







































26                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
   

   

 

Brexit as a Driver of European Disintegration: Institutional Reform and 

Differentiated Integration 

 
Vittorio Orlando1, University of Iceland, Reykjavík  

Maximilian Conrad2, University of Iceland, Reykjavík  
 

Abstract 

This study investigates the disintegrative impact of Brexit on the European Union’s 

institutional framework. Disintegration may occur in the form of other member states leaving 

the union. Still, it can also manifest in terms of institutional reform in the direction of increased 

intergovernmentalism and executive dominance, resulting in a renationalization of the EU’s 

policymaking competences. The article contributes to the literature on European disintegration 

and differentiated integration by addressing the causal impact of Brexit as a driver of flexible 

institutional designs to meet the diverging demands of EU member states. The authors’ research 

is grounded in a constructivist approach, which draws from several theoretical accounts of 

European integration, proposing that Brexit has and will continue to result in increasing 

institutional differentiation in the EU. The authors test this hypothesis through an embedded 

single case study that examines how member states reacted to the new European power balance. 

The authors focus on proposals for institutional reform, particularly in relation to the Common 

Foreign Security Policy and the European Stability Mechanism.  

  

 
1 Vittorio Orlando is a PhD Candidate in Political Science at the University of Iceland in Reykjavík 
2 Maximilian Conrad holds a PhD in Political Science from Lund University in Lund, Sweden and is currently 

Professor of Political Science at the University of Iceland in Reykjavík 



27                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
1. Introduction  

This article studies the impact of Brexit on European integration. The UK’s departure from the 

EU has raised several questions about the future of European integration (Leruth et al. 2019b). 

On the one hand, Brexit represented an ontological threat to the EU, as it highlighted the risk, 

until then theoretical, that member states could unilaterally withdraw under certain external 

and internal conditions. At the same time, given how the United Kingdom has been a sui 

generis member over the years, tending to be reluctant to adopt reforms in the direction of 

greater European integration, Brexit has been seen as an opportunity to accelerate this 

integration process. Both possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive, could occur gradually 

at different rates in different member states. This work explores the effects of Brexit on 

European disintegration, looking at how the UK referendum on EU membership has influenced 

the member states’ agenda in the context of EU policies. The aim of this article is to assess how 

Brexit has affected the vision of the future of Europe of the other member states by highlighting 

how European integration is a reversible process. The referendum reinforced the notion, 

hitherto only theoretical, that a state can leave the EU and has spread awareness among member 

states that the EU is less stable than previously thought. 

As a result, rather than striving for further integration, a more effective strategy for states could 

be to champion differentiated integration (DI) in the fields of their interest. In essence, Brexit 

might have redefined the perception of the EU, shifting from an embryonic stage of a 

supranational entity with state-like ambitions to a mere international organization with 

exceptionally broad competences. Despite the coexistence of both visions within the various 

member states and their respective political classes, a similar shift could significantly alter EU 

integration trajectories. This article does not aim to prove that one vision has replaced the other. 

Instead, it seeks to gauge the disintegrative impact of Brexit by highlighting the changes that 

have occurred in the years following the referendum. In pursuing this goal, it looks at two 

different, albeit not mutually exclusive, hypotheses: first, has Brexit resulted in increased 

differentiation? Second, did its impact on differentiation, whether positive or negative, lead to 

more integration or more disintegration? It does so by analyzing the political discourse of the 

member states on the central themes for European integration, which are the same policy issues 

at the heart of the British referendum debate and the agreement signed in February 2016 

between Prime Minister David Cameron and the European Union. These issues include 

sovereignty, economic governance, and restrictions on movement and access to national 

welfare for intra-European migrants. 

The article is structured as follows. The first section focuses on the effects of Brexit and the 

models of disintegration developed by the literature review. The following section discusses 

the methods used in this study, also outlining the criteria behind the data selection. The third 

part analyzes the institutional developments of the EU in the fields of monetary and security 

policy. The fourth section builds on this analysis to explore the role of Brexit as a catalyst of 

already present disintegrative forces, highlighting the causal links between the referendum and 

strengthening the Eurosceptic discourse. The fifth section discusses these ties, addressing the 

article’s central hypothesis that Brexit has given momentum to a new type of discourse on EU 

membership. Finally, the conclusion offers some remarks on how the study of European 

integration can develop on the subject, taking into account the case of Brexit and the general 

idea that external events can reshape the ideological fabric of a political system, influencing its 

future. 

 

 



28                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
2. Literature Review  

This research looks at the ties between disintegration—a concept which played a foremost role 

in EU studies in the last decades—and differentiated integration (DI). Differentiated integration 

centres around the notion that European policies are applied unevenly across member states in 

terms of centralization, defined as vertical integration and territorial extension, or horizontal 

integration, which is linked to the number of member states adhering to a given policy 

(Schimmelfennig et al. 2015). Schimmelfennig (2021) distinguishes between differentiated 

integration and differentiated disintegration, defining the former as the delegation of national 

competences to the EU by the member states and the latter as the culmination of a process that 

originates from the politicization of European integration issues within the sphere of mass 

politics. The consequence of this process is the strengthening of Eurosceptic parties, which, 

notably through referenda, seek to achieve differentiated disintegration, ultimately resulting in 

withdrawal from the EU. Overall, the two terms can be understood as the two ends of the 

differentiation spectrum—a conceptual category that includes a wide range of phenomena such 

as opt-outs, cooperation agreements, and the renationalization of specific competences (Leruth 

et al. 2022). Given this foundation, this study examines the impact of Brexit on DI to assess its 

disintegrative effects. By analyzing how Brexit has influenced differentiation, it evaluates 

whether the UK’s departure has strengthened Eurosceptic political actors in other member 

states by demonstrating the feasibility of leaving or, conversely, has discouraged such 

movements by highlighting the complexities and costs of disentangling from the EU. 

2.1 Differentiation and Disintegration  

This research draws from the recent literature on EU disintegration, combining it with an 

empirical assessment of EU policies. The aim is to determine the extent to which Brexit can 

act as a catalyst for European disintegration, which aligns with intergovernmentalist theorizing. 

According to this approach, member states will perceive EU membership as disadvantageous 

to their interests, also due to the pressures exerted by Eurosceptic elements within them (Leruth 

et al. 2019a). At the same time, it is also conceivable that the actors in this process, i.e. the 

member states as well as the institutions and interest groups within the EU, proceed with the 

creation of new institutional arrangements to overcome the challenges posed by the result of 

the referendum, a scenario comparable to the approach implemented by the EU in the banking 

and energy fields (Bauer and Trondal 2015). 

In the negotiations with the EU before the 2016 vote, Prime Minister David Cameron 

emphasized the importance of member states being able to determine autonomously the 

extension of their adhesion to the European project. This underscored the relevance of 

differentiated integration in the context of Brexit. Both in the Bloomberg speech and during 

the “Remain” campaign, Cameron advocated for institutional “flexibility” to address the new 

challenges faced by the EU. This position aligns with the approach already preferred by the 

United Kingdom, a member state generally hesitant to adopt some of the most significant 

reforms in the EU, notably opting out of the Schengen Agreement and the Eurozone. 

Differentiated integration (DI) was also advocated by member states who sought greater EU 

involvement in specific policy areas. France has been a prominent advocate of this approach, 

especially under the leadership of French President Emmanuel Macron. The French President 

has consistently remarked on the importance of fiscal and institutional reforms within the EU, 

including a common defence strategy based on a Franco-German partnership open to interested 

member states (Michel 2020; Schmidt 2019). This work draws from the literature that has 

described differentiated integration as the situation in which some member states choose to 

pursue further integration, while others seek to be exempted from specific aspects of European 

legislation, as was the case with the UK until Brexit (Holzinger and Tosun 2019). In this regard, 



29                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
the unique form of membership developed by the UK in the decades before its departure— 

characterized by the contradiction of seeking a central role within the single market while 

opting out of the euro—has been highlighted in the scholarly literature as one of the causal 

factors behind Brexit (Fossum and Lord 2023). 

Accordingly, the development of similar institutional arrangements in other member states 

could further destabilize the EU in the future, a scenario known as “EU à la carte” (Hoekman 

2007). This model could also provide member states with greater autonomy to define their 

preferences within a larger framework. As a result, increased differentiation could strengthen 

or hinder EU integration, leading to the four empirical scenarios outlined in Table 1. 

