A Europe without the EU ?

In an Opinion-article in EurActiv Michael Meyer-Resende is reflecting about how Europe would work without the EU. The reason for the question is the European governments struggling to solve problems through the EU, and that the EU’s right to exist is questioned.

He asks "How did Europe work before the EU existed?" and thinks the 19^th century provides the best comparison.

The organising principle of European relations in the 19^th century was the ‘concert of powers’, which called the shots: Great Britain, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany once it was unified, and the Ottoman Empire as a dwindling force in the Balkans. Most of these players have started returning to the stage today. Russia pursues 19^th century objectives of territorial expansion. Turkey asserts itself as an increasingly independent player, less constrained by NATO membership and EU aspirations than it has been only a few years ago. After Brexit, the UK intends to reemerge as a self-standing power, albeit much reduced compared to its 19^th century role. A lot has already been written on Germany’s return to centre stage, while France remains an essential European player, despite the current sense of crisis...

A growing role of big states is traceable in the EU. Take Germany, determining the response to the euro crisis. But the EU is still a different place from 19^th century Europe.  Smaller member states have rights, vote and voice in a way they could only have dreamed of the in the 19^th century. In the European Parliament, smaller member states are over-represented. It is one of the paradoxes of Europe today that right-wing parties in smaller states undermine the EU when their national interest would dictate that they make it stronger. A 19th-century situation cannot be in the interest of any Hungarian, Slovak or Dutch nationalist...

He concludes that

Nowadays, no EU member state is a world power. In global terms, all EU member states are more likely to be subjects than objects if they do not team up. Looked at in the cold light of geopolitics, nobody in the EU should have an interest in a 19th-century world.

Meyer-Resende´s comparisons and reflections are interesting, and reminds us why the EU cooperation exists. That is always important. But to day it is not enough. What we need now is is to figure out how to improve and preserve it. This is difficult, but necessary. May be the Brexit-process can provide a better understanding of the strength and the weaknesses of the cooperation.

The changing context of Brexit

Before the Brexit referendum "Project Fear" predicted that a variety of bad things would happen. And their claims may be justified, of course, Brexit is still in the future. But so far it seems that the consequences have almost been the opposite of what the remainers said. 

Already a month ago The Guardian could tell that UK economic indicators defy Brexit fears

Britain appears to be bouncing back from the post-Brexit panic in better shape than expected, after a string of indicators showed growth across the manufacturing sector, the building industry and in consumer spending.

A survey of manufacturers reported a rise in exports to their highest level in two years. Persimmon, Britain’s biggest housebuilder, said customers were flocking back to view new build homes. And grocers enjoyed a 0.3% rise in sales in the 12 weeks to 14 August, the best performance since March.

OECD has revised  UK growth and bactracked on Brexit warning. The same applies to WTO, which now says that UK will escape post-Brexit recession.

And yesterday the Axel Springer chief executive, Mathias Döpfner, said Britain will be better off than the EU after Brexit and "highly attractive" for investors. He expected a short-term downturn, but in three to five years it will overtake other European countries.

In Döpfner´s homeland problems seems to grow. Migration-crisis and diesel-gate are followed by lengthy and serious difficulties for economic flagship Deutsche Bank. The banks shares dropped on Monday to their lowest price in decades. The fall was sparked by news two weeks ago that the U.S. Justice Department had proposed Germany’s largest lender pay a $14 billion legal settlement to close out mortgage-securities probes. Chancellor Merkel is now faced with the question of possible state-sponsored bailout - which would be inconsistent with Germany's attitude so far. 

UK and EU must cooperate to negotiate a Brexit-deal which is as good as possible for both. This is of course a difficult task, but a changing and unpredictable "context" shows the importance of a good future relationship between them.

Threaths from South and East - Germany, France and Brussels recommends More Europe and NATO

At the NATO summit in Warsaw on 8 July 2016 the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg signed a joint NATO-EU declaration said: “Unity and cooperation between NATO and the European Union remains as important as ever. In these times of uncertainty our partnership is increasingly essential... Today, the Euro-Atlantic community is facing unprecedented challenges emanating from the South and East. Our citizens demand that we use all ways and means available to address these challenges so as to enhance their security ...."

Two months later  EUobserver can tell that Germany and France, in the margins of the NATO summit, had cooked up plans for closer EU defence cooperation, including a new military HQ and swifter deployment of overseas missions. The UK had in the past opposed steps toward the creation of an EU army or duplication of Nato structures. But in a 6 page paper Germany and France now said that “taking into account the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU, we have to henceforth act as 27 [member states]”.

