Lack of Brexit plan may open for win-win solutions

When a majority voted for Brexit on 23 June, there was no plan for how it should be implemented. The lack of it has been criticized, and at an evening dinner in Berlin yesterday – May’s first foreign trip since becoming prime minister seven days ago – May stressed that she needed until the end of the year to come up with a UK position – even if that upset some EU member states.

A period with uncertainty of what the UK wants and what the EU is willing to offer is unfortunate. There are good reasons to do it as short as possible. But this situation of uncertainty also holds opportunities for solutions that can provide gains for both the UK and the EU. Even if the EU has said clearly that there will be no negotiations before UK has invoked Article 50, it seems that the process of creating a platform for Brexit will include inputs both from countries within the United Kingdom and from the EU and its member countries.

This position-building period may prove to be very important. The UK´s Brexit strategy must include both the relations between countries within the UK, between the UK and the EU and between the UK and the rest of the world. However, also the EU and the Union's member states need to identify Brexit solutions that might be useful and provide benefits for themselves. This will be difficult. However, by using the time until January 2017 to identify opportunities and establish a framwork, the basis for the Article 50 proceedings could be far better than it is at present. 

PM May seems to choose such a way of working. Yesterday, after talks with Chancellor Merkel, she said 

All of us will need time to prepare for these negotiations and the United Kingdom will not invoke Article 50 until our objectives are clear. That is why I have said already that this will not happen before the end of this year.

I understand this timescale will not please everyone but I think it is important to provide clarity on that now. We should strive for a solution which respects the decision of British voters, but also respects the interests of our European partners.

  
Shortly after May became PM she visited Scotland and had talks with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, and this week she visits her colleagues in Germany and France. Perhaps this can be seen as a sort of "common" Brexit preparation which will last until Article 50 is invoked.

Does UK need a dynamic agreement with the EU ?

The leave campaigns did not offer any common receipt for a Brexit before the referendum. And neither did the government. So when PM May says

I won’t be triggering Article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations, I think it is important that we establish that before we trigger Article 50

it seems very reasonable. Invoking Article 50 without a strategy would be risky, as the negotiations will have a two-year limit unless the European Council and the Member States - unanimously - decide to extend the period.

Both the government and the parliament now explore the possibilities. Lots of ideas and preferences are presented. According to Daily Mail Ministers say they are going to secure ground-braking free trade deals with 12 countries, having a total area ten times the size of the EU, "before Britain leaves in 2019".

UK is barred from striking individual trade deals until it officially leaves the EU, but Liam Fox, the new International Trade Secretary, hopes to have agreed the terms of the new trade deals beforehand so they could take effect immidiately after Britain is no longer an EU member state.

The Ministers seem to have different views over when to trigger Article 50. David Davies, the Brexit Secretary, wants Britain to start the formal process of leaving the EU this year, but last week the PM insisted she would not trigger it until she had agreed a UK-wide approach to the process for leaving the EU.

In this process of establishing a new platform for trade the question of what kind of future relationship UK will have with the EU remains to be solved. Will trade agreements be enough, and what will the EU accept ? This is important also because the Single Market is not static, it develops every day.

The EEA-agreement takes care of this aspect. A central feature of the agreement is its dynamic aspect; the common rules of the EEA-agreement are updated continuously with new EU legislation. Economically this dynamic arrangement has served the EEA-EFTA countries (Lichtenstein, Iceland and Norway) well, but there is a democratic problem connected to it: the EEA-EFTA countries do not take part in the EUs formal decisions about the Single Market. To call it a "fax-democracy" is a good picture, but not entirely correct because the EEA-EFTA countries have possibilties to influence new EU rules. 

Switzerland rejected in a referendum to join the EEA-agreement. They do not have a fax-democracy problem. Instead - to catch up with new EU legislation - they have to negotiate new agreements every time it is needed. This is a laborious procedure for both for Switzerland and the EU.

There is not a quite obvious answer to how the UK should handle the dynamic aspect of the EU, but it is hard to imagine that they will wish for a Swiss solution. But if they go for a dynamic agreement, then it will be more or less a fax-democracy or some kind of arrangement where UK can have a say in the relevant EU decisions, i. e.  a relation which could look like a membership light. But perhaps that might be acceptable ?

