Poor leadership

Europe is again building borders and walls. The leaders decided this week that the external borders of the Union will remain closed for another month or so. I see this decision as an inept response to the problem. Airports and land passage points could be equipped to check travellers’ temperatures and identify the individuals that might require further health scrutiny. Worse, the internal borders between the Member States continue to be blocked for people’s travel. And the governments cannot agree on a timetable and a phased approach to deal with that. There is no news about the matter, besides the closure. That is the best way to feed the nationalistic feelings. It is also one of the direct roads towards a fragmented Europe. Populists must feel excited.

I am shocked by the lack of coordination within the EU. I am also amazed by the timidity of the European institutions’ leaders. They are silent and so afraid of proposing anything. They have become the obedient functionaries of the national leaders and little else.

The world’s recovery, as well as the European one, calls for renewed cooperation, complementary and strategic alliances. We should be debating that in the G20 or a similar forum. All that is yet to be seen. There is no international conference being prepared to agree on a framework for action. No leader speaks on behalf of a greater project, of a different future, of anything else but of his or her own national square mile. It is disappointing and more, it is the wrong approach to build the post-covid world.

Some national leaders and some published opinion have now concluded we cannot depend on China or elsewhere when it comes to medical items, including masks. They put the blame on the Chinese and on the corporations that have established their workshops in the Far East or in India. That is an excuse. I do not accept it. The fact of the matter is that we forgot the concept of strategic health reserves. The national health services were not given enough means and attention. They have been undersupplied; the emergency stores were depleted. It is so much so that in Belgium some of the initial health supplies came from a big bank, that had understood early enough what was going on and created a substantial reserve of masks and so on. That happened with other governments as well. Politicians forgot the old and wise adage that one of the key roles of the government is to foresee impending crises and be prepared for them. To govern is to predict.

Well, the new adage, the one that is now being applied, is different: to govern is to react, a day at a time.

Responding to President Trump

Some people say that when it comes to the Donald Trump presidency, the right approach for the Europeans is to stay far away. That means to limit the contacts to the formal and the diplomatic exchanges. It is another way of saying, ignore and move on.

I am not sure that is the best response. We are friends and friends should talk in all frankness. If we disagree, we should say it. If we have a different view, who should express it. No need to be either rude or confrontational. But the European leaders should be true to themselves and to their American friends.

Silence will be interpreted as fear. In the end, it will open the gate for more errors and arrogance. Firmness, clarity and elegance are better rejoinders. Both across the Atlantic and for the European citizens as well.

Disappointed by current European political leadership

Audacity combined with balance make the difference between leaders and run-of-the mill politicians. 

Code of conduct for intelligence agencies

The on-going row over the US espionage practices should become an opportunity to discuss intelligence cooperation between the two sides of the Atlantic. It should also be used by the Europeans to better define the potential threats to their national and economic security and take the appropriate protective measures.

As I say it, I also recognise that intelligence remains one of the key features of a country´s sovereignty. But this should not prevent the EU countries from integrating better those dimensions of the services that have to do with responding to common threats. And, at the same time, they should protect themselves from intrusion, including when that spying comes from a friendly ally.

It is also time to have a code of conduct and a list of best practices that would guide information collection in a democratic environment. And get national parliaments to appoint independent ethics commissions that would be charged with the overseeing of intelligence activities in their respective countries. These commissions would then be guided by the above-mentioned code of conduct. 

Turkey and the EU

Leaders in the European Union look with perplexity at the sentences passed on top Turkish military officers and other civilian personalities, all of them accused of attempted coup d’état. But, as it has become the practice, they have decided to remain silent. It is however a silence that will weight a lot when the matter of Turkey’s accession to the EU will be on the table again. 

Weak EU leadership

It is becoming fashionable in some of the European leading circles to blame the IMF for the failure of some financial adjustment programmes such as the Greek or the Portuguese. It is as if the EU Commission and the European Central Bank, the two other members of the Troika that has negotiated such programmes on behalf of the international creditors, had just been compelled to go along with the IMF.

Nothing is less true. In many ways, it has been the EU Commission that had shown up to recently the most dogmatic approach to programme design and its implementation. They have been the ones pushing some very single-minded ideas such as labour cost reductions and a short-term approach to fiscal corrections. Now, having realised that the public opinion is turning in large numbers against these measures, they backtrack and blame the weaker member of the group.

This shows again that the European leadership feels corralled against the wall and has no guts to fight back for their position.  

EU needs to change coaches

A man that knows the EU well told me this evening that the high rates of unemployment are turning people against the European project. The first line of attack is against the Euro currency, he added. More and more people are looking at the common currency as an impediment for “their” nation’s recovery.  He also told me that there is serious concern in the leading circles of the EU as they see public opinion turning gradually against the Euro in a number of countries.

I told him if the common project were a football team the solution would be very clear: let’s fire the coach and get a new one. 

Italian politics: some good news

Seen from where I sit, the new Italian government looks good. It has a broad basis, its outlook is modern and it seems to be able to have a strong voice in the affairs of Europe. One should be a little optimistic about its future performance and also about its contribution to balancing power within the EU.

I am also convinced the markets will react positively to the composition of this cabinet. 

EU Commission should be more daring

You ask EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn and his team what is the solution for country A or B or C to return to growth and you always get the same prescription. They seem to know only one mantra. It has three lines: augment your exports; lower your labour costs; cut your public debt.

I wonder.

If every EU should boost its exports, where are the import markets?

How far should one lower the labour costs to be competitive with China or Bangladesh?

Why should we cut public debt so dramatically at a time of recession? Why can’t we get the European Central Bank’s statutes changed in order for it to be able to do some quantitative easing? Is Rehn afraid of saying that because he does not wish to offend Berlin?

The point here is very simple. We expect the EU Commission to tell the citizens of Europe what should be done effectively, together and on a country by country basis. They at the Commission are paid to produce an independent advice.

Then, Berlin, The Hague, and other capitals and their national politicians will respond if, yes or no, they want to do it.

A Commission that only recommends what the EU political masters want to hear is useless.  

France's frustations

The new French leaders feel very frustrated. This is now the talk in town, within the top power circles of Europe.

There are two main reasons for such frustration. One, it has to do with the very low approval ratings President François Hollande is getting when the voters are polled. He is now just over 30%. This is a very weak satisfaction level for a president that is still very much at the beginning of his mandate. Hollande and his advisors do not understand why the French public opinion is not responding more favourably. They are genuine when they say they do not understand the voters ‘reaction. Last week’s television interview of the President had no impact on the ratings. That has been an extremely discouraging reality check for Hollande and his people.

The other reason is related to the role of France within the EU. Hollande is very distressed he has not been able to fill the European shoes left by his predecessor. He knows Germany and other think-alike countries, such as Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands pay no attention to his views. The President of France has been reduced, in many ways, to the level of second line leaders, such as Spain or Poland. And he is not happy. But he has no idea how to turn this situation around.

I am one of those who think this state of affairs is pretty dangerous for Europe. France’s frustration will end up by bursting out. And the consequences might seriously contribute to further split and fragment the EU. 

EU silence

The EU top leaders have now adopted silence as public information technique. They let the sidekicks take the micro and express what they do not dare to say.