Europe: From Common Market to Common Identity

Source: Unsplash

The most telling achievement of the European Union has been the realisation of peace on a continent where that was previously unimaginable. That success is now so complete that it has become a normal fact of life. Paradoxically, that leaves us with a problem. Facts of life rarely command much attention. This very triumph has become a source of weakness: the EU is forced to justify its relevance in the absence of the danger it was built to avert. Unlike its individual member states, the EU derives its legitimacy from its purpose. It is a project of which the outline is set by agenda-setters in Brussels, mainly the technocratic Commission. With a persistent perception of a democratic deficit and the rise of eurosceptic parties in member states, the Union is left searching for a renewed legitimising force, strong enough to help it withstand growing external geopolitical pressures. Significantly increasing democratic participation at the European level is often proposed as the remedy. Yet this risks unsettling the delicate balance between democratic accountability and policy effectiveness on which the Union depends. Therefore, the solution is arguably found elsewhere: if a convincing popular narrative cannot be created out of the fear of conflict or promise of prosperity anymore, perhaps it is time to look a little more closely at what we may call our shared European identity.

The Heart of the European Union: The Common Market

The European Union is, at heart, an economic project. Its foundation rests upon tying political union together with economic prosperity, so as to make any self-motivated threat to political stability essentially self-destructive. National well-being is as such contingent to collective peace on the continent. This has been the key to the era of European peace, cooperation and strength as an international actor. One way to tackle the challenges the Union currently faces in this respect is to update its economic core, to strengthen its strongest suit. Both the Letta and Draghi reports, published in 2024 and commissioned respectively by the European Council and the Commission, acknowledge the structural constraints facing the single market in an increasingly competitive and fragmented global economy. The Letta report raises an important suggestion echoing Jacques Delors’ original vision: adding to the four freedoms of the European Single Market (goods, services, capital and people), a fifth: the freedom of research, knowledge and education. This proposal is set in the context of an overall strengthening of economic prosperity and competitiveness. Importantly, it also touches upon the extra credit the Union needs today.  By deepening intellectual and academic integration, it could help cultivate a deeper European ethos, rooted not only in markets, but in shared intellectual and cultural space.

The European Question: Euroscepticism

“Are you fed up with Brussels, too? Let’s not dance to their tune.” Big billboards portraying European leaders on a background of question marks appear everywhere.  As you walk out of the supermarket, get a drink on the terrace or wait for the Budapest metro, you will be confronted. Posted by the governing Fidesz party, the slogan is a blunt expression of Hungary’s growing euroscepticism. It is also a revealing one. Why has it so easily taken ground amongst the members of the Hungarian public? Whilst it is most directly a matter of democratic decline and news outlet manipulation, consolidating the power of the Fidesz party, the question echoes not only in Hungary. It resonates in Poland, Italy, and even into the Brussels bubble, albeit in the language of white papers, reports and debates rather than on the facade of an old post office. The question remains: is the EU moving too far away from its people? Has its technocratic, economically driven design become ill-suited to the broader ambitions it has gradually assumed? It has never proven to be a smart idea to ignore questions about the legitimacy of power. It is true that the EU functions on a different democratic scale than the  national one Member State citizens are used to participating in. The technocratic nature of the Commission and the division of even directly elected members of the Parliament into different europarties, are undoubtedly a hurdle to the direct sentiment of participation that conventional democracy offers.

This is not an accident of design, but a trade-off. The Union rests on a balance between input and output legitimacy. Where direct democratic input is limited, policy effectiveness is enhanced. And so the seesaw stabilises. The eurozone’s monetary policy offers a telling example. Set independently by the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, without democratic interference, it has delivered a stable currency across vastly different economies. Subjecting such policy to electoral pressures would almost certainly undermine that stability.

This does not mean the EU’s legitimacy problem is imaginary, simply that, with the premise that bureaucratic European efficiency is desirable, its solution might lie elsewhere.

If the Union is to counter the appeal of nationalist narratives, it must articulate a clearer sense of cruciality. It must highlight what it can offer in addition to the promises of the state. Nationalist sentiment is often historical, sentimental and undeniably strong. The European Union may purport to offer a similar attachment, but it risks falling short. What it can offer, where eurosceptic nationalism cannot reach is a forward-looking ethos: a vision of shared purpose and cooperation towards progress. In this way, the Union can transform nationalism from a force of division into a catalyst for unity. Instead of imposing an alternative tune, it can harmonise with its member states, demonstrating that European cooperation amplifies the promises of the nation.

Europe of Tomorrow: Knowledge and Innovation

Where then, can this European ethos be found? Can it be built on the same foundations as a national ethos or is it something entirely different? There is much to say for a historical and cultural foundation of the European identity. Movements such as the Renaissance and Enlightenment were distinctly European. Spreading from south to north, they crossed political boundaries and produced a shared intellectual legacy, preserved in libraries of philosophy and museums of art across the continent. These movements were interpreted and applied differently in different regions, yet they remained fundamentally pan-European. However, intellectual currents like these also fragmented Europe into the nations we know today, notably seen in the Italian and German Unifications. By grounding modern sovereign nation-states in common linguistic and cultural traditions, these unifications strengthened internal and external sovereignty while contributing to clearer political distinctions and inter-state rivalry in Europe. As noted in Politico, we can go back to Napoleon or the Roman Empire: culturally and legally, Europe has been united in different empires, under different rulers before. However, it seems that this unity was always somewhat superimposed, and always somehow defeated from within. That might be because it has been based on the waging of war and the establishment of an authority. Whilst some European philosophies, such as Athenian democracy and the rule of law, are fundamentally important in today’s Europe, it is important to notice that this has not been a continuity. Their importance was reasserted as the European Union was founded as a counterforce against war, and it was reasserted that these modes of governance are the best safeguards against the authoritarianism that so often leads to conflict.

 If this is the case, then a European ethos cannot simply be reconstructed from the past. Instead, it may need to be developed with a view to the future. As such, education, research and innovation could form the heart of a new forward-looking identity. These are policy areas in which progress is inherently collective. Knowledge does not stop at borders. Research and scientific breakthroughs are essentially improved through shared expertise. In this sense, European cooperation does not replace national ambition, but amplifies it. This is in line with the fifth freedom proposed in the recent aforementioned reports, which would extend integration to the free movement of knowledge.  By supporting cross-border funding and research initiatives, whether in the medical field, improving public health outcomes across Europe, or in university research, where diverse perspectives can be combined into deeper understanding, the Union can deliver tangible, future-oriented benefits that individual states would struggle to achieve alone, whilst re-affirming the central role of citizens in developing the knowledge that the European technocracy relies upon.

Cultural and intellectual development has long been a European pride. Whilst this development in distinct parts of the continent historically often led to conflict, the project of the EU has delivered a remarkable state of peace and cooperation. Eight decades into Europe’s era of peace, amid rising internal and external pressures, investing in shared knowledge and innovation has never been more urgent. By redefining a shared ethos, the Union might reassert its legitimacy and competitiveness, whilst cultivating a new European identity of tomorrow. 

Written by Anna Van-Impe

Edited by Nayana Sharma