Almost absent from the debate in the 2016 Brexit Referendum in the United Kingdom was the idea of the European Union not just as a peace project but as a community of values

Over time there have always been two risks, of Europe being seen just as a collection of economic interests and also of it being seen as a dry and bureaucratic legalistic and institutional structure

And yet the European idea has always been wider than this. The early advocates of European integration almost all warned against both of these risks and emphasised the importance of shared European values.

My paper first looks back at the development of the European idea in the inter-war and Second World War period, and at some of the familiar and less familiar pioneers in this process. It then reviews the immediate post-war steps towards European integration, the values put forward and the implementation of those values. On all the above points the paper’s main focus is on some of the key people who personified and/ or advocated these European ideas and values, not just the Founding Fathers but other imortant figures such as Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, Louise Weiss, Altiero Spinelli, Denis de Rougemont, Paul-Henri Spaak and Giorgio La Pira.

The second half of the paper looks at the various ways in which the key events and personalities in the early stages of the European integration process are commemorated, whether through museums or historic houses, memorials, or even foundations and think tanks named after leading figures. Based on the author’s recent EU Guide Book on the Landmark Sites of European Integration, this section of the paper seeks to explore how these memories can best be kept alive, and how this can complement more conventional histories of the European integration process.

The paper concludes by recalling evolving challenges to these shared European values, and of the need for them to be permanently re-examined and updated.

The present day EU is a clear outcome of its hectic history. Beyond the wars and the political regimes, all wanted to be “in” while protecting a core of specific myths and stereotypes and to use them discretionary. Under the umbrella of ~unity in diversity~ almost each took and takes the opportunity to oppose, to question the “unity”, to voice a particular option.

Erich Fromm defined the man as a fundamentally anti-social entity, while considering civilization as the result of denying individual’s will and inducing him limits, rules, values of the society he is expected to integrate in. Similarly, I would say, joining the EU should be a process of transforming the “wild” candidate into an adapted member who had already agreed and experienced the process of giving up some particular interests in order to adopt the “civilized” acquis. What one might see in the long run behavior of EU’s member states is quite the opposite, a continuous dissent, either in veto-ing some policies, in rejecting what seems to be the dominant route of enlargement and redefining borders or in denying some regulations already adopted. If in the case of an individual it is about the Ego quarreling with the laws imposed by the super-ego, in the EU story is goes between the collective memories and the EU laws. In all of the cases, the dissenting states hide their real reasons under the roof of obeying the rules, forcing their interpretation way beyond the reasonable line. I would even add that it is not “an insane society” but a not yet grown up one, with each member seeking the chance to dissent and enjoy his little room of freedom.

My aim is to compare the “Ego” of three dissenting members suspecting them of proving some incomplete adaptation to the EU profile: France, in the file of enlargement with Western Balkan States, Austria, in the Schengen file and Hungary in the refugees’ one. I try to read beyond the official mantra that they deliver in order to dig into collective stereotypes and show how the “family non-resemblances” get a strong voice (and even an authoritarian domestic politics) as soon as sensitive topics come in the agenda. The aim is to draw a line up to which the enchantment of being together works but beyond which the particular negative memories of each may seriously question the large picture.

Brexit has sparked academic interest in membership withdrawals from regional organisations (RO). Despite the perceived victory of those among the British leadership who advocated for a ‘hard Brexit,’ research identified the UK’s withdrawal from the EU as a case of differentiated disintegration, having left behind a number of institutional ties and even creating new links. With a recent shift in polling results, the prospect of eventual reintegration has gained scholarly attention. Although new to the EU, exits of sovereign states from ROs occur relatively often. Among the 76 ROs that were created since the Second World War, 21 witnessed voluntary exits, amounting to a total number of 49 cases. Adopting the perspective of comparative regionalism, this article contributes to the literature on regional integration by focusing on the dynamics of membership withdrawals. More precisely, it contextualises the factors which a) motivate withdrawal, b) determine to what extent the exit is ‘hard’ or differentiated, and c) lead to rapprochement or reintegration. Acknowledging the breadth of possible explanations, the article synthesises theoretical contributions from the literature on international relations and regional integration into three factor groups: (i) geopolitical and geoeconomic shifts, (ii) intra-regional tensions, and (iii) domestic preferences. On this basis, the exit of Chile from the Andean Pact in 1976 and rapprochement by gaining the status as associate member of the Andean Community in 2006 is analysed in comparative perspective with Morocco’s withdrawal from the Organisation of African Unity in 1984 and rejoining the African Union in 2016. The analysis concludes that the factors that initially drove regional integration remain relevant even during the period of exit and may contribute to a softer exit and eventual rapprochement.