Does the European Union Exist? A 'Grexit' will demonstrate the artificiality of the Union

Does the European Union exist? On the face of it, this may be an odd question to ask. After all, post World War II witnessed a flurry of political and policy entrepreneurship wherein the ‘Idea of Europe’ as a coherent entity was reified. Six countries- France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and tiny Luxembourg- came together to form a putative Union under what came to be known as the Schumann plan( named after the visionary French Foreign Minister, Robert Schumann).

Sovereignty and the prerogatives of sovereignty were sought to be pooled initially through what came to be known as ‘functionalism’, followed by institutionalism and then intergovernmentalism. All these were institutional and economic devices to create the European Union- an appellation that arrived in the public consciousness and became a reality in 1992 after the Mastricht Treaty was signed.

Ostensibly, it would appear that the European Union overcame the state and its Westphalian concomitant, sovereignty: the ‘Idea of Europe’ was reified and crystallized, given shape and a new actor born on the stage of world politics. The notorious Franco-German rivalry was subsumed and a new page in European history written. Hitherto consumed by orgies of competing nationalistic violence and balance of power politics and rent asunder by these, the formation of the EU meant the writing of a new chapter in European history. But is this an accurate portrayal of reality? Did the European Union with its ‘deepening’ and ‘widening’ and its incorporation of Southern and Eastern European states mean anything? Was the so called new actor really a new actor? Or was and is the Union a fig leaf for what is essentially ‘core’ Europe? That is, Western Europe?

I would posit that the European Union was and is an attempt to reclaim the West. Or, the idea of the West. Historically, the West achieved coherence during the time of the Crusades but the political economy of the then West precluded the entity to forge a cultural and even common outlook. This political unity- ephemeral as it was- was again achieved under the rule of the brilliant Frankish king, Charlemagne. Interestingly and importantly, Charlemagne laid the basis of France and Germany- or, in other words, core Europe. But ancient Europe’s centrifugal and centripetal tendencies tore it apart. In medieval and then Renaissance Europe, these recidivist tendencies reared their head again. The form they took was nationalism and balance of power politics. The apogee of these was reached in the First and Second World Wars.

Sober heads in Europe , after these cataclysms, pondered over the nature and meaning of Europe and set about forging a paradigm where Europe would be Europe- a region which would have a common cultural and political outlook and a unity. Hence, the Schumann plan. The idea, I believe, was to resuscitate the Charlemagnian idea of the West and Europe. Here ‘core Europe’ – France and Germany- were key or the centre of gravity of the whole enterprise. The rest of the West or Europe were mere ancillaries to the grander Idea of Europe.

These states and entities , however, did not pose an insuperable problem given that in ancient and even in medieval times, these states were either vassals or tied in one way or the other( royal marriages, for instances) to core Europe. What was and still is a problem were the Eastern and Southern states. These were politically and culturally distinct from core Europe. There were then clear limits to the geographical Europe.

However, inherent in the Idea of Europe was an exceptionalism which made for a combination of hubris and condescension coupled with geopolitical reasons the incorporation of Southern and Eastern states exigent. The ‘White Man’s Burden’ was grafted onto these states and devices were , in the nature of conditionalities, were invented to bring these states at par with core Europe. Given the relative backwardness(political and economic) of these states accentuated by the Iron Curtain or the Cold war division of Europe, Southern and Eastern European states sought to be integrated into the Union.

This was, obiter dictum, touted as the ‘soft power’ of Western or core Europe. Essentially outliers and outsiders to core Europe, incorporating them was held to be geopolitical prudence given that failed , failing or backward states on the fringes and borders of core Europe would be problematic for it.

European Union in the conventional meaning of the phrase does not then exist. What exists is a core and periphery. The periphery tacks onto the core and feels good being part of it. But this is as notional as can be. What will demonstrate the artificiality of the Union is what has been called ‘Grexit’- that is, Greece’s exit from the European Union.

All the structural contradictions of the European construct will come to the fore and the broader European project may well collapse. What will remain is core Europe or the West as originally conceived. But this West is likely to be a rump West. The real West has migrated years to what may be called the neo West: Australia, North America, and New Zealand. It is here rather than in core Europe that the Western drama may unfold. In a sense, this may even be good for the West and the world at large for the West that was sought to be resuscitated had died. No makeover job would retrieve it. Not even the European Union construct.