The Europe Union has spent much of the last decade engulfed in crisis. Threats to the euro, followed by the migrant crisis and now the ongoing Brexit divorce, have shaken the EU to its core.

Supporters of the 70-year old European project insist it will weather these storms, as it has many others. But according to Dr. Ian Kearns, co-founder of the European Leadership Network, a coalition of European leaders working to build better security for the continent, the union remains in serious trouble. In his new book Collapse: Europe after the European Union, he warns that if it doesn’t reform itself, the EU itself is doomed.

One of the main arguments you make is that Europe is far more fragile than many realize. But economically it looks to be back to health, and with new leadership coming from France under Emmanuel Macron. So why are you so pessimistic about the EU’s future?

I’d start by saying that assertions by European leaders that economic conditions are good are frankly insulting to the tens of millions of Europeans with insecure employment. Europe’s economic situation is not good, beyond the headline figure of GDP growth rate — which is in any case not strong. In Europe’s south, there is huge youth unemployment providing the context for populism — such as in Italy, where areas with the highest unemployment saw votes of over 50% for the [Eurosceptic] Five Star Movement.

The other reason that the EU is so fragile is that the Europeans can’t agree on how to handle anything, from the migration crisis, the challenge from Russia, to whether a fiscal union is needed to save the euro when the next crisis comes. Theoretical solutions to these problems, such as fiscal union and mutualization of debt, are not politically viable in today’s Europe because of political paralysis. In fact, it’s a European disunion at the moment.

So what scenarios could actually lead to the EU’s collapse?

A highly plausible trigger for the EU’s collapse is a decision by Erdogan to switch on the flow of migrants through Turkey to Europe. Instead of a Europe without borders, you’d see a Europe of border fences, searchlights, and armed guards. This would provide a huge boost for Eurosceptic populists, as we saw in the 2015 migrant crisis when there was a five- to six-point boost to the Leave vote in Brexit.

There are other scenarios, such as a new recession that exposes the weakness of the euro’s architecture, or a populist breakthrough, such as is now happening in Italy.

Many people would ask: If the EU were to collapse, what would be the disaster? Are European countries not able to manage on their own, or do they need babysitting by Brussels?

I’m a passionate pro-European, and I think that the unfolding of the EU would be a catastrophe. That’s because unraveling the single currency would be an unmanaged rout driven by the markets. There would be huge capital flight from a country about to exit the euro; the government wouldn’t be able to borrow. What would follow would be a depression, because the payment system would stop working, and there’d be a collapse in European trade. The chaos would fuel a politics of scapegoating across Europe, blaming other countries and immigrants.

In that scenario, it’s not plausible that NATO would survive. Countries putting up borders and engaging in trade wars with each other won’t honor Article 5 of the collective defense treaty. That will be understood in Moscow, and you’ll get a much more assertive Russia in Eastern Europe.

What groupings would a post-EU Europe resolve itself into?

Well, Europe would go back to looking much like the old balance of power that used to exist. You’ll have the UK off the northwest coast of Europe, Germany in the center with a number of central European countries staying close to it, perhaps in a Deutschmark zone. France may try to lead a “Club Med” of southern European states, although there’s no evidence they could make that work. You’d have Russia in the East, Turkey in the southeast, and a contested space in the Balkans. If you add nationalist politics into the mix, it’s easy to see how things could get tense.

If the most plausible trigger for an EU meltdown is the euro plus political deadlock, what is the solution?

The one thing that we need to do is remove the straitjacket of attempting a fiscal union and replace the budget deficit limits that currently exist with a new treaty. This would give national governments a real chance to set economic policy without having to be signed off by eurozone leaders, with an obligation to trim spending when growth returns to prevent long-term deficits.

By reducing the power of Brussels, we would reopen up the space for real difference between center-left and center-right parties in Europe. The left could advocate for increased spending on education, health, and pensions. That would reignite the economic debate in the mainstream, and would stop the populists being able to portray themselves as the only people with an alternative.

At the end of the day, the EU is seen as undemocratic, because policy is set from a distance by unelected bureaucrats. What is the answer to that image problem?

If we give power back to national levels, as I’ve said, then that becomes much less of a problem. That means most importantly on a fiscal level, but also a general sense that if something can be done at a national level, it should be, and not at a European Union level. That is crucial for trying to save the EU. People who are trying to centralize power in Brussels are going to destroy the project.

How does Europe deal with a resurgent Russia? Should it have an EU army, and will that happen?

There’s no prospect of a European army. That’s because some countries, such as the UK and France, are serious military powers. Others, such as Ireland and Finland, have a history of neutrality. Some countries have carried out military interventions and others don’t. An EU army would be undeployable because of these differences.

Europe can’t rely on Trump; it needs to take responsibility for its own defense, but that can only happen through smaller multilateral groups agreeing to do more together. The core of that has to be the UK and France, and the question is who else can contribute.

A bold prediction: Will the EU still be around in 10 years?

I think that there’s about a 75% chance that the EU will disappear in that time if it’s not fundamentally reformed and decentralized. It’s not what I want to see, but the situation is far more precarious than people give it credit for. I frankly have little confidence in the EU leadership. They didn’t see the euro crisis coming, and mismanaged it when it did. They don’t understand why the populists are snapping at their heels. The EU will be overwhelmed if it doesn’t change direction.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 727)