The Future of the European Union?

by Soeren Kern
March 2, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9999/european-union-future

Translations of this item:

Czech

The document does not contemplate a scenario in which the European Union faces collapse, or in which major member states decide to follow the British example and exit the bloc.
The European Commission, in a rare instance of candor, admits that European federalism risks "alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities."
The Commission does not consider the possibility that in 2025 it may not even exist.

The European Commission has published a document outlining five scenarios for how the European Union could evolve within the next ten years.

The so-called White Paper on the Future of Europe, which will be presented at the Rome Summit on March 25, 2017 to mark the 60th anniversary of the European Union, is intended to be "the starting point for a wider public debate on the future of our continent."

Each of the five scenarios is based on the premise that "the 27 Member States move forward together as a Union." The document does not consider the possibility that the EU could collapse or break apart, or even that the powers of the EU be significantly curtailed. The document states:

"Too often, the discussion on Europe's future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. That approach is misleading and simplistic. The possibilities covered here range from the status quo, to a change of scope and priorities, to a partial or collective leap forward."

Nevertheless, for the European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union, publicly to even consider alternatives to full-blown European federalism is a testament to the growing power and influence of anti-EU political movements in Europe.

A "family photo" of the European Commission, headed by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, in 2014. (Image source: European Parliament)

Indeed, a document such as this would have been unthinkable before Brexit — an abbreviation for "British exit," which refers to the June 23, 2016, referendum by which British citizens voted to exit the European Union — and the rise of anti-EU populist parties in Austria, Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands, among others. The document admits:

"Europe's challenges show no sign of abating. Our economy is recovering from the global financial crisis but this is still not felt evenly enough. Parts of our neighborhood are destabilized, resulting in the largest refugee crisis since the Second World War. Terrorist attacks have struck at the heart of our cities. New global powers are emerging as old ones face new realities. And last year, one of our Member States voted to leave the Union."

The five scenarios for the EU by 2025 are: 1) carrying on; 2) nothing but the single market; 3) those who want more do more; 4) doing less more efficiently; and, 5) doing much more together.

Scenario 1: Carrying On.

This scenario envisions the status quo, with the EU plodding ahead with "incremental progress" from crisis to crisis. The document explains:

"Priorities are regularly updated, problems are tackled as they arise and new legislation is rolled out accordingly. The speed of decision-making depends on overcoming differences of views in order to deliver on collective long-term priorities."

Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market.

This scenario envisions a European Union re-focused on the single market, which refers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people within the bloc:

"In a scenario where the EU27 cannot agree to do more in many policy areas, it increasingly focuses on deepening certain key aspects of the single market. There is no shared resolve to work more together in areas such as migration, security or defense. The functioning of the single market becomes the main 'raison d'être' of the EU27."

Scenario 3: Those Who Want to do More.

This scenario envisions a so-called multi-speed Europe in which some member states proceed with integration in certain areas while other member states do not:

"In a scenario where the EU27 proceeds as today but where certain Member States want to do more in common, one or several 'coalitions of the willing' emerge to work together in specific policy areas. These may cover policies such as defense, internal security, taxation or social matters."

Scenario 4: Doing Less More Efficiently.

This scenario envisions the EU placing greater emphasis on some policy areas, while reducing its focus on others:

"The EU27 decides to focus its attention and limited resources on a reduced number of areas.... As a result, the EU27 is able to act much quicker and more decisively in its chosen priority areas.... Elsewhere, the EU27 stops acting or does less.... The EU's weight in the world changes in line with its recalibrated responsibilities."

Scenario 5: Doing Much More Together

This scenario is the European Commission's preferred option: European federalism:

"In a scenario where there is consensus that neither the EU27 as it is, nor European countries on their own, are well-equipped enough to face the challenges of the day, Member States decide to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board.

"As a result, cooperation between all Member States goes further than ever before in all domains.... Decisions are agreed faster at European level and are rapidly enforced.

