Part One: The Democratic Deficit
By rights the European Union (EU) should have been a global empire. With a population of almost 500 million (100 million more than the US) and a well-educated, technically advanced workforce, it should be a comparable power to the US and China. OK, you can argue that they lack critical natural resources, unlike the US, which is a true autarky but Russia always fulfilled that role, delivering cheap commodities on time and at a favorable cost. But now they find themselves in a financial and social death spiral. So, what went wrong?
The idea behind the EU goes right back to the 1920s, with luminaries at the time expressing a need for a pan-European structure, like Austrian aristocrat Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi (who founded and ran the Pan European Union – a right wing, Christian centric prototype of the current EU, for almost 50 years), left leaning French prime minister Aristide Briand (who advocated a federal Europe to bring an end to the countless French/German wars), French center-left mathematician and politician Emile Borel, British economist John Maynard Keynes, Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega Y Gasset, Greek prime minister Eleftherios Venizelos, Polish statesman and soldier Jozef Pilsudski (who put forward his version of what he called Intermarium – between the seas – which mainly comprised of the old Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, including Belarus and Ukraine, but did not include western Europe as it only went west up to the, then, western Polish border) and Russian communist Leon Trotsky.
They each had a different vision for the future of Europe – for example Coudenhove-Kalergi and Trotsky had diametrically opposed viewpoints on how it should be structured, with the former desirous of a right wing, Christian based Europe, while Trotsky favored a communist Soviet system. But they all agreed on the fundamental point that divisions within Europe had led to numerous wars and economic degradation and that unity would lead to prosperity and peace.
Nothing substantive was done about forming a consensus for the proposed union or indeed the form it would take until the second world war. It was Hitler that actually brought Europe under a single umbrella, albeit an odious one, and many German soldiers, when interviewed after the war, stated that they were fighting for and motivated by a united Europe.
The second world war provided the impetus for moving the project forward. The 1943 Yalta Conference resulted in the first formation, by the UK, the USA and the Soviet Union, of the proto-European state by creating the European Advisory Commission, whose mandate was to put forward solutions to the problems Europe would likely face after the war.
The European Advisory Commission was replaced after the Potsdam Agreement, which provided for for the division of Germany. The three triumphant powers were called the Allied Control Council USA, the Soviet Union and the UK (nominally excluding France but France ended up controlling parts of Germany).
This council fell apart after the flawed election in Poland, which the Communists won, but was marred by pro-communist violence. This was regarded as a blatant breach of the Yalta agreement. The Communist coup d’etat in Czechoslovakia marked the final demise of the Allied Control Council after the London Six power Conference, to which the Soviet Union was not invited. There, it was decided that it was imperative that Germany, or at least the parts that the USA, France and the UK controlled, should become a Western led democracy.
The relations between the Soviet Union and the other great powers were already strained because of the signing of the 1947 Treaty of Dunkirk. On the face of it, this treaty was designed to offer mutual assistance in case of another attack either by or on Germany, but was regarded as offering mutual protection in case of attack by the Soviet Union.
This stance was confirmed, within a matter of days, by the release of the Truman doctrine, which offered military support for any country that was being threatened by the Soviet Union, which in turn led to the formation of NATO. After these events, the Soviet Union, under Stalin, took no part in further discussions with the Western allies and the Cold War was born.
Events in Europe moved apace with the advent of the cold war. Following on from Churchill’s 1946 speech where he called for the creation of a European Union, the Treaty of Brussels was signed, which is regarded as the founding document of the European union.
In addition the Organisation for European Cooperation (the forerunner of the OECD) founding document was signed in order to manage the Marshall Plan, which was set up by the USA (and seeded with over $13 billion – equivalent to over $174 billion at today’s prices) in order to bring prosperity and democracy to Europe and to provide a bulwark against creeping Soviet encroachment.
In response, the Soviet Union created Comecon, which covered both economic integration between members of the Eastern Bloc (as well as allied states such as the DPRK) as well as bilateral relations. In May 1948 the Hague Congress took place during which the European Movement International, the College of Europe in Bruges (which was created to train future ruling elites to uphold European values of mutuality, freedom and openness) and, most importantly, the Council of Europe, with the goal of upholding human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Europe, were founded. The importance of this conference can be recognized by some of the attendees, who represented a cross section of European elites at the time such as Albert Coppé, Altiero Spinelli, David Maxwell-Fyfe, Édouard Daladier, François Mitterrand, Harold Macmillan, Konrad Adenauer, Paul Ramadier, Paul Reynaud, Paul van Zeeland, Pierre-Henri Teitgen and Winston Churchill.
Note, the council of Europe is often confused with the European Union, mainly because the EU adopted its flag, but is, in fact, a separate organization.
The formation of the structures of the future European Union, led a French politician, Robert Schuman, to create the Schuman Declaration, on May 9th 1950 (which is now celebrated as Europe Day). He proposed that West German and French Coal and Steel industries be brought together in order to foster cooperation between former belligerents, France and Germany, leading to some form of political union.
This led in turn to the Treaty of Paris, which was not just signed by the two protagonists, but also by Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (but not the UK) under which the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was formed and, importantly, a degree of political integration was declared.
The ECSC also led to the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC), which was later ratified by the Treaty of Rome. This was regarded as the de facto founding of what would later become the EU.
