Europeans are living times of
disturbing uncertainty and the feeling is palpable. On the 31st of January, the
European Council’s President Donald Tusk assessed the future of Europe in a
letter sent to the 27 heads of State or government, where the Polish head of
the Council identified three main threats currently undermining the stability
of the Union: the transformation of the geopolitical scene, the rise of
nationalist and xenophobic sentiments and the doubt in the fundamental values
of liberal democracy.
As for the European Commission’s
president, Jean-Claude Juncker, he has proposed different plans to bring back
the popularity of the EU, or, at least, to save it from crumbling apart.
Focusing more on a political way of conducting the EU institutions, which is
highly linked to the current lack of attractiveness of the Union, Juncker unveiled
a “White Paper on the future of the EU” to be implemented by 2025.
Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker. Google
White Paper
“Stop bashing the EU”
said
Juncker during his speech to MEPs in the European Parliament. The Commission’s
leader appeared rather irritated with the recurrent assaults to the EU’s core after
Brexit and the rise of an anti-European rhetoric across the bloc.
Presented on
March 1, in Brussels, the
White
Paper put on the table five proposals offering different solutions for the feeble
European Union (EU). Hence, the five scenarios are as follow:
- Carrying On - The EU27
focuses on delivering its positive reform agenda
- Nothing but the Single Market - The
EU27 cannot agree to do more in many policy areas beyond key aspects of the
single market
- Those Who Want More Do More - The
EU27 proceeds as today but allows willing Member States to do more together in
specific areas
- Doing Less More Efficiently - The
EU27 focuses on delivering more and faster in selected policy areas not acting
in where it is perceived not to have an added value
- Doing Much More Together - Member
States decide to do much more together across all policy areas
Overall, Juncker said he would
not favour any of the five proposals, but he said he rejects the idea
"that Europe should be reduced to a free trade area" which the
Commission would be administrating.
Nevertheless, some, including
Gianni
Pittella, the leader of the Socialist group in the Parliament, received these
proposals with considerable criticism. “We would consider it a clear political
mistake to simply present five options concerning the EU’s future without
pointing out a clear political preference,”
said
Pittella.
After Juncker’s announcement, the
Visegrad Group –
Czech Republic,
Poland,
Hungary and
Slovakia – warned for a
possible “disintegration” of the EU. "Any form of enhanced cooperation should
be open to every member state and should strictly avoid any kind of
disintegration of the single market, the [passport-free] Schengen area and the
European Union itself," the EU leaders expressed in a
joint
statement.
The Finnish Prime Minister
Juha
Sipilä revealed disagreement as to a multispeed Europe, where Members follow
different goals. “The European Union should not be split into groups
of states that increase their cooperation at different speeds,”
said
Sipilä.
“Many of the proposed changes
would require the re-opening of the EU Treaties. This would mean a multi-year
negotiation process with no certainty about its results. The Union cannot
afford this,” Finland’s PM went on.
Contrary to Finland’s position,
Germany and
France seem to
endorse
a “multi-speed” Europe, where different actions are taken from different Member
States in different subject matters, hence ensuring a distribution of efforts
in an uneven way. However, French President
François Hollande said
in an interview in Le Monde that the multi-speed option is the only choice to
avoid the “explosion” of the bloc.
Isabella Lövin, Sweden’s deputy
prime minister, backed Juncker’s analysis that EU members are too quick to
blame Brussels for their problems. “Many EU member states have used the EU as a
scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in their country and taking credit for
everything that goes right,” she
told
the Guardian shortly before Juncker’s speech.
Leaders of the 27 states will
discuss the scenarios outlined by Juncker when they meet to celebrate the
bloc's 60th anniversary in Rome on March 25.
However, the EU summit in
December will be the peak of the process to forge the “new vision” for Europe
for the next decade. The Commission foresees that other scenarios will arise
between March and December, such as a scenario focusing on defence, another one
supporting the liberal approach, and one from countries opposing a common EU
response to the refugee crisis.
Comitology
The other aspect that has created
a surge of populism throughout the Union is the lack of understanding of the
functioning of the European institutions. Indeed, some Member States have
accused the Commission of being extremely bureaucratic (which in fact, it is)
and pointed out the democratic deficit tainted in the decision-making process.
As a reaction, in February,
Juncker vowed to change the comitology process of the EU, meaning the
decision-making process of the Union. Juncker’s idea is to give Member States
more responsibility over important and often controversial decisions (such as
pesticides and genetically modified food) taken at EU level.
Indeed, over his first two years
as president, Juncker blames the comitology process of the EU as a toll that
has been undermining the credibility of the Union as a whole. As a reaction,
Juncker has come forward with four options to reform the comitology process:
- Changing the voting rules so that
abstentions are not counted when calculating the qualified majority needed in a
committee;
- Refer decisions back to the
Council of Ministers if national experts fail to reach a conclusion;
- A proposal that would require a
positive majority only in sensitive areas surrounding health and food safety;
- A scheme in which countries would
vote multiple times until a conclusion was reached.
The latest controversial example
is the famous glyphosate case. Glyphosate is an active substance used as a
plant protection product, commonly known as a pesticide. Back in June 2016, in
the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals and Feed (an official meeting where
Member states cast their votes on important issues mainly related with health
and food safety), Member States did not reach a qualified majority on a voting
decision to ban the use of the pesticide. Hence, the final decision was shifted
to the Commission, which decided to prolong the authorisation of the pesticide
in the EU until the end of this year amidst growing concerns from NGOs and
public manifestations against the use of glyphosate.
Yet, several trade associations
operating in the food and pesticide industry believe that this move may
undermine a science-based decision-making process and are contesting Juncker’s
move.
The comitology proposals were
transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council for discussions under
the co-decision procedure. Until the plans are adopted, the current rules
remain in force.
60th Anniversary Treaty of Rome
Celebration of the Treaty of Rome, March 25, 1957. Google
Immersed in a political drama which outcomes may define the future of the Union, EU leaders will convene
and debate the challenges facing the bloc on the occasion of the celebration of the 6Oth
anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
According to
Daniel Guéguen,
Professor at the College of Europe with 40 years of experience in EU public
affairs, “celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome can only go
hand in hand with a feeling of revolt against all those at EU and national
level who have
replaced the old Community method with intergovernmentalism and
abandoned their political power to the bureaucracy.” Even though the
Commission’s chief has announced his intention of not running for a second
term, Guéguen
claims
“the first thing that needs to be done right away is the replacement of Commission
President Mr Juncker”.
The expert in EU affairs further states
that the EU must not be “a head control by civil servants” and highlights the
importance of making EU agencies like the European Food Safety Agency, the
European Medicines Agency and the European Chemicals Agency independent of the
Commission, in order “to confer an objective role to science in food and plant
health regulation” and also to “challenge the subjective exploitation of
science for particular interests” which often raises ethical suspicions between
legislators and stakeholders.