Table 1: Impact of differentiation on integration. Source: Authors  

 

 

 

  

 

 

Part of the literature focused on how Brexit might lead to a less differentiated EU, as the 

withdrawal of the United Kingdom results in a double effect: first, it strengthens political unity 

between member states and, simultaneously, it discourages the adoption of models similar to 

the British one, which was based on opt-outs and external differentiation (Martill 2021). Other 

authors have observed how Brexit has instead highlighted the limits of the EU’s ability to cope 

with requests for flexibility from its member states, underlining how differentiated integration 

is an intrinsic characteristic of the EU and shared, in certain areas, by every member state 

(Kendrick 2023). Considering how differentiated integration affects specific policy areas 

depending on the state analyzed and the external circumstances, and thus in line with the 

ambition of studying the effects of Brexit on this phenomenon, this work pays particular 

attention to the monetary and security fields. The choice of these sectors is motivated by their 

relevance, as they are areas generally linked to the concept of sovereignty as portrayed in 

Eurosceptic narratives; it has been widely observed how the issues of security and the economy 

were at the centre of the “Leave” campaign and is a recurring topic in the Eurosceptic discourse 

across Europe (Orlando 2022).  

Differentiation is a consequence of the heterogeneity of preferences and capabilities among 

member states, due to the significant demographic, economic, and societal differences between 

them. According to the supply and demand theory, differentiation arises from the contrast 

between states resisting deeper integration (demand side) and those promoting it (supply side) 

(Schimmelfennig and Winzen 2020). States on the demand side will pursue differentiation 

through opt-outs, while those on the supply side may support this process to advance further 

integration without being hindered by the constraints posed by the former. 

In turn, the dynamics leading from heterogeneity to differentiated integration (DI) have been 

studied through the lenses of the three main European integration theories: liberal 

intergovernmentalism, neofunctionalism, and postfunctionalism. Specifically, liberal 

intergovernmentalism (LI) and, to a minor extent, neofunctionalism (NF) consider the 

heterogeneity of wealth among member states as one of the causal factors of differentiated 

integration. Member states with similar economic outputs are more likely to cooperate and 

 More Integration Less Integration 

More 

Differentiation 

Differentiated 

integration  

Differentiated disintegration  

Less 

Differentiation 

Conventional 

integration  

Renationalisation in areas 

where DI is currently 

practiced  



30                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
experience greater spillover effects, while those with significant economic differences may opt 

for more flexible arrangements, leading to varying levels of integration across the EU. This 

process is facilitated by the significant advantage of wealthier states in realizing their 

preferences, due to their greater bargaining power. On the other hand, postfunctionalism (PF) 

focuses more on domestic factors and national identity in researching the driving forces of 

differentiated integration, thus offering an alternative, albeit complementary, explanation 

(Schimmelfennig and Winzen 2019). Postfunctionalism, therefore, differs from the other two 

grand theories in that it turns its attention to the role of identity in individual preferences in 

shaping the jurisdictional architecture of the EU; this mechanism becomes of primary 

importance where European integration is politicized, that is, it enters the arsenal of political 

actors, conditioning their positions and limiting their range of action due to the fear of electoral 

or referendum defeat (Hooghe and Marks 2009). These dynamics, already hypothesized in the 

years following the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, were widely observed in the choice of 

government led by David Cameron to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s position in the EU 

first and in granting a referendum afterwards (Schimmelfennig 2021). They were also reflected 

in the post-Brexit negotiations, which have been described as unfolding within a reality of 

constraining dissensus (Biermann and Jagdhuber 2022). 

This article aims to make a unique contribution to the existing scholarship by drawing from 

both the postfunctionalist approach, liberal intergovernmentalism (LI), and neofunctionalism 

(NF), as well as by analyzing the institutional developments of the EU in the years following 

Brexit. To achieve this, it conducts an analysis of the member states’ policy decisions in the 

most significant and politicized areas of European integration, namely economic governance 

and security policies. In this context, the impact of Brexit on disintegration could manifest in 

two ways. First, Brexit might demonstrate alternative cooperation mechanisms and the viability 

of referendums as a tool to implement differentiated integration. Alternatively, the exit of the 

United Kingdom could accelerate the process of European integration, potentially through the 

implementation of a series of reforms that lead to the coexistence of a softcore Europe 

alongside smaller and more integrated policy communities (Schmidt 2019). The purpose of this 

article is therefore to seek evidence in support of these two possibilities and, based on the 

findings, draw conclusions about differentiation in post-Brexit Europe. 

These two scenarios should not be considered mutually exclusive, as their coexistence is 

possible and probable. Given the heterogeneity of preferences mentioned before, it appears 

likely that some member states would seek greater flexibility, motivated both by the desire to 

reduce the economic costs of further integration as envisaged by LI and NF and the internal 

political constraints at the centre of postfunctionalist theory. This process, identified by 

Schimmelfennig and Winzen as the supply and demand model of disintegration, can 

conceivably push those states interested in expanding the EU’s scope of competence to achieve 

their aims through internal agreements. At the same time, if some member states decide to carry 

out ambitious reforms characterized by a high level of integration, such as the previously 

discussed cases of common defence and fiscal policies, it is foreseeable that they would opt for 

some form of differentiated integration (DI), rather than allowing their efforts to be blocked by 

the reservations of more reluctant member states. 

If this is the case, Brexit has opened the doors to a multi-speed Europe, a phenomenon that 

predates it and that the referendum could further legitimize. The example of the UK has 

provided a new weapon to the arsenal of Eurosceptic actors at the domestic politics level, while 

in the context of EU negotiations, it showed how concessions and opt-outs can be preferable 

to having a member reluctant to conform to the European integration project. In line with the 

choice to focus this analysis on the economic and security areas, examining the two crises that 



31                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
hit the EU after Brexit—the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine—

is inevitable.  

Regarding the community response to the pandemic, the EU coordinated its efforts despite 

some initial resistance by certain member states; this high degree of coordination applies both 

to the health aspect, such as the supply of vaccines, and to the response to the economic and 

fiscal consequences of the crisis (Schilin 2023). Given these findings, Schilin also suggests that 

the relevance of differentiated integration (DI) decreased after Brexit, as granting the UK opt-

outs was not sufficient to prevent its withdrawal from the EU; accordingly, he hypothesizes 

that the role of DI as a causal factor of European disintegration is conditioned to the existence 

of specific circumstances capable of strengthening its ideational importance.  

Regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), the 2022 escalation of the Russo-

Ukrainian War has called into question the EU’s role in security. Although the central pillar of 

European defence remains, for most states, NATO membership, the EU’s response to the war 

shows the goal of implementing a common response. At the same time, DI is an intrinsic 

characteristic of the security field—an area in which historical and geopolitical reasons led to 

various types of cooperation: between individual member states, between member states and 

non-member states, and through bilateral agreements with non-European countries, both 

outside and within the NATO framework (Rieker and Giske 2024). This high level of DI in the 

defence field is not surprising, considering how the military aspect has historically been the 

most emblematic expression of state sovereignty, with the very survival of the state often 

depending on it, as reminded by the war in Ukraine.  

 

3. Materials and Methods  

The literature discussed so far presents a highly complex picture concerning DI in general and 

specifically the impact of Brexit. At the same time, on the empirical level, it can be observed 

how the two major crises faced by the post-Brexit EU resulted in vastly different outcomes. 

Through an extensive analysis of the literature and policy documents, selected through an in-

depth analysis of the relevant material, this work aims to explain and partly reconcile these 

evident contrasts by analyzing policy decisions and explicit statements toward a higher level 

of differentiated integration by member states and the EU. The material, meticulously collected 

via traditional mainstream media, digital media, and official policy documents between 2020 

and 2024, provides a comprehensive understanding of the disintegrative effects of Brexit in the 

context of community policies, particularly in the final stages of the negotiations and the 

months preceding the official exit of the United Kingdom from the EU. 

Through an assessment of government declarations and programs, this comprehensive 

approach provides the opportunity to focus both on the institutional developments within the 

EU, measurable through an analysis of the policies implemented by member states, and on the 

ideological dimension, indicative instead of Brexit’s impact on how the notion of belonging to 

the EU has changed. As a result, this work aims to discuss the disintegrative effect of Brexit 

from the vantage point of differentiated integration, providing an empirical analysis while 

being cognizant of the leading European integration theory approaches. The analysis presented 

here, however, does not take into account programs of political parties and electoral material 

since, while recognizing their importance for the study of Euroscepticism, it has been observed 

that the positions of the parties are characterized by a high level of ambivalence (Heinisch et 

al. 2021). Therefore, they appear poorly suited for studying the institutional developments of 

relations between the EU and its member states. 



32                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
The analysis of the material presented in the following section aims to provide empirical 

support for a theoretical discussion on Brexit’s direct and indirect effects on differentiated 

integration. By examining how Brexit has influenced the evolution of EU institutions and 

shaped member states’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of membership, this discussion 

contributes to a broader assessment of European disintegration trajectories. Through this 

institutional perspective, the study seeks to better understand Brexit’s disintegrative impact 

within the framework of differentiated integration. 

This last aspect is the basis of the choice to focus on monetary policy and security, already at 

the centre of the Brexit campaign and widely considered sectors in which it is challenging to 

carry forward common European policies (Orlando and Conrad 2024). By focusing on these 

crucial areas, the authors aim to shed light on the most pressing issues surrounding Brexit and 

its impact on differentiated integration. 

