The future of Europe : getting a difficult job done – the value of political leadership

Abstract

In 2020, the Institute for European Studies published a book which weaved together 12 chapters analysing aspects of the “Future of Europe” puzzle. In the foreword, Giles Merritt, wrote that the next stage in the debate on the future of Europe may achieve the most central concern of the majority of Europeans, which at the that particular time was, “the yearning for a European Army”, but “As with so much of the Great Debate over Europe’s future, such simple solutions would raise hugely complicated new questions over the political mechanisms that would be needed. In other words, Europe remains in the place its policymakers have always feared and denied: it is half pregnant” (Merritt in Harwood, Moncada & Pace, 2020). The title of the editors’ introduction which immediately followed Merritt’s contribution, expressed similar discomforts: “Europe’s Lifelong Companion? The Debate on the Future of Europe” (Harwood, Moncada & Pace, 2020). In the introduction we had expressed frustration that Europe seemed to be perpetually in search of its future, and that the EU had better concentrate on policies to improve the welfare of Europeans than on institutional reforms. This stance was influenced by the situation at the time: the EU was grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic, economies were slowing down and poverty was on the rise. Bread and butter issues needed to be prioritized over high politics. It was also one of the reasons why the Future of Europe conference took a back seat to these concerns for some time. Besides, institutional changes had always been difficult, time consuming and divisive.