Poland must follow the EU values

A danger disguised as Law and Justice

Victor Ângelo

 

I have known Marzena for more than 15 years. It was shortly after she arrived in Brussels and started a new life, serving in the homes of the Belgian middle class. She came from deep Poland, a stone's throw from Belarus - in fact, she has relatives living in a couple of villages on the other side of the barbed wire, Poles like herself, but caught up in the post-war border-line scramble by Stalin's people. Over time, she saw many thousands of other compatriots arrive in Belgium, who today work in construction, domestic service, factories or in the many Polish stores that have opened everywhere. The money that these immigrants regularly transfer to their homeland has been one of the factors in Poland's economic modernization. The other is linked to the different advantages that came with the country's entry into the European Union in 2004.

Marzena is a modest but thoughtful person. She has learned a lot over the years. She can see the economic progress, how her country has changed since accession. But she also recognizes that today's Poland is on the wrong track when it comes to the opening of mentalities and political culture. A part of the ruling class exploits the nationalism that has kept the country alive throughout history, amid Germanic, Russian and Scandinavian pressures, and deepens it with the help of the Catholic church, which continues to weigh heavily in maintaining an extreme conservatism. There is a holy alliance, it must be said, between the government led by the Law and Justice party (PiS) and the most backward sectors of the ecclesiastical structure.

The government has been in conflict with the European Union for several years, mainly for reasons having to do with the independence of the justice system, which has been strongly limited by the political power. This conflict was recently aggravated by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, which does not recognize the primacy of European law. This Tuesday, the European Parliament (EP) heard Ursula von der Leyen and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki on the dispute. It was a clash of positions, with it being clear that the EP supports the European Commission (EC) and expects it to take measures that will lead Warsaw to change its policy. For now, the Polish Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) - about 24 billion euros in non-repayable funds plus 34 billion in loans - is waiting for better days before being accepted. There is also the possibility that the Commission will activate the mechanism that makes the approval of European funds conditional on respect for EU values. This mechanism is the most expeditious, since it can be approved by a qualified majority, without requiring the unanimity of member states. Poland expects to receive around 121 billion euros in cohesion funds in the coming years, until 2027. In financial terms, what is at stake is immense. Warsaw, however, is still betting on a confrontation with the EC.

All this puts the future of the common project at risk. Poles want to remain in the EU - 90% of citizens are in favour, including 87% of PiS supporters. The government itself says and repeats that there is no question of preparing an exit, a Polexit. They say it is just an assertion that Europe is based on a collection of nations and not on ever deeper integration. This is a fallacious argument, for what is at issue is respect for the basic values that unite the European peoples, and which have been enshrined in Articles 2 and 3 of the EU Treaty. To allow a Member State to violate these values and remain in the Union is to offer the adversary the possibility of destroying us by continuing to sit at our table.

The Commission must win this battle. The European executive and the other institutions cannot emerge weakened from such a debate. Now is the time to hear the voices of the leaders supporting Ursula von der Leyen without ambiguity or further delay.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 22  October 2021)

 

The future of Europe requires a thorough debate

Europe and the Coming Turbulence

Victor Ângelo

 

The launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe took place this week in Strasbourg, at the official seat of the European Parliament. The symbolism of Strasbourg is enormous. It represents reconciliation, peace, democracy, and solidarity among Europeans. These four desiderata are still as relevant today as they have been during the last seven decades, a period of continued construction  of the European political edifice. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of that, to recognize where we have come from and to define where we want to go in the next decade.

That is the aim of this initiative, which is due to be completed in March 2022. It would be a mistake to make a cynical assessment of the conference. However subtle it may seem, cynicism is the knife of the bitter and the downbeat. What is called for is a citizen's reflection that combines realism with idealism, that is a critical but constructive view. It is a matter of going beyond the rhetoric or the usual elucubrations.

The conference is a different test, which will allow us to measure the strength of citizenship movements. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the EU is precisely that which stems from the gap of ignorance or indifference between politics and the European institutions on the one hand, and people's daily lives on the other. Even in Brussels, people who live a few blocks away from the European district seem to be as disconnected from the EU as any family living in a small village in Portugal. A political project that is not understood by ordinary mortals is fragile. It can easily be jeopardized by its enemies.

The nine axes for reflection about the future ignore this disconnection. The topics are important: climate change and the environment; health; the economy, employment, and social justice; the EU's role in the world; rights and security; digital transformation; democracy; migration; and education, culture, sport, and youth. But it is a mistake to take citizens' support for the European project for granted. This is a fundamental issue. After an absolutely exceptional year, we find in European societies a lot of frustration, confusion, impatience, and a more pronounced individualism. We also have a set of internal and external enemies ready to exploit vulnerabilities and bring down the EU. That is why the discussion about the path to 2030 must begin with an analysis of weaknesses and threats.

A forward-looking assessment of the coming years shows us that we will be impacted by three major shock waves. The first comes from the accelerating use of cybernetics, in particular artificial intelligence, which will turn many Europeans into digital illiterates and redundant labour. If not properly addressed, it will further exacerbate social inequalities and job insecurity.

The second will result from new waves of uncontrolled immigration and the exploitation of this phenomenon by certain forces. It will not only be Viktor Orbán or Jarosław Kaczyński, or even Sebastian Kurz, who will divide Europe on this issue. The chances of Marine Le Pen gaining power in 2022 or of Italy being ruled by a coalition of ultranationalists in 2023 - in an alliance of Matteo Salvini with neo-fascist leader Georgia Meloni, whose Fratelli d'Italia party already mobilizes 18% of the national electorate - must be reckoned with. A front that brings together such politicians in several member states would cause a potentially fatal fracture for the continuation of Europe.

The third strategic shock - something to be avoided at all costs - could come from a possible armed conflict between the United States and China. Such a confrontation, which can by no means be excluded from the prospective scenarios, would have a devastating effect. European stability and prosperity would go down the drain.

The message, now that the debate has been opened, is that there can be no taboo subjects and no incomplete scenarios that do not consider the internal and external complexity in which we will move. Already, one fact is certain. There are years of great upheaval ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

 

Europe and its disagreements on migrations

Europe adrift in the sea of migrations

Victor Ângelo

 

A meeting of the European Union's ministers of foreign affairs and internal administration on migration was held this week at the initiative of the Portuguese presidency. The previous one had taken place in 2015, when more than a million people arrived in Europe from Syria and other parts of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Africa. The long gap between the two meetings happened because migration is an extraordinarily complex and fractious issue among EU member states. Leaders have systematically swept the imbroglio under the rug.

Now the meeting was a new attempt to define a common policy. There were some generic statements about the need for a comprehensive and coherent response that combines development and security partnerships with the migrants' countries of origin and transit, that opens avenues for controlled migration, that prioritizes political relations with North Africa and West Africa. All very vague and at the level of mere lapalissades. The result was, once again, below expectations.

The Mediterranean Agenda proposed in February by the European Commission, which was one of the reference documents, is equally imprecise. It lumps together completely different national realities, as if the Mediterranean geopolitical space were homogeneous. And it does not make a critical balance of the past. It suggests continuing and deepening a cooperation model that, in reality, has failed to help transform any state in the region into either a prosperous or democratic nation.

The fact is that there is no common position beyond strengthening Frontex as the European Coast Guard and border police. That is the only accepted and shared responsibility, the lowest common denominator. As for the rest, everything else is business as usual. It will be managed by chance events. The countries of entry of illegal immigrants will continue to have to bear the political, humanitarian, and economic costs that result from receiving those who arrive there. Despite the repeated appeal by the Portuguese Minister of Internal Administration, there will be no solidarity among Europeans in this matter.

The great truth is that most member-states do not want to receive new waves of immigrants coming from other geographies and unfamiliar cultures. Even countries that have traditionally been the destination of Maghrebian, African and other immigrants share this position. We, the Portuguese, are a little on the outside. We do not really understand the weight of migratory pressure on the cohesion of the social fabric of big cities in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, for example. Nor do we have a clear notion of the political impact of the presence of vast foreign communities, when they are not integrated into the societies that received them, thus being an argument easily exploited by right-wing extremists and potential terrorists. 

