The Idea of Europe

When voters consider the issue of Europe, says Laura Cram, they select between competing narratives. These in turn derive from differing interests, which may all come into play in a referendum on EU membership. 
 
As the Eurogroup scrambles to find a solution to forestall Grexit and the UK gears up for a Brexit referendum, the future shape of the European Union is in question. Protests from German citizens at the prospect of underwriting support for Greek membership, have met accusations that the very idea of European Union is under challenge. This presupposes that a European idea exists, ever existed or could even be agreed upon.
 
The great trick of European integration was to dodge the question of the European idea. Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet, architects of the Union, realized this early. Any grand idea of a European future around which European leaders could coalesce would be so vapid as to be meaningless in practice. Their solution was to focus on practical, technical developments – the sharing of coal and steel production – from which all could benefit. Ask not what the EU is but what it can do for you was the prevailing philosophy. Through functional cooperation they believed, habits of collaboration would develop, economies would become intertwined and the prospect of warfare between the cooperating states would become impracticable.  Around this mundane technical collaboration, national leaders were free to wrap their individual national narratives. 
 
The European idea, in reality was always a multitude of European ideas, serving a wide range of purposes. Under threat of Communism, European integration provided a Western bulwark. A history of dictatorship could be distanced as membership of the Union symbolized democratic standing. For Germany, a commitment to peace and European solidarity was a powerful rehabilitating narrative. For the more reluctant UK and Denmark, the technical trade-based idea of European union allowed them to present cooperation in Europe as a minimalist guarantor of access to markets. 
 
The idea of European Union has been as much a tool in national debates, selectively invoked to support current narratives, as any overarching plan. This remains the case today. In the referendum on Scottish independence, the EU played a prominent role. Scots were roundly warned of the perils of independence that would surely jeopardize their future EU membership, an irony not lost on many of the Scottish voters who now face a referendum on the UK’s membership.  In turn, the distinct attitudes of Scots to European Union membership played an important role in the SNP’s case for a double majority in the UK referendum, to ensure that Scottish voters could not be not removed from the ‘European family of nations’ against their will.
 
These competing narratives, however instrumental, should not be ignored. Just as the founders hoped that habits of integration would develop over time, we now see a huge mobilisation of resource to preserve the integrity of the EU and to stave off the prospect of imminent Grexit and possible Brexit. Perhaps the habit of European cooperation is producing an idea of Europe based on everyday concerns and interests rather than a grand vision. These interests are shaped by and shape narratives. Perhaps as the early architects of the European project envisaged - if you build it they will come (and stay). 
 
Laura Cram is ESRC Senior Europe Fellow and Professor of European Politics at the University of Edinburgh, which launched the new www.european-futures.org blog yesterday

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Laura Cram's picture
post by Laura Cram
University of Edinburgh
25th June 2015
Filed under:

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts