Member states have damaged the European Union by blaming Brussels for their problems and failing to take ownership of joint decisions, the European Commission has said.
Setting out possible scenarios for the future of the union post-Brexit, ranging from a scaled-back entity focused on the single market alone to a more tightly integrated club with more pooled sovereignty, the commission painted a stark picture a European project gravely threatened by populism, economic insecurity and declining public trust.
While many of those changes were inevitable and irreversible, others were hard to predict. "Europe can either be carried by those events or seek to shape them," the commission's White Paper outlining the scenarios stated. "We must now decide."
It directed part of the blame for public dissatisfaction towards the EU at the door of national governments. “Blaming ‘Brussels’ for problems while taking credit for success at home, the lack of ownership of joint decisions and the habit of finger-pointing at others have already proved damaging. Europeans are not immune to these stark images of disunity,” it stated.
Pointing out that the EU had often developed on the back of crises and false starts, the document set out five broad scenarios for the future of the bloc.
Five options
The first option was to carry on as before, which the commission said would have the benefit of ensuring unity among the 27 EU member states post-Brexit, although it added that that unity could be tested by major disputes.
A second scenario envisaged a gradual scaling back of the European project towards a sole focus on the single market - a step the union could take as a way of acknowledging their inability to find common ground on an increasing number of issues. However, that option would mean the return of border checks, more obstacles to finding a job abroad and expensive bills for those falling ill overseas.
Under a third scenario, the EU of 27 would split into different tracks, with those states that wish to cooperate more, in areas such as defence, internal security or social matters, moving ahead as a “coalition of the willing”.
A fourth option, described as “doing less more efficiently”, would involve the EU27 focussing on delivering more, and doing it faster, in selected policy areas, while doing less where it is felt not to have an added value. This would focus limited resources on areas where the EU was strongest.
Faster decisions
Finally, the commission sketched a scenario in which all 27 member states could do much more together. This would entail all EU capitals deciding to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board. Decisions would be made faster at European level and then rapidly implemented.
Presenting the paper to the European Parliament on Wednesday, commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said the aim was to be realistic about what the EU could and could not do. “We cannot offer the moon. In some cases, all we can do is offer a telescope,” he said.
Mr Juncker did not indicate which of the five scenarios he preferred, calling instead for a debate among European institutions, national parliaments, governments and citizens. However, he may make suggestions in his annual State of the Union address in September.
Mr Juncker’s speech came ahead of a summit in Rome at the end of March, when 27 heads of state and government will debate the EU’s future and celebrate its 60th anniversary.
The Rome summit “will not simply be a birthday celebration, it should also be the birth moment of the European Union at 27 [members],” Mr Juncker said.
Commenting on the White Paper, Ireland’s European Commissioner Phil Hogan said that given the “obvious concerns” in Ireland about the implications of Brexit, the debate on the future of Europe was especially important here.
