On 2 March, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) upgraded the risk of infection from ‘moderate’ to ‘high’. In Brussels, a team of five Commissioners was set up to focus on three key aspects: health, mobility and the economy.
A movement began to take shape between around 20 member states to make joint purchases of the necessary medical equipment. At that point, the Schengen zone for the free movement of people was still in force and the Commission lay emphasis on the mobility of the citizens. However, the Commissioner for the Economy, Paolo Gentiloni, talked of the possibility of relaxing the budgetary rules for countries hit by the pandemic, although no member state had asked for this. Whatever else may happen, COVID-19 will certainly stunt economic growth that was already fragile.
For its part, the Parliament decided to operate at a reduced level, with no visits or hearings, for public health reasons. The fear had taken hold, the enemy was at the gates. A few days later, a decision was handed down over the whereabouts of the forthcoming plenary session: Brussels instead of Strasbourg, to the great chagrin of the French.
On 4 March, the Commission, which was still in action, unveiled the cornerstone of the European Green Deal: its infamous climate law, to strong media coverage. But further cases of infection were confirmed in Portugal, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia. A second extraordinary meeting of the health ministers was held on 6 March. France, Germany and the Czech Republic were accused of limiting exports, particularly of medical materials (gloves, masks, etc.): the Commission was forced to issue a reminder of the rules of the single market.
On 9 March, all Italians were put into lockdown by decision of the Conte government. The scope of the health crisis acted like a trigger; Charles Michel convened an extraordinary meeting of the European Council for the next day, to take the form of a video conference. Furthermore, when taking stock of the first hundred days of the new Commission before the press, President von der Leyen had to acknowledge that the epidemic had suddenly cast its pall over events; she geared her words to her institution’s actions, in the hope of offsetting the negative psychological impact on the economy (particularly the Italian economy).
The meeting of the ‘leaders’ on 10 March took no action. The following day, a number of governments, Austria in particular, followed their national inclinations: the internal borders within the Schengen zone were closed, in many cases without giving the Commission notice. One might get the impression that ever since the migration crisis and various terrorist attacks, the member states have been allowed to cherry pick the bits of the Schengen agreement they like and rejects the bits they don’t, even though it is a different matter entirely at issue. Hungary, Slovakia, Denmark, Cyprus, Poland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Germany and France: onwards! The obvious results was endless queues of trucks on borders brought back into action, with their impact on the health of the drivers and the functioning of the single market. The Commission lost no time in proposing special lanes for vehicles loaded with sanitary and first-aid equipment.
On the 12th of the month, the risk assessment carried out by the ECDC made for alarming reading. The WHO now considers that Europe is the epicentre of the pandemic. The virus is going global, as the extraordinary meeting of the G7 said on 16 March. It was not until the day after, 17 March, that the Commission set up a scientific council specialising in COVID-19; on the same day, a second extraordinary meeting of the European Council was held, after 400 individuals formally called for a European response to the threat of coronavirus.
But when it came to the measures to be taken to protect the population, the philosophies of the ‘leaders’ differed. Following the lead of the United Kingdom, which lost no time in rejecting the measure, the Dutch and Swedish governments opposed the idea of lockdown in favour of ‘herd immunity’, a theory heavily criticised by the scientific community; in the opposite corner, the drastic measures already in force in Italy were ordered in Spain and the Czech Republic, with Belgium and France to follow suit very quickly. Germany threw itself into screening test mode, which has so far resulted in a far lower death rate than its neighbours of similar size. And where Portugal and Lithuania have forbidden gatherings of more than 100 people, the maximum allowed in Austria is five. Some governments are already moving towards reopening shops and schools, much to the consternation of others, which are following a stricter line. Obviously, each national situation has its own peculiarities, but the general landscape is undeniably something of a mess. The Commission therefore got to work on a communication offering the member states common guidelines to lift their lockdowns: after several postponements and protests on the part of certain governments, it had to revise its plans in favour of bringing out a non-standard document jointly with the President of the European Council on 15 April; the only communication adopted by the Commission, on the same day, concerns screening tests only (EUROPE 12467/2).
The European Council of 17 March at least had the merit of agreeing on closing the external borders of the EU (other than for travel deemed essential) and on repatriating EU citizens from third countries, to be partly financed out of the European budget.
One thing we can say for certain is that the bill for the lack of anticipation will be very high. (To be continued).
Renaud Denuit
See part one: EUROPE 12466/1
See part two: EUROPE 12467/1