gros122_Christian MinelliNurPhoto via Getty Images_lepenpressconference

Don’t Fear the Euroskeptics

May 8, 2019 Daniel Gros

Although the European Union is arguably as popular as ever, the next European Parliament may well contain a large minority of forces skeptical or hostile to further integration. Instead of viewing this as a threat, pro-Europeans should seize the opportunity to start a necessary debate about the continent’s future.

BRUSSELS – As the European Parliament elections draw closer, most opinion polls predict a strong showing by parties that declare themselves Euroskeptic to varying degrees. But their likely success represents an unsurprising backlash against recent European integration, rather than opposition to the European Union itself.

After all, Euroskeptic or “Euro-hostile” parties are nothing new. They also had a large presence in the first directly elected European Parliament back in 1979, when the EU was known as the European Economic Community (EEC) – or the “Common Market” – and consisted of only nine member states.

In addition to being far smaller than today’s 28-member EU, the EEC did much less. Even calling it a common market now seems an exaggeration, because member states had agreed only on a customs union with a common external tariff and external trade policy. Within the EEC, there were still customs checks on goods and passport controls, and many member states prohibited capital exports.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 in all 7 Comments on this article

jagjeet sinha May 18, 2019

Yes, they are not understanding.
China is One Currency and One Language Zone.
Like America Britain Canada Australia.
European DNA will not enable One Language unfortunately.
Hence One Currency Zone will create centrifugal forces without Transfer Union.
The EEC and NATO - both served Europe very well.
Why change winning formations ?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha May 16, 2019

FEDERATION WITHOUT FAULTLINES - IS FEASIBLE.
For problems within the Eurozone, look in the mirror - not at Eurosceptics.
One single currency zone - without Transfer Union - unleashes Depopulation.
Without Investments flowing into Regions - Migration is unlimited.
Should Unlimited Migration be facilitated - One Language is mandatory.
Without One Language - Inclusiveness is impossible, religion/race are hindrances.
The Eurozone has One Currency without One Language - Nein Transfer Union.
Fractures and fissures are guaranteed - you don't need Eurosceptics as alibi.
The construction of Federal Republic required One Language in America.
The construction of Federal Republic required One Language in Australia.
The construction of Federal Republic required One Language in Britain.
The construction of Federal Republic required One Language in Canada.
Think about it Daniel - because Germany will never allow Transfer Union.
Think about it Daniel - because France will never allow English as One Language.
Hence this One Currency Union - has structural faultlines, reminiscent of USSR.
The E.E.C. was appropriate - the Market equivalent of N.A.T.O.
Both worked to create successful Economics in Europe.
Why build a Flawed Federation with Faultlines ?
- Henk Crop May 18, 2019
  
  Jagjeet. Well said about the mirror. Macron, Juncker, Timmermans, etc. are totally obsessed by the Superstate. Anyone daring to disagree are put away as populists.
  We have to go back to the EEC. The EEC built relations beween Nations, the primairy goal of founding European cooperation. The EU destroys relations. The EEC produced economic growth, the EU economic decline.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop May 12, 2019

The Federalist, the EU commission and Macron, want a centralization of power in the EU and believe that it will make the EU strong. However the Soviet Union, and many others, have shown that such a model leads to stagnation. France is actually also such an example.
Given the diversity of the EU and the ever faster changing world we live in.
Several measures could really make the EU better and stronger.
- the EU elections should be held every 4 instead of 5 years.
- the EU Commission should serve the EU Council and members, as a staff agency, and not as a state within a state.
- the EU should abandon the Federation model and apply the Confederation model.
Members remain sovereign, but enhance cooperation ( like NATO or the EEC).
Example: EU border control should be done Nationally, but supervised by Brussel.
Brussel sets standards, builts up expertise and carries out inspections.
- The EU Commission will be reduced to half a dozen members.
- Strat
- Henk Crop May 12, 2019
  
  @ Henk. …… Strategic plans/decision should be transparantly published.
  An audit committee should be installed to ensure freedom of the press.
  - the Parliament should be strengthened.
  - the Eurozone should be made sustainable, without making it a transfer Union.
  - members decide the immigrants they want to accept. Brussels will be responsible for the logistics, incl. deportations. The immigration procedures will be streamlined.
  - members decide about their identity. Diversity is discouraged. The learning of the English language encouraged.
  - the primairy task of Brussels is to enhance cooperation. Since there are no European values, the implementation of values is not part of it.
  - partnerships the EU has, such as with Africa, will exclude migration.
  - for the less developed EU members specific development programs will be offered. This will include involvement of enterpreneurs.
  - to compensate for the inbalance in the EU, two big members and 25 smaller ones, at thee level of the EU council a EU Management Team should be formed. This team would comprise of the EU President, Representatives from Germany, France and 4 groups of smaller members.
  
