The elephant in the room

When the European Council met on 16 July its members had more on the agenda than discussing nominations for the unions top jobs. They also had an exchange of views with the President-elect, Mr. Jean Claude Juncker, and discussed two important topics of foreign relations, Ukraine and Gaza.

The discussion with Mr. Juncker concerned the Strategic Agenda for the Union in times of change, agreed on by the council 27 June 2014. This agenda set out five overarching priorities which will guide the work of the European Union over the next five years:

1. A Union of jobs, growth and competitiveness
2. A Union that empowers and protects all citizens
3. Towards an Energy Union with a forward-looking climate policy
4. A union of freedom, security and justice
5. A Union as a strong global actor

The council wanted to know how Mr. Juncker intends to organize the work to move this stategic agenda forward. According to President Van Rompuy it was a good discussion.

There is no reason to doubt that Mr. Juncker will do his best to achieve the five priorities of the agenda. He intends to revive the Commission as a political impetus, and can use many instruments to streamline the work. A clustering of directorates and commissioners is one of the possibilities which has been mentioned.
 
But there is a big question whether the five priorities are consistent. Is a stronger Euro area governance  compatible with a union that empowers and protects its citizens ? How will emphasis on climate change affect competitiveness ? And what will be the result of greater migration between countries with different economies ?

And little is said of the elephant in the room: an ever closer union. To day the EU have great problems with growth, competitiveness and unemployment. The citizens trust in the union is low and the European elections 2014 reflected a growing euroskepticism. But the Strategic Agenda is just more of the same medicine: integration. In the conclusions from the meeting 16 July the European Council calls on all EU Institutions to concentrate their activities on areas where the Union can make a real difference. Which means the council  have noticed the elephant, but do not really want to talk so much about it.





 

Why top jobs matters

On the 16 July the European Council had a discussion about who will become the next European Council President and EU´s foreign affairs chief, but no nominations were announced. That was not a surprise. The appointments for top jobs in the EU system is of great political importance for the union and its member states.

The persons acting as presidents and commissioners can influence EU´s development along three political dimensions: the power balance between the EU institutions, the degree of continued integration and the political output in different policy areas. These dimensions are also interwoven.

The power balance between the institutions is described in the Treaties, but there will always be room for discretion and interpretations. For some years - during the euro crisis - the European Council and the intergovernmental method of decision making have dominated. Now  the Presidents of the Parliament and  Commission are eager to change the power balance and revive the more federalist Community method of decision making. The acceptance of the spitzenkandidatsystem  and a kind of parliamentarism has strengthened  these endeavors, although the council will have another look at the process for the appointment of the President of the Commission later.

The degree of integration will be influenced in many ways, but the presidents and the commissioners are  important players. This was illustrated when reelected President of the Parliament, Martin Schultz, in a press briefing said that the parliament might block the UK´s commissioner candidate if he was a eurosceptic.

The distribution of top jobs are also important for the politcal output in different policy areas. Even if the commissioners according to the Treaties shall be independent of national authorities, each member state has a commissioner and there is a fight for the jobs which are considered to be most powerful or represent policy areas of special importance for a member state. Member states with common interests can also cooperate to influence the allocation of top jobs, e.g. East European member states opposing an Italian candidate for the post as foreign affairs chief because she is perceived as Russia friendly.

So the appointments to top jobs are about more than the allocation of prestigious positions among European celebrities. The discussions and bargaining will continue and the European Council will meet again 30 August .

Taking into account the resistance ?

After increased support for integration-skeptical parties in the European elections and PM Camerons opposition to put forward Mr Juncker as the European Councils candidate for Commission president, how will pro-europeans in the EU-system react. Will they be more inclined to take into account minority views, or will they be neglecting them ?

Concerning the parliament there is no evidence of possible changes or adaptions. On the contrary, during the parliaments reconstitution session, Mr Martin Schultz was reelected as president in a vote by secret ballot. And the pro-EU groups EEP, S&D and ALDE also blocked the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group from any chair- or vice chairmanship of the committees by a secret ballot. According to d´Hondts method for distribution of seats, a method the parliament normally uses, the EPDD group was entitled to one chairmanship.

The signals from the European Council are a bit more ambiguous. PM Cameron suffered a defeat in his fight against Mr Juncker. An overwhelming majority in the council accepted the parliaments spitzenkandidat-system and supported Mr Junckers bid. But the European Council also said in its conclusions:

"The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.

In these context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those who want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.

Once the new European Commission is effectively in place, the European Council will consider the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission for the future, respecting the European Treaties."

The European Council also agreed a strategic agenda for the union, which includes the following:section:

"In line with the principles of subsidiarity, the Union must concentrate its action on areas where it makes a real difference. It should refrain from taking action when member states can better achieve the same objectives. The credibility of the Union depends on its ability to ensure adequate follow-up on decisions and commitments. This require strong and credible institutions, but will also benefit from a closer involvement of national parliaments. ..." 

Members of the European Council and President van Rompuy have later referred to these formulations, and Mr Juncker has told Euroesceptis in the parliament he is not a federalist.

To summarize: It seems to be some willingness in the European Council to listen to the objections from Euroskeptics, but it is unlikely that the integration will be slowed down or reversed without a strong enough political pressure.  

Norway and EU-reforms

The discussions among political groups and member countries within the European Union about reforms and integration may sound as distant drums for Norwegians, but the conclusions will be shaping important parts of the future also for us.

The EEA-agreement gives Norway access to EUs single market without being a member of the union. It also establishes cooperation in several other ares like protection of environment and consumers, research, education, culture, smb-assistance, tourism and statistics.When the agreement entered into force in 1994, Norway  acquired much EU legislation. After that we have signed several other agreements with the union. To day Norway have all in all acquired about 3/4 of the EU-laws compared with EU-member countries which take part in everything.

Most people will probably be of the opinion that the agreements have served both the EU and Norway well. There have been conflicts between the EU/EEA-rules and Norwegian traditions and policies, but not so many and some of them have also been solved in a way which allows Norway to continue its political course. But our affiliation to the EU represent a democratic deficit. This is because the agreements are largely dynamic - i.e. new EU laws which are relevant shall be incorporated  in the agreements as soon as possible. We have ceded powers to the union without being able to take part in the unions political processes like the member countries. Although we have some possibilities for influence, both directly in the EU-institutions and indirectly in international organizations which deliver premises for EU-politics in various areas, the general impression is that we have outsourced legislative authorithy to the EU.

The illusion of independence and distance in relation to EU also results in lesser involvement and public debate of EU-politics in Norway. Hence it becomes more difficult to control the authorities and hold them accountable in politics relating to EU and Europe.

More or less EU integration will affect Norways democratic deficit, but the Norwegians will be on the sidelines in the discussions.