April 20, 2023 - 4:30pm
Farmers’ protests seem to be the new canary in the coal mine for European politics. After Dutch farmers protested EU nitrogen regulations in March, the bloc is now at loggerheads with Eastern European countries over the influx of Ukraine grain imports.
The decisions in these countries — Poland, Hungary, Romania, Czech Republic and Slovakia — to ban imports of grain, oil seed, dairy products and meat from Ukraine is a problem for the whole bloc. Individual EU member states cannot simply ban products from a third party, especially if there is a free trade agreement, as in the case of Ukraine. The European Commission was quick to remind Warsaw et al. that trade “decisions can only be taken at the European level. That is why unilateral action is not possible.” This view is, unsurprisingly, not shared in Eastern Europe, and so the grain rebels have not thus far relented.
Anticipating that these five states will not give up their proposed protectionist measures, Brussels is preparing an emergency measure to allow a de facto ban of Ukrainian agricultural imports into its neighbouring member states until June. In other words, the EU folded under pressure from a small number of member states — just as it did during the financial crisis between 2007 and 2009.
Despite past experience, however, the EU seems to be committed to making things worse. Its myriad rules and broader structure appear strongest under conditions of peace and tranquillity, but bend easily during times of crisis. The European Commission, for example, is currently preparing a lawsuit against Hungary at the European Court of Justice over a 2021 law regarding the treatment of LGBTQI+ communities.
Whatever the merits of the case, it has no doubt been noticed in Budapest that pressure can go in both directions, and Hungary’s participation in the import ban is a clear indicator of that. The lawsuit is also characterised by the absence of support from Central and Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria. What’s more, it’s no secret that the Polish Government sympathises with the type of legislation enacted by Hungary, and only narrowly escaped a similar lawsuit.
Yet divisions are not just appearing between Europe’s East and West, but also within these two blocs. That relations between Poland and Hungary have deteriorated thanks to differing approaches towards the resolution of the Ukraine war is clear; the same is true regarding serious disagreements between Paris and Berlin in all matters energy. While Germany is gathering supporters for its anti-nuclear policy, France has announced the formation of a pro-nuclear alliance within the EU. Emmanuel Macron’s divergence from Europe’s China policy and demand for more independence from the US remain a sore point on the continent, as these approaches were coordinated with neither the EU nor other member states.
All these growing internal divisions reveal that the EU is not just a project geared towards advancing peace, but one that depends on peace, too. Throughout its history, the Union has shown real trouble keeping member states in line when armed conflict loomed near its borders.
Contrary to the oft-repeated line that times of crisis “strengthen European unity”, the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite. The most remarkable acts of unity — like the introduction of the euro or the acceptance of large numbers of new member states — happened at times of remarkable peace and stability during the 1990s and early 2000s. This was at a time when the “End of History” thesis was at the apex of its popularity.
With the end of history ending, we might see the same happening to the myth of an ever closer Union, as European states increasingly forge a different path.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYou can keep people in the same boat when the sea is (relatively) calm. But when the sea gets choppy and there might be the potential need for a liferaft expect each country to act in its own interests. When you add divergent cultural views to the economics this was always going to be a very tough period, dare I say exaccerbated by the loss of the UK which was a form of semi-associated ballast. I sense we either “river jump” to a more centralised system (through WHO, UN, WEF-style mandates enabled by technology) or we go through a period of fragmentation and reversion to historical comfort of nationalism. Perhaps we do both at different levels (macro quasi-globalist and micro local democracy with the meso level of nationhood squeezed). Certainly the status quo cannot possibly hold given the confluence of so many issues. Interesting time to be passing through.
You can keep people in the same boat when the sea is (relatively) calm. But when the sea gets choppy and there might be the potential need for a liferaft expect each country to act in its own interests. When you add divergent cultural views to the economics this was always going to be a very tough period, dare I say exaccerbated by the loss of the UK which was a form of semi-associated ballast. I sense we either “river jump” to a more centralised system (through WHO, UN, WEF-style mandates enabled by technology) or we go through a period of fragmentation and reversion to historical comfort of nationalism. Perhaps we do both at different levels (macro quasi-globalist and micro local democracy with the meso level of nationhood squeezed). Certainly the status quo cannot possibly hold given the confluence of so many issues. Interesting time to be passing through.
”From grain to China, divisions are tearing the EU apart.”
This is a combination of wishful thinking and trying to say what the readers will approve of. There are too many cushy, well-paid jobs in the EU for them to give up that easily. It will go on for ever.
”From grain to China, divisions are tearing the EU apart.”
This is a combination of wishful thinking and trying to say what the readers will approve of. There are too many cushy, well-paid jobs in the EU for them to give up that easily. It will go on for ever.
These divisions have always been present. At best “EU unity” has been tenuous; if we’re being more honest, it’s illusory. How on earth are 27 nations so divergent in culture, politics and historical experience supposed to be unified about all things – or anything at all?
This has been obvious to many of us for many years…but as long as the going is good, you can smooth over the cracks with high-flown rhetoric. The “beauty” of adversity and tough times is that they swill an awful lot of unpalatable truths to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. It’s then that solutions are more likely to be found, because there is pressure to do so.
Furthermorem I never bought into the idea that the EU (or its forerunners) were the cause of peace. It was a possibility, but never a certainty. I’ve always been of the opinion that they were a product of the peace. This proposition causes a lot more controversy in countries like Austria where more people bought into the causation story. I think Brits and Eastern Europeans are a bit less romantic on that front.
Whereas your beloved United Kingdom – one assumes THE blueprint for a Union – is highly unified and working just great?
