What If the European Union Never Formed?

The Actual History

The European Union (EU) as we know it today evolved through a decades-long process of integration that began in the aftermath of World War II. The devastation of two world wars within three decades led European leaders to seek new forms of cooperation that would make future conflicts between European nations unthinkable.

The first concrete step toward European integration came in 1951 with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Proposed by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman in what became known as the Schuman Declaration of May 9, 1950, the ECSC placed the coal and steel industries of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg under a common authority. By integrating these industries, which were essential for warfare, the ECSC aimed to make war between historic rivals France and Germany "not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible."

Building on the success of the ECSC, these six nations signed the Treaties of Rome in 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). The EEC created a common market, eliminating customs duties between member states and establishing common policies for agriculture, transport, and trade. This marked the beginning of the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people—the "four freedoms" that would become fundamental to European integration.

The 1960s and early 1970s saw the consolidation of these communities and the first enlargement, with the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark joining in 1973. The 1970s also brought challenges, including economic difficulties following the oil crisis and disagreements over the pace and direction of integration. Nevertheless, the European Parliament held its first direct elections in 1979, enhancing the democratic legitimacy of European institutions.

A significant leap forward came with the Single European Act of 1986, which set the goal of establishing a single market by the end of 1992. This period also saw the accession of Greece (1981) and Spain and Portugal (1986), expanding the community southward.

The most transformative step in European integration came with the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and entering into force in 1993. This treaty formally established the European Union, introduced European citizenship, laid the groundwork for the euro currency, and expanded cooperation to include foreign policy, security, and justice affairs. The Maastricht Treaty represented a shift from primarily economic integration to a more comprehensive political union.

The late 1990s and early 2000s saw further deepening of integration through the Amsterdam Treaty (1999) and the Nice Treaty (2003), which reformed EU institutions in preparation for eastward expansion. In 2002, the euro entered circulation in 12 member states, creating one of the world's largest single currency areas.

The EU underwent its largest expansion in 2004, when ten new countries—mostly former Eastern Bloc states—joined, followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 and Croatia in 2013. This expansion extended the EU's borders eastward and increased its population by nearly 100 million people.

The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, streamlined EU institutions, strengthened the European Parliament, created the positions of President of the European Council and High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law.

Recent years have brought significant challenges, including the eurozone debt crisis beginning in 2009, the migration crisis of 2015, the United Kingdom's decision to leave the EU (Brexit) in 2016, and the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, the EU launched NextGenerationEU, a €750 billion recovery plan that represented a new level of fiscal solidarity among member states.

Today, the European Union consists of 27 member states with a combined population of approximately 450 million people. It has developed into a unique political entity with its own institutions, legal system, citizenship, currency, and diplomatic representation. While not a federal state, the EU exercises significant supranational authority in many policy areas, from trade and agriculture to environmental protection and consumer rights.

The EU has transformed Europe from a continent ravaged by war to one of the world's most stable and prosperous regions. It has created the world's largest single market, abolished border controls between most member states through the Schengen Agreement, established a common currency used by 19 member states, and developed a body of law that applies throughout the union. Despite ongoing challenges and debates about its future direction, the European Union represents the most ambitious and successful experiment in supranational governance in modern history.

The Point of Divergence

In this alternate timeline, the trajectory of post-World War II European cooperation takes a fundamentally different turn beginning in 1950. Instead of proposing the European Coal and Steel Community, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, influenced by stronger nationalist sentiments within France and greater skepticism about supranational institutions, proposes a more limited "European Economic Cooperation Council" (EECC).

Unlike the ECSC, which placed coal and steel industries under a common authority with supranational powers, the EECC is designed as a purely intergovernmental organization focused on coordinating economic policies while preserving national sovereignty. The EECC explicitly rejects any transfer of powers to supranational institutions and emphasizes that all decisions require unanimous agreement among participating states.

This alternative proposal still attracts the original six nations (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), but sets European cooperation on a path that prioritizes national autonomy over integration. The EECC establishes regular ministerial meetings and a small secretariat to facilitate coordination, but lacks the Commission, Court of Justice, and Assembly that characterized the actual ECSC.

