THE ORIGINS OF COMMUNITARIAN EUROPE

 

1. The beginning of the Cold War (1948)

The failure of the Congress of The Hague (7-11 May 1948) seemed to end any hope about creating an integrated Europe. But the situation was unsustainable for European States because Stalin, as a reaction against the Marshall Plan broke with the Western allies of the USSR and rose the “Iron Curtain”, an expression of Churchill meaning that all Eastern Europe was under the occupation of the Red Army. The only exception was West Berlin occupied by American, British and French troops, though it was surrounded by territory under Soviet control. No wonder then that the Cold War started when Stalin ordered its troops to isolate West Berlin (Berlin Blockade) West Berliners did no surrender because from June 1948 to May 1949 the Western Allies supplied the besieged city by air (Berlin Airlift). American and British pilots conducted during this period more than 250.000 flights dropping food, medicines, fuel and anything West Berlin population needed. They started delivering 3,475 tons of supplies daily, but by the end of the blockade, the spring of 1949,the figure had risen to 12,941 tons. 

 

A plane of the Berlin Airlift landing at Berlin Templehof

 As you can imagine, after breaking with Stalin, the Governments of the European Western States were afraid that the powerful Red Army that already occupied Eastern Europe could move further West. So they needed to do something to prevent a Russian invasion. In fact they did two things. At the continental level they created a Western German State to ensure a defensive frontier against the Red wave. At the World level they requested the aid of the US through a defensive alliance. 

2. The creation of two brand new German States (May and October 1949)

 The first defensive measure against Soviet imperialism was the creation of a new German State in occupied Germany. Just after the War, in the Spring of 1945, the intention of the Alies was to occupy with troops Germany permanently. Nevertheless after breaking with Stalin they considered that the best defense was to create a brand new German State: the German Federal Republic created the 23 May 1949, just at the end of the Berlin Blockade. Stalin decided to retaliate and responded 5 months later imposing the creation of the German Democratic Republic (7 October 1949). 

            

As a result of this Germany became the symbol of the Cold War, especially after the East German authorities started building the Berlin Wall (Berliner Mauer) on the 13 of August 1961. The Iron Curtain ceased to be only a metaphor. The Berlin Wall  would not be torn down until 9 November 1989. Almost three decades of isolation for the West Berliners. 

 The Germans had nothing to say as they had lost their sovereignty as a consequence of their defeat. They will only retrieve it thanks to the "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany   (Vertrag über die abschließende Regelung in Bezug auf Deutschland) also known as the Two Plus Four Agreement  (Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag) because it dealt with the reunification of the TWO Germanies, and was accepted by the FOUR powers that had occupied German territory in May 1945. Signed on 12 September 1990, it was effective since the 15 March 1991. Germany had lacked of sovereignty for 46 years. 

The Two Plus Four Agreement

3. The appearance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

The other step required by Western Europeans for protecting themselves from Stalin was the creation of military Alliance  of Western European States and Canada and The US.  At the demand of Europeans Governments who considered they could not defend themselves alone in case of an attack from the Red Army, US and Canada agreed to constitute NATO in 4 April 1949;, a month before the creation of the West German State. In fact the creation of this Alliance had also further purposes: to prevent war among the European States favoring European integration. Fortunately, by then the United States had turned its back on its traditional policy of diplomatic isolationism.

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: 1) deterring Soviet expansionism, 2) forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and 3) encouraging European political integration.

The aftermath of World War II saw much of Europe devastated in a way that is now difficult to envision. Approximately 36.5 million Europeans had died in the conflict, 19 million of them civilians. Refugee camps and rationing dominated daily life. In some areas, infant mortality rates were one in four. Millions of orphans wandered the burnt-out shells of former metropolises. In the German city of Hamburg alone, half a million people were homeless.

In addition, Communists aided by the Soviet Union were threatening elected governments across Europe. In February 1948, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, with covert backing from the Soviet Union, overthrew the democratically elected government in that country. Then, in reaction to the democratic consolidation of West Germany, the Soviets blockaded Allied-controlled West Berlin in a bid to consolidate their hold on the German capital. The heroism of the Berlin Airlift provided future Allies with some solace, but privation remained a grave threat to freedom and stability.

