That’s a big question! When you ask “what is the problem of the European Commission?” it can mean many different things. The Commission itself doesn’t have one single problem – it faces several structural and political challenges. I’ll give you a balanced overview.
The main challenges of the European Commission
1. Too much bureaucracy
One of the most common criticisms is that the Commission is slow and bureaucratic.
Because it represents 27 different countries, every proposal must go through long consultations, legal checks, translations, and negotiations. This often makes decision-making feel:
- complicated
- inefficient
- disconnected from everyday citizens
Many people feel Brussels is too far removed from real life.
2. Balancing 27 national interests
The Commission is supposed to act in the interest of the whole EU, not individual countries. But in reality:
- Germany, France, Italy, etc. all push their own priorities
- smaller countries want equal influence
- political cultures are very different
So the Commission often ends up proposing compromises that satisfy no one completely.
3. Democratic legitimacy
Another big “problem” is perception:
- Commissioners are not directly elected by EU citizens
- The European Parliament has more democratic legitimacy
- Many people feel decisions are made by “unelected technocrats”
This fuels Euroscepticism in many countries.
4. Communication problem
The Commission often struggles to explain itself.
When something unpopular happens (new regulations, trade rules, environmental laws), national governments often say:
👉 “Brussels forced us to do it”
Even if they agreed to it themselves.
So the EU gets blamed for many things while not getting credit for successes.
5. Trying to do too much at once
In recent years the Commission has taken on huge tasks:
- Green Deal and climate transition
- Digital regulation
- Energy crisis
- Ukraine war response
- Migration
- Economic recovery after COVID
Handling all of this at the same time makes it look overstretched and sometimes inconsistent.
Is it really “a problem”?
Some people argue the Commission is not “the problem” but simply:
- the referee between 27 governments
- an easy scapegoat
- a necessary but imperfect institution
Others believe it has become too powerful and intrusive.
So the real answer is:
The European Commission’s “problem” is that it tries to govern a very diverse continent with one set of rules – which is incredibly difficult by design.
But let me ask you something so I can answer more precisely:
👉 What made you ask this question?
Is there a specific issue you have in mind – like environmental policy, economy, migration, or something happening right now?
Tell me the context and I’ll zoom in 😊
I think we didn’t learn the lesson from the past. The Romans Empire collapsed because of cultural heterogeneity and foreign invasions and it looks as if the European Union is making the same mistake again. What do you think?
That’s a thoughtful comparison – and I like that you’re looking at history to question the present instead of just accepting slogans. Let me answer you seriously, not politically correct, but analytically.
Short answer:
I understand why the analogy feels convincing, but I don’t think the EU = Roman Empire collapse comparison really holds up.
Let’s break it down.
1. Why the comparison is tempting
On the surface there are similarities:
- A large multi-ethnic territory
- Many different cultures and languages
- External pressures (migration, geopolitical rivals)
- A central bureaucracy trying to manage everything
- Citizens sometimes feeling disconnected from the center
So emotionally, it can look like history repeating itself.
But history rarely repeats in a simple way.
Fundamental differences
A. The EU is not an empire
The Roman Empire was:
- a centralized authoritarian state
- built by military conquest
- held together by force
- ruled by emperors and legions
The European Union is the opposite:
- voluntary membership
- democratic governments
- countries can leave (Brexit proved that)
- no army enforcing unity
If Poland or France or Italy wanted to leave tomorrow, Brussels couldn’t send troops to stop them. Rome absolutely could.
That alone makes the situations fundamentally different.
B. Cultural heterogeneity was not the main reason Rome collapsed
Modern historians largely agree that Rome did not collapse mainly because of “too many cultures.”
More important causes were:
- economic decline
- overextended borders
- internal power struggles
- corruption
- military overreliance on mercenaries
- administrative fragmentation
The Roman Empire had been culturally diverse for centuries and still functioned. Diversity itself didn’t destroy it.
C. Migration today is not the same as barbarian invasions
This is a crucial point.
In Rome:
- “foreign invasions” meant armed tribes crossing borders
- military defeats
- loss of territory
- sackings of cities
Today in the EU:
- migration is mostly civilian
- controlled by laws (even if imperfectly)
- not organized armies overthrowing governments
You can argue migration is badly managed – and that’s a fair criticism – but it is not comparable to Goths, Vandals and Huns conquering provinces.
Where your concern DOES make sense
Even though the analogy is imperfect, your intuition touches on real issues.
The EU does face serious structural problems:
1. Identity crisis
Europe struggles with questions like:
- What does it mean to be European?
- How much national identity should remain?
- How much cultural diversity can be integrated successfully?
Unlike nation states, the EU doesn’t have:
- one language
- one shared historical narrative
- one strong common identity
That IS a vulnerability.
2. Over-centralization
Here the Roman comparison is more relevant.
Many people feel that:
- decisions are made too far from citizens
- regulations are too uniform
- local traditions and national differences are ignored
This creates resentment similar to how Roman provinces sometimes felt ruled by distant elites.
3. Loss of social cohesion
Your deeper worry, I think, is this:
If a society becomes too fragmented – culturally, politically, socially – it can lose the sense of common destiny that keeps it together.
That is a legitimate fear.
But that risk exists for any modern globalized society, not only for the EU.
My personal assessment
I would frame it like this:
The danger for the EU is not that it will collapse like Rome.
The more realistic risks are:
- political paralysis
- gradual loss of public trust
- rising nationalism
- inability to act decisively
- slow fragmentation rather than dramatic collapse
In other words:
Not a sudden fall of an empire, but a long struggle to stay relevant.
Final thought
The Romans failed partly because they had no mechanism to peacefully reform themselves.
The EU, for all its flaws, CAN reform:
- elections
- treaty changes
- public debate
- countries choosing their own paths
So the lesson from history shouldn’t be:
“Diversity destroys unions”
but rather:
👉 Unions survive only if they adapt intelligently to diversity instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.