Some weeks later the implementation of the NATO-EU declaration was one of the two measures the leaders agreed in the Bratislava Declaration and Roadmap under the External and Defence Objective, the other measure was for the December European Council to decide "on a concrete inplementation plan on external security and defence" - cf. the Franco-German initiative.

External Security and Defence

Objective

In a challenging geopolitical environment, strengthen EU cooperation on external security and defence 

Concrete measures a) December European Council to decide on a concrete implementation plan on security and defence and on how to make better use of the options in the Treaties, especially as regards capabilities b) start implementing the joint declaration with NATO immediately 

But UK is still a member of the EU, and Britain will veto the creation of an EU army for as long as it remains a full member of the group, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon warned shortly after the Bratislava summit. And also among the remaining members, there is disagreement about the added value of the Franco-German initiative. EUObserver writes:

The ideas are likely to win support in eastern EU countries, such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, but could pose problems for neutral EU states, such as Ireland, as well as for others, such as The Netherlands, who do not believe that people in post-Brexit Europe want to make new leaps in integration.

Euro crisis raised Germany - migration lowers it again

The Euro crisis has given Germany a dominant role in the EU. But it was never meant to be like that. On the contrary, starting with the Coal and Steel Community the purpose of the new European cooperation was to create an institution with supranational, common control. The Commission was meant to be the crucial instrument, and the summit  - the European Council - an emergency breake or a rebalancing tool for the national level.

The Euro crisis gave the summit increased importance, and Germany, with its strong economy and large debt claims, became a dominant country in the European cooperation. Chancellor Merkel has often been referred to as the word´s most powerful woman.

Now the power structure seems to be changing again. Germany's dominance may have culiminated with Merkel's self-proclaimed open doors  ("Wir schaffen das") in autumn 2015 and the EU's attempts to force member states to receive refugee quotas. Protests against this policy is now growing both in Germany and in other member states. 

After defeats for her party in German elections Merkel has now regretted her own migration policy. Still she resists to introduce caps for refugees, but to day EurActiv reports that Merkel’s veteran Minister of Finance, Wolfgang Schäuble, has jumped to the defence of her conservatives’ Bavarian sister party in the latest twist in a row over migrants "that is damaging her re-election prospects". The Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU) wants to cap the number of migrants coming into Germany at 200,000 a year.

Combined with the opposition against austerity the escalating migration revolt is a strong impetus for reform of EU policy and decision-making system. The demands for changes are pushed forward through political processes in member countries. To call this opposition to political correctness "populism" is unhelpful. It is in reality a democratic expression of dissatisfaction with the consequences of decision making within a bubble of group thinking dominated not least by Germany.

Migration-vagueness in Bratislava Declaration unavoidable

The Roadmap (workprogramme) from the European Council´s Bratislava meeting on Friday 16 September identifies migration as an important common challenge, but the description of the EU´s long term policy is vague

Objective: Broaden EU consensus on long term migration policy and apply the principles of responsibility and solidarity

Concrete measure: work to be continued to broaden EU consensus in terms of long term migration policy, including on how to apply the principles of responsibility and solidarity in the future 

It could not be more specific. The vagueness reflects the high level of conflict. In reality it is probably not even support for the cited formulations - cf. PM Orban´s criticism.

Migration is a question with major and different implications for the member states. It represents challenges of such a magnitude that adaptations in the practice of EU law and international legislation is needed. To argue for more Europe or cling to political correctness of yesterday in this area is difficult. 

The revolt against undesirable migration seems to escalate in the European countries. On Sunday Chancellor Merkel got a bad election result  in Berlin while the anti-immigration party AfD triumphed. On Monday Switzerland and the European Commission said they had come closer to agreeing a deal on Swiss efforts to curb immigration while preserving its access to the EU single market. Yesterday UK PM May advocated the need for a new approach to migration in her address to the UN General Assembly.

The Roamap´s vagueness concerning migration long term policy does not mean that the Bratislava meeting was a failure. But it shows that EU cooperation must be oriented to the tasks and areas where it provides enough added value and not creates conflicts which at worst will destroy the Union.



 

Bratilslava summit - more than a nice boat trip ?

The European Council meeting in Bratislava on Friday 16 September, which included a boat trip on the Danube river, had participation from 27 member countries. The UK was not invited. But it is still a member of the EU, and since Concil desicions have to be unanimous, the meeting was considered as informal.

