From Rome to Brussels: How the EU's Founding Treaties Centralized Power Step by Step
From free trade cooperation to supranational union: Follow how the EU, through its treaties, has systematically dismantled member states' self-determination and concentrated power in Brussels.
🇸🇪 Also available in Swedish / Artikeln finns också på svenska
The European integration was originally presented as a peace project and a trade union. Today, after more than sixty years of treaty changes and power shifts, the original vision has been transformed into something completely different: a supranational union where national self-determination is systematically undermined in favor of a centralized power apparatus in Brussels. Through a series of carefully crafted treaty amendments, the EU has step by step expanded its powers, often without the European peoples fully understanding the consequences of the changes.
The Treaty of Rome: Hidden Seeds of Supranationalism
When the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, the official vision was European cooperation for peace and prosperity through trade. But already here were the seeds of today's supranational union. By establishing supranational institutions such as the Commission and the Court of Justice, tools were created for a gradual shift of power from the member states to the central level.
Particularly significant was the establishment of the European Commission, which was given the sole right to propose new legislation. This may seem like a technical detail, but in practice it meant that member states lost control over the political agenda. Instead, a supranational institution got a monopoly on initiating new laws and regulations.
The Single European Act: The First Major Power Shift
With the Single European Act in 1986, the first major step was taken to systematically undermine the member states' veto power. By introducing qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers for decisions on the internal market, individual countries could now be overruled on important national issues.
Proponents claimed this was necessary to "make decision-making more efficient". In reality, it was a deliberate choice to weaken member states' ability to protect their national interests. What was presented as a technical change was in fact a significant shift of power towards supranationalism.
The Maastricht Treaty: The Decisive Step
The Maastricht Treaty in 1992 took the decisive step from economic community to political union. The introduction of EU citizenship was a clear signal of the ambition to gradually replace national identities with a constructed European identity.
Particularly significant was the decision on the common currency. Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was presented as an economic project but was fundamentally political. By depriving member states of control over monetary policy, a powerful tool for economic governance from the center was created. The subsequent economic crises of the Southern European countries clearly show the dangers of this supranational experiment.
Amsterdam and Nice: Centralization Continues
The Amsterdam and Nice Treaties continued the gradual transfer of power to Brussels. By expanding the areas for majority decisions and strengthening the powers of the EU institutions, the influence of the member states was further weakened. Particularly serious was how these treaties began to encroach on traditionally national areas such as immigration policy and judicial matters.
The so-called "flexibility clause" in the Amsterdam Treaty gave the union the possibility to act even in areas where it formally lacked competence. This was a clear example of how the treaties have been systematically used to expand the EU's power at the expense of the member states.
The Lisbon Treaty: The Final Transformation
The Lisbon Treaty in 2007 marked the EU's final transformation into a supranational union. After the original proposal for an EU Constitution was voted down in referendums, the same content essentially returned in new packaging as the Lisbon Treaty.
The treaty entailed a dramatic expansion of the EU's competences. By making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding, a tool was created to override national legislation in a multitude of areas. The new post of "Foreign Minister" (formally High Representative) clearly signaled the ambition to take over the member states' foreign policy.
Particularly serious was how the role of national parliaments was weakened. The so-called "yellow card" procedure, which was supposed to give national parliaments influence over EU legislation, has in practice proven to be a toothless tool that rarely has any real effect.
A Pattern of Systematic Power Transfer
When one studies the EU's treaty development, a clear pattern emerges: Each new treaty has been used to transfer power from the member states to the central level. This has often happened through technically complicated changes whose full significance has been difficult for the public to grasp.
Particularly worrying is how this process has accelerated in recent years. The EU's answer to every new crisis has been to demand more power for the central institutions. The Corona crisis was used to give the union powers over health policy. Climate change is used as a pretext to take control of energy and industrial policy.
It is clear that the EU leadership is not satisfied with the current distribution of power. Discussions are already underway about new treaty changes that would give the union even more power, not least over foreign and defense policy. There are even proposals to abolish the member states' remaining veto rights.
Resisting Further Centralization
For all who value national self-determination, it is crucial to understand how this gradual transfer of power has taken place. Only by knowing history can we effectively oppose future attempts at centralization. The Eastern European member states, especially Poland and Hungary, show that it is possible to resist supranational pressure when the political will exists. These countries have repeatedly clashed with Brussels over issues like judicial independence and media freedom, insisting on their sovereign right to govern their own affairs.
It is time for more countries to follow their example. Every new treaty change must be critically examined. Every attempt to expand the EU's powers must be met with resistance. Only through active defense of national sovereignty can we stop the continued march towards a European superstate.
Those who believe that this development is inevitable should remember that the entire EU project rests on treaties that the member states have voluntarily entered into. What has once been conferred can also be taken back – if the political will exists. The question is just how many more steps towards centralization it will take before the peoples of Europe say stop.
â–