 

4. Institutional Development  

Although on a purely theoretical level, EU membership obliges all member states to comply 

with the provisions of the treaties, it is evident that, in practice, exceptions in this sense are, in 

fact, the norm. In the two macro-areas affected by this analysis, a widespread tendency to resort 

to opt-outs can be observed. Examples of this phenomenon are the Economic and Monetary 

Union (EMU), based on three stages of progressive economic integration that have not been 

adopted by all member states, as well as from Schengen membership, temporary in the cases 

of Romania, Bulgaria, and Cyprus, and permanent in the case of Ireland.34 The existence of 

such resistance leads to a reflection on the supranational nature of the EU, as these two areas 

are not only, as previously noted, cornerstones of the Eurosceptic discourse, but also involve 

competences generally delegated to the central government in federal states (Schimmelfennig 

et al. 2023). 

4.1 Economic Policy 

The first necessary distinction in the analysis of differentiated integration is between those 

states partaking in the EMU and those outside it; following the 2010 Eurozone crisis5 and the 

ensuing reforms, the gap between the two groups widened significantly. Some examples of this 

process include: the creation of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to assist euro area 

member states in financial difficulty; the establishment of different monitoring and reporting 

measures for Eurozone members in the context of the Stability and Growth Pact; the Treaty on 

Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG), which 

subjects Eurozone countries to particularly stringent budget rules and enhanced supervisory 

mechanisms; the entry into force of a specific regulation aimed at monitoring macroeconomic 

asymmetries (Reg. 1176/2011), accompanied by special sanctioning measures for euro area 

 
3For a detailed account of the history of the Economic and Monetary Union, and on which some member states 

have yet to fullfill the convergence criteria see European Parliament. 2025. “History of the Economic and 

Monetary Union.” Accessed June 17, 2025. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/79/history-of-the-

economic-and-monetary-union. 
4 Although Schengen technically falls under the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), in the context of 

Eurosceptic rhetoric and populist discourse the issue of freedom of movement is generally framed as a security 

one, hence the inclusion above. 
5 The Eurozone crisis, beginning in 2010, was a sovereign debt crisis that exposed structural weaknesses in the 

euro area. Triggered by the 2008 global financial crisis, it primarily affected Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain, 

leading to bailouts coordinated by the European Central Bank (ECB), European Commission, and the International 

Monetary Fund  (IMF). Austerity measures and economic stagnation followed, sparking political unrest and 

raising doubts about the Eurozone’s long-term viability. 

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/79/history-of-the-economic-and-monetary-union
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/79/history-of-the-economic-and-monetary-union


33                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
countries (Reg. 1174/2011). These measures have contributed to increasing the distance 

between the two groups of states and, at the same time, giving rise to conflicts between the 

Eurozone states, as they are bound by new and more stringent measures which have 

exacerbated pre-existing differences in terms of policy preferences (Pilati and De Angelis 

2020). The EU’s response to the Eurozone recession was a labyrinthine network of measures, 

signifying a resolute intent to prevent crises of the scale experienced in 2010 from recurring 

within member states. This was accomplished by amalgamating support tools with novel 

methods of sanction and supervision (Börzel 2016). 

The measures implemented after the COVID-19 pandemic, however, appeared to be aimed at 

intervening not only in the pathological stage of the member states’ finances but also at 

significantly amplifying the scope of EU investments, thereby acting already in the 

physiological phase of the functioning of the European economy. The Multiannual Financial 

Framework (MFF), adopted for the years 2021–2027, witnessed the EU endorsing an ambitious 

financial project aimed at fortifying its economy post-pandemic; this project, dubbed “Next 

Generation EU” (NGEU), 6 was distinguished not only by its substantial magnitude but also by 

the decision to finance it through the issuance of EU debt instruments, henceforth defined as 

Eurobonds, to be repaid until 2058 (European Commission 2021a). The funds raised from the 

issuance of these Eurobonds were then allocated to member states through the Recovery and 

Resilience Facility (RRF), an instrument explicitly created to provide such performance-based 

financing to member states under conditions that they present a National Resilience and 

Recovery Plan (NRRP) in which they outline the reforms and investments to be implemented 

by 2026 (European Commission 2021b). 

The negotiations that led to the approval of these measures were significantly influenced by 

the resistance of a bloc of states labelled as the Frugal Fours (Austria, Denmark, the 

Netherlands, and Sweden) and Finland (Bisciari et al. 2021). Although eventually overcome, 

these resistances allow us to spell out some considerations regarding the institutional dynamics 

of post-Brexit Europe. In contrast to the reaction to the 2010 crisis, in which the economic 

support of the EU was conditioned and secondary compared to the austerity measures 

introduced, the strategy to respond to the pandemic shows an approach aimed at promoting the 

development of member states, almost in a Keynesian fashion. The main objection raised by 

the Frugal Four was that the issuance of Eurobonds could damage the functioning of the 

Eurozone, specifically in the absence of a system of conditionality and accountability linked to 

the disbursement of European funds. After intense negotiations, these concerns were addressed 

by establishing the RRF and other smaller programs aimed at increasing accountability for 

member states benefitting from these measures (Vanhercke et al. 2021). 

The decision to respond to the crisis through direct EU intervention of unprecedented scope 

has been interpreted as a post-Brexit development of European economic policy, as it represents 

an overcoming of the neoliberal logic prevalent in the United Kingdom (Joseph and Juncos 

2024). Another possibility is that the need to address the COVID-19 crisis forced Europe to 

face a dilemma rooted in two arguments at the core of Eurosceptic criticisms. On the one hand, 

the claim—central in the Brexit campaign and quite common in wealthier member states—that 

the EU tends to redistribute resources to benefit its poorest members, effectively subsidizing 

their failing economic policies. On the other hand, there is the opposing view that EU monetary 

policy and its austerity measures represent a threat to the economy of those states with below-

 
6 Next Generation EU (NGEU), launched in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, is a €750 billion 

recovery instrument aimed at supporting economic resilience and green and digital transitions across the EU. 

Marking a significant step toward fiscal integration, it allowed the European Commission to issue common debt 

on behalf of member states—an unprecedented move that redefined the scope of EU-level solidarity. 



34                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
average economic performance (Orlando and Conrad 2024). The achievement of these 

agreements demonstrates that, despite internal divisions arising from conflicting economic 

preferences and ideological differences within domestic politics, the EU has successfully 

pursued common financial objectives, fostering optimism about its future. This outcome aligns 

with the conventional understanding of EU integration, corresponding to the “more 

integration/less differentiation” scenario outlined in Table 1, where deeper cooperation prevails 

over fragmentation.  

4.2 Foreign and Defence Policy  

As regards the second area covered by this article, namely the Common Foreign and Security 

Policy (CFSP), it would appear that the direct impact of Brexit is lower than what the 

international relevance of the United Kingdom would suggest. This discrepancy is because the 

UK took advantage of the high level of flexibility available in these areas in the years preceding 

Brexit, so its contribution to the administrative field was reduced (Schade 2020). Nonetheless, 

losing a member state with a military and diplomatic apparatus on the scale of the UK’s had 

significant consequences for the CFSP. The attempts to reach an agreement through some form 

of external differentiation by the Theresa May-led government proved fruitless, both due to the 

lukewarm reception by the EU and the rise of Boris Johnson’s government, characterized by 

more drastic positions on the topic (Martill and Sus 2023). In parallel with the need to readjust 

its strategy following Brexit, the EU found itself facing the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 

2022. In March 2022, the European Council endorsed the Strategic Compass, a document 

previously approved by the Foreign Affairs Council, which contained an analysis of the EU’s 

priorities and objectives in the field of security (Council of the European Union 2022). 

The Strategic Compass, hastily revised in the weeks between its promulgation and the onset of 

hostilities, begins by acknowledging the resurgence of war in Europe and the European Union’s 

commitment to upholding the European security order. While the document alludes to the 

concept of the EU’s strategic autonomy as a security actor, it remains somewhat unclear about 

the implementation of this autonomy, particularly in relation to the EU’s mutual assistance 

clause and EU-NATO cooperation (Koenig 2022). In essence, the Strategic Compass serves 

more as a roadmap for the future development of European security than a concrete institutional 

development. Despite the document’s resolute language and ambitious objectives, undoubtedly 

influenced by the events in Ukraine, it is yet to be seen how willing member states are to put it 

into practice, especially regarding the potential for coordinated operations under EU 

supervision, as outlined in Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) (Blockmans et 

al. 2022). 

The extent to which the EU can act autonomously at a regional and global level, implementing 

its preferences independently from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and 

individual member states, remains uncertain. For instance, the fact that Sweden and Finland 

have joined NATO, along with the skepticism of Central and Eastern European countries about 

the CFSP’s concrete capability to protect their interests, suggests that the EU has a long way to 

go before it becomes the primary security provider for its member states. This is despite the 

significant support in the form of financial and strategic aid provided to Ukraine (Helwig 2023).  

