Opinion What the voters don’t want

A fix will require fundamental changes in the functioning of the bloc,with more interference in the workings of sovereign states. There would need to be a fiscal union,with a treasury and a finance minister capable of intervening in national budgets,and more unified tax and pension policies. But it is far from clear that the European Union can gather itself to take these fateful steps away from nationalist identities to a truly European model.

There are many who believe that the European Union and its leaders have already been found wanting,and that the European project that brought democracy and peace to the Continent may begin to unravel. Leaders seem diminished; local politics trump solidarity. There is a new nationalism degrading the collective responsibility and shared sovereignty that defines the European Union. Euroscepticism runs from far-right parties that simultaneously detest immigrants,globalism and Brussels to the governing parties of Europe’s most successful countries.

A European Union of 15 nations seemed coherent and manageable; the Europe of 27,soon to be 28,is almost ungovernable,even by a professional bureaucracy with little connection to voters and whose decisions cause increasing resentment,summarised in the “democratic deficit” that the European Union suffers.

The historical ironies are considerable. Germany,for example,divided and in ruins after the war it fought to dominate Europe,is reunited and dominating Europe now,but without arms and with deep reluctance. Nothing gets done in the European Union without German agreement,commitment and money. But in Chancellor Angela Merkel,Germany has a leader who is reactive and uninspiring,while her coalition partners,the Free Democrats,are slumping into irrelevance. Her eye is on Germany’s internal politics,its loose federalism and coalition government,a major contrast to France’s centralised,nearly monarchical state.

France once dominated the European Union,but Paris has now fallen behind booming Germany,one reason that François Mitterrand feared German reunification. Anxious about its own debt,banks and credit rating in the midst of a nasty presidential campaign,France is having a hard time dragging Berlin along.

At the same time,the countries of Eastern Europe are more vibrant economically than many of their western partners. They share much of the German,Dutch and Finnish view about strict fiscal discipline,and are reluctant to join a shaky euro and become responsible for the failures of others. Britain,always an outlier in the European Union,looks wise to reject the euro,and the mood now is probably more anti-European than even in the days of Margaret Thatcher.

The fundamental changes needed to cope with the euro crisis — particularly the historic step of creating a common treasury — would require a redrawing of the basic treaties. But Europe is unpopular,a local metaphor for globalisation,faceless and interfering. It is by no means certain that the voters are ready to leap into a new world of economic integration. Even if they prove to be,the new treaty will be complex and take years to draft even before being put to the electorate for ratification.

It is easy to say that the answer is “more Europe,” not less. That can seem self-evident to Eurocrats and the political elite. But “more Europe” may not be what voters want.