2 thoughts

  1. Thank you for this thoughtful and provocative piece. Your diagnosis of Europe’s predicament—a Union “drifting between crises, overregulated and dependent, more reactive than visionary” —resonates deeply. The leaking roof is real, and the gap between Brussels’ rhetoric and Europe’s actual influence in the world has never been wider.

    However, I wonder whether your prescription for “long-overdue political integration” mistakes the symptom for the disease. You write that “heads of state are not part of the solution but part of the problem, as national interests routinely override the European one.” But I would suggest this isn’t a bug—it’s a feature of how democratic accountability actually functions in Europe.

    The political reality is that Europeans identify primarily as French, German, Polish, or Italian—not as Europeans. National parliaments remain the locus of genuine democratic legitimacy. When citizens can understand, engage with, and hold their governments accountable, democracy works. The EU’s attempts to bypass or transcend this reality haven’t strengthened European democracy—they’ve deepened the democratic deficit and fueled the very populism that now threatens the project.

    Rather than envisioning Europe as a single household requiring a unified roof, perhaps it’s more realistic—and more democratic—to think of Europe as a town of individual houses. These houses can cooperate deeply on shared challenges (climate, security, trade) while maintaining the democratic accountability that comes from subsidiarity. Nations working together need not become a super-state to be effective.

    The uncomfortable truth may be that a “Global Europe” rivaling China or the United States requires more integration than European citizens are willing to accept. A democratic, accountable Europe may require accepting limits on centralization. If that’s the trade-off, I would choose democracy and subsidiarity over the dream of geopolitical grandeur every time.

    Perhaps repairing the roof means accepting what confederated democracies can do well—maintaining peace, protecting rights, coordinating on genuinely shared interests—rather than pretending Europe can or should become something its citizens have never voted for. The house can be repaired without becoming a single dwelling. Would welcome your thoughts on this.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Dear Robert,
      Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. There is real merit in what you suggest. You write that I may mistake the symptom for the disease, but I would argue the disease is the same one that has haunted Europe for generations: nationalism.
      The EU brought peace and prosperity after centuries of conflict. As Jean Monnet noted, “There is no real peace in Europe if the states are reconstituted on a basis of national sovereignty.” The challenge has always been balancing national interests with the broader European one — a challenge that is only growing as global pressures increase.
      The post you responded to is part of a trilogy. The next piece, “Europe’s Drifting Tanker,” reflects on how Europe has moved from Juncker’s confident vision to today’s inertia. The third, on the “Twin Roofs” of Brussels and Washington, examines the structural weaknesses shaping the Western world.
      My own journey reflects this evolution. I voted for Delors’s Maastricht with a federalist conviction, not for a Union that expands without repairing its foundations. On this point, you and I may agree: the EU needs renewal. But I remain unconvinced that national parliaments — each with its own “roof” — can tackle today’s cross-border challenges. Covid already showed that without the EU, we would have to invent it.
      Still, your points deserve reflection, and I will return to them.
      Best regards,
      W
      ________________________________________

      Like

Leave a comment