Note that the leaders of this community were not elected but were appointed, which has led to the undemocratic structure of the future EU that plagues it today. The ECSC was backed by the vast funds available from the US under the Marshall Plan, which gave it the breathing space to create the future political structures of the EU, such as the European Commission and the European Parliament (initially called the European Parliamentary Assembly). This parliament cannot be regarded as a true legislative body in that it cannot propose legislation but exists merely to rubber stamp legislation proposed by the European Commission or the European Council (who propose the President of the EU). It doesn’t even have a permanent home as it shuttles between Strasbourg and Brussels, with the administration and bureaucracy located in Luxembourg (which was the original home of the parliament).
Initially the European Parliament was, under the Treaty of Rome, appointed; primarily, because the members could not agree on a voting structure. By the time it changed from an assembly to a parliament in 1962, there still was no consensus on how voting in members of the new parliament were to be chosen. As a compromise, the members were chosen based on the electoral systems in place in the member states. Direct parliamentary elections were not held until 1979 and even then, it was based on a party list system in which a constituent had no say in who was supposedly representing them, but instead voted for a party who in turn assigned the seat to members of its own choosing.
From the start, the European Parliament tried to create the structures of the EU and to take certain aspects, such as the choice of the EU President, under its control but the structure of the putative union prevented its primacy. Instead, it was ‘consulted’ on proposed legislation (even fundamental proposals such as the Schengen agreement) and had, up until the signing of the Lisbon Treaty (aka the European Constitution), no control over the budget. Notably, this latter document was renamed the Lisbon Treaty as the original constitution was rejected by a majority (55%) of French voters and almost 60% by the Dutch in referenda held in 2005.
Even though the Lisbon Treaty was indeed a constitution and therefore a fundamental document of which the population of the EU should have been consulted, But, no countries, aside from Ireland, was allowed a vote on it (Britain, under Gordon Brown refused a referendum, primarily because the Dutch also voted against it and he was concerned that the British would too, so, instead he proposed a parliamentary debate, which was heavily whipped to ensure that no opposition could arise and no vote was taken). Being renamed as a Treaty (in fact it was just the original constitution in a smaller font – in order to make it look less all-encompassing – with a new cover page – the ex French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the chair of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the text, passed it off by saying: “the difference is one of approach, rather than content.”) meant that under EU member states’ democratic rules, the people didn’t need to be consulted. So, the French and Dutch referenda were effectively nullified by their respective senates.
The Irish also rejected the treaty, but under what was to become normal EU voting procedures, the referendum was simply run again and again, with a few political points being conceded, until the Irish relented. These concessions have since been largely nullified.
Referenda, when they are run, are almost always ignored (except Brexit); for example, after the 2006 Dutch referendum on the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, a 61% voted against the proposal, it was adopted nevertheless, only with a ‘explanatory declaration’ added to the treaty.
Political differences, even during the embryonic stages of the creation of the EU, particularly the lack of any sort of consensus regarding the electoral system, should have set alarm bells ringing regarding the viability of the project. But these obvious flaws were papered over and the project continued
The EU has, particularly since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, been marked by subterfuge where the public is told one thing but with the EU actually going forward with something different. In part two we’ll look at how the EU has deviated from public opinion, particularly on closer political union (which was proposed way back in the 1940s), which the populations of the member countries plainly don’t want but which the EU elites are hell bent on implementing. The public vision is primarily about a customs union and the free passage of people across borders (which is what was proposed in the UK’s referendum in the 1970s on whether it should stay in the European Customs Union – as Edward Heath, the then Prime Minster, had unilaterally decided to join without any public consultation – there was no mention of closer political integration).
The EU is an undemocratic, authoritarian, globalist abomination.
I can’t possibly know, but am fairly sure, that the vast majority of its nations populations would vote to leave it if ever given a real chance to do so.
The EU has, particularly since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, been marked by subterfuge where the public is told one thing but with the EU actually going forward with something different.
Right out of Trump’s playbook.
Good call. Can you site some examples?
I for one have enjoyed and benefitted from the re-opening of comments, and hope I can ask each of you to just rein it the famblog in. Please.
The Lisbon Treaty for one. We were told it wasn’t a constitution and then suddenly it was. This is a constitution, not some treaty, just about every country in the world has a plebescite if they want to introduce a new constitution.
I’m absolutely sure that the vast majority in most EU countries would vote for stay. Please update your bias against it in the light of things which happened in 2022, and in 2025.
But yes, the EU has a democracy deficit. Which is worked on, albeit far slower than would be good.
Now, if only the three global powers would be better in any way…
That was meant to be a comment to JWs comment at 7:13 am. Sorry.
Well, for most people EU still is a net benefit, and of course if it ever breaks up, it wont be pretty for the common folk, see Soviet Union. But the elites are hard pushing the limits and there will be point where the net benefit flips to net loss, even counting in things like common currency, created to make secessions as painful as possible.
Yes, finding data on the publics attitude is easy, there is plenty of data available. The EU as an institution is extremely popular with the general public across Europe, especially in the smaller countries, and if anything is getting more popular, although of course this may be a reflection of a lowering opinion of national and regional governments.
The EU is, unlike the US or any other ‘Union’ made up of sovereign states – the structure was always intended that the ultimate decision makers are the elected head of States of the individual members, not structures within the EU, including the European Parliament. There are of course ongoing dynamics within the EU and between the EU and individual States that don’t reflect well on anyone, but but claim that it is ‘undemocratic’ is a category error. Increasing ‘democracy’ for the EU means subsuming the democratic powers of individual States, which has always been unacceptable to the electorates of pretty much all the countries of the EU. What the EU needs is more transparency and accountability, and for individual countries to call renegade Commission members to heel, not some abstract notion of democracy.
