The European Union: Origins, Evolution, and the Debate Over Sovereignty

If you want to understand the EU, you must first understand that it was never just about trade.

Introduction

The European Union (EU) is one of the most ambitious political and economic experiments in modern history. From its early days as a coal and steel agreement to the complex supranational institution it is today, the EU has transformed Europe — politically, economically, and culturally. Yet, as integration deepens, so too do questions about sovereignty, democracy, and the true cost of unity.

This article traces the origins of the EU, its transformation from the European Economic Community (EEC), and the arguments both for and against the Union. It also considers the perspective of countries like Norway and Switzerland, who remain outside the EU, and evaluates the rationale and consequences of the UK's departure through Brexit.

From the EEC to the EU: Was It Always the Plan?

The European Economic Community (EEC) was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 by six countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. Its purpose was to create a common market — free movement of goods, services, capital, and people — as a means to prevent future wars and foster economic growth.

While early documents emphasized economic cooperation, many of the EEC's architects, including Jean Monnet, saw economic integration as a step toward deeper political union. In this sense, the evolution into the European Union (formally established in 1993 by the Maastricht Treaty) was less a dramatic shift than the realization of an underlying vision. However, this deeper integration — including a shared currency, central legal systems, and foreign policy goals — was not always transparently discussed with the public.

What Changed with the EU?

The Maastricht Treaty renamed the EEC to the European Union and marked a significant deepening of integration. Key changes included:

• Creation of the euro and the European Central Bank
• Common foreign and security policies
• Expanded powers in areas like justice, immigration, and environmental policy
• Introduction of EU citizenship, allowing citizens to live and work anywhere in the Union

Later treaties — Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001), and Lisbon (2007) — further centralized decision-making and restructured the EU’s institutions. The European Parliament gained more power, but so did the unelected European Commission and the European Court of Justice.

Is the EU Democratic?

This question cuts to the heart of EU skepticism. Supporters argue that the EU is democratic because:

• Citizens elect Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
• Heads of state form the European Council, which sets broad priorities
• National parliaments ratify major treaty changes

Critics counter that real power lies with unelected institutions:

• The European Commission: Proposes and enforces laws but is appointed, not elected
• The European Central Bank: Controls monetary policy but is independent from voter oversight
• The European Court of Justice: Can override national laws, with judges not accountable to the public

Moreover, EU elections often suffer from low turnout, and the complexity of the system makes it difficult for average citizens to know who is responsible for which decisions.

How Much Do MEPs Get Paid?

As of 2024, Members of the European Parliament earn a base salary of around €10,000 per month before taxes. They also receive allowances for office expenses, travel, and daily attendance at parliamentary sessions. While these figures are public, they contribute to perceptions of a distant and expensive bureaucracy.

Was the EEC Not Enough?

Some argue the EEC’s original structure — a loose economic community — was perfectly adequate. It encouraged trade, reduced tariffs, and allowed nations to cooperate while maintaining sovereignty.

Others believe the EEC lacked the tools to address cross-border issues like migration, environmental regulation, and financial crises. For this camp, the EU was a necessary evolution to create cohesion and stability across the continent.

The truth may lie somewhere in between: while deeper cooperation brought benefits, the shift toward centralized governance alienated segments of the population who felt decisions were increasingly made by distant technocrats rather than elected national leaders.

The View from the Outside: Norway and Switzerland

Both Norway and Switzerland are closely tied to the EU — economically, culturally, and geographically — but neither has joined.

Norway:

Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), meaning it participates in the single market but is not part of the EU’s political structures. It accepts many EU laws and pays into the EU budget but has no formal say in policymaking. Multiple referendums have rejected EU membership due to concerns about losing sovereignty over fisheries, agriculture, and natural resources.

Switzerland:

Switzerland is not in the EU or EEA but has a series of bilateral agreements with the EU. These allow access to the single market in specific sectors. The Swiss have repeatedly rejected closer integration in national referendums, citing neutrality and independence as core values.

In both cases, these countries demonstrate that access to European markets does not necessarily require political union — but also comes with trade-offs in terms of influence and complexity.

Brexit: Why the UK Left

The United Kingdom formally exited the EU in 2020 after a 2016 referendum in which 52% voted to leave. The reasons were varied:

• Concerns over sovereignty and national control over laws
• Anger over mass immigration and the EU’s freedom of movement
• Economic fears over regulation and contributions to the EU budget
• A perception that the EU was drifting toward deeper integration without voter consent

For many, Brexit was not just about Europe — it was about trust in institutions, identity, and the limits of globalization.

Has Brexit Been a Success or a Failure?

It depends on who you ask — and what metrics you use.

Positives cited by Brexit supporters:

• Restored control over laws, borders, and trade policy
• Ability to strike independent trade deals (e.g., CPTPP membership)
• Less entanglement with EU legal and regulatory decisions

Negatives cited by critics:

• Economic disruption, especially for exporters and small businesses
• Labor shortages in sectors like healthcare and agriculture
• Increased bureaucracy for trade with the EU
• Continued debate over the Northern Ireland Protocol

While some outcomes may take a decade or more to fully materialize, Brexit has clearly shown that decoupling from a highly integrated system is messy, costly, and politically divisive.

Pros and Cons of the EU

Pros:

• Economic scale and frictionless trade within the bloc
• Collaborative approaches to climate change, security, and regulation
• Enhanced global influence by acting as a unified bloc
• Freedom of movement for work, study, and travel

Cons:

• Loss of national sovereignty on key issues
• Complex bureaucracy with questionable transparency
• One-size-fits-all policies that don’t reflect local needs
• Economic strain on southern and eastern member states during crises

Conclusion

The European Union is neither a utopia nor a tyranny — it is a complex, evolving structure that brings both opportunity and constraint. For some countries, the benefits of pooled resources and shared sovereignty outweigh the downsides. For others, the desire to remain independent is paramount.

Whether the EU’s future will be one of deeper integration or flexible cooperation remains to be seen. What is certain is that the debate over national identity, economic control, and democratic legitimacy isn’t going away — in Europe or beyond.