ABSTRACT
Thinking about the future of the European Union is complicated for many reasons. First, unanticipated events could occur, and have a tremendous impact on what the EU does, and how it does it. A case in point is the fall of Communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Second, no matter how entrenched a particular government or member state is in its advocacy of, or opposition to, a given issue, these preferences can change. A government could lose a national election and be replaced by another with different policies. Calculations of national interest can alter. A good example is UK opposition to EU social policy, which was revised (but not wholly abandoned) upon the arrival in power of the Labour Party in 1997. Third, in the process of bargaining and deal-making that produces both policy decisions on ‘everyday’ matters and the grand decisions about EU reform, complex trading can result in unanticipated outcomes. Fourth, EU institutions can have a significant impact on the Union in a way that neither the member governments, nor arguably the institutions themselves, entirely anticipated. An illustration of this is the impact of the European Court of Justice in determining the legal order of the European Union through its
decisions in cases like Van Gend.1 Fifth, domestic institutions can have a role in shaping the development of the Union: for example, referenda can change the content of EU treaties (at least as they apply to a particular member state), and national courts can and do play a key function in developing the Union legal order.
