Postwar and Backlash Toward the European Union

In Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, Judt unfolds the social, economic and cultural changes of Europe after World War II. Within his analysis, Judt examines the rise of the European Union, evaluating its economic and ideological impact. In short, the European Union involved the integration of nation states into an economic union. Postwar portrays the complex and intricate history behind the EU, as the union sought to provide durable peace to a continent heavily damaged by two World Wars.

The public backlash toward the European Union is particularly interesting (and is a topic Professor King was only able to briefly mention in lecture). Like many, Judt is a proponent of the European Union and discusses the benefits and successes of the EU. Nevertheless, Judt also points out the limitations of the European Union; these limitations are often disconcerting to European citizens. Judt writes: “Like ‘growth’ or ‘peace’ –with both of which it was closely associated in the minds of its proponents– ‘Europe’ was too benign to attract opposition” (733).

The vagueness of the EU, along with “the all-too-precise detail of EU legislative directives”, has given rise to the democratic deficit (as described in lecture). For this reason, Europeans have trouble caring about a union which is unclear in its identity, but at the same time heavily encroaches and influences daily life.

Of course, Judt counters this “public backlash”, pointing out the way in which laws may be collectively devised via the European Union, but then implemented by individual nation states; this is a rather unique aspect of the EU. In other words, the Union serves as a sort of compromise, and as Judt puts it, an “international governance undertaken by national governments”.

Secondly, the EU is limited in that it has no way of determining and enforcing security interests. The EU is not a state; it has no army. For this reason, many wonder how the European Union will intervene when member-states are threatened. Again, Judt refutes this common “backlash”. He points out that the EU has defended its member states against foreign threats, specifically, by protecting economic interests. To exemplify EU defense, Judt cites tax breaks for exporters, high tariffs and restrictions on European products.

Judt continues this argument: “But these limitations –the fact that in spite of its size and wealth the EU was not a state, much less a great power– paradoxically served to enhance its image, at home and abroad” (735). In other words, the EU is unique in that it isn’t as much a slew of institutions but instead a set of “European values” which is, and continues to be, a very powerful entity.