The phrase "an ever closer union" has followed EU since the Treaty of Rome. It is vague, but it indicates a commitment to more and more integration, i.e. ceding powers from the member states to a central coordination authority. Such a vision is very polarizing, some like it while others want to leave EU or stay outside of it.
The aim of Eu should not be integration per se. It should be integration enough to supplement the local, regional and national level where it is needed.
Of course there is seldom an objective way to decide where integration is needed and will give an added value. That will have to be discussed, and it is very important that both federalists, eurosceptics and others take part in the discussion.
There are many areas where integration might, but perhaps will not give added value. Example number one is the euro. Another is regulation of personal religious symbols in the public room. Should this be done at union, national or local level ? Or not at all ? And what about climate change, which is used as an argument for more integration. Climate change is a very complex issue, and it is questionable if it is a problem at all.
So instead of working for an ever closer union it would be wise to remember how Jean Monnet initiated the European integration process. To get France and Germany to cooperate instead of making wars, he looked after an area where they had a common interest and where integration would give each of them a gain. This was not an easy task. He struggled with the problem while walking in the mountains without getting the answer. A bit later he understood that the integration of coal and steel would be helpful for both countries. He then presented his idea to the authorities in each country and they accepted it.
The implementation of the European Coal and Steel Community was problematic, but the idea that ceding powers to a common authority in areas where it can give the participants added value survived. It should not be killed by integration unlimited.
