President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, made a call on Tuesday for unity among the European states, in the context of the rapidly deteriorating political climate they have found themselves in. In a letter to the 27 Heads of State & Government, Tusk said Europe was facing challenges “more dangerous than ever before in the time since the signature of the Treaty of Rome”. Tusk furthermore outlined 3 major threats to the Union; geopolitical, in the form of ever more assertive China and Russia, an increasingly tumultuous Islamic world and an America seeming seemingly intent on abandoning Europe. The second threat is internal, with rising nationalism, euroscepticism and xenophobia. Finally, and interestingly, Tusk points to the problem of the ‘pro-European elites’ as he calls them, which are exhibiting “A decline of faith in political integration, submission to populist
arguments as well as doubt in the fundamental values of liberal democracy”. In response to these threats, according to Tusk, “what is needed is courage, determination and political solidarity of Europeans”. He makes the point correctly that in a world dominated by states the size of continents, the separate European nation-states count for little; together however, they have the potential to engage with the greatest of the great powers. Thus, he argues, in light of the summit coming up in Rome to mark 60 years since the signing of the Treaties of Rome, “the most important signal that should come out of Rome is that of readiness of the 27 to be united. A signal that we not only must, but we want to be united.”

There is naturally little of substance in Tusk’s letter; clear policy proposals are not expected from the President of the Council, nor would they be expanded upon in such a letter. However, one glaring absence is something which I think is a subject often overlooked in Europe today, at least by the majority of those who claim to be pro-Europe. That is what European unity means for this continent. Tusk speaks of how we should never “forget about the most important reasons why 60 years ago we decided to unite Europe”. But what is the meaning of unity in the end really? Is it the kind Tusk, Merkel or even Orbán recommend? I have spoken about this kind of Europe before, the Europe of National Capitals, where we all speak about European ‘Union’, but really it is the elites in the capitals which feel united and the rest of us feel ever more separated and distrustful of one another. Tusk neglects to mention it here, but he is one of the elites who seems to have lost faith in Europe – only last year he described the ‘utopian illusions’ of the EU’s political elite as the reason for the eurosceptic, nationalist revolt which has been gaining momentum since 2014. By this, we can assume, he meant the objective of political union.

But what does European unity mean, if not political union? How can we truly express a common concern for certain areas of policy, certain political issues or political vision, if there is no acceptance of a political union? How can our unity as Europeans be expressed, if not in the political sphere – in the sphere of common politics? Interestingly, in contrast to Tusk’s concerns last summer, there are more and more people calling for political union today; French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is one, liberal Strasbourg parliamentarian Guy Verhofstadt another. These people make the argument in one way or another that Europe’s current institutions are not built for managing politics of any kind, and certainly not the kind of politics Europe is faced with today. If we are going to talk about a unified front against the enemies of Europe, then surely we must talk of a unified politics. How can we have unity and solidarity at the European level without real government -not mere governance – at the European level? Without clearly defining areas of politics which are European, how will we ever look at them as European issues with European solutions? These are the kind of arguments put forward by such politicians today, who realise that if we are going to really do this whole ‘unified Europe’ thing, we need to be honest about what it really means.

In a way I agree with them. Certainly the idealistic side of me does. I’ve recently been reading Verhofstadt’s new book, Europe’s Last Chance, in which he calls for a European state, with the accompanying competences, without which, Europe will not be able to deal with the challenges it faces. It is either all or nothing for him. Whether you think of this call as one for a ‘superstate’ or not, I do wonder whether politics can really be done competently, strategically and, most importantly, democratically, without such politics taking place in an arena with the characteristics of a state. On the other hand, I recognise the drawbacks of calling for a European state; a European state has already been written off as a superstate, impossible, impractical and undesirable from all corners. Especially in today’s climate, the call for a state to be established as soon as possible is a one-way ticket to political oblivion.

***

In the long run, I suspect the answer probably lies somewhere between Verhofstadt and the kind of setting laid out by Jürgen Habermas: creating a democratic politics which is both transnational and yet does not take the form of a state as we know it. The late Zygmunt Bauman agreed with him, in that we Europeans must experiment until we find a way of doing politics which is different from that which we’ve become accustomed to, and is at the same time democratic and accountable. It is a difficult question, in the sense of advocating directly for a European state will ultimately cost we federalists and Europeanists the whole game, and on the other hand, without the apparatus of a state, politics at the European level will most likely be technocratic, distant and unresponsive.

That question must be left for later however, for two reasons: currently, we do not have the luxury of being able to debate an experimental political future for ourselves in Europe; Europe is in crisis and that crisis needs to be arrested. Accompanying this, is the fact that as of right now any discussion of further integration, or ‘political union’, will be rejected by politicians and citizens alike. The Union has lost the trust of its people. It no longer delivers in their eyes. Blindly pushing ahead to political union, in the hopes that eventually a stronger political apparatus at the European level will solve our problems, will only cost us more trust and support.

In this, I take the line of DiEM25, in that first, we must bring the European economy back on the road of recovery, and second, in so doing, restore the citizens’ trust in and hope for the European Project. Only then can we consider the nature of our political unity. This argument has been made by Yanis Varoufakis in recent days at a number of events here in Britain and in several articles. Varoufakis makes two key points; one, that a political union now will only reinforce the current trend of austerity, lack of solidarity and democracy-crushing centralisation promoted in Brussels and the Eurogroup. Two, we have the tools to turn around the EU’s economic policy now, promote investment and growth and start the recovery.

‘United we stand, divided we fall’ is a good political slogan, and could well resonate in such times with enemies all around us. However, make no mistake, it is one which currently rings hollow, since Europe is utterly divided and still pursing policies which reinforce this fact. From austerity, to the chaos of our refugee policy and the Turkey deal, to the distraction of a defence union and the hostile rhetoric shown towards Britain in the run up to the Brexit negotiations. Indeed I accept, as Paul Mason highlighted this week, that the British government seems willing to be used by Trump as his tool to break up the European Union, in return for a good trade deal. However, as Wolfgang Münchau points out, Europe is also complicit in Britain’s slide towards Trump’s America, considering the kind of punitive stance which appears to be crystallising among the EU’s leadership. In all these areas, Europe’s political class has shown a complete lack of strategic vision. It has also lacked any sense of unity. If Tusk really wants a united Europe, he and his allies at Europe’s helm need to act like it, or get out of the way of those who will.

Sources: FT, The Guardian, Project Syndicate