Vision impossible ?

Last week the European Commission published a White paper on the future of Europe. 5 scenarios were presented: 1. Carrying On, 2. Nothing but the Single Market, 3. Those  Who Want More Do More, 4. Doing Less More Efficiently and 5. Doing Much More Together.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenerarios, the purpose said to be to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. After that, in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

The White Paper´s most important contribution to the EU reform process is perhaps that it apparently recognizes and authorizes the existence of different visions for the European Union´s future. None of them should be excluded from the reform discussions.

The Commission´s openmindedness for discussing reform alternatives might be hard to swallow for the different camps, and already today EurActiv reports that "a scenior Commission official" says Juncker has a preference for the latter option, where the 27 EU members share more powers, resources and decision-making across the board. According to the official Juncker is not a supporter of a two-speed Europe, the third scenario. Juncker alleged rejection of scenario 3, which he has previously preferred, is related to the Visegrad countries' strong dislike for this option.

But in France the En Marche presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron outlines plans for scenario 3. The Eurozone is held back by "shame" and we must "dare to go for a multi-speed Europe", he says.

And in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations the UK, as a backdrop for the EU reform process, will try to show that participation in the internal market is not needed.

Status seems to be that agreement on a EU vision is far away, and the most likely scenario is number 1. Carrying On.

 

The Commission rides again

After years with a Commission looking like a bystander to the crisis management of the European Council, President Juncker finally had the leading role yesterday. He presented a White Paper on the future of Europe.

The White Paper, which gives "reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025", is interesting, and the Juncker commission deserves credit for this initiative.

5 scenarios are presented:

1:  Carrying On
2:  Nothing but the Single Market
3:  Those Who Want More Do More
4:  Doing Less More Efficiently
5:  Doing Much More Together

Together they cover critisism of the status quo and the different views of which reforms are needed. There are many overlaps between each scenario, and they are therefore neither mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenarios, the purpose is to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. Then, in his State of the Union speech in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

To preserve and strengthen the EU, a combination of number 2 and 4 seems to be a possible path to follow. Number 3, which is already a reality for some areas, should not be the vision for the future of Europe. This scenario means several unions - not a common European Union.

Brexit and the internal market

According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) Article 26(2)

The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.

The UK, which today participates in the internal market, is now heading for a future outside this EU integration. Instead the government will go for a lower level of integration with the EU and try to negotiate a good trade agreement. This strategy is very interesting, because it represents a deintegration and an exit from the process which regulates the internal market.

There is another option the UK could have chosen. The EEA agreement allows Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein to participate in the internal market without being EU members. The EEA agreement is also dynamic, new relevant EU-laws are incorporated as soon as they are adopted. The UKs strategy is more like the Swiss-EU relationship. Switzerland participates in the internal market based on a lot of separate agreements outside the EEA.

The Brexit-negotiations will show if it is possible for the UK to get satisfactory access to the internal market without participating in it. One of the challenges will be to cope with the dynamic development of the internal market.

The Brexit negotiations will also provide more insight into integration as a supplement to national governance and integration as an end in itself.





.

EU-reforms must be bottom up

The European Union has been an elitist project from the very beginning. The French proposal to establish a European Coal and Steel Community, the predecessor to the EU, was a top down initiative. The aim - to make war not only unthinkable but materially unpossible - was of course very praiseworthy. And the supranational basis for the Community was an important innovation. It is also understandable that efficiency was a priority and that cumbersome democratic processes were avoided.

But although the Coal and Steel Community successfully survived difficulties and was followed by an even more ambitious supranational Europan integration project, the democratic shortcomings has never been rectified satisfactorily. An illustration is that the EU today has three presidents, neither of them directly elected by the European people.

EU as an elitist project now seems to have hit the wall. The supranational organisation has ended up in its biggest crisis ever. And the Brussels-bubble seems incapable of identifying and taking the necessary steps forward. The expectations for good reform ideas to be presented at the EUs 60th anniversary in March are low. 