Creation of NATO, April 4, 1949

... after much discussion and debate, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 4 April, 1949. In the Treaty’s renowned Article 5, the new Allies agreed “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all” and that following such an attack, each Ally would take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force” in response.

President Truman signing the NATO Agreement

While the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty had created Allies, it had not created a military structure that could effectively coordinate their actions. This changed when growing worries about Soviet intentions culminated in the Soviet detonation of an atomic bomb in 1949 and in the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. The effect upon the Alliance was dramatic. NATO soon gained a consolidated command structure with a military Headquarters … (Text extracted from the NATO web page) Reference: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/declassified_139339.htm [Last retrieved April 2022]

A World divided between the NATO (1949) and the Warsaw Pact (1955-1991)

4. European integration as a priority

But the founding of NATO and the creation of West Germany were short-term measures, and there was a growing feeling in European Western States that they should join their efforts to survive at the World Level between the two super powers: the US and the USSR. The problem was how to do it as European governments were not willing to give up the smallest bit of sovereignty of their respective countries, as demonstrated the failure of the Hague Congress. 

Fortunately European politicians did not pay any attention to a singular personality: Jean Monnet (1888-1979) who was essentially a pragmatic business man that had an essential role in World politics since World War 1, not only in Europe but the US, as part of the Think Tank of President F. D. Roosevelt. He was, for instance, determinant for the launching of the Marshall Plan under the Truman Administration.  

Jean Monnet (1888-1979)

Monnet was fully aware that nationalism of the European States made impossible to consider a united supranational Europe. But protected by NATO alliance and considering the success of the Marshall Plan, that for economic reasons worked at the supranational level, as it was a collective deal were European States accepted to submit for the purposes or reconstruction to a joint action, he thought that if remaining in the economic field an integration could be tried.

Robert Schuman (1866-1963)

He was lucky to be a good friend of an important French politician, Robert Schuman, and that West Germany had as head of Government a lucid politician, Konrad Adenauer, that was more than willing to have Germany accepted as an equal by the other European Western States, in order to avoid the disaster of the 1919 "Versailles Diktat".

5. The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950. 

 Monnet and Schuman agreed to launch a very modest first step towards European integration, as it was apparently limited to the joint production of Coal and Steel. But if you read carefully the brief Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, you will easily discover that the initiative had far more reaching consequences for the six initial member states.

The Schuman Declaration

6. The first European Community: the E.C.S.C. 

The Treaty of Paris (18 April 1951) founding the European Coal and Steel Community (1952-2002) was not a constitution. It was a contract, an agreement creating a six member States European Community. Each of the signing states had their own constitution, legal system and full independence and sovereignty, with a tiny exception: they gave up control over the production of coal, iron and steel that depended on a High Authority that imposed its decisions over the member states. 

The European Coal and Steel Community

7. The failure of the European Defense Community

As the Communitarian method had worked, the founding members of the ECSC decided to go for another try. But what was the most urgent question that ECSC member States faced? In the beginning of the cold war, with the mighty Stalin Army on its borders, and despite of the creation of NATO it made a lot of sense to create a European Defense Community (EDC). Proposed by the then French Prime Minister René Pleven the Treaty establishing the new community was signed on the 27 May 1952. However the Treaty was never effective as the French National Assembly refused to ratify it on 30 August 1954 by a vote of 319 against 264. 

The European Defence Community

 Military integration was by far a too sensitive matter, especially for the French in 1954, as France had suffered a severe defeat in the Dien Bien Phu battle (13 March to 7 May 1954) that ended the Indochina War and the French presence in this territory, actually Vietnam. 

Scene of the Dien Bien Phu Battle

 Even today, in a world of a growing tendency to a full scale war, with the Ukraine War started in February 2022, or the War in Gaza started in October 2024, with China menace of invasion of Taiwan, Europeans cannot agree in creating a Common Army.  The 27 Member States of the EU are most unwilling to renounce to this essential part of their sovereignty: their national armies. So NATO and the US Army are the only way that Europe could prevent an open war with Russia or China. 

8. Staying away from politics: getting back to the old idea of a European Customs Union. 

Jean Monet understood that the only possible way of getting together was through economy, and this why at the Messina Conference (June 1955) he came along with the old idea of a Customs Union. Something that, as we already know had a precedent in the Prussian Zollverein (1834). 