In this timeline, subsequent attempts to deepen European integration face stronger resistance. The proposed European Defense Community fails more decisively in 1954, reinforcing the preference for intergovernmental cooperation over supranational integration. When economic cooperation expands later in the 1950s, it takes the form of a traditional free trade area rather than a customs union with common external tariffs or a common market with harmonized regulations.

By the 1960s, European cooperation in this alternate timeline has developed into a network of overlapping intergovernmental arrangements rather than a path toward ever-closer union. The absence of strong supranational institutions means that integration proceeds more slowly and unevenly, with countries participating selectively in different cooperative frameworks based on their national interests.

This divergence fundamentally alters the subsequent development of Europe, creating a continent where nation-states remain the primary actors in international relations, economic cooperation is more limited and pragmatic, and the vision of a united Europe gives way to a more fragmented reality.

Immediate Aftermath

Economic Arrangements

In the years following the establishment of the European Economic Cooperation Council, economic relations between European countries developed along different lines than in our timeline. Rather than moving toward a customs union and common market, European states negotiated a series of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that reduced tariffs but maintained national control over trade policy.

By the late 1950s, two distinct economic blocs had emerged in Western Europe:

The Continental Trade Association (CTA), comprising the original EECC members (France, West Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries), which established preferential trading arrangements while maintaining separate external tariffs
The European Free Commerce Area (EFCA), led by the United Kingdom and including Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Austria, and Portugal, which focused exclusively on industrial goods trade without agricultural integration

These arrangements reduced tariffs on many goods but fell far short of the comprehensive economic integration achieved by the actual European Economic Community. Border controls remained in place, national regulations continued to fragment markets, and economic policies remained uncoordinated.

Political Developments

Without the institutional framework provided by the European Communities, political cooperation in Western Europe developed through more traditional diplomatic channels. The Council of Europe, established in 1949 as in our timeline, became the primary forum for political dialogue, but its purely consultative nature limited its effectiveness.

Franco-German relations, while improved from the immediate post-war period, lacked the deep institutional ties that the actual European integration process created. The 1963 Élysée Treaty between France and West Germany was signed in this timeline as well, but without the context of shared European institutions, it remained a bilateral arrangement with limited broader impact.

The absence of supranational European institutions also affected domestic politics across the continent. Political parties organized primarily around national issues, without the pro-integration versus sovereignty debates that shaped European politics in our timeline. This reinforced nationally-focused political identities rather than fostering a sense of European citizenship.

Security Architecture

NATO remained the primary security organization in Western Europe, but without the complementary process of European integration, transatlantic relations developed differently. The United States maintained a more dominant position within the alliance, with European countries having less ability to coordinate positions or develop autonomous security capabilities.

France's independent security policy under Charles de Gaulle proceeded similarly to our timeline, with France developing its own nuclear deterrent and withdrawing from NATO's integrated military command in 1966. However, without European institutions to provide an alternative framework for cooperation, this created greater fragmentation in Western European security arrangements.

International Economic Relations

The fragmented nature of European economic cooperation affected Europe's position in the global economy. In trade negotiations within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), European countries often took divergent positions, reducing their collective influence compared to the United States.

The international monetary system also evolved differently. Without the momentum toward European monetary cooperation that eventually led to the euro, European countries remained more dependent on the dollar-based Bretton Woods system. When that system faced crises in the late 1960s and early 1970s, European responses were less coordinated, leading to greater currency volatility.

Social and Cultural Impact

The absence of European institutions and symbols meant that national identities remained more dominant in this alternate timeline. Educational exchanges, cultural programs, and people-to-people contacts across borders still increased compared to the pre-war period, but at a slower pace and with less institutional support than in our timeline.

The free movement of people, a cornerstone of actual European integration, did not develop systematically. While tourism and business travel increased, labor mobility remained restricted by national immigration policies, limiting economic opportunities and cultural exchange.

