Politics Instead of Blind Faith in the Market

The reasons for this development are often to be found in specific national constellations. Unfortunately – one must add. Yet again, it has not been possible to bring the common European interest into the focus of election campaigns. Transnational lists were hindered in the run-up to the European elections, as was the visibility of the top candidates.

The often-invoked European public did not even go to the polls at the same time. Many parties on the continent pursued their own, specific agendas and positioned themselves either from a clearly national perspective or all too vaguely with respect to concrete European projects for the next legislative period of the European Parliament until 2024.

Thus there were few detailed proposals as to how the EU could overcome its lines of division and find its way to a constructive position. And the political centre hid behind feel-good consensus rhetoric that rendered differences unrecognisable and in so doing benefited the right-wing populists in their opposition rather than damaging them.

Europeans have well understood that there can be no such thing as a simple 'carry on as before'. In the last ten years, nothing has revealed the transnational dimension of numerous policy areas more clearly than the minor and major crises in the EU: curbing climate change, mending social divisions, managing migration and integration, regulating and containing market excesses – from the financial market to location competition to real estate speculation.

None of this can be tackled by the classical nation-state alone, no matter how large, economically potent or politically influential it may be. The proponents of a return to the nation are mistaken when they believe that more national sovereignty is better than cooperation with neighbours.

In the last ten years, nothing has revealed the transnational dimension of numerous policy areas more clearly than the minor and major crises in the EU.

Cross-border challenges demand cross-border answers. Global interdependence cannot be turned on and off with a toggle switch. The proffer of success through unilateral action goes hand in hand with isolation, externalisation and suppression of global risks.

But the supporters of the idea of Europe are also on the wrong track when they showcase an uncritical continuity of European policy. During the crises of recent years, the internally divided EU has shown itself incapable of countering the growing unease with policies of substance. In almost all European countries, this unease is fuelled by frustration with the downsides of globalisation, the loss of the promise of advancement and prosperity, as well as the politics of post-democracy, which justifies measures with their alleged lack of alternatives.

The internally divided EU has shown itself incapable of countering the growing unease with policies of substance.

Confidence in an automatic political deepening of European integration has been shaken by the latest cascade of crises. An internal market that does not prevent fiscal and social dumping, a monetary union without an economic coordination centre, free movement of persons without external border protection and immigration policy – the political union will not come about by itself. It will not come about by adhering to a bizarre faith in the market, with which the political structure of the common market is labelled as detrimental to its alleged self-regulation and disadvantageous to global competition, and is regarded as absurd because national competences must be retained.

Of course, it has always been easier for member states to abandon borders, tariffs and national currencies than to create new political structures, institutions and rules. Where an agreement was reached at the European level on political goals, such as climate protection, no sufficient set of instruments pressing for implementation and greater ambition was agreed upon out of consideration for the market and national sensitivities.