A more polarized Europe

When 26 of 28 members of the European Council on Friday proposed Mr. Juncker for the post as new commission president, they were paving the way for a more federalized Europe. First they accepted the Spitzenkandidat-system, which implies a ceding of power from the European Council to the parliament. Then they put forward a candidate well known as a federalist.

The selection of  Mr. Juncker was not a surprise. As an experienced eurocrat and leader of the Eurogroup during the eurozone crisis, he will probably serve the europhile mainstream parties well. Yes, there will be reforms. But not the ones PM Cameron advocated. What will emerge is primarily a more integrated eurozone Europe. This is considered necessary to avoid more economic disaster. The countries outside the eurozone will then have to do some adaptions. And the integration will probably also continue in areas like foreign policy, where Germany now presses for more uniform policies, and energy.

After PM Camerons defeat a more modest or reversed integration seems unlikely. There might of course be some minor concessions to please Mr. Cameron and the sceptics, but the march towards an ever closer union will continue.

The inevitable consequence of this development is a more polarized Europe. More people within the union will be asking for the exit, and in the countries outside - like Norway - the anti-EU sentiments will prevail and perhaps be enhanced.

June 27 2014 might be remembered as an unfortunate milestone in the European integration project.

Content is here - names remain

The conclusion from the Harpsund-meeting was as we remember "First content, then names". Now President Van Rompuy has made a four pages content-proposal for EU priorities in the coming years. Second draft. It is called a "strategic agenda for the Union in times of change" and will be submitted to the European Council meeting June 26-27.

Van Rompuy  has written the proposal after consulting with member states.  Therefore the editorial line has been the lowest common denominator. The document mentions many of the challenges EU have to handle, but the formulations are vague. They are also toned down compared to a first draft. So if it is adopted, everyone can probably say that their political priorities are taken care of.

May be the text will be altered a bit, but it will not be an easy task for the Council to make the political priorities more concrete and binding - or give them a more reform like look.

In this situation "the names" in the top jobs will be important. The president of the Commission will have great opportunities to influence how the vague strategy document will be implemented. Mr. Juncker may be a very good politician for implementing a pro-integration policy, but probably not for implementing a reform agenda.

"The Juncker battle" concerns both a battle over the distribution of competences between the Parliament and the European Council and over competences between the EU and the member states. Even if a majority in the Parliament want Juncker, it is up to the Council to put forward their candidate for Commission president. And the Council are also an institution which represent the member states, and therefore have a legitimate voice concerning the political profile of the Commission.

Mr. Cameron has to fight on. He is right to if necessary demand a vote in the Council. If he loses this battle, the reform process might be dead and exit the only option left..

Interesting EU-week ahead

 
This week will give more insight in what will be the political configuration of the EU institutions for the next five years. On Tuesday the new parliament groups will be adopted, and from Thursday to Friday The European Council will meet and perhaps put forward their candidate for Commission president.

If a qualified majority in the Council choose to support Mr. Juncker - who for PM Cameron seems to have become a symbol of integration unlimited - it will possibly undermine the belief that a reform process can be  carried out. That might provide increased support to those who want to leave the Union in UK and in other member countries.

Or  will the Council in one way or another follow up the conclusion from the mini-meeting at Harpsund earlier this month: First content, then names ?

The coming week will be interesting, but it can also be important for the Unions further development.

Will Le Pen succeed to form a group ?

GUE/NGL, S&S, Greens/EFA, EPP, ALDE, ECR and EFD have succeeded in forming groups for the next parliament period. But what about Le Pen and Wilders ? Will they be able to present a European Alliance of Freedom group (EAF) ? Even if Wilders PVV-party did not meet the expectations in the European elections, they probably have the necessary 25 seats. But to get aboard MEPs from 5 other member countries may be more difficult. Especially after Nigel Farage succeeded in getting some potential EAF members to his Europe of Freedom and Democracy group (EFD).

There are just a couple of days left to obtain the necessary members. The groups have to be ready before the July 24. MEPs not belonging to a group - non-attached MEPs - have less opportunities for political influence than groups. To continue as non-attached will of course be a disappointment especially for Le Pen, who was the European elections winner in France.

There have not been so many reports of the efforts to form a EFD-group. But Arutz Sheva had an artcle two days ago, where they could tell that Le Pen was expected to soon announce the formation of a group. According to a source she was close to rallying support of MEPs from Poland and Bulgaria, as well as the four other parties she had gathered so far.

            Tuesday next week we will know if the sources were right.

UK - a necessary voice in the EU

The relations between UK and the EU have always been difficult, and to day there is a very emotional discussion of British membership. PM Cameron have promised an in-out referendum in 2017 if he is re-elected next year and the UK Independent Party received the most votes in the European elections in May.

PM Cameron claims the EU need to change the course and have presented a reform agenda. His ambition is to get enough reforms to satisfy the British sceptics before the referendum and thus ensuring a  continued membership. The opponents either say his referendum is dangerous for UK, because a British exit  will create serious problems for the economy, or argues that it is impossible to get reforms that make a real difference - the whole reform process is only political theater.

