What If The European Union Never Formed?

The Actual History

The European Union (EU) as we know it today emerged from a decades-long process of European integration that began in the aftermath of World War II. The devastation of two world wars within three decades created a powerful impetus among European leaders to forge mechanisms that would make future conflicts between European nations unthinkable. This vision was perhaps most eloquently expressed by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in his 1946 Zurich speech, where he called for "a kind of United States of Europe."

The first concrete step toward integration came in 1951 with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), bringing together Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany to create a common market for coal and steel—critical resources that had previously fueled the European arms industry. By placing these industries under a supranational authority, the ECSC aimed to make war between historic rivals France and Germany "not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible," as declared by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman.

Building on the ECSC's success, 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 customs union that eliminated tariffs between member states and established common external tariffs. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the EEC expanded its membership and deepened integration: Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined in 1973, followed by Greece in 1981, and Spain and Portugal in 1986.

A watershed moment came with the signing of the Single European Act in 1986, which committed members to create a genuine single market—enabling the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people—by the end of 1992. This momentum toward deeper integration culminated in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which formally established the European Union and laid the groundwork for the euro, a common currency.

The EU continued to evolve and expand in the post-Cold War era. The collapse of the Soviet bloc opened the door for Eastern European nations to join, resulting in major enlargements in 2004 (adding ten new members, mostly former communist states), 2007 (Romania and Bulgaria), and 2013 (Croatia). Meanwhile, integration deepened with the Schengen Agreement (removing internal border controls), the Amsterdam Treaty, the Nice Treaty, and eventually the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, which streamlined EU institutions and created new leadership positions.

Today's EU comprises 27 member states (following the United Kingdom's departure in 2020), with a combined population of nearly 450 million people. It has developed from primarily an economic union into an organization spanning policy areas from climate and environment to health, justice, migration, and foreign affairs. The EU operates through a complex system of supranational independent institutions and intergovernmental decisions negotiated by its members, representing one of history's most ambitious attempts at peaceful regional integration.

Despite persistent challenges—including the eurozone debt crisis, the 2015 migration crisis, rising populism, and Brexit—the EU remains a powerful global actor with a combined GDP of approximately $15 trillion, making its single market one of the largest economies in the world. While imperfect, it stands as a historically unprecedented experiment in transnational governance and regional cooperation.

The Point of Divergence

What if the European Union never formed? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where European integration stalled in its early stages, preventing the emergence of the supranational union that has defined European politics and economics since the late 20th century.

Several plausible points of divergence could have derailed European integration:

The most dramatic potential divergence point centers on the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) of 1951—the first concrete step toward integration. The ECSC emerged from the Schuman Plan, proposed by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman but conceptualized largely by Jean Monnet, a visionary civil servant. In our alternate timeline, several factors might have prevented this crucial first step:

A stronger communist influence in post-war France could have made cooperation with capitalist nations politically toxic. The French Communist Party was already the largest party in France's first post-war elections and strongly opposed European integration. If communist politicians had gained key ministerial positions, particularly the Foreign Ministry, the Schuman Plan might never have been proposed.

Alternatively, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer could have rejected the ECSC proposal. Adenauer faced significant domestic opposition to relinquishing sovereignty so soon after the war. If, perhaps due to stronger nationalist sentiment in post-war Germany or concerns about French dominance, Adenauer had decided against joining the ECSC, the project would have lost critical momentum.

Another possibility lies in the 1954 European Defence Community (EDC) debacle. In our timeline, the French National Assembly rejected the EDC, but European integration continued on economic grounds. However, if this rejection had been perceived as a more fundamental repudiation of supranationalism—perhaps accompanied by a revival of nationalist sentiment across Europe or a less severe perception of the Soviet threat—the integration process might have collapsed entirely.

The most likely scenario combines these factors: without the consistent driving force of Cold War pressures, and with stronger nationalist sentiments in key countries like France and Germany, the early technical cooperation of the ECSC might have remained limited to specific industrial sectors rather than expanding into the broader European Economic Community.

In this alternate timeline, the Treaties of Rome in 1957 either never materialize or establish a much more limited form of cooperation—perhaps merely a traditional trade agreement rather than the foundations of a supranational community. Without the institutional framework and expansive vision of the EEC, European cooperation would remain intergovernmental, fragmented, and limited in scope, radically altering the continent's subsequent development.