The populus is dissatisfied. "Populist" parties and movements demand changes and challenge the elites in EUs member states. Brexit and Trump show that breakthroughs are possible. The elites perceives this as a dangerous problem. But in reality it is democracy working. And this is also how the EU hopefully can be reformed: from bottom-up by the populus who generate enough pressure to achieve necessary changes.

Brexit guidelines

As soon as the UK formally has notified the EU about its intention to leave the Union - i e having triggered article 50 - the negotiation process will start. The basis for the EU negotiations will be adopted in guidelines. Article 50 says

...In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with the State, settting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union...

The guidelines must be adopted unanimously by the European Council. In informal meetings 29 June and 15 December 2016 the heads of state of governments of the EU without UK (27 member states) have expressed common views on Brexit.

The two statements include a declaration that any agreement will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations and that access to the Single Market requires acceptance of all four freedoms. They say that the outcome of the UK referendum "creates a new situation for the European Union. We are determined to remain united ...". They also refers to that many people express dissatisfaction with the current state of affair, be it at the European or national level, and they express their intention to work with EU reforms.

Separately, leaders of the EU and the member countries have provided more different views on the forthcoming negotiations. They also disagree about the EU reforms. This situation indicates that adopting guidelines might be difficult for the European Council, but that the process also can be a catalyst for a much needed EU reform.

Europe - more, less or two speeds ?

For several years there has been a lot of talks of a Europe with two speeds. The idea is that different parts of the EU should integrate at different levels and pace depending on the political situation in each individul country. A "core Europe" consisting of the most europhile countries could be acting as a front runner.

And a multispeed Europe is already a reality: EU, EEA, Schengen and the Eurozone all have a different stock of membership countries. A more systematic construction of integration would not represent av novelty, but build on the current situation in Europe.

There are arguments for and against a two-speed Europe. But what should be focused is that the EU represents countries coming together voluntary in a supranational cooperation. They are doing so because they believe this will give them an added value compared to acting alone or cooperate on an intergovernmental basis. To develop a union with multiple speeds is hardly the way to go. Then there will be no longer the European Union, but the European Unions and it will be hopelessly complicated to understand and control. The situation to day with a Eurozone-group within the Union is bad enough. 

Polish Law and Justice (PiS) party leader Kaczyński has warned that any moves toward a two-speed European Union would lead to the bloc falling apart. According to him  a two-speed Europe would lead to the “breakdown, and in fact the liquidation, of the European Union in its current sense”.

Kaczyński´s warning should not be dismissed

In these times of global tectonic changes ...

Before the informal Valletta summit on 3 February the 27 heads of state of government received President Tusk´s "United we stand, divided we fall" letter and also a short "concept paper" to serve as a basis for an open discussion about the future of the EU. The concept paper, drawn up by the European Council Presidency in cooperation with the Italian Government, warned that the EU was at a historical turning point, experiencing dramatic challenges both from within and outside: … 

externally, globalisation based on cooperation and competition is giving way to increasing rivalry, confrontation and even conflict, putting into question the fundamentals underpinning the rules-based international order.  We are also facing important internal challenges as exemplified by Brexit.

In these times of global tectonic changes the EU needs strength and determination to keep unity and to better respond to the expectations of its citizens in the areas of security, economy and social inclusion. ...

The metaphor tectonic changes is interesting. It refers generally to movements in the crustal plates - a type of geological forces that humans can not regulate. But that is a misleading picture. The dramatic challenges "both from within and outside" which the EU experiences today are partly consequences of globalisation - a policy the EU has contributed to and which the concept paper intends to continue. It´s "more Europe", not the much needed decentralisation, the paper seems to advocate:

 ... the essence of political consolidation should be the renewal of cooperation within the EU ...

...greater unity in foreign policy...

...further deepening the Economic and Monetary Union and developing the single market based on our four freedoms...

...Europe as an area without internal borders implementing our comprehensive migration policy and increasing internal security... 

With such EU reforms the "tectonic changes" will continue.