The objective of the meeting was "to diagnose together the present state of the European Union and discuss our common future." The leaders agreed on a set of principles called The Bratislava Declaration and Roadmap. At first glance the impression is that the EU has swept problems under the carpet, and deliberately avoided to deal with critical challenges the union faces. But a closer look seems at least partially to justify the Slovakian PM Fico´s characterization of the meeting as a success. 

The Declaration consists of some wellknown phrases, but also reflects the 27 participants wish to continue the cooperation within the EU. This is of course important. Despite problems and challenges, it seems that everyone of them wants to remain in the union. But Brexit and growing protests in many member countries shows that the support for the EU can not be taken for granted. And the Roadmap indicates that this development is starting to affect the thinking of the Union.

In the Roadmaps General diagnosis and objective they focus on 

Many common challenges ahead of us: people concerned by a perceived lack of control and fears related to migration, terrorism, and economic and social insecurity. Need to tackle these issues as a matter of priority over the coming months

which obviously people everywhere in the EU will agree are great challenges and where common solutions potentially can give everyone an added value. It is interesting to note that climate change is not mentioned at all. 

The General diagnosis and objective also focus the

Need to be clear about what the EU can do, and what is for the Member States to do, to make sure we can deliver on our promises

For each of the common challenges - Migartion and external borders, Internal and external security,  External Security and Defence, Economic and Social development, youth - the Roadmap sets Objective and Concrete measures. These are concrete where there is agreement among the 27, and vague where there is different views. Time will show whether compromises will be achieved. The text reflects how political pressure from political opponents in the member countries can have an effect on the policy development. E.g. is one of the Objectives for Migration and external borders

Never to allow return to uncontrolled flows of last year and further bring down number of irregular migrants

which is a far way from Chancellor Merkels open borders a year ago.

The Heads of the 27 will meet informally at the beginning of 2017 in Valletta. The March 2017 celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties will bring together Heads in Rome and will be used to round off the process launched in Bratislava, and set out orientations for a common future together. 

 

Juncker´s State of the Union Address and Tusk´s letter

Before today´s informal European Council meeting in Bratislava, both Commission President Juncker and Council President Tusk have delivered interesting "inputs".

Juncker held his State of the Union Address 2016 on Thursday. He started by saying that "Our European Union is, at least in part, in an existential crisis"

... never before have I seen such little common ground between our Member States. So few areas where they agree to work together.

Never before have I heard so many leaders speak only of their domestic problems, with Europe mentioned only in passing, if at all.

Never before have I seen representatives of the EU institutions setting very different priorities, sometimes in direct opposition to national governments and national Parliaments. It is as if there is almost no intersection between the EU and its national capitals anymore.

Never before have I seen national governments so weakened by the forces of populism and paralysed by the risk of defeat in the next elections.

Never before have I seen so much fragmentation, and so little commonality in our Union.

To fix the crisis he pointed to five policy areas for concrete European actions

a Europe that protects;
a Europe that preserves the European way of life;
a Europe that empowers our citizens,
a Europe that defends at home and abroad; and
a Europe that takes responsibility

Then he gave a review of all the positive things the Commission did and should do in these areas, and emphasized how important it was that Member states followed up. In other words: he recommended to use the old receipt of more integration. But he also said 

only by focusing on where Europe can provide real added value and deliver results, we will be able to make Europe a better, more trusted place

While Juncker´s speach represents a traditional EU approach for problem solving, a letter from Tusk to the European Council before the Bratislava summit seems to indicate a real and necessary change in mindset. He writes

While waiting for the UK government to trigger negotiations, we should diagnose the state and the prospects of a post-Brexit EU. It would be a fatal error to assume that the negative result in the UK referendum represents a specifically British issue; that British Euroscepticism is a symptom of political aberration or merely a cynical game of populists exploiting social frustrations. It is true that the Leave campaign was full of false arguments and unacceptable generalisations. But it is also true that the Brexit vote is a desperate attempt to answer the questions that millions of Europeans ask themselves daily, questions about the very essence of politics. Questions about the guarantees of security of the citizens and their territory, questions about the protection of their interests, cultural heritage and way of life. These are questions we would have to face even if the UK had voted to remain. 

People in Europe want to know if the political elites are capable of restoring control over events and processes which overwhelm, disorientate, and sometimes terrify them. Today many people, not only in the UK, think that being part of the European Union stands in the way of stability and security...

My talks with you clearly show that giving new powers to European institutions is not the desired recipe. National electorates want more influence on the decisions of the Union.

Tusk is balancing these views by pointing out the member states' responsibility

 Adopting this direction would nonetheless require a change of attitude of national governments towards the European Union as such.