The arguments concerning the economy seems to be exaggerated. Neither Norway or Switzerland have ever been a member of the EU, but are nevertheless countries with good economies. Instead of membership both have entered into agreements with EU, Switzerland have made separate agreements and Norway participates in the EEA together with Iceland and Lichtenstein. The question about real reforms are possible to achieve is more difficult to contradict. There are no examples of reversed EU-integration in the showroom. But is that because reforms are impossible ?

EU is about politics and power. To get reforms you need power. And power have many elements: you need politicians to present reform arguments and argue against an ever closer union conformists, you need so many reform votes and -voices as possible in the EU institutions  and you need an engaged public to follow and influence the political processes. UK exit would be a great loss for EU and for Europe. It would mean a faster and smoother, but not better integration process.

The UK is no loner with its reform requirements. Also others want changes, as the Harpsund-meeting showed. But it is difficult to imagine that anyone can replace UK.

European Parliament - integration of the sceptics

The European elections brought sceptics to about 20 % of the seats in the parliament. They represent a conglomerate of interests and opinions. Their ability to cooperate will be important for political influence.

In the parliament political relatives form groups. Groups get substantial administrative support, speaking time, attendence of meetings of political group leaders, and a quota of seats in committees. Non-attached MEPs  do not have the same benefits. A group must have minimum 25 members and at least one-quarter of the member states must be represented. From 2009-2013 there were 7 groups and some non-attached MEPs (either because they did not wanted to be members of the existing groups or because the groups would not let them in).

Two of the groups consisted of more or less sceptical representatives. European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is a conservative, anti-federalist and moderately sceptic group. The largest parties in the group have been the Conservative Party of the UK and Law and Justice of Poland. The other group is Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD). It´s more sceptic. The largest of the ten political parties here is UK Indepence Party (UKIP). After the elections there is a third even more sceptic group afoot - European Alliance for Freedom. This is a group proposed by the pan-European right wing political party with the same name.

Until 1 of July, when the parliament will start a plenary session, there will be a lot of bargaining and discussions between the new MEPs. It is impossible to predict the result and what kind of groups and non-attached members the new parliament will consist of. But there is a paradox, of which perhaps Jean Monnet would have smiled a little, that also the sceptics must try to form alliances and integration in groups to get more power to slow the European integration.

Inconvenient referendum - Swiss participation in EU programmes suspended

The EU don´t like referendums. They might bring unwanted results, which can slow or threaten the integration process. In February a Swiss referendum did just that, capping the migration from EU countries. The Commission said quotas would contradict a EU-Swiss agreement on freedom of movement, an then suspended Switzerlands participation in two EU programmes - Horizon 2020 and Erasmus - which are linked to the agreement.

The suspension was no surprise. EU could not accept such disobedience. It would undermine one of the pillars of the internal market and might also inspire eurosceptics within member countries. The problems of free migration between countries with different economies are not only experienced in Switzerland.

Now EUobserver can tell that the Swiss are eyeing research money despite the referendum.One argument is that cutting funding for research and education programmes is hitting the wrong people. Students and academics were not in favour of capping freedom of movement.Switzerland has also been paying into crossborder projects like Iter, and it might stop when cut out of Horizon 2020.

Just a few days ago, in Harpsund, PM Cameron mentioned the necessity of reforming the migration rules. It will be interesting to follow the development in EU-Swiss relations. 

New Commission: First content, then names

Harpsund

The main conclusion from the Harpsund meeting was very clear: First content, then names. For the moment this is the strategy for handling two important processes in the EU: the reform process and appointment of the next commission president. The processes are interwoven and have been running quite long already. Both of them concerns EUs political profile. But they are also affected by the power struggle between the parliament and the European Council.

The situation, which reflects EUs institutional power balance,  is very difficult to handle. While there seems to be wide agreement on some reforms (like deepening of the internal market), others are highly controversial (proposals for less integration). Therefore it is necessary first to determine the political priorities, and then propose a commission president which in a credible way can ensure the implementation. And this is exactly what the European Council shall do according to article 15 and 17 in the Lisbon Treaty (TEU).

The two processes will now continue. The next milestone will be the European Council meeting in Brussels 26-27 June.

Harpsund: Prelude to a EU reform process ?

On invitation from Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt, he and the German, Dutch and UK leaders meet yesterday and to day in Harpsund, Sweden to discuss who will be the next commission president. Merkel has publicly supported Jean-Claude Juncker, the others do not want him.

This is a meeting with possible wide implications. It involves a power struggle between the European Parliament and the European Council. Who shall decide ? According to the the Lisbon treaty the European Council shall propose a candidate with a qualified majority. To be accepted the candidate need more than half of the MEP votes. But the meeting has a broader agenda. It concerns the reform process of the EU, choosing of commission president  is only one aspect.

The call for a EU-reform have increased in strength in recent years as the problems have risen. Job creation, institutional changes and structural reforms to boost EU competitiveness are high on the agenda. But should the reform direction be more or less integration ? According to BBC Dutch PM Marc Rutte told reporters before the meeting that it was premature to put forward names for who should replace Barroso as head of the commission. "My belief is that we should first focus on content, discuss what the new commission should do .. then discuss who fits that profile".

