The E.U.: An Obituary

by John Rowley Gillingham

A major account of the failings of the European Union—and why it has to go

The European Union is a besieged institution. It is struggling in vain to overcome the eurozone crisis and faces an influx of refugees not seen since World War II. The Schengen Agreement is a dead letter, and Britain stands on the brink of leaving altogether. The EU is unfit for the challenges of the coming age of increased global competition and high tech. In sum, the drive for an “ever-closer union” has set Europe on the wrong course: plunged it into depression, fuelled national antagonisms, debilitated democracy, and accelerated decline. In this pithy, rigorously argued book, leading historian John Gillingham examines a once great notion that soured long ago.

From its postwar origins, through the Single Market, to the troubles of the present, Gillingham explains how Europe’s would-be government became a force for anti-democratic centralization and inept policy-making. Brussels has inspired a world of illusion that now threatens to undo the undoubted achievements of integration. The EU: An Obituary is an urgent call to the political Left, Right, and Centre to act before it is too late.


From the Trade Paperback edition.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, European History, Economics

375 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

John Rowley Gillingham, born 1943

Reviews

[Samuel Hurst · Rating 3 out of 5]

When you’re preaching to the converted, the sermon still needs to be clearly written and engaging. Pity.

[Charlie Rosenthal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would've liked this book a lot more if I was required to read it for class, rather than for fun.

[Breandán O Conchúir · Rating 4 out of 5]

A interesting and well researched and argued book, Gillingham makes good arguments about the anti democratic history of the EU and the growing internal contradictions.

Where his analysis falls down however is in his emphasis that further neoliberalism will save Europe. As we have seen the commitment to neoliberal economics is one of the EU's potentially fatal flaws as it buts market forces above democratic control.

Despite this this book is still a must read for anyone who wants to get an insight into the history of the EUs flaws

[W · Rating 3 out of 5]

On p. 188, Gillingham breaks out into a feverish and sincere plea for a specific type of reform. Here seems to be the answer to the main question aroused about the text itself, which is: why does it condemn the EU in quite such repetitive, hopeless terms? If the book was seeking to convince its reader against the existence of the union – that is, an argument for Brexit multiplied – then this would not be a good approach. But this is not a text which really aims at any membership debate (the kind of which is miserably still ongoing in Britain, even after its settlement) and so it does not reject the idea of the EU or a federal Europe outright. Indeed it does, very effectively, show how that idea, or 'myth', has influenced a poorly constructed and maintained union. But my point is that the intense negativity in most of the book serves to amplify the calls for urgent restructuring according to the author’s particular judgements. He offers a glimmer of an opportunity which is dazzling because the rest is so dim.

I still think, despite that, that the tone is overly scathing. It’s not reserved enough, which is not necessary because, particularly in the second half, there is plenty of illustration of dysfunction in the EU system, and plenty of evidencing of widespread doubt among experts, leaders, and publics.

The other question which the invective raises is one of reliability. The author’s background is a positive here - a Harvard history fellow with fine recommendations from his industry. Most importantly, he’s not a part of a pro- or anti- tribe within Europe itself, being geographically distant whilst still seeming to empathise with the experience of the continent. He makes no secret of the fact that he’s an eternal economic neoliberal, but this is only made relevant for his interpretation of why European countries did experience great growth during (and despite) the existence of the EEC/EC/EU, and secondly in order to suggest preferable alternatives to what has developed. Still, there’s a dubious attempt to retrofit 1980s economics onto the earlier West German economic miracle. In general, the passages about the European economic experience of the 1960s and ‘70s are murky – technical, awkward, boring. There are other patches in the later stages of the book which fit the same description.

And there are mistakes in the editing, factual mistakes (e.g., Chirac being President during 1986-88), awkward sentence structures, a reference to Frankenstein as Transylvanian – these kinds of errors are a pity because the work is often shiny and impressive, in both its literary quality and its sense of authority. It does commit itself to a specific set of political values, but even the multitude of readers who do not match those values should be able to appreciate this methodically justified expression of disdain. Just be aware that it only indirectly addresses the ideational debate of integration vs national sovereignty.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought provoking piece, especially in times when the UK is finding its feet post Brexit, though I'm not convinced Mr Gillingham properly or sincerely jousts with many views which oppose his own. He brings forward compelling information but does not present it in an engaging or memorable manner. The book is also littered with spelling errors and typos, which is bad enough in a hardback that was no doubt rushed out in time for the 2016 referendum, but is inexcusable in a paperback released months later.