Today the EU is often treated as a necessary evil, not a common good. The slogan "less power for Brussels", which sounds attractive in political campaigns, should translate as more responsibility for the Union in national capitals. This responsibility for the Union is nothing other than a readiness to sacrifice part of one's own interests for the sake of the community. It also means refraining from the constant accusations aimed at the Union, which sometimes are justified, but more often than not they serve as an easy excuse for one's own failures. This was also one of the reasons behind the Brexit vote.

It is intended that today's meeting will be followed up by a  "Bratislava-process". But so far it seems a bit unclear whether the image above shows sunrise or sunset for the EU.

Ideas to fix the EU - voting results

Jacopo Barigazzi presented yesterday in Politico 12 ideas to save the EU

1)   Focus on security, economy and youth employment

2)   A eurozone government

3)   More technocracy, less politics

4)   A recession shock-absorber 

5)   Give power back to member countries

6)   Give power to the parliamentarians 

7)   Give more power to leaders

8)   Create a United States of Europe

9)   Get rid of the European Council

10) Direct election of a European president

11) Let Turkey join the EU

12) Let Greece leave the euro

The readers were allowed to vote for 3 preferred ideas, and also, if they wished, supply with other proposals.  Results so far are:

1) Focus on security, economy and youth employment  15.33%   

 

8) Create a United States of Europe  13.84%   

 

5) Give power back to member countries  12.85%   

 

10) Direct election of a European president  9.77%   

 

9) Get rid of the European Council  9.31%    

 

2) A eurozone government  8.35%   

 

12) Let Greece leave the euro  7.74%   

 

6) Give power to the parliamentarians  6.58%   

 

4) A recession shock-absorber  6.4%   

 

3) More technocracy, less politics  5.31%   

 

Other:  1.89%   

 

7) Give more power to leaders  1.7%   

 

11) Let Turkey join the EU  0.93% 

Even if this survey is simple and tentative, and the readers of Politico may be a biased sample, the results are interesting. The "winner" -  Focus on security, economy and youth employment - is exactly what the EU leaders are focusing on these days. A bit strange perhaps, or perhaps not - it represents the traditional EU answer to problems: concrete possibilities for more Europe ! Number 2 is not surpriseing either - the federalistic favourite: Create a United States of Europe. But number 3 , and not far behind number 2, is different: Give power back to the member countries. It seems to reflect the strong and growing opposition to the federalistric EU vision. The other ideas and results can be interpreted in many ways.

The survey is another indication that the EU faces a demanding reform process, not least when it comes to finding the balance between more and less Europe.

 

The magnetism of "More Europe"

Although the principle of subsidiarity was established in EU law by the Treaty of Maastricht back in 1992, strong forces always pull the EU towards more integration. The daily news from Brussels report new needs and possibilities for more Europe, seldom less.

To day EU Observer highlights the plans Germany and France have drawn up for closer EU defence cooperation. The Franco-German paper says, according to Le Figaro, that “in the context of a deteriorating security environment … it is high time to reinforce our solidarity and European defence capabilities in order to more effectively protect the citizens and borders of Europe”. This is not surprising, security and defense was (along with investments and initiatives for youth) designated as priority areas at the Ventotene meeting between Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and PM Renzi. 

And EurActiv writes that pan-European tax is on the table after Brexit. Delegates from around the EU last week met in Brussels to discuss the possibilities for budget reform, an issue previously blocked by the United Kingdom.

The interparliamentary conference raised a number of proposals for the reform of the EU’s financing, including the creation of a European tax. This is an extremely sensitive subject, as member states jealously protect their fiscal sovereignty. And decisions of this nature must be made unanimously.

Now that the main opponent of endowing the Union with its own resources is out of the way, the question can move forward. And it is becoming more and more urgent. ...

 Among the possible schemes for feeding the European budget supported by MEPs are the implementation of a levy on states’ tax revenues or the creation of a pan-European carbon tax or “Eurovignettes” for road users.

“The idea is to use existing taxes or those created under the community structure – on environmental or digital matters – so as to give the institutions room to manoeuvre to use this revenue,” said Lamssoure

a veteran French MEP who is member of the high-level group on own resources (HLGOR). 

Finally in the EurActiv article Lamssoure tells that

beyond suggesting new sources of revenue, the group must also come up with proposals for missions which the EU could do without. “The EU must concentrate on its core activities and install strict filters on actions that can be performed at national level. We will insist on the subsidiarity principle"...

