of self-governance by elected laypersonsnat a low level,” said a Danish politicalnscientist. “We are mistrustful of centralngovernments.”nBecause the treaty requires the approvalnof all 12 countries in the EuropeannCommunity, the people of Denmark—despitena massive campaign byngovernment, business, media, and labor—havenkilled it. All the special interests,npolitical and financial, that stoodnto benefit from the treaty, and havenworked so hard on it for so long, are innan open state of panic. After the vote,nthe leaders of Germany and Francenvowed to “proceed unswervingly” towardsn”European union” and called annemergency session of the EuropeannCommission to try to figure out how tondo it. But they face a legal barrier: thentreaty cannot go into effect without 12naffirmative votes.nIn fact, the problems for super-Europeansnmay have only just begun. DespitenIreland’s endorsement of the treatynon welfare grounds—about as surprisingnas Harlem’s approval of FoodnStamps—all over Europe, there is angrowing sense of nationhood and a desirenfor local self-government. The Germannpeople are more and more reluctantnto give up their strong mark for anweak European Currency Unit run by anContinent-wide central bank. InnFrance, right-wing political leader JeannMarie Le Pen draws huge crowds to opposenthe treaty, while the social democraticnEC president, Jacques Delors,ntalks to himself. Northern Italians arenvoting in greater and greater numbersnfor independence from the centralngovernment in Rome and its welfarenclients in the South. The last thing theynwant is a supergovernment that makesnRome look frugal and responsive. MargaretnThatcher has long warned againstnthe “socialist superstate in Brussels,” andnin fact her reforms might have been impossiblenhad the Maastricht treaty beennin effect. Now even her pro-Europe successor,nJohn Major, may be comingnaround, as more and more Britons cheernQueen and country against bureaucratnand Continent.nUnity seemed tempting. With a populationnof 340 million and a GNP ofnmore than $4 trillion, the EC would benthe world’s largest trading bloc. The leftnliked the centralization as well as thenEC’s Social Charter, which guaranteesnwelfare “rights” and trade union controlnof European labor markets. Europeannneoconservatives liked it because it was anbasic building block of the New WorldnOrder.nNegotiations have been in progress forndecades, but for a finally awakened Danishnpeople, the treaty seemed like a diveninto the abyss. Danes began to wonder:nCan a nation secede from the union?nHow long is the agreement binding?nAre there limits to the economic policiesnBrussels can impose? Will a Continentalntax and regulatory police enforcenEC policy? Will Brussels be able to imposeneconomic sanctions on rebelliousncountries? There were no answers fromnthe pan-Europeans, meaning the truthnwas unpalatable.nMaastricht would have establishednEurope-wide regulations, taxes, and antitrustnpolicies. But the most seriousndanger was the abolition of separate currenciesnand the creation of a new Europeanncurrency and central bank. Such ansystem would have meant Continentalncredit expansion to the benefit of thenelites, while the middle class bore theninflationary and business-cycle consequences.nIf stability of the internationalnmonetary system is the goal, there is onlynone way to bring that about: abolitionnSpecial pricenfor “CJironicles”nsubscribers $1.50nAlso Contains:n•k The Declarationnof Independencen-k The Constitutionnof The United StatesnPublished by tfienHEHRY 5ALVAT0RI FOUPIDATIOMnThe Henry Salvatori Foundation supportsnefforts to explain and perpetuatenAmerica’s founding principles, and toninvigorate the love of country that alonencan secure them.nof central banking and establishment ofna 19th-century gold standard. Even thencurrent managed exchange rate system isnbetter than more centralization.nFor many years, ideologues have toldnus that small, independent nations arenirrelevant. Conventional wisdom duringnthe Cold War said they had to benpart of a massive bloc to matter. Thisnwas always bunk, but with the Cold Warnover, most people in both Europe andnAmerica want a return to normalcy,nmeaning, working hard, raising families,nparticipating in community life, and enjoyingnpeace and prosperity. That impliesnsmall political groupings. Peoplenare tired of big experiments like a unifiednEurope, which promise much andndeliver little. And they reahze, if onlyninstinctively, that distant government isnalways more oppressive than local bodies.nCut through all the rhetoric aboutn”cooperation” and “coordination” andnthe plan to unify Europe is about onenthing: social democracy. That’s an ideanthat, like its brother socialism, ought tonbe tossed in the trash compactor of history.n—Llewellyn H. RockwellnBrief, Clear Account of The American foundinqn^A riew Dawnnof LibertynBy Gregory WolfenConceived and written specificallynfor classroom use. (©1992, 81 pp.)nMamen- Mail-in Order FormnAddressnCity State .nPhonen. Zip.nPlease send me books at $1.50 eachnpostage paid. Total $nnnl^ake checl^ payable & mail to;nThe Claremont Instituten250 West First St., Suite 330nClaremont, CA 91711n(714)621-6825nOCTOBER 1992/9n