My experience is that people in general (in Spain) don’t spend much time thinking about the functioning of the EU or its decisions. Everything from the EU descends as the Tablets of Moses which cannot be challenged. No political diatribes and an atmosphere of consensus is what is transpired. That is the driver of “trust” on EU institutions. A religion it is.
So it’s supposed to be a benevolent dictatorship–“in technocracy we trust”?
At any rate thanks NC as some of us enjoy articles like this. We are here to learn.
The history of the United States was of course all about “states rights” versus centralized government with the “peculiar institution” the mainspring of the conflict. Supposedly the Civil War settled the question but it has lingered to this day with some Northern and Western states notionally threatening to secede from the menacing heartland.
Meanwhile the elites here have constructed their own benevolent dictatorship of the uniparty–benevolent to them of course. Perhaps the EU was even inspired by our example as a way to keep the dreaded Commies at bay. Certainly Europe seems to be becoming more like us rather than vice versa.
The American founders were themselves elites but very smart people who studied history and understood all these problems. One of them, Franklin, uttered the phrase that should be printed on our money: “if you can keep it.”
The farther (from the populace) the administration the more “technocratic”. True in the US, true in Europe too.
These managers are the most PMCish of the PMC. They live in a different planet and are disconnected from the realities in the ground.
Perhaps it’s my American skepticism of the benevolence of any dictatorship, be it soft technocratic or hard authoritarian, but the willful submission of many Europeans to it is amazing and scary to watch.
I would like to remind you that Western Europe was the craddle of such interesting regimes as absolute monarchy, military dictatorship/bonapartism, and fascism. Contrarily to what is often assumed, democracy never was a European value at large.
Fact. Still, it appears that very few Europeans experience any cognitive dissonance at the message that creeping EU authoritarianism is in the name of protecting our “democracy and European values.” Come to think of it, it is perhaps about protecting true traditional European values, of which democracy isn’t one.
Good observation, vao. And one that Graeber and Wengrow recount in their discussion of the diaries of French traveller, the Baron de Lahontan, in early 1700’s America. The Baron details his discussion with Kandiaronk, an eloquent chief of the Iroquois, who was disdainful of the French ‘civilization’, laws and culture. “These poor Men were punished by your unjust Laws for endeavoring to get Sustenance to their Families. In earnest, we should have a fine time of it if we offered to punish one of our Brethren for killing a Hare or a Partridge.”
IMO the EU is beginning to subsume the sovereignty of its member states at an accelerating pace and popular though the EU is, that’s playing with fire on the national levels. Here’s where EU’s democratic deficit is going to get really exposed and the EU will be up against a fork in the road:
1. To increase the federalization without asking the populations for their consent and without direct elections for the top EU functionaries. That will be done by increasing the scope of the current internal propaganda and narratives that impose both an urgency to act fast on pre-approved decisions without real public deliberations, while also manufacturing the appearance of concent for these decisions;
2. To increase its federalization with the populations’ consent, which at minimum would require serious concessions on democratic elections of its top functionaries and increase in the power of the EU Parliament and EU judiciary. In short, something more akin to the US with its Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances;
3. Muddle along the current path and risk losing both legitimacy and relevancy while wracked by increasing internal contradictions and undemocratic punishment of internal dissent (Hungary will be an interesting case to watch in that regard).
Bottom line, as both an American and a European residing in Europe, the EU is at an existential point and so far I don’t like what I see – it reminds me far too much of the US post-9/11, of which Trump is the ultimate consequence. Thanks, but no thanks, what with the past track record of Europe producing destruction and killing on truly industrial scale.
“… but the claim that it is ‘undemocratic’ is a category error. Increasing ‘democracy’ for the EU means subsuming the democratic powers of individual States, which has always been unacceptable to the electorates of pretty much all the countries of the EU.”
Could you elaborate some on this comment? My current understanding of EU development (which is much different than my view as a student decades ago) is that it has been constructed precisely to subsume “the democratic powers of individual States” in order to impose a neoliberal economic structure; but not by “increasing ‘democracy’ for the EU” but precisely by setting up the current apparatus headed by non-elected “technocrats” (a somewhat misleading term in my view as it implies politically neutral “expertise”) that is mainly immune to democratic pressures. Perry Anderson’s recent work, among others, is pretty informative on this history and mainly reinforces what Kevin Kirk writes here. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your comment.
As to why the EU is popular among the general public, I see this based partly on the actual benefits of economic integration and partly on the usual public ignorance of how these distant institutions work, and what the alternative policies might be.
I think you hit the nail on the head with that last paragraph. I’ve had the structure of the EU explained multiple times and still have a hard time grasping it all. I think PK is saying that the EU Parliament is not the ultimate decision maker – that resides with the heads of the sovereign states – and yet the Ursula as head of the parliament seems to be calling a lot of the shots these days. We have the Parliament, the Council, the Commission and it unclear from this side of the pond what exactly each of those institutions is supposed to do. In practice, it seems like they are there so that there exist multiple institutions which could overrule popular opinion as necessary and still claim ‘democracy’.
It all seems unnecessarily complex to me. Maybe that’s because I’m an unsophisticated USian. But generally when I’m confronted with this type of byzantine explanation for something that affects my personal well being, it causes me to check my pockets and hide the good silver.
Ursula is head of the commission, not the parliament.
How the commission is “chosen” should be a fun topic down the road.
