The European Union (EU) is a mysterious entity. No one can say exactly what kind of political community it is, nor what constitutional provisions guide its functioning. When one looks at the different ways it is defined, the impression is that of facing a kind of institutional chameleon. Some consider it a special form of international organization; others describe it as a federation in the making, while still others see it as a kind of supranational government.
A large part of the rules that have effects in all member states are, in fact, drafted at the level of the European government. The EU speaks and negotiates on behalf of European citizens before the rest of the world. There is a European minister responsible for international trade negotiations, and there is a European president — although the duties of this institutional figure have yet to be clarified — and there is a European Parliament, which, however, plays practically no role in decision-making processes. There is also a European Court of Justice. Therefore, thanks to this institutional structure, the EU must surely be considered something more than just an international organization.
But what is it really? European regulations are influential and have far-reaching implications, yet at the same time there seems to be something incomplete or inadequate that makes the EU’s role difficult for citizens to understand: for instance, the key symbols of a state are missing. There is no European army, no European prisons, and no European tax system.
What kind of legal or political system is the EU? This fundamental question — which can be asked about any political community — has no clear answer. Perhaps this is why many observers take refuge in the statement that the European Union is a unique political formation, distinct from the concepts of “nation” and “state” as we know them. It is unclear, however, in what sense the EU should be considered unique, and what specific implications this uniqueness has for its behavior.
There is deep disagreement about the status of the EU’s fundamental norms. To begin with, there are conflicting views as to whether a constitution exists. Some are convinced it does; others emphatically deny it. The negative view seems to be supported by the absence of any document bearing that title. Yet if we accept that the EU does not have a constitution, it becomes difficult to explain how the EU came into being and how it has become such an important actor in Europe and in the world. How can an organization of this kind have a direct impact on the constitutional provisions of its member states and endure over time without a constitution to guide its actions?
Read More: What France’s Political Crisis Might Mean for the Future of European Bloc
The EU is often portrayed as a highly complex structure, apparently incapable of becoming a “serious” global actor. One need only recall the famous remark attributed to Henry Kissinger: “When I want to talk to Europe, I don’t know what number to call.” Equally famous was the ironic comment of Baroness Ashton — who, when the United Kingdom was still part of the European Union, served as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs — when she said that anyone who called her number would hear the following recorded message: “If you want the British position, press 1; if you want the French position, press 2; if you want the German position, press 3.”
So the question remains relevant: what kind of Europe are we talking about? The enigma of the European Union is reflected in a perpetual political process and a form of governance that appears as a strange hybrid: neither that of a true federal state nor that of a true intergovernmental organization. Indeed, national states still retain a dominant role. They are unwilling to grant greater powers to the EU’s democratic institutions. They prefer that fundamental matters be decided through negotiations, alliances, and agreements among states, removing as much as possible the decision-making power from the Union’s governing bodies. In this way, finance and the most powerful states play the main role in defining not only the directions of European economic policy but also the methods of its implementation.
Some wonder whether a kind of “United States of Europe” is possible. If building a politically integrated federation were merely a matter of establishing appropriate formal democratic structures — for example, a parliament and a supranational government endowed with real legislative and administrative powers — this might be achievable once the resistance of some member states is overcome. But the problem is much more complex. Democratic institutions cannot be seen merely as parliamentary or electoral mechanisms. They are the reflection of a set of substantial relationships of a cultural, identity-based, historical, and even linguistic nature. If the platform on which political confrontation and decision-making take place is too heterogeneous, democratic institutions cannot function substantively and remain mere formal constructions.
Since this seems to be the current situation among the states that make up the EU, the prospect of a European federal state appears, for now, impossible. It will only become possible when, over the generations, a genuine European identity matures — one born from the fusion of a multiplicity of cultures and traditions rooted in a millennia-old history.
*The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of TDI.
Elenoire Laudieri
The writer is an analyst and expert on diplomacy.
