A Crossroads for the European Union
Looking Back at Europe Day
Just recently, we commemorated "Europe Day" on May 9th, marking the 74th year since the Schuman Declaration. This significant declaration was made by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister at the time, on May 9th, 1950. It laid the groundwork for the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952, formed by France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The ECSC was the first serious endeavor to establish supranational European collaboration in the aftermath of World War II. Over time, it morphed into the economic, political, and monetary union we now know as the European Union.
As the European Union has grown and transferred more authority to European governance and policymaking bodies, particularly the European Commission, it has faced substantial challenges. The vast cultural, political, and economic diversity within the union has made it increasingly difficult to create and sustain a universally accepted vision of Europe.
A Deep Divide in Europe
The departure of Britain from the EU, along with the subsequent electoral victories of Eurosceptical parties and leaders in countries like Sweden, Italy, France, Poland, and the Netherlands, indicates a deep divide. This division is between the "official" vision of Europe, propagated by the current Commission and many traditional leftist and center-right parties, and the vision of dissenting parties. The former envisions a Europe of "pooled sovereignty," shared social ideals, and centrally coordinated taxing, climate, pandemic, and refugee policies. The latter sees Europe as a union of independent, sovereign nations, cooperating economically but retaining significant autonomy in policy-making across various fields, from immigration and taxation to climate, agriculture, health, and welfare.
The Push for Political Consolidation
While the European Union was fundamentally established as a means of economic cooperation, the seeds of a more consolidated and integrated political union have been present from the start. The post-war ideals of peace, human rights, and solidarity upon which the European Union was built could potentially lead to increasingly integrated foreign policies, taxation policies, and social policies across the Union, as well as a more expansive role for the European Court of Human Rights.
The introduction of monetary union in 1992 arguably acted as a major catalyst for greater political harmonization. A sustainable monetary union requires a relatively high level of control by EU institutions over public finance and spending, necessitating a significant surrender of political and economic sovereignty by member states.
An Unresolved Dilemma
French President Emmanuel Macron is a prominent advocate of a more demanding approach to European integration. In numerous public addresses, including a speech delivered in the Hague on April 11th, 2023, he called for "a stronger and a better European integration," even a more "sovereign" Europe, on a range of issues, from defense and industrial regulation to the regulation of social media and climate policy.
Regardless of whether one agrees with Macron's proposal to "pool" European sovereignty across various policy domains, it is clear that the ideal of Europe as a union of sovereign nations cooperating in certain limited policy areas has been gradually giving way to the ideal of Europe as a sovereign union of citizens with taxes, finances, defense, climate policy, immigration, and foreign policy controlled centrally.
The Emergence of Nationalist Populism
Until Brexit, EU leaders managed to somewhat gloss over these tensions. However, as public finances tightened, welfare became less abundant, and the EU faced increasing pressure from migration from developing countries, nationalist narratives with a populist, anti-establishment tone steadily gained traction. Today, parties skeptical about the current trajectory towards ever-greater integration have grown large enough in most EU countries to significantly influence national policy.
Difficult Decisions Ahead
These developments suggest that a confrontation is imminent between advocates of further integration and consolidation, such as the current European Commission and its centrist and leftist allies in the European Parliament, and those advocating for a "slimmer" and less politically ambitious Europe, championed by nationalist and Euroskeptical parties on the right.
Both paths carry significant risks. Pushing for further integration may lead to citizens feeling increasingly powerless as critical political functions are effectively removed from their national parliaments, possibly fueling Eurosceptical parties even more. Conversely, any attempt to restore the economic and political sovereignty of member states could potentially destabilize Europe's current economic system, at least in the short term.
Conclusion
Sooner or later, EU citizens and political leaders will have to choose which Europe they want: a highly integrated political union with major policies decided from Brussels, or an economic union of sovereign nations with central coordination primarily for issues of mutual economic interest. Neither of these options is guaranteed to succeed. However, continuing in a political and institutional limbo, with policies that upset many but no serious effort to articulate a shared vision of where Europe is headed or what it stands for, is a recipe for political mediocrity, disillusionment, and chronic instability.
What are your thoughts on the future of the European Union? Do you see a more integrated political union or a more decentralized economic union of sovereign nations? Share this article with your friends and let's get the conversation started. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, every day at 6pm.
