Reviving the spirit of Europe means, first and foremost, returning to the roots of the political and cultural project of integration. While maintaining a critical stance with regard to the Union’s current practical shortcomings, we must not forget the exceptional results that have been achieved in terms of rights and guarantees that European citizens today consider normal but which are not at all so in many other parts of the world. In that sense, the ideal and historical dimension must also be combined with a pragmatic vision aimed at the efficient tackling of present priorities. The defence of this heritage is also essential to making the EU once again capable of innovating and renewing itself and of looking to the future with greater confidence.
Nevertheless, four phenomena have put the entire European construction under pressure, resulting in a profound transformation of the founding fathers’ original concept: enlargement (especially in the post-Cold War era), the advent of globalization, the launch of the euro and the economic crisis of recent years. The combination of these challenges calls for rethinking integration strategies with a view to making the most of the experience gained thus far.
The pros and cons of the various possible forms of differentiated or variable geometry integration were analyzed in light of the most recent developments, especially in terms of economic crisis management, widespread discontent with European institutions and the new external challenges (both economic and security-related). Although approaches to the problem remain varied, there is shared concern over the solidity of the European project, above all in terms of decision-making capacity and implementation of agreed policies. Efforts to address these aspects continue both between governments and within the European institutions, but solutions need to be more adequate. In any case, given present EU organizational setups, it is now difficult to apply traditional concepts, especially after the successive enlargements. The core of member countries best disposed to promoting integration risks not belonging to the Eurozone; in any case, several major pledges undertaken by all members in the most critical phase of the economic crisis have become crucial to the health of the single market — in essence, the continent is seeing the emergence of a new political and economic geography.
The concrete possibility of a series of new and delicate requests put by the United Kingdom to its European partners (evoking the theoretical scenario known as “Brexit”), raises the wider issue of a need for rebalancing EU institutional and national prerogatives, which however would risk reopening a broad-based negotiation whose outcome is extremely uncertain. In any case, the prevailing opinion is that at this stage open discussion even on some of the most controversial points — thus the “politicizing” of the European debate — would be more advisable than shifting core issues to the back burner, or taking refuge in only apparently “technical” solutions.
The problem posed by Greece is manageable in and of itself, even the prospect of an eventual “Grexit”, but its indirect effects are nearly impossible to predict with any precision and thus maximum caution must be exercised.
The financial sector, a clearly decisive one for modern economies, is feeling the effects of a crisis of confidence in the banking system and suffering a serious fragmentation that reduces competitiveness as compared with extra-EU counterparts. Some progress has been made in rationalizing the sector and shielding it from future shocks, but elements of fragility remain.
Unemployment has dealt the hardest blow to the real economy, and has naturally had social, and therefore political, repercussions, in turn creating a scarcely auspicious climate for the reforms needed at the level of competitiveness and innovation.
The energy sector has also been adversely affected by an excessive fragmentation that has further slowed investments (indispensable for fully completing the energy revolution) – while simultaneously reducing Europe’s bargaining power with partners and international competitors.
Then there is the defence industry, closely tied to state of the art technologies and Europe’s ability to pursue international security objectives with adequate instruments; again, the adoption of a strictly national perspective runs counter to making the best use of the European Union’s aggregate potential.
Inevitably influencing the sum of these challenges are political dynamics — and the temptation to take advantage of them from a short-sighted populist standpoint. Hence, the urgent need for cultural efforts aimed at making citizens more clearly aware of the problems at hand and their global scale, but also of the opportunities that could open up if Europe is able to capitalize on its strengths and to work pragmatically on its weaknesses.