An EEA kind of Brexit ?

The expert group PM Cameron established some days ago to look at possible Brexit alternatives will of course not be able to present a thick report as a welcome gift to the new PM tomorrow. But to show some ideas and possibilities with pros and cons can also be helpful as a starting point for further exploration. An acceptable solution should include three elements: EU-exit (i e invoking Article 50, access to internal market an national immigration control. To achieve this might be overly optimistic, or perhaps not.

Richard North at EU referendum has discovered that the safeguard measures in EEA-Article 112 (the "emergency brake") has been used several times for opt outs to the four freedoms, among them Lichtenstein (movement of people opt out) and Iceland (movement of capital opt out). Switzerland used Article 112 (measures to limit immigration), but its agreement was rejected in a referendum. The European Commission has also invoked Article 112 on its own account, making trade in salmon of Norwegian origin conditional upon observance of a floor price. While the Article 112 allows EFTA-countries unilaterally to take appropriate actions, EU member states have to rely on the Commission to take action.

North argues that if UK can be accepted as a member of EFTA, it can slide from EU to EFTA and still be a member of the EEA. As an EFTA member the UK is then entitled to unilaterally invoke Article 112.

But what about UK´s possibilities to influence the rules of the internal market without taking part in the EU´s decisionmaking process ("fax"-democracy) ? A policy paper from Fondation Robert Schuman argues that the UK "could explore the opportunity to revise the EEA rules so that the non-EU members ...have a right to vote .. in policies in which they participate, notably those involving the single market. In this scenario the UK would continue to participate in the internal market and apply the corresponding rules". It would also have to contribute to the EU-budget.

There are of course huge uncertainties about an EEA kind of Brexit, but a closer look might open new options - also for the EU and other countries within and outside the EEA-agreement.

Article 50 must be invoked

Contradicting most expectations and predictions a majority of the British electorate voted for Brexit. The result was a severe blow to remainers in the UK and also to the European Union. Project Fear failed, the voters used the opportunity to tell they are fed up with Brussels and want their sovereignity back.

The referendum question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union ? " 52 %  said the UK should leave and 48 % wanted to remain. Now the result must be implemented. But how ? Many politicians have said that the referendum result must be respected. But "respected" is a vague concept. A negotiated "leave light" agreement might be presented as the only possible solution because the consequences would otherwise be to negative. There is only one way a real exit can be legally done, namely by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.

Invoking Article 50 is also of great importance in the struggle for a more democratic EU and a rebalancing of power between the supranational and national level. A real British exit can stimulate "populistic" eurosceptic protests and parties across the Union and perhaps generate enough politic pressure to stop the march towards an ever closer union. It has not been successful, the Euro-crisis  and large-scale migration are now threaths to the EUs existence. The Union´s course must be changed from "more Europe" to "a Europe with added value for everyone".

Nigel Farage said Brexit would not lead to EU reforms. It is impossible to stop the Europhiles, the march towards an ever closer Union will therefore continue until the EU is destroyed. May be Mr. Farage is right. But what seems certain is that without a real British exit the pressure on the Europhiles will be watered down, and it will be harder to enforce necessary reforms.

Visa liberalization in a hurry

European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, and Turkey´s Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, launched the EU-Turkey Visa liberalisation dialogue in Ankara 13 December 2013.

The aim of the EU-Turkey visa liberalisation dialogue is to make progress towards the elimination of the visa obligation currently imposed on the Turkish citizens travelling to the Schengen area for a short term visit. The dialogue consists of a screening of the Turkish legislation and administrative practices, which will be carried out by the Commission on the basis of a document, elaborated by the latter, called "Roadmap towards the visa-free regime with Turkey".

According to the European Commissions Press Release 13 December 2013 this document 

lists the requirements which should be fulfilled by Turkey to allow the Commission to present a proposal based on solid grounds to the Council and the Parliament to amend the EC Regulation 539/2001, listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement, so as to move Turkey from its negative to the positive list.

