Jean-Claude Juncker gave a big speech in Brussels this week. What’s it about and why does it matter?

This was the annual set-piece state of the union speech by the European Commission president, currently Jean-Claude Juncker, to MEPs in Strasbourg. It was an opportunity for him to reflect the upbeat mood of the EU member states as he set out a crowded action plan for the commission’s and the union’s next two years.

The “wind is back in Europe’s sails”, he said, because of a strong economic recovery, and the fact that the EU is seeing off Eurosceptic electoral threats in Austria, the Netherlands and France.

Now is the chance, Juncker insisted, to press on with the task of consolidating the unfinished work of the union and reforming it to make it more efficient. “We started to fix the roof. But we must now complete the job now that the sun is shining because when the next clouds appear on the horizon – and they will – it will be too late.”

But there was no mention of the existential threat that is Brexit ...

Scarcely. He did express the view that it was a “sad and tragic” moment and he did say that he respected the will of the British people.

But in truth, like Banquo’s ghost, a silent Brexit haunted the whole speech. It was all about life after Brexit. About the reality that the union would not be defined or halted by Brexit. About the wider agenda, and hope. A way of saying “it’s your loss, not ours” to our British friends.

He suggested that the UK’s departure should be marked at a summit in Transylvania in Romania in March 2019, which would endorse a historic leap towards more integration and powersharing.

Is he looking for yet another treaty to further integrate the union?

No. He understands that this is not a runner politically, although the French might like it. But he argued that much can still be done within the current treaties to streamline decisionmaking: if heads of government agree to it unanimously, and parliaments of every member state, the EU could simplify decisionmaking by allowing majority voting on issues such as tax and foreign policy.

But the chances of that happening are, as a senior diplomat put it, “as likely as me flying naked over the Berlaymont”.

Heads of government are also unlikely to approve Juncker’s suggestion that his job and that of the president of the European Council, currently Donald Tusk, should be merged into one. Or that the economic affairs commissioner should be given new powers and become a euro-zone finance minister. The commission, they believe, has quite enough power already.

Did he not suggest that countries should give up their veto on the vexed issue of consolidating the corporate tax base?

Good question. He did not say it, but, strangely, the official transcript makes the suggestion. Irish officials were quietly pleased by the omission. Was it an oversight, or a response to gentle lobbying? Who knows.

Did he have anything to say about ‘bad boys’ Hungary and Poland?

Not directly. But he made his disapproval of Budapest and Warsaw’s recent actions quite clear, with pointed remarks about the importance of the rule of law and of solidarity over refugee relocations. He also made clear in no uncertain terms his rejection of Turkey’s slide into authoritarian rule.

What about the euro?

He emphasised the importance of the euro zone at the core of the union. “If we want the euro to unite our continent rather than dividing it, it needs to not be the currency of just a select group of countries. The euro is destined to be the common currency of the European Union, ” Juncker said. “We do not need a separate euro-zone budget, we need a strong euro-zone line within the existing European budget.”