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.

Brexit - like escaping from jail ?

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, used the metaphor "escaping from jail" to describe a Brexit last Sunday. That was a funny, but not an incontestable characterization. Remainers will not agree that the EU is a prison. They say the country´s membership is important for the economy and strengthens its security and influence.

To convince undecided voters Johnson and the Leavers should do four things:

1. Coordinate the Leave campaignes so that voters do not get confused and uncertain.

2. Give factual answers to the Remainers arguments.

3. Explain in simple terms why UK should leave the Union.

4. Explain in simple terms how the UK should leave the Union. This point includes both the process of leaving and the kind of relationship UK and the EU will have afterwards.

Hollande pushes for new Israel-Palestinian talks ahead of French presidential election

A few days ago France announced its intentions to push for new negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. Their plan is to kick-start the talks with a conference this summer. Almost everyone will welcome such an effort, even if the prospects for success seems rather dark.

A strange feature of the French initiative, however, is that it contains an ultimatum: if the negotiations efforts fails, France will recognize a Palestinan state. Not surprisingly has the Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas expressed satisfaction with the initiative, while Israel moved quickly to reject the French ultimatum.

So far about 135 of the United Nations 193 member countries have recognized Palestine as an independent state. Many western countries have said they will wait for a peace deal, and only 8 EU countries have given their recognition. So why don´t France just recognize Palestine instead of  connecting the recognition to a negotiation initiative which can not succeed ?

A possible answer is that the French Socialist Party is looking forward to the presidential election next year, scheduled to be held in April and May. This will be a contest where National Front is predicted to be a strong challenger. To gain support from the Muslim population, which accounts for about 8 % of the country's population, will be great advantage for the Socialist Party. Recognition of a Palestine state might be helpful. But France wants to ride two horses at the same time - one for a re-start of negotiations and one for a recognition of Palestine. The problem is that the horses seems to be running in opposite directions.

Court gives blow to EU foreign policy

The General Court  of the European Union has decided to annul the freezing of the assets of five Ukrainians, including two former Prime Ministers.

The General Court writes in a press release that the Council, in response to the crisis in Ukraine - which began at the end of 2013 - decided, on 5 March 2014, to freeze the assets and economic resources of the persons identified as responsible for the misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds. Two former Prime Ministers together with three other Ukrainians were, for the period from 6 March 2014 to 5 March 2015, included on the list of persons subject to the freezing of assets on the ground that they were the subject of preliminary investigations in Ukraine relating to offences connected to misappropriation of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine. The five Ukrainians brought proceedings before the General Court with a view to having their inclusion on the list annulled.

In today´s judgments the General Court upholds the actions brought by the five Ukrainians and annul the freezing of assets imposed on them for the period from 6 March 2014 to 5 March 2015.

The Court finds that the Council identified the five Ukrainians as being responsible for misappropriation of funds solely on the basis of a letter from the Prosecutor General of Ukraine stating that investigations of those persons had made it possible to establish that large amounts of public funds had been misappropriated and unlawfully transferred out of Ukraine. The Court takes the view that that letter provides no deatils concerning the matters specifically alleged against the five Ukrainians of the nature of their responsiblity. In short the Court concludes that a person cannot be treated as being responsible for misappropriation of funds solely on the ground that he is the subject of a preliminary investigation in a third country, without the Council being aware of the matters alleged against that person in that investigation.

EU reforms - in which direction ?

The European integration process, which started after the second world war, has aimed at preventing dangerous nationalism and instead make Europe stronger as a whole. Mixed results make it difficult to say if the cooperation has been a success or a failure. With "an ever closer union" as a wizard, the EU has met every problem with a call for "more Europe". That is also the situation to day. The Union wants more power to handle the Euro and migration crises.

But there is now a growing resistance in the member states to cede more sovereignty to Brussels. Nationalism has got a strong come back. The EU is now at an important crossroad. Reforms are needed, but should they consist of more or less Europe ? The answer to this will come through political struggle. Two perspectives on the integration reform has recently been presented.

Guy Verhofstadt, leader for the Alliance of Liberal and Democrats for Europe group in the European Praliament, proposes to create a system of two types of European membership: The first type is "full membership" that goes all the way. It makes you part of the "ever closer union" with one currency, one economic policy, one army and one foreign policy. Those European countries who think full membership is not their cup of tea, can apply for a second type: "associate membership". This gives access to to the internal market, you will only have to apply those rules and regulations that are necessary to create a level playing field in internal trade. Obviously, that also means you would no longer have full representation and the corresponding voting rights at EU level.

