David stands firm - Goliat desparete, circumventing EU democracy ?

Wallonia continues to block CETA - the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada. On Sunday Belgium’s Wallonia region dealt a fresh blow to the proposed deal, rejecting a 24-hour "ultimatum" from the bloc to end its objection to the agreement. The Canadian trade minister, Chrystia Freeland, was on the verge of tears on Friday as she announced the “end and the failure” of talks with the Walloon government.

The Belgian region Wallonia, with abouth 3 million inhabitants, has been under pressure to accept the agreement, but has not given up its opposition to parts of the deal. The EU has now given Belgium’s federal government until late on Monday to secure backing for an EU-Canada trade deal from the region of Wallonia or a planned summit to sign the pact will be cancelled. But Paul Magnette, the leader of the Wallonia region, told the Belga news agency that an “ultimatum is not compatible with the exercise of democratic rights”. Magnette hit out at the EU, despite efforts by the bloc to provide reassurances to his government over investment protection – one of the major sticking points in negotiations between Brussels and Wallonia.

EurActiv has been talking to Belgian political science Professor Jean-Michel de Waele about the situation. The newspaper mentioned that there is work ongoing on an interpretative declaration which will be legally binding and asked if the professor think this could solve the issues.

I don’t think that short-cutting the democratic institutions of an EU country would be an acceptable solution for the Walloon government. It’s amazing that so many efforts are being deployed to overturn the decision of pro-European parties, because it’s clear that the Belgian Socialist Party and the Christian Democrat Party, a member of the EPP, of which the Walloon government is composed, are pro-European forces.

 The CETA agreement is important for the EU. The negotiations have been going on for seven years. Approval of the agreement will have an impact on theTtransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations and probably on a Brexit agreement. But it is even more important that the EU works democratically. Short-cuts to solve politically difficult issues will undermine confidence in the EU democracy further, and strengthen resistance to the European integration.

Constructing the Brexit foundations

While UK is heading for their EU divorce, the complexity of the process becomes clearer. It is not only about economy and migration control. The process has to be handled within a geopolitical framework. Instead of hammering out a British Brexit-model at home and then present it to their European partners, contact between the two camps and the world outside is of great importance for the negotiations.

The geopolitical perspective is clearly visible at the ongoing European Council meeting in Brussels. EurActiv has an interesting observation in their coverage of the meeting

Entering her maiden Council, May struck a different tone to her predecessor David Cameron. Cameron would often tell news cameras that he was in Brussels  to fight for a good deal for Britain.

Instead, May stressed the need for a unified and robust response to Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria.

“We must show a robust and united European stance in the face of Russian aggression,” she said.

“We must continue to work together – it’s vital that we work together to continue to put pressure on Russia to stop its appalling atrocities, its sickening atrocities in Syria.”

Before the Council meeting UK had also cooperated with heavyweights  Germany and France to prepare a proposal - probably coordinated with the USA - to pointedly threaten new sanctions against Russia and other supporters of the Syrian government. The bid was unsuccessful and highlighted deep fractures in the block, but it demonstrated that UK also after Brexit intends to be a strong and necessary geopolitical partner for the west

The geopolitical context will of course be of importance in the negotiations. To avoid that "the west" becomes weakened the negotiations have to minimize the split between UK and EU 27 and within the EU 27 as much as possible. 

The Brexit preparations and negotiations might be tough, but the foundations and context for the process indicate that an successful agreement will be achieved.

Steady course - more integration

Tomáš Prouza, Czech State Secretary for European Affairs, has an Opinion in Politico, where he argues for strengtening of the Europe´s institutional framework and more integration to get "A new beginning for Europe".

He repeats the conclusions from the Bratislava summit

According to this agreement, in the future, the union should focus on areas where it can bring added value and where the citizens expect it to play a strong role. The union should be able to guarantee our safety and economic prosperity. Hence, it should focus its activities on the areas of internal and external security and support of economic and social development.

