United States of Europe
The term ‘United States of Europe’ was only used positively by the Neos during the European election campaign. The ÖVP rejects the term as ‘nonsense’. This was not always the case. However, this is not just about European integration, but also about the understanding of the state. By Rainhard Kloucek
European Minister Karoline Edtstadler explained in a post on X (formerly Twitter) a few days before the European elections: The ‘United States of Europe’ are nonsense: The motto of the European Union is ‘United in diversity’. Reinhold Lopatka, the ÖVP’s lead candidate for the European elections and a long-standing politician, explained in an email a few days before the election: ‘Now is not the time for experiments. Whether it be ÖXIT fantasies, a debt union, a United States of Europe or uncompromising prohibitory policies at the expense of our economy: the other parties threaten to plunge Europe into chaos. This endangers not only our prosperity, but also the security in our country.’ Obviously, he means that the ‘United States of Europe’ would endanger prosperity and security in Austria and plunge Europe into chaos.
The United States of Europe were only used in a clearly positive way during the election campaign by the Neos. The small liberal party was the only party in the campaign to run with a clearly European message. The FPÖ played skillfully on the keyboard of demagoguery, while the SPÖ still does not know what it wants from the EU, apart from more redistribution. The Greens’ sympathy for climate terrorists is well known. There was no clear message from the ÖVP. The statements made by Chancellor Karl Nehammer at an event for Alois Mock’s 90th birthday led rather to the conclusion that the former pro-European party would like to reduce the European Union to a cooperation between nation states. At best, that is what Viktor Orban also wants. But it is not European.
Probably everyone has an idea of what might be meant when the term ‘United States of Europe’ is used. Most people probably think of the United States of America and less of the United Arab Emirates. The USA, in turn, is associated with the politics of a world power that is not seen positively by everyone. Anti-Americanism remains a serious political motivation. Many people, when hearing the combination of ‘United States’ and ‘Europe’, think primarily of ‘Brussels’, and associate ‘Brussels’ with a bureaucratic monster that, far removed from the citizens, imposes some kind of malice on them and the EU states. The fact that they misinterpret the practical political process in the European Union in doing so does not bother most people.
Switzerland or the USA?
The question of who invented the term ‘United States of Europe’ cannot be resolved here. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Paneuropean Union, brought the term into play as early as 1923, more than 100 years ago. In his book ‘Paneuropa’, he writes: ‘The crowning achievement of Paneuropean efforts would be the constitution of the United States of Europe based on the model of the United States of America.’ A few years later, in the magazine ‘Paneuropa’, which was by then being published, he took a stand on this again under the title ‘Switzerland as a Model’: ‘The designation “United States of Europe” has often led to misunderstandings. It was understood as a European analogy to the United States of America.’ … ‘Europe will never be able to imitate the American constitution; any attempt to do so would threaten Paneuropean development. In its realisation, Europe can follow no foreign example, but only a European one; not the United States of America, but the Swiss Confederation.’
These two different definitions of the United States of Europe by the same author within a few years already show that the use of this term is less about European integration and much more about the understanding of the state. Do we mean by state a central state that regulates everything centrally, or do we mean by state a unit organised according to the principle of subsidiarity? But today, one cannot assume that either a European Minister or a lead candidate in a European election has read Coudenhove-Kalergi.
Mind you, the USA is not a central state either. The individual states have their own tax rates, different approaches to private gun ownership, and maintain territorial defence units. Nevertheless, the USA acts in foreign policy or security policy as an actor that (partly supported by its economic power) can develop a shaping force on the stage of world politics.
The ever closer union
In Europe itself, the term United States of Europe was also viewed positively for a long time. The Treaties of Rome (1957) contain the goal of an ever closer union. Certainly, the density of regulation was significantly lower back then, but the realisation that a fragmented Europe would be dominated by others was still visible to everyone due to the division of the continent.
Josef Klaus, Austrian Federal Chancellor of the ÖVP-only government from 1966 to 1970, spoke of the United States of Europe and also of a European government that should be responsible for economic and foreign policy, among other things. One of his staff members in the cabinet was Alois Mock. He later became the Austrian Foreign Minister who negotiated the country’s accession to the European Union. In his policy towards Yugoslavia, he was a pioneer in recognising the independence of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, etc., and in the integration of these countries into the European Union. He did not hide behind neutrality and subsequently also massively supported the independence of Kosovo. If his example were followed today, a Defence Minister from the ÖVP would not go so far as to say that the use of Western weapons systems by Ukraine against Russian territory, in order to eliminate artillery systems used to attack the civilian population of the city of Kharkiv, for example, was the crossing of a red line.
Now, the European Union is neither a central state nor a pure alliance of nation states (regardless of whether these are organised centrally or federally). The EU is neither a federal state nor a confederation of states. The EU combines both elements. It has community institutions such as the Commission and the European Parliament, which manifest the federal character. The Council, on the other hand, is a purely intergovernmental institution. The EU is therefore also referred to as a construction ‘sui generis’, i.e. a very unique construction that is, moreover, still in a state of development.
If a contradiction is now constructed between the term ‘United States of Europe’ and the motto of the European Union ‘United in diversity’ (as European and Constitutional Minister Karoline Edtstadler has done), the question arises as to what understanding of the state lies behind such a constructed contradiction.
Central state or federal state
The two EU countries Germany and Austria are also united in diversity. The states (specifically the federal states) have a strong position in both countries. Federalism is well developed in both countries. States such as Spain and Italy (for South Tyrol) also have autonomy statutes for certain regions. The regions have their own characteristics, have legislative competence, and in some cases even tax competence. There are Euro-regions in the EU where regions work together at various levels across current national borders.
The contradiction between the ‘United States of Europe’ and the motto of the European Union ‘United in diversity’ therefore does not exist. A Constitutional Minister of the Republic of Austria ought to know that. The construction of such a contradiction is the real nonsense. Anyone who constructs such a contradiction is rather suspected of actually seeing the state as a central unit that claims the right to be allowed to regulate everything and also to be able to regulate everything.
The total state
The Paneuropean founder Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi called such a state a total state. But that would be in contradiction to the freedom of the citizens. Of course, it could be that the European and Constitutional Minister only made her nonsense statement out of fear of a demagogic party. But anyone who allows themselves to be guided by demagoguery has lost the claim to political leadership.
© Featured image: EU 2019 Mauro Bottaro
