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)

 

 

 

 

Von der Leyen's State of the Union

In general terms, I found the speech delivered yesterday by the President of the European Union to the European Parliament as positive, optimistic, and forward-looking. It contains a number of indications about the Commission’s future work and one should keep comparing the words with the implementation achievements. On the less positive side, Ursula von der Leyen’s statement does not mention the need for increased coordination between the EU states during the forthcoming months, as the pandemic crisis keeps paralysing the European nations. This is an immediate challenge and must be addressed. We cannot have a repetition of chaos we witnessed during the March-June period, with each government taking decisions without coordinating with the others, not even with the neighbours next door. Secondly, there was no reference to the threats the European project is facing, either from domestic actors or foreign sources. The Union is not as solid as many would think. This must be acknowledged and appropriate lines of action should be proposed.

 

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.

The border line

Today, the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Parliament visited the Greek border with Turkey. The Prime Minister of Greece was their host. The message they put across is very clear. The European borders are now closed to mass movements. Immigrants and refugee candidates are not welcome.

The visiting party basically approved the decision taken by the Greek authorities to use all means available to enforce the message. This is a clear shift from the policy line followed by Angela Merkel and others in 2015. It places security and social homogeneity above any other consideration.

The humanitarian dimension is seen as a funding activity. The Europeans pay and others will take care of the refugees. Outside the EU borders. This is the new policy line on mass immigration.

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.

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.

Travelling and the EU game

I travelled quite a bit during the last four days or so. Travelling is essential to see the reality for ourselves. It’s the other side of reading. They complement each other. But more effectively than reading, travelling feeds the imagination, which is a major tool for transformation.

And talking about transformation, during these days four people were nominated to take over leadership positions at the European Union’s key institutions. There are a few comments that can be made about the choices made. I will share mine soonest.

But I would like to suggest that the decisions have shown the trend that has defined the EU during the last ten years or so. The Heads of State and Government are the real force, for good or for worse, behind the EU machinery. That basically means, among other things, that the decisions are taken mainly to respond to the overriding concern of keeping the balance between the interests of the major States or geopolitical blocks. It is the game of national agendas and petty powers that is played by the key actors, not the ambition to have a common future and build it together. That behaviour is certainly not very promising

The next boss in Brussels

The results are out, and most of the European voters decided to support the common goal of a stronger Europe. That’s great news. Everybody knows there was a lot of anxiety about a possible shift towards the extreme parties. They have gained votes but not in a significant way.  

Tomorrow the heads of State and Government will meet in Brussels to launch the consultations about the nomination of the next European Commission President. My position on this matter is clear. Jean-Claude Juncker’s successor must come from one of the leading candidates that has competed for the European Parliament. That’s the way we can show respect for the Parliament and for the voters. The heads of national States must not bring forward someone that has not campaigned. Even if that person is somebody of Michel Barnier’s calibre.

The three main contenders are Manfred Weber, the head of European People’s Party grouping, Frans Timmermans, from the Socialist group and Margrethe Vestager, from the Liberal-centre family. They all have the potential to lead the Commission. They must be given priority attention.

My preference would go for Frans Timmermans. He has shown, as Vice-President to Juncker, strong political courage and clear ideas. He has a deep executive experience as well. But that’s not enough, when it comes to horse trading among the heads of Sate and Government.

Angela Merkel will fight for her spitzenkandidat, Manfred Weber. He is not liked by Emmanuel Macron. There will certainly be another clash between Merkel and Macron.

A woman must also get a top position in Brussels. This cannot be ignored by the leaders. It could be Vestager in the Commission or the outgoing Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė, who could take Donald Tusk’s position. They are both top-notch candidates.

Juncker's major shortcoming

On this European Day, I wrote in my Portuguese language blog “Vistas Largas” that a lot has been achieved in terms of our common future and joint response to many challenges. But I also added that the European Commission has been mediocre in matters of strategic communications. There is no Commissioner with that kind of portfolio – this should be corrected when the new team takes power in November. And the Commission seems to believe that press conferences, press releases and a crowd of spokespersons are enough to cover the information needs of the European citizens. That’s not a strategic approach. And the experience has shown that it is not enough to keep the citizens aware and get their active involvement in European matters.