Returning to the focus of this article, the institutional developments in the field of CFSP offer 

some relevant insights. Enhanced cooperation in this sector is explicitly referred to in EU 

legislation, such as the institution of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) based on 

the Treaty on European Union (TEU). Moreover, it is also logically desirable given the 

differing security needs of member states, such as the above case of the Central and Eastern 

European bloc, as well as shared interests, for example, among Mediterranean countries 

concerning the management of migration flows. On these grounds, and given the need to 



35                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
accommodate divergent interests, differentiated integration (DI) has represented a recurring 

feature of the CFSP. However, it was present more in its passive meaning, especially in terms 

of opt-outs, than in the active sense, conceptualized as a higher degree of integration. This 

significant fragmentation is visible in the case of PESCO, where it was recommended to 

implement straightforward guidelines and a more stringent monitoring system for member 

states (Houdé and Wessel 2023). Based on the four-fold typology outlined in the second 

section, this policy area exemplifies differentiated integration (characterized by both more 

differentiation and integration), as certain states seeking deeper cooperation are advancing 

beyond the common EU framework. This trend suggests the emergence of strategic security 

partnerships among like-minded countries rather than the development of a unified European 

defence strategy.  

This analysis described how post-Brexit Europe has evolved, focusing on institutional 

developments in the economic and security fields. Although a deep analysis of both events is 

beyond the scope of this work, it is necessary to address how the pandemic and the Russo-

Ukrainian War affected these policies. Therefore, the two crises are considered external causal 

factors capable of accelerating endogenous dynamics independent from them. The authors have 

highlighted how the EU has implemented robust economic measures to support its member 

states, overcoming internal opposition through minor concessions. Although the Strategic 

Compass represents a step forward in the direction of more incisive EU-level action, within the 

CFSP, it appears that the national and NATO dimensions continue to be dominant in the areas 

of diplomacy and security. The following section explores the role of Brexit in the institutional 

developments discussed so far, aiming to determine whether, and to what extent, the notion that 

a state could leave the EU has had an integrative, disintegrative, or mixed effect. 

 

5. The Role of Brexit 

5.1 Main disintegrative factors 

To discuss the impact of Brexit on European integration, it may be helpful to summarize the 

main profiles under which it can be analyzed. Possibly the most profound consequence of 

Brexit is a disintegrative impact that could lead other member states to leave the EU. However, 

this domino effect has yet to be observed, and it does not appear likely to happen in the 

immediate future. Another possibility is for the post-Brexit EU to experience disintegrative 

spillovers, differentiated disintegration through the renationalization of specific competences, 

or a weakening of EU structures at the advantage of member state governments in line with 

intergovernmental theories (Niemann 2021). At the same time, both during and after the Brexit 

negotiations, the 27 EU member-state governments and public opinion privileged 

cohesiveness. It has been observed how even Eurosceptic parties raised the issue of reforming 

the EU rather than promoting the example set by the UK (Chopin and Lequesne 2022). Such 

instances of reform might indicate an evolution of the EU in the sense of a more flexible 

institutional design. Institutional safeguards have been a quintessential feature of the EU 

constitutional design, aimed at guaranteeing member states the possibility of opting out of 

specific policy initiatives, a mechanism often used by the United Kingdom (Glencross 2021). 

Alongside the possibility that Brexit has incentivized member states to seek more flexible 

designs, it is also necessary to consider the dilemma of future trajectories for European 

integration: whether to favour deepening (institutional) or widening (geographical) integration. 

As noted by Hobolt (2016), a process of greater differentiated integration is underway, destined 

to accentuate the divisions within the EU in the sense of a deeper integration of core Eurozone 

members. In this context, the DI process would represent an intrinsic characteristic of a more 



36                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
flexible design, and it would go hand in hand with the deeper integration required by some 

states.  

5.2 Imitative effects  

Concerning the contagion effect, on a political level, the most significant threat consists of the 

potential emulation effect mediated by local Eurosceptic forces and the perception by member 

state citizens that the UK improved its position by leaving the EU. To offset this risk, the EU 

maintained a hard stance in the negotiations, emphasizing that the benefits associated with 

membership must be tied to the related costs—a position that aligns with voter preferences, as 

demonstrated in a large-scale quantitative study (Walter 2021). 

This process can be witnessed in the EU-UK negotiations on the CFSP. Despite Brexit offering 

Brussels an opportunity to expand its competences in the security and foreign policy domains, 

the EU also had to confront the claims advanced by Eurosceptic actors that such developments 

would result in a loss of national sovereignty and the establishment of a superstate. 

Furthermore, both parties faced significant constraints in their efforts to outline the future 

profiles of their cooperation in the area. The EU had to avoid an agreement that was too 

favourable towards the UK, as it would have reinforced the perception of an à la carte 

integration, with all the benefits of membership and none of the associated costs. 

Simultaneously, Boris Johnson’s cabinet could not settle for a compromise that curtailed the 

UK’s sovereignty, which would have contradicted the hard Brexit stance of his government. 

Ultimately, this conflict led to the exclusion of the issue from the 2020 EU-UK treaty (Harrois 

2023), and such an agreement is still pending at the time of this writing (Posaner et al. 2023). 

5.3 Executive Dominance and the EU Democratic Deficit 

A further aspect of primary importance in assessing the disintegrative impact of Brexit concerns 

executive dominance, specifically the tendency of member state governments to bypass the 

multilevel structure envisioned in the EU design, which includes both national parliaments and 

EU institutions. The relevance of this phenomenon harks back to the debate on the democratic 

deficit in the EU, one of the main points of contention in the Eurosceptic discourse. In the 

context of the Brexit referendum, the term highlighted the distance between the EU and the 

citizens of member states. In this analysis, a surge in executive dominance is relevant as it 

indicates a shift towards an understanding of the EU as an institution ultimately managed by 

member states, rather than a democratic supranational entity. 

A recent quantitative study aimed at assessing the impact of EU executive action versus 

member states’ governments in the 2015 refugee crisis and during the pandemic suggests how, 

in both cases, the executive action of national governments was decisive in shaping the relevant 

policymaking decision (Bojar and Kriesi 2023). However, in the case of COVID-19 and the 

fiscal reforms connected to it, the friction represented by minority coalitions of member states 

had a minor effect, attributable to the symmetric distribution of the crisis and the limited role 

played by national identities. These findings align with a further quantitative study highlighting 

the reduced role of national parliaments in influencing government preferences (Tarlea et al. 

2024). The reduced role of national parliaments is partly due to the constitutional architecture 

of member states; however, Brexit might have influenced governments to compromise more. 

This phenomenon is due to the absence of the UK, which has historically been a reluctant 

partner and to avoid facing the consequences of hindering the EU decision-making process. 

Not only was executive dominance present independently of Brexit, but the UK’s withdrawal 

has partly facilitated negotiations between member states, easing the implementation of shared 

policies. 



37                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Thus, Brexit did not increase the democratic deficit of the EU, as neither the other national 

actors have seen their role diminished due to the referendum, nor can one observe a surge of 

supranational centralization to the detriment of the member states. The central role of national 

governments is, instead, the leading cause of European democracy’s imperfect nature. 

Although governments are directly or indirectly accountable to their voters, they decide on EU 

affairs with significant autonomy; moreover, the collegial nature of the EU decision-making 

practices allows them to offload their political responsibility significantly. 

5.4 Heterogeneity 

A further factor to consider is the high degree of heterogeneity between member states, which 

results in various institutional convergence clubs, i.e. groups of countries with comparable 

performances in several macroeconomic and institutional indicators (Glawe and Wagner 2021). 

This heterogeneity could be fertile ground for differentiated integration, as a flexible 

institutional design would help overcome conflicts between member states with different 

preferences; it would also allow for joint projects to be carried out with countries at a 

comparable level without waiting for the other member states to complete the necessary 

structural reforms. Given such conditions, a disintegrative event like Brexit could lead to a 

more flexible institutional design to avoid conflicts between member states. In the context of 

the CFSP, a sector already characterized by a high level of flexibility and autonomy on the part 

of the member states, it is not possible to observe any development in this sense (Klose et al. 

2023). On the contrary, after the referendum, and in the context of the war in Ukraine, which 

led Denmark to join the Common Security and Defence Policy, the effect of Brexit appears to 

be negligible.  

In the context of security policies, DI can manifest both in the sense of opt-outs and as enhanced 

cooperation between member states within the structures provided by European legislation. In 

the economic and single market fields, the type of DI most relevant for the study of European 

disintegration is the former; the British government’s requests to the EU to avoid the 

referendum represent a clear example of this disintegrative drive. In the 2015 letter addressed 

to the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, PM David Cameron called for 

exemptions for non-Eurozone states from financing operations supporting the euro, limits to 

the free circulation of people, and an increase in the power of national parliaments (Cameron 

2015). Despite the eventual failure of Cameron’s plea, a post-Brexit EU might accommodate 

similar instances of reform from member states to avoid their withdrawal. If this were the case, 

one might expect to observe an easing of European constraints, particularly budgetary ones, 

accompanied by a trend towards renationalizing national competences in critical sectors. This 

tendency would represent a radical change in the core features of the EU, as highlighted by 

Tusk’s negative response to the British government’s requests, a position shared by the member 

states during the Brexit negotiations (Matthijs et al. 2019). 

