Mobilising enormous resources in crisis through the EU?

In the excerpts below from the 2015 book the assumption that the EU cannot respond to crisis is challenged. The fact that European leaders were ready to guarantee the euro on an enormous level (500 billion euros) is a case in point. But there are also areas where the perception of joint interest has been much weaker. In the last years seven legislative proposals related to migration have been prepared by the European Commission. But none of them have passed the Council and the EU Parliament. A very serious question for the future is whether in the next decade a crisis will occur which will lead to the mobilisation of unprecedented joint resources also for defence - far beyond what the EDF (the European Defence Fund) may contain. 

Swift EU reaction to crisis

European action after 9/11 challenged the view that the EU is a slow-reacting bureaucracy, unable to respond to new requirements.

As was also proven later, during the financial crisis from 2008, the European Council swiftly adopted a cross-institutional terrorism action plan comprising 69 points. The European institutions were closely examined to see what was already going on and what could be brought forward as potential European contributions to the fight against terrorism.[1]
One can therefore expect that if there is another major attack in the EU area or seriously affecting the Union, the attention to these issues will rise to the top of the agenda and questions will be asked about how the 9/11, Madrid and London attacks were followed up on the EU level.
This development on the one hand illustrates the importance of crisis to catalyse European integration.
On the other hand it continues to illustrate that, very soon after or even during a crisis, senses are dulled and resistance to change starts to build up.

 - - - 
Crisis as a catalyst for new forms of EU cooperation

Crises may break new ground in terms of perceived needs for cooperation on the EU level.
Some of these forms of cooperation are very sensitive, touching on the domestic political debate about subsidiarity. A case in point is consular cooperation.
The consequences of globalization are likely to stretch the limits of what is perceived to be acceptable in this regard, notably in areas such as health security related to pandemics, etc.

[1] European Commission, ‘EU Plan of Action on Combating Terrorism (revised)’,  10010/3/04, 2004, ; J Wouters, & F Naert, ‘Of Arrest Warrants, Terrorist Offences and Extradition Deals
An Appraisal of the EU’s Main Criminal Law Measures against Terrorism after ‘11 September’’, 2004, ; de Vries, G ‘The European Union’s role in the fight against terrorism’, Irish studies in international affairs  16, no. 1, 2005, pp. 3-9; Bossong, R ‘The action plan on combating terrorism: a flawed instrument of EU security governance’, JCMS: journal of common market studies  46, no. 1, 2008, pp. 27-48.

[2]  see EEAS, ‘EEAS Review’, 2013,

[3] Lundin, L-E ‘From A European Security Strategy to a European Global Strategy Strategy:Ten Content-Related Issues’, UI Occasional Papers  11, 2012, ; Lundin, L-E ‘From a European Security Strategy to a European Global Strategy: Take II: Policy options’, UI Occasional Papers  13, 2013,

[4]  Views expressed by several respondents during interviews in EEAS 2012-2013