In a few days’ time, the European Union will celebrate a big birthday: it will be 30 years since the Maastricht Treaty entered into force on 1 November 1993. Our readers are familiar with the major milestones it has passed since then, particularly concerning primary law and its many positive achievements. But how effective has this “union” been? Do our people feel more united? And how is this “union” perceived in the wider world?
From one opinion poll to the next over the years, the feeling of belonging to the European Union has remained strong, to the extent that it is the popular choice among the younger generation, who see it as a space of liberty, learning and discovery. Even the Eurosceptic political parties shy away from proposing to their voters to leave the Union or to abandon the euro (in the countries that have it). Even though, the EU is not seen as perfect and is even the subject of harsh criticism. Furthermore, national feeling remains strong, for instance at sporting events, and many prejudices die hard.
This good opinion of the EU is based not only on the commitment of its peoples: the way its institutions function and the results it achieves are also major factors.
With its abundant case-law and internal coherence, the Court of Justice of the EU is to have been its rock over this entire period. Without it, the whole building would topple.
The European Parliament, which has become the leading institution, has acquired new powers and helped to strengthen democracy in the Union. It is quite as it should be that it is divided into political groups that reflect the full gamut of opinions and that its resolutions are adopted in a “majority versus opposition” format. Incidentally, its votes reflect a keenness to defend the Union, its future and the interests of its citizens, despite the intense lobbying that takes place behind the scenes. The institution has been shaken by an alleged corruption scandal from which it will have to recover. The turn-out rate in the next European elections will be a useful indicator of its legitimacy.
The European Commission experienced a more serious crisis of confidence in 1999, which prompted it to resign en masse to avoid a no-confidence vote of the members of the European Parliament. Over the last 20 years, it has regained credibility and authority. The institution is strong if it is beyond reproach ethically and functions in perfect collegiality. Its unity is therefore more important than the Parliament’s. The tensions it has experienced are managed away from the public gaze. Very recently, contradictory public narratives that pulled few punches have started to damage the prestige of which it is so proud. Its vision of the future is rich, until it comes to the Union itself.
As regards the member states’ contribution to the reality, substance and image of the Union, individual performances have been more than mixed. The European Council, in which unanimous decision-making is the rule rather than the exception, is a mighty sounding board of national interests, as we saw, for instance, with the adoption of the multi-annual financial framework. Therefore, its conclusions proceed from the lowest common denominator. Happily, the ministers within the Council of the EU often succeed, one piece of legislation at a time, in reaching a common position, after bitter negotiations and thanks to the efforts of the Presidency of the moment; in the event of co-decision, they ultimately reach an agreement with the Parliament.
On the biggest subjects, however, the states are divided: the future of the budget of the EU, reform of the stability Pact, taxation, whether or not a new treaty is needed, the migration challenge, abandoning unanimity in areas in which it is still a requirement. Even over financial assistance to Ukraine, consensus is growing shaky, with Hungary’s veto (see EUROPE 13277/5), no doubt to be followed closely by Slovakia’s. The prevailing inequality over observance of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the Union, sends a disastrous message out to the citizens and to the world at large. It is extremely worrying if the member states cannot naturally impose the required discipline upon themselves and that there is a need for endless annual reports and procedures to rectify situations – with varying degrees of success. Neither the Commission nor the Court of Justice have really influenced the powers that be in Poland. We will have to wait for the general elections for the Polish people to do the job.
There was one great ambition running through the Maastricht Treaty: common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In his book “Difficult Europe”, Bino Olivi (former Commission spokesperson) describes how it came into being. The European Council identified five priority geographical areas in which to roll out the policy. The neighbourhood of the European Union was in first position. “It was followed by the situation in the Middle East, where the Union had to step up its presence to support the peace process in the region”. That was 30 years ago...
Following the European Council of Venice (1980), the Europe of Nine adopted a doctrine including the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the illegality of the colonies in Gaza. In 1994, European funding was allocated to the Palestinian Authority. Since the turn of this century, some of the structures created in this way have been destroyed by the Israeli army. The Union has officially repeated its preference for a two-state solution, without neglecting Israel, with which it concluded an association agreement in 2000. The growth of colonisation began to be a cause of concern to many: in 2015, the EU made its only decision to tackle this phenomenon: the labelling of products from the colonies, so that European consumers would not purchase them (see EUROPE 11429/5).
Since the great wave of enlargement in 2004, the number of countries openly in favour of Israel has increased within the EU: as well as Germany and Austria, there is now Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Europeans are divided, which is still reflected to this day, and unanimity is required in foreign policy matters. Alongside recurrent rhetorical diplomacy, financial aid to the Palestinians (via the UN or directly) is the EU’s only consistent action. In any event, neither the United States nor Israel wants Europe to play a significant role in the conflict. No peace plan worthy of the name has ever come out of either the European Council or Parliament.
Even so, the Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, has never been insensitive to the conflict in the Middle East and the positions he has taken are very balanced. In September of this year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Oslo agreements, he launched an initiative along with the Arab League, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to relaunch the peace process (see EUROPE 13253/30). Regrettably, recent events have made this obsolete. The challenge is avoiding a general flare-up of the region and creating conditions required for humanitarian actions to be carried out. The European Council will stress this. The Parliament has called for it in a resolution (see EUROPE 13271/17).
It was the same Josep Borrell who expressed things so well after the ignoble attack by Hamas and the words of Bulgaria and European Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi on withholding financial aid to the Palestinians (see EUROPE 13268/2) and also to “balance things out” after the comments of the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, in Tel Aviv on 13 September (“In the face of this unspeakable tragedy, there is only one possible response: Europe stands alongside Israel. And Israel has the right to defend itself”) (see EUROPE 13271/2). At the emergency meeting of the European Council by videoconference, Ursula von der Leyen was said to have been “put back in her box” by President Charles Michel and various other heads of government (see EUROPE 13273/1). This matter amplified the rivalry, not to say mutual loathing, between the two.
There are at least two conclusions we can draw from this. Firstly, the European Union is something of a misnomer in the eyes of the world and to speak its name in the same sentence as the word “geopolitics” is unjustified, certainly in terms of the Middle East. Its structural disunion, in the current state of primary law, prevents it from playing a key role in the region. Secondly, the diarchy at the top of its structure brings with it more disadvantages than benefits; this became apparent in past terms of office and is now absolutely blatant.
In his 2017 State of the Union speech, Jean-Claude Juncker proposed merging the two presidencies (see EUROPE 11862/31). It fell on deaf ears at the time, but that doesn’t rule it out for ever…
Renaud Denuit