Introduction The preceding chapters analysed the types and styles of leadership which different EU institutional, member state, societal and non-EU actors have offered in international climate change politics. They also considered when and how those type(s) and style(s) of leadership were exercised. Chapter 1 introduced four leadership types (structural, entrepreneurial, cognitive and exemplary) and two leadership styles (heroic/humdrum and transformational/transactional. All chapters adopted an actor-centred approach to the analysis of EU climate change politics while focusing on the key themes of: (1) leadership, (2) multilevel and polycentric governance, (3) policy instruments, and (4) green economy and low-carbon economy. Because leadership is the over-arching analytical theme, the preceding chapters have shed light on the paradox that the EU developed into a leader in international climate change politics despite having been set up as a ‘leaderless Europe’ (Hayward 2008) in which power is shared among a wide range of EU institutional, member state and societal actors, thereby increasing the potential number of veto actors. Schreurs and Tiberghien (2007: 24) argue that the EU’s climate policy-making process follows ‘a kind of logic that is the reverse of that of veto points or veto players’ because it offers an ‘open-ended and competitive governance structure . . . [which] has created multiple and mutually-reinforcing opportunities for leadership’. Jänicke (2011: 142) has observed in Germany’s case that a symbolic leader which adopts a heroic leadership style may even find itself caught by a ‘kind of “enforced leadership” ’ through EU institutions (e.g. the Commission) and (although to a lesser degree) international organisations. However, the UK’s 2016 Brexit decision (see Chapters 1 and 12) dramatically shows that there are limits to the EU’s ability to provide ‘enforced leadership’. The insights and evidence offered throughout suggest that resistance from (potential) veto actors to the EU’s leadership role can be overcome, but only under certain conditions and with the help of certain types and styles of leadership.