Immediate Aftermath

Fragmented Economic Recovery

The immediate economic consequences of stalled European integration would have been profound, particularly for war-ravaged Continental Europe in the 1950s and 1960s:

Limited Market Access: Without the common market established by the EEC, European economies would have recovered more slowly from World War II. Each country would maintain separate trade policies, tariff barriers, and protectionist measures, significantly impeding intra-European trade. Industries like automobile manufacturing, increasingly dependent on cross-border supply chains, would develop along strictly national lines with higher production costs and reduced competitiveness.

Currency Instability: Without mechanisms for monetary cooperation that eventually led to the European Monetary System (and later the euro), European currencies would remain vulnerable to periodic crises. The Italian lira, French franc, and other currencies would likely experience higher inflation and more frequent devaluations, creating persistent economic uncertainty across the continent.

Infrastructure Disparities: The absence of coordinated European development programs would result in more uneven infrastructure development. Without cohesion funds and common standards, transport networks would develop along national priorities with limited cross-border planning, creating inefficiencies and bottlenecks at national boundaries.

Cold War Dynamics

The Cold War landscape would have looked markedly different without European integration:

Enhanced American Dominance: With European countries unable to coordinate effectively, American influence in Western Europe would be significantly stronger. The Marshall Plan would remain bilateral rather than being channeled through European institutions, giving the United States more direct leverage over individual European economies and foreign policies.

NATO Primacy: Without a European political project, NATO would become the sole framework for Western cooperation. Military considerations would dominate inter-European relations, with less emphasis on building shared democratic values and institutions. Countries like France might have sought more independent defense strategies earlier, potentially developing nuclear capabilities sooner under Charles de Gaulle.

Vulnerable Periphery: Southern European countries emerging from dictatorships in the 1970s (Greece, Spain, Portugal) would face a more challenging transition to democracy without the institutional and economic support of European integration. These countries might have experienced greater political instability, with some potentially returning to authoritarian governance during economic crises.

Political Fragmentation

The political landscape would have developed along more traditional nation-state lines:

Reinforced Nationalism: Without supranational institutions to moderate national interests, European politics would remain dominated by nation-state competition. The bitter historical rivalries, particularly between France and Germany, might resurface in economic disputes and competing alliance systems.

Limited Democracy Promotion: The absence of accession criteria and democratic requirements associated with European membership would remove a key incentive for democratization. Countries with weaker democratic traditions might have experienced more authoritarian episodes during economic or social crises.

Regional Blocs: Rather than a continent-wide integration project, Europe might develop competing regional blocs. A German-centered economic zone in Central Europe, a French-led Mediterranean alliance, and a British-aligned Northern European group might emerge as limited cooperation frameworks with overlapping and sometimes contradictory objectives.

Early German Dominance

Without European integration, Germany's economic resurgence would take a different form:

Unbalanced Recovery: West Germany's "economic miracle" would still occur given its industrial base, skilled workforce, and American support. However, without integration channeling German economic power through European institutions, its recovery would create greater political tensions with neighbors who would view German strength with suspicion.

Bilateral Dominance: Rather than operating through European frameworks, Germany would establish a network of bilateral economic agreements with neighboring countries. These would provide Germany with raw materials and markets while offering limited benefits to weaker economies, creating dependency relationships rather than partnerships of equals.

Earlier Deutschmark Supremacy: Without steps toward monetary coordination, the Deutschmark would likely emerge as Europe's de facto anchor currency by the 1970s, giving the German Bundesbank enormous influence over European monetary affairs without the accountability mechanisms that eventually accompanied the European Central Bank.

Britain's Alternative Path

Britain's relationship with Continental Europe would take a different trajectory:

Commonwealth Focus: Without the EEC to join (or reject), Britain would likely double down on Commonwealth relationships. However, without the competitive pressure of European integration, Britain might delay necessary economic reforms, potentially exacerbating its 1970s economic problems.

Different Special Relationship: Britain's role as a transatlantic bridge would diminish without European institutions to influence. The Anglo-American relationship might become even more asymmetrical, with Britain serving more clearly as a junior partner to the United States in European affairs.

Long-term Impact

Economic Fragmentation and Development

By the 2000s, a Europe without integration would present a dramatically different economic landscape:

Persistent Economic Nationalism

Competing Industrial Policies: European countries would maintain nationally-oriented industrial strategies, resulting in inefficient duplication of industries and missed opportunities for economies of scale. By 2025, Europe would host multiple subscale automobile manufacturers, aerospace companies, and technology firms, all smaller and less globally competitive than their American or Asian counterparts.

