It's stasis not nemesis that is the real threat to Europe

The main threat to the European Union is not nemesis, as Pierre Moscovici suggests, but rather protracted stasis. The growing heterogeneity of member states is pushing the Union relentlessly towards the periphery of EU politics and the rhythm of Europe’s heartbeat is becoming more and more faint. The European project is now typified by uneasy bargaining, unstable arrangements and a constant search for some provisional fix. It is the triumph of sacro egoismo – sanctified self-interest.

Moscovici is right to remind us that the key question is "What type of Europe do we wish to move towards?" Indeed, the EU has since its inception been avoiding the essential question about its ultimate end-point. He is also correct to say the Lisbon treaty mainly “clears pathways” for necessary reforms, rather than creating new horizons for the people of Europe. Certainly, the federal impetus faded long ago and cannot be rekindled, whether or not there is a new treaty. But it is wrong to conclude that this situation amounts to the EU’s nemesis. There may be no reason to expect some spectacular breakthrough on European integration, but nor is there any sign of a spectacular breakdown either.

When analysing our current predicament, it is perhaps useful to remember the lessons of the EU's history. The treaty of Rome was the product of the setbacks and frustrations which followed the end in the early 1950s of the twin dreams of a European Defence Community and a European Political Community. The later treaties – Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice – were minor and timorous documents were designed to keep the whole organisation operational rather than provide a new élan. The architects of those treaties had become hostages to the interests of nation states and even to surreptitious blackmail. Rather than defining the long-term interest of the European Community and then devising a text accordingly, they had to try to produce a meaningful treaty out of a bundle of miscellaneous national preferences.

Now even these rather insipid texts are apparently too strong for the tastes of some member states. This has led to virtual paralysis at the institutional level and the embarrassing situation where even the most insignificant step is publicly hailed as a major breakthrough. The European integration process is slowly grinding to a halt and any attempt to promote a substantive reform of the Union is either stillborn or doomed to failure.

It is a depressing process, one that is further marred by attempts at unravelling what had been so painfully created before. Neither the modest Constitutional treaty nor the even more humble Lisbon text could be adopted. The advice for EU decision-makers seems clear: don't even think about trying to change things in future if you want to avoid more disappointment and confusion.

It might be worth remembering that France has for decades contributed to this sorry state of affairs, including the period between 1997 and 2002 when Pierre Moscovici was the French Minister for European Affairs. Perhaps he should drop such references to Greek tragedy as hubris, nemesis and the like. Europe is not acting out the grand dramas of Sophocles or Euripides; it is stuck in the farcical world of the commedia dell'arte or the mundane, miserable and often mad situations portrayed by August Strindberg, Arthur Miller or Samuel Beckett.