If people do not know, they do not support. And they become vulnerable to those who lie and disseminate anti-EU propaganda. That’s where many of us find ourselves today, a few weeks before the next European parliamentary election.

This is a major failure of the outgoing Juncker team. A far-reaching one.

Liberalism is not a useful banner

In today’s Europe, the banner around “liberal values” does not attract enough support. Everything that is associated with “liberalism” is seen as elitist and globalist. At least, it is perceived as unclear, a concept difficult to grasp and distant from the daily concerns people are confronted with. It cannot be used to win votes during the forthcoming European elections.  

Brexit: time to move on

Brexit is taking too much of EU leaders’ attention and energy. It’s time to sort it out, to have enough clarity about the direction to follow and then move on. There are many other issues that require top attention. Including an assessment of what remains to be achieved as the current leadership ends their mandates and a definition of what should be the goals for the next cycle. Being clear about those goals could allow for a more substantive campaign for the European elections of May this year. It would bring the debate to a higher level. The candidates must be questioned about their responses to the key challenges. Beyond, well beyond, Brexit. 

Immigration and integration

In the EU context, immigration cannot be seen just from the number of people that keep entering the European territory. Very often the debate is about new arrivals and how the numbers compare with past figures. That’s not the most current concern, I would say. Particularly now, that the arrival numbers are down. Immigration is above all about the integration of those already in.

Integration has many facets and the discussion should as much as possible focus on this issue.

In some countries, the immigrants have become very visible. They are now part of our daily public experience, as we walk the streets or enter the shopping malls and other open spaces. Visibility brings attention, also some degree of concern, and the political parties in those countries know that. That’s why the issue has become a central theme in the political arena. And it will be very present during the forthcoming EU parliamentary elections.

My take is that we should try to focus the political discussions on the issue of social integration. And be clear that such an issue calls for efforts from both sides, the one receiving the new populations and the one we call the immigrants.

2019 European elections

The elections for the EU Parliament will take place in May 2019. No need to tell you that no political party has invited me to run. Fine! Actually, I am not a member of any party and have no close friend as a party leader. Those are two very strong reasons.

But, if I were campaigning for such election and had to chose one single message to focus the agenda, I would build it around protection. The EU citizens must be sure that the political leaders are concerned and give priority to people’s security. And I would make sure that security would be understood in a wider sense. It’s not just physical security in a traditional way that I would be talking about. It’s protection against a span of risks, including new forms of poverty and other related social hardships.

The European common project must be perceived to be about a Europe that protects. And about safeguarding values and standards of leaving. Values might be considered as easier to defend. That would be a mistaken view. They are as threatened as the rest. Therefore, the message about protection calls for a comprehensive view. At the same time, it must be simple to explain and easy to catch.

This is true throughout the EU, notwithstanding the economic differences and the cultural specificities of each country.

Criteria to select Juncker´s successor

The discussion about the selection and approval of the next European Commission President has now openly started. Juncker is still on up to the end of next year, that´s true, but it´s also a fact that the issue of his succession will continue to occupy the minds during the next few months.

I am convinced that the tradition of selecting a former head of government or State to chair the Commission should be kept. Such an approach is fundamental to give a solid foundation of authority to the holder of that most critical job. 

In addition to that type of political experience, the candidates most be consensual enough, including in terms of enticing the support of the European Parliament. Nobody can get the job if not supported by the EP. Such requirement does not mean the successful candidate most come from the political family that gets the greater number of seats in the next parliament. It means that such candidate must be able to gain the advantage within the EP. 

Besides these two criteria - former government leadership experience and majority vote in parliament – the new President should come from a region of the EU that has been underrepresented when it comes to this type of responsibilities. That makes me think of the Nordic and the Baltic States. And, last point, the preference should go for a woman. 

On EU matters: let´s move on

The EU´s future is at a crossroads. My choice is to move forward. But not every member state will be prepared for a closer integration process. They have their national circumstances and might consider this is no time to enter into new power sharing agreements. I accept that. The union has to result from a shared and voluntary political approach.

