At first sight, it seems extraordinary that the UK, one of the main members of the EU, is due to leave the Union in just 22 days time possibly without agreement. Yet one of the defining characteristics of all Brussels negotiations is the last-minute deal, cut after all-night talks from which politicians and officials emerge for the camera, exhausted but apparently triumphant.
These eleventh-hour settlements are partly a consequence of having to bring the representatives of 28 different countries on board. But there is something more about the present brinkmanship to which a weak British prime minister with a deeply-divided UK parliament snapping at her heels is being exposed. It has very largely been Brussels that has imposed the awkward terms on which the UK can quit the EU on March 29. Their generally uncompromising nature is as much about discouraging other member states from leaving as it is about finding an equitable settlement for both Britain and the remaining EU members.
French President Emanuel Macron spoke recently of the urgent need for the EU to renew itself, to undergo a renaissance to stop member states from retreating into nationalism. Macron is dedicated to the ultimate emergence of a United States of Europe in which the rights of individual states are, as the United States of America, subordinate to the Federal agenda produced in Brussels and overseen by the European parliament. There is an undeniable economic and political rationale for an integrated European superstate. Nevertheless, it must be asked if those who share this vision have been rational in the way they have sought to bring this about.
Historically, the most robust political structures around the world have evolved, thanks to a consensus among the governed who accept each fresh development as both desirable and necessary. When its agenda was primarily economic, the European Coal and Steel Community, which morphed into the European Economic Community, had few opponents. Ever-closer political union has less obvious popular benefits and poses many more problems. Using a single currency and enjoying the ease of travel within the Schengen area may not prove sufficient compensation for the gradual loss of national power and independence to psychologically distant Brussels mandarins and a still largely powerless EU parliament.
Macron and those who share his enthusiasm for the ultimate creation of a European superstate typically speak of it as being a “project” and wanting to establish a “road map”. But is this currently the right way to advance their ambitions? Doesn’t the real challenge lie in addressing the rising concerns of ordinary citizens throughout the EU? Just because Macron deplores nationalism, it doesn’t mean he can ignore it and the racist and Islamophobic undertones that are increasingly part of it. It is not a good idea to try and win an argument by ignoring entirely the arguments of your opponents. Yet that is what European visionaries like Macron seem in danger of doing.
This May’s European parliament elections are a looming crunch point. If the nationalist, Euro-skeptic vote grows significantly, then the visionaries in Brussels will have to review the manner in which they are driving the European project. Bulldozing ahead in defiance of popular concerns is, unfortunately, removing the stones beneath which hateful neofascist bigots have been buried for six decades.
