Why the Union Project is Unsound

Of the EU’s many shortcomings, which we have detailed in the course of this five-year blog, two ideas are at the root of them.

1. “Ever Closure Union” is a euphemism for a process of planned unification, whereby Europe is to be reduced to a uniform state (a “level playing field”) from a varied, dynamic and historically-derived non-uniformity.

2. This central ambition—and purpose—of the Union gives large, Europe-wide, opportunities for recycled politicians (and their bureaucratic ‘underlings’) to control a large state, in the name of ideals that are frequently not practised.

1. Unification

Respect for diversity is declared in the Union’s Treaties but is not confirmed in its practices, which press towards conformity wherever it finds diversity inconvenient. EU mandarins believe that diversity is a threat to the success of their ‘mission’. Hence the emphasis on eliminating divergence and reducing historically diverse nations to a stale uniformity [1]. EU attempts to unify its member states cut against history, culture, language and instinct, not to mention the preferences of ‘its’ citizens.

EU leaders appear to believe, without supporting theory or evidence, that completing economic and monetary union (EMU) will resolve most problems, if only the member states would not hold back from completing the component parts of a necessary union. Divergence is the problem; convergence the solution; although they don’t explain why we should believe this. EMU requires ever closer union (uniformity in practice).

From the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the EU leaders: “RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. For closer union the EU is willing to forgo democracy, forget prosperity, and foment contention between members—and with ex-members.

2. Control

So far, after more than 60 years, the EU has achieved a massive bureaucracy, with its laws and regulations overruling the member states’ own legal and regulatory codes, which, internally, have some democratic oversight. In short, a super-state already exists as a jurisdiction, though not yet as a full working government [2].

The visionaries recognised that the unenlightened populations of the disunited member states might not welcome a homogenised super-state, and so a process was established whereby the goal was to be achieved through scarcely-noticeable but irreversible steps. Clearly this would not be a democratic process.

EU leaders fail to respond to experience and just make excuses when their schemes aren’t working. They do not believe that their ideology and its theories are wrong, just that they haven’t been tried properly, so need more time and patience—and pressure to conform.

The people who lead the project do not have the ability that their central ambition would require. And the urge to rule takes no account of the ambition of those whom they would rule to have a say in who rules them—and who doesn’t. To pursue power EU leaders proclaim a high purpose but then have to hide its true purpose, which is to achieve power over the workings of Europe.


The European Union is not what it says it is. The gaps between its policies, its propaganda and what it actually does are huge. Democratic accountability should mean that electors can dismiss their rulers, but not in the EU. Its proclaimed high purposes are notable mostly for their absence from outcomes [3]. The EU achieves neither high purpose nor true power. It is good to have ideals provided they don’t stagnate into ideologies.

[1] Union, Unity & Uniformity

[2] Ambition, Distraction, Unification and Division

[3] Goals and Values

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