Tariff Barriers and Non-Tariff Obstacles: Cross-border trade within Europe would remain encumbered by customs procedures, regulatory differences, and periodic protectionist measures. The cost of doing business across European borders would be significantly higher, reducing intra-European trade by an estimated 30-40% compared to our timeline.

Limited Labor Mobility: Without freedom of movement, labor markets would remain nationally segmented. Countries like Spain and Greece would experience persistently higher unemployment, while Germany would face more severe labor shortages, potentially turning earlier and more extensively to non-European immigration to fill workforce gaps.

Divergent Economic Trajectories

Southern European Stagnation: Without structural and cohesion funds from European budgets, Southern European economies would develop more slowly. Portugal, Greece, and parts of Spain and Italy might remain significantly less developed, with per capita GDPs potentially 20-30% lower than in our timeline. These regions would likely maintain agricultural focus with limited successful industrialization.

Eastern European Isolation: The post-Communist transition for Central and Eastern European countries would be far more challenging without the prospect of EU membership and associated financial support. Countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic would experience more uneven development, likely with greater Russian economic influence filling the vacuum left by the absence of EU integration.

Northern Prosperity Islands: A handful of Northern European economies—notably Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavian countries—would still achieve high prosperity but would orient their trade increasingly toward global rather than European markets. These countries might form a limited common market among themselves, creating a "prosperity zone" that excludes Southern and Eastern Europe.

Political and Security Landscape

The geopolitical implications of a non-integrated Europe would be profound:

Reshaped Power Dynamics

German Hegemony Questions: Without institutional constraints, German economic dominance would translate more directly into political influence, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. By the 2010s, Germany might function as a de facto regional hegemon, creating tensions with France and raising historical anxieties among its neighbors.

Russia's Extended Influence: Without the EU's collective economic and political weight as a counterbalance, Russia would likely maintain stronger influence in Eastern Europe. Countries in the "near abroad" like Ukraine, Moldova, and the Caucasus states might be more firmly within Russia's sphere of influence, while even NATO members like Hungary and Bulgaria might pursue more accommodating policies toward Moscow.

Diminished Global Influence: Individual European nations would struggle to exert significant global influence in a world increasingly dominated by continental powers. By 2025, European countries would be mostly absent from major global governance tables, with decisions increasingly made between the United States, China, and other emerging powers.

Security Architecture

Militarized Continent: Without the pacifying effect of economic integration, European security would remain more militarized. Defense spending as a percentage of GDP would likely be higher across the continent, with multiple countries maintaining larger standing armies focused on territorial defense rather than expeditionary capabilities.

Nuclear Proliferation: The absence of security guarantees embedded in European integration might lead more European countries to pursue nuclear weapons. By 2025, France, Britain, and possibly Germany, Italy, and Poland might all maintain independent nuclear deterrents, creating a more complex and potentially unstable security environment.

Border Fortification: Without Schengen and freedom of movement, European borders would remain heavily controlled and fortified. The borders between former Soviet bloc countries and Western Europe would be particularly hardened, creating an enduring physical manifestation of the Iron Curtain's legacy.

Social and Cultural Impact

The absence of European integration would significantly reshape European societies:

Identity and Values

Reinforced National Identities: Without the counterbalance of European identity formation, national identities would remain more exclusive and potentially more xenophobic. The concept of "European values" would be weaker, with national traditions and narratives dominating public discourse and education systems.

Reduced Cosmopolitanism: Without Erasmus programs and freedom of movement, European youth would have fewer opportunities for cross-cultural experiences. European societies would remain more insular, with less linguistic diversity and intercultural competence among their populations.

Divergent Rights Regimes: Without the harmonizing effect of European law, human rights protections would vary more dramatically between countries. LGBT rights, gender equality measures, and minority protections would develop unevenly, with significant disparities between progressive Northern European countries and more conservative societies elsewhere.

Migration and Demographics

Fragmented Immigration Policies: Each country would maintain entirely separate immigration systems, likely resulting in more restrictive policies in most nations. Without EU-wide coordination, responses to migration crises would be even more chaotic and potentially inhumane.

Demographic Challenges: Without freedom of movement to help address demographic imbalances, countries with aging populations (particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe) would face more severe demographic crises by the 2020s, with unsustainable pension systems and care gaps for elderly populations.