5.5 The Institutional and the Ideational Profile 

A shift of this magnitude, facilitated and accelerated by the referendum’s outcome but not 

attributable only to it, can be studied from two perspectives. The first, empirical and 

particularly relevant in the short and medium term, is the assessment of instances of 

competences renationalization. These processes would occur gradually and concern only 

specific sectors at any given time. A comprehensive empirical study focused on the dynamics 

of single market integration across multiple policy areas contradicts this hypothesis, showing 

instead a situation characterized by the relaunch of initiatives aimed at promoting greater 

integration and a high degree of resilience towards instances of renationalization (Raudla and 

Spendzharova 2022). 



38                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
The second vantage point, theoretical and therefore better suited to address the long-term 

dynamics of European integration, shifts the focus from what has been done to what has yet to 

be done. In other words, it evaluates whether Brexit forced institutional actors to delay reforms 

to avoid being targeted by Eurosceptic forces or exacerbating the conflict between member 

states (Zeitlin et al. 2019). In such a scenario, differentiated integration could serve a dual 

purpose. It would offer member states constrained by the dynamics described above greater 

leeway and allow those actors interested in European integration to pursue a deeper form of it 

independently. The following section discusses the extent to which this has happened and the 

role of Brexit in these developments. 

 

6. Discussion 

6.1 Brexit as a Structural Driver of Disintegratios 

The authors’ examination of the current state of the EU has primarily delved into its 

institutional reforms and the concept of differentiated integration while assessing the profound 

disintegrative impact of Brexit. In the context of EMU policies, the measures outlined in the 

Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), alongside the issuance of Eurobonds, represent a 

visible sign of development in the sense of greater integration. In the security field, although 

the Strategic Compass contains several blueprints for development, the situation appears 

substantially unchanged. This gap between external security and other policy areas, with the 

latter confined to the decision-making autonomy of member states, is a feature of EU 

policymaking already observed by Börzel (2005) in a macro analysis of the institutional 

evolution of the European project. The distinction between level, referring to the issues falling 

under EU competences, and scope, measured in terms of supranational centralization versus 

the involvement of national governments in the decision-making process, provides a useful 

framework for further analysis (Börzel 2005). The extensive distributive policies implemented 

post-pandemic, along with the establishment of a monitoring system by the Commission, 

demonstrate a broadening of competences. However, it is important to note that the approval 

of these measures was a result of consensus among the member states. In the case of the CFSP, 

the national dimension still holds sway in both aspects; even the calls to enhance defence 

cooperation by European heads of state primarily pertain to the national dimension, with the 

EU’s role limited to providing an institutional framework for such initiatives (Le Monde 2024). 

However, the presence of these structural limits alone cannot be considered a sign of 

disintegration, much less can it be attributed to Brexit. On the contrary, considering that one of 

the central factors of divergence between the UK and Brussels was the implementation of 

redistributive policies, Brexit facilitated the implementation of Next Generation EU. 

Nonetheless, establishing a permanent macroeconomic stabilization mechanism in the future 

is desirable and such a mechanism would be even more effective if paired with broader EU 

competences in the fiscal field (Codogno and Van den Noord 2022). Brexit has facilitated the 

negotiations, as, based on the positions of the British government during its membership and 

specifically the Eurozone crisis, it was unlikely that the UK would have accepted a project of 

economic recovery of this magnitude. Furthermore, the exit of the most prominent non-

Eurozone member changed the balance of power within the EU further in favour of the euro 

area countries. In this sense, Brexit can be considered a driver of European integration in line 

with the tenets of intergovernmentalism, which focuses on the power relationship between 

member states. 

6.2 Brexit as an Ideological Driver of Disintegration 



39                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Some further considerations can be drawn by analyzing these dynamics from a 

postfunctionalist perspective. Brexit and the experience of the 2010 Eurozone crisis had a 

positive impact because European leaders approached the pandemic aware that an austerity-

driven reaction would have a potentially disintegrative effect, as it would favour a narrative 

centred on an EU distant from its citizens. The ideological effect of the referendum, combined 

with the emergence of more interventionist governments in various European states, also 

contributed to a paradigm shift in EU trade policies in the sense of greater protectionism 

alongside the redistributive measures already mentioned (Bauerle and Meunier 2024). One 

cannot underestimate the causal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine in 

this paradigm shift; however, already at the time of her inauguration, the President of the 

European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (2019), had underlined the intent to increase the 

use of economic tools by the EU for geopolitical purposes. These difficulties in isolating the 

impact of Brexit derive from the fact that institutional developments can be understood as the 

result of the interplay between external events and how they are interpreted and metabolized 

within the political arena.  

In the negotiations following the referendum, although the possibility of forming a “European 

Army” was one of the arguments employed by the “Leave” campaign, the issue of the CFSP 

was relatively overshadowed compared to other aspects (Howorth 2017). The first 

developments in this area were the signing of PESCO in 2017 and the reiteration by the 

Commission of the need to create a single market for defence, optimize economies of scale, 

and ultimately “move towards a security and defence union” (European Commission 2017). 

These developments suggest that EU defence integration gained momentum after Brexit, with 

member states putting into practice the visionary discourse already present in the Treaty of 

Lisbon but essentially left unrealized in the following decade (Svendsen 2019). Five years later, 

the Strategic Compass reiterated this intention. However, rather than providing a framework 

for a common defence market, it reaffirmed the need for member states to increase military 

expenditures. Overall, compared with the economic dimension, developments in the security 

sector have been more moderate. The reason for this different pace might be that, despite the 

Russian invasion of Ukraine, member states are not under the same pressure when it comes to 

security. 

If one assumes that the main drivers of institutional development are the need to adapt to crises 

and the emergence of ideological forces, the main difference between the two fields was 

NATO’s presence. In the economic field, the pandemic was the structural factor leading to the 

need for institutional reform. On an ideological level, the experience of the 2010 crisis and the 

UK’s absence shaped the response of the EU; this resulted in unprecedented measures to 

support member states, shaping a narrative of the EU as an actor capable of responding 

effectively to an economic and social crisis. Suppose one transposes this paradigm into the 

security sphere; in that case, the external event driving institutional adaptations would be the 

Russo-Ukrainian War, as highlighted by the tones of the Strategic Compass and the declarations 

of European leaders. However, the NATO-national state dualism is still prevalent on the 

ideological level. Despite the impact of Brexit, also postulated by the literature, the EU is still 

a secondary actor. As a result, institutional developments in the sector consisted of “best 

endeavour” norms that have not been accompanied, until now, by concrete and effective 

actions. 

Thus, the current situation is marked by uncertainty. On the one hand, the EU has managed to 

avert the disintegrative domino effect predicted by Brexit, despite facing a global pandemic 

and a military conflict on its borders. On the other hand, the UK’s departure did not accelerate 

European integration, which continues to follow an intergovernmentalist logic. In this context, 

Brexit remains a reminder of the potential extreme consequences of community policy failures, 



40                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
accentuating the domestic constraints faced by member states’ governments. This stagnant 

situation can be attributed to the underdeveloped European identity among the population, 

despite the prominence of EU issues in national debates. In times of crisis, the EU becomes an 

easy target for criticism from interested domestic actors, as evidenced by the “Leave” 

campaign. 

6.3 Future Trajectories of European Integrations 

A further halting factor is linked to the democratic deficit of European institutions, in particular 

in the context of EU constitutional politics. As observed by Patberg (2017), the EU currently 

lacks an institution that allows citizens to exercise constituent power independently of the 

governments of member states. This limit, accompanied by a European identity weaker than 

the national one, can only discourage any attempt at significant reform, making it politically 

hazardous. In this context, the EU’s democratic deficit can be traced back to two significant 

causal factors. The first, and perhaps the most crucial, is the member states’ need to preserve 

their autonomy. This need is met by maintaining a consensus-based decision-making system, 

aligning with the principles of liberal intergovernmentalism. However, this process, while 

protecting national sovereignty, also hampers integration. As actors bound by domestic 

electoral constraints, national governments are often reluctant to decrease their sovereignty, 

thereby impeding the EU’s democratic functioning. The second factor contributing to the EU’s 

democratic deficit is the lack of citizens’ involvement at the institutional level. This issue is 

evident in the relatively minor role of the European Parliament and the absence of a strong 

European identity. Against this background, differentiated integration, understood as opt-outs 

or controlled disintegration, can potentially prevent or mitigate the dysfunctionalities of 

European integration, ultimately empowering citizens to shape their policy preferences 

(Patberg 2020). This interpretation can also be applied, a posteriori, to the negotiations 

conducted by the British government prior to the referendum. While some of the requests made 

by the British Prime Minister in 2015 show a clear intention to stop or even reverse European 

integration, they can also be seen as a plea for differentiated integration. Given that the United 

Kingdom was already an EU member with unique characteristics, it appears that the British 

government viewed differentiated integration as a potential solution to the issues it faced at the 

time.  