Thank you for the correction. I do find the EU political structure difficult to understand…
It’s not that it is all necessarily complex, just convoluted. You see, Ursula, is NOT elected by the people but by the members of the European Parliament (who are elected by their nations electorate). So, Ursula only has to appease ~700 members, not 500 million Europeans. As President of the Commission, she sets the political agenda of the 27 member European Commission. She also, unilaterally, gets to select which Commission member will lead any particular agenda (like the Lithuanian war hog). Ursula also controls the budget of the Commission; with the ‘gold’ goes her hold on Commission members.
Ursula has no direct, popular constituency. And that is reflected in her remarks.
(She is essentially similar to Elon Musk.)
As a supernational organisation it does of course reduce the sovereignty of the member States, that’s always understood. But the EU Commission answers to the Council of Ministers, the elected heads of state of the individual countries – any other system would result in a dictatorship of the largest individual country. The EU Parliament is weak precisely because it was never intended that the parliament would have the powers to override the powers of individual national parliaments. To say it’s ‘undemocratic’, because the Parliament is ‘weak’ and the Commission is unelected, is to misunderstand the architecture of the EU. If the EU is running riot (I think its highly questionable that this is the case), it’s because the individual countries that make up to the EU collectively want it to do this. The EU is neoliberal and warmongering because its constituent countries are neoliberal and warmongering, not the other way around. The overwhelming majority of EU countries are run by neoliberals or ordoconservatives because, guess what, that’s what the people voted for, and the EU reflects that.
The EU is very popular, because the majority of people in the EU like freedom of movement and the right to be able to work across the EU and be able to claim benefits in other countries and not get ripped off by mobile phone roaming or random bank charges. They like that EU environmental and labour protection laws and food safety laws are invariably tougher than would apply in most individual countries. They generally consider the Commission to be more competent than their national or regional governments. They like that there is some (albeit not enough), structural funds to even up development across the continent. They like standardised traffic laws and food safety regulations and integrated public transport rules and consistent electricity integration and universal recognition of professional qualifications and not having to pay duties or taxes every time they cross a border.
“If the EU is running riot (I think its highly questionable that this is the case), it’s because the individual countries that make up to the EU collectively want it to do this. The EU is neoliberal and warmongering because its constituent countries are neoliberal and warmongering, not the other way around.”
To use the terminology of catholic theology: the EU Commission and national governments are entities that are distinct, but consubstantial.
Indeed. I suspect that Van Der Leyen and so on are far less influential and powerful than seems. They are the ‘cover’ for what a number of national governments want, and for a variety of reasons those States who are dubious about what is going on don’t feel inclined to take on the neoliberals. There are plenty of rumours that even very senior people within the Commission are very unhappy with what is going on, but don’t feel it can be changed. The centre-right political block in Europe (along with its allies) is far more unified than is usually acknowledged, and is now totally dominant politically. It is, in effect, the will of the people.
“It is, in effect, the will of the people.”
Your comments reinforce my own conclusion. The popularity of the EU is based partly on the actual benefits of economic integration (you list many of them) and partly on public ignorance about how such institutions work (e.g. as mechanisms to impose austerity or coerce policy consensus on potentially misbehaving nations). As far as the “will of the people” go, I live in the US, and given the quality of our elected leaders I really can’t talk about Europe. The electoral choices over there used to be greater; now their political spectrum is as narrow as ours. But recent events in Europe, as in the US, have exposed the limits to “democracy” when significant numbers of people reject the Establishment status quo. Interesting times.
“…The EU is very popular, because the majority of people in the EU like freedom of movement and the right to be able to work across the EU and be able to claim benefits in other countries and not get ripped off by mobile phone roaming or random bank charges. ..”
An interesting if unproven assertion.
Being UK parochial for a moment – Brexit indicated that the Brits didn’t and still don’t quite buy this simple trope – Cameron caught unguarded used roaming charges as one of the main benefits of being an EU member – very few thought this important, indeed it was an incredibly poor argument to stay shackled to the EU corpse . Plus, given the evidence, the vast majority of the UK don’t go to live and work in the EU – they prefer to go to the US first and Australia second. Sure, the EU is a poor third choice.
Another challenge for the UK is that obviating the nation state per Schuman, Monnet & Salter doesn’t resonate with what I would call the Anglo -saxon culture – continental Europe was a much more fractious affair for 500-600 years – and maybe little Island UK didn’t get the need for cultural/cross border alliances given we were not being attacked and pillaged for much of the time.
Bringing us to the present day – Trump for his own specific reasons has called the EUs bluff – it will either have to integrate more ( as in Monnet’s famous – ‘EU forged in a crisis’) else it will fragment, with Germany becoming once again a dominant force and with the UK and France holding the ‘nuclear ropes’ to ensure that all Europeans behave in this undoubted New World Order. It’s very hard to see the Brits or the French allowing any EU state, especially Germany to get er, too powerful. We’ve been here before.
I provided a link above to the Eurobarometer survey, there is oceans of data out there on public attitudes to the EU.
As to your assertions about UKers preferring Australia and the US – there are more UK citizens living in Spain alone than in all the US.
If you don’t think roaming charges is, and always was a biggie for most regular people, you’ve obviously not been paying any attention. Even the Mail and Express were regularly doing front page outrage stories about how many people were getting caught out on the Spanish holidays. What Brexit showed was that the average UK citizen was spectacularly unaware of the extent to which EU Regulations made their holidays and travel and work arrangements easier. Thats what efficient governmental structures do – they make peoples life easier in ways that they don’t even notice.
