Its current threats; historical and founding principles; reviving the European project; the EU parliamentary May 2019 elections; External and existential threats.
Undoubtedly, the EU and the Eurozone are in crisis. Both EU institutions and national governments are failing âthe peopleâ. Enforced Brussels quotas for taking refugees have inflamed public opinion. The austerity programme inflicted on the debt-plagued countries of the Mediterranean after the 2008 global financial crisis was brutal, ineffective and inflamed public anger. It is not surprising, then, that liberal democracyâthe dominant political force in Europe since the Second World Warâis now reduced to fighting a rear-guard action, with its pressures and enemies continuing to mount. Nationalist-populist governments are now in power in Italy, Hungary, Poland and (through a coalition government) in Austria. The far-right party has also performed strongly in elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands and is making important gains in Spain.
Soon after 2016, UK referendum warnings came from some key international leaders in the economicâliberalist camp each counselling Brussels to address the plight of those âleft behindâ by globalization. Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (ECB), was one of the first to warn Brussels to pay more attention to wealth redistribution and address the concerns of consumers angered by economic inequality and job insecurity which has played into the hands of âpopulistâ Eurosceptic partiesâ across the EU spectrum.
âI do not think there will be significant progress in terms of opening up markets and competition if Europe does not listen to the demands of those left behind by a society built on the pursuit of wealth and power; if Europe, as well as being a catalyst for integration and an arbiter of its rules, does not also moderate its outcomesâ, he said at an awards ceremony in Trento, Italy.
Draghiâs warnings were echoed by Donald Tusk, President of the EU Council when he reiterated similar fears in a letter to EU leaders, saying voters wanted to know political elites were âcapable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate and sometimes terrify themâ. âHistory has taught us that this [discontent] can lead to a massive turn away from freedom and other fundamental values that the EU is founded uponâ, he wrote.
The need for reform is undoubtedly very clear. The established liberal order was accountable for enforcing austerity measures and strict Eurozone fiscal policies. Brussels as with national governments has to contend with the new force of social media, which acts as a powerful channel to express and magnify the voice of voters discontented and marginalized in society. Facebook, and to a lesser extent Twitter and YouTube, has proven powerful weapons in the Brexit and US presidential 2016 campaignsâsuccessfully winning over potentially millions of voters sidelined by the governing class. The ruling elites in Brussels are acutely aware of votersâ demandsâbut they face the challenge of meeting what in some cases are unrealistic expectations. Globalization has created winners and losers, and European politicians are the first to admit not enough has been done to alleviate the economic disasters of the 2008 global financial crash, and severe and deleterious austerity policies associated with the drastic bailout measures for many Eurozone member states. But, contrary to voter perceptions, the EU is not a âsuper-stateâ but remains a club of nation states pooling their sovereignty through a set of mutual treaties (culminating in the Lisbon Treaty of 2009).1
This book will tell the story of what the European Union must become if it is to succeed. It examines how the EU is trying desperately to redefine its pan-European ideals in a bitter fight to re-establish core valuesâvalues increasingly undermined by a self-serving (new) breed of âpopulistâ politicians, primarily but not exclusively on the right. Undoubtedly, there has been a lack of transparency in the EUâs workings, coupled with a total failure to market its substantial achievements in economic prosperity and social reform. Brussels is perceived as anti-democratic, as pandering to big business and as utterly unsympathetic to the concepts of state borders, national sovereignty and even self-determined democracy. Its policies have fostered regionalism at the expense of the nation state, and resurgent nationalism is an unsurprising result of this.
Historical Context
To understand what the European Union is, it needs to be set in its proper, post-war historical context. It is and was originally conceived, as a peace process to unite Europe after the horrors of the Second World War, combined with a customs union and free trade zone, with the Euro bolted on. If we strip away the rhetoric of both advocates and sceptics of the EU, this is what it boils down to in purpose and function.
For 70 years now, the EU has framed the backdrop for relative peace and stability in Europeâfrom the ashes of the Second World War and all through the Cold War and its turbulent aftermath on the continent (most notably in the breakup of former Yugoslavia). But is this now an end of an era for an inclusive, pan-European order? My answer is simple: no. Populist movements satiate the pressing call for change, but they have no realistic idea of how to effect it. The danger needs to be recognized in its severity. The EUâs survival is not certain. But there are answers to its challengesâsome moderate and some radicalâthat can, and will, guarantee its future. This book will explain exactly what they are.
It is not just the ongoing Brexit chaos and austerity-related EU disillusionment that are the problems to face up to, but a wider pattern of identity politics which is taking place all over Europe, as all the EUâs big states (and some small ones) are facing similar upheaval. The latest example of this is Spain, with the resurgence of a right-wing populist party Vox evoking the mantra âSpain firstâ, and even going so far as to celebrate the legacy of Spanish Fascist dictator Franco.2
Heading off the threats to the EUâs survival includes countering nativist and protectionist forces, both of which represent the breaking of the norms and shared values crafted from the founding treaties. Criticism of EU institutions and the âdemocratic deficit and lack of transparencyâ are entirely valid, but exploited for nationalist, nativist and identitarian ends. There has been constant âvoter apathyâ and low turnout in European Parliamentary elections, and an increased presence from populist parties and forces increasingly threatens the stability of the established party structures. Lack of transparency around the operations of the EU, coupled with a failure to trumpet and market its successes to electorates, only exacerbates this problem and the opportunity for groups seeking to undermine it to thrive.
To forget the original vision of the European Union would amount to a serious blunder for the nation states of Europe, as well as continental Europe as a whole. This includes the UK and Ireland and beyond to the world at large where many countries, through their linkage with the old colonial powers, sacrificed their manpower on the battlefields of mainland Europe in the struggle against Nazism.
Some post-Second World War visionaries could claim the European Union was self-consciously created as an attempt to revive the Roman and Holy Roman Empireâor at least their more redeeming featuresânamely through a politically united European sphere: one at peace with itself, after two destructive world wars, and one made prosperous by the free flow of goods, people and culture across its borders. Progressing this vision has taken a serious blow in the wake of the populist and nationalist revolts since the financial and migrant crises, exposing the fragility in the European project faced by the post-2004 and 2007 (ambitious) enlargement.
There was a determined goal by the post-Second World War leaders to put an end to Europeâs devastating military conflicts in the nineteenth centuryâs two world wars. This aim more than anything galvanized the founding fathers and statesmen of France, Germany and Italy. It was the collective vision of men like Robert Schuman (France),3 Konrad Adenauer (Republic of West Germany) and Alcide De Gasperi (Italy) in joining forces with their counterparts in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg to pioneer the formation of the European Economic Community in 1958. Winston Churchillâreflecting on the need for post-war cooperationâhad even expressed the term âUnited States of Europeâ that he used in a famous speech in Switzerland at Zurich University (19 September 1946).
But this was not a call for European federalism. Rather, it represented a much more restrained approach and set the tone of UKâEU relations for decades to come. Moreover, Churchillâs vision reflected the âUnionist positionâ, i.e. a consultative body, rather than an interstate superstructure. This was contrasted with the vision of politicians on mainland war-torn Europe advancing âthe federalist positionââand what has since meant full integration with a {European} constitution.
By the 1950s and 1960s, Europe saw the emergence of two different projects: the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the much more political organization of the European Economic Community. Real progress only started in 1951 when the six founding members signedâbased on a plan by the French politician Jean Monnetâthe European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). The six European states: France, the Federal Republic of West Germany, Italy and the âBeneluxâ countries;...