Three inter-linked areas are studied: the role of national parliaments in EU affairs, the appropriate EU regulatory framework and the question of integration. The three relate to the issue of subsidiarity and control over the future of the EU. This report sheds some light on the positions of EU governments on those issues.

The findings show that subsidiarity is an important element of EU policy-making for all member states, but giving national parliaments a stronger role in EU affairs is not a priority for all. Most EU governments are, in the end, unlikely to push for a greater role for national parliaments in the coming years. They will likely advocate for three things: a stronger interaction between the European Commission and national parliaments, more inter-parliamentary interaction and a longer time period for national parliaments to study EU draft legislative acts during their scrutiny process.

The EU regulatory framework has long been under discussion but was rarely a priority. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has put it front and centre with the creation of the First Vice-President in charge of better regulation. This political symbol builds upon the work done within the Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) process to streamline existing legislation. The “better regulation” agenda also aims to affect future legislation.

The research shows that the vast majority of member states have rallied behind the Commission’s “better regulation” agenda. This new momentum makes it all the more difficult to discern what member states really think about regulation and only time will tell whether their hopes have been fulfilled or frustrated.

The issue is indeed unlikely to wither away. Suspicions that “better regulation” is another word for deregulation could grow, especially if consumers’ or employees’ rights are affected. Moreover, it is too convenient to blame the Commission for burdensome regulation. The interest of member states to anchor national legislation at the EU level could also play a role, as was the case on the recent regulatory debate over the use of plastic bags.

On integration, the rules of the game have changed. The findings indicate that not all member states are implicitly in favour of further integration, at least not now. Some consider it unnecessary for the time being, whereas others foresee potential political backlash by starting this debate in the current political and economic circumstances, in which “sensitive integration”, the kind of integration that generates great political concerns and is perceived more directly by citizens, by default has been written off.

The most complicated question on further integration is associated with the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Policies and tools to bring about fiscal discipline have led many member states to approve often unpopular and painful austerity measures. It has impaired the image of the EU and fuelled eurosceptic discourses. Moreover, the focus on the EMU has created concerns in member states outside the Eurozone of a growing gap between themselves and the Euro area.

Most countries acknowledge that further integration may be required to build a stronger EMU, but they will postpone this debate to less troublesome times. However, simply expecting eurosceptic discourses to die down is an illusory posture.

The other challenge emerging from the economic crisis, the report finds, is that of trust. At the core of the debate, member states are not always confident that all of them will stick to the rules they all agreed to. It is critical to work on this, because trust will be the foundation of a stable and possibly strengthened EMU.

Those findings provide a glimpse of the debates ahead by showing how all member states aim to promote their interests within the EU. This macro-level analysis also offers a guide regarding how the 28 want to play their cards on a day-to-day basis in Brussels both on high profile issues, as well as on less headline-grabbing ones. This is particularly important as the divide between “small” and “big”, and between “old” and “new” member states has become less decisive and all member states are now willing, and better equipped, to advance their interests.