QUO VADIS, EUROPE?

Foreword

Two recent events have revitalized nationalist rhetoric against the European Union. On the one hand, the defeat of the "Yes" vote in the Icelandic referendum to resume EU accession negotiations. On the other, the overwhelming victory of the AfD in the Saxony elections. The defeat in Iceland also sparked a useful debate on the need for Europe to become more "attractive," deepening its integration, especially politically, to become more credible in the eyes of the public, including as a guarantor of security. The triumphant advance of the AfD, however, while not unexpected, has caused a shock whose metabolization by democratic forces is still difficult to predict. It remains clear, however, in both cases, that this is a victory for the nationalist parties, who have taken advantage of it to relaunch the slogan of "another Europe," an "alternative" Europe, that is, a Europe of nations.

The Myth of Europa

Europa was a Phoenician princess, daughter of the king of Phoenicia (present-day Lebanon). Europa descends onto the beach with her maids. Zeus (father of the gods and the most libertine of the gods) sees her and falls in love. He takes the form of a mighty yet gentle white bull and appears as if by magic on the beach.

Europa is attracted to the bull and feels an uncontrollable desire to mount it. But immediately afterward, the bull leaps into the sea and crosses the Mediterranean, reaching the island of Crete, where it reveals its identity.

Europa becomes Zeus's lover, and together they bear three children. One of the three, Minos, becomes king of Crete and gives birth to the first advanced European culture: the Minoan civilization.

Meanwhile, Europa's brothers set out in search of their sister. One of the three, Cadmus, reaches mainland Greece and founds the city of Thebes, bringing the alphabet and the arts from Phoenicia.

What does the myth of Europa represent? Naturally, it was a movement of civilizations from East to West, and the name Europa given to the new western territories reflects this shift. The etymology of the word Europa, in fact, has a Phoenician root meaning West.

Europe as a civilization

Nevertheless, one of the most persistent errors in contemporary debate is treating Europe as if it were a mere political construct born from post-war treaties. Europe was not born in Brussels, nor in the Schuman Declaration of 1950, nor in the Treaty of Paris of 1951 or the Treaties of Rome of 1957. As already seen, Europe is a much older historical and civilizational reality.

For centuries, it was built upon an exceptional synthesis: Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Christian spirituality and ethics.

From this matrix emerged cathedrals, medieval universities, hospitals, monastic culture, the separation between Church and power - Pope and Emperor - and the idea that power must answer to a moral norm. It gave rise to natural and public law, modern philosophy and science, and the idea of Progress.

Supranational vs  intergovernmental method

Europe did something extraordinary in the 20th century: it transformed irreconcilable enemies, like Germany and France, into allies.

Following two wars that can be considered true European civil wars, the creation of the European Communities was a political innovation of enormous historical audacity. But that success also hid a fragility.

The European Union was born from a hybrid combination of the supranational method - pointing toward a potential “United States of Europe”- and the intergovernmental method typical of classical international organizations. The latter was largely chosen because it generated less national resistance and allowed for progressive advancement through incremental “de facto solidarities”: coal and steel, atomic energy, external tariffs, and key common policies like trade or agriculture, free movement, Schengen, and the Euro.

But this construction was carried out from the top down, often in a technocratic, accelerated manner, distant from the citizens. Europe functions but it is not always understood. And what is not understood is rarely felt as one’s own.

The EU's international stance

Some say the EU is a major economic, commercial, and financial player. Some (very few, actually) go so far as to say it's a true protagonist in these sectors. But no one dares to claim that the EU is a political player.

Henry Kissinger (US Secretary of State in the 1970s), annoyed by the vacuity and inconsistency  of European initiatives, asked his staff: "Who should I call, what phone number should I dial if I want to speak to the EU?" It's a joke that has gone down in history and illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish who does what in a world where bureaucracy and technocracy reign supreme.

Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995, playing on the similarity with UFO (Unidentified Flying Object), defined the EU as a UPO (Unidentified Political Object).
Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the Italian Constitutional Court, called the EU a hermaphrodite, an ill-defined hybrid entity, incapable of achieving concrete results.
The EU must certainly become more united, federal, and politically significant, also due to the growing heterogeneity and sometimes hostility of the rest of the globe. Certainly our freedom and security cannot be taken for granted.

In this complex and conflict-ridden world, size matters; it's size that counts. And even the largest European countries (including Germany) are nothing more than small fish swimming in a pond with whales called the United States, China, Russia, and India. And small fish come to a bad end in such a situation.

The Russia - Ukraine war

Europe cannot be built eternally against Russia. The powers that have attacked it (Lithuania,  Poland, Sweden,   France, and Germany) have always fared very poorly.

The relationship between Europe and Russia is  deeply historical and civilizational. Russia  belongs to European history, and Europe will not achieve lasting stability without a strategic understanding with it.

A policy based exclusively on escalation, absence of responsible negotiations, lack of respect, mutual humiliation, unlimited sanctions, and increasing militarization may end up destroying exactly what Europe intends to save.

The war in Ukraine ultimately needs a political, diplomatic, and European exit. The later it arrives, the greater the human, economic, and moral destruction will be for everyone: primarily Ukrainians and Russians, but potentially extending to neighbouring countries.

The EU must avoid being caught between the Russian heritage (Moscow is the “Third Rome”) and the geopolitical instrumentalization of other powers (the war in Ukraine is a proxy war between the United States and Russia) . Europe must return to acting as its own historical subject.

Current situation

What would unite this Europe, in which everyone would want to think and act exclusively for themselves, would be an intolerant, xenophobic, and anti-liberal ideology, a rejection of progress.

We are faced with a blatant mystification of reality. Individual European states do not have the size, the power, or even the resources to be autonomous. 

There is nothing true or realistic in the proposal for a Europe of nations, which would impoverish us and plunge us into political chaos.

Europeans must therefore equip themselves with the tools to relaunch society and economy by deepening European unity, that is, federal political integration, which involves combining democracy, accountability, and effectiveness.

This is a democratic process, which Europe had already attempted to launch with the Conference on the Future of Europe and which the European Parliament, at the end of 2023, had translated into a specific request to initiate a process of radical revision of the Treaties, based on detailed proposals.

Governments in the European Council are instead completely ignoring this democratic demand, entrenching themselves in a defence of "national interests."

This issue is facing opposition from governments, precisely because it represents a crucial and essentially irreversible step toward political integration and the creation of a truly autonomous, federal, governance capacity in specific areas at the European level.

It also represents a litmus test for measuring the real will to move toward building shared sovereignty. But  this issue cannot be ignored for much longer.

Conclusion

Civilizations do not die by sudden murder; they die when they stop believing in themselves and transmitting their heritage.

The solution is not “less Europe,” but neither is it a bureaucratic, soul-less Europe that ignores its citizens.

The solution lies in a Europe that is politically united, culturally conscious, strategically sovereign, and prudent enough to avoid suicidal adventures.

As Jean Monnet stated “Europe will be forged in crises”. We are entering one of those foundational crises.

Power comes with responsibility, and Europe carries on its back the burden of fulfilling the expectations that the world has set for her. But there is a vacuum between power and politics, which in the end leads to a lack of leadership, and citizens lose faith in the state's ability to take decisions and deliver promises. Problems are increasingly becoming global while the instruments of political action are still constrained to the nation-state. We are facing, as the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci described, a state of “interregnum” where the old is already dead or dying, but the new has not yet been born.

The problem is that “Europessimism” is stronger than ever. Many feel current leaders are mediocre and do not live up to the founding fathers: Adenauer, Schuman, De Gasperi. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Europe is not finished. But it is being put to the test.