What can one reasonably expect from the 27-member European Council taking place today in Bratislava? Will the heads of state and/or government, flanked by Presidents Juncker and Tusk, be able to put some of the shine back on the European project after the trauma of Brexit? Looking at it realistically, one should be under no illusions, and this for several reasons. The first is that the post-Brexit trauma only affects the ruling circles of the European Union and its member states, though causing some cold sweat for some in the economic and financial community and all those expats on one side or other of the Channel who see a future which, while perhaps not bleak, is certainly full of uncertainty. What is clear to see, however, is that the choice made by the British electorate leaves the vast majority of Europeans completely indifferent – a little bit as though, after all, this very distant cousin wasn’t really part of the family anyway (as indeed was the case, at least if one looks at the behaviour of the British leaders). So then, in Bratislava, the heads of state and/or government will try, first and foremost, to banish their melancholy following a political failure, Brexit, a little of the blame for which they, too, have to bear. Why? Because the ambiguity they have for too long built around European construction and its goal could clearly lead only to the emergence of discordant visions, with more or less shoddy compromises cobbled together to save face, not to save the political project on which European construction is founded.
Another reason for not harbouring any illusions is in the responses to be delivered to many of those who are becoming increasingly critical of the way the European Union is built. What are they complaining about? Principally, that the Union has become a machine that serves the interests of the most powerful, of being a driver of untrammelled globalisation that tramples the weakest underfoot, and of being the theatre of a fratricidal struggle between member states that have banished the word “solidarity” from their vocabulary. Whether they like it or not, that is the image presented by the princes who govern us of the Europe that is theirs. This Europe no longer belongs to citizens, who are abandoning the permissive consent underlying their approval of the European project. Today, what the populists and nationalists are telling us, is that people have had enough of a Europe that does not stand for solidarity among Europeans, that no longer provides the promise of prosperity, that does not offer decent protection from security threats. Things are bad, the populists and nationalists say, and they warn of worse to come. They have realised and drawn hope from the fact that European construction is not a prison. But what will the Bratislava 27 say to all the other European citizens who feel the same unease, who are despairing of the Europe that has been built for them, but who would like to be part of a project that again arouses passion?
The other day, after his meeting with Chancellor Merkel, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel trotted out the same old line about the need for “projects that bring tangible improvement to the lives of Europeans”, and in the passing had a dig at “the technocracy of the European institutions … somewhat out of touch with reality”. He might have been right if he thought that officials from the Barroso era were preparing to do an about-turn on removing all roaming charges, but he is wrong because some – perhaps all – capitals have long been beavering away to ensure that their operators are not fully subjected to close European scrutiny. He is wrong, too, because, looking at it closely, is the Commission indeed out of touch with reality when it insists on fairness in the granting of state aid, and lifts the burden placed by the Dublin government on the shoulders of Irish taxpayers? Or when the Commission promises to address tax and social competition among member states which have forgotten that free and fair competition is not just for companies?
In reality, as the Université libre de Bruxelles researcher Loïc Nicolas observed, it is the national capitals which are “most keen on purely bureaucratic responses” to the ever greater disappointment and dismay of citizens. He hammers home his message in the “Carte Blanche”, published in the Belgian daily Le Soir of 8 September: “the governments of a united Europe could have seized” the opportunity presented by Brexit “to get their second wind and seek fresh impetus; to question the project of that Europe and the direction it is taking; to sound out the aspirations and doubts of the peoples who inhabit it. They could have found an ideal opportunity in the present crisis to act and to advance differently”. But that would have meant that those governments really wanted to build Europe and place it at the service of the best interests of citizens rather than their own. No, let us not expect too much from the member states: only Juncker’s state of the Union speech can offer a scrap of hope to those who will not resign themselves to seeing Europe crumble and fall. Michel Theys