I recommend William Mitchell’s Eurozone Dystopia: Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/eurozone-dystopia-9781784716653.html
The EU is neoliberalism on steroids.
so you say it´s worth it.
500 pages.
I am reading those if its good.
According to Eurobarometer 2024, 51% of Europeans tend to trust the EU. Is this really such a great result? The future of EU doesn’t hold any great news: tariff wars, deindustrialization, militarization of the economy. Once the arms race forces European economies into deeper austerity, confidence in EU will drop well below this threshold.
I believe that EU institutions “reinforce” their legitimacy via the Eurobarometer. According to latest Eurobarometer results, Europeans in general have more trust in the less democratic structure of the EU than in their own state level institutions. How is it possible? By taking away decision making to Brussels and making it something of a “tecnhocratic” directorate, not political and providing limited information so appearing it to be a kind of EU-level consensus. Interestingly if you descend to country-by country results the picture is not so rosy and such levels of confidence in the EU arise from countries which, apparently have a strong faith on the EU, namely Denmark, Lithuania, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, and Latvia. Interestingly, France is the country showing less trust in the EU.
Go in this Eurobarometer to question number QB6ab: on “Main prioritiy areas” and what you find there? That “Defence” is the priority area that arises as the main priority area right now. How useful! IMO, the Eurobarometer is a total fabrication obtaining exactly the results wanted.
Pew Research Center can often be used for getting a whiff of what is actually going on.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/06/03/ratings-of-the-eu-remain-broadly-positive-in-member-countries-but-have-gone-down-slightly-since-2022/
My bet is that as long as citizens get to travel within EU without passport the Eurotards can screw up whatever they want.
Exactly. It is quite amusing that the citizens of the state which runs the Union for its own benefit are the most displeased with it (64% of Germans disapprove of EU), while the nations which had their economies penetrated are fine and dandy with this state of affairs. The miracles of modern propaganda.
Also, see QA3: What do you think are the two most important issues facing your country at the moment? where your choices are: Rising prices/ inflation/ cost of living, Immigration, The economic situation, Health, Housing, Government debt, The environment and climate change, The international situation, Crime, Unemployment, The education system, Pensions, Taxation, Energy supply, and Terrorism.
Clearly, you are allowed to worry about Government debt, Immigration, Taxation, Crime or Terrorism, but not about Inequality, Plutocratic capture of the state, or Rise of the Far Right. Garbage in, garbage out.
PS. PlutoniumKun thank you for the link, depressing, but enlightening.
With the exception of Poland, where a dose of Tusk seems to be shifting public attitudes against the EU, none of the countries which appear to have strong faith (love the idea of “faith” as a political rather than a religious variable) in the EU are not exactly population heavy and five of them appear to have significant problems with the idea of an uncolonised, unBalkanised Russia.
As a young union official, I wasn’t too happy with the way the UK entered Europe under Ted Heath and, if given a vote then, I would have campaigned and voted against it. When the Wilson Referendum came along I accepted the argument that in a world of floating currencies, stagflation and deeply alienated Commonwealth markets, plus I had a mate with a really good job in the relatively small EU bureaucracy at the time, and as it had become clear that this might become Harold’s (and the UK’s) Last Hurrah, I voted to remain – that is, despite the regressive VAT which fell hardest on those with least and the EU’s Competition Policy which meant that strong companies in one EU country could overwhelm the less strong in other countries and shift decision-making from the UK, I voted for the security of the status quo like so many others.
The problem was that, despite our hopes, the EU didn’t work as expected. True we could go to Calais and pick up cheap booze and those of us who benefited from the cannibalisation of industry, the increasing financialisation of the UK economy and ever-rising asset prices had the opportunity to live and work in an EU country without having to deal with too many formalities, and like many of my fellow expatriates I voted for Remain in the 2016 referendum. Fortunately, unlike many expatriates whose futures had become a lot less certain, I managed to sell up quickly and easily and came back to Blighty.
Now I look at the EU, which I can see on a clear day if I take a short walk from my house, and I talk to many former Remainers, many ex-expats, and the general consensus amongst them is that we made a piss-poor job of leaving, but the country would be in an even worse situation if we had remained. I will, if given the chance, vote against re-entry and favour any party, whether of left or right, which rejects outright re-entry into an unreformed, ever-centralising EU with a dodgy currency, the threat of as much borrowing as the markets will take, and then some, and the establishment of a European military force solely dedicated to being destroyed by the Russian Federation’s well practiced forces.
From being a bright idea to grow national economies through establishing stable trading relationships with standard policies on taxation, harmonisation of traded goods and services, the free movement of citizens, the EU has degenerated into a feeble, ill thought through attempt to create a Greater Europe on the basis of Weimar policies with a mustache, and it will end, as always, like the Holy Roman Empire, with member states in open conflict with each other and the final collapse of a dream which became utterly implausible in 2004 and has turned into a nightmare of deeper and ever widening impoverishment for so many in the states which came together in 1973.
It may not be the message of the polls yet, but it’s the ever louder cry of desperation from the ballot box. And, as that remains unheard, the next message will come from the streets.
