After almost a decade of crisis, optimism is back. Europeans have regained faith in sticking together to face global and societal challenges.

A lot of people say this renewed optimism is a response to what has happened across the English Channel and on the other side of the Atlantic.

If anyone wondered what checking out of Europe or weakening multilateralism leads to, it is now clear for everyone to see — from increased investment uncertainty and a hitherto unknown degree of division within society, to the potential political fallout for countries so far admired around the world as beacons of democracy and freedom.

But there are at least two other factors which have also been crucial to the recovery of confidence in the European project.

Firstly, the EU is delivering economically. The euro area and broader EU recently recorded their highest ever employment. Investment is up and growth is projected to be twice as fast as the US.

Secondly, Europe’s political leaders have confidently stood for democracy, reform and Europe — instead of giving ground to populism — and have been supported by progressive pro-Europe grass-roots movements, like the Pulse of Europe.

Compare the picture to September 2016 and the difference could not be more stark. It was just three months after the UK’s fateful vote to leave the EU.

Despite the blow, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker decided to announce that Brussels would publish a White Paper on the Future of Europe, setting out how the EU could change.

↑ Read the White Paper ↑

It was a bold move which many viewed as destined to fail, because the continent appeared on a downward spiral.

But when the White Paper was actually published in March 2017 — days before the UK started Brexit by triggering Article 50 — it shifted the rest of the continent’s focus on to forging a common future.

That is why the White Paper has come to be called the ‘birth certificate’ of the EU27.

Disintegration, illiberal democracy and populism are profoundly dangerous to our democratic traditions.

There is now a strong sense that Europeans — having had a glimpse of the alternative — are ready to invest in our common project. They realise that disintegration, illiberal democracy and populism are profoundly dangerous to our democratic traditions — the freedom and tolerance painstakingly built over decades, which has, at times, been taken for granted.

With the recovery strengthening and populism at bay, for now, Europe must make the most of our renewed hope. The worst thing when confidence returns, is to procrastinate and change nothing — and change we must.

References to Brexit or Mr Trump might give us a renewed sense of belonging for now, but in the longer term, Europe can only prosper on the basis of fresh vitality and the legitimacy of its own project.

That is where the White Paper comes in. It has two parts which are equally important.

One covers the long-term trends shaping Europe’s future, like technological change, migration and new security threats. The other presents five possible paths for Europe between now and 2025.

The White Paper has also been complemented by a number of ‘reflection’ papers on the critical issues affecting Europe’s future — the social dimension, globalisation, defence, the euro and EU finances.

Unlike in the past, the Commission has not itself stated which of the five scenarios is its preferred policy blueprint.

That is not only because of the elections taking place in many European countries, but also because the Commission understands that such fundamental political choices must not be fudged or decided behind closed doors.

Neither should the Commission claim the monopoly of wisdom on what is the best way forward.

Instead, an EU-wide debate is needed, engaging citizens in new ways and making sure their voice matters.

It is clear there are different possible destinations for Europe in 2025, and so it is important that each choice, as well as its inherent trade-offs, are more widely discussed and better understood.

And actually, working with five possible scenarios has helped us move debate away from the simplistic arguments of the past — whether one is for or against, more or less, Europe.

Instead, looking at a range of possible futures has given us a more nuanced vocabulary to discuss what the EU27 want to achieve together — or apart — in the years to come.

Of course, reflection is only worth the effort if it is ultimately translated into concrete decisions and the moment for that is now approaching.

Of course, reflection is only worth the effort if it is ultimately translated into concrete decisions and the moment for that is now approaching.

It is not for the Commission to prejudge the choices Europe’s political leaders will make, or that their people will favour. But the Commission can better inform those choices.

We will, in a neutral fashion, present more detailed versions of the EU’s five scenarios with specific guidance on what each implies and how they can be achieved. We will also present an agenda on how Europe can better anticipate long-term challenges, instead of reacting to crises that could, and should, have been foreseen, such as the financial crisis or security challenges.

President Juncker will use his next State of the Union speech in September to lay out additional initiatives in line with the White Paper.

From the 2016 State of the European Union speech

It will be done in the knowledge that for the EU to pursue ‘business-as-usual’ would be a profound misreading of the public mood, not to mention a disservice to the EU itself.

Instead we should target an informed, forward-looking, EU-wide public debate on the future to show not only that our democracy is healthy, but also to chase away the demons of division and populism.

The Commission has the right to take the initiative on this, and it intends to make full use of it.

The authors are head and deputy head of the European Political Strategy Centre, the European Commission’s in-house think tank. Views are those of the authors and do not necessarily correspond to that of the European Commission.