The negotiations result was the signature of the Treaty of Rome in March 1957, that enabled to create two new European Communities, besides the ESCC: the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). T

The Treaties of Rome (25 March 1957)

 The EEC was going to be the decisive step for initiating an effective integration. It was such a success that only 3 years later of its creation, the UK, that had refused initially to join the new European Customs Union, decided to retaliate with the creation of their own Customs Union. The European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) including besides the United Kingdom: Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Portugal and Switzerland. 

9. European integration slows down because of De Gaulle (1958-1969). 

 EFTA however did not go as well as expected as proven by the fact that one year later (July 1961) the British Government asked to join the EEC. They would have to wait however 13 years because they had the fierce opposition of the French President Charles De Gaulle (1958-1969) who felt France had been humiliated by Churchill in 1945. 

Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970) in one of his famous television speeches

 The paradox is that De Gaulle did not like very much the idea of European integration, as he was a big supporter of the French "Grandeur" and he was not willing to give up any substantial parcel of French sovereignty. European integration was on its way but it had to slow down because De Gaulle French nationalism. During the 10 years he was in power he permanently vetoed the entry of the UK in the EEC. Let's say that after Brexit we have to conclude that De Gaulle was absolutely right about the fact that the British had nothing to do in an integrated Europe. 

 As De Gaulle did no accept that France would be obliged by a Majority Vote he started what was called the Empty Chair policy, meaning simply that France did not attend the European Summits, in a way to block any possibility of reaching agreements to take common decisions. The crisis was resolved through the Luxembourg Compromise that established the principle of unanimity vote of the Member States as the usual way of adopting decisions.

 The other important point that De Gaulle imposed in Communitarian Europe was that the main decisions were personally adopted by the heads of State or Government. This is the origin of the actual European Council, that directly represent the member states in front of the Communitarian Executive (the Commission).  

The Empty Chair Crisis

10. An enlarged Communitarian Europe 

De Gaulle’s gone finally the European integration had a restart and new Member States were admitted in successive enlargements. The UK, with Ireland and Danemark joined Communitarian Europe in 1973. Since then many members state have joined the EEC including Greece (1981), Spain and Portugal (1986). After the creation in 1992 of the European Union, as a result of the fall of the Berlin Walll and the disappearance of the USSR, many more countries would integrate until reaching the actual number of 27. At one point there were 28 Member States, but the UK left on the 31 January 2020, implementing the vote at the Brexit Referendum in 2016.  

11. Towards the European Union. 

 Before the decisive decade of the 1990's that saw the creation of the European Union there were substantial advances in the European integration as was the democratic election of a European Parliament  since 1979. In 1985 the Schengen Treaty opened the way to the suppression of common frontiers and in 1986 the Common Market was relaunched through another Treaty: the Single European Act. Three Years later, the Fall of the Berlin Wall opened wide perspectives for a stronger integration. We will see its consequences in Teaching Guide number 12.     

  

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 260 to 267 FOR Teaching Guide 10 and 273 to 285 for Teaching Guide 11), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions.

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 268-269 for TG 10 and 286-288 for TG 11) you should get familiar with the following dates:

1949,

 23 May: Creation of the German Federal Republic.

 7 October: Creation of the German Democratic Republic. 

1950, 9 May: Schuman Declaration

1951: ECSC (Treaty of Paris). Europe of 6.

1952-1954: Failure of the EDC

1955, June: Messina Conference.

1957, 25 March : Treaties of Rome (EEC and EAEC)

1960 : EFTA

1965: Executive Merger Treaty.

1966: Luxembourg Compromise

1973, January 1st: First Enlargement of Communitarian Europe (UK, Ireland and Denmark). Europe of 9.

1975: Creation of the ERDF (Europe of Regions)

1979: First elections to the European Parliament.

1981. Second Enlargement: Greece joins Communitarian Europe. Europe of 10.

1985: Schengen Agreement

1986, January 1st: Third Enlargement: Spain and Portugal join an Europe of 12.

1987, 1st July : Single European Act enters into force amending the EEC.  

 

 TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Should Communitarian Europe remain essentially economic?

Please consider the following aspects:

1. Review what was the Monnet and Schuman approach in the Schuman Declaration. What was the spirit of it?

2. Take into consideration the failure of the European Defense Community, proposed initially by France and rejected by the same country.