Based on this agreement, we should take steps leading to full control of the external borders, a fully operational European border and coast guard, better cooperation of intelligence agencies, and deepening of defense cooperation as well as steps for an active trade policy, investment support, and the completion of the single market.

Nevertheless, he says, these specific measures are not the most important result of the summit

The key conclusion is that the remaining member states, the EU27, have expressed their will to continue with European integration. This consensus confirms the fact that the member states regard the current model of European integration as the best way to further the cooperation of nations on our continent. At the same time, it is based on the understanding that national states cannot face today’s challenges, such as terrorism, illegal migration or the negative impact of globalization, on their own. ...

To succeed with this continued integration, EU must create new confidence in the cooperation

we should not dream about currently unachievable aspirations of super-integration nor claim that we can strengthen the union by returning to its intergovernmental decision-making stage.The problem we are facing now is not an insufficient legal framework, but a lack of confidence. Faltering confidence that we are heading in the right direction is also sometimes accompanied by insufficient courage to use the legroom that the current integration framework offers us.

To achieve more confidence

we need collaboration between the member states and EU institutions. It is obvious that the integration process is not possible without strong institutions. It is equally clear that EU institutions must act in a way that supports the unity of the union. This unity will work only if each actor adheres to its role as defined by the treaties.

He believes the Commission's role is particularly important

It must play the role of an independent mediator between the national interests of member states, not deepen trenches across Europe and aspire to politically control the union. It must be an institution that works for all member states, helping them implement their agreements but also consistently supervising that they respect the treaties and fulfill their obligations ...

Although lack of confidence is a major weakness of EU cooperation, Mr Prouza´s advice for more and better integration is not the solution. EU must change course and steer towards a rebalancing of power between the national and supranational level. On this journey will non-integration be as important as integration.

Friends of Europe gathering - unexciting reform ideas

EurActiv reports from the annual conference of Friends of Europe, a Brussels-based pro-European think-thank that wants to stimulate discussion and new thinking on political, economic, social and environmental issues that confront Europe and the world. The discussion at the conference was concerned about the lack of "common sense" in the world to day. Etienne Davignon, president of the think-tank, said (European) leaders instead of spending hours analysing the causes of a crises should find rapid, common sense, solutions that brings results.

It was stated that

Brexit and growing euroscepticism across Europe, terrorism, the largest migration of people since World War II, sovereign debt, doubts about the euro’s viability, the rise of populism and right-wing parties, and Russia’s menace are undermining people’s confidence in EU leaders and the European project.

The pride of what was achieved collectively despite the crisis, insisted EU grandees, must be restored...

Now we have an enemy. The populist parties have said they want to destroy the Union, concurred Davignon. We have to do something about it and we are not doing it...

Too many lies are being told and not much is being done by those who can fight back with arguments. Facts have disappeared from the political discourse, so has historic perspective.

Where were we in 1950, where are we now? Why don’t we ask that question, Davignon asked, offering the answer: There has been a fantastic change. He called for a positive agenda based on facts and science.

The participants insisted on the value of better educating national MPs

We need to create champions at national level to sell the positive message of Europe

Many wished Brexit would be used as a genuine wake-up call but no sign of such was in sight.

A glimmer of hope came from those who pushed to ditch the technocrats and let the more enthusiastic Erasmus generation take centre-stage

Even if it is admirable that people show enthusiasm for the development of the EU, critically rethinking is completely lacking. Why do we need the EU today? What can others do better? How can the EU be more democratic ? Are eurosceptic "populists" enemies ? How prevent that globalization creates losers and winners? How to stop a growing confrontation with Russia ? 

Unfortunately it still seems, despite Brexit, as a truly "better Europe" is a distant future music.

Far, far away - a new EU vision ?

In recent years there have been many voices criticizing the EU vision of an ever closer union. "More Europe" is not always the answer.

One of PM Cameron´s priorities in his Brexit-negotiations was that the UK would be exempted from this vision. In May European Council President Tusk famoulsy said

obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe do not share our Euro-enthusiasm

Parties and movements turning against the ideals of a more united Europe are becoming ever more popular in a growing number of countries.