"On the international scene, Europe speaks and acts as one in trade and is represented by one seat in most international fora. The European Parliament has the final say on international trade agreements. Defence and security are prioritized. In full complementarity with NATO, a European Defence Union is created. Cooperation in security matters is routine."

The document also offers a glimpse into what European federalism may look like in practice:

"Citizens travelling abroad receive consular protection and assistance from EU embassies, which in some parts of the world have replaced national ones. Non-EU citizens wishing to travel to Europe can process visa applications through the same network."

The European Commission, in a rare instance of candor, admits that European federalism risks "alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities."

The document does not, however, contemplate a scenario in which the European Union faces collapse, or in which major member states decide to follow the British example and exit the bloc.

In France and the Netherlands — two of the EU's original six founding members — anti-EU presidential candidates are leading in the polls. Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders have both promised to call referenda on continued EU membership. If one or both of those countries were to leave the EU, this at a time when Italy and Greece are at a fiscal breaking point, a collapse of the bloc seems increasingly possible.

The European Commission says its White Paper marks "the beginning of a process for the EU27 to decide together on the future of their Union." The Commission does not, however, consider the possibility that in 2025 it may not even exist.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by Soeren Kern

Belgium's Prisoner Swap Treaty with Iran: "A Deal with the Devil", 2022-08-12
EU: Last-Ditch Effort to Salvage Iran Nuclear Deal, 2022-08-04
Australia: New Government Maintains Hardline Stance on China, 2022-07-22
Russia Gives NATO New Lease on Life, 2022-07-14
EU Signs Deal with Egypt and Israel to Boost Gas Exports to Europe, 2022-06-30

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

22 Reader Comments

Peter D Gardner • Mar 4, 2017 at 09:16

Had Britain voted to remain, the paper would have contained only option 5 but enhanced and accelerated - on steroids.
I noticed that all the historical statistics showing the wonderful achievements of the EU include UK. I wonder what they would look like in the UK's absence.

A White Paper in Spring 2017 was promised in the Five Presidents' Report on Completing Economic and Monetary Union, with Treaty change from 2019 (I think?) and completion by 2025. In that context this paper is pretty thin. It reads as if it was cobbled together after a long convivial lunch with Claude Juncker.

Reply->

Mike O'Neill • Mar 3, 2017 at 18:03

It is understood in military circles that "no plan survives first contact with the enemy". Should Wilders or Le Pen succeed in Nederlands or France this springtime, then the €USSR will meet serious opposition from them. Britain is not as inimical as these two, given the widespread lack of confidence in the PM as she was not a supporter of Brexit and should be presumed willing to take a more relaxed view than would (say) Nigel Farage.

It is hard to believe that no contingency plans exist for 'meltdown' arising from Dutch and French actions, although no admission would be forthcoming if there were any such plans. However, the bloc is likely to be affected substantially by any economic or financial crisis in Italy, as the economy of a country 'too big to fail' actually does fail. That perhaps is the biggest threat to them.

Yes, it's quite credible that commissioners have not accepted the Italian risk and moreover given scant regard to the serious consequences of such an eventuality. I can envisage a mindset which assumes this could be dealt with as it arises, given the manipulations open to the ECB, a mindset facing disaster as a crisis situation spirals out of control.

Then there's the problem of the millions of 'migrants' . . .

Reply->

Sarony • Mar 3, 2017 at 05:49

The devil is in the detail: EU embassies. If that isn't a claim to recognition as a single superstate/dictatorship, I don't know what is.

Reply->

dm • Mar 3, 2017 at 00:03

Nice article.

Out of the EU's perceived Agenda ...

1. Carrying on. Unlikely as their priorities are invasive, decision making anti democratic and their views are not collectively favourable.

2. Single Market. There can be no further working together re migration, they have destroyed Europe and bankrupted trusting countries. Allow further participation in migration and defence. Truly a joke!!!!!!!!!!

3. Those who want to do more. If the main contributors pull out, what will be left? Non paying countries with no human rights policies or Arabic countries still with no human rights policies.