As for the Eastern Europeans, it’s odd how they would sell their right arm to get into a prosperous EU country and benefit from a progressive life they dreamed of. Imagine being that romantic.
The British mind-set is that the little guy should never get better. Your betters have you well-trained to know your place.
Whereas your beloved United Kingdom – one assumes THE blueprint for a Union – is highly unified and working just great?
As for the Eastern Europeans, it’s odd how they would sell their right arm to get into a prosperous EU country and benefit from a progressive life they dreamed of. Imagine being that romantic.
The British mind-set is that the little guy should never get better. Your betters have you well-trained to know your place.
These divisions have always been present. At best “EU unity” has been tenuous; if we’re being more honest, it’s illusory. How on earth are 27 nations so divergent in culture, politics and historical experience supposed to be unified about all things – or anything at all?
This has been obvious to many of us for many years…but as long as the going is good, you can smooth over the cracks with high-flown rhetoric. The “beauty” of adversity and tough times is that they swill an awful lot of unpalatable truths to the surface where they can no longer be ignored. It’s then that solutions are more likely to be found, because there is pressure to do so.
Furthermorem I never bought into the idea that the EU (or its forerunners) were the cause of peace. It was a possibility, but never a certainty. I’ve always been of the opinion that they were a product of the peace. This proposition causes a lot more controversy in countries like Austria where more people bought into the causation story. I think Brits and Eastern Europeans are a bit less romantic on that front.
Could Unherd not desist from using the ghastly qwerty acronym? It’s as inaccurate and insulting as BAME, and simply unnecessary. The writer simply needed to say ‘homosexuals and trans people’. There is no consensus whatsoever as to the meaning of Queer – currently used to describe anything from out-and-proud to heavily fetishist to sado-masochists to so-called ‘minor-attracted people. Gruesome.
Could Unherd not desist from using the ghastly qwerty acronym? It’s as inaccurate and insulting as BAME, and simply unnecessary. The writer simply needed to say ‘homosexuals and trans people’. There is no consensus whatsoever as to the meaning of Queer – currently used to describe anything from out-and-proud to heavily fetishist to sado-masochists to so-called ‘minor-attracted people. Gruesome.
.
From the end of WWII to very recently, the trend was toward greater and greater levels of interconnection and cooperation between nations around the globe, except in regions where ethnic and religious divisions prevailed. As the author points out, these forces reached a zenith during the two decades following the cold war. Now, however, the tide of history has turned against globalism in general and the EU project specifically. I suspect that most of the institutions that came to prominence during this time will either shrink in power and importance or collapse altogether. If organizations like the WTO, WHO, IMF, etc. still exist in two decades, I suspect it will be in far less independent and influential forms. I expect the EU to survive while the central government gradually weakens as member states pull in different directions and the central government is forced to acquiesce to some demands in order to retain the more beneficial and sustainable aspects of union. It’s a pattern that we in the US are familiar with, as we’ve been fighting these battles since the end of the revolutionary war. I expect the same historical forces to operate in the US, but America is not Europe. There are rivalries and grievances in Europe that go back far longer than the USA has even existed. I suspect that the US fifty years from now may look very much like the EU of the present while the EU of the present becomes a loose confederation of mostly independent states.
That’s a really interesting perspective. Federations have a lot to offer but they are not an easy option. I honestly think Switzerland makes much the best job of it. Interesting that they have much tougher citizenship criteria than most of Europe, and much the most politically active and involved citizens.
More and more, Unherd’s views seem to cater for a niche of ERG-minded folk and crackpots who have a lose-lose mindset. The sort of people who insist that not only must the other guy lose, they themselves must lose too. Apparently it’s one definition of stupidity.
Given that Unherd does a pretty good job of representing a spectrum of opinion on most issues, has it occurred to you that the coverage of EU issues in fact remains balanced and that it is you, not Unherd, that is the problem?
Given that Unherd does a pretty good job of representing a spectrum of opinion on most issues, has it occurred to you that the coverage of EU issues in fact remains balanced and that it is you, not Unherd, that is the problem?
More and more, Unherd’s views seem to cater for a niche of ERG-minded folk and crackpots who have a lose-lose mindset. The sort of people who insist that not only must the other guy lose, they themselves must lose too. Apparently it’s one definition of stupidity.
There is something in the reassertion of the Nation state as a reaction to the limits of Globalisation and perhaps most specifically a recognition China is not the benign operator many hoped and the US will protect it’s own interests first.
Yet the mantra about the EU tearing itself apart seems to be repeatedly pedalled only for it to show resilience – 2008 crash to result in fractured accession from the Euro; Brexit to lead to it’s quick demise; Covid to a splintering through self-interest; Ukraine to irreparable fissures etc etc.
Something without considerable resilience and fairly strong underlying foundations would have fallen apart some time ago. Perhaps as Nation states do exert themselves they retain the self confidence to also know we are stronger together and that requires some collective compromise.
There is something in the reassertion of the Nation state as a reaction to the limits of Globalisation and perhaps most specifically a recognition China is not the benign operator many hoped and the US will protect it’s own interests first.
Yet the mantra about the EU tearing itself apart seems to be repeatedly pedalled only for it to show resilience – 2008 crash to result in fractured accession from the Euro; Brexit to lead to it’s quick demise; Covid to a splintering through self-interest; Ukraine to irreparable fissures etc etc.
Something without considerable resilience and fairly strong underlying foundations would have fallen apart some time ago. Perhaps as Nation states do exert themselves they retain the self confidence to also know we are stronger together and that requires some collective compromise.