Where do we go from here?
The European Union's struggle for relevance
Within a span of merely forty years, European countries managed to spark two global conflicts that broke havoc, destruction, and suffering across Europe and beyond. The dark cloud of Nazi Germany and its baggage of horror and savagery still hovering years after the end of hostilities, casting a shadow in the conscience of politicians and citizens alike, all wondering how the ancient continent, in theory, the cradle of democracy, could have allowed our most barbaric side to take over and leave forever a bloody stain on our history. Still recovering from the aftermath of the catastrophe, six European countries moved the first step towards the emergence of probably the most daring political project of contemporary times. The Paris Agreement instituting the European coal and steel community in 1951 marked the inception of the realization that Europe’s future was going to be made peaceful and prosperous only through cooperation instead of confrontation.
With a Cold New War dawning, Europe began to join up to face the challenges: several years and many treaties later, with an increasingly defined role, objectives, and web of institutions known as the European Union, we arrive today. After 72 years from the Paris Agreement where does the EU stand? Without getting into the meander of a very complex and at times confusing legal and institutional construct, some considerations are in order.
The vision
After Brexit, the EU is today made up of 27 member states, jointly enumerating a population of about half a billion people. It includes three of the G7 members, the group of the most industrialized countries in the world. Its main objectives, summarizing the content of the various treaties that constitute the pillars of the Union, are to increase European citizens' well-being, harmonize all the various policies among member states, and assume a leading political role on the international stage. All of this is solidly grounded on upholding, at all times and everywhere, the fundamental rights enshrined not only in the international human rights norms but also in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, one of the three founding treaties of today EU. In a nutshell, a force to be reckoned with.
Nobody could reasonably object to such a political project, it strikes all the right cords, and it includes all the most relevant aspects of a democratic, fair, and rights-based society. Most of all, it creates an environment of cooperation in a continent, Europe, historically prone to continuous wars and confrontations. The vision and political actions of the founding fathers had initiated a process of integration bound to bring peace, stability, and the rule of law not just in Europe, but across the world in a spirit of partnership and cooperation. A beacon of democracy and hope.
And the reality
Somewhere along the way, that initial vision got blurred and ultimately lost. This is probably due to the fact that this inspired political project ended up in the hands of a stream of European leaders with everything but vision or courage. The result is a growingly disenchanted European population that struggles to find some sort of value in the Union and wonders how this big, complex, and costly machine actually helps all of us improve our lives. Or the lives of people around the world, for that matter. The fact is that the EU has never really decided what it wants to be when it grows up and becomes adult, constantly remaining mid-way between a federation of states and an arithmetic sum of governments, erroneously believing that adding rules and bureaucracy will do the trick. Endlessly squabbling over any issue of relevance for Europe or the world, it emerges as impotent to handle the migratory flows, a Union incapable of acting intelligently and coherently. Divided, instead, between reception and closure, assistance and pushbacks, each EU state acts on its own without any predisposition to find a common policy. Not to talk about the war in Ukraine, where some level of common action was developed for a while, only to subsequently break down, pitting those advocating for continued military support to Ukraine against those indicating their willingness to stop. Some hint some support for Russia's invasion, others dead against it and totally hard-liners. When faced with a crisis, real or perceived, the very backbone of the EU creation is put on hold. The Schengen area of a free circulation of people gets limited, god forbid any migrant gets from one EU country to another. Fundamental rights and observance of international law, be it refugee law or the law of the sea, become optional, and democracy in several EU member states seems a concept of the past. The list, sadly, could continue, and the beacon of hope for the world has become an insulated community, more worried about looking inward than being a force for positive changes for the world.
The EU member states never got out of the quagmire related to how much national sovereignty were they prepared to surrender to the Union, thus indicating how much of a real federation they intended to have, as opposed to whatever undefined model they opted for today. This hybrid construct, where some areas are assigned as competence of Brussels while others remain national responsibility ends up paralysing the EU, especially on the most relevant subjects. As a result, we do have a European law mandatory for all 27 members defining the maximum size of clams, but we keep squabbling over what to do about environmental degradation and the world race towards a climate catastrophe. And the more the Union is unable to tackle the real problems the world is confronting, the louder the voice of nationalists and “exciters” grows, paradoxically forcing the European leaders to become increasingly complacent with those voices, in the misplaced hope of keeping the Union intact. For what purpose though, it is not quite clear, probably not even to our leaders.
The EU aspires to be a major player on the international scene, but in reality, it is not, remaining instead a prisoner of its own contradictions, lack of courage and political will. Too weak to avoid being constantly subdued to the wishes of the US, their master rather than their ally, and at the same time too arrogant to recognize it and stand on its own feet.
So, where do we go from here? The idea of the founders of the EU remains brilliant and innovative, the reason why we cannot accept abandoning it, but it is obvious that something fundamental needs to change. A new set of rules needs to be drawn up, and those European leaders who still believe in the original plan need to become the driving force behind it, even at the cost of losing some member states in the process. Go back to the drawing board and assemble those countries that share for real a common vision, focus on the quality of a Union rather than on the number of its members. The unanimity rule for all the relevant decisions must be abandoned in favor of a majority one, and concrete consequences for those states betraying the basic principles of human rights, democracy, and rule of law enshrined in the EU treaties must be possible, from funding withdrawal to expulsion from the Union. Otherwise, the final posture of the EU on any relevant matter will always be a race to the lowest common denominator, condemning Europe to insignificance. And yes, I know, it all sounds utopian, but then so it appeared when last century six European leaders moved away from nationalist interest to a common one, starting a path we have now the responsibility to pursue and, hopefully, succeed in making it worthwhile.
