EC WHITE PAPER ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

Scenario 1: Carrying on

Under this scenario the 27 Member States stick to the status quo, focusing on reforms, jobs, growth and investment. There is only ‘incremental progress’ on strengthening the euro single currency while Member States agree a limited degree of defence cooperation. This should allow the EU 27 ‘to continue deliver concrete results, based on a shared sense of purpose.

This scenario assumes that staying the course will involve small, smooth changes to the functioning of the EU. This option is based on national governments agreeing to deepen the EU’s single market, pool some military capabilities and ‘speaking with one voice on foreign affairs’, while leaving key responsibilities like border controls mostly in the hands of national governments.

Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market

The Single Market becomes the ‘raison d’être’ of the EU for want of broader agreement on political integration. The Commission is not enthusiastic about this option, noting that ‘decision-making may be simpler to understand but the capacity to act collectively is limited’ and ‘this may widen the gap between expectations and delivery at all levels’. Under this option the Commission believes, the EU would face a heightened risk to the euro, because it would have failed to finish establishing the eurozone’s economic governance, leaving it vulnerable to new financial crises. Companies would likely face more border checks, and EU members would revert to pursuing bilateral foreign policy. Trade deals and defense cooperation would also be more difficult.

Scenario 3: Those who want more do more

A multi-speed EU 27 emerges, with some Member States pushing ahead in ‘one or several coalitions of the willing’ on key areas such as defence, internal security, taxation and justice. Other Member States may join later.

The 19 euro countries for example could harmonize their tax systems- up to now a no-go area for most Member States.

This option means ‘the unity of the EU 27 is preserved while further cooperation is made possible for those who want’. Under this scenario the Commission assumes that all 27 members would still make general progress on a deeper single market. The Commission believes this model would lead to differences in citizens’ rights and is not optimistic that Eurozone governance could be completed. However, it envisages that it would allow national militaries that have close relations with one another to move quickly into new fields like drone surveillance, or for aligned economies to create a unified business law code.

Scenario 4: Doing less more efficiently

Under this option the EU 27 focuses on a reduced agenda where it can deliver clear benefits- technological, innovation, trade security, immigration, borders and defence. It pulls back from other areas- regional development, health, employment or social policy leaving them to Member States. The result is a simplified, less ambitious EU which ‘helps to close the gap between promise and delivery’. By ‘doing less’ the Commission believes it can ‘better tackle certain priorities together’ In other words, not ‘less’ but doing more in a ‘reduced number of areas’. Major achievements would be a fully resourced European Border and Coast Guard, a single voice on foreign policy and the establishment of a European Defense Union. The Commission sees other priority areas for deeper cooperation as innovation, trade and security. Research could be focused on digitization and decarbonization of the economy. One problem with this scenario is that it relies on EU countries agreeing among themselves on the areas on which they want to cooperate more efficiently.

Scenario 5: Doing much more together

Under this option Member States decide that neither they nor the EU are able to face current global challenges and so agree ‘to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board’.

The single currency is made central to the project. ‘The euro area is strengthened with the clear understanding that whatever is beneficial for countries sharing the common currency is also beneficial for all.’ The Commission prefers this option for Eurozone governance and said it will issue a reflection paper to that effect in the coming months.

EU Law has a much larger role, determining more citizens’ rights and the EU would get more of its ‘own resources’ (the ability to raise revenue through tax).

Under this scenario the EU would also assume powers to speak for all of Europe on trade and foreign policy, and would assume global leadership for fighting climate change and on humanitarian issues.

There would be ‘far greater and quicker decision-making’ in Brussels, but the Commission acknowledges that ‘there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities.