Debate on the current supranational model of the European Union (EU) has resurfaced in recent years due to turbulence in member states’ economies and private sectors. Advocacy for dismantling the EU in its current state is collectively referred to as “Euroscepticism”. Eurosceptics argue against the model that has been propping up Europe for the past two decades, claiming it is flawed beyond repair and a better system needs to be put in its place. They root this advocacy in self-determination, as defined by Daniel Philpott at the University of Chicago as “legal arrangement which gives it independent statehood or greater autonomy within a federal state” (Philpott, 3). First they argue that the EU has a dated definition of union that doesn’t match the needs of contemporary Europe. These advocates also argue against the common currency, the Euro, on the grounds that it was poorly implemented, forcing member states to hand over more power to the EU. Finally, they claim that politicians in Brussels, where most Union agencies have their headquarters, are too disconnected from their constituents, as well as driven by unethical standards.

Those who oppose these activists and want to keep the current model of union in Europe are referred to as “Pro-Europe”. They couch their argument in a type of normative ethics, that is, “deontological ethics”, often called rule-based or duty-based ethics. This is defined as “A system of ethics that judges actions based on whether they adhere to a rule or a set of rules” (Dictionary.com). This is essential to understanding the difference between Pro-Europe and Eurosceptic ideology. First, supporters of Pro-Europe model feel it is not worth the effort to tear up what is already built and re-define what we want out a fiscal and political union, especially when we don’t know the outcome for sure. They also hold that the Euro cannot be dismantled because it would have negative global effects if each country were to go back to its own currency. Finally, they dislike the idea of giving power back to the individual member states, as it would then be more difficult to govern international trade and transportation, bringing the continent back to pre-World War Two (WWII) systems of trade.

One thing that will help us understand how the EU came to this division is exploring the way the EU defines “unity”. According the EU charter, unity is a hallmark of any successful governing body, whether it be of a corporation, a country or a supranational institution. This defines unity as the economic, political and social homogenization of the continent. As history has taught us, where unity is absent, dissent and violence fill the void. Every march, war and revolution can be accredited to this lack of unity. While the European Union wasn’t created officially until the Libson Treaty was signed in 1993, the framework for union was laid long before. The Treaty of Rome was drafted in 1945 after the Second World War in order to ensure that tragedy on the scale of WWII would never be seen again. This framework that, in 1957 created the European Economic Community (EEC), was not crafted to build on, which is exactly what political leaders tried to do.

While we can all agree that union is important to be a safe, prosperous and civil society, some would say that Europe has stuck with Supranational governance under the guise that replacing it would be expensive, complicated and exhausting. While implanting this new system is no small task, it is important not to overlook the potential long term benefits of creating a more efficient and functional system of union. We needn’t look any further than the past few decades to see a similar fiscal and political union that failed. In 1993, “the stability of Czechoslovakia was undermined by the low correlation of permanent output shocks [and] low labor mobility,” (Fidrmuc, 2). This is in part due to the disconnect found between the two representative sides of the country, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. This is important because the same thing could happen to the EU if policy and public opinion don’t start harmonizing into laws that work for everyone. This this could be said for any nation. After all, there are active secession movements in Canada’s province of Quebec, The UK’s territory of Scotland, and the US state of Alaska. The difference between these instances and the EU’s is that the Union is comprised of counties, while the former are examples of countries themselves. This makes the EU’s situation much more contemptuous and fragile, as stakeholders (Member States) take on less risk in leaving.  

Opponents of this Eurosceptic argument cite that the system has been working for a long time— decades in fact. They claim it is best that we keep this system because it will be too much to change it now. One Pro-Europe argument that I tend to agree with is that by dismantling unity we return to a contra-Westphalian system of governance. That is, a system more revolved around the self than the other. In 1998, NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana argues "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration". And this is true. It is overlooked here that there is no reason to go back to the middle ages if we were to get rid of the EU; just because there is no governing body doesn’t mean we can’t have civil international relationships. It is my contention that Europe would be better off with what Jan Zielonka calls “Polyphony”. This system of international cooperation is based on treaties and deals between nations that are derived through the very regions and cities that will be effected by them, not disconnected bureaucrats half a continent away. However, this all returns to the Pro-European desire to be ruled by deontological ethics keeping power within the state, and Eurosceptic desire for self-determination free from a large governing body.

Another way in which the EU cemented its hold on Europe was through the creation of the EuroZone: the economic area in which the Euro is used. Since its inception in 1993, it has endured financial collapse and been the EU’s mechanism to implement brutal austerity measures on member states. Bloomberg news describes the Euro as a currency that “…ties together 19 European countries in an intimate but flawed manner”, citing that “over the past [six] years Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain have all teetered on the brink of financial collapse, threatening to bring down the entire continent and the rest of the world” (Bloomberg News, 12:29). The Euro, issued in 1993 and officially created by the Libson Treaty, implemented a monetary policy without a fiscal policy to control deficit spending. A perfect example of this is Greece. Before the Euro, countries like Greece had currencies that banks didn’t have much faith in. Banks would only lend them a relatively small amount of money, because there was no guarantee Greece would pay them back. However, after Greece joined the Eurozone, these same banks saw a currency that was backed by all the economic might of super powers like Germany. Therefore, banks started lending more money to Greece than it had to pay back. This policy of deficit spending was notably bad, but it wasn’t until the financial collapse of 2008 that Greece’s debt caught up with them. Because of their liberal spending, they were so in debt that they had to default on their deficit, which almost brought down the entire system. The EU seized the moment and used this controversy to begin implementing extremely harsh austerity measures on weak nations that are now being used to keep them in line. Eurosceptics clearly want these regulations gone as it would allow them more self-determination.

