As I am writing this article, the world’s attention is on the US presidential elections. The European Parliament hearings to confirm the EU’s incoming commission feel like a minor footnote.
Obviously, Europe, now more than ever before, needs a strong executive in Brussels. This is essential for Europe to pursue long-term objectives like expanding the single market and investing in security and defence, as highlighted in Mario Draghi’s report, which detailed Europe’s growing gaps in competitiveness, productivity and innovation, compared to the US and China.
However, the primary challenge facing the EU commission is the risk of becoming a leadership team without effective supporters. After all, European governments excel in rubber-stamping initiatives in Brussels and not carrying them out at home.
Really and truly, nationalism and the focus on national politics seem to be intruding everywhere. A growing number of EU governments seem to be only interested in transactional deals for domestic ends. When EU leaders met for the European Council on 17 October, discussions about the US elections or how to implement the Draghi report were cut short by the priority accorded to migration. The discussion on competitiveness and Draghi’s report were postponed to EU leaders’ informal meeting in Budapest on 8 November.
So, the implementation of the Draghi report, which advocates for greater EU integration faces its challenges. Small EU countries fear losing relevance and impact to larger countries in the EU. Fiscally disciplined EU countries fear being exploited by less fiscally disciplined EU member states. Everyone seems afraid to pay more into the EU and to increase the EU’s collaborative power.
Which brings us back to the US Presidential election. Victory for Donald Trump would likely exacerbate Europe’s divisions, while making it perfectly clear that Europe cannot rest on the US to get the job done, as Trump seems intent on not allowing the US to remain the main funder of NATO. A Harris win could feed with inertia the complacency of EU leadership.
I believe Europe faces a deep problem. In the past, it tiptoed around EU integration by using a technocrat approach. Now technocracy has become a problem, fuelling Euroscepticism and the radical right. It seems few pro-EU leaders are willing to make a case for further EU integration. On the contrary, flexing nationalist muscles is a common practice across the political spectrum.
However, here lies what I believe is Europe’s biggest trap: the more complex the world, the more it requires competent multilevel governance of the sort that the EU can provide and the greater the need for further EU integration. The more the EU struggles to provide answers, the less credible it becomes to its national leaders and voters. Which is what Draghi’s report is trying hard to address as he knows that the greatest danger for the EU is a descent into irrelevance. Studying and analysing Draghi’s report as to how each member state is to adapt, implement and change, has to be a priority for each EU member state. Not doing so, will mean a bleak future for Europe