UK prime minister David Cameron has promised to support a referendum on the UK’s future within the European Union if and when he wins the general election in 2015. Politicians across Europe are reacting negatively to Cameron’s speech, citing their support for the Union’s economic, social, and political cooperation. My question to them would be: Why must this cooperation be directed by a centralized power?
The concept of cooperation is misunderstood by many. Cooperation is based on the realization of individual actors that a peaceful and joint venture is beneficial to all parties. Having a leader in this case could arguably be more beneficial but delegating all decision-making powers to one actor hardly seems a necessary prerequisite to calling something cooperative. Yet pro-Europe politicians maintain the opinion that a centralized institution is necessary to foster interdependence. Either this means individuals are too dense to realize the advantages of cooperation or that there is no actual beneficial outcome to be attained. Either way, calling this situation “cooperation” is very troubling.
Supra-national politics is not the only area in life where the meaning of cooperation has been skewed. Apologists for capitalism rightly claim that economies require cooperation between labor and capital. However, they continue by saying that owners of capital must receive exclusive decision-making powers to make the cooperation fruitful.
The same principle exists in our culture’s view of romantic unions. No matter if you’re gay or straight there is always the question of, “Who wears the pants in this relationship?” We thus arrive at the worrying conclusion that the concept of cooperation has been entirely corrupted by viewing the delegation of authority as a prerequisite for its existence.
Although it is unclear what Cameron’s own opinion on the matter is — whether he would vote for the UK to stay in, or get out of, the European Union — it is clear that he dislikes the direction in which the EU is heading. He says, “Put simply, many ask, ‘Why can’t we simply have what we voted to join; a common market?’” After all, the European Union is based on the European Economic Community, often known as the Common Market by the English-speaking world. If there are benefits to cooperation between governments and individuals across national borders then the only acceptable function of the European Union would be to help governments and individuals realize these benefits.
Of course this whole issue would be irrelevant if there weren’t national economic and migratory borders to start with. However, this idea is conveniently left out of the discussion for obvious reasons.
It also brings up another issue of supra-national organizations: Whether they eliminate borders or rather expand them? On a related note: Are the anti-EU sentiments of many Europeans a sign of a new anti-authoritarian movement or merely symptoms of fervent nationalism? These are the questions we should really be asking. How about a referendum on them, Mr. Cameron?
Translations for this article:
- Portuguese, A Corrupção da Cooperação.
Citations to this article:
- Christiaan Elderhorst, The corruption of cooperation, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Nation, 02/13
- Christiaan Elderhorst, EU — The Corruption of Cooperation, Baltic Review, 02/08/13
While I kind of like the thought in reference to the EU, the comment about "who wears the pants in the family" was off the mark and distracting from the overall message. The 1950s called and would like their saying back, but the idea that that is common now is misplaced.
I also think your swipe at "capitalism" is never going to achieve what you want it to achieve because of the many definitions of "capitalism", but that's an issue for this entire website and movement (which I have some sympathy with, btw), not just your article.
I don't know the details of European integration, but my suspicion is that as long as there are national authorities, they will implicitly interfere with trans-national cooperation in the absence of a trans-national authority. For instance, if the national authority is responsible for building roads, then who is going to build the trans-national roads? Same for business regulations. I can appreciate the localist argument for local regulations, but the fact is that they do interfere with cooperation between localities.
My recent post "None but ourselves can free our minds"
I understand what you are saying and appreciate the criticism. Please let me note that I was not speaking in reference to that exact saying but more in reference to the overall idea of hierarchy in relationships.
And for the 'capitalism' remark; there's nothing I can say about that which hasn't already been said by people much smarter than I.
As for who will regulate business apart from transnational regulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria
The Lex mercatoria was a legal system maintained by international merchants in response to local-authorities being unwilling to uphold contracts made in other countries. Trade flourished and disputes were handled non-violenty; without a centralized bureaucratic machine in Brussels/Strasbourgh.