[Elan Garfias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critiques of the EU are always appreciated but this one is such a slog. It's severe but not particularly vitriolic, and promotes the economic integration which the EU has brought with it, with the caveat that said integration hasn't gone nearly as far as it needs to. Rather, the author sees the main fault of the institution as an overemphasis on political union with no real goal in mind. The main institutions of the body (Council, Commission, and Parliament) have vague if expanding prerogatives and often work at cross purposes. While this is a common critique from euroskeptics of all flavors, Gillingham devotes a hefty chunk of the book to detailing the evolution of the Benelux Coal and Steel Community into the Union we are all familiar with today. Key to these developments, and something which I haven't found in other narratives, is the role little Belgium played, consciously expanding the scope and presence of European institutions as a way of giving itself a role in the new order. With its tiny population and stable--albeit small--economy, policymakers in Brussels forged a role for their country that it continues to hold today. We get a nice tour overview of European integration through the latter half of the twentieth century, where a new European bureaucracy begins to entrench itself, wrangle ever more power, and replicate itself. What starts as essentially "a cartel of Western European heavy industry" banding together to maintain export competitiveness morphs into an ideological commitment to "more Europe." The book addresses the myriad breakdowns of EU effectiveness, from expensive administrative bloat to the constellation of NGOs ringing Brussels to elites' tendency across the continent to ignore their electorates' more antieuropean instincts and shove more Europe down their throats. Gillingham's advice on what to do about it was a bit surprising, and I suppose only because this is a Verso book I was expecting something a bit more progressive and imaginative a la Varoufakis. Gillingham fully accepts the neoliberal order and embraces energy deregulation and trade deals like TTIP as a solution to unleash a new round of creative destruction. While he paints a compelling picture of the continent's bleak economic prospects and failure to adapt to a new tech-driven marketplace, I couldn't quite get behind his proposals for remedies. As the title suggests, though, he remains fundamentally pessimistic that even his centrist, market-driven reforms will come to pass, predicting instead a gradual erosion of EU credibility, an implosion of the Eurozone (who didn't see that coming?), and an inability to adapt. This last bit about the Eurozone I find very convincing, but cannot imagine who will be the first to make an exit from it. Perhaps with the rise of euroskeptic parties across the Union it may all happen sooner than we think.

[Lucinda Elliot · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am unusual in that I think that the furious debate between 'Leavers' and 'Remainers' over leaving the EU is largely irrelevant, because it is very likely to fall apart within the decade anyway, due to various structural and economic problems with it as an institution, and due to the changes in economic power and its forms in the world economy.
That said, I disliked the whole approach of the study. I felt that it had a structural bias towards unfettered profit ruling the economy.
I had few illusions about the EU as an institution, knowing that there was widespread graft, inefficiency and corruption, but I must admit that cynical as I am about it, I was dismayed by the extent of it as presented here.
Overall, this is a well informed analysis- from the point of view of a commentator on political economy seeing liberal capitalism as some sort of inevitable state of affairs, like the weather. No doubt Chaucer thought the same about feudalism, but the ideoological bias against any form of socialism as out of the question became tiresome as I progressed through the book.

[Isaac Hulse · Rating 1 out of 5]

I think it is good to read books by people that we disagree with which is why I stuck with this book until the end. What this book really shows is that there is no such thing as an objective view of the world. Gillingham's view of the EU, as a failing institution stems, not from the facts, but from ideolgy. He finds facts that suit this narrative, as someone writing an optimistic version of this book could equally do. I could write much much more but my opinion is even less relevant than Gillingham thinks the EU is. I started reading this book a long time ago, and if I'm honest, much of it is unmemorable but after submitting my dissertation yesterday it was pleasant to make a coffee and sit down for an hour to start a summer full of reading!

[Peter Vegel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very dense history of the EU, tracing all it's original sins. Some parts of the critique were quite revealing, other parts unfortunately felt a bit besides the point in a world that moves too fast for good commentaries to even think of catching up. Like the afterword about technological progress such as IoT suddenly feels much less relevant in a post-covid world. But I'm sure it will pop up again in the near future if the EU isn't too busy scrambling for a raison d'être after another crisis shocks it to its core.

[Eurethius Péllitièr · Rating 3 out of 5]

While the book gives an important insight into the function of the EU and it's background, I think there are continuous inconsistencies that describe holes where the EU could possibly be saved but don't discuss the wider implications, foundationally and structurally, of moving in that direction (this direction was inevitable) and while there's a demand for alternatives the options are at best unclear

[Lumumba Mthembu · Rating 2 out of 5]

My major takeaway from this obituary of the EU is that graft is not endemic to Africa. Much like most of the evil of which the colonised are accused, corruption is a projection of the master's behaviour.

[Stephen Tuck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth reading but quite dated as it predates the 2016 Brexit referendum. Good outline of the structural weaknesses of the European Union.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Every now and than another Child King makes his way to the front to stomp his little feet: something "is dead". CRT screens, film photography, democracy, whatever.