3. Consider the De Gaulle’s reaction that led to the Luxembourg Compromise

4. Which was the political aim of the European Regional Development Fund?

5. Why was necessary the Single European Act?   

Spain signs the treaties for joining Communitarian Europe  (12 June 1985)

THE FEDERAL MODEL

 

George Washington looking at the first US Flag

If in Teaching Guide 8 we just saw how historically different political units tried to get together in order to be more powerful, through three types of structures: the Composite monarchies, the Swiss Confederation or the German Customs Union (Zollverein).

The 13 American British colonies before 1776

 These three models of integration are extremely loose, meaning that they not enable strong unions. A stronger model of integration appeared at the end of the 18th century overseas: in the brand new United States. Recognized internationally in 1783 after the British Crown lost the Independance war, the initial 13 colonies, transformed in independent states, had only a loose confederal bond: the Articles of Confederation, created provisionaly in 1777 for ensuring a united action of the 13 rebell colonies in the war against England. But soon after the Versailles Treaty  the founders of the new nation realized that if they did not created a stronger union they would disappear in front of two powerful monarchies: Spain in the South and the United Kingdom in the North. And that led to the creation of a new type of bond: the Federal Union.  

1. Federalism: an effective way to enable different states to act together 

Federalism comes from the Latin word, foedus, meaning 'treaty', 'compact' or 'contract'. Foedus comes itself from the word, fides, meaning 'trust'.

We have already seen in Teaching Guide 8 different ways in which independent territories : -kingdoms, states, cantons- agree to cooperate to get stronger. Under a same sovereign (Composite monarchies), signing an agreement of confederation like the Swiss Rutli Oath of 1291, or adopting a “treaty” of economic cooperation, as it was the case of the Zollverein, the 19th century German Customs Union. 

The Federal union goes a step further. Some independent states decide to act together, and for strengthening their union, they decide to have a common legal link; a Federal constitution that creates a new State over the cooperating states. The federal model is a very efficient way of making a really strong union.   

All this seems a little complicated and confusing in theory. But it becomes much simpler if we follow a concrete historic example, concretely if we look at how appeared the first modern Federal state: The United States of America.   

 

2. A Confederation of 13 States to fight the British. 

 We already know from Teaching Guide 4 how the British colonization of North America brought 13 different colonies and how these, after the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, united to fight the British Crown. In order to lead war against their common enemy the 13 different colonies agreed on signing in 1777 a cooperation agreement: the Articles of Confederation. 

                  

                                                                The first 13 United States (1783)

 Once they won the War in 1783 this Agreement became the first US common Constitution as it was compulsory for the new 13 independent States. But it was a very weak legal bond, because it didn’t make disappear every state’s own constitution, government and legal system. It only established a parallel duality of states. The only common institution that kept these bunch of states together was the Continental Congress, a non permanent Assembly where the 13 States sent elective representatives.  

The Second Continental Congress voting independence on July 4, 1776

The problem was that they only met when they were in trouble, and even so, if they agreed on anything it was extremely difficult to implement the common decision as they had not a common budget, nor a common executive to enforce the agreement. 

Congress was clearly not a very operative instrument for facing crisis. Like the one that affected the State of Massachusetts in 1786: the Shay Rebellion. 

The anarchy resulting from the rebellion of an angry farmer that had lost his property for not having been able to pay his mortgage, could not be prevented by the Congress under the regimen of the Articles of Confederation. They had not a strong executive and did not have common taxes for raising an army. Finally the mess created by Shay had to be solved by the wealthy citizens of Massachusetts who paid from their pocket an army to reduce the rebels. 

A newspaper includes a drawing of the repression of Shay's rebellion

The good news was that the Shay Rebellion was a lousy precedent that rendered the US Founding Fathers nervous and forced them to lobby for reaching a stronger union. 

3. The Federal Debate

George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and some other capital figures of the new US nation considered that the 13 Colonies could not survive a major crisis, especially if the British, the French or the Spanish –in this time countries much more powerful than the United States- decided to attack them. So they understood they needed a tighter union. 

