Zander framed his analysis around the concept of permacrisis: a condition in which crises are no longer exceptional events but a permanent feature of political life. Since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009, the EU has moved from one major challenge to another, including financial instability, migration pressures, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and growing geopolitical uncertainty. While the Union has repeatedly managed these crises through improvised and legally innovative measures, Zander argued that these responses have prioritised short-term stability over long-term structural reform.
This pattern, he suggested, has exposed limits of the current treaty framework. For some time, the EU has been speaking of achieving strategic autonomy, understood as the capacity to act independently in areas such as the economy, security, and foreign policy. Yet Zander stressed that this ambition cannot be realised through temporary crisis tools alone. Instead, it demands a more fundamental rethinking of the Union’s legal and political foundations.
His analysis centred on three areas where the treaties no longer meet contemporary realities: democratic values, economic governance, and defence.
First, Zander highlighted a core constitutional tension. Although democracy, the rule of law, and human rights are embedded in the EU’s founding treaties, the Union has struggled to respond effectively when Member States move away from these principles. Existing mechanisms, such as procedures to suspend voting rights or restrict access to EU funds, remain politically sensitive and difficult to enforce. The result, Zander argued, is a troubling contradiction: the EU presents itself as a community of values, yet lacks robust tools to act when those values are persistently undermined from within.
To address this, he proposed introducing a formal mechanism allowing for the expulsion of Member States in cases of serious and sustained violations. Such a process would combine legal assessment with political judgement and would be grounded in the same criteria countries must meet when joining the Union. Without credible consequences for democratic backsliding, Zander warned, the EU risks weakening its own constitutional identity.
Second, he turned to the euro and the EU’s economic architecture. The eurozone crisis exposed design flaws in the monetary union, prompting a series of emergency solutions outside the standard treaty framework. While these measures helped mitigate the most acute situation, they also increased complexity and legal uncertainty. For Zander, lasting monetary stability requires a genuine fiscal union, meaning closer coordination over taxation, spending, and borrowing at EU level, alongside stronger central budgetary powers and enforceable fiscal rules. Without this, the Union remains vulnerable to future shocks and dependent on ad hoc fixes.
Finally, Zander addressed European defence. In today’s altered geopolitical landscape, he argued, a system in which defence remains largely national is no longer sufficient. If the EU is serious about acting independently and credibly on the global stage, defence must become more integrated, with clearer legal structures and stronger democratic oversight.
Zander closed on a reflective note, acknowledging the political difficulty of such reforms: “Is this realistic at all? I don’t know.” Still, he urged the audience to focus on what is necessary rather than what appears immediately feasible. Inviting reflection on the EU’s identity and future direction, he argued that the Union should aspire to be sovereign, value-driven, and democratically accountable. Ultimately, he suggested, change begins with sustained discussion, making open debate the first step towards shaping Europe’s future.