4. Doing less more efficiently. The EU have had many years to prove their worth, which is proven to be valueless and most of all dangerous. Re calibrated responsibilities to enable the overpaid EU 'TEAM'????? to remain, out of the question.

5. Doing much more together???????????????
OH my!!! Control of Trade Agreement and appears to be the KEY!!! To it all, the creation of a EUROPEAN DEFENCE UNION appears to be their main agenda. So when countries or people do not agree with THEIR agenda they can blow them up or arrest them. Threatening to litigate with Le Pen over her posting pictures of people from a particular religion burning and beheading people etc., On that basis one can see CLEARLY where any EU leverage towards security or defence issues would head.

Reply->

Germain SURDEY • Mar 2, 2017 at 18:02

As a Swiss citizen with residence in two South American countries since 1992 ( I have economic activities in both) I am strongly opposed to the EU as it is now and will always vote against Switzerland joining it !
This Union has no popular nor democratic representatives. It is run by a bunch of administrative employees in Brussels, most of whom are really not up to their job. They have not been voted by the people, they do not represent them. As a matter of fact they do not represent anything but their own pockets ! I have seen them on youtube, sleeping during sessions, reading newspapers, the women painting their nails. It is a shame, it is an insult for more and more Europeans who have now difficulty to reach the end of the month with money in their pockets, while these good for nothing Brussels employees are receiving salaries of some 8000 euros per month and, on top of that, free food, transportation etc. I hope other countries will follow the United Kingdom and get out of this Union.
The only scenario I could accept is Number 2. An economic union. It should have been that only.

Reply->

David Price • Mar 2, 2017 at 14:44

The big failure of the White Paper is that it does not address the key question about Democracy. It gives policy options as long as the present undemocratic system stays in power. Any policy option must discuss democracy in the conception, leadership, management and finality of any project (a sunset clause).

A real debate includes asking why the EU acts so undemocratically (it rejects some referendum results as invalid such as Ireland, Denmark, France Netherlands etc) and asks some States to conduct a second referendum under threat, it also takes the opposite view when Greece voted NO and they made the government accept the opposite policy. When it comes to the British, the Brussels leadership said withing hours of the result that the British must leave immediately no matter how painful it is.

The treaties provide and require open Councils and Committees and proper elections to key bodies -- which have never happened in 60 years. Why? Why did British governments never in the past correct this failings? Detailed analysis of this can be found on eurDemocracy sites such as eurDemocracy.com .

Reply->

Julian Larkin

David Price • Mar 2, 2017 at 18:29

David Price and other commentators are right to flag up the essentially undemocratic nature of the EU Commission. This unnecessary and outrageously costly institution is peopled by a bloated body of self-serving, arrogant and in some cases corrupt figures, many of whom might struggle to find a useful job in the real world that lies outside their ivory tower. Brexit was a timely warning sign to the aptly-named Junckers that the time has come for him and his inept band of fellow dictators, none of whom has been elected by European voters, to take stock of the clouds of dissent blowing their way from several directions.

The only possible hope for the survival of the EU would be the abolition of the Commission so that the EU Parliament to run the show, but with its powers drastically trimmed. Individual member states would then take back their sovereignty in all areas bar fundamental agreements on trade. The British people voted for the Common Market on that basis alone, not for a European Superstate run by unelected despots.

I hope and believe that Brexit has lit a torch of dissent that will encourage other states to seek freedom and independence. Given the serious crisis facing Europe, namely the flood of refugees from the Middle East and Africa and the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, it is essential that individual states have the right to make their own decisions on how to tackle these issues, not be lectured to and threatened by Brussels. Very few EU and national politicians have shown any meaningful leadership, nor have they told the truth, about the very real threats posed to Europe's native cultures and traditions. If they fail to change tack, European voters will en masse take action to remedy matters.