 A big debate started between, on one side those defending that states should remain completely autonomous, and others that considered that disunited they would not survive against the Big European Monarchies, and therefore they considered the “Federal way” the best option for consolidating a more solid tie among the confederate states. To make it short, they wanted a stronger union more operative that would ensure a greater protection over internal anarchy situations like Shay’s rebellion or external dangers from international powerful nations. 

 The federalists considered that the only way to create a stronger and more permanent union was to approve a new common constitution as the "basic agreement" (Grundnorm) necessary to create legally a brand new super state. Of course as many members of the Continental Congress were very reluctant to accept a superior power over the individual member states, the federal union was limited  to certain areas expressly defined in the constitutional text. 

 The Federal debate was a long and fierce as the representatives of some States did not want to give up their full autonomy. But finally, adversaries reached a compromise that was set in writing in a very short new common constitution (September 1787). 

The US Constituttion

The new Union had a strong President elected by the States and a powerful Congress integrated by a double legislature: one representing the states (Senate) and another one representing the citizens (House of Representatives). And then there was a US Supreme Court that represented the Judicial power of the new Super Syaye. There was a very strict separation of powers in order to avoid the new super state to be too powerful. Everything was implemented to ensure that the new “Federal State” would be controlled by the states integrated in it. 

Diagram of the organisation of the US Federal State

Finally the US Constitution, was approved through a complex ratification process, that required the enactment of a Bill of Rights (1791), through which were given constitutional value  the first 10 amendments to the new Constitution. When all the 13 colonies got finally into the Federal Union, they elected as first President George Washington (1789-1797). 

George Washington (1732-1799)

The US Federal State was however still not fully consolidated when the Antifederalist Thomas Jefferson was elected as the third US President in March 1801. Jefferson thought that the Federal Union was far too strong and tried to weaken it. 

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

But fortunately for the US Federal Union, the former President John Adams (1797-1801) had put in office as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Marshall (1801-1835) who was a convinced federalist. 

 So when Thomas Jefferson tried to give back power to the states in detriment of the Federal Union, John Marshall decided that he could not do so at the Legislative level because it was a violation of the US Contitution. Through the landmark decision of Marbury vs. Madison (1803) Marshall established that the US Supreme Court was the top power in the Federal State as it had the power of interpreting the US Constitution. And no law from the Legislature or no decision from the US President could in any case vilate the constitution. Marshall invented the Judicial Review principle that established the supremacy of the constitution over politics. The strict application of the Rule of Law preserved the Federal Union. 

John Marshall, the first US Chief Justice

But the Judicial Review was not enough to consolidate the federal way, because states remained deeply divided about one crucial question: Slavery. Some States (essentially in the South) relied economically on slaves of the big plantations, while others (in the North) had a lot of small properties and a lot of industry. Originally there was a balance between Slave and Free States in the common federal institutions as the Missouri Compromise (1820) established that new states could be added only if was respected the balance between slave and free states. But as the US kept on growing adding new territories and new states, it became more and more complicated to keep this balance. And there was a moment in which Free states outnumered slave states. Slave States (in the South) decided to "secede" from the union and create a new Union: The Confederation.  

4. Preventing the dismantlement of the Federal Union through Civil War

The expansion of the Union from the 13 initial States to the actual 50, was performed mainly through the legal instrument called the Northwest Ordinance of July 1787, (two months before the approval of the US Constitution), because initially it was provided for the lands situated in the Northwest Territory that includes the actual states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

 But at the end, as it was fully operational, was used to integrate most of the new 37 states to the Union.

  The territorial enlargement of the US was a long process that did not go without tensions, including a devastating Civil War (1861-1865) between the Slave and the Free States. At the end, Lincoln won the war and the Federal Union was preserved, but at what cost. 

Map of the American Civil War (1861-1865)

 The causes that brought the US Civil War persist to a certain extent. Despite the fact that Lincoln abolished slavery in some states Black people endure a difficult situation.  The huge fight for civil rights that Malcolm X, Angela Davies or Martin Luther King endured during the 1960’s persist with movements like Black Lives Matters. 

And as far as the Federal Government is concerned, there are still today tensions between the Republicans that defend the independence of the States and the Democrats who on the contrary are always willing to reinforce the Federal power. 