These issues are the same ones that ultimately led to the outcome of the referendum—namely, 

a domestic context characterized by a plurality of potential disintegrative factors, including 

weak support for the EU amongst the public, a high level of polarization on European topics, 

and the existence of solid opposition to the EU both within the Conservative Party and in the 

electorate (Niemann et al. 2020). It would be bold to claim that an increase in the institutional 

flexibility granted to member states is in itself a remedy for European disintegration. However, 

within the framework of the complex dynamics of European integration and the inevitable 

conflicts that arise from it, one of the lessons of Brexit is that the EU’s adoption of overly strict 

positions can exacerbate the polarization of the debate and reinforce Eurosceptic narratives. 

This further underscores the need for a flexible approach to European integration, one that 

accounts for the diverse needs and perspectives of member states and their citizens. 

Brexit, therefore, represented a significant turning point, demonstrating the potential 

consequences of an excessively rigid approach, namely, demonization by national actors of the 

EU. This process, in turn, has created a space for Eurosceptic forces to shape the domestic 

debate on European integration. Consequently, mainstream parties found themselves fighting 

an unequal battle on the national front without being able to rely on policy solutions at a 

European level (Schmitter and Lefkofridi 2016). As of today, the lessons of Brexit have been 

at least partially received by the EU. The issuance of Eurobonds and the intention, although 



41                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
not yet fully realized, to implement a common defence strategy represent significant 

developments in this sense. The relevance of these institutional developments lies not only in 

the scope of such measures but in the potential ideological impact on the debate on European 

integration. However, although Brexit has yet to represent a driver of differentiated integration, 

it cannot be considered an isolated event. Euroscepticism, understood as a radical opposition 

to further integration, still has a central role in the EU debate. The critical warning of Brexit is, 

perhaps, that EU membership is reversible given the right conditions. In terms of institutional 

development, these conditions can stem from a systemic crisis and the conflicts that could arise 

following the EU’s attempt to deal with such an event. 

Under the prevailing circumstances, Brexit has had a notably contained influence on European 

disintegration. Particularly in the institutional sphere, the progress in economic and security 

policies observed thus far allows us to dismiss the notion that the referendum halted 

institutional development or led to increased differentiated integration. However, the 

referendum’s outcome has bolstered the factors that precipitated it, notably the presence of a 

fertile Eurosceptic narrative that political actors can exploit to impede the EU’s institutional 

progress. This situation has, to some extent, given rise to a scenario described by Rosamond 

(2016, 868) as an “institutional equilibrium of diminishing returns”—the belief that the costs 

and risks of integration are too steep to implement the ambitious reforms that have 

characterized the European project over time. 

Conquering this interplay of institutional and ideological constraints, which Brexit has 

facilitated, poses a significant hurdle to EU development. There are, however, potential 

strategies that could alter this trajectory. Firstly, the EU’s democratic deficit could be reduced 

by enhancing the role of Parliament. Secondly, deeper integration in key policy sectors could 

yield positive results, even if it is limited to a core group of states. This process would align 

with the constructivist understanding that policy boundaries can shift over time (Hoeffler 

2019). If this holds true, establishing a more integrated institutional model in the fiscal and 

security sectors, in addition to the structural benefits envisaged by liberal intergovernmentalism 

(LI) and, to a minor extent, neofunctionalism (NF), could, on the ideological level, counter the 

negative politicization of EU issues that led to Brexit. In other words, it could introduce and 

reinforce among the population the narrative of a Europe close to its citizens and capable of 

meeting their needs. 

 

7. Conclusion 

This article discussed the effect of Brexit on institutional developments in the EU. It delved 

into the disintegrative impact of the referendum at a systemic level, examining whether and to 

what extent Brexit contributed to differentiated integration, with a specific focus on economic 

and security policies. By concentrating on these two areas, which played a pivotal role in 

shaping the Eurosceptic narrative that led to the referendum, the authors tested the central 

hypothesis of this work, which was to assess the disintegrative impact of Brexit on the 

institutional framework of the EU. This was done by looking at the effects of Brexit on 

differentiation, exploring the two sides of it: differentiated integration and differentiated 

disintegration. This research was based on an analysis of official policy documents in these 

sectors, supplemented by a comprehensive review of qualitative and quantitative studies on 

Euroscepticism and European integration. Additionally, the authors considered the two crises 

that the EU has faced in the post-Brexit period, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in 

Ukraine, aligning with the theoretical assumption that external events significantly impact the 

institutional developments of the EU. 



42                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
The analysis reveals that developments in the two sectors were not adversely affected by the 

referendum. In the economic sphere, the measures adopted after the pandemic, focused on 

support for member states by the EU, demonstrate significant progress compared to the 

European response to the 2010 Eurozone crisis. In this context, the effect of Brexit was likely 

positive for two reasons: the absence of the opposition represented by the UK and the 

recognition that a response focused on austerity would have been unpopular and would have 

strengthened Eurosceptic forces. In the sphere of the CFSP, the most relevant causal factor was 

the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a few weeks after the promulgation of the Strategic Compass. 

This document, significantly modified after the outbreak of hostilities, reflects member states’ 

ambivalence towards a common security policy. Although the document highlights the 

intention to implement a common defence framework, these developments are still largely 

unrealized. 

Concerning differentiated integration, the strong stand adopted in the Brexit negotiations, 

especially in the context of the CFSP, shows how this option was not contemplated in the case 

of the United Kingdom. As for other member states, a certain level of differentiated integration 

remains the norm in the security sector, a sector characterized by broad decision-making 

autonomy by national governments. In the economic sphere, however, despite the Frugal Four’s 

concerns regarding the accountability of member states concerning the funding received in the 

context of the National Resilience and Recovery Plan, the community response was 

substantially unitary. 

This research indicates that Brexit has not triggered a surge in differentiated disintegration 

within the EU, nor has it initiated a trend towards institutional reforms that would lead to 

greater disintegration. However, Brexit has had a dual impact on European disintegration. In 

line with postfunctionalist theorizing, it has provided interested actors with a roadmap for 

effectively promoting a Eurosceptic narrative within their member states. Furthermore, it has 

imposed additional constraints on the governmental policy level by highlighting the risks of 

politicizing policy issues. This trend could potentially lead to a deceleration of European 

integration in the long run, by escalating the costs of potentially unpopular reforms. 

In addition to providing an overview of the current state of European institutional development, 

this article has examined how Brexit has fundamentally altered the concept of EU membership. 

The long-term implications of this transformation are uncertain. While further crises could lead 

to a negative politicization of the EU in the aftermath of Brexit, there is also potential for 

positive change. Strategies such as addressing the democratic deficit within the European 

Union, promoting differentiated integration in specific sectors to overcome any situations of 

paralysis, and striving to counter the ideological forces that precipitated the referendum could 

all be effective. Future research will need to explore the feasibility and consequences of such 

an approach in more detail. 

  



43                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
REFERENCES 

Bauer, Michael, and Jarle Trondal, eds. 2015. The Palgrave Handbook of the European 

Administrative System. Palgrave Macmillan London. 

Biermann, Felix, and Stefan Jagdhuber. 2022. “Take It and Leave It! A Postfunctionalist 

Bargaining Approach to the Brexit Negotiations.” West European Politics 45 (4): 

793–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2021.1901039. 

Bisciari, Patrick, Paxil Butzen, Wouter Gelade, Wim Melyn, and S. Van Parys. 2021. “The 

EU budget and the Next Generation EU Recovery Plan: A Game Changer.” NBB 

Economic Review (September): 29–67. 

https://www.nbb.be/doc/ts/publications/economicreview/2021/ecorevii2021_h2.pdf. 

Blockmans, Steven, Dylan Macchiarini Crosson, and Zachary Paikin. 2022. “The EU's 

Strategic Compass: A Guide to Reverse Strategic Shrinkage?” CEPS Policy Insight No. 

2022–14 (March): 1–9. https://cdn.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/CEPS-

PI2022-14_EU-Strategic-Compass.pdf. 

Bojar, Abel, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2023. “Policymaking in the EU under Crisis Conditions: 

Covid and Refugee Crises Compared.” Comparative European Politics 21 (4): 427–47. 

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00349-1. 

Börzel, Tanja A. 2005. “Mind the Gap! European Integration between Level and Scope.” 

Journal of European Public Policy 12 (2): 217–36. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500043860. 

———. 2016. “From EU Governance of Crisis to Crisis of EU Governance: Regulatory 

Failure, Redistributive Conflict and Eurosceptic Publics.” Journal of Common Market 

Studies 54 (S1): 8–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12431. 