Reply->

Peter D Gardner

David Price • Mar 4, 2017 at 09:27

There is no discussion because there cannot be a democratic EU. It has no demos. In any case the elites of the EU now aim for power, not for freedom, justice and democracy. It has passed the tipping point. The only way forward now is autocracy. This is the elephant in the room. Although Verhofstadt loves to talk about and it is true there has been talk over the last few years of the EU's democratic deficit, it is learning to keep quiet about it because the elites are finding it highly convenient. That doesn't mean they would allow more democracy at national level. Since the EU's aim is to reduce the nation state to insignificance. I doubt whether they see national democracy (the only level at which democracy an be effective) as of much significance. Rather promises of freedom and democracy are good propaganda to entice states targeted for accession into its trap.

Reply->

David Price

Peter D Gardner • Mar 4, 2017 at 14:43

The Greek word "demos" does not refer to a nation (Greek ethnos). Demos means a people, crowd or assembly. If you check the basis for the European Community system (for example at schuman.info and schuman.info/democracy.htm ) you will find that the Community is to be built as a further democratic layer on existing strong democratic nation States. The Community democracy is built up from local democracy, (parish democracy) to regional democracy, to national democracy to Community democracy. Robert Schuman said the Community will be built be the people primarily, not by the Brussels institutions.

The EU is a debased form introduced with the Maastricht treaties to the Lisbon treaties, without or against national referendums. Democracy can not be based on the closed-door European Council, nor even the Council of Ministers. It must include democracy at open national level, individual level and also that of the democracy of European associations. Associative democracy includes business professions, workers' organizations, and consumer associations. Parliament is supposed to look after the individual. (see schuman.info/supra5.htm ).

That the system is not working properly is obvious. But that does not detract from the need to reform the areas that are abusing their powers. The European Council and the Council of Ministers hold their sessions in private, behind closed doors. This is not democracy. There has been no elections as required by the treaty articles in sixty years because this has been stopped by the Council of Ministers -- the so-called democratic government ministers.

The main need today is to demand that the Councils be open to the public and press, as Robert Schuman emphasized.

Reply->

Peter Gardner

David Price • Mar 4, 2017 at 22:55

David I agree the meaning of demos. The point is that you cannot build a democratic nation state without it. The EU is attempting precisely to do that. It is my understanding of the origins of the EU that Monnet, Schuman et al recognised this. The solution for the European Project was that it could only proceed by stealth in the hope that when the inevitable existential crisis occurred, the people would decide to accept whatever final solution the European Project had by that time devised because the alternative would be even worse. The half measure euro was adopted in full awareness that it might provoke that crisis. The choice now is clear: a) go for economic and political integration, b) abandon the euro, inevitably messy and damaging, or c) leave it as it is and keep kicking the can down the road until we reach the point when there are only the first two choices remaining because either will not as bad as the status quo. However it goes, I cannot see a stable, prosperous, or harmonious future for Europe under a supra-national unaccountable government. Neither did Schuman but that is where we are because there is still no demos and the crisis is upon us.

The unprecedented experiment of the European Project has failed. We all now need wise people to find a way of getting out of it for the sake of all Europe.

Reply->

David Price

Peter Gardner • Mar 5, 2017 at 07:23

Supranational is a legal term and first appears in treaties with the European Community, 18 April 1951. It means international democracy with five institutions. Supranational means accountable, not the reverse.
The much circulated quote about "stealth" attributed to Monnet is false. I had a full retraction when the Dutch Government and others used it in its expo. (The story, including the retraction letters, are in the book: "Brexit and Britain's Vision for Europe.")
You are quite right, Peter, to point out the long-term and short-term problems of the euro. It is based on the Delors Report -- which rejected the important pillars of stability in the earlier Werner report. Since then the European Politburo has gone into contortions, a new debt system and possible illegalities in trying to save it. The euro is inherently unstable. It is possible to remedy it, but obviously I can't describe all that here.

