This Wednesday 15 September, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will make her second speech on the state of the union before the European Parliament. It will be interesting to compare this speech with last year’s (see EUROPE 12561/1), which bore the title “A Union of vitality in a world of fragility”. The word ‘vitality’ was specifically chosen to express the EU’s economic and sanitary resilience, an area in which we can now confidently say that a degree of success has been achieved. But although the word ‘fragility’ is still an apposite one to describe the world, one might reasonably wonder whether it does not apply also, in other areas, to the Union itself. The most obvious of these is its dependence on American foreign policy, as shown by the Afghan tragedy as suffered by a Europe that was completely unprepared for it (see EUROPE 12774/1).
The President’s speech on the state of the union before the European Parliament, meeting in plenary, has been an annual exercise of the Commission President since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. It is based on article 233 TFEU, which reads as follows: “the European Parliament shall discuss in open session the annual general report submitted to it by the Commission”. This article was perceived as a breakthrough in the democratic control exercised by the MEPs. The expression ‘State of the union speech’ is taken from the practice in force in the United States, which is much more formal and requires a considerably more powerful lead actor.
The Commission President’s speech is followed by a debate, but not (yet?) a vote of confidence. In any event, the debate is a useful tool to gauge the degree of Parliamentary confidence enjoyed by the Commission.
The text of the speech will remain confidential until President von der Leyen delivers it, although she gave the President of the EP, David Sassoli, and the residents of the political groups a few hints of what to expect on 9 September (see EUROPE 12787/3). To follow the inventory of successes, the emphasis is expected to shift to the European Green Deal, the digital transition, ambitions in the social field and migration.
Regarding the last of these, the challenge has only intensified: the ‘usual’ migrants travelling via the Mediterranean will undoubtedly be joined by Afghan nationals, despite the EU’s best efforts to keep them in Asia; others have arrived via Belarus, the dictatorial regime of which is hoping to destabilise its immediate neighbours: the International Organisation for Migration has published damning reports about the conduct of EU police services (refoulements, camps with miserable conditions, etc...) (see EUROPE 12784/20); finally, from across the English Channel and the North Sea, the United Kingdom is gearing up to push illegal boatloads of migrants back to France (see EUROPE 12787/26).
It is fair to say that the ‘Asylum & Migration’ Pact tabled by the Commission a year ago is not making much progress at the Council of the EU. Can it even still be considered a decent basis for future work? Having been picked apart in June by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see EUROPE 12749/21), it was the subject of a highly critical impact assessment by the research services of the European Parliament at the end of August (see EUROPE 12778/1), followed by an equally damning legal study by its Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (see EUROPE 12782/6), and then, more recently, the negative opinions of the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee (see EUROPE 12783/10). The debate held on 2 September at the EP’s committee on civil liberties exposed deep divides between MEPs, but the left and centre expressed scathing criticism of the basics of the package proposed by the Commission. On the plus side, the Commission managed to seal an EP/Council agreement in May on the revision of the ‘Blue Card’ directive to attract highly qualified migrants (see EUROPE 12721A22), but differences of opinion remain entrenched on every other subject and there is no prospect of much success. Pre-electoral considerations always lead to migration’s being passed off as a temporary issue, yet it will certainly dominate the 21st century, accelerated by climate change and the decline of the democratic model throughout the world.
The Parliament’s dissatisfaction with the Commission is also reflected in less tragic dossiers, from the report on the proposal for new own resources to the social dimension of the ‘Fit for 55’ package, via the lack of transparency in vaccination contracts, plans for a specific carbon quota market for road transport and building heating (see EUROPE 12787/9), the budget of the EU Solidarity Fund (see EUROPE 12784/9), the new forest strategy (see EUROPE 12783/8) and the Conference on the Future of Europe.
In her 2020 speech, Ursula von der Leyen made no mention of the last of these; nor did she in her presentation to the senior EP figures on 9 September: they actually had to remind her of this point. The Commission is always portrayed as doing its best for the logistics and service of its citizens, as a political ‘non-actor’ of this conference. But as far as the MEPs are concerned, the outcome of this Conference, with the expectations it may awaken in the citizens, is absolutely critical. In the debate to follow this year’s State of the Union speech, the MEPs misgivings are certain to come to light, even though there are many other matters of current affairs to be discussed (see EUROPE 12788/7).
Last but not least, the Commission President will deal with rule of law matters. Indeed, the institution got stuck into Poland at its first session after the summer break. It has asked the Court of Justice to impose daily fines upon the country for its failure to respect the same Court’s order to suspend the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland. It has also deployed the formidable weapon of a letter of formal notice to the Polish government – which will no doubt now be quaking in its boots (!) – over its failure to abolish the disciplinary regime for judges, contrary to the judgment of the European Court of 15 July (see EUROPE 12785/1). Will this be enough to appease at least some of the Parliament’s malaise?
On 20 July, the Commission published its second report on the rule of law in the Union (see EUROPE 12766/2), the quality of which has already been commented on in this column (see EUROPE 12773/2). But on 2 September, the members of the committee on civil liberties of the EP expressed scepticism as to the effect of these reports, which lack unequivocal recommendations. Defending these texts, Commissioner Reynders did concede that the situation in Poland and Hungary was not improving (see EUROPE 12781/2).
In her state of the union speech last year (p. 22), President von der Leyen said: “the Commissioner attaches the highest importance to the rule of law. This is why we will ensure that money from our budget and NextGenerationEU is protected against any kind of fraud, corruption and conflict of interest. This is non-negotiable”. Non-negotiable? Less than three months later, it was suddenly negotiable. At the European Council, in a session attended by the President of the Commission, in response to the blackmail of the Polish and Hungarian leaders, it was decided that “the Commission will not propose measures under the Regulation” and conditionality for the protection of the budget until such time as it adopts application guidelines, which would not find their definitive form until after the Court of Justice handed down its judgment on the subject.
The Parliament took issue at this sequence of events, adopting numerous resolutions on the subject. Our readers are well aware of this saga, but there is news from the front: in response to press questioning on 24 August, a Commission spokesperson was forced into all manner of semantic gymnastics, stating that the Regulation had been “in force” since January, but that it had not been “implemented” (see EUROPE 12775/4). On 30 August, the Conference of the Presidents of the European Parliament decided to press on with preparations to bring legal action against the Commission before the Court of Justice over its inaction (see EUROPE 12779/10). If a decision to this effect were made, events would be set in motion, but mutual trust would go by the board. And it is to the Commission that this would be the greatest loss.
When the ‘von der Leyen’ Commission took up its duties, some observers felt that there was a kind of “honeymoon period” between it and the Parliament. If this was indeed the case, it’s not looking much like true love these days.
Renaud Denuit