From Economics to Ideology: The European Union's Worrying Shift
What if all this had been meticulously planned since the Second World War?
By Serge Van Cutsem for Reseauinternational.net
The European Union is no longer what it once was, some believe. What if, in reality, it is becoming what was intended from its inception? Born from the ashes of a devastated continent, it promised peace, prosperity, and economic cooperation. But in the space of a few decades, this initial project has mutated into a technocratic political apparatus, increasingly centralized, normative, and difficult for its population to challenge. The shift from a "Europe of nations" to a "Europe of commissioners" has occurred gradually, almost silently. The signs of an authoritarian drift are now clearly present and even visible to those who care to see them.
What if all this had been meticulously planned since the Second World War? And perhaps even before... The Marshall Plan and liberation thanks to American GIs are what is written in the history books, but the reality is very different because while economic reconstruction was real, the geopolitical objectives were just as strategic. It is this reality that partly explains the downward spiral we are experiencing. For even before the Second World War, the United States was already well established in Europe, and during the war, American companies never left our continent; they even prepared very well for what came next. The United States' primary objective was to unify the European market, and it is no coincidence that they immediately rose to prominence.
After 1945, many executives from the Nazi regime were reintegrated into the administrative, political, and technocratic spheres of West Germany. This reintegration also extended to important positions within European integration, NATO, and even American institutions, particularly during the Cold War.
Figures such as Hans Globke (a lawyer who worked on the Nuremberg Laws and became Chancellor Adenauer's chief of staff), Reinhard Gehlen (former head of military intelligence in the East and founder of the BND with CIA support), and Walter Hallstein (a lawyer who belonged to organizations affiliated with the Nazi regime and became the first President of the European Commission) illustrate this continuity. Others, such as Adolf Heusinger, former Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht, held senior positions within NATO.
In the United States, Operation Paperclip allowed scientists such as Wernher von Braun and Arthur Rudolph, both involved in the V2 missile program, to join NASA or other strategic agencies. These choices were justified by the context of the struggle against the USSR, to the detriment of a process of justice and a break with the past.4
This prolonged presence of former members of the Nazi regime in post-war structures has fueled a debate that remains open on the continuity of certain authoritarian, technocratic, or governance logics, which may have influenced the very foundations of Euro-Atlantic institutions.
The parallel with a version 2.0 of certain 20th-century authoritarian schemes, although watered down and softened, is neither absurd nor tempting. This is not to say that the EU is the Fourth Reich, but that certain mechanisms of social control, standardization of thought, and the erasure of sovereignty and the history of nations recall past authoritarian logics.
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), and later the European Economic Community (EEC), aimed to make war impossible through economic interdependence. Europe was then a pragmatic project, centered on cooperation and shared prosperity. Nations remained sovereign, and the idea of a superstate was (still) absent. But then came the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, followed by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, and the EU's nature changed.5
Politics entered the scene, with an increasingly supranational architecture, with institutions holding increasing power, but without being subject to direct suffrage. The European Commission, the Court of Justice of the EU, and the European Central Bank took a central role without being truly accountable to citizens.
Direct democracy has been repeatedly found wanting: in 2005, the French and Dutch people rejected the European Constitutional Treaty by referendum. Brussels' response? Transform the text into the Lisbon Treaty and have it adopted by parliament. Ireland, which had voted no, had to vote again until the yes vote prevailed, albeit with some negotiated adjustments. This "vote until the result is right" logic is a clear symptom of technocratic contempt.6
The EU no longer simply coordinates economic policies; it also legislates on ecology, health, digital technology, security, migration, and society. It imposes binding directives that override national laws, all without any real checks and balances. The European Parliament, little known and poorly listened to, remains largely consultative. The majority of real decisions are made behind the scenes by the Commission or the Council, which are not elected, and certainly not by the highly contested President Ursula von der Leyen!
There is also this little-known specificity, and for good reason: Contrary to popular belief, MEPs are not their nation's ambassadors in the European Parliament. Once elected, they are neither accountable to their state nor required to specifically defend their country's interests. They are obliged to represent "the general interest of the European Union,"7 in accordance with Article 10 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). This means that a French, Belgian, or Italian MEP can vote against the interest expressed by their own government or constituents, if they believe that the EU's position prevails. This principle is rarely explained to voters, but it defines the entire institutional logic of Brussels.
This principle is a pillar of the European Union's legal order. It was established as early as 1964 by the Court of Justice of the EU in the Costa v. ENEL judgment,8 and has since been confirmed.
Direct consequence:
A European directive or regulation takes precedence over any national law.
In the event of a conflict between a European rule and the constitution of a Member State, European law must apply first.
Even though some countries, such as Germany and Poland, have attempted to challenge this hierarchy, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) imposes its supremacy as a non-negotiable principle.
Citizens vote in national elections that no longer truly control the majority of important decisions, particularly regarding climate, the economy, digital technology, and migration. Hence, the room for maneuver of Member States is increasingly restricted by European rules, often drafted by unelected experts or validated outside of public debate. This fuels a structural democratic deficit and the growing perception of a distant, unaccountable, and difficult-to-contest power.
The European narrative today is told in the name of "good": climate good, health good, inclusive good. But this official morality increasingly justifies restrictions on freedoms and soft censorship. 9 Modern totalitarianism doesn't outright prohibit: it classifies, discredits, and silences. Any dissent is equated with conspiracy theories or the far right. Pluralism becomes suspect.
This is a "double standard," and we also observe variable geometry management: sanctions against Hungary and Slovakia for "violations of the rule of law," but total tolerance for other, more politically aligned countries. The EU is demanding of some, permissive of others, and this unequal treatment weakens its legitimacy.
Towards a soft totalitarianism? The current European model is tending toward a faceless totalitarianism: not through direct violence (although the Yellow Vests episode demonstrates that it is...), but through total control exercised through standards, financial dependence, algorithms, and social labeling. 10 The individual is free on paper, but trapped in a web of obligations, conformities, and conditional rewards.
What future for Europe?
Europe is a continent of civilization, culture, and diversity. But the current European Union seems to be betraying this richness in the name of a false unity. It is becoming urgent to restore nations' sovereignty, to decentralize, to restore debate and the freedom to think differently.
Otherwise, the EU risks becoming the most beautiful of prisons: modern, ecological, inclusive, but closed to dissent.
Footnotes and links in the original article
In 2018, when sometimes on Quora, I once wrote: "Welcome to the European Gulag" and earned a lot of backlash ...