Extended Summary by Corneliu PIVARIU
Dorian Vlădeanu’s[2] essay EU vs UE explores the defining tension of contemporary Europe: the opposition between the EU – the European Union as an institutional, technocratic, and normative structure – and EU – a United Europe as a political, cultural, and identity-based ideal. The wordplay, seemingly simple, carries a double meaning: in English, “EU” designates the European Union, while in Romanian eu is the personal pronoun “I,” symbolizing both the individual and the historical dream of a United Europe.
Thus, the title suggests a conflict between two realities: on the one hand, a United Europe as a project of solidarity and shared destiny; on the other hand, the European Union as a bureaucratic and institutional mechanism. The individual – the citizen’s “I” – finds himself caught between these two levels, but often feels more excluded than represented.
To understand this contrast, one must recall that the idea of a “United Europe” long predates the European Union: from the Roman Empire, which imposed the first form of political unity, to medieval visions of a common Christendom, to humanist and Enlightenment projects envisioning a Europe of reason and progress. In the 20th century, after the tragedy of the two world wars, the ideal materialized in the Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community, and later in the founding treaties. In this sense, a United Europe means values and a shared identity, whereas the European Union – a product of the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties – has increasingly become an institutional apparatus.
1. Crisis of Legitimacy and Democratic Alienation
The European Union today faces a crisis of democratic legitimacy. Mechanisms of public consultation and civic involvement appear, in many cases, formal and lacking authenticity. Citizens are invited to participate, but the decisions often seem already made.
A relevant example is the low turnout in European Parliament elections. In 2014, turnout was only 42.6%; in 2019, although it rose to 50.7%, it remained well below the levels typical of national elections. This absence signals the perception that EU institutions are remote and do not directly affect people’s daily lives. In many countries, campaigns for European elections were dominated by national themes rather than European ones, underscoring the fundamental rift between citizens and Brussels.
Moreover, the technocratic language of European documents – full of legal and economic terms – distances citizens even further. Communication is perceived as abstract, inaccessible, and lacking empathy. Europe appears as an efficient mechanism, but one emptied of meaning. The individual no longer recognizes himself in this construct, fueling democratic alienation.
The debate over the “democratic deficit” of the Union, present since the 1990s, remains relevant. The fact that the EU’s executive (the Commission) is not directly elected by citizens but appointed through negotiations between governments and Parliament amplifies the sense of distance. In the eyes of many, the Union’s democratic legitimacy is indirect and insufficient.
2. A United Europe – The Ideal Lost Between Treaties and Regulations
The essay draws a clear distinction between a United Europe as an ideal and the European Union as an institution. The former presupposes solidarity among peoples, a shared identity, and common values. The latter often reduces itself to directives and norms.
This difference explains why citizens no longer feel that “being European” carries a mobilizing meaning. Common symbols – the blue flag, the Ode to Joy as anthem, Europe Day – have failed to create an affective identity comparable to the national one. The euro, as a shared currency, has brought obvious economic benefits but has not become an emotional symbol, as the dollar is for Americans.
Brexit is the most telling example: many Britons felt the Union was a bureaucratic construct, devoid of the identity dimension of a “United Europe.” Debates in France and the Netherlands, where the European constitutional treaty was rejected by referendum, reveal the same trend: the institution fails to inspire attachment.
Thus, instead of expressing a community of destiny, the “EU” has come to be perceived as an impersonal supranational entity. “A United Europe” remains an invoked ideal, while the “European Union” dominates through its norms and procedures.
3. Social and Political Effects of the Rift
This rift produces tangible consequences:
- electoral absenteeism – a sign of disengagement and mistrust;
- the rise of sovereigntist currents, emphasizing the recovery of decision-making at the national level;
- the weakening of European cohesion, as opposition grows between integrationists and sovereigntists.
The European citizen feels reduced to the role of “taxpayer” or “policy beneficiary,” but not of a genuine political partner. The void of meaning left by European institutions is filled by sovereigntist forces, promising a return to the familiar framework of the nation-state and greater decision-making autonomy.
Examples abound: in Hungary, Viktor Orbán claims a “national sovereigntism” in opposition to Brussels; in Poland, conservative governments argue that fundamental decisions must remain in Warsaw; in France, Marine Le Pen advocates a Europe of nations rather than supranational integration; in Italy, Giorgia Meloni builds her message around defending national identity and reclaiming sovereignty. Brexit, likewise, was essentially an act of political and economic sovereigntism.
