"Ever Closer Union": The Doctrine Eroding National Sovereignty
How three words in the Treaty of Rome became the legal tool for systematically dismantling national sovereignty in Europe – and why it matters for every European nation.
ANALYSIS | The phrase "ever closer union" stands as perhaps the most revealing doctrine in the European project's founding documents. Far from being mere rhetorical flourish, these three words embody an inexorable drive toward centralization that threatens the very foundation of national sovereignty in Europe. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping why the EU consistently moves toward greater integration, regardless of popular opposition or practical consequences.
Origins and Intent
The concept first appeared in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, where founding members committed to "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe." This seemingly innocuous phrase has since become the legal and philosophical justification for continuous power transfer to Brussels. The language was deliberately chosen - not "cooperation" or "partnership," but "union," implying a permanent and increasingly binding relationship.
The historical context of this phrase reveals its true significance. In the aftermath of World War II, European federalists seized an opportunity to advance their long-held dream of a unified European state. By embedding "ever closer union" in the founding treaties, they created a legal mechanism for gradual but irreversible integration that would be difficult for future generations to resist.
This strategic ambiguity in the treaty language has served the integrationist agenda well. While politicians could present it to their citizens as merely economic cooperation, EU institutions consistently interpret it as a mandate for ever-expanding political integration. This dual interpretation has allowed for a steady accumulation of power in Brussels while minimizing public resistance.
The Mechanism of Power Transfer
The doctrine of "ever closer union" operates through a sophisticated system of institutional expansion and legal integration. At its core, each new treaty systematically expands EU competencies while gradually eliminating national vetoes. This process of treaty expansion serves as the primary vehicle for centralizing decision-making in Brussels, creating an ever-growing bureaucratic apparatus that steadily diminishes national authority.
The European Court of Justice plays a crucial role in this process, frequently citing "ever closer union" to justify decisions that further subordinate national laws to EU legislation. This judicial activism, combined with the continuous harmonization of legal systems across member states, creates a one-way street toward integration that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
The bureaucratic dimension of this power transfer cannot be understated. Through a process of "administrative fusion," EU institutions gradually absorb functions previously performed by national governments. What begins as "coordination" inevitably transforms into control, as national agencies find themselves implementing policies designed in Brussels rather than their own capitals. This administrative integration occurs largely below the radar of public attention, making it particularly insidious.
The Democratic Problem
This relentless push for integration fundamentally conflicts with democratic principles. European citizens have never explicitly consented to this ongoing transfer of power, yet find themselves bound by an ever-expanding web of EU regulations and directives. National parliaments, the traditional guarantors of democratic accountability, steadily lose authority without any corresponding democratic gains at the EU level. When populations resist further integration through referendums or elections, their concerns are often dismissed as mere "populism," revealing a deep contempt for democratic expression.
The democratic deficit is further exacerbated by the EU's institutional structure. The European Parliament, despite its name, lacks fundamental powers of a true legislature - it cannot initiate legislation, and its members are elected on national rather than truly European platforms. Meanwhile, the real power lies with unelected commissioners and bureaucrats who face no direct democratic accountability.
This systematic undermining of democratic norms extends to the EU's approach to referendums. When member state populations vote against further integration, they are typically forced to vote again until they provide the "correct" answer, as seen in Ireland, Denmark, and the Netherlands. This pattern exposes the hollow nature of EU democracy - citizens are free to vote, but only if they vote for more integration.
Cultural and Political Impact
The implementation of "ever closer union" reaches far beyond mere administrative changes, striking at the heart of national identity and self-governance. As distinct national traditions and practices face increasing pressure to conform to EU standards, the rich tapestry of European cultures risks being flattened into a standardized, bureaucratic monotony. Traditional social structures, shaped by centuries of organic development within national contexts, are increasingly undermined by top-down policies designed for uniformity rather than cultural preservation.
The cultural impact manifests most visibly in the EU's approach to education and social policy. Through programs like Erasmus and various cultural initiatives, the EU actively promotes a post-national European identity that subtly devalues national allegiances. This cultural engineering extends to history education, where national narratives are increasingly replaced by a Brussels-approved version of European history that emphasizes integration as historical inevitability.