Technological and Environmental Trajectories

Without European coordination, technological development and environmental protection would take different paths:

Technological Fragmentation

Regulatory Archipelago: Each country would maintain separate technical standards and regulatory frameworks, creating significant barriers to innovation and technology diffusion. The "Brussels Effect" of regulatory harmonization would not exist, leaving European companies navigating a complex patchwork of requirements.

Subscale Digital Ecosystems: Without a Digital Single Market, Europe would be even less competitive in digital technologies. By 2025, European digital platforms and services would be marginal players globally, with American and Chinese tech giants dominating European markets through country-by-country operations.

Research Isolation: Without programs like Horizon Europe, scientific research would remain more nationally focused and subscale. European universities would be less globally competitive, and scientific breakthroughs would occur more frequently outside Europe.

Environmental Divergence

Inconsistent Environmental Standards: Without EU-wide environmental regulations, pollution control would vary dramatically between countries. Rivers crossing multiple countries would suffer from inconsistent protections, creating persistent pollution hotspots, particularly in border regions.

Weaker Climate Response: Without EU-level climate targets and coordination, European countries would likely adopt less ambitious and more fragmented approaches to climate change. By 2025, European carbon emissions would likely be 15-20% higher than in our timeline, with renewable energy development more uneven.

Transboundary Challenges: Issues requiring cross-border cooperation—from fisheries management to airborne pollution—would be addressed through a patchwork of limited bilateral agreements rather than comprehensive approaches, resulting in less effective solutions and more environmental degradation.

Global Economic Position

By 2025, a non-integrated Europe would occupy a very different position in the global economy:

Reduced Collective Weight: Without a single market and common trade policy, Europe's collective economic influence would be substantially diminished. Individual European economies would be more vulnerable to economic coercion from larger powers and would have less leverage in trade negotiations.

Currency Fragmentation: Without the euro, European countries would maintain separate currencies of varying strength and stability. The Deutsche Mark would likely serve as a regional anchor currency, but most European countries would face higher transaction costs and greater exchange rate volatility.

Globally Marginalized: In global economic governance, European representation would be fragmented and diminished. In institutions like the IMF, WTO, and G-20, European influence would be significantly reduced, with only Germany consistently at the table for major global economic decisions by 2025.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Helena Vasilescu, Professor of European Political Economy at the London School of Economics, offers this perspective: "The absence of European integration would have created a fundamentally different economic landscape across the continent. Without the competitive pressures and scale advantages of the Single Market, European industries would be less efficient and globally competitive. We'd likely see a continent of more protected national champions but fewer global leaders. Most critically, the economic divergence between a prosperous core and a struggling periphery would be far more pronounced without the redistributive and convergence mechanisms of the EU budget and cohesion policy. Southern and Eastern European development would have taken dramatically different trajectories without the anchoring effect of EU membership and its associated transfers and standards."

Professor Jean-Michel Dufresne, Director of the Center for International Security Studies at Sciences Po Paris, contends: "The security implications of a non-integrated Europe are frequently underestimated. European integration has been fundamentally a peace project that transformed historic adversaries into partners through economic interdependence and institutional cooperation. Without this framework, the post-Cold War security order would have been far more unstable. I believe we would have seen the re-emergence of balance-of-power politics, with shifting alliances, higher defense spending, and potentially even the development of additional nuclear arsenals in Europe. The management of the Soviet collapse and German reunification would have been particularly problematic without European institutions to embed German power and reassure its neighbors. The risk of at least localized conflicts in the Balkans and Eastern Europe would have been substantially higher."

Dr. Margaret O'Connell, Historian of Contemporary Europe at Trinity College Dublin, suggests: "The psychological impact of continued European fragmentation shouldn't be underestimated. The European project, for all its flaws, offered a positive vision of continental cooperation after centuries of devastating conflicts. Without this shared project, I believe European political cultures would have remained more parochial, more zero-sum in their thinking, and potentially more susceptible to nationalist extremism. The EU has provided an important framework for smaller European nations to amplify their voice and preserve their autonomy in a world of great powers. Without it, many would have faced starker choices between domination by larger neighbors or strategic irrelevance. While counterfactuals are always speculative, I think Europe without integration would be not just economically poorer but also spiritually diminished – a continent of nations looking backward rather than forward."