5. Copying the American Federal Union

 The important point is that, despite all these problems, the US are a World power because they have been able to consolidate a very useful legal tool: a strong Federal Union that is compatible with a considerable autonomy of its member states. Despite the difficulties of its consolidation, the American Federal State has become a very Powerful Union that in our days still has a determinant influence in the whole World.  

The last version (1960) of the official US Flag. 

13 stripes (the original 13 colonies) and 50 stars (the actual members states).  

The Federal way has definitely worked in the American case, and this is why “plural states” all over the world have chosen the Federal model and the Presidential System to consolidate the union among its parts.

This is why, besides the United States of America, the Federal Model was finally adopted by some important states as Mexico (since 1824), Argentina (since 1853), Canada (since 1867), Brazil (1889), Australia (since 1891), Germany (since 1949), the Republic of India (since 1950), or the Russian Federation (since 1991). 

It is not the case of Spain, a country that, as you know, come from a composite monarchy model, and has not achieved the unification of all its t-historical territories in a centralized model of state. Spain tried to become a Federal State in 1873, but it was failure. Since 1931 Spain tried a weird formula: a unitary state but highly decentralized in Autonomies. Under the Spanish Second Republic (1931-1939)  was created a sort of decentralised model of state under the weird name of “Integral State”. After 1978 Constitutional Spain is officially dubbed the State of the Autonomies. But it is an ambiguous system that does not prevent that in some “Autonomies” there are strong movements in favour of total independence: Namely the Bask Provinces and Catalonia. 

The Spanish State of Autonomies

 European States were far too powerful at the end of the 18th century and during the 19th century to even consider the possibility of getting together in a federal way. However, after the disastrous World Wars of the first half of the 20th century, European States were distroyed and only then they considered the possibility of adopting the Federal model, as a way of unite and get back the possibility of having some influence at the World level after 1945. 

6. A Federal option for a disunited Europe

Adopting the Federal model in Europe so far, however, has proven to be very difficult for several reasons: 1) European States have been independent for centuries, 2) they do not share the language, 3) they had a private history, and 4) they didi not have common institutions. 

 Remember that after the signing of the Westphalia Treaty (1648), the Universal model (Roman Universalism) gave  way to a Europe of independent States that fought each other (from 1648 to 1945) to reach the supremacy in the Old continent. Especially after the French Revolution and the appearance of the nation-state, because "patriotism" and "nationalism" made things far more difficult. This is why, as you have seen in Teaching Guide 5, all along the 19th century European Nation-States were extremely keen in keeping intact their sovereignty in the context of the Colonial expansion. A situation that brought the Armed Peace, and, finally, World War I and the disaster of the Versailles Treaty (1919). 

                              The Europe of the Versailles Treaty (1919)

Only when Europe was in ruins in 1918, some eminent figures started considering that European States they should get together in order to form a powerful union at the world level to confront the US and the USSR. 

Richard Coudenhove Kalergi (1894-1972)

                                               

Ther were some theoretical aapproaches at integration, like the Pan-European Movement of Count Coudenhove Kalergi (1923) or the Briands proposal for a European Union (1929). But they failed due to the rising tensions of strong nationalisms, especially on the part of Italy and Germany. Hitler Lebensraum led to another European suicide: World War Two. 

Aristides Briand (1862-1932)

It is interesting however that even between 1939 and 1945 each side tried to reinforce some kind of union of States to get stronger. On the allies side we have to mention the short attempt for a Franco-British Union (June 1940) tried by De Gaulle and Churchill. 

The Franco-British Union of 1940

On the Hitler's side the Third Reich tried to create a United Europe under the banner of National-Socialism creating a network of Vassal States. 

Hitlerian Europe

As a reaction there was a anti-hitlerian Europe with different initiatives to develop a way for European integration. The most effective one was the customs and economic union created by Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg: the BENELUX (5 September 1944).     

                                                             

After the end of the war in the spring of 1945, followed some years of disarray for Europe. A period in which the destroyed European States were initially obliged to ask Americans for money in order to survive. First in total disorder creating a Dollar gap, and, finally, in 1947, thanks to the initiative  Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall they got a coordinated aid. 

George C. Marshall (1880-1959)

Marshall Plan was great, not only for the money, but because it obliged the needing European States to work together if they wanted to receive any American aid for reconstruction. The Marshall Plan could be considered from this perspective the first step towards a united Europe after World War II. 