Reply->

Hartmut Brocharski • Mar 2, 2017 at 14:34

For the apparatus called EU the second scenario would still be the most preferable aside from entire disintegration. Saddest is that Germany as a previously integral part is by now totally isolated due to the irresponsible actions by it's own disastrous political leadership. Which as it stands at the moment won't change a bit after elections during fall, the likely alternative to chancellor Merkel will be a far left wing alliance entirely in line with her migration policy.

If political weights shift in the Netherlands and France and both follow Brexit the EU will certainly disintegrate in a domino effect triggered and potentially encompass all economically strong Visegrad countries, eventually Denmark and even Austria. The rest of the EU will remain as a mutilated, agonizing torso facing bankruptcy, including Germany.

It is a tragic irony that the former core powerhouse, who's society meanwhile is entirely divided and torn apart, is turning into a failed state again for the third time in a hundred years. And there won't be any come back, just over and out.

Reply->

Elizabeth • Mar 2, 2017 at 13:38

IMO it was greed and control that gave birth to the EU in the first place; control of the continent by a handful of people with insidious motives and visions of more wealth by countries that signed up. When countries forfeit their own sovereignty to a group of dictators, failure for all are the inevitable consequences, as has become very evident. It's all very much like the Tower of Babel.

Reply->

Gene Taglia • Mar 2, 2017 at 12:17

I don't see that the EU has any future. The EU bureaucrats and the politicians now in control of most member states are working toward a European super-state, while the general public in most EU countries are becoming disenchanted the increasing expense and regulation, and the destruction of their national sovereignty and identity. People are becoming very alarmed by the intentional importation of hordes of third-world barbarians which they are obliged to support, and who are undermining European cultures, along with the crime, terrorism and general unrest they are generating. It's quite likely that some of these pro-EU governments will be turned out in favor of those who will distance their countries from the EU (or leave it) and reverse what the EU has been doing.

Then, there is the financial side. The EU can't continue to fund the governments of profligate, insolvent members (who can never repay what they've already borrowed) indefinitely. The people of Europe's productive nations will eventually rebel against being forced to fund the non-productive. If Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. can no longer borrow enough to operate and pay the interest on their debts, they will have to leave the Euro, and maybe the EU -- and the amount of their worthless, non-performing bonds held by European banks will collapse the banking system, probably the Euro, and maybe the EU as well.

Reply->

Bobby McGee • Mar 2, 2017 at 11:00

Definitely, the EU sould be limited to scenario no.2; single market.
All supranational institutions such as European Commission, European
Parliament, European Council and others should be simply dismantled.

Reply->

Mike Briggs • Mar 2, 2017 at 10:34

Frankly, I hope and pray the EU member countries choose none of those 5 options. They should either (A) Break up the EU and go back to being individual countries (which is now starting to happen); or, (B) Become the United States of Europe (US of E) and adopt our Constitution. So much the better if they follow the 'Federalist' concepts of our Founders in the second option, avoiding our mistakes and not allowing an overbearing Brussels (fat chance of that!), to mimic an overbearing Washington DC. If they took this course, they would show us inside of a generation, what a mistake it was for us to go down our 'big government' path, as they flew by us on their way to being everything we could have been had we avoided the last 100 years of Leftist manipulation of our key institutions of 'behavioral application/modification' (ie. government, media, education, etc.)! Imagine the 'US of E' being the 'Greatest Nation' the world has ever seen in 20 years?! Our Founders would certainly want to tell us, if they could, "See, we told you so! Wake up America ... you are going to be Trumped!," ( pun intended).

That is what they would do, 'If their goal from the outset was not to become the center of a tyrannical Globalist Empire/One World Government'? But of course that was their goal! So, just like Obama/Clinton, the EU elite over reached, built (or envisioned?) a bridge too far, and now they must pay the price! Thank 'Brexit'! Thank 'Trump'! And, thank God!