Europe will continue to speak constructively and act restrictively, even repressively, on this issue. International migration is one of the most complex dilemmas facing us, but one that many Europeans do not want to consider. Despite the progress of tolerance values, we are not fully prepared for the diversity of cultures and faces. Anyone in doubt should visit the new ethnic ghettos that exist in certain European metropolises. And without going any further, you can start with certain outskirts of Lisbon.

We have already seen that the sea is not enough of a barrier for those who are desperate or dream of a better life. But since the intention of those in charge is to stop population movements that seem threatening, Europe will go further. It will pour fortunes into countries that have the potential to send us new waves of migrants - as is already happening with Turkey. It is a carrot and stick gamble. Now, in these countries, the powerful always get the carrot, and the poor and the weak always get the stick. For this reason, many seek to flee to Europe.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published yesterday in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

Looking for a stronger European leadership

A more vibrant European spring

Victor Angelo

 

The next six to eight weeks, including the Easter period, could be a period of great tension in the European Union (EU). We are entering spring. This is the time when life sprouts again. People, like plant shoots, want to go outside and catch the new sun. They become impatient and find it hard to accept that their movements are controlled by a policeman on every street corner.

European leaders, including the Commission, continue to project an image of inconsistency in the face of the calamity we have been facing for a year now. The disaffection is general, although, as last week's meeting showed, members of the European Council try to disguise their disappointment and keep the discussion within the bounds of good manners. There is no direct criticism, but several national leaders are looking for alternatives, outside the common framework. Viktor Orbán, as usual, was the first out of the picture. This week he made himself publicly vaccinated with Chinese Sinopharm and approved the purchase of Russian Sputnik V. All this in defiance of what was decided in Brussels. The path he opened is being followed by the Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovakia, and Poland, which also want the Russian vaccine or those produced in China.

The conclusion is simple. The lack of speed of the vaccination campaign is currently the most important political problem in Europe. Without widespread immunity, the rest –  family life, the economy, culture, sport, travel, social activities – will remain moribund. In statements she made this week, Von der Leyen seems to have finally understood the importance of a fast, effective and well-explained campaign. But it is not enough. Confusion, bureaucracy, shuffling with pharmaceuticals and geopolitical biases continue to hold everything up. And there is no one to provide the leadership that is needed. The current Presidency of the European Council has been distracted by other things, as if we were in normal times and there was no absolute priority. Portugal needs to correct its shot.

At Member State level, in addition to the prevailing disorientation, we can see that the policies adopted are the traditional ones - confining, closing everything and creating barriers at the borders. And now the fracture is accentuated by the bilateral pacts that are in the pipeline between Austria and Denmark with Israel, a country that will try to exploit to the maximum the political dividends of these agreements.

These are case-by-case responses that call the joint effort into question.

In France, Emmanuel Macron no longer has time for European issues. He is caught up in a complex political situation, made worse by the proximity of the 2022 presidential elections. The polls, with Marine Le Pen on the rise, do not leave him in peace. Not to mention that Michel Barnier could enter the fray, thus emerging as a further obstacle to the re-election of the current president. 

In Germany, where the economy and public opinion are more resilient to the crisis, there is no great enthusiasm for European affairs. The central issue is the succession of Angela Merkel in a few months' time. And then there is the decision to put the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party under police surveillance. 

In Italy, Mario Draghi's arrival in power is good for Europe. He is a convinced and courageous European. But he must focus above all on the delicate economic and social situation his country finds itself in. And on keeping his fragile coalition together.