Cameron, David. 2013. “EU Speech at Bloomberg.” London, January 23, 2013. Accessed 

November 11, 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-

bloomberg.  

———. 2015. “PM Letter to President of the European Council Donald Tusk.” November 10, 

2015. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80ce4440f0b62305b8d3f4/Donald_T

usk_letter.pdf. 

Chopin, Thierry, and Christian Lequesne. 2021. “Disintegration Reversed: Brexit and the 

Cohesiveness of the EU27.” Journal of Contemporary European Studies 29 (3): 119–

131. https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2020.1714560. 

Codogno, Lorenzo, and Paul van den Noord. 2022. “Assessing Next Generation EU.” In 

Economic Challenges for Europe After the Pandemic, edited by Luigi Paganetto, 59–

82. Springer International Publishing.  

Council of the European Union. 2022. A Strategic Compass for Security and Defence. 

7371/22. Brussels, March 21, 2022. 

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7371-2022-INIT/en/pdf.  

Danzman, Sarah, and Sophie Meunier. 2024. “The EU’s Geoeconomic Turn: From Policy 

Laggard to Institutional Innovator.” Journal of Common Market Studies 62 (4): 1097–

1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13599. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg


44                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Eppler, Annegret, Lisa H. Anders, and Thomas Tuntschew. 2016. “Europe’s Political, Social, 

and Economic (Dis-)Integration: Revisiting the Elephant in Times of Crises.” Political 

Science Series Working Paper No. 143. Institute for Advanced Studies. 

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/52102/ssoar-2016-

eppler_et_al-

Europes_political_social_and_economic.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ss

oar-2016-eppler_et_al-Europes_political_social_and_economic.pdf. 

European Commission. 2017. Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defence. Accessed 

April 1, 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/172d0a7c-161c-

450b-b7f6-2d36acd7861f_en?filename=reflection-paper-defence_en.pdf. 

———. 2021a. The EU’s 2021–2027 Long-Term Budget and NextGenerationEU. Accessed 

March 13, 2024. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3e77637-

a963-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. 

———. 2021b. “The Recovery and Resilience Facility.” Accessed March 14, 2024. 

https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-

and-resilience-facility_en. 

Fossum, John Erik, and Christopher Lord. 2023. “Introduction to the European Union and 

Brexit.” In Handbook on the European Union and Brexit, edited by John Erik Fossum 

and Christopher Lord, 1–24. Edward Elgar Publishing.  

Glawe, Linda, and Helmut Wagner. 2021. “Convergence, Divergence, or Multiple Steady 

States? New Evidence on the Institutional Development within the European Union.” 

Journal of Comparative Economics 49 (3): 860–84. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2021.01.006. 

Glencross, Andrew. 2021. “Managing Differentiated Disintegration: Insights from 

Comparative Federalism on Post-Brexit EU–UK Relations.” British Journal of 

Politics and International Relations 23 (4): 593–608. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120968516. 

Harrois, Thibaud. 2023. “The Politicisation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy 

(CFSP) in the British Domestic Debate on Brexit: A Challenge to EU-UK Foreign and 

Security Cooperation.” Contemporary British History 37 (4): 656–78. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13619462.2023.2237316. 

Heinisch, Reinhard, Duncan McDonnell, and Annika Werner. 2021. “Equivocal 

Euroscepticism: How Populist Radical Right Parties Can Have Their EU Cake and Eat 

It.” Journal of Common Market Studies 59 (2): 189–205. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13055. 

Helwig, Niklas. 2023. “EU Strategic Autonomy after the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: 

Europe’s Capacity to Act in Times of War.” Journal of Common Market Studies 61 (S1): 

57–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13527. 

Hobolt, Sara B. 2016. “Ever Closer or Ever Wider? Public Attitudes towards Further 

Enlargement and Integration in the European Union.” In The European Union: 

Integration and Enlargement, edited by R. Daniel Kelemen, Anand Menon 

and Jonathan Slapin, 22–38. Routledge. 

Hoeffler, Catherine. 2019. “Differentiated Integration in CSDP Through Defence Market 

Integration.” European Review of International Studies 6 (2): 43–70. 

https://doi.org/10.3224/eris.v6i2.03. 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3e77637-a963-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3e77637-a963-11eb-9585-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en
https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en


45                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Hoekman, Bernard. 2007. “Regionalism and Development: The European Neighborhood 

Policy and Integration à la Carte.” The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 

1 (1): 1-55. 

Holzinger, Katharina, and Jale Tosun. 2019. “Why Differentiated Integration Is Such a 

Common Practice in Europe: A Rational Explanation.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 

31 (4): 642-659. 

Hooghe, Liesbet, and Gary Marks. 2009. “A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: 

From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus.” British Journal of Political 

Science 39 (1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000409. 

Houdé, Anneke, and Ramses A Wessel. 2022. “A Common Security and Defence Policy: 

Limits to Differentiated Integration in PESCO?” European Papers 7 (3): 1325–56. 

https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/614. 

Howorth, Jolyon. 2017. “EU Defence Cooperation after Brexit: What Role for the UK in the 

Future EU Defence Arrangements?” European View 16 (2): 191–200. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12290-017-0455-5. 

Joseph, Jonathan, and Ana E Juncos. 2024. “Conceptual Politics and Resilience-at-Work in 

the European Union.” Review of International Studies 50 (2): 373–92. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210523000463. 

Kendrick, Maria. 2023. “Brexit the Ultimate Opt-Out: Learning the Lessons on Differentiated 

Integration.” European Papers 7 (3): 1211–27. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-

8249/608. 

Klose, Stephan, Elie Perot, and Sevgi Temizisler. 2023. “Spot the Difference: Differentiated 

Co‐operation and Differentiated Integration in the European Union.” Journal of 

Common Market Studies 61 (1): 259–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13370. 

Koenig, Nicole. 2022. “Putin’s War and the Strategic Compass: A Quantum Leap for the EU’s 

Security and Defence Policy?” Hertie School, Jacques Delors Centre. 

https://www.delorscentre.eu/fileadmin/2_Research/1_About_our_research/2_Researc

h_centres/6_Jacques_Delors_Centre/Publications/20220428_Koenig_StrategicCompa

ss.pdf.  

Le Monde. 2024. “Ukraine allies France, Poland and Germany to tighten ties.” February 12, 

2024. Accessed March 30, 2024. 

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/02/12/ukraine-allies-france-

poland-and-germany-to-tighten-ties_6518926_4.html. 

Leruth, Benjamin, Stefan Gänzle, and Jarle Trondal. 2019a. “Exploring Differentiated 

Disintegration in a Post‐Brexit European Union.” Journal of Common Market Studies 

57 (5): 1013–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12869. 

———. 2019b. “Differentiated integration and disintegration in the EU after Brexit: Risks 

versus opportunities.” Journal of Common Market Studies 57 (6): 1383-1394. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12957. 

Leruth, Benjamin, Stefan Gänzle, and Jarle Trondal. 2022. “Introduction: Differentiation in 

the European Union as a Field of Study.” In The Routledge Handbook of Differentiation 

in the European Union, edited by Benjamin Leruth, Stefan Gänzle and Jarle Trondal, 

1–16. Routledge. 

https://www.delorscentre.eu/fileadmin/2_Research/1_About_our_research/2_Research_centres/6_Jacques_Delors_Centre/Publications/20220428_Koenig_StrategicCompass.pdf
https://www.delorscentre.eu/fileadmin/2_Research/1_About_our_research/2_Research_centres/6_Jacques_Delors_Centre/Publications/20220428_Koenig_StrategicCompass.pdf
https://www.delorscentre.eu/fileadmin/2_Research/1_About_our_research/2_Research_centres/6_Jacques_Delors_Centre/Publications/20220428_Koenig_StrategicCompass.pdf


46                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Martill, Benjamin. 2021. “Unity over Diversity? The Politics of Differentiated Integration 

after Brexit.” Journal of European Integration 43 (8): 973–88. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.1877285. 

Martill, Benjamin, and Monika Sus. 2022. “With or Without EU: Differentiated Integration 

and the Politics of Post-Brexit EU-UK Security Collaboration.” European Papers 7 (3): 

1287–1302. https://doi.org/10.15166/2499-8249/611. 

Matthijs, Matthias, Craig Parsons, and Christina Toenshoff. 2019. “Ever Tighter Union? 

Brexit, Grexit, and Frustrated Differentiation in the Single Market and Eurozone.” 

Comparative European Politics 17 (2): 209–30. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-

00165-6. 

Michel, Ellie. 2020. “The Politics of Differentiated Integration: What Do Governments 

Want? Country Report–France.” Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies 

Research Paper No. RSCAS 2020/94. Accessed June 14, 2025. 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3783241#. 