President Truman signing the Marshall Plan

 The success of the Marshall Plan gave way to the first real attempt of creating an integrated Europe. I am talking about the Congress of the Hague (may 1948), aimed at establishing a Federal Europe.  At the end it was a failure, but at least it enabled the foundation of the Council of Europe (1949), with its extremely useful Human Rights Court that from Strasbourg protect Europeans citizens from the abuses of their respective governments. 

One of the sessions of the Hague Congress (7-10 May 1948)

 Nevertheless it was clear that in 1949 the World belonged to the Americans and the Russians. If Europeans wanted to survive they had to get together. But once discarded the federal model, they had to find their own way. And this is what we are going to see in the three last Teaching Guides of the present course 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 211 to 252), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 253-254) You should get familiar with all the dates. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Would you like a Federal option for Europe? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Understand the essence of the Federal model of State integration. Consider the differences with other models: Empire, Composite monarchies or Confederation.

2. Consider the US Federal approach. Why it appeared. Which were the main difficulties it faced for assuring its consolidation. How work the relationship between the States and the Federal State. 

3. How should European States procede in order to move to a Federal Europe.  

Churchill speech at the Hague Congress

HISTORIC MODELS OF STATE INTEGRATION

 

Map of the European Regions

The European Union is today a Community of States. Though the present 27 States members are not as homogeneuous as they aparently appear. On the one hand we have a Europe of regions, and on the other in some of these regions a large part of the population would like to become an independent state, as we see in the following map of European separatisms. 

After the disappearance of the Universal model in the European continent, especially after 1648 we face a Europe of States. The consequence was a constant quarreling for hegemony for almost 300 years. Up to 1945. 

Europe after the Westphalia Treaty (1648)

But on the other hand it is true that States did not appear overnight. They are the result of a long integration process, in which kings incorporated by wars or marriages as much territories to their realms as they could. In order to be more powerful states in European history have always tried to expand territorially. But one thing was to incorporate territories and another to integrate them into a larger political unit. This models of integration are interesting as they were clear precedents of European integration, before Communitarian Europe. 

 We will examine today in Teaching Guide 8 some of them. 

 The oldest model of integration was the Composite monarchy. This occurs when a king becomes simultaneously the monarch of different kingdoms. This does not mean however full unification as in Composite monarchies every member kingdom keep its constitutional status intact. Their own political institutions (Assembly of States) their own law and courts. And also, usually, a customs barrier protection. We will study two actual states that followed the way of the Composite monarchies: Spain and the UK. 

Spain

Spain is not a completely unified state because historically, as a result of the Reconquest, that is the fight against the muslims to retrieve the peninsular territory. As it lasted from 711 to 1492 the result was that the unity of the visigothic kingdom of Toledo disappeared replaced by different kingdoms or territories that were separate political units once. 

 From 1492 to the present Spain has not ended up becoming an unifeied state. And this is why the 1978 Constitution have created Spain as the State of the Autonomies as you can see in the following map.  . 

Concerning Spain bear in mind that the Catholic Kings (1474-1504) did not integrate Castile and Aragon. The Crown of Castile was a unified state and the Crown of Aragon a Composite monarchy. Isabel and Fernando did not unify their Spanish domains. 

The Catholic Kings: Isabella and Ferdinand

And neither did their grandson Carlos I (V). Castile was a consolidated State and the Crown of Aragon was not. This is why in the Catholic Composite Monarchy that was the result of the joining of Castile and Aragon, Castile ended being dominant. And the common language was Castilian.

Spain at the end of the Middle Ages

We have to wait until the Spanish Succession War (1704-1715) and the defeat of Aragon, Valencia, Aragon and Mallorca to have these kingdoms integrated and unified in Castile (Decretos de Nueva Planta).  As Navarre and the Basqs provinces had not rebelled against Philip V, they kept their own separate constitutional and legal frame. At least until the Carlists wars in the 19th century. Then Navarre (1841) and Alava, Guipúzcoa and Vizcaya (1876) got integrated as well in the Spanish State. 

 Spain became more or less an integrated state along the 19th century. In 1833, Javier de Burgos, a Minister from the Regency of Maria Cristina divided Spain in provinces that stil  today exist. 