The rest of the EU carries little weight in defining the future line. So, it is essential to have strong EU leadership in Brussels. That is one of the lessons to be learned from the present mess - we need solid leaders in the core countries of the Union and top politicians in the European institutions. The practice of sending second-rate personalities to Brussels will not do. In the current crisis and given the scale of the challenges of the coming years, we need to think about a thorough overhaul of the present Commission and a strengthening of its powers. Something difficult, but which must be tackled without delay and with the necessary sensitivity.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

  

 

The future of politics must be based on values

They do not fit into our future

Victor Angelo

 

I recognise the concerns that many thinkers express about what the world will be like in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic. A large proportion say that this crisis pulverizes our societies and disrupts democracy and the alliances that bind us to other peoples, promotes a tendency towards isolation, nationalistic selfishness and the loss of the points of reference that gave meaning to international relations. Thus, the world would emerge fragmented from the crisis, with each country more self-centred, more autocratic, and with the institutions of the multilateral system rather weakened.

I propose a different reading of the route we are now taking. I believe that the crisis gives us the opportunity to strengthen the humanist dimension that has been lacking, both in domestic politics and on the international stage. We will certainly be poorer economically, but we can become much richer politically. It is a question of good leadership and strong citizenship movements. The pandemic has reminded us that people are the essential end of politics. Not people in a general and abstract sense, but each of us, simultaneously in our individuality and as members of the social space to which we belong. Politics must place a stronger emphasis on protecting and respecting our fundamental rights, starting with the right to dignity, health, security and diversity, as well as creating the conditions for everyone to develop their potential as best they know how. 

I believe that the pandemic drama has prepared a good part of the citizens for a new kind of awareness as regards their relationship with others and nature. I think it has made us more measured in our ambitions. We are faced with the possibility of renewing political practice. That is the main conclusion I draw from the present situation. It is also the line that guides my vision of the future. Politics tomorrow must mean a continuous struggle for human rights, for democratisation, for smoothness in public management and for more solidarity. We must build on the maturity we have acquired during this period of shock. If this happens, the credibility of politics will be enhanced, multilateral cooperation will be cemented and we will be in a better position to tackle what I consider to be the three biggest global challenges of the decade: the fight against poverty, the defence of freedom and the regeneration of the environment, starting with the mitigation of climate change.

Indeed, none of this should be new to us Europeans. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union clearly defines - and happily worded, which is not always the case when it comes to legal commitments between states - the values that constitute the fundamental foundations of our common project, including the centrality of the human dimension of politics. But politicians, who are generally very skilful in the games of opportunism and in the ambiguity of consensus designed to please Greeks and Trojans, do not always support themselves as they should in that article of the Treaty.

In these circumstances, it is essential that the European Commission's budget for the period 2021-2027 and the exceptional plan for economic recovery, which must respond to the challenges created by the pandemic, recognise the essential need for each Member State to respect the letter and spirit of the aforementioned Article 2. Budgets and democracy are the two sides of the same Europe. Here there can be no tricks or juggling of words and misunderstandings. The Hungarian vetoes of Viktor Orbán and the Polish vetoes of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, now also supported by Janez Janša, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, are unacceptable. Let us speak clearly. Orbán is a despot at the head of a clique that many accuse of kleptocracy. Kaczynski is a backward man who exploits feelings from other times. Janša is a small brain man: he was the only European leader to congratulate Donald Trump on his electoral "victory". They all manipulate public opinion in their countries and will not change as long as they retain control of power. We cannot let these gentlemen think that the EU is just a source of money, unrelated to a policy of democratic values and rights. Any compromise on this issue would mean that we would not have learned anything from the cultural revolution that the pandemic crisis is offering us. 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

The Europeans and their immigrants

My text in today’s edition of Diário de Notícias newspaper (Lisbon)

 

Europe and migrations

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has just presented the broad outline for a pact on migration and asylum. It has also promised to submit in the coming months a complementary package of proposals dealing with the various facets of the issue. These include the integration of migrants; repatriation operations - in other words, expulsion - for those who are denied asylum and residence; the revision of the rules governing the Schengen area and the strengthening of the Union's borders; the fight against human trafficking; and a new type of cooperation with migrants' countries of origin. It is an ambitious programme. My fear is that all this work will bring a lot of pain and little result. This is one of the most divisive issues for EU countries. Agreements cannot be reached beyond strengthening the Union's external borders and the intention, always difficult to carry out, of the muscular return of immigrants who are not accepted. This has been the case since the migration crisis of 2015, and I fear it may continue to be so. 

