Is the EU Doomed? E-Book

Jan Zielonka

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Serie: Global Futures
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2014

Seitenzahl: 134

Beschreibung

The European Union is in crisis. Crippled by economic problems, political brinkmanship, and institutional rigidity, the EU faces an increasingly uncertain future. In this compelling essay, leading scholar of European politics, Jan Zielonka argues that although the EU will only survive in modest form - deprived of many real powers - Europe as an integrated entity will grow stronger. Integration, he contends, will continue apace because of European states' profound economic interdependence, historic ties and the need for political pragmatism. A revitalized Europe led by major cities, regions and powerful NGOs will emerge in which a new type of continental solidarity can flourish. The EU may well be doomed, but Europe certainly is not.

Leseprobe

‘Zielonka offers a new and refreshing vision of Europe’s future – one that chimes perfectly with the EU’s motto “United in Diversity.”’

Giuliano Amato, Former Prime Minister of Italy

‘The EU may be not doomed but it is in deep crisis. In this provocative book Jan Zielonka offers an original and controversial proposal for a radically different model of European integration.  Challenging conventional views, he considers the prospects of a “neo-medieval” Europe composed of networks of cities, regions and NGOs where a “polyphony” among actors will replace the cur-rent cacophony of the centres.’

Josep Borrell Fontelles, former President of the European Parliament and former President of the European University Institute

‘Jan Zielonka has written a punchy, incisive and devastating account of the EU and its malaise after the financial crisis. He combines his plea to move away from “sanctimonious Protestant preaching” with a convincing sketch of how a more chaotic pattern of networks between cities, provinces but also a wide range of social and corporate institutions might produce a more durable, effective and legitimate governance.  The treatment is eloquent but also wise.’

Harold James, Claude and Lore Kelly Professor in European Studies, Princeton University

‘A fascinating and thought-provoking book that will change our view of the EU as neither a true state nor an ever-changing cacophony of nations.’

Josef Joffe, Editor of Die Zeit in Hamburg and Visiting Professor of Political Science, Stanford University

‘Jan Zielonka’s brilliant analysis of European disintegration is packed with big ideas that are elegantly expressed. It acts as an original and iconoclastic challenge to both the Euro-sceptic and the Euro-federalist discourses on the crisis. This is a must-read book for anyone who cares about the future of Europe.’

Mark Leonard, Director of the European Council on Foreign Relations

‘Whether or not you agree with Jan Zielonka’s arguments, you will find this book a stimulating read. I’m sure it will provoke much discussion about the future development of the European Union.’

Lord Patten of Barnes CH, Chancellor of the University of Oxford and former European Commissioner for External Affairs

‘A brilliant and profoundly original analysis of the European crisis.  A work of optimism, as well!’

William Pfaff, author and syndicated columnist

Is the EU Doomed?

Global Futures Series

Mohammed Ayoob, Will the Middle East Implode?

Christopher Coker, Can War be Eliminated?

Jonathan Fenby, Will China Dominate the 21st Century?

Jan Zielonka

IS THE EU DOOMED?

polity

Copyright © Jan Zielonka 2014

The right of Jan Zielonka to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

First published in 2014 by Polity Press

Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-8400-0

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: www.politybooks.com

Contents

Prologue

Acknowledgements

1  Crisis

2  Disintegration

3  Reintegration

4  Vision

5  Practising Polyphony

Further Reading

Notes

Prologue

I am a genuine European, by any measure you care to choose, and it gives me no satisfaction whatsoever to conclude that the European Union (EU) may well be doomed. Silesia, where I grew up, was the focus of harsh policies of Germanization and Polonization, so I am not easily seduced by national pride and glory. A Europe without borders was a dream for young people without passports living behind the iron curtain, and for me, personally, integration helped make this dream a reality. I am still a Polish national, but I hold a Dutch passport, own a house in Italy and work at a British university. My working experience with EU institutions has never been thrilling, but it has not been significantly worse than my experience with Dutch or Italian bureaucracies. The EU was a symbol of an integrated Europe, and from the outset I was inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt. Sadly, as my essay explains, at present the EU does not facilitate integration, but impedes it. I therefore propose a radically different concept of European integration with less or no EU.

