EU at 50

There is a nervous anticipation in the air in Brussels. Today is the day that might undo the fragile compromise negotiated by Angela Merkel during Germany’s Presidency of the European Union.

Eyes grew wider with anguish when the Irish Times reported earlier in the week that the ‘No’ camp had overtaken the pro-Lisbon Treaty faction in the polls. What is clear is that it will be an extremely close vote.

But who are these nay-sayers that may be poised to undo an incomplete, though “best-possible-given-the-circumstances” compromise to reform and streamline the unwieldy 27 member ship that is the Union? The Guardian says it best:

“..ultra-rightwing Catholics, traditional nationalists, pro-American free marketeers and the far left. Add in a pop star and a turkey puppet called Dustin and you have a force which threatens to sink a reform project designed to transform how nearly 500 million Europeans are governed.”

As is always the case with contested votes, the undecided electorate and the overall turnout will play a disproportionate role in the final decision. Despite government efforts led by new Taoiseach Brian Cowen and supporters, 60% of the public still felt they were ill informed about the impact the Treaty would have on their lives and the status of Ireland within the Union. Unsurprisingly, then, that the eclectic ’No’ camp has preyed on these fears: Some argue that the Lisbon Treaty will allow abortion to sneak in through the back door, others are concerned about how it might affect Ireland’s corporate tax base, still others - including the only male member of pop act The Corrs - argue that signing on to the reform treaty is akin to remilitarizing one of the few remaining neutral countries in the European Union.

In a last minute publicity stunt, free-market advocating businessman Declan Ganley, who heads Libertas, the ‘No’ group that wants to see Ireland’s politicians negotiate a “better deal” for the country, bought one way tickets to Brussels for the country’s leadership, arguing they shouldn’t return unless they came back with a Commissioner and significantly more influence for the green isle (the Lisbon Reform Treaty creates a more streamlined EU executive, with rotating Commissioners, eradicating the traditional “one Commissioner per country” practice).

But honestly: What’s the worst that could happen if Ireland says no? Will it truly be the unravelling of the Union? My former colleague, EU expert and Director of Studies at the European Policy Centre, Antonio Missiroli predicts that practicality might prevail: The first option might be to organize a second referendum (this would be highly dependent on the margin of the ‘No’ camp win), the second might include a renegotiation of additional Irish opt-outs from the Treaty to satisfy skeptics and/or in the worst case (and given the amount of subsidies that Ireland still receives, no one could possibly want this solution), Ireland would pull-out of the European Union altogether.

Whether or not any of these options will have to be considered is only a matter of hours. We will feature a roundup of results and commentary in tomorrow’s blog.

The Foreign Policy Association and the European Courier spoke with the Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the United Nations, Ambassador Fernando Valenzuela of Spain, about issues impacting the EU at the UN.  Watch the video below or read the transcript here.

The European Parliament rang in its 50th anniversary today, with a ’solemn ceremony’, in what FT commentator Andrew Bounds calls “an even more surreal session” in Strasbourg than usual. Since 1958 and with the growth of the Union the legitimacy (first appointed then directly elected), size (from 142 members to the current 785) and role in the legislative process (initially advisory only, now almost on par with Member States in the majority of issues) has changed to an almost incredible degree. Still, shortcomings are aplenty: A survey published last week revealed that 73% of Europeans feel ill-informed about what it is the parliament does, though generally speaking they think it wields more power than the other institutions. Two-thirds of those queried had no idea when the next elections for the EP would take place - no one dared to ask, of course, if they even cared.

And there we have it: the quintessential dilemma - most people still don’t care. The parliament’s president, Hans-Gert Poettering, had to go so far today as to issue a call to national European parties to nominate candidates who mattered to people for seats in Europe’s elected body. A German saying plays on that fact, implying that only the most passé or incomeptent get shipped off to Brussels (’Hast Du einen Opa, schick ihn nach Europa’), because wouldn’t you want to keep the best where they mattered most - at home? That thinking of course is inherently flawed, given the fact that nearly 80% of national legislation in certain countries is handed down directly from Brussels - so wouldn’t you want the brightest shaping policies there?

