European Union Question

[Xen]

I have a question about the European Union for the board members from Europe, or really anybody that knows anything about it.

Could the European Union have formed similiar as it did in OTL without the Second World War, and the ensuing Cold War?

I have a timeline where there is no World War II (no Hitler or Nazi Germany either, and Mussolini and his fascist government dies in the early 1950's), and no Soviet Union either (Russia has a Tsarist government, very much like the one under Nicholas II). How can I possibly get an European Union that looks like it does today without those major events?

[Steffen]

I´d say you need an event where the european nation states
1. are challenged with a foe they can´t compete against alone, and I do not mean in a purely military sense, but also economically.

2. The border disputes , irredentism etc has to be overshadowed by something else or they wouldn´t give up poltics directed against the neighbouring countries.

3. You need some reason along the aforementioned making the national government willing to transfer souvereignity to a non-national entity.
Good luck.

[Kit]

To be honest, I'm really not sure that's possible. The world wars and the cold war had such extreme effects on Europe that they affected everything. Economics, demographics, ideology, politics, geography, social structures - everything! In many cases the institutions and traditions of nations across the continent were tested to desctruction...twice. And they were eventually rebuilt under the pressure of the Soviet threat!

I doubt that such a unique experiment as the European project would have gotten out of the debating societies of European universities without what happened to the continent in the twentieth century.

[Hendryk]

I have a timeline where there is no World War II (no Hitler or Nazi Germany either, and Mussolini and his fascist government dies in the early 1950's), and no Soviet Union either (Russia has a Tsarist government, very much like the one under Nicholas II). How can I possibly get an European Union that looks like it does today without those major events?
Very difficult. In terms of institutions, I think it's next to impossible to have an EU analog without WW2, the Soviet threat, and a generally identical mindset among European decision-makers. The elaboration of the EU was a highly incremental process which even small political changes in post-WW2 Europe could completely alter. For example, a Labour victory in Britain in either 1979 or 1983 would likely have meant no Single European Act, and therefore no truly integrated European market. More generally, I agree with kitjed that WW2 was simply too much of a defining moment for modern Europe.

Now, if what you're aiming at is some generic form of economic/political integration of Europe, which is neither named the European Union nor has similar institutions to OTL EU, you could begin with the Pan-European Movement in the 1920s and such figures as Aristide Briand and the Baron Richard de Coudenhove-Kalergi. If you find a way to make them more influential so that, by the time of the 1929 crisis, European leaders decide to seek a policy of growth through integration rather than shutting national borders, you may (with the appropriate historical tweaking) end up with a European confederation of sorts by the early 21st century.

[Akiyama]

The driving force behind the European Union is partly a desire for political and economic integration in order to minimise the chances of another Pan-European war, and partly the recognition of the economic advantages of a single market.

IIRC, it started life as the European Coal and Steel Community - six countries that decided to scrap tariffs among themselves on coal and steel.

Even if there were no political impetus for European unity, something similar to the EU could come about gradually through economic reasons. A number of small neighbouring nations could decide to create a free market in particular products, as a way of increasing their competitiveness.

If you take the idea of a single market to its logical conclusion, you must end up with a single currency, free movement of people, a common set of regulations affecting businesses, and a single tax regime. There must be some kind of governing body to decide upon taxes and regulations, with a bureaucracy to assist it. Once a bureaucracy is set up it will have its own agenda to increase its political power. And it is a law of nature that any large bureaucracy, if left unchecked, will increase in size over time, simply in order to keep up with the increasing amount of work its employees create for one another.

Other areas where co-operation between European governments might be useful regardless of any desire for political unity could be policing (to stop international crime), immigration (to stop illegal immigration from poorer countries), transport (particularly rail and air travel) and the environment.

[Grimm Reaper]

I recall the Zollverin(?), a similar though smaller economic arrangement came into being among the German states once the governments were convinced it did not involve any infringement on sovereignty.

Is there a point in 19th Century history where the example might have spread among the major European nations and accidentally set the standard for other international groupings on such matters as trade, tariffs, etc?