This is a matter of how the question is put, the spread on the favourability ratings could easily change, 10% can swing mighty quickly, and a great deal of that is as (the marvellous) Mr. Kun points out above is to do with favouring Europe over the rather dismal domestic equivalents, “I like X because I hate Y”, isn’t really a positive assessment of X, any more than the fact that I’d rather eat a boiled egg than be punched in the face doesn’t mean I like boiled eggs (I don’t), media propaganda is also heavily pro-EU, such that the average European can’t postulate or imagine any kind of alternative (international socialism anyone?), EU growth has tanked since the euro for most countries, most EU countries are of course small, and small countries are historically beholden to larger ones and forced to play the game of balance of power, like a nervous courtier in the court of a homicidal monarch, the EU is a mechanism of amortising power so to speak. There is no love for the well-being of the common person built into the EU, which is plainly evidenced in the difference between how various crisis ranging from banking, to housing, to covid and the Ukraine have been handled, which events stimulate action and policy and which don’t, we had a bank bailout, but no housing equivalent.
I think if people had a genuine option for a better EU, one that actually valued the well-being of the citizens they would hop all over it, but we aren’t allowed to even think of such a thing, never mind having an actual choice in the matter.
In the absence of vision, efficacy or ethics, rot and collapse are inevitable, were I at the wheel in Ireland I’d be printing up punts in secret and sending out feelers to the BRICs.
It’s hard to feel sorry for the EU when it was born in the midst of the most brutal colonial repression, France’s experiences in Algeria and Vietnam being the foremost examples. The lack of democracy in its institutions is, in my view, merely a mirror of what each state was enacting in their colonial possessions, in order to impede sovereignty and democracy from arising there. Why would it be any different for the Europeans themselves? Once they “yielded” control to supranational institutions, it is to be expected that they would be treated with a similar point of view that the each country had towards its overseas possessions.
That being said, great piece on the early history of the EU. I suppose we are now watching its last act.
Agree with you (and Eclair and Rui) that Kevin Kirk has written a concise yet comprehensive, easy-to-read view of the EU’s history, good summarizing and primer.
I am glad to read that more is coming, because the lack of fiscal union alone (which requires more representative democracy) dooms the whole EU experiment, so I’m curious to see what comes next.
In my view, Europe should have continued to focus on the economic common market after the move to adopt the Euro in the 90s.
Back when I was an Int’l Bus & Econ major I used to participate in the SUNY Model European Communities (SUNYMEC). Kind of like Model UN, but for Europe. The macroeconomic challenge of moving to a single currency was interesting to me. The move to political union was not. Even back then I felt it was a bridge too far, so to speak.
The problem is that a currency IS a creation of law and therefore a political project — it’s the lack of political legitimacy that will eventually destroy the Euro
A longer comment went into the ether but in it I noted that this is the third attempt to unite Europe. The first time was under the French while the second time was under the Germans – both of which failed. Fortunately there were enough people from that second attempt still around that were able to give their “technical” advice on how to organize the present-day EU.
Highly recommend The Rotten Heart of Europe, Bernard Connolly, for the economics of all this; and rotten it is.
What about the Romans?
I thought about them but too long ago to be relevant to modern forms of government.
Comrade Stalin would ask: “How many divisions does EU have?“
It appears you did not read the post in full, as we require. Please tell me the reason the EU as a whole could not have been a military power, ex being unduly trusting of the US’ continued commitment to NATO. The fact that Germany (despite the opposition of most of the rest of Europe plus the UK) built two extremely effective military machine in the 20th century goes a long way towards demonstrating what the EU could have done had that been a priority.
Indeed, it definitely was not a priority for the US. Wasn’t enogh the Boeing vs Airbus competition?
And then imagine adding in the French and British militaries, along with the odds and sods from the rest of Europe to that German machine… If they were cooperating instead of competing, it would have been … interesting, especially if we assume that the UNEU (United Nations of the European Union) were all on the same drawing board regarding equipment for that military.
I just tried to make a joke about what EU is. I never said it could not have been a contender (which reminded me of Marlon Brando).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z66hw6q-zY
P.S. Those two extremely effective German military machines lost both wars, which doesn’t really justify “extremely effective” part (they were extremely effective at genocide, but that’s another matter).
P.S.2. Also, “could” is not “by rights should”.
Pertinent and highly recommended is German sociologist Wolfgang Streeck’s new book Taking Back Control? States and State Systems After Globalism (Verso Books), in which he discusses the history of the EU in the context of US-attempted hyperglobalism.
I second this recommendation. Thanks. Here is a relevant article by Streeck on the subject for those who would like a sample.
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2022/05/the-eu-after-ukraine/
Got a lot of detail on the 1945–50 period from this piece, which I appreciate. Was gratified that you came back around to a set of U.S. actions rather than letting the “[doing] worse than expected in the French and Italian elections” statement just lie thete, as there was quite a bit more to those than that. Thank you, and I’m glad you’ve joined the NC team.
The point of consulatative democracy is that it is supposed to allow the people to correct the course of state when it veers from the overall interests of the people. 24/7 propaganda (aka MSM news) has compromised this feature; however. Still, would the people of Europe vote for their de-industrialization (they will not be allowed – see Romainia)? Me wonders if the European populace needs a new set of elite.
Kevin Kirk, I do appreciate the primer on the history of the EU. Thanks!
Perry Anderson takes a skeptical view of the European Union
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n24/perry-anderson/the-european-coup
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n01/perry-anderson/ever-closer-union
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n02/perry-anderson/the-breakaway
Thanks!
I never understood the exact nature of the relationship between LRB and NLR…
Life of Brian – The People’s Front of Judea
1:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
The problem of particularly the EU, and more generally the different theoric concepts of a Europe Union, is shared in a smaller scale by most of their member states. For me, it’s clear that any structure like this, will collide in time with their member states one way or another, and none of them (except the smaller ones) will ever agree of making part of a truly European federation. This is a structural problem, different of globalism, which is another one adding to this.