Naturally, the EP suffers through the same crises as national parliaments - questions over allowances, bonuses and other benefits are forever resurfacing in the press - and these are legitimate questions to ask. Then there is that whole ‘accountability’ thing: While citizens have trouble holding the Parliament accountable, largely because the voting districts and the electoral system for some countries is different from their national contexts, the EP itself has been successful in playing itself as the people’s advocate. It brought the Santer Commission down; it stopped an avowed homophobe from becoming EU Commissioner; it was instrumental in capping the cost of mobile telephone calls in the Union; it has ensured robust anti-discrimination legislation and prevented the liberalization of Europe’s harbors for fear of an unemployment wave. It sets the rules for multibillion Euro mergers and has a key role to play in the regulation of markets from telecomms to energy.

Yes, there are plenty of lame ducks in the Parliament, hiding amongst the extremely hard-working and committed men and women. For it to become a more relevant institution to the Union’s citizens, the Parliament as a whole must, however become more politicized. Parties must resemble what citizens are used to on the national level. There must be a qualitiative debate on policy issues in which transnational issues are made evident - and the issues have to mean something to the citizen.

Until that happens, the current divide will continue: important decisions for the future of each and every one of us will be made in a city far, far away, by people who (in the absolute worst of cases) were too irrelevant for the national political process to begin with. Hardly an ideal situation. Naturally, this has to come from within the parties themselves. First signs are there, as is evidenced by the European Socialist Party. But more effective strategies need to be developed for this nascent, true party formation ongoing with all big groups in the current EP to be transmitted to the voter. That must be the Parliament’s ongoing task, but for today - let its members sit back and revel in their accomplishments: Let them eat cake.

 Commentators are speculating about the end of the Barroso Commission as we know it. It seems as if he resignation of EU health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou to take up the post as Cyprus’ Foreign Minister two weeks ago was only the beginning. Effective March 14 one of the arguably most successful Commissioners, internal policy head Franco Frattini will take a leave of absence to campaign for Silvio Berlusconi, as he puts in his bid for another term as Italy’s prime minister. Frattini’s return looks as unlikely as the likely Berlusconi victory, meaning he will have a plush cabinet post waiting for him. EU transport Commissioner, Jacques Barrot, will take over for Frattini during his announced one-month absence, but should speculations prove true, a permanent solution will have to be found.

This news comes only days after the Austrian press published articles insinuating that Members of the European Parliament would be unlikely to support a second term for current Commission President José Manuel Barroso. That might be the least of Barroso’s current worries, however, as his term runs until 2009. He might be fretting more over fishery Commissioner Joe Borg’s interest in returning to his home country of Malta, following recent elections there. Or, he might be concerned about how long it might take the European Parliament to approve the candidates set to follow in these Commissioner’s footsteps, recalling the Rocco Buttiglione crisis, which necessitated a reshuffle at the last minute.

Alternatively, he could be seeing this as a warm-up for the changes to come. Once the Lisbon Reform Treaty is ratified by all Member States, the EU Foreign Minister will be introduced. Only candidate for the post: the current EU chief diplomat (official title: High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy - what a mouthful), Spaniard Javier Solana. His post will necessitate an institutional change, as Solana will move from the Council to the Commission. This in turn might cost two current Commissioners their job: fellow Spaniard and monetary affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia and Austrian external relations head, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who has already taken a back seat to Solana in terms of driving that policy area.

Commentators are seeing the recent developments as a sign of instability, while Commission spokespeople are quick to paint the story in a different light, speaking instead of the distinctive leadership capacity these men and women have that they are called back to ‘national duty’. Naturally, these changes are cannot be compared to the Santer fiasco. Yes, these shifts don’t make the Commission seem like the most stable administration, but they are a part of the European political process. Yes, the approval hearings might be drawn out, as the European Parliament flexes its muscle as and holds new candidates to account. Is that likely? No. The Member States have a vested interest in putting forth candidates that will win the support of the parliament and the latter has no interest in stalling the legislative process. The hearings will be another opportunity for the parliament to prove its legitimate role in a ‘normal’ EU political process, however, and if it retains its critical capacity to discriminate and weed out the good from the bad, it will bolster its significance and highlight the normalcy of change in a functional supranational, democratic entity.

Europeans took to the polls over the weekend, with perhaps unsurprising results: Spain’s socialist Prime Minister Zapatero was reelected against a bland looking Mariano Rajoy, despite an economic crisis that still has to fully play out and France’s governing UMP was given a shake-up in communal elections, serving as a warning sign that the electorate is unhappy with the ‘Hyper-President’s’ globe-trotting, star-marrying, self-aggrandizing ways.

