David Cameron joins his German, Dutch and Swedish counterparts tomorrowin Stockholm to discuss Europe's future, and to try to square the circle over the appointment of the next commission president ahead of a crucial EU summit this month and the inaugural session of the new European parliament at the beginning of July where new MEPs will vote on the European Council's nomination.

Britain's objections to the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker are once more forcing Cameron to expend valuable political capital. But at least he is keeping up a long British tradition. I myself was a candidate for commission president in 2004 (with support from France and Germany) but was blocked by Tony Blair for being too pro-European. EU leaders subsequently settled on José Manuel Barroso. John Major too, 10 years earlier, had vetoed another former Belgian prime minister, Jean-Luc Dehaene, for the same reasons – only to end up with Jacques Santer, from Luxembourg, whose term of office ended in collective resignation over financial mismanagement.

But more important than the personality is that we reach some consensus on what the EU should be doing. In the aftermath of the European elections there is a clear imperative to address the growing disconnect between Europe's institutions and the voters. The EU needs strong leadership and a clear vision to see it out of the crisis. This does not mean creating a federal superstate; it means considering where the EU can bring added value while agreeing to drop unnecessary measures that have given it a bad name. Europe needs reform, not rejection.

The single-market reform of the late 80s and 90s was an antidote to the eurosclerosis of the 1970s, and was pioneered by Britain's commissioner at the time, Lord Cockfield. He identified 300 concrete obstacles to the free movement of people, capital, goods and services. An estimated 2.5m new jobs and an additional €800bn (£650bn) had been created by the abolition of these barriers to cross-border trade by 1993 alone.

Europe's internal market was a British invention, and arguably its greatest success story. But it has become bogged down in attempts to regulate too many details that could be left to member states. Instead, there is a need to look again at where Europe can act as a catalyst for growth by exploiting its economies of scale. Six years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, we still do not have a fully operational banking union in the eurozone, and the cleaning up of banks' balance sheets has barely begun. Small and medium-sized businesses still have problems accessing capital, and pay high interest rates on borrowing which impedes investment and taking on new staff.

Second, we are more than ever dependent on external and unreliable energy suppliers. The missing links in our energy infrastructure are also present in other sectors, such as transport and the digital market. Compared with the US or Asia, we have no leading IT companies of comparable size. Young European entrepreneurs will need a small army of lawyers to be successful across 28 different member states.

Europe currently has around 2m vacancies unfilled, while millions of young people are desperate for work. The EU collectively could do more to match jobs and skills, reducing the risks for young people who seek work abroad while at the same time reducing abuse of national welfare systems.

Last but not least, we need reform at the EU institutional level, both to streamline the structure of the European commission and tackle the democratic deficit by making the European parliament more responsible and accountable for legislation and budgetary oversight. People may never fall in love with an internal market, as Jacques Delors allegedly once claimed, but they might eventually lend grudging support to an organisation that delivers results.