EU at 50

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.

You might think you are reading the synopsis of a comic book, for all the talk of ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’, but instead it’s just the newest edition of the Centre for European Reform’s (CER) Lisbon Scorecard. Published with smooth regularity ahead of the Union’s annual Spring Summit for the eighth consecutive year the report highlights the most effective actors in the Lisbon reform process and castigates the ‘villians,’ those falling short of desired progress. Though the authors praise Europe’s overall economic recovery, the team is critical of the complacency that seems to be sneaking in the back door and is already affecting the largest economies in the Union. Continued economic reforms are surely needed in light of what promises to be a year of overall slowing global economic growth, with a weakened dollar and the reverberations of the earlier sub-prime crisis which keeps markets lurching both forward and back.

 To the CER, however, this year’s heroes and villains are:

“Austria– which has done well in copying the Nordic model of ‘flexicurity’; Estonia – a small, nimble newcomer that has moved ahead quickly; and the Netherlands – the only EU country that combines high employment with high productivity. Our ‘villains’ are Greece and Italy, which continue to combine poorly functioning markets with mediocre social outcomes. Some of the new member- states also need to raise their game if they want to cope with competition from emerging Asia.”

Britain leads the ‘brat pack’ of large European economies, given its competitive product markets one of the Union’s most flexible labour markets. And while Germany moves up a spot in the ranking, the authors caution that large economies have to keep the reform pressure up, as they still bring in 75% of the Union’s GDP. They criticize Germany’s over-dependence on exports as much as they do France’s low employment rate.

The entire report, compared with earlier versions, gives a well-rounded perspective on whether (or NOT!) the Member States are making good on the lofty ideals once agreed to in Lisbon. Its concrete and factual discussion is surely more than we can expect from the EU Spring Summit next week.

The FPA recently spoke to Serbia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Pavle Jevremovic, on Kosovo’s declaration of independence.  Jevremovic discusses the impact the reaction by Serbia might have on negotiations for his country’s EU membership bid, as well as the role of Russia and the U.S.

Cutting red tape is just one of the avowed goals of the Barroso Commission. A high-level expert group including the former Bavarian state governor, Edmund Stoiber, and international management consulting guru Roland Berger has been given the mandate to examine how to most effectively reduce bureaucratic hurdles and enhance the functioning of the internal market. The group reports directly to EU Commission Vice-President, Günter Verheugen. The overall goal is to slash the administrative burden placed on businesses by 25% by 2012 – a move the Commission claims could give a €150 billion boost to the European economy.

The group has already taken up its work, criticizing the hurdles small businesses face in applying for licences and permits, which often have to be approved by 27 different authorities in their respective languages. Though plans were likely already in the works before Stoiber and his fellow analysts set out, their comments seem to have been heard.

Ahead of the EU Spring Summit, which traditionally examines the Union’s economic progress along the goals mapped out in the 2000 Lisbon Agenda, the Commission and Parliament have now approved a plan to lift the burden of static regulations for some of its most active growth promotors: it’s small and medium sized enterprises. The new program will ease key linguistic and statistical burdens, facilitating licencing across the board.

The Commission and the expert group estimate that EUR 500 million in savings could be the immediate result. EU Heads of State are likely to give the plans their nod of approval at the Council Summit on March 13th and 14th.

 Update (March 4, 20 Der Spiegel is reporting that the “cold snap” between the Franco-German partners is thawing, following a “constructive” meeting in which President Sarkozy agreed to a compromise to extend negotiations on a future Mediterranean Union to all 27 EU Member States, not just bordering countries. Quoting the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung the Spiegel notes that Chancellor Merkel’s misgivings stemmed not so much from German concerns over the issue, but rather her European perspective of the proposed bloc, which is to closely cooperate on issues pertaining to border security, immigration and Mideast peace. Merkel wants to see the Union built upon the already existing Barcelona Process.

Though both leaders were quick to underline their willingness to compromise and work together on key issues in their joint Hanover statement on March 3rd, the necessity to stress a collaborative mindset alone is an indication that not all is well in the Franco-German tandem.

For France the object of being a driving force in the European Union - as part of the Franco-German tandem - was often ascribed to its desire to continue the self-aggrandizing politicking of “la grande nation” through different means. As the only European nuclear “super power,” the ‘other’ large European power, Germany, rarely had a problem conceding big brother status to France. The partnership has seen its share of vivid imagery borrowed from the world of transportation - the tandem, the motor, the driving force of European integration. Irrespective of personal differences throughout history (Schmidt and Giscard didn’t start out as friends, and Chirac and Schroeder could surely have been more chaleureux) the unwritten rules in European policy making for “the big two” dictated that major advances from either side be checked with the partner on the other side of the Rhein first. All this was surely true until the conclusion of the Nice Treaty negotiations, when Jacques Chirac’s demanding behaviour irked more than just the Germans. While the rift was felt then, the introduction of new players into the constellation (the Weimar triangle, including Poland for one) and the practical bargaining games around a larger table have seemingly let the air out of the tandem’s tires.

Cracks in the veneer began to show around the negotiations for a Constitution for Europe, but tensions sparked over the Turkey question with the last German government, who favored Turkish accession to the Union. While current governments in both country’s are thinking more along the same lines with respect to a further enlargement round to include the big man on the Bosperus, France’s newest advance across it’s bordering waters is raising a few eyebrows in Germany.

In its February 21st edition, The Economist, chronicles the fate of President Sarkozy’s next big idea: the Mediterranean Union. The launch of this ‘grand projet‘ is to fall squarely into the French EU presidency, which starts in the summer, and is intended to tackle non-ideological issues, such as transport, sea safety and to a certain degree border control and immigration. All well, all good, except for ‘la grande question’: Why? EU bordering countries have been closely bound to the Union through the Barcelona Process and the European Neighborhood Policy, thus other EU member states are having a hard time reading Mr. Sarkozy’s project as little more than a prestige object.

Most concerned, according to the Economist are - yes, the Germans:

“Not only did the new union seem devised to exclude them but its relation to the EU has been muddled. At first, the French did not see it as an EU matter. But this, viewed from Berlin, looked like an aggressive move to launch a rival body without following the cherished tradition of Franco-German co-operation. Now that the French have made the launch of the project a quasi-EU event, there is a new concern: finance. Dark voices in Berlin worry that Mr Sarkozy may try to use EU money to take the political credit for projects on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, home to several ex-French colonies.“

Does make you wonder, though, doesn’t it? Whom exactly is Mr. Sarkozy aiming to please?

Even more suspicious to the Germans - Sarkozy is veiling his argumentation in favor of his Mediterranean Union plans in terms of the fabled “avant garde” - essentially the provisions in the new Lisbon Treaty that allow certain countries to move ahead on certain policy areas, paving the way for the much critiqued two-speed Europe (which, to a certain extent already exists through the exemptions of the UK and Denmark on certain social protocols, and in another form in the close cooperation on defence matters among other groups of member states). “Those who want to proceed must be able to do so together,” declared Mr Sarkozy, using a line more commonly deployed by EU enthusiasts against Britain, “but those who don’t want to must not stop the others from moving forward,” the Economist quotes Sarkozy as saying. Needless to say, perhaps, the Germans are not invited to the July 13th meeting, in which he plans to unveil his blueprint for the Mediterranean Union. I have a feeling, a little touch of motor oil will not be enough to keep the Franco-German motor humming, having hit yet another road block.

Additional background information can be found here, here and here.

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.