importance of consensus, and said that it was time to defend Europe, while clearly outlining. "what Europe can do". The
European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker yesterday presented a muchanticipated White Paper on the Future of Europe, kicking off an existential debate about the nature and purpose of the European Union. The White Paper is in quite a novel format, setting out five scenarios, which are "neither mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive": ONE: Carrying On Fairly self-explanatory – the EU continues on its current path
TWO: Nothing but the single market In the most pared-back scenario, the EU would minimise regulation and back away from such issues as migration and defence THREE: Those who want more do more The classic "multi-speed" Europe would see coalitions of the willing forging ahead on specific policies, with countries free not to take part FOUR: Doing less more efficiently Born out of the Commission's frustration for being blamed for issues over which it has no control, the fourth scenario would "close the gap between promise and delivery".
FIVE: Doing much more together The most integrationist scenario sees increased cooperation "in all domains".
The Commission is planning to bring forward a series of 'reflection papers' in the first half of 2017, to aid in the debate: End April Social dimension of Europe
End May Deepening the EMU
Mid-May Harnessing globalisation
End June Future of EU finances
Early June Future of European defence
The ultimate aim is to lay out some initial thoughts in September's State of the Union address, before "first conclusions" at December's European Council summit.
© DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2017
1
Political Groups The EPP called for a "sixth scenario", with elements of all five outlined by the Commission. In a statement that did not say much, the Parliament's largest group emphasised the importance of consensus, and said that it was time to defend Europe, while clearly outlining "what Europe can do". The S&Ds meanwhile were very critical of Juncker's presentation, calling it a "mistake to simply present five possible scenarios". Clearly in favour of a stronger EU, the socialist group would have preferred a single roadmap for how to proceed. Some of their key elements would be a social pillar, an EU fiscal capacity, and a common European army. The ECR group favour the fourth scenario, doing less more efficiently, although the driving force in the group is the British Conservatives, who will perhaps have a limited impact. The group calls for greater respect for Member States, and an EU focus on such issues as trade, the single market and cross-border infrastructure. Guy Verhofstadt of the ALDE group put a positive spin on the situation, rejecting the first three options along with any "à la carte" Europe, suggesting that unanimity requirements "paralysed" the bloc. He called for European solutions to such issues as the migrant crisis, and suggested the creation of an inter-institutional reflection group. The GUE/NGL bloc urged that the European people have a say in the future of the EU. It called for "a major European public debate leading to a European conference on democratic, social, ecological and feminist renewal in order to build a new European project", and said that rethinking CETA should be the first step. The Greens/EFA MEPs agreed with the S&Ds that a "collection of vague scenarios" is unhelpful, and the Commission should fight for a strong, united EU. Emphasising tax justice, social protection, and climate, like GUE/NGL they state that "As long as EU policy continues to benefit big conglomerates and not citizens, we will not regain their confidence".
Click here for DeHavilland EU's exclusive coverage of yesterday's European Parliament debate on the White Paper.
Member States National governments have not yet commented for the most part, but notably, the Foreign Ministers of France and Germany announced a preference for Option 3 – an EU which allowed countries to proceed at different speeds. The Visegrad Group (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary) meanwhile adopted a statement outlining that enhanced cooperation remains an option, but consensus is key. They call for stronger borders, more Council-level decision-making, and no further integration in terms of the Eurozone and social standards.
© DeHavilland Information Services Ltd 2017
2