In an ideal environment, member states will go as far as their own interests won’t be nullified by the whole mechanism, and this is unstable by itself. Think us about the so-called Paris-Berlin axis, it was an historical mirage that no longer exists, it dissipated with German reunification and eastward “neo-expansion” of Germany. So, the idea is not unfeasible, but it has very clear limits, and it is not apparent any solution.
Besides, the current structure has miserably failed to shorten economic differences, I am not saying that things could be better if EU would have not existed, quite on the contrary all would be far worse, but this is not an argument.
Kevin, your analysis about the EU and its origins is on the right track, but you must dig deeper.
Please read carefully an article written in 2007 in the journal Diplomacy and Statecraft entitled “OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-1960.” The footnotes in this article alone will shock you.
For example, William Donovan (founder of the OSS and active in the CIA until 1955) and Allan Dulles came together with Condenhove-Kalengi to create the short-lived Committee for Free and United Europe founded in April 1945, and then, later, senior figures from the U.S. intelligence community provided the leadership of the American Committee on United Europe (for approximately 3 years). (See documentation from letters, for example, from Condenhovcen-Kalengi to Willian Donovan Nov. 24, 1949 Box 38 Allen Dulles Papers. Mudd Library, Princeton University.
To me, it is amazing that what is left of the American Left has been so naive about the role of our intelligence community in the origins and shaping of the European Union. This is one reason why, in 2025, I completely support the decimation of USAID by right-wing populists.
Kalengi —> Kalergi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_von_Coudenhove-Kalergi
It was Hitler that actually brought Europe under a single umbrella, albeit an odious one
Kevin, I’m very uncomfortable with the idea that imperialist land grabs and military occupation should count as “attempts to unite”, odious umbrella or not. You wouldn’t claim now that Trump is attempting to unite North America, ‘albeit under an odious umbrella’, would you?
It seems to me that military conquests and voluntary associations of states are radically different in nature – and in their long-term consequences.
Thank you for a great summary of the rise of the EU.
Do Europeans love the EU?
Here in Portugal, outdoor adverts describing the EU/European Commission as a force for good, defending health access, the environment, etc., are widespread. It’s pure propaganda, and it works.
The Christian right wing party that used to be Eurosceptic now isn’t anymore. Not even the hard right, populist, anti politicians party is anti-EU. Only the communist party still rails against the Euro and loss of sovereignty and it gets relentlessly battered by all other parties and mainstream media.
The EU has learned to keep the economic and political elites well buttered, even if the general population suffers with Troikas and austerity. We are repeatedly fed the TINA gospel.
But money seems to be running out. There are already cuts to well loved programs like Erasmus.
I think in the near future popular consent will have to be extracted by force.
re: Germany post-election
I said a couple of days ago that the GREENs´s alleged resistance means merely putting up a show.
Now we see it taking shape:
They have made a proposal for a change of the Constitution of their own. i.e. CDU, SPD and GREENs will meet in the middle and walk away with their part of the Constitution which will leave us – the people – with no Constitution at all.
via SÜDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG, this is only semi-official yet:
“The Greens therefore only want to exempt defense spending from the debt brake if it exceeds 1.5 percent of GDP. The Union and SPD had agreed on one percent in their exploratory talks. The faction wants to spend the additional billions not only on strengthening the Bundeswehr, but also on expanding the intelligence services, civil defense, cyber security and peacekeeping. This should also include aid for states attacked in violation of international law, crisis-reactive measures of foreign aid and the strengthening of international organizations. The Greens thus define the concept of security much more broadly than the Union and SPD, who only want to exempt the so-called Individual Plan 14, i.e. the partial budget of the Federal Ministry of Defense, from the debt brake.”
So it´s actually worse.
Yeah!
p.s. When I was in my twens of course I was in favour of armed resistance. Then I got – ahem – wiser. And thought it would not work since in the era of mass media the people would not understand. Now many years later I come to think: May be I was right after all. How the hell are you going to change anything if half of the people is brain-washed? And the other is deprived of means to support themselves and won´t do anything because it lost hope and faith? The situation is getting worse with the speed of light.
MoA just the same day had a piece on the EU himself, referring to a new text by Gordon Hahn.
Gordon Hahn On Europe’s Role And A Possible Coup In Kiev
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2025/03/gordon-hahn-on-europes-role-and-a-possible-coup-in-kiev.html#more
“(…)
One question the piece tackles is a split between the U.S. and Europe. The core question:
The international level of the Ukrainian conflict is shifting from a bilateral confrontation between the West and Russia to a trilateral confrontation involving Russia, the U.S., and a new European-Ukrainian axis, with each riven by divisions generated by the intra-Atlantic cold civil war. This begs the question: Will Europe become a separate pole in the international system’s new multipolar stucture, adding to the U.S, and Sin-Russian pole?
Hard to tell, but I doubt it. Europe (which I understand to mean the European Union) does not have sufficient unity to become a real actor in a multipolar structure. The core project of the ‘ever closer union’ has failed politically and economically. It is bureaucratic laggardness, no intellectual heft, that is still driving it.
(…)
Hahn only mentions the CIA and Budanov in the scheme of a ‘deep-state’ coup in Kiev sabotaging Trump’s policies.
I regard a combination of the British MI6 and Zaluzny as the more likely initiators to install a forever-war regime in Kiev.
(…)”
Apart from that to quote one of Martyanov´s favourit talking points – Europe has simply no resources to build and develop an MIC of its own worthy the term.
