The idea of a powerful Europe has existed for more than half a century, and it has remained just as chimerical over the same number of years. Yet, some voices continue to call for deeper European integration.
In a recent statement, former Italian Prime Minister and ex-President of the ECB, Mario Draghi—now retired from politics—reiterated his desire to see Europe transform into a “State.” As is often the case, the political season brings back to life old projects…
But what would such a project look like? Who would decide? The representatives in Brussels? The 27 European leaders? Or the citizens themselves, by referendum?
In 2005, in France and the Netherlands, governments proposed the creation of a common European Constitution, but the answer was overwhelmingly negative. Yet, two years later, the Lisbon Treaty was signed. This new proposal again takes the shape of an anti-democratic power grab, especially as it comes from an unelected technocrat.
Mario Draghi’s words, delivered a few days ago before the European Parliament, were clear: “The European Union must radically reform its way of functioning in order to behave like a fully-fledged State in the face of the immense challenges ahead.”
Europe’s weaknesses are obvious to all: deindustrialisation, loss of competitiveness, weak growth, a democratic divide, political divisions, and so on. But is reinforcing a framework that already works poorly really the way to meet these challenges? Yet this is precisely what figures like Draghi suggest… at the risk of collective failure.
To understand the concept of a single State, one must first distinguish between “two Europes.”
The first—the cultural Europe—is defined by its history, geography, and shared values, those outlined by Ernest Renan. If it had endured, this Europe could have become a powerful alliance of nations with common interests, despite their many divergences. But today’s Europe is no longer that. It has evolved under the idea that “nationalism means war,” as Mitterrand once said, and that everything must therefore be done to achieve a federal project.
Yet the exact opposite is happening today: Europe has never been so federal, but war is at its doorstep, in Ukraine. What an illusion this promise of a “Europe of peace” has turned out to be!
The failure, shared by all European countries, has been to accept the rules (or rather the absence of rules) of the market. This submission gave birth to the second Europe—the financial, political, and legal Europe, the European Union as we know it, which continually reveals its flaws.
This Europe is not autonomous: it lacks vision and is embedded in an external system—global financial capitalism. Since 1945, and even more since the 1980s, the global economy has been dictated by markets, excessive liberalisation, free competition, and the endless pursuit of profit. Europe grew along this path, beginning with its early economic and political treaties, then with the sacrosanct Maastricht Treaty and the various constitutions that followed.
It is merely the consequence of this hegemonic and predatory ideology, launched in the last century by the United States (and much earlier, if one takes the long view of history) and subsequently spread across the world. “European federalism” imposed itself: as European countries integrated into globalisation, Europe expanded its borders—now to 27 countries. Issues became European rather than merely national.
At the same time, wealth has concentrated, and power has shifted from the public to the private sector, to the point where the largest corporations—especially banks—became “too big to fail.” The people’s voice and sovereignty, embodied by the State, weakened and submitted to the will of large corporations, whose leaders shuttle back and forth between the two worlds to preserve the status quo—as exemplified by Mario Draghi, former banker and former state official.
This is precisely the Europe Draghi refers to when he speaks of the idea of a “European State.” That is also why he proposes exclusively European-level measures: increasing the federal budget, strengthening the single market, issuing common debt… Everything becomes “more European,” because Europe is subject to this hegemonic system, in which nations are seen as obstacles to be eliminated in favour of a grand unified project—no matter the consequences.
But these “two Europes” are opposites. One thrives on diversity, the other on concentration. What would European countries look like if they shared the same rules, symbols, policies, citizenship—where French, German, Italian, Greek, Polish populations would no longer be recognised as such, but simply as Europeans? What language would be spoken in this single State? The only possible choice would be English, given its global reach—even though the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. The contradictions of this vision are glaring.
If the idea of a European State resurfaces today, it is also because the Europe we know is in a state of near-death. It is an integral part of globalisation and follows its trajectory: the subprime crisis of 2008 triggered the sovereign debt crisis of the early 2010s in Europe. Both were postponed in the same way—through massive debt accumulation, which has only grown, pushing the consequences further into the future.
Moreover, in his recent statement, Mario Draghi stressed that “the response to the new situation surrounding the EU must be swift […] and focus on the sectors that will drive future growth.” Obviously, with ever-rising debt, stagnant growth can only lead to financial disaster. For Europe to survive, new sources of growth must be found.
The most obvious answer would be to invest in high-growth sectors such as defence or artificial intelligence, to generate new revenues. But this would not solve the fundamental problem, since such investments would be financed by debt (and perhaps even by common borrowing).
To continue to exist, Europe must not move towards more federalism and dissolve into a single State. On the contrary, it must take the opposite path and embody a continent where each nation retains its sovereignty, in perfectly free cooperation, without delegating power to supranational authorities. Built this way, Europe could remain what it has long been: a land of cultures, of knowledge, where reason, philosophy, and religion intertwine—a unique space of the future in the world.