But it is worth insisting. The Commission has the merit of reminding us that the issue of migration is one of the main problems we face. It also reminds us that this is a common challenge and not just for the countries that geography and history have brought closer to Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, or Latin America. Some, however, do not want to see the problem as being for everyone. They think it can be solved by closing the borders to prevent mass movements. The bet on watertight borders is an unrealistic proposal. It does not consider the demography, the conflicts, the lack of opportunities and the despair that exist on Europe's doorstep.  If I were a young man from Niger or Tunisia, my overriding ambition would be to try to emigrate to Europe at all costs. I would have the same attitude if I came from Pakistan or Bangladesh. Today, it is like that. Tomorrow, the migratory pressure will be incomparably greater.

Faced with such a scenario, it is understandable that the Commission feels it is better to be prepared. It will not be easy, but one must try. Disordered migration and responses at the national level alone will end up calling into question the Schengen agreement and the continuation of the EU. Above all, they will become a flag for populists, and therefore a threat to democracy in several European countries. It is, therefore, a political issue of the utmost importance.

In Portugal, the problem is not so visible. We are more a country of emigrants than immigrants. It's true that in certain European circles people are already beginning to talk about Portugal as a gateway and an antechamber of passage for those coming from Guinea, Cape Verde, Brazil and even India, to mention only the most important. And there are already those who look at the sea between Morocco and the Algarve and see there a new route, which needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

In France, the situation is different. President Macron knows what the political costs of uncontrolled immigration could be. He is also aware of the fractures that certain immigrant communities cause in French society. He calls these fractures "separatism" and considers them to be one of the most pressing problems. The separatism of which he speaks is more than the lack of integration in the Gallic nation. It is a deliberate attitude of groups of people of French nationality, but with foreign roots, who refuse to accept the secular, tolerant and egalitarian values that define the French ethos. These values are similar to those prevailing in the rest of the Union, but they are not recognized in other lands, which have lived different historical experiences from ours. This deliberate rejection of assimilation is a new and worrying phenomenon.

I mention France by way of example. I could speak of other countries which, on the central axis of Europe, have been the destination of migrants from outside the European culture for the last sixty years. In all these countries, migration is a sensitive topic, latent when economies thrive and open when difficulties tighten. With the economy on the verge of a major crisis because of the impact of the covid, not to deal politically with the migration issue would be a mistake of unpredictable consequences for Europe. We cannot allow this error to persist.

 

 

Translated from Portuguese with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

 

Contingency planning for a covid response

Some European states are battling a growing number of coronavirus-infected cases. This is again a major challenge and people are getting a bit fatalistic about it. They have little appetite for new lockdowns. For them, lockdown is synonymous of economic collapse, in addition to the constraints it means for their life routines. Governments themselves are not too keen on lockdowns either. But the perspectives for the next few months are most worrying. We are getting into the colder days and one can expect a serious increase in infections. This and the economic difficulties many will face do represent a completely new threat to social stability. It is necessary to draw contingency plans. Unfortunately, I do not see any government, or the European Commission for that matter, busy with such planning. They seem just as fatalistic as people are. That is certainly not the best way of discharging their policy responsibilities. Some of us must keep asking the leaders about the contingency measures they are preparing for. We know the answer so far – none! – but we should insist on the question.

Writing about security and democracy

 

Translation of today’s opinion piece I published in Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

Questioning the obsession with security

Victor Angelo

The European Commission has got into the habit of producing strategies. It is a good practice, as it allows to move forward the reflection on priority themes and to draw the attention of the different governments to the need for coordination and joint actions, when appropriate. However, it is a pity that these documents are only to be known in the European District of Brussels and in certain specialised circles, and are not debated in national parliaments and by the public opinion in the various Member States.