 What will this change for EU policy making? Not much. In fact: probably nothing. The Zapatero government is, as all post-Franco Spanish governments very pro-European. Difficulties arise over fisheries policies and minority issues, among other things, but that is ‘normal’ EU business. What the Economist points out, however, is that Zapatero’s reelection could mean bad news for a prime minister who is already out of office: Tony Blair.

Where’s the connection, you (rightly) ask? Well, according to the Economist’s Europe blog, officials in the Council of Ministers are ruminating whether this vote means Mr. Blair’s chances of becoming the Union’s first standing president have fallen back to, well, nil. Because of their similarity in leadership style and their same political family, both men could come up against each other, but with Blair’s anti-European (think Iraq war) stance, Zapatero could win out. The air in Brussels is rife with speculation on the entire presidency issue and of course nothing is set and done, as the Lisbon Reform Treaty is still in the ratification process, but these rumors will be interesting to watch. These two might not be so friendly with each other as the months drag on.

The European Union – 27 Member States, 492 million consumers, a single market and the greatest free trading zone in the world, with open borders in 18 of its Member States. Only 53 years after the end of one of the most atrocious wars in history, the European Union has not only created tenable peace within its own territory, it extends its reach to ensure stability in its neighborhood and the world over, with its peacekeeping forces deployed to missions Kosovo and the Congo.

Despite the ill-fated attempt at giving the quasi-federal structure a recognizable, legal ‘face’ through the introduction of a Constitution for Europe (which was largely procedural in nature anyway), Europe has become ‘normal’ for its decision makers and its citizens. Thousands of young Europeans have taken advantage of the EU’s programs to expand their horizon through Erasmus or Comenius, two of the Union’s largest funds to encourage the mobility of its citizens. Hardly anyone can remember the extended waiting lines at inner-European borders. Citizens now expect high-speed trains to criss-cross the Union’s territories, irrespective of whether a French TGV, a German ICE or even the Eurostar is taking them to Paris. At the same time, with 80% of national legislation ‘Made in Brussels’ politicians and civil servants from all Member States have become highly-adept at negotiating in a multi-national context, even if issues of sovereignty and national interest can still dominate the discussions. But not all is rosy. Proclaimed as a serious identity crisis, the rejection of the European Constitution by the Dutch and French in 2005, and the subsequent ‘thinking phase’ made the Union look weak, not only to its citizens. For them, Europe has become so ‘toujours‘ that many have become disconnected from process. If most consider national politics a lofty affair, than EU policies are even more of an elite club. The unique triumvirate of institutions that comes close, yet not close enough to the legislative-judicative-executive model most Europeans are used to, is confusing enough. Decision-making remains an elusive process for the average man or woman on the proverbial European street.

The recently approved Lisbon Reform Treaty is just that - another treaty to help streamline the decision-making process, according greater rights to the European and to national parliaments, and bring some clarity into certain representative functions (i.e. the Chairmanship of the European Council) and policy areas (i.e. the European External Action Service). But it has lost all hallmarks of a ‘people’s treaty’ it may have previously had: no mention of flag or anthem, European civil rights reduced in legal force. National sovereignty and its symbols were too precious.

By and large, European leaders are adopting a pragmatic, self-centered approach to the EU. Recent protectionist sentiments, as voiced in Poland and France could mark the death knell for the federalist idea. The question is, whether that is truly such a horrible prospect. Should quasi-American federalism truly be the European holy grail? With a Union set to expand even further (and the divisions the possible inclusion of Turkey is already causing), aren’t we already witnessing the dilution of the original European dream? Or is, in fact, what has been achieved already the penultimate: a common currency, open borders, a regional giant and a global player?

Challenges, however, remain aplenty: the internal market is still incomplete and the liberalization of services throughout the Union was one of the most fraught political initiatives in recent years. Until this year, the EU was still spending the largest part of its budget on agriculture, rather than putting its money where its mouth was and allocating the lion share of the bugdet toward enhancing competitiveness, the proclaimed goal of the fabled Lisbon Agenda. The latter aimed to make Europe the “most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.” Despite its open borders (the so-called Schengen area was just recently extended), the Union still lacks robust immigration policy and while it is the largest single donor of development aid in many country’s of the world, foreign policy is still in many respects the prerogative of individual Member States.

This blog is dedicated to EU current events and macro-political developments. It aims to explain European integration in jargon-free language that everyone can understand. Most importantly, it should be a platform for an exchange of views and ideas on Europe’s present, its future and perhaps its overall destiny, however distant that may seem.