Europe is in danger. As usual

BRUSSELS – In July 2020, in the company of officials and experts in Europe, I was asked to participate in a political exercise.

The German think tank that met with us asked us to ponder what would happen if Matteo Salvini either Marine LePenthe most right-wing leaders in Italy and France, were seated in power.

we lingered for some time furiously debating how the European Union will respond to each case.

We are sure of one thing: it will be a disaster.

Neither scenario, of course, did not come true.

In Italy, mario draghi he is prime minister and Salvini is falling in the polls.

In France, the president Emmanuel Macron he defeated Le Pen and won re -election.

On the same day, the right-wing prime minister of Slovenia, an admirer of donald trump, also lost.

there were a few good time for Europe.

But it didn’t take much longer there.

In Brussels and other European capitals, grief quickly replaced relief.

France’s parliamentary elections in June, in which Macron could lose his majority and be forced to make restless compromises with the far right or radical left, are new concerns.

The Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orbanafter securing his re -election in early April, remains a disturbing presence on the scene.

And Russia’s war with Ukraine continues.

Anxiety is common in Europe.

Many people seem to think that the European Union, which in various ways has brought prosperity and peace to Europeans since the 1950s, is always on the brink of collapse.

The last decade – in which we have experienced the debt crisis, the refugee crisis, Brexit, the rise of the far right and, at the very least, the pandemic – has led to continued mourning about the imminent end of the union.

And yet, in spite of everything, it endures. In a world of war and disaster, he still needs to unite.

Perhaps the biggest advantage of the European Union is its stability.

But the organization cannot rely solely on the stability of the institution.

Europe is once again a dangerous place.

as he once said carl bildtformer Prime Minister of Sweden, the community was then surrounded by friends, but now it is surrounded by fire.

Some neighbors are actively trying to weaken the union and destroy everything Europe stands for, and the war in ukraine is the latest scary example.

In the face of such danger, which threatens to turn the continent back to barbarism, the case for closer unification with us is even more compelling.

Fortunately, Europeans have gotten to know each other better in recent times.

During the debt crisis a decade ago, people from all over the continent witnessed heated debates in the Parliament of Greece.

The fate of the country, associated with painful economic reforms, echoed in its distant borders.

Europeans were too accommodating to Poland and Hungary limiting the freedom of their judiciary and press, and they wanted to respect the rule of law in member states.

Russia’s brutal war with Ukraine and China’s increasing economic and political coercion have brought Europeans closer together.

They realize that they cannot deal with these storms alone:

feeling that their lifestyle is in danger, their natural response is to stick together.

They may still not be very happy with the European Union – the way it works, the kinds of compromises on which it is based – but they are certainly happier with it.

This common feeling is indispensable in the structure of the community.

The European Union has a federal construction, similar to a State, that should be solid enough enough to defend the common interests of Europe in the face of geopolitical difficulties.

It has an executive branch (the Commission), a parliament that represents citizens, a legislative body that represents the states (the Council), an independent court of justice, a central bank, and even a common border guard.

This solid federal architecture is the basis of Europe’s stability.

However, in practice, it is not like federal structures in the United States or Germany.

In Brussels, the de facto capital of the European Union, member states make most of the decisions.

When European heads of state and government meet, they do so as national leaders.

They were not elected to act in the interest of Europe but in the interest of their own countries.

Whatever the issue is in question, they sit down, put their national concerns on the table and start negotiating.

Ultimately, everyone will see some of their demands in the final agreement.

The system has its advantages.

More or less it guarantees national ratification of the decision -making block, with each member recognizing their fingerprints on the resulting agreement.

This sense of ownership helps explain why the union has survived so many crises in recent years:

Member States have invested in it, rely on it and, above all, want it to survive.

But the downside of this approach is that, by finding consensus on almost every issue, Europe becomes only as strong as its weakest link.

Leaders often make half -hearted decisions because some countries refuse to be more ambitious, with results that do not always meet Europe’s real needs.

There are many examples.

Hungary has blocked certain foreign policy statements against Russia or China that have been accepted by other member states.

Poland, for its part, has single-handedly lowered the climate goals of the whole of Europe.

And before the presidential election in France, the government delayed a decision on a European oil embargo against Russia for fears that rising energy prices could help Le Pen in his campaign against Macron.

Europe is often an instrument of member states seeking to advance their own limited interests.

Macron, although “pro-European”, is no exception.

That is why elections often cause a lot of headaches.

Democracy is, no doubt, the strength of Europe.

This is the core value of the union, its beating heart.

But democracy is also Europe’s weakness.

That’s because the community isn’t really European: instead it involves 27 separate national democracies.

If one of them has a Eurosceptic government, it could jeopardize the whole project in Europe, which depends on unity.

In practice, whenever an election is held in a place, the union becomes a hostage.

This makes it an unsustainable way of doing things.

The elections in France, Macron said, were “a referendum in Europe.”

The problem in Europe is exactly that:

every election is a referendum in Europe, in every corner of the continent.

It would be strange if a statewide election in Montana or Mississippi had a chance to dismantle the republic or derail its foreign policy.

In Europe, this is a normal situation.

That is why, despite its success as a global economic power and a beacon of stability, Europe often lacks confidence and looks prone to wind.

This paradox, however, does not have to be permanent.

In a world defined by instability, great competition for power and rising prices, Europe must take care of itself.

And he has a way to do it.

Russia’s gradual embargo on oil, which is likely to end this week, is just the beginning.

In the war in Ukraine, the collective provision of defense and security is also needed, as is an energy community.

In addition, some form of fiscal linkage, expanding the monetary union that exists today, may also be needed to coordinate the serious investments needed to consolidate Europe’s stability.

Last week, a group of European intellectuals recognizing the need for a stronger union called for the creation of a United States of Europe.

I’m not sure the union will come to that.

But it would be wonderful if, in the political game I played in Berlin this year, instead of worrying about the worst situations, we could imagine a braver and stronger European Union.

If we all let Europe stand on its own a little more, it will make a big difference.

Caroline de Gruyter (@CarolineGruyter) is a European affairs correspondent and columnist in Brussels for the Dutch newspaper NRC and a regular contributor to Foreign Policy.