The Commission has just outlined another, what it called the Security Union Strategy 2020-2025. It has been developed under the baton of the Vice-President for the Promotion of the European Way of Life, Margaritis Schinas, who has the task of ensuring the link between the external and internal dimensions of security. In other words, an almost impossible job, as there is no harmony of interests about foreign policy, not even regarding neighbouring Russia. Nor is there the courage to act against those states that pose a threat to Europe's internal stability, such as Turkey, among others.

The new security strategy is, above all, an exercise in enumeration. It provides an exhaustive overview of ongoing initiatives, including those concerning cybercrime and intoxication and misrepresentation campaigns from outside - without any reference to the internal actors who serve as a sounding board for these lying messages. It is all very technical, based on the intervention of police and criminal investigation bodies. It lacks the link to the Global Strategy, approved in 2016, and the Common Security and Defence Policy. It is as if the Commission is just adding another silo to the European political edifice. That is bad. It also lacks an analysis of the vulnerabilities of certain categories of citizens according to age, gender, place of residence, social and economic fragility, ethnic or cultural belonging. That is even worse. 

Anyone who is patient enough to read the document gets the impression that at the end of the reference period, the year 2025, we will have a Europe in which every step of every citizen will be recorded and can be scrutinised. It is easy to get the impression that we will then arrive at an extensively watched society, with gigantic databases storing every detail of our lives. The strategy shows, moreover, that the process has already begun and that it will be accelerated by the progress of digitisation and Artificial Intelligence. The prevention of terrorism and hybrid attacks, which may jeopardise key infrastructure, and the fight against financial crime will be three of the lines used to justify close surveillance, which seems to be inspired by the Big Brother imagined by George Orwell.

Even when it is said that the ultimate goal is the defence of the rights and freedoms of European citizens, we cannot fall into the trap of omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent security. The reason is simple. A security state is always one step away from slipping into an oppressive and manipulative state. Past examples show that political leaders easily fall into the temptation to divert security functions to ends that have nothing to do with consolidating the democratic regime and the real tranquillity of citizens.

Those who do not share this temptation are so often unable to exercise democratic oversight of security institutions. Most parliamentary oversight committees for intelligence services have reduced mandates, limited access, and unsatisfactory results. The strategy now formulated is silent on the alternatives that should be considered so that independent, non-partisan powers, outside of parliamentary disputes, can effectively curb possible security abuses.  The issue of balanced control of the potential excesses of those who observe our daily lives is, however, essential.  And this is because security obsessions are like witches. There are those who do not believe in them, but they are around, for sure! Even in European democracies!

 

The forthcoming EU summit

On Friday, the EU leaders will meet in Brussels. This will be the first face-to-face meeting since the beginning of the pandemic. The agenda is about money, lots of it. They must decide if they approve the Commission’s recovery proposal, its budget, and the disbursement modalities. It is indeed a delicate agenda

There are two camps. One side wants the new money to flow to each country, with little interference from either the Commission or the Council. In their views, it is up to the national governments to decide on the programmes and projects to be funded, accepting however that those funding decisions must fall within the broad framework proposed by the European Commission. Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal are within this group.

The other side, led by the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, advocates a greater oversight by the European Council. That would mean that country allocations should be endorsed by all, not just by the government concerned. It would give the Council, where the heads of State and government sit or are represented, the authority to say no a country’s allocation plan. They do not see this approach as interference. They think that the volume of money is very substantial, and it should, therefore, be used not only for recovery but also for economic and administrative reform at the national level.

As of today, it is unclear what the outcome of the summit might be. The conflicting positions show that some countries are convinced that others are not doing enough in terms of economic transparency and administrative effectiveness. They see a widening gap between development levels. And they are afraid that the richer part of Europe will be asked to keep contributing to States that are not doing their best in terms of political performance. The opposing side considers such a position as a prejudiced view. In my opinion, both groups of countries have some valid points that must be discussed. Indeed, it is time to discuss the reasons for poor performance and also some of the prevailing national prejudices that are still alive in different parts of the European Union.

