The Crisis of Consensus in Europe: A Reflection on Integration

The assertion, “Europe will be forged in crises and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for these crises,” has become a guiding principle in Brussels. This philosophy, originally articulated by Jean Monnet, one of the founding figures of the European Union, appears to be validated with each unfolding crisis. However, we must ask ourselves: can this long-standing dogma itself be at risk? A crucial element for advancing European integration in the face of adversity is what I term a “minimum European consensus.” This concept implies that the 27 member states should collectively pursue a shared destiny and common objectives. Yet, this consensus seems to be eroding, leading to detrimental effects on the long-term strategic direction of the EU, particularly in light of the radical changes that the recent Draghi report advocates. While European integration has indeed progressed in response to challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the belief that such advancement is inevitable is rapidly diminishing. The idea of “more Europe” faces increasing opposition, particularly from the conservative right to the radical far right, as well as elements within the European far left. Although many in Brussels contend that the path forward lies in deeper integration, it remains uncertain whether this perspective resonates in European capitals.

Indeed, while several crises have bolstered the EU’s influence in certain policy areas—such as public health, joint debt issuance, energy strategy, and sanctions—they have simultaneously amplified the authority of national governments and administrations in other critical domains, including migration, internal security, border control, market functioning, and defense.

Negative Integration vs. Positive Integration

The challenge to the inevitability of European integration and the decline of the so-called “minimum European consensus” raises questions about potential alternatives to reverse these troubling trends. Currently, few would contest the importance or even the existence of the EU, a belief reinforced by the lessons of Brexit. However, within the hard right, there is a growing movement advocating for a transformation of the EU from within. This notion of change is coupled with an urgent call for internal reforms in light of the impending enlargement process. The crux of the dilemma lies in the fact that the changes desired by some do not align with the reforms sought by others.

We find ourselves in a situation where integration is driven more by our fears than by our aspirations or dreams. This dynamic inhibits the 27 from addressing fundamental yet pressing questions: What is the long-term purpose of the EU? Where does it aspire to go? Without abandoning the foundational objectives that have historically motivated the Union—namely, peace, political stability, democratic consolidation, economic growth, prosperity, and social progress—the EU institutions, member states, and European citizens have yet to identify a unifying vision that can galvanize a collective future beyond mere protection from potential threats and the maintenance of the status quo.

Related

• We will see more friends of Putin and Xi in the new European Parliament
• Europe can’t afford another austerity crisis

In essence, we are navigating a phase of integration driven by apprehension rather than hope. This predicament complicates the ability of the 27 to engage with straightforward yet essential inquiries about the EU’s long-term purpose and its desired trajectory. The process of European integration is undeniably at a crossroads.

Origins and Reasons for the Decline

The slow erosion of this “minimum European consensus” can be attributed to at least four key factors that merit careful consideration. Firstly, the scale of challenges confronting Europe is monumental. The EU faces an array of critical public policy issues that demand immediate attention, including competitiveness and economic growth, climate change and decarbonisation, enlargement and support for Ukraine, energy transition, security and defense, reduction of external dependencies, demographic decline, migration, and the sustainability of welfare systems. The time for procrastination has passed, yet a pervasive sense of urgency remains absent. Moreover, these challenges must be addressed simultaneously, raising the question: is this even feasible? If not, which areas should be prioritized? The answers are neither simple nor immediate.

Secondly, a widespread lack of leadership and vision—both at the member state level and within EU institutions—compounds the difficulty of navigating these challenges. This absence of direction stems from a combination of factors, including an inability or reluctance to grasp the stakes involved—the future of the European project—and an underestimation of the short- to medium-term outlook for Europe. If we continue along the path of a “slow agony,” as articulated by Mario Draghi in his report, we risk falling behind in the race we are currently engaged in. The fragmentation of political systems and the accompanying polarization in many European countries further exacerbate this leadership vacuum, a trend mirrored in the recent European elections where the Eurosceptic faction has gained traction.

Former Prime Minister of Italy, Mario Draghi, during a ceremony at which he was awarded the 2023 Miriam Pozen Prize, in Cambridge, MA, June 2023. It is telling that in a document nearing four hundred pages, the focus has disproportionately centered on just five pages dedicated to financing, where dissent is most pronounced. Effective leadership would entail first engaging in a thorough debate on the merits of the report, its priorities, and recommendations, followed by discussions on how to finance the estimated annual cost of €800 billion. Another critical area of discourse would involve clarifying roles—who does what among the EU, member states, “team Europe,” external partners, and the private sector—and how to achieve those objectives. Such a demonstration of leadership has yet to materialize.

Europe’s Choice

Lastly, the increasing politicization of EU institutions, particularly the European Commission, is cause for concern. Transitioning from a politically neutral to a geopolitically driven commission raises the risk of fostering a partisan environment. The debates surrounding the next von der Leyen team, which revolve around the relative influence of nations, political parties, and the dynamics of winners and losers, rather than focusing on policy priorities and the common European interest, exemplify this troubling trend. While many crises have indeed led to greater integration in certain areas, they have also left deep political scars: North versus South, West versus East, frugal versus spenders, and those embracing migration versus those resisting it.

Related

• The European Commission needs a policy entrepreneur-in-chief
• What the year of wars and elections has revealed about European sentiment

The grievances can be multiplied depending on the crises faced. Although the lack of solidarity and shared responsibility among the 27 member states during critical moments may be forgiven, they certainly cannot be forgotten. The space for consensus in Europe has narrowed, even as the challenges continue to escalate. The EU stands at a pivotal juncture: it must either cultivate a new European consensus and confront difficult choices decisively, or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant amid a landscape of geopolitical upheaval.

Ricardo Borges de Castro is a Senior Adviser at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank.

At Euronews, we believe that all perspectives are valuable. We invite you to reach out to us at view@euronews.com to share your pitches or submissions and join the conversation.