Jean-Claude Juncker personifies everything that is wrong with the European Union. Following the 2014 European Parliament elections, only the United Kingdom and Hungary opposed his election to the post of president of the European Commission.

And yet, no one seems to like him or believe that he is an effective leader. In the wake of his election, a senior EU diplomat intimated to a Guardian journalist that Juncker was “the wrong answer to the wrong question”. Almost three years into his tenure, these remarks proved to be very true.

Juncker is widely perceived to be a federalist. Following the Brexit vote – a vote which took place under his watch – Juncker still insisted that a federal Europe is possible. However, as the initial resurgent flames of pro-EU enthusiasm died down, it became more apparent that Europe is chronically divided.

Each successive summit seemed to lead to the same outcome; there was a tacit approval that the EU is divided and that, if it is to have a future, something must be done. More often than not, EU officials argued that greater European integration is needed. Arguments were made in support of tax harmonisation, a common foreign policy and an EU army.

However, with a couple of exceptions, there seems to be no appetite for such developments among member states. There is even less enthusiasm for further European integration among the electorates of Europe.

Such views are partly fuelled by the common practice of ‘Brussels-bashing’ where all that goes wrong in the member state is blamed on the EU while the national governments take credit for all the successes.

The Brexit vote created a scenario whereby member states and their electorates can begin to envisage a future outside of the EU. Sixty years from the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the EU seems fractured and in complete disarray. Now the EU Commission presented its White Paper on ‘The Future of Europe’ in the hope of reigniting the debate.

Perhaps, for the first time during his tenure, Juncker is displaying some signs of realism and leadership. He officially acknowledged that Europe is deeply fractured and that its place in the world is shrinking in comparison with the rise of Asia.

This document is groundbreaking since it places the onus on the individual member states – a significant departure for an organisation used to determining its agenda. The five options are varied.

One scenario suggests that the European Union should carry on with a business-as-usual attitude where “priorities are regularly updated, problems are tackled as they arise and new legislation is rolled out accordingly”. Such a scenario is likely to prolong the feeling of stagnation which currently plagues the Union.

A second option would see a gradual recentering of the EU on the single market. This scenario would see a strengthening of the free movement of goods and capital but may affect the free movement of persons. The EU would gradually divest itself of some functions while decision-making becomes simpler and concerned solely with the single market. However, restrictions on the free movement of persons may create a more chaotic scenario which would undermine the very existence of the single market.

The third option outlined in the White Paper makes reference to a multi-speed Europe. This scenario aims to create “coalitions of the willing” where “those who want more, do more” while others retain the prerogative of doing so over time. This option has the benefit of making official a reality which the EU institutions have long tried to ignore.

The fourth option proposes that the EU should “do less more effectively”. This choice would allow the EU to act much quicker and in a more decisive manner. It would focus on some EU-wide projects while taking a step back from other areas not directly related to the single market including regional development, social policy and public health. This option is, perhaps, one of the most sensible.

The fifth option is the federalist option where all member states decide to do “much more together” and “share more power, resources and decision-making across the board”. This route allows the EU to move at a quicker pace. However, the White Paper acknowledged that this risks “alienating parts of society which feel that the EU lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities”.

Both the French and the German foreign ministers reacted positively to the White Paper. In a joint statement, Jean-Marc Ayrault and Sigmar Gabriel backed the idea of a multi-speed Europe which takes “into account the different levels of ambition of member states in order for Europe to better respond to expectations of all European citizens”.

Given this influential backing, this is likely to be the direction that the EU-27 will adopt. Not much will change – a multi-speed Europe is already a reality despite the fact that many refuse to acknowledge this. As this model develops, we are likely to see a more chaotic governance structure.

Nonetheless, this debate on the future of Europe is necessary and timely. Whether Juncker can steer the EU through these difficult times remains to be seen.

andre.deb@gmail.com

André DeBattista is an independent researcher in the field of politics and international relations.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.