In recent debates in political theory, the idea has been put forward that deliberate reversals of certain aspects of European integration can be a potentially constructive measure in the overall project of an ever closer union. For example, they may be a way to remedy defects of established EU rules or institutions. However, any step of disintegration also carries the danger of regression, i.e. the possibility of a loss of normative achievements – think, for example, of a weakening of institutional capacities that allow the EU member states to address common problems in a democratic way. This normative ambivalence makes the question of the conditions under which disintegration can be considered legitimate a particularly complex one. In this paper, I ask how the problem should be approached in terms of methodology. Bringing together the literature on political realism and rational reconstruction, I argue that the legitimacy of EU disintegration should be theorized in a practice-oriented manner. I develop an approach of ‘realist reconstructivism’ which combines the mapping of public narratives of (de-)legitimation with the analysis of the institutional effects of disintegration.