Moreover, the political consequences of this cultural homogenization are profound. As national identities weaken, so does citizens' connection to their traditional democratic institutions. This creates a vacuum that EU institutions eagerly fill, despite lacking the deep cultural and historical legitimacy that national governments possess. The result is a growing alienation between citizens and their governing institutions, masked by superficial attempts to create an artificial European demos.
The False Promise of Subsidiarity
While the EU claims to respect subsidiarity - the principle that decisions should be made at the lowest possible level - "ever closer union" reveals this as mere rhetoric. In practice, the doctrine ensures that power flows in only one direction: toward Brussels. The EU's response to various crises repeatedly demonstrates this centralizing reflex, whether through expanded military coordination, deeper financial integration, or growing intervention in traditionally national competencies.
The concept of subsidiarity, introduced in the Maastricht Treaty, was supposed to protect against excessive centralization. However, it has proven to be little more than a procedural hurdle that EU institutions easily overcome through creative interpretation. The Commission's standard impact assessments pay lip service to subsidiarity while invariably concluding that EU-level action is necessary.
This pattern becomes particularly evident during crises, when the EU consistently pushes for more centralized control rather than supporting national solutions. The COVID-19 pandemic, migration crisis, and financial crisis have all been used as pretexts for expanding EU authority, revealing how "ever closer union" transforms every challenge into an opportunity for further integration.
The Sovereignty Solution
Addressing the challenge of "ever closer union" requires fundamental reform rather than mere technical adjustments. Nations must first explicitly reject this doctrine through constitutional provisions that protect national sovereignty and establish clear limits on EU competencies. This legal foundation must be reinforced by robust democratic safeguards, including mandatory referendums on any proposed transfer of powers to Brussels and enhanced oversight by national parliaments.
The practical implementation of such reforms would require a coordinated effort among member states to renegotiate basic EU treaties. This process, while challenging, offers an opportunity to replace "ever closer union" with a more flexible framework that respects national sovereignty. Key elements would include explicit recognition of member states' right to withdraw from specific EU policies and the restoration of national vetoes in critical areas.
Most crucially, European nations must reassert their right to cultural and political self-determination. This means not only protecting national decision-making in key policy areas but also actively preserving distinct cultural identities against the homogenizing pressures of EU integration. Success in this endeavor would require building new institutions and mechanisms that facilitate European cooperation without demanding the surrender of national sovereignty.
Looking Forward
The battle over "ever closer union" represents more than a legal or political dispute - it embodies the fundamental question of whether European nations will maintain their sovereignty and distinct identities or be absorbed into a centralized superstate. The doctrine's continued influence suggests that mere reform may be insufficient; fundamental reconsideration of the European project's direction may be necessary.
This reconsideration must begin with an honest assessment of the EU's democratic legitimacy crisis. The growing disconnect between EU institutions and European peoples cannot be bridged by more integration or propaganda about European values. Instead, it requires a return to genuine democratic accountability at the national level, where citizens can meaningfully influence the decisions that affect their lives.
For those committed to national sovereignty and democratic accountability, understanding and actively opposing the "ever closer union" doctrine becomes not just an academic exercise but a crucial element in preserving Europe's nations and their right to self-determination. The alternative - allowing this doctrine to reach its logical conclusion - would mean the end of meaningful national democracy in Europe and the triumph of bureaucratic centralization over popular sovereignty.
As developments continue to demonstrate, this seemingly abstract concept has very concrete implications for every aspect of national life. Recognizing its role as the ideological engine of European integration is the first step toward effectively opposing further centralization and potentially reversing the most egregious infringements on national sovereignty.
The choice facing European nations today is stark: accept the logical conclusion of "ever closer union" - the eventual dissolution of meaningful national sovereignty - or take decisive action to reject this doctrine and reclaim their right to genuine self-determination. The future of Europe's nations hangs in the balance.
■
On Sovereign Europe, I provide in-depth analyses that go beyond surface-level reporting to examine the true implications of European political developments. These analyses are complemented by timely comments on current events and educational pieces to give you a comprehensive understanding of European politics from a sovereignty-focused perspective.