Page 28 - AEI Insights 2018 Vol 4 Issue 1

Mascitelli, 2018

walls put up where they should be down and the problems of trust had emerged which were
previously insignificant. Moreover, there was a growing gap of trust between institutions in
both the EU and the member states and a growing gap between what is promised and what is
delivered. With this White Paper, Juncker wants to reignite the debate over the future of EU
integration (Cleppe 2017).

The new US rhetoric and its meaning for the European Union?

The EU Commission White Paper was prepared very much with the new Trump Administration
in mind. While it never named Trump, or his antics, the document was mindful of the new
messages coming from the Twitter messages on the EU, Germany, NATO and the like. At the
same time the document wanted to acknowledge that the world had changed but the EU had
not kept abreast of these changes. The White paper provided a critical examination of the
changes in Europe, its people, its economies with a little changing European Union. It was not
blaming anyone or anything but itself for its shortcomings but knew that only the EU member
states could change this reality. Repercussions from the Trump election have altered many of
the European goalposts in place since the end of the Second World War. The statements by
Trump about the obsolete nature of the NATO and the burden which the US was carrying and
by de fault that the EU was not carrying, shook the European member states and its union to
the realisation, as Juncker noted, to the realisation that “NATO will continue to provide hard
security for most EU countries but Europe cannot be naïve and has to take care of its own
security” (European Commission 2017, p. 8). It was clear that the issue of security and defence
and the European Union had suffered shortcomings and many facets of the European Union’s
functioning in this area required urgent correction and addressing. Thus the statements of
Trump essentially speeded this process and made the EU assume a reality check of proportions
it had not properly contemplated. This was also witnessed in the climate change and
environment sector with the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Accords. The
European Union response was to ignore the US position and embrace the parameters and quotas
with China the very next day.

What next for the EU?

The areas of great global uncertainty which have impacted the European Union project of
integration can be clearly articulated around the Brexit repercussions, the arrival of a new
Trump US administration and the divisive nature of the arrival of mass immigration from
troubled and war torn areas of the Middle East and Africa. Migration along with other areas of
high level sovereignty concern has widened the existing cracks within the EU and especially
from the centre and right wing governments within the European Union.

While 2016 was a de facto watershed, the elections in The Netherlands, France, Germany and
Australia all posed threats to a cohered response with Brexit overshadowing all EU activity.
However, the impact of Brexit and the new US administration can be seen as double edged
sword. They have a negative initial impact but can be the sources of newly found inspiration
and energy to make the leap required for this project to a new level of integration. As one
scholar has noted: “Brexit may be good for European integration” (Umland 2016). There is
much that can be said for this approach. The EU is a unique project in which domestic priorities
have been combined and sovereignty voluntarily pooled to better serve national and collective
interests. The EU leadership, inspired by the arrival of Macron is proceeding with a renewed

28