So it seems unlikely that the meeting will agree on a candidate to lead the commission. But may be they can come up with some ideas of content and form of a EU reform  process.

Transparency International: EU institutions vulnerable to corruption

Public trust in the EU institutions is historic low, and recent scandals have called into question EU integrity. In a report from April Transparency International (TI) presents status and tries to separate myth from reality. It is alarming news focusing the dark rooms of the EU.

The report finds that there is a good foundation in the EU system to support integrity and ethics; a foundation provided by general policies, rules and practices adopted to prevent fraud and corruption. However, due to loopholes and poor implementation of rules on ethics, transparency and control, corruption risks exist at EU level.

The most urgent of the corruption risks include opacity in EU law-making and in EU-lobbying, poorly managed conflicts of interest, weak protection of EU whistle-blowers, and weak sanctions for corrupt companies.

The report notes the trend of EU institutions to negotiate laws behind closed doors, the so-called trialogue meetings. Here small groups of representatives from Commission, Council and Parliament negotiates.TI calculated that more than 1500 trialogue meetings were held during last term of the EP, and there is no public record of them or of their content.

Similarly, no mandatory rules on lobbying apply at the EU level, and the public remains largely in the dark about how outside interests are influencing EU legislation and those in power.

To seal loopholes and strengthen the implementation of rules on ethics, TI put forward key recommendations to promote a policy of `transparency by default` in EU decision-making, manage effectively conflicts of interests of senior EU decision-makers, put in place effective internal whistle-blowing procedures, improve the EUs debarment system and establish an independent European public prosecutor with broad anti-corruption powers.

.

Reversed integration - mission impossible ?

Some days ago Per Edgar Kokkvold had a comment in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten about the consequences of the European elections. There he wondered how the elites would react. Will they point to the the fact that a big majority in the parliament still want to continue the march of integration, or acknowledge the increasing resistance ? Kokkvold says it would be unwise to dismiss the opposition as extremists and political loons. He argues that the European union now should take a step back, and he thinks it will do that.

Many circumstances support such a prediction. More sceptics in the parliament will influence the politics. How much depends among other things of their ability to cooperate, but the requirement for change will be delivered by a larger chorus. And they have many good arguments which the integrationists have problems to refute (polls showed that UKIPs Nigel Farage won each of the two televised European elections debates with Liberal Democrat and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg). There is eurosceptisism also within the mainstream parties, and after the elections some mainstream politicians  have been eager to highlight the importance of the national level (e.g. Hollande in France). The effects of the euro crisis and migration fuel the dissatification, and the unions goals for growth and employment have proved to be over ambitious.

But the europhiles still have a majority in the parliament. And of course they will use it. The calls for a more modest EU from some main stream politicians are probably platitudes to reduce the appeal of eurosceptic parties.The EU have for several years been committed to the subsidiarity and proportionality principles. However, these principles have not slowed the integration much if anything at all. In the Brussels bubble it is very easy to conclude that almost everything needs a solution at the supranational level. There have also been statements from Barroso and other leaders about the need for a EU that is big on big things and smaller on small things.The next big thing now is a more integrated eurozone to cope with the euro crisis. And the reactions to Mr. Cameron`s reform agenda from Angela Merkel, Wolfgang Schäuble and Vivianne Redding are either lukewarm or negative.

So it is very difficult to predict the development. But somehow, sooner or later, the people in the member states will reject ceding of powers to a supranational level which not deliver and where democracy does not function.

Using EU programmes for political influence

As an EFTA EEA participant Norway is obliged to implement relevant EU laws, but are not allowed to take part in the political processes behind these laws like the EU member countries. To compensate for this democratic deficit, Norway can use many channels, both formal and informal.

One of the tools we can use is the EU-programmes. Norway participate in many of them. The programmes  are instruments for implementing union policies, supplementing the laws. But they are also an opportunity to be informed about political processes in EU and give feedback to the Commission.

One of the  2014-2020 programmes where Norway probably will participate, and can give input to the Commission,  is Creative Europe, the new framework programme supporting culture and media. Possibilities for influence exist, but varies of course from program to program.

An evaluation (Norwegian only) of Norways participation in the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Program (CIP) illustrates and highlights the possibilities for political influence.

CIP consisted of three subprogrammes - ICT, energy and financial help for SMEs. Among other things the evaluator should consider if the Norwegian participation really was used as a channel for influence. An d the conclusion was positive. CIP-participation gave useful exchanges of experiences between Norway and other countries and were and unique opportunity to take part in the development of relevant EU-policies.

Feedback to the Commission from CIP-projects and -initiatives represented an indirect, but important, form of participation in policy development. Both representatives af the Commission and Norwegian national experts told the evaluator that the Commission considers experience-based information as valuable input for policy development, which means that the feedback from projects is important for the Commission. As partners in CIP-projects Norwegian public organisations and private enterprises have participated in deleveloping EU framework for e-trading, tools for innovation and energy saving regulation.

The CIP-programme is now history, but the conclusions from the evaluation will be of interest for new programmes: participation in more projects will give Norway more opportunities for political influence.