Map of Spanish provinces in 1833

But the tradition of the Composite monarchy did not disappear and Spain is not today a completely unified state as the independentists movements of Catalonia and the Basq country shows. Territories that want to become a new state not only with parts of Spain, but also from France and Italy in the cas of Cataluña

 And including France in the case of the Basq provinces: 

The conclusion is that the composite monarchy model is not fully operative in terms of constructing a strong and unified state. Another example of this is the United Kingdom. 

The UK

Antoher interesting Composite monarchy  is the UK. England integrated Wales in the 16th century and Scotland in the 17th-18th centuries, forming the United Kingdom with the Union Jack. And Ireland from 1800 to 1922.

 But the union is not as solid as it appears. Ireland became in the 20th century an independent State (with the exception of Northern Ireland). Nevertheless both territories are not completely unified with England, as from 1998 they have their own parliaments and governments. And Scotland even tried to secede through the 2014 referendum. 

But Scotland has since 1998 its own Parliament and itis own government, and many scottish want to be independent from the UK, though the referendum of 2014 failed. 

 Also in 1998 Northern Ireland, as a result of the Belfast Agreement, intended to bring together the two communities (nationalists and unionists), was created the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stormont Belfast and a Northern Ireland Executive.

It is interestiung that Scotland and Northern Ireland citizens were  not happy with the Brexit as they prefer to remain in the EU. The Northern Irish requiered a special status concerning customs with the Eu as a result of Brexit: the Northern Ireland Protocol or Backstop. 

 Again in the case of the UK, the Composite monarchy system does not guarantee a strong unified State. 

The Swiss Confederation

 A stronger union than the Composite Monarchy is the Confederation formula. This formula of Confederation was the first system of integration in the United States, from 1777 to 1787, before the establishment of the Federal Union which we will see in TG 9. And during the American Civil War (1861-1865) the Southern States seceded and formed a new Confederation. 

But the idea of a Confederation is not American it appeared in Europe. And more concretely in Switzerland The origins of the Swiss Confederation, get back to the Rutli Oath in 1291 and receive full international recognition in the Peace of Westphalia. 

Nevertheless it is not not a powerful way of integration. In fact it gives an extremely decentralized model of integration. This is why in the Helvetic Confederation the 26 cantons have more power than the federal government in Bern. Even today. A Confederation is therefore a quite weak form of integration.  

The Zollverein: a first approach to economic integration

 Integrating politically the European states was an impossible task in the 19th century. But sometimes the political or economic needs forced some states to get together developing ways of partial integration. It was the case of the Metternich System based in the Holy Alliance of 1815, that disappeared completely in 1848.  And the very interesting customs union of the German States headed by Prussia in the Zollverein, created in 1818 and consolidated by 1834. An important precedent of the present Communitarian Europe.  

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 191 to 203), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 205-209) the crucial dates are the following: 

Survival of the Universal Model: 

800, 962, 1804, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918 and 1933-1945. 

Crown of Aragon: 

1137, 1164-1196, 1276, 1283, 1349, 1442, 1474-1504 (Catholic kings), 1517-1556 (Carlos I), 1707-1716 (Nueva Planta Decrees), 1841 (Navarra Ley Paccionada), 1876 (Full integration of Basq Provinces), 18178 (Concierto económico), 1931 (Estado integral), 1978 (Estado de las autonomías).

The United Kingdom: 

1535-1542 (Integration of Wales), 1603, 1707, 1800-1922 (Irish integration in the UK), 1997 and 2014, September 18. 

Swiss Confederation: 

1291, 1648 , 1848. 

Holy Alliance:

1815-1848

Zollverein: 

1818, 1834. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Advantages and disadvantages of unified and decentralized states? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Think of the “España de las Autonomías”. Consider the positive aspects of this extreme decentralized system and the inconveniences. For instance looking at how Spain faced the Covid pandemic. Do you find fair that the citizens of the Basks provinces and from Navarre pay less taxes that the rest of Spaniards? Do you think a common education and language should be guaranteed everywhere in the State?

2. Compare with the most centralized state in the world: France. Do you think education, taxing, Social Security, Courts and Law should be the same for every one? Responding to the idea that all citizens should be equal before the law?

3. Consider what is the ethnic background of Ukrainian present State that has led to Putin's invasion. You can inspire yourself in the following map of the languages spoken in Ukraine.