The European Union has an increasingly positive image, not only among the usual allies of the continent, but also in Iceland, Norway, Greenland. According to a rare survey, Canadians would rather join the European Union than become a territory of the USA. As for its citizens themselves, they broadly support its ideals and approve the Parliament’ aspirations to take a greater role in the world, according to the latest Eurobarometer survey. So, everything is hunky-dory, no?
Not entirely, as just half of all Europeans feel that the EU’s role as protector has increased in recent years. The vast majority express concerns over the international situation and would like to see the EU step up to improve collective security (on average 86%, but with considerable differences between countries). Moreover, they call upon it urgently to take action to reverse the fall in purchasing power and increasing poverty (see EUROPE 13607/23). However, it is not at all clear that the EU currently has the wherewithal to respond to these aspirations. The future could be one of great disillusionment!
The European project has always had its detractors within but, with the exception of the United Kingdom, they lacked the power to tip public opinion decisively in any particular direction. What has changed is the number and power of naysayers as well as the radicality of their position.
The Russian authorities have been trying their hardest for many years to destabilise the European Union by supporting political parties opposed to it, particularly those on the far right, which have now become so embedded in the European Parliament that they are in a position to create the kind of majorities that would once have been unheard of. Moscow’s hand can be seen in the recent national elections in Georgia, Moldova, Slovakia and Romania. Two members of the European Council, opposed to military aid for Ukraine, are playing Moscow’s game. At no point has Putin suggested EU involvement in peace talks for Ukraine.
In Turkey, the regime has drifted from European values, confirming the country’s current slide into a dictatorship, a situation against which the official Eurosphere does not dare speak out.
The greatest changes come from Washington, where the new President, a man of interesting historical interpretations, claims that the European Union was set up solely to damage American interests and has called into question the prospect of transatlantic solidarity in the event of an attack on EU soil. His Vice President has turned out to be even more anti-European, as demonstrated by his speech to the Munich conference in mid-February. Internal chat between senior American officials leaked on 25 March (Signalgate) revealed their resentment at paying for Europeans, who they described as ‘profiteers’ and ‘parasites’.
One of the techniques used by opponents of the European Union is to humiliate its representative during official visits. Readers may recall the tensions that flared when Josep Borrell travelled to Moscow in February 2021 (see EUROPE 12653/12), or how Ursula von der Leyen was treated in Ankara in the Sofagate scandal of April 2021 (see EUROPE 12694/1). Recently, in February of this year, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, hoped to meet her opposite number, Marco Rubio, who was unable to make time to see her (see EUROPE 13588/20). And one of the EU’s close friends, President Zelenskyy, was granted an audience in the Oval Office but treated very badly, provoking international outrage. Since then, things have calmed down a little, but the Trump-Putin axis is alive and well, barring the odd disagreement.
The concept of democracy as championed by Trump, Vance, Musk and their hangers-on has ‘liberated speech’ on our continent. In the elections of 23 February, the German far right (AfD) was to benefit from this. In Budapest, Viktor Orbán felt sufficiently emboldened to mock the weaknesses of the EU. Something more unexpected took place in a founder member state, Italy, where the President of the Council, Giorgia Meloni, whose relations with Washington are almost cordial enough to be described as affectionate, completely distanced herself from the Manifesto of Ventotene, when addressing the national parliament on 19 March.
Readers may recall that this text, much of which was written by Altiero Spinelli while imprisoned by Mussolini, is one of the cornerstones of Italy’s commitment to European integration. Having quoted a number of cherry-picked extracts, Ms Meloni exclaimed rhetorically: ‘I don’t know if that is your idea of Europe, but it is certainly not mine’, which raised the roof among members of the Democrat Party. In hopes of building a Defence Europe with greater autonomy, Italy has become the weakest link out of the larger member states.
Most recently, the conviction of Marine Le Pen and her accomplices by the French courts, although discussed soberly at the European Parliament (see 13611/2), very soon prompted the indignant disapprobation of Putin, Trump, Orbán and Salvini: our enemies’ enemies are our friends, and all that. The EU institutional system is used to this type of situation. In the meantime, many people have swallowed the dominant message that this is an attack on French democracy.
The social networks, as we all know, publish good news and bad but in theory, they are not permitted to transmit hate speech. But hate speech against the European Union is uncensored and this is where we are: ‘prophetic’ announcements of its forthcoming demise, calls for its members to get out as soon as they can, threats against the ‘corrupt’ of Brussels, personal attacks on President von der Leyen, reaching as far as her private life, condemnation of the bellicosity of the EU, downplaying of the Russian position on Ukraine, ‘revelations’ of President Zelenskyy’s fleets of luxury yachts and goodness knows what else.
The European Union, a soft power, the world champion of development aid, standing in solidarity with those facing humanitarian drama, did not think it had many enemies. It has, however, discovered to its astonishment that it has a great many, both inside and out, and it is no idea what to do for the best.
But there are things it can do to reverse this damaging situation.
Firstly, European citizenship has disappeared from the decision-makers’ vocabulary. It needs to be put back at front and centre, stressing the benefits to the citizens of every project and programme and, if possible, establishing a timeline of actions to reinforce this citizenship, which is the jewel in the EU’s crown.
Secondly, there must be more awareness of the law. This is legitimate. It offers guarantees for the effectiveness of democracy and the rules of communal life. It offers protection against the arbitrary, the law of the fittest, irrationality, tyranny. It requires magistrates to be treated with respect.
Thirdly, the EU must do more to publicise its fight against corruption. This is being fought at local, regional, national and international levels: it is everywhere. The European Parliament and the Commission must put their houses in order. But there are also legislative efforts: a new directive is underway (see EUROPE 13609/9). There must be greater awareness of all the existing tools and the outcomes of these.
Fourthly, the EU talks in figures too much. The titles of its press communiqués and announcements are an example of this: so many billion earmarked for this, so many billion for that. It ends up making uninformed readers suspicious: why all this money? Does it really end up where it’s supposed to? It would be better to communicate in explanatory sentences with an overarching theme, sketching the background, budgetary allocations, justification in terms of anticipated results, the people who actually benefit, future prospects.
Finally, given the solidarity between dictatorships, the EU must work towards greater solidarity between democracies, wherever in the world they are, to adopt a common manifesto highlighting the superior ability of democracies to resolve collective problems, to generate democratic pride. It must also reiterate the legitimacy of the principal players of the EU. Everybody understands that MEPs were elected by the citizens, but as regards the rest of them, it is less straightforward. On social media, I often see the President of the Commission described as ‘unelected’, or people saying ‘I didn’t choose her’, when nobody says the same thing about the leaders of NATO, the Council of Europe, the OECD, the WTO, etc... This is a sign of the glory, the success of the institution and at the same time, the manifestation of a request that will need to be addressed one day …
Renaud Denuit