There are two ways Greece could have averted this issue (assuming they refuse to become financially responsible): either the EU governing bodies forced Greece to stop, or it the Euro didn’t exist in the first place. It is clear that those in power want to keep it, and so they implemented these measure, asserting their deontological ethics, and keeping Greece and its people down. If Greece had been able to leave the Eurozone, the entire currency could have collapsed, citizens would have become more free, and politicians would have lost their power.  

Defenders of the Euro claim it has created a zone of peace and prosperity the likes of which have never been seen in Europe. They cite the fact that is one of the largest currencies in the world, and that it accomplished everything the EU wants. It makes cross-border trade, travel and commerce extremely easy as no exchange or tariffs are needed. They hold that these hardships facing the Euro can be attributed to the US housing bubble. However, this overlooks the larger issue that the EU has no way (and in truth no right) to govern how countries spend their money. Since the continent has become so intertwined, it is now evident that there either needs to be a breakup of the monetary union. Pro-Europe thinkers have come up their own solution to this problem: relinquish more power from national governments to the EU, and the union will become stronger. While this is true, it moves toward the prospect of creating a “United States of Europe”, in which there is no national sovereignty between states. This is a wildly unpopular idea. According to an official EU poll of public opinion, almost 80% of Europeans opposed the creation of a federal Europe (Europa, 6). This insistence of giving more power to the EU government gave rise to the Democracy Deficit that Europe continues to face.

Those within the borders of EU member states feel underrepresented in the decision making bodies of the union. This is generally referred to as the “Democracy Deficit”. It is used to refer to the transfer of legislative power from national government to supranational governments like the EU.

In order to understand the Democracy Deficit, we must understand how the EU creates legislation. First, legislation is drafted by the European Commission. Two distinct bodies, the European Council and the European Parliament, then vote on whether that legislation should become law. Before 1979, the Council, which is comprised of people appointed by the governments of the 28 member states, was the only body in charge of approving policy. While members of the Council are representatives appointed by nation’s leaders, members are bound by their “Oath of Independence” to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. The Parliament, comprised of 751 elected members, was only able to make non-binding opinion, or was excluded from the process all together. However, the Libson Treaty furthered the power the European Parliament in a conscious attempt to lessen the Democracy Deficit. Today, Parliament has the final power to reject or accept legislation.

Even with the increased representation in Brussels, many Europeans continue to feel the deficit. In 2013, Brussels was given the job of Finance Minister, with fiscal authority over all Eurozone countries, in an attempt to stop the growing financial crisis from getting any worse. Since then, the Eurozone’s debt has grown to an excess of 9 billion Euros, with most countries over 80% debt to GDP. (Sinha,1). The German Constitutional Court even referred to a "structural democratic deficit" as being “inherent in the construction of the European Union” (German Constitutional Court, 2). One reason for this is because of infrequent elections to the European Parliament. Because Parliamentary elections are held every 5 years, there have only been eight since 1979, the last in 2014 drawing only 42% of eligible voters. This is compared with an average of 68% eligible voter turnout for national elections across Europe. Pro-European advocates claim that this is no reason to leave the Union. Ragnar Weilandt from the Huffington Post UK states “…in its current form the EU is far more democratic and legitimate as well as much more efficient in serving its member states and their citizens than any other form of institutionalized intergovernmental cooperation.”, Claiming that “From a democratic point of view, further strengthening the EU’s supranational actors such as the parliament and reducing the role of intergovernmental negotiations would be desirable” (Weilandt, 1).

A reason Pro-Europe promoters don’t take issue with this is because they have been conditioned into this theory of normative, deontological ethics. This is dangerous as it disenfranchises other institutions and gives all the power to the state. And when those being controlled don’t feel like they are being properly represented by this deontological state, they become disenfranchised and unhappy, leading to dissent and rule breaking. This cycle is self-perpetuating unless the circuit is broken and a new system is invented. For example, the pre-Westphalian Europe that talked about earlier had been the normative way of life for thousands of years. But after that cycle was broken, Europeans were able to usher in an unprecedented age of cooperation between nations that brought us to this point. And now, perhaps it is time for change once again.

This acceptance of the status quo is exactly what advocates for the end of the EU are fighting against. Eurosceptics wish to have more say in what rules are made for them. And worse yet, when something like the Euro is created, they don’t even implement a system of making rules that the people can like! Pro-Europe advocates have even proposed the idea of a “EU army” to ensure people adhere to these unjust rules. This continued insistence on following in line is a continuation of the flawed ethical standard the EU has set.

In order to shift public opinion away from deontological ethics, we should strip the EU of its power and allow it to exist solely as a cooperative group pushing for peace. They would not need any army, parliament, treasury nor bank. They would be a continental initiative promoting peace throughout Europe and publishing studies to help achieve that peace. The continent could be run more efficiently if the economic power was wielded by cities, regions and NGO’s instead of by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels, allowing for cities to grow and economic regions to develop in ways that the Eurozone prohibits.

If Pro-European activists want to keep a dying model of supranational government alive solely to perpetuate its deontological ethics, it is going to have to come up with these sorts of answers itself. Otherwise, we will see the downfall of the EU as an economic and social system and see it replaced with a more comprehensive and efficient system of self-governance. To solve Europe’s social and economic issues, there needs to be an overhaul of the way we view supranational institutions because if there isn’t, the failing Euro and angry public could bring the continent into a less unified position than it was pre-WWII. The European Union as an entity would be virtually unrecognizable to its founders. The original dream of a peaceful and prosperous Europe has pushed behind a curtain of bureaucracy that is perpetuated to make the rich richer and the poor poorer on a massive scale. Keeping the EU in its current form is bad for Europeans because it is economically inefficient, misrepresentative and based off of an ineffective definition of union, all operating under an authoritative deontological ethic.