And why the hell should the Russians provide gas to the EU if it´s being used to build a hostile army????
re: Hitler and a EU
Thanks to Wolfgang Streeck 2024 I was able to track down a Ribbentrop project that was evolving around a United Europe under the leadership of Nazi Germany (hardened Nazis ain´t like “umbrellas”).
A New Nationalist Europe Under Hitler Concepts of Europe and Transnational Networks in the National Socialist Sphere of Influence, 1933–1945
Edited By Johannes Dafinger, Dieter Pohl
https://www.routledge.com/A-New-Nationalist-Europe-Under-Hitler-Concepts-of-Europe-and-Transnational-Networks-in-the-National-Socialist-Sphere-of-Influence-1933-1945/Dafinger-Pohl/p/book/9780367587949
A short essay version:
“The Nazi “New Europe” Transnational Concepts of a Fascist and Völkisch Order for
the Continent” by Dalfinger
is contained in:
Rascism without Borders
Transnational Connections and Cooperation between Movements and Regimes in Europe from 1918 to 1945
Edited by Arnd Bauerkämper and Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe
Unfortunately I cannot find the essay right now. I had gotten it via my library.
In essence the essay laid out that intellectuals, mainly writers/essayists from Germany and even occupied territories were gathered to publish in a print outlet to lay the theoretical foundation for a post-war order of Europe.
Its title:
“Europa:
Handbuch der politischen, wirtschaftlichen und kulturellen Entwicklung
des neuen Europa (Europe: Handbook for the Political, Economic, and
Cultural Development of the New Europe)”
from the essay preface:
“(…)
The layout of the Handbuch argues against the assumption that its main
objective was propaganda among those who collaborated with Nazi
Germany. The regime had other publications that were intended to reach
an international audience and to help win non-German Europeans for
the Nazi German side. One of the most famous and widely distributed
magazines of that type was Signal,10 another one Junges Europa.11 Both
were published in several languages. By contrast, the Europa-Handbuch
was probably directed at a German audience. Its almost encyclopedic
approach gives the impression that it was to appeal to professionals
who took part in the Nazi discourse about Europe.
(…)
This makes the Europa-Handbuch an excellent source for historical
studies of the discourse about Europe in the National Socialist sphere
of influence. What did the concepts of a Nazi “New Europe” actually
look like? How did they fit into Nazi ideology? What role would
Germany play in the “New Europe”? Which parts were assigned to
the other European countries? Was the Nazi “New Europe” a “fascist
International”? How did conservative-authoritarian allies of the Nazis
relate to the Nazi concepts of Europe? What were the outer borders
of Europe in these concepts, and which groups were to be excluded
from “New Europe”? My aim in this chapter is to deal with these
questions. The investigation is based on an evaluation of the articles in
the Europa-Handbuch, first of the German authors and then of the non-
German ones. Finally, I will address the transnational connections and
cooperations that the authors of the Europa-Handbuch took part in.
(…)”
See the Streeck podcast:
May 2024
Wolfgang Streeck: ‘Quo Vadis the European Union?‘
with Brave New Europe
85 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcL5dnxXdHQ
What I assume still remains to really be understood in the West is the level of willingness by the non-German nations. According to Streeck – who however is not a historian – the Western nations had little qualms about this.
Argueing that economically the West European companies mostly were not so much at a disadvantage.
Something I found confirmed in a German study last year which clearly distinguished between: The West, where German companies used their leverage to extort overpayment and were simply stealing but eventually the system satisfied enough to preempt resistance. And the East which was intended to be enslaved and expropriated by brute force / extermination.
Considering the current state of affairs it is more than noteworthy that German oh-so-into-3rd-Reich-scholarship likes to ignore how much ideology of the war years was easy to sell and has been formative in the new European mindset since.
Thinking back at a thread here on NC some time last year there was a discussion over how elite the EU truly is. Those commenters who knew EU from the inside cautioned to not underestimate EU bureaucracy and not overestimate their ideology which is seen merely via MSM-filtered reporting.
Thinking of above linked Perry Anderson the true sociology of the groups and strata of the huge EU beast remains a fascinating and important issue. May be KK or someone other will find time to dive into this. Since the unanswered question still remains: how is any of this possible?
p.s. On this note as a recommendation, among the better known scholars certainly Ulrike Guérot is a household name on the nature and functioning of the project EU.
p.p.s. when looking for a link for the essay I bumped into this DAILY MAIL long-read, fwiw:
Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich …in the EU
By ADAM LEBOR
9 May 2009
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich–EU.html
Many thanks AG for your valuable hints!
I would like to add two authors on the subject you discussed: The first one is Reinhard Opitz, a marxist historian who wrote very comprehensively about the “European strategies of German Capital” tracing back the sources of german dominated european imperialism directed against Russia to entrepreneurs AND politicians like Walther Rathenau and Friedrich Naumann; the second one is the finance journalist (and marxist) Lucas Zeise who wrote a small but very profound book about the EU and its dangerous financial and economic goals: “Euroland is burnt down” (https://shop.papyrossa.de/Zeise-Lucas-Euroland-wird-abgebrannt ).
Thanks.
You know something specific by Opitz that would fit?
I will look into Zeise´s book.
p.s. for non-German readers, Zeise was co-founder of now defunct FINANCIAL TIMES GERMANY, member of the German Communist Party. He is writing a column for the last decent Germany daily (imv) JUNGE WELT, e.g.:
German (free access until Dec. issue)
https://www.jungewelt.de/kolumne/11.zu-lust-und-risiken-des-kapitalverkehrs.html