Progress and Reverse in the European Integration

The dynamics of the European integration resemble a pendulum swinging between progress (supranationality strengthening) and reverse (renationalization). Such events as the creation of the Eurozone and the establishment of the Schengen area clearly demarcate progress. The examples of reverse are the failure of the European constitution at the referenda in France and the Netherlands or the UK opting for Brexit. Both progress and reverse are normatively neutral processes, as each of them fulfills productive functions for the European Union. Thus, progress helps the EU to show its raison d’être both to its own member states and to the non-EU states. Progress encourages the EU to create its own identity by adopting common goals to the realia. In turn, reverse is in-built in the EU’s decision-making process to save member states’ symbolic and material resources. The European Commission as the main agent of integration tends to make proposals that maximize authority delegation, while the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers as agents of reverse introduce amendments in favour of the member states. The stronger is progress, the more visible is the reverse it provokes. If progress is incremental and reverse is groundbreaking, important problems at the previous stages of the integration process have not been timely solved. At first glance, it seems evident that reverse creates obstacles on the way to advanced integration stages. However, this impression turns out to be false, because reverse and disintegration are not one and the same thing. Reverse only shows that the problems of the previous integration phases have remained unresolved, and may turn into threats in case they are ignored for the sake of forcing enhanced authority delegation. Moving ahead despite the EU’s existing institutional shortcomings would mean the necessity for the stronger states to compensate for the asymmetries of the political system by solving the problems of the weaker members. In this case, the gap between the stronger and the weaker EU states may broaden and may create a real threat of disintegration. Reverse is the EU's natural safety lock from this scenario. There are three possible reactions to reverse: absorption of the EU's opponents, elaboration of new initiatives taking into account the opponents' positions, exit of the opponents. The first option proves the strength of the EU’s critics, the second one helps stabilize the pace of progress, the third one enables maximum unity. Therefore, the EU can ensure safe progress only by reacting to reverse. Without reverse, the integration supporters have the same chances for success as a driver of a car without brakes.