  It is not difficult to make this list longer, but these are just some ideas of an Eurosceptic citizen.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop May 9, 2019

That's right. They should embrace the populists / euroskeptics. They are common citizen who want to know how their money is being spent and their freedom is respected.
What is wrong is that power in the EU has been gradually transferred to the Brussels bubble. To a small number of people who lost touch with the world. Who do not serve the citizen, but expect the citizen to serve them. Who think they know what is best for the citizen, upon which they look with disdain. Any critism they experience as an attack, instead of welcoming it as a contribution.
Results ? The development of the common market (EEC) has been a great success. But since they began, ca. 2000, to move to the EU ( the block, the Superstate ) the trouble began.
The issues the citizen are most concerned about are: migration, terrorism.
This has been caused by EU policy,
In the period 2009 - 2014 the production of the Eurozone decreased by 2,4 % , while the US economy increased by 34 %.
Nummerous are the many conflicts in the EU: Greekcrises, Eurocrises and the Brexit.
This has been caused by reckless and dogmatic management.
Solutions: ties have to be loosened, primary focus should be on serving the EU citizen, pragmatism instead of dogmatism and boundless dreams.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen May 8, 2019

Daniel Gros is not surprised if Eurosceptic, mostly far-right, parties, make huge inroads into the European Parliament in the upcoming elections. He points out that levels of support for the EU have gone up across Europe. Yet the same survey also found a warm welcome for the anti-establishment parties, that aim to shake up politics in the bloc. Instead of seeing them as a threat, “pro-Europeans should seize the opportunity to start a necessary debate about the continent’s future.”
The author points out the paradox: “The current rise of Euroskeptic parties, meanwhile, comes at a time when the EU is more popular than ever, according to opinion polls.” He says the influx of migrants and refugees had gone down, and the economy is faring “better than it has for a long time, with unemployment down to the lowest level this century.” For this reason, even the diehard Euroskeptics have “backpedaled on their opposition” to the bloc. And Eurosceptics in Sweden, France, and Italy have abandoned their calls for leaving the Euro or the EU.
Instead of seeing Euroskeptic parties’ “current strength as reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with what the EU is doing, or with the state of the European economy,” we should see it as a “backlash against the recent pace of European integration.” The author says, Europe’s “various crises over the past decade have led to a huge expansion of the EU’s powers.” It came as no surprise that national politicians “objected to such a large transfer of sovereignty.”
In this regard, casting doubt on the “current speed of European integration” should be seen as “part of a healthy democratic process.” In fact, one could “even argue that the Euroskeptic parties are more honest than their mainstream counterparts. After all, despite their pro-European rhetoric, once mainstream parties come to power at the national level, they, too, are extremely reluctant to transfer any sovereignty to EU institutions,” because citizens feel more connected to national politics than pan-European.
It remains to be seen whether the Euroskeptic parties will be able to “articulate an alternative coherent vision of Europe and the EU’s role in it. Such a vision is unlikely to emerge.” They aim to change Europe from within, by creating a “looser” Europe, away from further integration – including the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism to help financial distressed member states, the EU’s banking union, and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency.
The author says, Euroskeptics make spurious claims that “Europe is not working, and that only they can defend the interests of their national electorates.” Their biggest challenge is to translate this “my country first” into coherent policy within the European Parliament – because EU member states do benefit from their membership no matter what. Another reality is that Euroskeptic parties find it “difficult to forge coalitions. Northern European populists, for example, would like to stop all assistance to the EU’s periphery, whereas their Southern European counterparts think they are not getting enough support.”
Although far-right and nationalist parties have gained traction all over Europe, and some are in power in Italy, Poland, Hungary and Austria, the far-right umbrella consists of parties that are ideologically extremely divided and often shunned by mainstream parties. Trying to pursue nationalist goals through a transnational platform is paradoxical: Left-wing forces want more rights for workers, a more social Europe less centred on banks. The right-wing wants a return to the nation-state etc. Even if they win big, they will hardly pose an existential threat to the EU.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.