These tendencies show that, in the absence of a convincing narrative, the Union is contested not only in terms of efficiency but also legitimacy and meaning.
Another important factor accentuating the rift between citizens and EU institutions is the ideological orientation assumed by the Union’s leadership in recent years, which many associate with cultural neo-Marxism, the “woke” phenomenon, and the insistent promotion of the LGBTQ+ agenda.
Instead of placing solidarity, security, and economic prosperity at the forefront, Brussels gradually brought to the center of its official discourse a set of controversial cultural and identity themes that divided European societies:
- redefining gender roles and promoting “political correctness” policies perceived as excessive;
- emphasizing diversity and inclusion at the expense of traditional European cultural values;
- conditioning certain funds or policies on the adoption of LGBTQ+ rights legislation.
In states such as Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, or Italy, reactions were highly critical, these policies being considered intrusions into national and cultural sovereignty. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, where national and religious identity plays a major role, the “woke” and LGBTQ+ agendas have fueled the perception that the Union promotes an ideological direction alien to European traditions.
Thus, sovereigntist currents have found fertile ground, presenting themselves as defenders of cultural identity and national autonomy against Brussels’ pressures. This confrontation is no longer merely political or economic but also cultural and identity-based, deepening polarization and further weakening the Union’s cohesion.
4. The European Union Between Institution and Community
Today’s real tension is not between East and West, or North and South, but between the EU – the institution – and EU – a United Europe as an ideal. The former is governed by treaties and rules; the latter is inspired by values and a sense of belonging.
The Union remains caught between two political models: federalism – in which the central authority has direct power over citizens – and confederation – in which states retain full sovereignty. This structural ambiguity makes the Union appear as neither one nor the other: too strong to be merely an alliance of states, but too weak to be a true federation.
If the European Union is perceived solely as a legal and administrative mechanism, it risks losing touch with its original foundation: the community of destiny. A treaty can be renegotiated, but values must be lived and shared.
5. Directions for Reconstruction: From Technocracy to a Living Community
To overcome this crisis, the author proposes several directions:
- Placing the citizen back at the center of European decision-making, as participant rather than spectator;
- Democratizing European institutions, by strengthening the role of Parliament and ensuring transparency;
- Developing a political discourse that is accessible and human, capable of inspiring rather than merely informing technically;
- Respecting subsidiarity and cultural diversity, as an alternative to excessive uniformity;
- Creating a common narrative that transcends the economic dimension and reaffirms the civilizational meaning of Europe.
These directions are not merely theoretical: positive examples already exist. The Erasmus+ program has created a generation of young Europeans with shared experiences; the Union’s response to the pandemic, through joint vaccine procurement, showed solidarity in practice; and measures to support energy security in the face of the war in Ukraine demonstrated that collective action brings tangible benefits.
Thus, the Union should not be abandoned but re-anchored in the ideal of a United Europe.
Conclusions
EU vs UE is a diagnosis of Europe’s contemporary dilemma: the conflict between a United Europe as a communal ideal and the European Union as a bureaucratic mechanism.
Without genuine reconciliation, Europe risks remaining a functional construct but one devoid of soul. Sovereigntist currents are not merely conjunctural opposition; they are signals of the need for meaning, identity, and participation. They show that the European project can no longer be just technocracy – it must once again become a living community.
In a multipolar world, faced with competition from the United States, China, and Russia, the European Union cannot afford to remain merely a regulatory apparatus. Its survival and relevance depend on its ability to reconnect institutions with citizens and to transform “EU” once again into an authentic expression of “EU” – both the individual and the United Europe as an ideal.
Only then will the European citizen be able to say sincerely: Europe is mine, too.
1. The essay was drafted by Professor Dorian Vlădeanu in a nearly finalized form, without conclusions, as early as the end of June 2023, as part of a broader joint project. The illness he faced did not allow him to complete it. With the family’s permission, I have finalized it, and it will be published in a forthcoming book. Here I have presented an extended and updated summary prepared entirely by myself.
2. Dorian Vlădeanu (13 November 1955 – 22 May 2024) – Graduate in economics, automation, and computer science; Ph.D. in economics; author of more than 100 works in the field of macroeconomics. He developed the first national strategy in the field of community public services. Author, co-author, and coordinator of the first generation of legislation prepared by the Government of Romania on public services (2002–2004). Co-author of my book Geopolitics Before and After Covid-19, 2017–2020 (Marist Publishing House, 2020).