Niemann, Arne. 2021. “Neofunctionalism.” In The Palgrave Handbook of EU Crises, edited 

by Marianne Riddervold, Jarle Trondal, and Akasemi Newsome, 115–33. Springer 

International Publishing.  

Niemann, Arne, Geoffrey Edwards, and Pia Jakobi. 2020. “Still Not Yet Obsolete? A 

Neofunctionalist Account of Brexit.” Mainz Papers on International and European 

Politics (MPIEP) No. 25, 1–19. Chair of International Relations, Johannes Gutenberg 

University. https://internationale.politik.uni-mainz.de/files/2023/06/G1_Niemann-A.-

Edwards-E.-and-Jakobi-P.-2021-Still-Not-Yet-Obsolete-A-Neofunctionalist-Account-

of-Brexit.pdf. 

Orlando, Vittorio. 2022. “Post-Truth Politics, Brexit, and European Disintegration.” In Europe 

in the Age of Post-Truth Politics: Populism, Disinformation and the Public Sphere, 

edited by Maximilian Conrad, Guðmundur Hálfdanarson, Asimina Michailidou, 

Charlotte Galpin, and Niko Pyrhönen, 103–27. Springer International Publishing.  

Orlando, Vittorio, and Maximilian Conrad. 2024. “Reinforcing or Moderating? The Impact of 

Brexit on Italian and German Euroscepticism.” Frontiers in Political Science no. 6, 1–

11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2024.1063039. 

Patberg, Markus. 2017. “A Systematic Justification for the EU’s Pouvoir Constituant Mixte: 

Principles of Constitutional Politics in Supranational Polities.” European Law Journal: 

Review of European Law in Context 23 (6): 441–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12262. 

———. 2020. “Can Disintegration Be Democratic? The European Union Between 

Legitimate Change and Regression.” Political Studies 68 (3): 582–99. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719870431. 

Pilati, Marta, and Francesco De Angelis. 2020. “Differentiated Integration in the EMU: Impact 

on Policy Effectiveness and Political Unity.” EU Integration and Differentiation for 

Effectiveness and Accountability Policy Papers No. 2, 1–40. https://epc-web-

s3.s3.amazonaws.com/content/PDF/2020/EU_IDEA-_differentiated_integration.pdf. 

Posaner, Joshua., Laura Kayali and Jon Stone. 2023. “UK’s Labour Would Target Defense 

‘Pact’ with EU.” Politico, December 7, 2023. Accessed March 24, 2024. 

https://www.politico.eu/article/labour-targets-defense-security-pact-eu-if-wins-

general-election-uk-2024-sunak/. 

https://internationale.politik.uni-mainz.de/files/2023/06/G1_Niemann-A.-Edwards-E.-and-Jakobi-P.-2021-Still-Not-Yet-Obsolete-A-Neofunctionalist-Account-of-Brexit.pdf
https://internationale.politik.uni-mainz.de/files/2023/06/G1_Niemann-A.-Edwards-E.-and-Jakobi-P.-2021-Still-Not-Yet-Obsolete-A-Neofunctionalist-Account-of-Brexit.pdf
https://internationale.politik.uni-mainz.de/files/2023/06/G1_Niemann-A.-Edwards-E.-and-Jakobi-P.-2021-Still-Not-Yet-Obsolete-A-Neofunctionalist-Account-of-Brexit.pdf


47                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Raudla, Ringa, and Aneta Spendzharova. 2022. “Challenges to the European Single Market at 

Thirty: Renationalisation, Resilience, or Renewed Integration?” Journal of European 

Integration 44 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2021.2011263. 

Rieker, Pernille, and Mathilde T. E Giske. 2024. European Actorness in a Shifting Geopolitical 

Order: European Strategic Autonomy Through Differentiated Integration. Springer 

Nature. 

Rosamond, Ben. 2016. “Brexit and the Problem of European Disintegration Brexit and the 

Problem of European Disintegration.” Journal of Contemporary European Research 

12 (4): 865–871. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v12i4.807. 

Schade, Daniel. 2021. “Untying the Knot: Brexit and Administrative Disintegration in CFSP 

and CSDP Structures.” Politique Européenne 70 (4): 18–39. 

https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.070.0018. 

Schilin, Alexander. 2023. “EU or Euro Area Crisis? Studying Differentiated Integration as 

an Idea Structuring Elite Perceptions of the Sovereign Debt and the COVID-19 

Crisis.” Journal of European Integration 46 (1): 47–68. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2023.2220894. 

Schmidt, Vivien A. 2019. “The Future of Differentiated Integration: A ‘Soft-Core,’ Multi-

Clustered Europe of Overlapping Policy Communities.” Comparative European 

Politics 17 (2): 294–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-019-00164-7. 

Schmitter, Philippe C, and Zoe Lefkofridi. 2016. “Neo-Functionalism as a Theory of 

Disintegration.” Chinese Political Science Review no. 1, 1–29. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-016-0012-4. 

Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2021. “Brexit: Differentiated Disintegration in the European Union.” 

In The Politics and Economics of Brexit, edited by Simon Bulmer and Lucia Quaglia, 

66–85. Routledge. 

Schimmelfennig, Frank, Dirk Leuffen, and Catherine E De Vries. 2023. “Differentiated 

Integration in the European Union: Institutional Effects, Public Opinion, and 

Alternative Flexibility Arrangements.” European Union Politics 24 (1): 3–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165221119083. 

Schimmelfennig, Frank, Dirk Leuffen, and Berthold Rittberger. 2015. “The European Union 

as a System of Differentiated Integration: Interdependence, Politicization and 

Differentiation.” Journal of European Public Policy 22 (6): 764–82. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2015.1020835. 

Schimmelfennig, Frank, and Thomas Winzen. “Grand Theories, Differentiated Integration.” 

2019. Journal of European Public Policy 26 (8): 1172–92. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1576761. 

Svendsen, Øyvind. 2019. “Brexit and the Future of EU Defence: A Practice Approach to 

Differentiated Defence Integration.” Journal of European Integration 41 (8): 993–

1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2019.1622540. 

Tarlea, Silvana, Stefanie Bailer, Zdenek Kudrna, and Fabio Wasserfallen. 2024. “Executive 

Power in European Union Politics.” Governance 37 (1): 161–78. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12761. 

 

https://doi.org/10.3917/poeu.070.0018


48                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Vanhercke, Bart, Amy Verdun, Angelina Atanasova, Slavina Spasova, and Malcolm Thomson. 

2021. “From the European Semester to the Recovery and Resilience Facility. Some 

Social Actors Are (Not) Resurfacing.” European Semester to the Recovery and 

Resilience Facility Working Paper No. 13. European Trade Union Institute. 

https://www.etui.org/sites/default/files/2021-

11/From%20the%20European%20Semester%20to%20the%20Recovery%20and%20

Resilience%20Facility_Some%20social%20actors%20are%20not%20resurfacing_20

21.pdf. 

Walter, Stefanie. 2021. “EU‐27 Public Opinion on Brexit.” Journal of Common Market Studies 

59 (3): 569–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13107. 

Von der Leyen, Ursula. 2019. “Speech by President-Elect von Der Leyen in the European 

Parliament Plenary on the Occasion of the Presentation of Her College of 

Commissioners and Their Programme.” Strasbourg, November 26, 2019. Accessed 

June 14, 2025. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_19_6408. 

Zeitlin, Jonathan, Francesco Nicoli, and Brigid Laffan. 2019. “Introduction: The European 

Union beyond the Polycrisis? Integration and Politicization in an Age of Shifting 

Cleavages.” Journal of European Public Policy 26 (7): 963–76. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1619803. 

  



49                                                                    Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies, 18(1) 2025: 26-49

                                                           ISSN 2562-8429   
 
Published by the Centre for European Studies at Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada 

Available online at: https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index 

 

The Canadian Journal of European and Russian Studies (CJERS – formerly Review of 

European and Russian Affairs) is an open-access electronic academic peer-reviewed journal: 

articles are subject to double-blind peer-review. Topics relate to the European Union, its 

Member States, the former Soviet Union, and Central and Eastern Europe. The journal is 

published by the Centre for European Studies, an associated unit of the Institute of European, 

Russian and Eurasian Studies at Carleton University. 

CJERS aims to provide an accessible forum for the promotion and dissemination of high-

quality research and scholarship.  

 

Contact: 

Carleton University 

The Centre for European Studies 

1103 Dunton Tower 

1125 Colonel By Drive 

Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 

Canada 

E-mail: CJERS@carleton.ca 

 

Creative Commons License 

 

 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 

 

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivs 4.0 

Unported License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).  Articles appearing in this publication may be freely 

quoted and reproduced, in unadapted form only, provided the source is acknowledged. We 

request that for any online postings, you do so by providing the title and/or abstract with the 

DOI link back to the original version of the article on the journal's website. 

ISSN: 2562-8429 

 

© 2025 The Author(s) 

 

https://ojs.library.carleton.ca/index.php/CJERS/index
mailto:CJERS@carleton.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