And yesterday EurActiv could tell that EU puts "ever closer union" on hold

As the EU prepares to celebrate its 60th anniversary, the “ever closer union” principle that underpinned the European project is being put on hold as the bloc struggles to survive its annus horribilis.

EurActiv recalls a European Parliament plenary session in 2009, when Czech President Vaclav Klaus was booed by MEPs because he dared to question the “ever closer union” principle enshrined in the EU treaties. “Let us not allow a situation where citizens of member countries would live with a resigned feeling that the European project is not their own,” he said. A few years later, the Eurosceptic president can partly claim victory, because the EU’s “uncritical acceptance of this dogma” is being dismantled.

The newspaper article refers statements from politicians, Brussels spokespersons and analysts, with no clear conclusion on what will happen in the future. The statements highligt that many now are calling for "better", not "more" Europe. “There is a decline in what member states and the institutions think they can achieve together,” said Guntram Wolff, director of the Bruegel think tank. “The lack of ambition is very clear,” agrees Ignacio Molina, senior researcher at the Real Instituto Elcano. And the changes in attitude is not only because of looming national elections in several member countries. “There is a more philosophical shift, not only in Germany but also in France,” said Bruegel’s Wolff. The problem is much deeper,” (another) agreed . “Mainstream parties have lost not only room for maneuvering because of the populist parties. The biggest risk is the polarization between the winners and losers,” of the current system, he added. The winner-loser development is analysed more in depth in an EU research-report - Rising inequalities in the EU and their social, economic and political impacts. 

But to formulate and agree a new or revised vision is a difficult task, "better Europe" is only a small step on the road.

The necessary contacts and dialogues

PM May told some days ago that UK will trigger Article 50 before the end om March next year. Then UK will disclose what kind of Brexit the country will wish for. That means a possible half year for Brexit preparations. And since the UK had no plan ready for Brexit, a prepartion period is necessary and important. Leaving EU is a complex issue, Article 50 does not guarantee more than two years to negotiate. 

Even if the EU leaders have said they understand that UK  needs some time for preperations, they all agree that there can be no talks before the divorce letter is recieved. On the other hand argueing through media seems to be ok. 

For UK to make ready their divorce letter in a splendid isolation would be a very stupid thing to do. To develop a good and flexible baseposition, it is important to examine what other people think, to probe opportunities, develop alternatives etc. This is of course important for the EU also. And for "third" countries - like Norway, which has trade relationships with the UK and other EU countries.

To day the Norwegian newspaper  Dagens Næringsliv can tell that Norway said "no" to a  proposal from Liam Fox, the UK Secretary of State for International Trade, to a establish a formal group to prepare a new trade agreement between the two countries. Norway has to be careful. UK is not allowed to conclude separate trade agreements while they still are member of the EU and Norway does not want to provoke the EU. The EEA agreement and the relations with the Union are essential for the country. 

But Norwegian government representatives emphasize that "we have a close dialogue with the UK". There have been a lot of meetings between political representatives of the two countries, and more a  planned. Brexit is also discussed in the Norewegian parliament´s Europe Committee. 

Contacts and dialogues between European governments and also between the EU and the European countries are important building blocks for a best possible Brexit for everyone. Although "no talks before divorce letter" is the general rule for EU countries.

Brexit preparations

 

Athough the EU has steadfast denied any negotiations before UK trigger article 50 and PM May is silent about her detailed Brexit layout, the discussions are in progress both internally and between the the two "parties" - at least indirectly through media. 

There is a lot of tough speach, like President Hollande yesterday

“Britain has decided to go for a Brexit, in fact I believe a hard Brexit. Well, we have to follow through with Britain’s wishes to leave the European Union and we need to be firm,” Hollande told a dinner hosted by the Jacques Delors Institute, a think tank.

“If not, we would jeopardise the fundamental principles of the EU,” he added, warning that other countries might be tempted to leave as well.

But the most realistic result of the forthcoming negotiations will be an agreement where both parties can say convincingly that "we agreed a deal which is good both for the UK and the EU", not an outcome where one of the parties is a winner and the other a looser.