Reply->

irene brekelmans

Mike Briggs • Mar 7, 2017 at 05:01

I really enjoyed reading your comments, thank you. The EU is a very, very expensive so called Union with very dictatorial people in it. They are not democratic at all. They are doing what they want to do, and like people said in their comments, they don't listen to anybody else, because the people are stupid, they think, and a lot of people have been sleeping for years, I must admit, and that is where they profit from. Keep us busy with TV and all kinds of entertainment, we sleep, eat and are entertained, so we don't have time to think for ourselves and that accommodates them very well. But this time with selling out our countries, that hits the spot with a lot of people,and it amazes me, that the ones who don't agree with them get prosecuted.

That is Democracy for you and the most sad thing is that almost all governments are like this. But we have to open our mouths, it's our own failure too. I can't stand to see them, hear them anymore. It is time that the old systems go and the people who work there, get them out too. Those systems do not work any more. We need better governments, WITHOUT LYING, and people in it, who know what they are doing and who are telling the truth. NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS TO BE.You will see it later, and you will be perplexed and fall of your chairs. Remember my words, but it is what it is, it MUST be changed into a different world and everybody has to work on it.

Reply->

Peter Watson • Mar 2, 2017 at 10:05

In 1992, made a "Citizen" of a then non existent political entity, began exposing the facts that the EEC/EC/EU had been foisted onto the nations and peoples of Europe on lies lies and more lies. I long for the day this present day Babel collapses.

The EU is the cause of all the present troubles in Europe and has lit the fires of nationalism. First the collapse of the EURO (always a political project from the beginning according to Jacques Santer and Peter Sutherland) and then the leaving of the Union by France, Italy and Greece, will kill it off stone dead and the sooner the better. I have thousands of pages of articles going back as far as 1975, proving this Project was doomed to fail as it is Soviet in construct, based on lies and is wholly anti democratic. ( If we do not get the answer we like the people will have to vote again until we do - is a classic example of the faux democracy at work. And vote again they did in Ireland Holland France and Denmark.) How delicious that my perfidious Albion has struck the fatal blow to this monstrosity. And I will keep fighting it to my last breath. It will collapse before 2025.

Reply->

Itinerant • Mar 2, 2017 at 08:21

The EU is no more Europe than the Soviet Union was East Europe.

Either through laziness or deliberate conflation- it suits media and pro-EU interests, to call the EU, Europe.

Far easier then to vilify critics as anti-European and therefore xenophobic, while "more Europe" in this context would just mean more EU control.

It is not without some considerable irony that a European identity, the EU professes to desire, is loosely coalescing but because the EU's profoundly anti-European mass immigration and Islamification agendas, corruption and dysfunctional Eurozone, the European identity that is forming, is an anti-EU identity.

Reply->

Ariel Berill Uliczki Pici • Mar 2, 2017 at 05:48

I have read the article and it is very good. The EU is so slow in decision making. It took them more than 2 years to react to the migrant crisis. I wish it would be abolished and fall apart...

Reply->

Robert Davis • Mar 2, 2017 at 05:40

Those EU politicians are mere clerks at the same level as train station heads and their vision of the future or even the present is not just short sighted but ...nonexistent! They did not look into a single important issue just the price of potatoes!

Reply->

Jeff Page • Mar 2, 2017 at 05:29

The EU will have to do more than just talk, talk, talk. They also need to shake off their arrogant stance and begin listening to the people. The whole idea was meant to make Europe a better place to live and look what has happened! The idea was a fair trade agreement, but more and more legislation has been forced on the member states. It was supposed to be Europeans having free movement within but the end result has been so much more than that. A state exists where even people who arrive in Europe illegally are virtually given the same rights as those born on the continent and are apparently after a short time allowed to travel just as freely as the Europeans. This humanitarian approach has gone too far, people who have only been here for a short time should not, under any circumstances be given the same rights. Genuine refugees will always be helped, but what we've seen in the last few years has been ridiculous! Far far, too many have arrived from mainly Muslim countries, bringing with them culture and beliefs that are totally alien and will never fit into a civilised society. The morons in the EU must put an end to this madness, if not, then they only have themselves to blame.

Reply->