As the global order fractures and strategic competition intensifies, the European Union faces a defining question that begins not at its borders, but within them: are its institutions, budget, and political culture built for the world that is emerging? Decades of incremental integration have produced structures designed for an era of relative stability and American security guarantees — yet both now look increasingly fragile. Before Europe can project power outward, it must honestly confront whether its internal architecture is fit for purpose.
Key questions:
- What would it actually take to give the EU the fiscal firepower and flexibility to compete in an era of rearmament, industrial policy, and geopolitical rivalry?
- Where are the EU’s decision-making structures holding Europe back most, and what would meaningful reform realistically look like?
- As unanimity requirements continue to frustrate collective action, should Europe lean further into coalitions of the willing — and if so, how can variable-geometry arrangements drive integration forward rather than entrench a fragmented, two-speed Europe?
- How can Europe’s political centre build a compelling enough story around sovereignty and collective purpose to sustain public support for the hard choices ahead?
Speakers
- Benjamin Haddad – Minister Delegate for European Affairs of France, Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic
- Hendrik Bourgeois – Senior Vice President, Mastercard
- Mark Leonard – Director, European Council On Foreign Relations
-
Kajsa Ollongren – EU Special Representative for Human Rights, European External Action Service
- Tomáš Zdechovský – Member of the European Parliament
- Moderator: Julien Hoez – Founder and Editor of The French Dispatch
Executive Summary
This session produced one of the Forum’s most candid discussions about the gap between Europe’s stated ambitions and its institutional capacity to deliver them. Benjamin Haddad argued that Europe has every reason to be optimistic about its long-term trajectory but must convert roadmaps into delivery. Especially on single market unification, the Savings and Investment Union and the upcoming Multi-annual Financial Framework. Hendrik Bourgeois on institutional failure: Europe has been passive where it needed to be strong, completing the single market, and hyperactive where it needed to be restrained, producing premature regulation in AI before European champions exist. Mark Leonard argued for abandoning the obsession with institutional structures and replacing it with a pragmatic focus on outcomes. Kajsa Ollongren made the case that the external appeal of the European project is itself a strategic asset that Europeans undervalue, and that unity amplifies this asset while division eliminates it. Tomáš Zdechovský delivered a critique calling for the abolition of the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee, the three-seat Parliament arrangement, and redundant agencies, and argues that without structural efficiency reform, any expansion of EU membership will import problems rather than solve them.