Among the requirements included in the Roadmap many refer, inter alia, to the need to implement in a full and effective manner the readmission agreement, to manage the borders and the visa policy in such a manner as to effectively prevent irregular migration, to have secure travel documents, to establish migration and asylum systems in line with international standards, to have functioning structures for combating organised crime with focus on migrants' smuggling and trafficking in human beings, to have in place and implement adequate forms of police and judicial cooperation with the EU Member States and the international community, and to respect the fundamental rights of the citizens and the foreigners with a specific attention to persons belonging to minorities and vulnerable categories.

Once the Commission considers that all the requirements listed in the Roadmap are fulfilled and has presented its proposal to amend the EC Regulation 539/2001, this proposal will be voted by qualified majority by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. 

The Press Release also said that the Roadmap does not set a specific timetable by when the dialogue should be completed or this proposal should be presented, thus 

the speed of the process towards visa liberalisation will depend essentially on the progress which will be made by Turkey in addressing the requirements set out in the Roadmap. 

However, speeding up the process and specifying a timetable was incorporated in EU-Turkey migrant deal of 18 March 2016

with a view to lifting the visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by the end of June 2016, provided that all benchmarks have been met.

Not surprising, 4 May 2016 the European Commission  opened way for decision by June on visa-free travel for citizens of Turkey. First Vice-President Frans Timmermans said

Turkey has made impressive progress, particularly in recent weeks, on meeting the benchmarks of its visa liberalisation roadmap. There is still work to be done as a matter of urgency but if Turkey sustains the progress made, they can meet the remaining benchmarks. This is why we are putting a proposal on the table which opens the way for the European Parliament and the Member States to decide to lift visa requirements, once the benchmarks have been met

Because EU is under great pressure due to migration crisis, there is reason to believe that the European Parliament and the Member States will decide to lift the the visa requirements.

EU collapse ahead ?

The former Italian PM and European commissioner Mario Monti fears "corrupt" national politics, structural holes in the Brussels machine and external crises may trigger the collapse of the European Union. And the return of the bloody past that preceded it.  He said to Francesco Guerra in an interview for Politico.eu  that the problems EU now faces

"leads me and others for the first time to consider whether we are not heading towards disintegration". "The EU has never been hit by such a high number of different crises of this gravity,” he continued, referring to the migration problem, the rise of terrorism, and the bloc’s persistent economic malaise. "What I am concerned about is that, although the EU has developed itself historically through a process of crisis, response to the crisis, and advancement, this time around it may well not happen."...

Monti’s skepticism over the wisdom of Jean Monnet — who famously said that “Europe will be forged in crises” — stems from his low opinion of national governments and the body that represents them in the Brussels’ pantheon: the European Council. “Nobody could seriously pretend that the full-time EU institutions [the Commission, Parliament, European Central Bank, and European Court of Justice] are the ones responsible for the lack of adequate and timely responses to the present constellation of crises,” he said. “That is the Council, in particular in its highest formation, i.e., the European Council.” ...

“I think the turning point was the financial crisis, which coincided with the French presidency of 2008,” he said. “The problem of the day was rescuing the banks and even rescuing states to some extent. That was to be done with money from member states, not from the tiny EU budget. Therefore, it was inevitable that the power largely shifted from the Commission to the Council and, within it, to the top table, the European Council.”...

In his view, the Council’s rise to prominence has been coupled with the steady drift of national political discourses towards nationalism, populism and a focus on the short-term. “The degree of mistrust and sheer prejudices between North and South and between East and West has never been so high and so unashamedly voiced,” he said...

“Unfortunately, this has started to pay off, at least in the short-term, for politicians who cultivate the gut feelings of their citizens. Even heads of government and ministers belonging to traditionally pro-European parties now indulge in this habit. They hit out at the EU and also to other member states in bilateral acrimony.”...

 “If it is an irreversible process, we are going to lose our democracies in our member states,” he said. “Because what is at stake now … is the first wave of an earthquake deriving, in my view, from deeper stresses in the underground of politics. But at the same time, there is also a declining trust in national authorities, a declining participation in votes, a growing impatience with the lack of performance by national governments.”...

The question is what he and other members of the traditional European elite can do about this. There is a long pause and then: “Not much.”"...