The European Union was widely regarded as the most successful modern integration project, but it has turned into an embarrassment. It promised to secure prosperity through integration, but it became a symbol of austerity and conflict. It obtained ever-more powers at the expense of national parliaments and governments, but when the global financial crisis erupted in 2008 it proved unable to cope with the social and political disruption that ensued. Powerful shocks spread from the skyscrapers of Manhattan, Canary Wharf and la Défense to the corridors of Brussels and to ordinary households across Europe. No wonder so many citizens lost trust in the EU, and that the process of disintegration is gathering pace. But is this decline reversible? Can Europe return to the path of integration under the tutelage of the EU, and, if so, would that even be desirable? Alternatively, if the EU really is doomed, what could and should take its place?

In this essay I argue that the EU will emerge significantly weakened from the current crisis. It will probably survive, but only in more modest form, deprived gradually of major legal powers and political prominence. The currency crisis may well be overcome, but the crisis of socio-economic cohesion and political trust will persist for some time, paralysing EU institutions, generating further conflicts and preventing any substantial reforms.

Contrary to many observers, I believe that the weakening of the EU will not strengthen nation states, but rather lead to the opposite scenario. The EU has helped its members generate growth through its single market and enlargement projects; and it has offered a comfortable excuse for numerous policy failures. A weakening of the EU and its member states will strengthen other political actors such as cities, regions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As a result, state borders will be fuzzier, political loyalties will be increasingly divided and administrative jurisdictions will overlap to a much greater extent. I call this phenomenon ‘neo-medievalism’.

I will also argue that, contrary to many predictions, the waning of the EU will not lead to chaos and disintegration. Integration will in fact continue, fed by profound economic interdependence, cultural empathy and political pragmatism. However, this will be a new form of integration with no ambition to create a pan-European government. Integration will evolve along functional rather than territorial lines. It will be carried out by various regulatory agencies made up of national and regional governments, large cities and NGOs representing business and citizens. Such diverse and decentralized integrated networks are likely to be more effective and responsive than the current EU, with its rigid rules, dysfunctional central institutions and disconnection from the concerns of citizens and markets.

The essay tries to capture this probable new mode of integration by employing the musical metaphor of polyphony. In the field of music, polyphony is sound and voice with a complex texture, music with parts written against other parts, with several simultaneous voices and melodies. Polyphony does not assume unity and hierarchy, but draws strength and functionality from numerous sets of loose and contrapuntal relationships. So the aim of polyphonic integration would be for Europe’s parts to work in greater harmony without losing Europe’s greatest treasure: its diversity and pluralism. This mode of integration, whether in the areas of transport, energy, migration, tourism or sport, would be more capable of getting things done, effectively and efficiently. Its competence would ensure its greater legitimacy; and its dispersed and complex polyphonic qualities would ensure its greater resilience when under pressure from future crises. Integration led by the rigid EU dictating ‘one-size-fits-all’ policies, by contrast, has led to dissonance, rather than harmony. EUphony has become a synonym for cacophony. Through a strange and ironic turn of events, however, present-day disintegration is preparing the way for a new, much more resilient form of integration, whose merits have so far not been widely recognized.

To understand how integration and disintegration work, and why polyphonic integration is the future, we need to look more broadly at power politics in contemporary Europe, exploring the deficiencies of the European social model, capitalism and democracy. In-depth analysis of the EU’s byzantine treaties and complex institutional structures will be of little help here. After all, does anyone really believe that the President of the European Commission can determine the fate of integration? Has the Lisbon Treaty been of any use in forging a more coherent Europe? And is the European Parliament channelling Europe’s collective political will?

This set of rhetorical questions not only flags up the ineffectiveness of the EU; it also invites us to think about our expectations of what the EU can and should deliver in the second decade of the twenty-first century. The EU always suffered from a ‘capability–expectations gap’, to use Christopher Hill’s expression.1 It envisioned a model of integration run by a single institutional centre in charge of too many things, with inadequate legitimacy and resources. This vision was unrealistic and destined to fail. So European institutions now need to be sub-divided into smaller functional clubs and networks, and their integrative ambitions need to be scaled down. Integration should not hereon be seen as a remedy for democracy or market failures. Nor should it represent a remedy for greed, selfishness and conflict. But it can offer Europe practical ways of coping with mounting economic, social and security problems that require the cross-border cooperation of many different actors across the whole continent, and beyond. During the past few years, the EU has performed its integrative functions poorly. It now seems unable to reform itself. Integration driven by autonomous functional networks without a strong European centre will in due time be seen as a much more appropriate way forward. The EU may well be doomed, but Europe and European integration certainly are not.

