Page 20 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1

Mascitelli, 2018

come from a different political economy and the levels of economic development were both
different and not synchronised. The emergence of these Eastern European states represented
the most significant and differentiated merger with states that had little in common with
Western economies and developed democratic States. This would be a major watershed.

The aim of this paper is to address and critically analyse the state of European Integration in
the current global turmoil and uncertainty. The paper will examine the Juncker White Paper on
the Future of Europe (2017) and the alternatives provided by this perspective. The paper
addresses the options facing the European Union with all this debate and obstacles facing and
what might lie ahead. The paper will seek to offer alternatives to what the EU might wish to
pursue for its future as standing still appears no longer to be an option. Some of the turmoil
facing the European Union is partially of its own making and certainly a function of its
existence. It would be inaccurate to apportion all the blame for the global turmoil to the
outcome of the US elections and the new Trump administration. The Brexit referendum
outcome, the Dutch and French election results are testimony to this. This paper seeks to make
the case that the European Union integration will struggle to deepen if it is incapable of re-
assessing its direction, membership and scope of its jurisdiction. Moreover, it needs to decide
to deepen more or pull right back. While European integration has always been the daughter
of European post-war peace, today this message is sounder fainter and weaker. Pursuing the
slow road of integration does not seem to be working as it might have done some decades ago.
Trying to convince the less convinced is now showing signs that this approach does not work
either. Is it that there needs to be even deeper Federalism or pull back to a much lower common
denominator such as the Single Market?

European integration models versus the realities

Over the decades significant attention has been provided by scholars to the theories of
European integration. The theories kept ever increasing and so did the expectations. In one
analysis entitled Civitas it underscored why these theories could be important:

“Theories are important as they help us to understand how the EU works, and having a better
understanding of how the EU has developed allows us to hypothesise about what the EU
might be like in the future. It is also important to be familiar with the different approaches
people take when explaining European integration, as whatever is written is always
grounded in a particular set of assumptions which should be taken into account when
reflecting on what has been said” (Civitas 2015).

These European integration theories alluded to included federalism, intergovernmentalism,
neofunctionalism, Liberal Intergovernmentalism, (New) Institutionalism, Multi-level
Governance and finally post functionalism. According to one scholar post-functionalism “is
the newest theoretical approach to European integration… as it advocates an increased
empirical and theoretical focus on public attitudes and party politics in the individual member
states…” (Tosun et al 2014: 200). Why this is important is “because these factors can
effectively constrain the ability of governments to shape European integration” (Tosun et al
2014: 200). Is this the reason for the backlash felt in some of the member states?

All theories have undergone decades of commentary and scholarly dissection. This paper has
no desire to delve into their use and application. Many in the field of European Studies as well
as practitioners within the European Union would possibly question the value of the models
presented as guides to understanding the European Union (Blair 2010: 5). Some models served

20