Those countries that are ready for a deeper relationship should however be able to move on. The treaties allow it under the principle of “enhanced co-operation”. And there are a number of areas that would benefit from more co-operation and harmonization among a certain number of states. One of them is for sure in the field of defence. To be complemented by new forms of domestic security interoperability. Other areas would be in the financial and economic fields, in scientific research, higher education and student’s exchange, and external affairs.

The point is to decide on a new set of common goals and then invite the member states to pool their resources and political will. Several will join. And history will move on.

It would be a mistake to believe that every European country will share the same level of ambition. It is also a major impediment not to show leadership and wait for a consensus. That will never happen.

Being positive on Europe Day

Every 9 May, the EU celebrates Europe Day.

This year we might conclude there isn´t much to be happy about. Martin Schulz, the EU Parliament boss, in an interview to a Portuguese daily newspaper, compared Europe to a bicycle with “flat tyres”. Basically, it would mean it has to keep moving but there is no air in the rubbers, the wheels can´t move properly.

I think we should be a bit more positive nonetheless. At least today.

The EU is still one of the most attractive places to be in the world. For its quality of life and for its standards of living. Also, because it is a space of liberties – yes, plural – and rule of law, as well as a continent of peace and security. It is still pretty predictable in terms of one´s human rights. And, in international relations, it is a major actor in the fields of development and humanitarian assistance.

These are some remarkable dimensions that one should emphasise on this day.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) should move ahead

There was a great deal of confusion today in the European Parliament. The Members (MEPs) were supposed to take a vote on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the trade agreement between the EU and the US. The move would clear the EU´s negotiating position and give the European negotiators additional discussion authority.

The vote ended up by being postponed because more than 200 amendments were tabled by the MEPs. The main challenges came from the Socialist group and are related to the choice of mechanisms to resolve potential trade disputes between US firms and EU institutions.

This is a complex matter and needs to be carefully carried out.

But we should be clear that the TTIP is important for the Europeans, both in terms of jobs – greater access to the US market will have an impact on our industries and agriculture-related activities – and access to a larger choice of goods. It will certainly have a multiplier effect on the modernisation of our productive and commercial systems as well.

We should also underline that the sooner the agreement is reached the better. Amendments and other tactical moves cannot aim at delaying the process. If they are intended to improve the final accord, that´s very much appreciated. If they are based on genuine concerns, that can also be discussed.

Opposition to TTIP is no problem. That is the normal currency of democracy. But obstruction through parliamentary procedures is just not acceptable. It´s lack of political clarity and courage.

Germany is the power in the EU machinery

In all institutions it is important to analyse who are the power brokers, the people of real influence, or said differently, the ones that are at the centre of the most critical decisions and decisively influence the formal leaders ‘choices. In the case of the EU in Brussels, out of the five true powerful men –all five are men – three are German nationals. Guess who?

Get the citizens´support back: the priority for the EU at this stage

I wrote today, in my contribution to the next issue of the Portuguese magazine Visão,  that the indifference of the citizens towards the European project is the most critical menace to the continuation of the Union. With the economic crisis, nations got used to look inwards and try to find their own solutions to challenges that were shared and should have been tackled jointly. As such, citizens lost the European perspective. The message they were getting from their political leaders was very clear: if there is a major crisis, each country has to take care of itself.

This erroneous approach needs to be corrected. Politicians and opinion makers have to underline, in very unambiguous terms, that the only way forward is for a joint European strategy to address critical issues of common interest. That will the first step to regain the support of the citizens. And that´s an urgent task. 

Juncker is now confirmed as the new EC President

Jean-Claude Juncker has just been confirmed, by a vote in the European Parliament, as the new President of the European Commission. The vote was good enough to give him a very good starting vantage point. He should be able to take over from José Manuel Barroso in a much stronger position than the one out-going Barroso has found himself during the last years of his mandate. This should be good news for the Commission´s future. It also puts the Commission in a better and more balanced footing when dealing with the Heads of State and Government.