Germany’s economy minister Sigmar Gabriel seems now to have a necessary flexible attitude. Speaking at an industry event in Berlin on Thursday, he argued that the  European Union should try to keep Britain as close as possible in negotiations on their future relationship following the Brexit vote – even keeping the door open to a possible return.

Mr Gabriel said it was important to make clear that full access to the bloc's single market was ultimately linked to accepting freedom of movement.

"But this should not prevent us from trying to do everything to keep the Britons as close as possible to Europe. This must be our goal," Gabriel said.

 "We must try to formulate offers in a way so that the Britons remain close to us, also to have the chance that they return some day," he added.

And while the discussions evolve, the context of Brexit changes. A new facet is that the German government could soon present a bill to impose a 5-year period of residence before EU citizens, who do not work in Germany, can claim social benefits in the country. A proposal which reminds us of PM Cameron´s EU-negotiations before the Brexit-referendum.

Geopolitical aspects of Brexit

US state secretary John Kerry said on Tuesday (4 October) in Brussels

We need the strongest possible EU, the strongest possible UK, and a highly integrated, collaborative relationship between them

Kerry´s words are not surprising. President Obama intervened, unseccessfully, in the Brexit discussions with enthusiastic support for a Remain vote. And the American support for European integration has a long, though complex, history. Geir Lundestad, the former Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, presented a study of it in 1998. A book review summarizes his findings   

According to Lundestad, after a period of initial hesitation from 1945 to 1946, US officials openly supported European cooperative ventures such as the Common Market, the European Coal and Steel Community, and the European Defense Community. A shift in the United States' public position towards European integration occurred in the 1960s and early 1970s and continued under Reagan, who advocated "burden-sharing" among the NATO allies and favored increased European defense spending to counter the challenges posed to the West by the Soviet Union. George Bush, Reagan's successor, downplayed any public skepticism towards Europe and stressed Atlantic unity, papering over trade disputes for the sake of political cooperation. Finally, Lundestad addresses the public position of Bill Clinton, who consistently supported European integration, including the move towards monetary union.

To day, when the US superpower status seems to be challenged by a more multipolar political world, a disintegrated and weak Europe would be undesirable for the the US. 

The geopolitical context suggests that the US will try to influence the Brexit negotiations. An important measure may be to motivate the EU to preparatory talks with UK before Article 50 is triggered.

The essence of the Brexit negotiations

PM May yesterday told the Conservative party annunal conference in Birmingham that she will trigger Article 50 before April 2017. The framing of UK´s divorce letter to the first quarter next year brings more clarity for the further Brexit process, both for the UK and the EU. 

May also promised to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act next year, a law that took Britain into what is now the EU, and make Britain “a sovereign and independent country”.

She insisted that controlling immigration and withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the European court of justice would be her priorities during EU exit negotiations, "the strongest indication yet that she will lean towards a hard Brexit" - according to the Guardian.

The Brexiters welcomed her speech while the Remainers pointed to weaknesses and difficulties - as the Guardian referring to Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, who has published a paper in which he reveals that negotiators in other countries including France and Germany are preparing "to stand their ground in Brexit negotiations. They believe freedom of movement is a central part of the single market and are reluctant to make concessions in other areas."

"Both sides" are now preparing for the fortcoming negotiations. In spite of May´s speech we do not know exactly what kind of solution UK will wish for and what the EU will be willing to offer. 

Many believe that the negotiations will be a fight where UK will try to cherrypick the EU-goodies and that the EU will try to prevent a success for such a stategy. This is a "negative" scenario. But if we look at these really unique negotiations from a third starting point - to achieve necessary EU reforms, we can see a more positive perspective. The UK negotiators have to show that the UK is actually better served by being outside the EU than by participating, while the EU must show that the opposite is true. Probably will both strategies be partially successful while weaknesses in argumention also will become evident. This can at best provide a better basis and gravity for EU reforms. To prevent further disintegration EU may have to change some of the things that UK disliked, and if the EU does that a UK return may some day be possible.