Why Didn't the Member States of the EU create the United States of Europe after the Second World War - Essay Example

? Why didn't the member s of the EU (European Union) simply create a United s of Europe after the Second World War? The Second World War devastated Europe. Germany's militaristic expansion, destroyed whole nations and sentenced tens of millions to death. By the time the war had finished, much of the continent lay in ruins. How was Europe to rebuild? This was a question on many peoples' lips after 1945. Some thought a massive federalist state, similar to the United States was the solution. Europeans could pool their wealth and have a single government. That idea fizzled. There was still too much distrust in the immediate post-war period for a United States of Europe to be created. What Europe chose to do instead was slowly, piece by piece, assemble a common market that would eventually keep the door open to a more federalist option some time in the future. Although some Europeans would have liked to have seen a federalist state in the aftermath of the war, there was simply too much distrust. On top of that, foreign armies occupied much of Germany. Each European countries priority was the rebuild itself before engaging on any political or economic experiment. The British scholar Alan Milward argues that the EC's founding fathers intended for their states to maintain sovereignty in the system. They did not want a federalist state. They felt that they should bind themselves together not to create a super-state but to compete in the international economy. In a sense, the initial institutions of the EC were designed to preserve national autonomy. As Dr. Milward said in his book The European Rescue of the Nation-State, "The reinvigorated nation-state had to choose the surrender of a degree of national sovereignty to sustain its reassertion . . .” (Milward 1992). The truth is that the people of Europe at this stage were still too nationalistic. They had survived a war that had hammered home their national identities. The heroes of the various resistance movements had all represented pure national ideals, and these men and women were heroes well into the 1950s. The truth is that the founding fathers of the EU were looking to maximize their trading power, not their political power. They wanted to regionalize Europe, not turn it into the United States. Over the years, regionalization has done a great deal to improve business productivity. It has generate wealth and been responsible for a great deal of social development. The leaders of the EU/EC were right to pursue it as the same can be said of the economic integration accomplished by Europe over the last twenty years. The comparative advantages Europe possesses were then main thing to be exploited, not the creation of a superstate (Case 1999). What a single country can do well, it often can do better with the help of its neighbours and friends. But there is much to be said for an integration that stops just short of federalism: this kind of integration is not just about economics: it is also about the cultural and social shifts that follow in the way of reducing tariffs, striking down boundaries and easing travel and communication. You do not need a federal state to do all of this, many Europeans believe. It is possible to create something different. That was the Europe many were satisfied with up until the 1990s. But then the push came for political reforms and more power being centralized in Britain. In a sense this was a betrayal of the founding father who always say a role for autonomous states at the heart of Europe. They did not want to create a United States of Europe and they knew that over-reach or excessive expansion can cause serious problems to under-developed institutions (Duff 2009). Changes involving integration need time. Today, as the EU looks to its frontiers, the temptation to expand is still there, but patience is need (Kaid 2008). The gains made by economic integration have worked wonders to increase economic integration, but they also bring risks which need to be considered too by policymakers. The United States of Europe may well be weaker than a simple common market. However, the future of the EU looks more and more like to be more and more like the current United States. Not many people would disagree that the Lisbon Treaty is going to make major changes to the EU. This treaty, ratified in 2009, makes many serious changes to the governance of Europe. It is also a controversial document. Its vision of Europe is not shared by all citizens of Europe. Indeed, in its various incarnations it has been rejected by referendums in a number of countries and just barely scraped past voters in others (Duff 2009). Now, however, it is the law of the European Union. More than sixty years after the end of Second World War, Europe is close to becoming the United States of Europe. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this what the founding father of Europe would have wanted? It is important to think about whether the Lisbon Treaty will make Europe more democratic as this is a core value of federalism. Unfortunately, this is not likely. The Lisbon Treaty was actually rejected by voters and was forced on Europeans by political elites. This is not how things work in a democracy like the United States. It is an indication that the EU is going down the wrong road. The truth is that the founding fathers of the EU had the right idea after the Second World War: economic integration. They did not want to give up autonomy to Brussels or any other centralizing force. Today, many Europeans continue to hold a dream that sees their influence expand further and further under a fully federal system. They believe that their culture is worthy of exportation and they want their borders to expand and their institutions to become more powerful. However, the biggest problem may well be that the EU has expanded too quickly already and given away too much power to Brussels. Works consulted Case, K. Principles of Economics (5th ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall, 1999. Duff, A. Saving the European Union: the logic of the Lisbon Treaty. London: Shoehorn, 2009. Kaid, LL. EU Expansion. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Milward, A. The European Rescue of the Nation-State. New York: Routeledge, 1992. Read More