A new model of politics

The huge amount of resources that the European Union member States will have available for recovery is a golden opportunity to change what needs to be changed. That means, as I see it, to invest on health and social matters, on an economy that is friendlier to the environment, on the digital dimensions and on greater inclusion of those who have less income and insecure jobs. The funding of new projects should be guided by these concerns. This is a turning point and we cannot miss it. I am confident the Commission will provide the necessary guidance and will try to make sure the governments do respect the paradigm change. The real challenge is to prevent these monies are used to enrich the supporters of those in power. That will be the old tendency. But we are in a new era. The European Commission must ensure that the citizens in each State have enough power to stop the old clientelism and the ways of doing things that make some richer and the vast majority more vulnerable.

The European recovery

Today, Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron stated they will advocate for the establishment of a €500 billion recovery fund. In their view, the money should be raised in the international capital markets by the European Commission, as a common pot aimed at helping the Member States seriously affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The disbursements would be approved by the Commission, following the criteria that are yet to be established. It would also be the Commission that would have the responsibility to pay the markets back, meaning, the principal and the interests or dividends.

I am not sure this will work. Austria’s leader, Sebastian Kurz, has already voiced strong objections to such an idea. He does not want to see a recovery mechanism that is dispensing grants to the States. He is for loans. Loans make the leaders a bit wiser than just getting free money, he seems to believe. We can expect that other voices will join his own.

In view of this, my position is that most of the money should be channelled to fund joint multinational projects that would reinforce the European system and would have an impact on the EU’s strategic self-sufficiency in matters of public health, bioresearch and other critical emergency response mechanisms. The pandemic has taught us that the health sector is vital, not only for medical reasons but also because of its impact on the functioning of the economy. We cannot no longer talk about strategy without including the strengthening of our common capacity to deal with epidemics, critical hospital equipment needs and essential medicines. Money should also be spent on common logistics and rapid deployment networks.

It is also clear that the recovery fund must be operational soonest. There is urgency. We are not yet at the end of the crisis. The intensity of the pandemic can have a new surge at any moment. We must be better prepared this time. In addition, the economy of the most affected countries needs resources that would encourage new investments, in greener areas, and in matters that address the issues of income and social security. The priority should go for those projects that are fundamental for a stronger Europe and that are not too much dependent on resources and means of transportation we do not control.

This is a time to think differently. The fund, if it is thoughtfully planned and wisely administered, can become a tool for transformation and progress. The alternative is for it to become a reason for further divisions within the European space. Nobody wants that to happen.

Hoping we will be sage and visionary

I can only hope that May will be a good transition month. I believe it can be if everyone in leadership positions understands that consultations and coordination between nations that have a similar destiny are crucial. Within the European Union, we need a renewed momentum, a stronger role coming from Brussels, and more discussions between key national leaders. There is no recovery if it is not done jointly.

EU must work together

It would be a serious mistake to continue the ongoing noise about the future of the European Union. The priority now is to combat the virus, safe lives and accelerate the vaccine research. The member states should be discussing and agreeing on what must be done together and in a coordination matter in these areas. There are already some positive moves of collaboration. They must be expanded immediately.  

The discussion about the economic recovery is also an urgent matter. But it would be much easier if the priorities I mention above could be effectively addressed. The shorter the period of the crisis the easier it will be to deal with the economic dimensions.

Brussels is absent

The European Union can only survive in the hearts and minds of its citizens if it is perceived as political project that promotes freedom and prosperity, protects the people and facilitates solidarity among the different nations. If it fails to do so, it will lose the support and will become a very fragile meeting point of contradictory national interests. With the current crisis, these goals are being challenged. That is certainly not a very good foundation for the future. In addition, the new leadership of the institutions gives the impression of lacking the necessary weight and audacity. They certainly are very honest people. But that is immensely insufficient at a time of profound shock and division. I am certainly worried by the current lack of visibility and initiative coming from the institutions.

