Europe is dead

The founding premise of the EU was economic and political insofar as economic integration was to presage political integration into a "United States of Europe". I contend that both premises are no longer relevant. Economic integration was arguably a good idea and its benefits are easily apparent and will continue to be. Social rights and European Citizenship are also welcome benefits of the EU. We have won that battle. But it was not a battle that was intended to be fought for its own sake, but, rather, in pursuance of a grander cause - that of a truly federal Europe. However, is the ultimate goal intended by Monnet and Schuman - a "United States of Europe" - still feasible?

It seemed a good idea in the euphoria and self-pitying optimism of post-War Europe. Indeed, the EU helped a great deal to deliver the continent from the consequences of the war, and rebuild European self esteem, self sufficiency and global influence. But now that the job is done, what is the raison d'etre of the EU? If we can answer this question satisfactorily I believe it will give impetus to the European Project.

Should we, then, change the premise of Europe and abandon any idea of the kind of integration dreamed of by Henri Spaak and the founding fathers? Should we replace it with a more supranational vision of Europe, or should we continue trying to impose the irresistable force of European integration against the immovable object of national jealousies and suspicions? I have never been a big proponent of all the bluster about sovereignty and national identity, but it is a very real obstacle in national psyches to "even closer union". The Roman empire survived in part because, for all its ethnic diversity, the aspiration of "Roman-ness" existed to give common culture to a Briton on the fringe of the empire and a Roman in Italy. A common emperor united them too, as did a common language and common currency. The EU arguably shares only nebulous common ideals of freemarket, democracy, social rights and peace. Once we have the basic infrastructures for these benefits in place, one would ask, what strong reason is there to stick with the European Project thereafter? There is too little to unite Europe to overcome the fact that to many, "Europe is simply an expression of geography". Should we get a European emperor then (I speak in jest of course, but I think you appreciate the problem I seek to illuminate)? If so, who would take the job and what would enjoin us to listen to him?

Though it is fashionable to pretend they do not exist, issues of "sovereignty" (I use the term advisedly, because I am not convinced from a personal perspective that any absolute sovereignty exists in the modern world. The Nation State is a cherished idea, but can no longer be the self-contained unit it was accepted to be in the first half of the 20th century) are very much at the heart of reluctance to create a federal Europe. No longer brought together by the equality of a cataclysmic war, perhaps it is inevitable that Federalists (if any still exit) and Eurorealists will remain unbridgable poles (and Slavs, and Teutons and Gauls and Anglo-Saxons) apart. In summary, I suggest that the key obstacle to further integration is the lack of a common vision or focus of unity. A simple idea of "Europe" is not enough. Until there is a unifying figure or ideal that transcends the parochial concerns of nationality and sovereignty, I see little hope or need for any significant moves towards a truly integrated or united Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I do not harbour an animus towards the EU; I am the first to declare its benefits and repudiate the casuistic criticisms that are so often levelled at it. But I must ask, what is the ultimate goal for Europe now? The more realistic a perspective people have of this, then perhaps we can reject or re-route, and ultimately salvage the European project.