Long-term Impact

Economic Fragmentation and Development

Persistent Economic Nationalism

By the 1980s, the European economy in this alternate timeline remained significantly more fragmented than in our actual history. Without the Single European Act and the push to complete the internal market, national regulations continued to create barriers to trade in services, capital movements remained partially restricted, and public procurement markets stayed largely closed to foreign competition.

This fragmentation had substantial economic costs. Studies in this alternate timeline estimated that Europe's GDP was approximately 10-15% lower by 2000 than it would have been with deeper integration. Particularly affected were knowledge-intensive industries that benefit from economies of scale and network effects, such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing.

Divergent Economic Models

Without the harmonizing influence of EU regulations and policies, European economic models diverged more sharply along national lines. Germany maintained its export-oriented manufacturing economy with strong corporatist elements. France pursued a more state-directed approach with national champions in strategic industries. The UK embraced financial liberalization earlier and more comprehensively than continental economies.

These divergences created inefficiencies but also allowed for more policy experimentation. Some countries developed successful niches that might have been constrained by common European policies in our timeline.

Regional Disparities

The absence of European structural and cohesion funds meant that regional economic disparities within Europe remained larger than in our timeline. Southern European countries like Spain, Portugal, and Greece, which benefited substantially from EU development funding after joining, experienced slower and more uneven development. By 2020, GDP per capita in these countries was estimated to be 20-30% lower than in our actual timeline.

Similarly, after the fall of communism, Central and Eastern European countries lacked the anchor of EU membership prospects and associated financial support. Their transition to market economies proceeded more unevenly, with greater vulnerability to economic crises and political instability.

Political Landscape

Nation-State Resilience

The continued primacy of the nation-state in European affairs reinforced national political systems and identities. Political parties remained organized primarily around national issues, and voter turnout in national elections was higher than in our timeline, where EU-level decision-making has sometimes created a sense of democratic deficit.

However, this nation-state focus also meant that transnational challenges like climate change, migration, and digital regulation were addressed less effectively, with uncoordinated and sometimes contradictory national policies.

Democratic Development

The absence of EU membership conditions affected democratic consolidation in parts of Europe. Southern European countries transitioning from authoritarianism in the 1970s (Spain, Portugal, Greece) and post-communist countries after 1989 lacked the external anchor that EU accession requirements provided in our timeline.

While most European countries maintained democratic systems, democratic backsliding occurred more frequently and was harder to address without the peer pressure and legal mechanisms that the EU provides in our actual timeline.

European Identity

Without EU institutions, symbols, and programs, European identity developed differently. National identities remained stronger, and the sense of being "European" was more cultural and historical than political. Younger generations, who in our timeline often identify strongly as European citizens, maintained more nationally-focused identities in this alternate world.

This stronger national focus sometimes facilitated more direct democratic engagement but also made it harder to develop common approaches to shared challenges.

International Relations

Europe in the Cold War

Without the unifying framework of European integration, Western Europe's position in the Cold War was more fragmented. NATO remained the primary security organization, but transatlantic relations were more asymmetrical, with the United States maintaining greater influence over European security policies.

Détente initiatives with the Eastern Bloc proceeded on more bilateral terms, with West Germany's Ostpolitik developing without the complementary context of European Political Cooperation that existed in our timeline.

Post-Cold War Order

The end of the Cold War in 1989-1991 unfolded similarly to our timeline, but Europe's response differed significantly. Without EU institutions and the prospect of EU membership, Western Europe's engagement with former communist countries was more limited and less transformative.

Germany's reunification in 1990 raised greater concerns among its neighbors without the reassuring context of European integration. France, in particular, was more apprehensive about a larger, reunified Germany, leading to more strained Franco-German relations in the 1990s.

Global Influence

Europe's global influence was diminished in this alternate timeline. Without the economic weight of the EU single market and the diplomatic coordination that EU institutions provide, European countries struggled to shape global rules and standards. In international organizations like the WTO, IMF, and UN agencies, European positions were more fragmented and less influential.

By the 2020s, as power shifted toward Asia, Europe's relative decline was more pronounced than in our timeline. Individual European countries, even the largest, found themselves increasingly marginalized in a world dominated by the United States and China, with rising powers like India and Brazil also gaining influence.

