The European Union, formerly known as The European Economic Community (EEC) was established through the mechanics of the Marshall Plan (Eichengreem et al, 1992). After the Second World War, Europe needed a strong integration to combine its energy sources so that it could form a strong alliance and demonstrate to the rest of the world that civilisation was prominent in the region even though the genesis of civilisation did not begin in Europe, but in Africa. The founding six member states created a manifesto to bring the integration of energy infrastructure to restructure the continent as the failure of the Marshall Plan was beginning to show (Joseph, 1949). The reconstruction of Europe was a way for the US to intervene and implement its foreign policies in the region, and it was a way for the US to steal gold and other valuable resources from the continent which was a way for the US to extend its hegemony on the global stage (Tarnoff, 2018). 

Although the intentions of the US were apparent via the implementation of the Marshall Plan; however, the Big Six had a clear intention of reestablishing the full potential of the continent and the ideation of the EEC was imminent. Many commentators have argued that the EEC restored hope for Europe and it brought togetherness in a continent that has been destroyed by two wars (Shanks, 1971; Boltho, 2001; Temin, 2002; Vonyo, 2008). Germany, Italy and France have been conflicted with three political ideologies and these countries coming together to form an alliance were a start of a political and the economic relationship that will be embroiled to a social and environmental integration that will make the EEC a club that every European country wanted to join. Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg were seen as the 'side dish' because these countries did not use any political ideologies and systems but these neighbourly countries wanted peace for the continent and becoming part of the EEC was the only thing that they could do to restore the peace and prosperity of Europe. The idealistic approach of the EEC was to promote the confidence of the European economic system without the hegemonic interference of the US. 

A further development of the EEC stems from the Single European Act in 1986 and the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which gave the EEC the mandate to become a bureaucratic organisation and move into a club format with leadership uniform to perhaps change the operations of this organisation (Troitino, 2013). The end of East and West Germany due to the Berlin Wall changed the notion of the EEC and gave them a power to unify Europe by dismissing the emission of the Cold War to restore the hopes of prosperity which the EEC aimed to achieve when it was first established. The US and Soviet Union dismissal from the affairs of Europe gave the EEC an initiative to build. The SEA outlines the Single Market and the free freedoms that it establishes and the enlargement of the EU proclaimed an economic stature on the global stage. The reforms of the Treaty of Rome to a positive Maastricht Treaty was the turning point, and changing from the EEC to the EU gave this organisation a positive outlook in the global arena. 

A good formation was created by the EU in the early 1990s to establish its presence and its formation was to use the Single Market to promote integration but in hindsight, the Single Market would create a political dimension in the EU framework which was not visible when the Treaty of Rome was first created. The economic interconnectedness was present but the political standpoints were forming which created reluctance within the establishment especially countries like Sweden and the United Kingdom who entered this club to stabilise its economic system and not a political union. The power of the EU meant that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union could form laws and change member states’ legislative reforms, and took sovereignty from member states. Small member states preferred this ideology but the UK did not prefer this idea, and it created a debate amongst member states about the EU’s political structure. Although the social reforms from the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the macroeconomic development of the European Monetary Union (EMU) through the Euro currency still gave the perceptions that the EU was pushing for this notion of developing sustainable Europe through social initiatives and economic incentives for businesses and for its citizens (Gerbrandy et al, 2019). 

With 19 countries and 340 millions people using the Euro and strong trading relationships with China and other Third World countries (Europa, n.d); the EU could still undertake political tasks that were not in the script when the plan of the EEC was first drawn. The understanding of politics was not part of the EU’s manifesto to initiate political views and showing involvement in global political injustice was not in the remit of the EU activities. The role of the EU was changing and negative connotations were forming; the idea of an economic integration was slowly forming into a political integration which meant that the alliances with NATO was moving into a stratosphere that the Treaty of Rome declined when the six founding members made an agreement to join its atomic energy and steel to ensure that a war does not happen (Stefanini et al, 2021). 

Brexit has pushed for de-integration in the union even further and the implementation of EU directives and regulations forced the UK to leave the union as the UK complained about the sovereignty being taken away and the UK was always sceptical about Brussels’ powers growing. The weak monetary union system has also put the union in an uncomfortable position whereby countries have been forced to join the single currency with votialite economic growth, the example of Greece. The EU still remain as the biggest and largest trading bloc in the world and the ideations of the single market and the Euros have put the EU in a stable position for now, the parameters cannot be measured as the slow fall of the EU is coming as other countries are likely to follow the UK if the EU does not provide the economic stability that it once provided for its member states. 

The EU was not formed to establish political rules and interfere in political decisions; the monologue of the EU was solely based on economic integration. Although some people may argue that the world has changed and the political and economic factors are connected due to globalisation; however, the fabrics of the EU was built upon the founding members agreeing to an economic system and not a political system because political systems establish war and that is not the path that the EU wants to take. The slow fall of the EU is inevitable as other member states would leave and it would change the structure of the EU. In economic terms, FrankFurt cannot hold the EU economic structural systems as the monetary policies suit the economic system of Germany and not the rest of its counterparts. This shows the differences between countries with strong economic powers against weak economic countries with adequate Gross Domestic Products (GDP). The Single Market is the only doctrine that the EU has created and that is why businesses, citizens and countries want to join the EU but without the Single Market; the EU would have become similar to the MERCOSUR, the African Union (AU), Asian, Pacific Economic countries (APEC) trading blocs where they have nothing to offer its citizens and businesses and the predicament is going to happen to the EU in the near future if policies and treaties are not strengthened (the process of a slow fall of an economic bloc). 

References 

1. Boltho, A (2001). Reconstruction after two world wars: Why a difference, Journal of European Economic History 30: 429–58.

2. Eichengreen, B., Uzan, M., Crafts, N., & Hellwig, M. (1992). The Marshall Plan: Economic Effects and Implications for Eastern Europe and the Former USSR. Economic Policy, 7(14), 14–75.

3. Europa (n.d) The international role of the euro. [online] https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area/international-role-euro_en [accessed on 8 May 2022]

4. Gerbrandy, A., Janssen, W. A., Thomsin, L. (2019) Shaping the Social Market Economy after the Lisbon Treaty: How ‘Social’ Is Public Economic Law? Utrecht Law Review, 15 (2), 32-46.

5. Joseph, J. J. (1949). The Failure of the Marshall Plan. Science & Society, 14 (1) 29–57.

6. Shanks, M. (1971). Economic Integration in Western Europe since 1945. Acta Oeconomica, 6(1/2), 27–36.

7. Stefanini, S., Nagy, A. T., Giske, T.E.M (2021) One Step Closer: Towards Deeper and Wider EU Defence Partnerships. Bratislava: GLOBSEC Policy Institute

8. Tarnoff, C. (2018). The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments, and Significance. [online] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/row/R45079.pdf [accessed on 4 May 2022]

9. Temin, P (2002). The Golden Age of European growth reconsidered, European Review of Economic History 6: 3–22.

10. Troitino, D. R. (2013) European Integration: Building Europe. New York: Nova Science Publishers

11. Vonyó, T (2008). Post-war reconstruction and the Golden Age of economic growth, European Review of Economic History 12: 221–41.