Ursula's friend

In her speech of yesterday, at the border between Greece and Turkey, the President of the European Commission said that the Turkish Head of State, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a friend of Europe. Ursula von der Leyen might have read George Orwell on the flight from Brussels to the border. At least, she got the inspiration and doublespeak he talked about in his book

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker

Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker completed today their mandates as leaders of the EU. I think it is fair to say that both have committed themselves deeply to their jobs. Donald Tusk as head of the Council had to manage and balance the views of his peers, the Heads of State and Government of the EU Member States. Not an easy job. One of his headaches came from his own country, Poland. Jean-Claude Juncker had to lead the machinery and achieve results, notwithstanding the fact that, at the same time, he was dealing with a major distraction, the Brexit negotiations.

As they move on, I think one should say thank you for the work they have done as well as for the enormous patience they have displayed. And we should know that patience and perseverance are two of the key features a leader should possess. Particularly a leader that deals with 28 national masters.

The new EU Commission

The new European Commission top team, led by Ursula von der Leyen, has been approved by the Members of the European Parliament. They are now ready to start their five-year mandate. I can only hope they will be able to respond to the challenges ahead and remain credible.

The challenges are many. For me, the most important one concerns the unity of Europe. This is an area that is under attack, both from inside and from some of our neighbours, allies or foes. Therefore, it must be protected and strengthened. The Commission must keep reminding all of us of our common destiny as Europeans. It’s about unity within diversity, as a German person is certainly different, in many aspects, from a Portuguese. But both and all share the same fundamental values of human rights, fairness and dignity. All want to see the European streets kept safe, the rural areas protected, the equality between boys and girls promoted, and ensure that the older citizens feel tranquil and enjoy a dignified end of life. It’s also about the beef, of course. By promoting the European unity, the Commission is supporting a balanced economic growth and job security. In a context of sustainability, which means a lot on terms of addressing the urgency of the climate crisis.

I wish the new team well.

Debating the new European Commission

The European Parliamentarians – MEPs, as they are known – will be discussing soon the names and portfolios of the next European Commission, as proposed by Ursula von der Leyen.

We can expect a deep controversy about one of the proposed portfolios, the one about "protecting our European way of life".

The title is misleading and gives room to diverse interpretations. Under it, von der Leyen is including immigration, security and the new emerging threats, as well as employment and education. That’s quite a mixed bag. But Ursula von der Leyen’s main intent is, as stated in her letter of mission to the Commissioner appointed to head such area of work, to ensure there is a common approach to these issues, especially to the one related to immigration and the integration. 

It will not be an easy job. We will see how it will be approached. The first indications should be visible during her debate with the MEPs.

EU foreign policy

The new European Commission will have to think afresh the EU’s foreign policy, including its strategic alliances. The last few years have shown that world is changing fast. The new trends are clear enough for scenario designing. It should not be too difficult to agree on possible world scenarios in five- or ten-years’ time. The Europeans must decide about the kind of role they want to play in international affairs by the end of the incoming Commission’s mandate. And what are the bridges they want to consolidate.

Ursula and her challenges

I have now read the questions and objections that certain parties in the European Parliament have raised and addressed to Ursula von der Leyen. Most of them are about petty issues. They are far away from the key concerns that the EU has indeed to face in the next few years. Instead of asking her about the relations with the US, China or Russia, for instance, they question the comments she has made on mundane matters during the last years. Some of those questions have more to do with constraints she has faced as Germany’s Minister of Defence than with real political choices.

Von der Leyen might not have been a strong leader up to now. She might not be charismatic politician. But she is a steady person. And once in a position of greater power, as President of the European Commission – if she gets the EU Parliament’s confirmation – she might be able to stand higher than when she was just a German minister. The function can make the lady. And give her the wings that have been missing up to now.

In any case, I hope she will be voted in. I am ready to bet on the balanced approach she might be able to bring to the job. Moreover, she will be working side by side with Charles Michel, the future EU Council President. And I think this tandem can rise to the challenges that are in the horizon. And they are many and complex.