Europe at Crossroads After Vote

The recent European elections have brought about some changes in the mindset of public opinion. This will define new starting points for the future development of public institutions that continue to search for new strategies, new plans, and new goals. While, on the one hand, the vote held in early June 2024 indicates quite clearly the progress of sovereigntist ideas, on the other hand, the integration process will have to continue in the coming years, albeit with some possible basic adjustments.

After seventy-four years of gradual transfer of sovereignty from the member states to the institutions of the community, many European citizens wanted a substantially different directive: instead of continuing to transfer sovereignty to the organs of the European Union, attention is drawn to the need to partially restore such sovereignty in order to allow public administrations to deal directly with problems at the local level, problems that could jeopardize the protection and preservation of cultural and religious identity at the national level. It is also true that the considerable immigration that has taken place in Europe over the last fifteen years has contributed significantly to the creation of more or less widespread fears about the protection and preservation of the national identity of European countries, which perhaps more than many others preserve precious historical, artistic, and cultural heritage. In other words, a revolution in thinking is taking place.

After World War II, after the material and moral destruction that the conflict entailed, Europe followed a bipolar development due to the political and military presence of the two superpowers that dominated the peace processes. The capitalist model, based on freedom, democracy, and market economy, was establishing itself in the western part of the continent, while the socialist model, based on collectivized and planned economy, was spreading in the central-eastern part of the continent. The two development models have competed through antagonistic and parallel channels for nearly fifty years.

When the system of real socialism collapsed in Europe between 1989 and 1991, it was believed that the capitalist model was now the only possible model that could safely lead to economic and trade globalization. But the hegemony of the capitalist world, especially the West, did not last long. The watershed created by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent crises of a regional nature (Iraq, Afghanistan, Arab Spring, Venezuela, North Korea, Nagorno-Karabakh, Iran, Ukraine, Middle East…), and the financial crisis of 2008, and the coronavirus pandemic of 2020-2022 – all caused the decline of the Western capitalist model, opening the door to a new multipolar model, in which the great progress of the People’s Republic of China had a growing role.

Now there is a renewed sense of nationhood in Europe, this romantic concept that was born after the French Revolution and developed in the 19th century, fueling the passion of European peoples for their independence. It is also true that in the twentieth century, the growth of the sense of nation has led to destructive excesses in both nationalism and, above all, racism. It seems that now is the time to revive the concept of a nation that is sustained in the safe dimensions of peace and respect for other peoples, in other words, a sense of nation focused solely on the peaceful defense of national identity. Thus, the trend towards partial restoration of national sovereignty will not be driven by fundamental anti-European sentiments, but rather by the urgent need to intervene to prevent indiscriminate European integration from leading to the disappearance of national values considered worth protecting and preserving in the future. The ancient concept of “Europe of Homelands,” which de Gaulle’s policy interpreted more than sixty years ago, seems to be re-emerging in some parts of Europe and apparently represents a definitely innovative aspect worthy of attention.

However, the process of European integration will have to continue in the coming years, albeit with some possible fundamental adjustments. It is inconceivable that fundamental Euroscepticism could sabotage or reverse what has been done and achieved from 1950 to today. An integrated Europe is an undeniable reality, an organization that has brought countless benefits to the peoples of its member countries thanks to shared values: a common market, trade liberalization, harmonization of tax and regulatory requirements, elimination of border controls, a single currency, the ability to negotiate as an integrated community – all point to the fact that the progress made so far is valuable, especially in light of the competition between major blocs at the global level.

But Europe will have no future if those who are called upon to govern it are inspired by feelings of rigid sectarianism and isolation. Already now we read, especially in the movements of the socialist and social-democratic persuasion, proposals that tend to form a large group together with the center-right People’s Party in order to isolate and exclude movements of sovereignist inspiration for the salvation of Europe. There would be no greater error than to ignore (and therefore insult!) those who were interpreters of new ideas supported by popular vote and certainly worthy of respect and consideration. A sign of democracy is the ability to respect those who embody different ideas, and a sign of common sense and political maturity is the ability to engage others in finding an acceptable compromise, demonstrating that you also take into account, consider, and respect their feelings. Now we will see whether irrational behavior will cause new dangerous ditches, or whether common sense will prevail in finding a political solution worthy of the future that Europe essentially deserves.