Europe, a means to an end or an end in itself?

The last few weeks have highlighted the deep divisions within the European Union, exemplified by the clash between the so-called frugal countries (Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark) and the countries of southern and eastern Europe, caricatured as wasteful.  

Finally, after very tough negotiations, the European Council and the Commission reached an historic agreement, considered by some analysts to be the most significant since the adoption of the Euro. Indeed, it is not risky to suggest that, if such an agreement had not been reached, the very survival of the European Union would have been in doubt: after a five-year period plagued by disappointments (such as the Brexit), frustrated agreements (for example, with regard to the management of refugees) and a general paralysis in decision-making, an agreement of this magnitude seemed a very remote possibility. That is precisely why the agreement is particularly important and offers grounds for optimism. 

Optimism should not, however, divert our attention from another, less positive element, which for the time being seems to be inseparable from the nature of the EU. There has been much criticism from Mediterranean countries concerning the rigid position of austere governments, but the biggest problem within the EU is an element that cuts across the very essence of European cooperation, and which has far more significant consequences than the individual positions of their governments. 

This problem is none other than the vision held by the vast majority of the population (and also by their governments) about the Union. For the moment, the EU is seen as little more than a remote and diffuse entity that serves to consolidate the national interests of each country, but with no value on its own. The EU is thus a shadow of that which many of the statesmen who founded it and have contributed to its consolidation had in mind. In short, we Europeans see Europe as a means and not as an end. 

We should not be naive: national interests are still present, and that need by no means prove detrimental. However, during these weeks of cross-recrimination between the representatives of the Member States it has become clear how national interests have crushed any consideration that went beyond the short-sightedness of purely national politics. Dr Catherine de Vries, professor of political science at Bocconi University, recently wrote in Politico magazine that the EU's big problem is that "politicians have turned the issue of European integration into a weapon in the service of their domestic political objectives".  

Thus, the EU is used as a throwaway weapon, an argument to be used before the national electorate by national leaders. Many analysts have claimed that the tough stance taken by Mark Rutte, the Dutch Prime Minister and visible face of the frugal bloc, was largely explained by the elections his country will hold in less than a year. Rutte has thus been accused of paralysing decision-making by a purely partisan calculation, in a clear demonstration of the above: the EU is only interested in so far as it is useful later on. 

However, the same people who are now criticising Rutte tend to act as he does when their own short-term interests are compromised. In recent years, with the myriad of legal proceedings carried out in Spain to judge the pro-independence leaders, the European justice system has had to intervene on several occasions. And the reactions to the judgements handed down by the European courts have always been the same: when they were in line with what the Spanish justice system had decided, the opponents of independence were happy that Europe had proved them right; in the instances where it was the independence supporters who were favoured, the EU seemed at the time to be an organisation that was disloyal to its member states, which it even sought to humiliate.    

The truth is that the European Union and its institutions do not exist for the sole purpose of unconditionally supporting the Member States and their governments, and this is especially true of its judicial bodies such as the Court of Justice, which has the function of ensuring that member countries and European institutions comply with EU law'. The European Union is far from perfect, as well as its member states and institutions, but if we Europeans really want to deepen the integration project, we must start to change the prevailing view of Europe. 

This does not mean that we should not debate or discuss the configuration or decisions taken at any given time by any of its institutions, but it does mean, quite simply, changing the chip. If we are not able to do this, and we continue to see the European Union as a mere means to which we only support if the wind blows in our direction, it will continue to amass the disappointments and frustrations that have been so commonplace over recent years. Divisions and conflicts are natural in any international institution as they are in any country, and that in itself is not an obstacle to the European project.  

To turn the EU into a really effective institution, it must first change the mental framework prevailing in Europe itself, so that it stops being a vulgar political weapon with which to win electoral points and satisfy one' s own needs. The defence of the EU is one of the few issues shared by parties and people of opposing ideologies in this country, but at the moment of truth even the most pro-European end up defending the European project only when it suits them. In short, in the eyes of Europeans, Europe remains a means to an end rather than an end in itself.