On the other hand, “certain activities are not managed satisfactorily by the member states (the fight against terrorism, military operations), and could be strengthened inside the EU,” he added.

May be the HLGOR-group will present some proposals for how filters on actions "that can be performed at national level" can work. But it seems quite typical for the EU that the need for subsidiarity is described in general only and not with specific examples.

The multifaceted European rebalancing

Because the EU no longer seems to produce sustainable politics and give enough added value, there is a need for changes. The question is which ones. For many years more integration has been the answer and many still think that should also be the way forward. But day by day the counter-forces become stronger. Brexit is the most powerful expression of this development.

A British withdrawel from the European Union will influence the European political powerstructure. UK will regain some of the decision power it has ceded to the European Union, but will also loose power because it will not longer be part of the much stronger European Union. Ideally the divorce should rebalance the distribution of power between the Union and the UK so that the Union retains power where both benefit from it and UK get back power where it gives both an added value. But this exercise is difficult and probably impossible. UK and the Union's interests are not always identical and interests change over time.

There is also disagreement in both the UK and the Union about which solutions are the best. Many UK-remainers still hope to avoid a Brexit, and among the Brexiters there are different views about what kind of future relationship UK shall try to establish with the EU and between UK and the rest of the world. Within the Union there is no agreement of a future vision among the 27 member states, and the authorities of the Union are also fighting among themselves about having a leading role.

This is the context for a rebalancing of the European political system. The Brexit vote necessitates action. A reform process was therefore initiated in the EU. The Bratislava meeting next week may bring it a step further.

A Bratislava summit within the comfort zone ?

While the UK is struggling to decide what "Brexit means Brexit" means, the EU is preparing for the informal Bratislava-summit 16 September. Informal because UK is not invited. At the meeting the leaders from 27 member states will continue their reflections on how to handle the Brexit-process and on the future of the EU.

As part of the preparations Council President Tusk and Chancellor Merkel have met with leaders from numerous member states. The result seems to be meager. No proposal for a future vision for EU is on the table, but some key issues have emerged.

According to EU Observer "protection" seems to be a common denominator among the 27, as well as a determination to show citizens that "this is not business as usual", that the EU is going to respond better to their concerns. EU after Bratislava must guarantee also social and economic protection. Another topic will be "economic security" - how the EU project itself in time of the globalisation.

The meeting in the Bratislava castle will be a brainstorming and a start of a process which will continue for months. Consensus on innovative or bold new ideas seems unlikely. EU Observer reported that "officials" say that European citizens looking for clear-cut answers on what to expect from the EU might be let down. The summit could end up as a "Christmas tree", on which the leaders attempt to hang all kinds of issues dear to them. 

Possible policy development at the Bratislava meeting seems to be more integreation, more Europe. The same old medicine which has produced a lot of problems for the Union. EU Observer can tell that

leaders will not discuss EU competencies, although officials admit some rebalancing might be needed among institutions and member states, something the countries of the Visegrad group (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia) have been calling for.

Also not on the table: Brexit. “It is a big question mark if Brexit will be discussed at all. If so, it will be a low profile discussion with leaders comparing notes on a their bilateral meetings with the new UK prime minister Theresa May,” said an EU official. “It is not possible to go into details at this point, since there is no clear idea from British side what they would like to see as outcome of negotiations,” the source said.

It seems that the Bratislava meeting will be policy development only within the leaders comfort zone. This is not surprising, but necessary EU reforms require more courage and determination.



 

More Europe can be wonderful - when you agree

Even if you prefer less Europe - or better: a more balanced Europe - as a leading star, more Europe can sometimes be wonderful. It happens when the EU adopts a policy you see as desirable and necessary. A couple of days ago we got a good example, when BEREC - the Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communication - released the Net Neutrality implementation guidelines. The guidelines were recieved as a great success by civil society groups, and will solidify net neutrality across the EU.

The example shows that the EU does not always work for the interest of big money - here the telecom companies. But it was a long struggle with a massive involvement of civil society organisations. When BEREC held public consultations during June-July 2016 there were more than 500 000 responses - a historic number for a consultation in the EU. It is also important to note that during the process the member states tended to work for guidelines with loopholes for the IT industry.

Extracting the morale of this story is not so easy. It does not show that only the EU is able to adopt  desirable policies. The result could have been the same if BEREC had been a body for European or global intergovernmental cooperation. A tentative conclusion may be that the net neutrality case shows that the supranational EU can be effective if there is an added value for everyone or if the level of conflict between the stakeholders is not to high. Also the importance of a democratic and open decisionmaking is demonstrated.