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has said he will launch a "third alternative" to "renationalisation" and the "antidemocratic European institutions" on 9 February 2016 in Berlin. The initiative, under the name of "Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiE25) wants to bring interests together in order to "democratize Europe and stop the creeping fragmentation".

The two perspectives are interesting, but it seems unclear if they can provide adequate responses to the challenges.

UK - EU negotiations: The difference between compromises and solutions

PM Cameron presented his wishlish for reforms at the European Council 17 december 2015. Afterwards there was an exchange of views between the participants. The media reported that Cameron´s proposals are difficult to meet, but there is willingness to compromise. This may sound positive for the negotiations, but does not mean Cameron will succeed. To do that he must achieve solutions to the four problem areas he described in his letter to President Tusk. The letter does not specify exactly how the reforms should be designed. That can be done in several ways and is a matter for the negotiations. But it is important that the concerns of the British people over their membership in the European union are properly addressed.

There are lots of EU sceptics in UK who argue that Cameron´s reform-wishlist is "trivial", that the only adequate measure for UK will be to leave the Union. If  Cameron comes back from the negotiations with compromises - measures which don´t address the challenges he describes well enough - it will be a gift-package to the leave-camp. They can then argue that not even such a modest wishlist as Camerons was the EU willing to accept.

To convince enough people that UK should remain in the Union, it will be important for him to negotiate credible solutions to his four problem areas (economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and immigration). He has some wiggle room, but the negotiations must appear as a success.

The media gave an illustration of Camerons wiggle room some days ago. According to an "unnamed official" had French and German leaders made a counter offer to Camerons proposal of a four year ban before EU migrants can claim benefits. They had offered Cameron a three year ban. If correct this might be enough for Cameron to claim successful negotiations concering benfits for EU migrants. A two year ban would be a typical fifty-fifty compromise and will not be enough for him.

Cameron´s EU negotiations

In an earlier discussion of possible EU-reforms we mentioned different expressions of dissatisfaction with how the union works: Eurosceptic gains in national elections, national referendums opposing EU politics, lawsuits from member countries against EU and the forthcoming remain/leave referendum in UK. This blogpost will have a closer look at the UK referendum.

PM Cameron announced in January 2013 his intention to undertake a renegotiation of EU practices to make them more aligned with UK government preferences, and to subsequently hold a UK referendum on EU membership. The proposals were contained in the Conservative manifest for the general elections in May 2015. With a new Conservative majority government he started the negotiation process and a EU referendum bill was introduced to the Parliament the same month.

It took some time before Cameron gave a fairly specific description of what he wanted to renegotiate with the EU. After conversatitions with his fellow Heads of Governments and upon a request from members of the European Council he described his "wishlist" in a letter to Council President Tusk 10 November. The letter together with Tusk´s comments will be discussed at the Council meeting 17 December.

According to Cameron´s letter he is seeking reforms in four areas: Economic Governance, Competitiveness, Sovereignty and Immigration. For each of the four areas he mentions concrete measures and principles which should be implemented to address the concerns of the British people over their membership of the European Union. He emphasizes that the reforms must be legally binding, but he does not describe the precise means, or detailed legal proposals, for bringing the reforms into effect. "That is a matter for negotiation, not least as there may, in each case, be different ways of achiving the same result".

Cameron said earlier there would be a lot of speculations during the negotiations. And this was obviously a correct prediction. The media coverage is filled with analyzes, rumours and references to "well informed" anonymous sources.

The negotiations are also characterized as a predetermined theatre where the europhile Cameron and the EU after apparently "very tough" discussions finally will present a trivial deal as a great reform success. But even if that perspective may be important to have in mind, the negotiations are a real political fight within the European Union and the British people will of course not be fooled by a  failure presented as a success.

The British wishlist and threat of exit represent a new and demanding challenge for the EU. On the one hand it´s difficult to let UK be cherry picking among EU-policies. Other member states would then demand the same option and the Unions politics would soon be chaotic. On the other hand, if the negotiations end with failure for Cameron and a "leave"-majority in the referendum, the consequences for the Union might be serious. Marine Le Pen, leader of France´s Front National, said some days ago that “Brexit would be marvelous - extraordinary - for all European peoples who long for freedom” and if the British public were to vote to leave the European Union it would be the modern equivalent of the toppling of the Berlin Wall and herald the beginning of the end for the bloc. A failure will also be yet another indication that the EU can not be reformed or reversed.

The only good solution will be to transform Camerons wishes into reforms which can benefit both UK and the 27 other member states. Cameron writes in the letter that this is his ambition and flexibility is necessary for success. But to convince he must of course come home with more than some adopted generalities.

It will be a difficult process.