Monetary and Financial Systems

Currency Arrangements

Without the path to monetary union established by the Maastricht Treaty, European currencies remained national, though with various coordination mechanisms. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, European countries attempted to limit currency fluctuations through arrangements similar to the actual European Monetary System, but with less institutional support and commitment.

These looser arrangements proved vulnerable during financial crises. Currency speculation and competitive devaluations occurred more frequently, disrupting trade and investment flows. By the 2000s, the Deutsche Mark had emerged as a regional anchor currency, with several smaller European economies informally pegging to it, creating a de facto "Mark zone" that was less comprehensive and stable than the eurozone in our timeline.

Financial Integration

Financial markets in Europe remained more nationally segmented without the harmonizing regulations and passport system that EU financial directives created in our timeline. This reduced economies of scale in financial services and limited risk diversification, making European financial systems more vulnerable to shocks.

The 2008 global financial crisis hit Europe harder in this alternate timeline, with less coordinated responses and more severe sovereign debt problems in vulnerable countries. Without institutions like the European Stability Mechanism, countries facing debt crises had to rely primarily on the IMF, often with more stringent conditions and less favorable outcomes.

Social and Environmental Developments

Labor Mobility and Migration

Without free movement of people, labor mobility within Europe remained constrained by national immigration policies. This reduced economic opportunities for workers and made labor markets less efficient. By 2020, intra-European migration levels were estimated to be less than half of those in our actual timeline.

External migration policies also remained nationally determined, creating inconsistencies and inefficiencies. During the 2015 migration crisis, the lack of common European approaches led to even greater chaos than in our timeline, with unilateral border closures and minimal burden-sharing.

Environmental Protection

Environmental challenges received less coordinated attention without EU-level policies and enforcement mechanisms. While international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement still existed, their implementation in Europe was more uneven. Countries with stronger environmental movements, like Germany and Scandinavian nations, adopted ambitious policies, while others prioritized short-term economic interests over environmental protection.

By 2020, European carbon emissions were approximately 15-20% higher than in our timeline, and air and water quality standards varied significantly across the continent.

Consumer Protection and Standards

Without the harmonizing effect of the EU single market, consumer protection standards and product regulations remained nationally determined. This created inefficiencies for businesses operating across borders and uneven protections for consumers.

The "Brussels effect," whereby EU regulations often become global standards due to the size of the EU market, did not occur in this timeline. Instead, U.S. and increasingly Chinese standards became more globally influential, with European countries often having to adapt to externally determined rules.

Expert Opinions

Professor Helen Wallace, specialist in European integration at the London School of Economics, observes: "The absence of supranational European institutions would have profoundly altered the continent's development. While national sovereignty would have been preserved in a formal sense, the actual autonomy of European nation-states might well have been reduced in a world dominated by larger powers. The EU has paradoxically enhanced the effective sovereignty of its members by giving them collective influence over globalization processes that no European country could meaningfully shape alone. Without this collective framework, Europe's voice in global affairs would have diminished much more rapidly as power shifted toward larger economies and emerging powers."

Dr. Jean-Claude Piris, former Director-General of the Legal Service of the Council of the European Union, offers a more nuanced assessment: "We should not assume that without the EU, European cooperation would have been minimal. Alternative forms of intergovernmental cooperation would likely have developed, perhaps resembling the EFTA model but more comprehensive. These arrangements might have been more flexible and less bureaucratic than the actual EU, potentially avoiding some of the legitimacy challenges that EU institutions have faced. However, they would also have been less effective at addressing collective action problems and less capable of enforcing common rules, leading to more frequent defections and free-riding behaviors."

Professor Loukas Tsoukalis, President of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, highlights the implications for smaller states: "For smaller European countries, the absence of the EU would have been particularly consequential. The EU has provided them with a seat at the table and a voice in decisions that would otherwise be dominated by larger powers. It has also offered a rules-based framework that constrains the exercise of power by larger states. Without this framework, smaller European countries would have faced starker choices between bandwagoning with larger neighbors or seeking external protection, typically from the United States, with less autonomy in either scenario."