the French easily have the second most powerful military within NATO. I mean, yeah, yeah, the Turks have more troops in yangu. Yeah, the Brits have more ships. But in terms of balance, strength, the French are great. And that’s exactly the sort of system that the Europeans are going to need. Now. The question, of course, the challenge is, how do you go from here to there to there’s no way the European Union survives the end of Germany as an economic superpower. And there’s no way the Free Trade Union exists, so long as the French aren’t willing to go all in, and they’re not. So we’re about to start a new chapter in European history, economics, politics and defense. And it’s probably going to be the French who are writing this new chapter. They just have to decide what they want to do. And most importantly, on what sort of timeframe because the Ukraine war is the wolf at the door right now. And to be perfectly blunt, win or lose, we’re gonna have a pretty good idea of how this is gonna shake out in the next couple of years. And then the Europeans are going to deal with with the after effects of it for the remainder of this chapter of history. And so really, we need a clear answer from the French before the end of this decade and by clear answer, I mean, a treaty, not just a decision in Paris. So you know, for your French out there, chop chop.