EU at 50

 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.

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.