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.

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.

EU unity is under erosion

It doesn´t sound good when European governments start focusing the public discourse on migration movements from one EU state to another and talk about curbing the free flow of workers. This is one of the pillars of the Union. A basic fundamental principle. To challenge it undermines further the purpose of the EU, it is another step, let´s be clear, towards European disunity.

It is also a way of reviving the old ghosts of ultra-nationalism and even xenophobia. For centuries, Europe was built of hard-nosed nationalistic politics. That made the Continent one of the most unstable and war-prone of all. Then, after the Second World War, the trend was reversed and a common dream was put together. That has given us almost 70 years of peace.

Now, that might be under threat. Gradually, like erosion, but dangerously changing in the wrong direction.

Two different visions of the EU

Prime Minister Cameron’s speech on Europe, delivered today, should be read carefully, as it poses a number of issues that contribute to the debate about the future of the EU. It should not be dismissed as just an attempt to unite his Conservative party. Of course, it has also that objective. Many Conservatives have become very anti-EU. They think that’s the best way to be consistent with their nostalgia of a dominant Great Britain of yesteryears. And they add to that a feeling of superiority that is very deeply rooted in the British countryside and traditional elites.

Cameron understands that the EU membership is important for the UK. But as he gives in to the more conservative wing within his party he is also opening a period of uncertainty, that will have an impact on investment – a big multinational will think twice before investing in the UK from now on – and an impact on Europe. This is a matter for great concern. And it will be difficult to reach an agreement between Cameron and the other key European leaders, as both sides have very different visions about what the future of Europe should be. That’s where the real divergence lies.