Acknowledgements

This essay greatly benefited from thoughtful comments by Stefania Bernini, Hugo Dixon, Christopher Hill, John Kean, Martin Krygier, Fabian Neuner, George Pagoulatos and four anonymous reviewers. I also benefited from numerous exchanges with graduate students in European Politics and Society at the University of Oxford. The European Studies Centre of St Antony’s College has also hosted exciting debates on the topic of this essay.

My gratitude goes also to the European Council on Foreign Relations, which has given me an opportunity to work with some of the brightest European practitioners and experts. I am particularly indebted to Mark Leonard and Dick Oosting for making me part of their fascinating project on the Reinvention of Europe. Special thanks go also to the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights at the University of Sydney, and its director, John Keane, for offering me their institutional hospitality and intellectual inspiration during the writing of this essay.

I would also like to thank Louise Knight and her colleagues from Polity Press for initiating this project and steering it safely to the intended destination.

1

Crisis

‘Crisis’ is the word we have come to associate with the EU. Yet the origin, nature and implications of this crisis are hotly contested. One thing, however, is certain: this is no ordinary crisis; it cannot be handled in a routine manner by the European Union. As Federico Rampini put it in the Italian daily La Repubblica: ‘This crisis has assumed dimensions that no one can control. There are too many fires to extinguish in too many diverse places.’1

The EU has experienced crises before. In 1965 General De Gaulle refused to attend the European Council’s meetings, causing the so-called ‘empty chair crisis’, which lasted for seven months. In 1999 all twenty European commissioners resigned following allegations of corruption in high places. In 2005 French and Dutch voters delivered a negative verdict on the European constitutional treaty. But there has never been anything like the crisis that began in 2008 and is still unfolding. This crisis is not just about the EU’s internal matters. In fact, it was triggered by events far away from Brussels. But the financial storm in New York has quickly spread to many different fields of European politics and society. The EU has attempted to cope with the rapidly evolving situation, but in a clumsy and contentious manner.

If we examine the variety of events that have shaken Europe and the EU over the past few years, we find that there is not one, chiefly financial, crisis but a series of different crises with different spans and durations. The end of one type of crisis may herald the beginning of another. Moreover, all these crises are highly interdependent, albeit in an asymmetric manner. The financial crisis exposed the weakness of several European economies and also of the faulty institutional set-up of the euro and the EU itself. Troubled economies could not but generate political and social consequences. Money has been lost, political careers have been ruined and ideological truths have been challenged as a result of these crises. However, different states and social groups experienced these crises in different ways. Some of them even benefited from Europe’s disarray. The EU was not one of the beneficiaries, however. It proved poorly prepared for navigating through the stormy weather and it lost the confidence of Europe’s citizens.

European officials are fond of stressing that in the past the EU has emerged stronger from successive crises, but in light of the evidence available at present this rosy history is not likely to repeat itself.

Crisis, what crisis?

One can hardly speculate about the EU’s future without getting to the heart of the crisis currently gripping the institution. To put it another way: the cure for a patient begins with a proper diagnosis. The dominant view is that the crisis was about the euro, Greece and sovereign debt. In my view, the most important crisis was and still is one of cohesion, imagination and trust. The latter is obviously harder to address. The hole in the Greek budget is relatively small in aggregate euro-zone terms and could easily be covered. However, Greece is not the only country in financial trouble, few believe that writing off debts will make the Greeks behave like the Germans, and there are no plausible solutions for solving Greece’s complex problems. What we do know is that the solutions applied by the EU have so far proved pretty ineffectual. What looked to be a straightforward financial challenge has become a social, political, cultural and even ideological one, concerning the entire continent and not just one ‘black sheep’. Let me explain why.