THE EU CURRENT CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS

As EU leaders in Brussels and the Member States struggle to come up with solutions following the Brexit, old disputes about proper economic and fiscal policy as well as the form and depth of European integration are bound to re-emerge. European leaders  are  the actors best placed to change prevailing ideas underlying policy-making and incite necessary reforms. During periods of unexpected sudden crisis dominant ideas can become vulnerable and challenged by alternative, competing ideas. This offers opportunities to infuse public and policy discourses with new ideas and initiate necessary reforms. However, it is not clear how leaders can offer leadership while maintaining legitimacy and remaining responsive to the public’s views.

1. There is a need to adopt ideas from the existing expert and public discourses about macroeconomic policy and European integration.
2. There is a need to infuse the existing discourses with new ideas.
3. There is a need for leaders’ ideas to reflect views of their national constituents.

Current leadership arrangements and dynamics in the EU also draw attention to the weaknesses of the EU institutions, designed to provide a form of checks and balances of national and EU interests, and to provide a means for policy to be embedded in a multilevel of governance and implementation. There is a subsidiary problem of the need for effective and coherent leadership within and across the EU institutions.

EU institutions have, at times, struggled to formulate effective policies and to communicate confidence that the EU can ever find coherent and believable solutions to the complex problems of interdependence and governance. There is a deficit of trust in the EU that needs to be filled if the EU is to regain policy salience. This will prove to be a major challenge for the EU’s institutions, which are characterized by diffused leadership across and within institutions that carry similar names and are confusing to many Europeans. This is compounded by the fact that this leadership is not often recognized by personality, or name unlike leaders of national governments.

There is little public appeal or clear narrative of EU institutional leaders for most Europeans. The EU struggles to utilize its capacity or enhance its legitimacy among its national leaders and citizens, many of whom do not identify with EU narratives, policies or leaders. That’s what needs to change.

Brexit is a clear signal that many EU citizens do not identify with an EU “from above”, an untransparent, elitist Europe, in which they have no substantive influence. If the EU does not reform, the anger amongst the public will grow and anti-European movements will seize power in the nation states.

Possible Scenarios

For many supporters of the European project, the EU has entered “uncharted territory,” and for the first time in its 60-year history, they worry that at least some aspects of EU integration may be stopped or reversed. Others contend that there is a chance that the multiple crises currently facing the EU could produce some beneficial EU reforms and ultimately transform the bloc into a more effective and cohesive entity.

Possible future scenarios for the EU include the following:

1. Muddling Through. The EU would largely continue to function as it currently does, without any significant treaty changes or decision making reforms, and find some degree of common solutions to crises such as those posed by Greece’s economic situation and increasing migratory pressures. The EU would continue to pursue integration and common policies where possible without the UK as a member.
2. Establishing Two Speeds. The EU would become a two-speed entity, consisting of a strongly integrated group of “core” countries and a group of “periphery” countries more free to pick and choose those EU policies in which they wish to participate. Some analysts suggest that a two-speed EU already exists in practice, with varying membership on a range of EU initiatives, such as the Eurozone, Schengen, justice and home affairs issues, and defense policy. Others suggest that a formal two-tier structure could undermine solidarity and create frictions between “core” and “periphery” member states.
3. A Looser, More Intergovernmental Configuration. Further EU integration would essentially be put on hold, and possibly reversed in some areas, with sovereignty on certain issues reclaimed by national capitals. This may be most likely should reform-minded euroskeptic parties come into power in more EU countries.
4. A Tighter, More Integrated Configuration. The EU would emerge from its current challenges more united and integrated. Such an outcome would leave a somewhat smaller EU of Member States more aligned on the need for further political and economic integration. This configuration would likely not encourage further EU enlargement.