The time has come for the EU to make existential choices

Abstract
The current geopolitical challenges pose an existential threat to the European Union, as its institutions are not equipped to respond while maintaining the necessary democratic legitimacy and effectiveness. Many reforms are possible without Treaty changes. However, to secure proper democratic support for issues related to security, defence, and foreign policy, there is no alternative but to amend the treaties and enhance political integration.

The European Union faces a complete institutional deadlock amid significant geopolitical challenges and conflicts close to its borders. Perhaps Mario Draghi’s report and words alone would suffice to understand what is needed to revive the European integration project. In his 24 October speech in Spain, he asked: “Why can’t we change? […] How serious must a crisis become for our leaders to join forces and find the political will to act?” Draghi’s solution appears simple: a deeper layer of democratic legitimacy and a new, pragmatic federalism. This would be a kind of union of the willing with a stronger democratic mandate on specific issues, flexible and capable of acting outside the slower mechanisms of the EU decision-making process.

There is also a brief, yet insightful, book titled “Grande da Morire” (So Big it May Die; or in the French edition, L’Europe enfla si bien qu’elle creva). It was written by Sylvie Goulard, who has extensive knowledge and experience in European affairs. Published in Italy with a preface by Romano Prodi, the book’s title refers to the enlargement of the European Union but goes beyond that. It focuses on the Union’s future, its institutions, and its failure to reform — a necessary step for enlargement. Furthermore, the book highlights current issues and effectively explains why initiatives like Draghi’s agenda are crucial for Europe’s future.

The recent tricky EU relationships with Hungary’s Orban and Slovakia’s Fico have highlighted how internal divisions can cause paralysis in many areas. The risk is that the EU will become one of many international organisations where “cooperation is limited to discussions without any binding effect,” where Trump can come to recount his supposed successes, as he did at the UN, and perhaps even earn a reluctant round of applause from Europeans. As Goulard notes, the EU’s aim is not to remain an “indeterminate creature.” The European Union is something else and needs to recover its political space.

Goulard’s book states that enlargement was initiated “without a precise plan or agreement on the essential elements.” The same can be said of the integration process as a whole, which lacked a shared strategic vision. European integration has been a great success for some, but it has also disappointed others. It was perhaps overly idealised, which sparked hope that later turned into disillusionment. This disappointment has contributed to a shift towards authoritarian and ultraconservative governments, which pocket EU funds while criticising its values. “The invasion of Ukraine creates a moral obligation,” but more importantly, it requires a shared project and reforms of European institutions. Otherwise, Europe risks further disintegration.

Moreover, diluting the EU’s active principle in a form of “political homoeopathy” is not the most suitable remedy for such challenging times. The paradox would be if the EU refused to be a state but, in the event of war, yielded to a raison d’État that no one even knows who would define, nor on what it would be based. It is undoubtedly a slippery slope. The danger is that the EU will have to accept the logic of the strongest and most militarily powerful to regulate relations among nations: “You don’t have the right cards,” Trump told Zelenskyy. Putin is also exploiting Europe’s weaknesses: “Whoever plays the sheep, the wolf will eat.”

This is a significant challenge for the EU’s defence and foreign policy, for which rules and democratic accountability should be part of its very raison d’être. How can the EU, which is not a state, survive in a world dominated by assertive states? EU members have become less cooperative, and nationalism is resurgent. Europeans share much more in common than what divides them, but international geopolitical developments risk further dividing them or compelling them to accept situations that undermine the Union’s principles.

What, then, is the solution? A Europe with limited central functions, but those that are truly essential, starting with foreign policy, defence, and security, which are at the core of national sovereignty. This can only be achieved through a shift of sovereignty from Member States to the centre, the establishment of effective democratic institutions, and the pragmatic federalism advocated by Draghi.

The current geopolitical tension involving Russia and other nations is weakening the established framework of a project designed to prevent war. Article 42.7 of the European Treaty, with its mutual assistance clause, is stronger than NATO’s Article 5, which, according to Trump, “must be interpreted.” Therefore, a joint defence and security initiative could serve as a foundational element. However, the obstacles are considerable. “Where can the mental cohesion and moral strength that this effort requires come from?” Are we ready to defend Europe?

The European Council lacks the democratic mandate necessary to effectively protect European interests. Instruments are adopted before their political objectives are clarified, perhaps because those objectives remain contentious. There are numerous contradictions within the current institutional framework, and thus, a significant step forward is needed. Essentially, Sylvie Goulard argues that the EU, as it currently exists, is no longer sustainable and that the pace of change is insufficient. Consequently, a thorough public reflection is required on “the transformation of a community created for peace into an actor indirectly but permanently involved in an armed conflict and claiming to play a geopolitical role, yet without any executive power accountable to an assembly chosen by the citizens, and without being elected by the citizens themselves.”

Current European treaties already permit ‘enhanced cooperation’ (Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union and Title III of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU). It is a process whereby a minimum of 9 EU Member States can establish advanced integration or cooperation in a specific area when it becomes evident that the entire EU cannot achieve the goals of such cooperation within a reasonable timeframe. This effectively allows for varying speeds and objectives of integration among those Member States willing to proceed in that manner.

The procedure aims to break stalemates and the majority voting rule, in which a particular proposal is blocked by one or more Member States that do not want to participate. Moving forward with enhanced cooperation requires Council approval as a last resort, based on a proposal from the European Commission and subject to the consent of the European Parliament.

Such a procedure, however, does not allow for an extension of powers beyond those areas authorised by the EU Treaties. So far, it has been utilised for issues well outside defence, security, and foreign policy. In these critical areas, integration by stealth would not meet the test of democratic legitimacy. Advancing swiftly with Draghi’s agenda, which has now become the EU agenda, should be pursued vigorously. Nonetheless, it seems unavoidable to initiate a parallel founding process through Treaty amendments. As Draghi stated, “Today, we are a European confederation that simply cannot cope with such demands” without changing its governance.

Mario Draghi called for the EU to wake up, and time is running out quickly. Everyone is familiar with the ending of La Fontaine’s fable, The Frog and the Ox: the frog “swells and swells and swells until it bursts like a bladder.” This metaphor applies to EU enlargement, according to Goulard. Still, it should also be seen as applying to excessive European ambitions if not supported by the necessary governance reforms and democratic institutions.