But Monti is still trying. He chairs EU`s high level group on own resources, which aims to reform and perhaps expand the EU budget. This is necessary because

“over the past eight, 10 months for the first time in many years, we have seen the member states … saying, for the refugee crisis, the eurozone crisis, the fight against terrorism, ‘hey Brussels, this has to be a new function of yours.’ We want to work on the simple logic that if there are new functions, maybe there should also be new resources.”

Hopefully the high level group will make useful analyzes. But to survive and prosper the EU can´t continue to turn a deaf ear to a large and growing number of critics who say "hey Brussels, we are unhappy an fed up with your centralized big government politics, we want a better balance between Union and national level".

Growing resistance especially against Brussels handling of refugee and eurozone crises is expressed through elections both in the Member countries and at Union level. This is how democracy works. Or should work. Because Brussels decisonmakers does not seem to understand that their Majority decisions should take into account the criticism in a better way. If this does not happen the EU's legitimacy will be undermined and nationalism increase. The Union appears to be at a crossroads now. The road followed so far continues straight ahead towards the The United States of Europe or one European country - probably dominated by Germany. The other road leads to a more balanced union, where the differences between Member states and between political opinions are better taken into account.

Mr Montis fear of the Unions collapse and the return of its bloody past is wellfounded. But he seems unwilling or unable to suggest necessary measures to avoid it.

Differences and linking between cross-border cooperation and European integration

2015 marked the 25 th anniversary of INTERREG, the European Union instrument to promote cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation. The European Commissions way to pay tribute was to publish a study:Territorial cooperation in Europe - A historical perspective . The study analyzes territorial cooperation and provides an overview of cross-border cooperation along the national borders of EU member states.

The preface of the study gives an interesting reflection of differences and linking between cross-border cooperation and European integration.

The first difference is that the pioneers of cross-border cooperation did not, at least initially, have the same goal as the pioneers of European integration, who for their part aimed from the beginning to establish an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe", in terms of the Schuman declaration of 1950. The first cross-border regions, embarked upon about ten years later, had an approach that was both simpler and more pragmatic, in that they were loooking for practical solutions to border problems that arose when a national frontier was crossed in everyday life.

It should also be emphasaised that the stakeholders concerned have not been the same and they have not been involved at the same level: the process of European integration developed between the Member States of the EEC and, from 1992, of the EU. It is a process of interstate cooperation with a supranational dimension, in which the principal actors are the Member States. Cross-border cooperation, for its part, places public stakeholders acting at the local or regional level ... or private stakeholders ... at the centre of the action.

Secondly, European integration and cross-border cooperation do not use the same tools.

The distinguishing feature of the functionalist Community method, developed by the founding fathers of Europe, especially Jean Monnet, is its supranational dimension. ... The instruments employed in cross-border cooperation have to comply with national legal frameworks.There is no single or obvious method of cross-border cooperation ... Cross-border engineering enables ingenious and appropriate solutions to be put forward for each particular case, where classic national ways of doing things prove to be ineffective.

Third, European integration and cross-border cooperation have evolved in fundamentally different ways.

The process of European integration has a unique history, which has taken place in stages, involves a vast area comprising many countries ... this harmonized Europe may be encountered in numerous aspects of daily life ... In this respect, cross-border cooperation does not to appear unique. It seems to be marked by three characteristics: singularity, diversity and complexity.

A link between European integration and the development of cross-border cooperation began to be established in the mid-1980s,

particularly with the project of creating a single market within the EEC. It was in order to facilitate thye implementation of this project that, following the reform of regional policy in 1988, the European Commission assigned a role to cross-border regions in the task of European integration. In 1990, the Commission introduced the Community initiative programme known as Interreg to support cross-border cooperation, which from that time on gained in strength ... The growing importance of cross-border cooperation in the process of European integration led to the introduction in 2007 of a new objective in European regional policy: territorial cooperation. This comprises both cross-border .., transnational .. and interregional cooperation.

The link between European integration and cross-border cooperation intensified with the geopolitical upheavel Europe experienced after 1989. A new pan-European dimension (east-west) opened up in cross-border cooperation, giving it a role to play in the reunification of the European continent.