This article examines the EU's current geopolitical turn: the push to have the EU embrace power politics and develop a ‘strategic autonomy’, both vis-à-vis global powers and its own ‘neighbourhood’. This turn is significant since it marks a shift away from what is said to be the post-cold war EU's liberal approach to world affairs. By openly embracing ‘hard power’, Brussels is also severing the continuity between the present rhetoric and its founding narrative about the EU as an anti-geopolitical peace project. In the first part, I argue that whilst the geopolitical turn has introduced a different rhetoric, this should not confuse analysts into believing that the post-cold war EU was short of a geopolitical agenda. In the second part, I discuss the EU's current geopolitical turn in the context of the colonial policy it pursued in the 1950s, when large parts of colonial Africa were annexed to the European Economic Community (EEC). Here, I argue that the obliviousness that impedes the knowledge of the EU's colonial origins helps explain why the geopolitical turn today is seen as novel and poles apart from the EU's approach to geopolitics in the 1950s. What appears to be a break with the past, then, is in fact a reunion with the past, in the sense that the current EU leaders' open embrace of geopolitics follows in the footsteps of the EU founders. In the conclusion, I relate this to a theoretical discussion concerning the EU's quest for ‘strategic autonomy’, which, arguably, constitutes the most defining aspect of the geopolitical turn.

Today both researchers and policymakers agree that refugees admitted to the European Union constitute a net cost and fiscal burden for the receiving countries. As is often claimed, there is a trade-off between refugee migration and the fis-cal sustainability of the welfare state. This contribution argues that the consen-sual cost-perspective on migration is built on a flawed economic conception of the orthodox “sound finance” doctrine. By shifting perspective to examine migra-tion through the macroeconomic lens offered by Modern Monetary Theory, the article demonstrates sound finance’s detrimental impact on migration policy and research. Most importantly, this undertaking offers the tools with which both migration research and migration policy could be modernized and put on a real-istic footing. Such a realistic approach perceives of refugees not as fiscal burdens but as the real resources they are. Empirically, the article attends to the case of Sweden, the country that, proportionally speaking, has received the most refugees in the EU over the years while also having one of the most comprehensive welfare states in the EU.

Gurminder Bhambra's Annual Lecture points the way to aparadigm shift in how the social sciences should approachthe nation-state,both historically and in our own times.That is to say, perceiving of Britain historically as a nation-stateor as an imperial state will make all the difference;and, as Bhambra demonstrates, it is precisely the failureto grasp the imperial fact that prevents us from grasping‘the shared histories that have configured our present’.This article reflects on the crucial imperial fact outlined byBhambra, and it applies its radical consequences for ourapproach to the broader Western European scene andthe world at large in the postwar period. Our contemporarynation-statesystem, it is argued, is not the inventionof Westphalia and European objectives, but rather theproduct of decolonization and thus a reaction and alternativeto the European designs for the modern world order,in general, and the postwar order, in particular. In relationto this, the article also explains how Bhambra's work helpsestablish a historically informed critique of methodologicalnationalism, as opposed to the many misconceptionsperpetuated by our current theoretical consensus of what‘methodological nationalism’ entails.

Alors que l’Europe, jadis triomphante, se trouve ravagée, appauvrie et divisée au sortir de la Première Guerre mondiale, un concept prometteur se diffuse dans les milieux dirigeants et intellectuels du Vieux Continent : l’Eurafrique !Faire du continent africain le ferment de l’unité européenne : tel est le projet de Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, chantre du mouvement paneuropéen, et de nombre de ses contemporains dans l’entre-deux-guerres. Le salut de l’Europe, affirment-ils, repose sur sa capacité à exploiter en commun les richesses des colonies africaines. Rivalisant avec la puissance montante des continents américain et asiatique, l’Eurafrique deviendra ainsi le pôle dominant de la géopolitique mondiale.Le projet eurafricain, un temps caressé par les régimes fascistes, renaît de ses cendres après 1945 et inspire les « fondateurs » de l’Europe : Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Paul Henri Spaak, Konrad Adenauer. La France, principale puissance coloniale d’Europe continentale, joue alors un rôle essentiel. Malmené en Indochine puis en Algérie, Paris s’accroche à ses possessions africaines et fait de leur inclusion dans le marché commun européen une condition sine qua nonà sa participation à la construction européenne.C’est ce dossier qu’ouvrent Peo Hansen et Stefan Jonsson. Proposant une analyse inédite des négociations qui aboutiront à la signature du traité de Rome en 1957, ils dévoilent un pan méconnu de l’histoire de l’Union européenne : ses origines coloniales.