These seemingly prophetic words would take over a century to begin to come into being, but today’s European Union claims to be well on the way to fusion. It would appear that the ultimate goal is in fact to become one nation; a United States of Europe, as Winston Churchill said in 1946. Not so, according to the EU’s official website: “[The EU] is not a State intended to replace existing States, [but neither] is it just an organisation for international cooperation.”1 So just what is the EU? That’s the question facing the organization, and no one seems to know the answer.
The EU traces its roots to a trade bloc formed among six nations in 1951. This eventually grew into the European Community, which in turn became the European Union in 1992. Interestingly, the European Community continues to exist as one of the “three pillars of the Union”. The other two pillars deal primarily with foreign policy and domestic judicial proceedings. These three pillars have evolved from a series of overlapping treaties and legislative policy, which just serves to fuel the bureaucratic nightmare that is the EU. The proposed solution was the EU Constitution, which would replace the five treaties currently in effect and streamline the organization as a whole. The catch? The 500-page constitution requires unanimous ratification before it goes into effect. This didn’t happen, after voters in France and the Netherlands turned it down, prompting several other nations to call off their referenda altogether.
At the end of the day, the EU is a political disaster. The Union’s motto may be “United in Diversity”, but it looks to be anything but that. The “eurocrats”, as they are called, are a bit too concerned with diversity. The EU has 20 official languages, and more to come as nations join. Foreign policy matters are left almost exclusively to the member nations, which leads to some pretty dysfunctional decisions, the most notable of which was the split response to the war in Iraq. This particular aspect looks suspiciously similar to the United States under the Articles of Confederation, although it should be noted that the EU has none of the same economic problems.
On that note, the EU doesn’t seem to have many economic problems at all. The EU economy is currently the largest and strongest in the world, with no signs of stopping. The euro is currently the world’s strongest currency, steadily beating the almighty dollar in recent years. The combined GDP of the member nations is over 600 billion USD beyond that of the US. No one can doubt that the economic effects of the Union and its predecessors have been beneficial.
But what good is a great economy coupled with a political nightmare? The EU is at a crossroads. One path will lead to true unity, the other to eventual irrelevance, much as the UN is today. Will the EU take the path of intergovernmentalism, becoming essentially a loose confederacy? Or will member nations opt for supranationalism, in which the central EU government is granted considerable more power over the member states? Personally, I would opt for the latter. A united Europe is certainly a nice idea, but my reasoning is that in international organizations such as NATO or the UN, the EU essentially serves as a voting bloc (assuming they can agree on anything). As the Union continues to grow, this could lead to a frightening reality in which the EU would effectively decide what happens in the world. A truly unified Europe would be reduced to one vote in such organizations.
The problem links right back to the situation confronting the EU Constitution. Very rarely can consensus be reached by unanimity. If the nations of Europe are truly interested in union, then they need to realize that majority rule is the way. Will they realize this, and if so, will they act on it? Only time will tell.
0 Responses to “The Divided States of Europe”