This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
E.U., Pressured From Inside and Out, Considers a Reboot
E.U., Pressured from Inside and Out, Considers a Reboot
(about 4 hours later)
BRUSSELS — The mantra of European Union bureaucrats has always been that crises make the bloc stronger. And stronger is implicitly defined as integrating more deeply and centralizing more power with European institutions in Brussels, part of the bloc’s defining goal of creating “an ever-closer union.”
BRUSSELS — The European Union took a step toward coming to terms with the obvious on Wednesday: The 27 diverse nations in the bloc do not necessarily agree on the direction they are moving, how fast to get there, or how closely they should remain together.
But with the European Union encountering trouble on every corner, Britain laying the groundwork to become the first member state to leave and populist movements vying for power in core member states like France and the Netherlands, it is now the bloc itself that is in crisis.
For decades, the Eurocrats leading the bloc have usually insisted that there is one direction and one speed — an inevitable momentum toward an “ever closer union.” But with Britain preparing to soon formally leave the bloc, and with other crises creating internal strains, Jean-Claude Juncker, the leader of the group’s executive body, is offering something new on the menu: a buffet of options for leaders to consider over the next year or so.
Even Jean-Claude Juncker, the leader of the European Union’s executive body, concedes that a new vision is needed for the bloc once it is reduced to 27 countries, after “Brexit,” as Britain’s withdrawal is commonly known, is completed.
Mr. Juncker set out five potential paths for the bloc’s future on Wednesday. Several envision things continuing as they are or even tighter integration, while others acknowledge that Europe can work at different speeds and would roll back some of the powers of the European Commission, the permanent bureaucracy, which Mr. Juncker heads.
The question is what that vision will be.
Those options include narrowing the bloc’s focus to the so-called single market and its 500 million consumers, or creating a multispeed Europe, in which countries willing to integrate in specific areas would do so as “coalitions of the willing.” Another would represent a humbling rollback of European aspirations, ending efforts for further integration in areas like migration, security and defense.
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Juncker, the president of the European Commission, is to deliver a speech at a meeting of the European Parliament in Brussels that will include five scenarios for the bloc’s future — including some that could roll back his powers.
Speaking to the European Parliament, Mr. Juncker urged governments, which hold the real power in the bloc, to “stop bashing the E.U.” for problems, like youth unemployment and low economic growth, that are the responsibility of nation states.
“A united Europe at 27 needs to shape its own destiny and carve out a vision for its own future,” Mr. Juncker wrote in a white paper outlining “reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025.”
“It would do us all good if we simply stopped Brussels-bashing, E.U.-bashing,” he said.
One thing that will not change anytime soon is the glacial pace of European decision making. The process of determining what path to take will probably take at least two years, a time frame similar to the one negotiators will have to negotiate Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
That is highly unlikely, of course, given the prominence of anti-European right-wing parties running historically strong campaigns in core member states like France, Germany and the Netherlands. They are following the success of the anti-Europe U.K. Independence Party in Britain, which pushed “Brexit,” as Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union is commonly known.
Mr. Juncker’s scenarios are also an implicit acknowledgment that this crisis of faith in the European Union may not be making the bloc stronger, but represent a threat to its very future.
In conceding that there could be more than one way forward, Mr. Juncker may have helped the European establishment fend off those critics who say countries must leave the bloc in order to regain greater control of their sovereignty.
“The risk, some say, is that you can undermine the coherence and unity of the union, but that’s too bad, because it can’t hold together if it’s not flexible,” said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institution in London. “For instance, why pretend all countries will join the euro? It won’t happen.”
The mantra of European Union bureaucrats has always been that crises make it stronger, creating the need for more Europe, rather than less. “Stronger” is implicitly defined as more integration and centralizing more power with European institutions in Brussels.
But with the European Union encountering trouble on every corner — Brexit, right-wing politics, migration, poor economic growth, and the continuing problem in the eurozone over what to do with massive Greek debt and Italian banks — it is now the bloc itself that is in crisis.
Mr. Juncker, who is sometimes criticized as disengaged or passive, set out to form the debate.
“A united Europe at 27 needs to shape its own destiny and carve out a vision for its own future,” he wrote in his white paper outlining “reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025.”
Mr. Juncker wants national leaders to give him a mandate at a meeting on March 25 in Rome to begin a popular consultation. He will then need to decide how to carry out the work.
Mr. Juncker wants national leaders to give him a mandate at a meeting on March 25 in Rome to begin a popular consultation. He will then need to decide how to carry out the work.
The possibilities run the gamut, from sticking to the status quo to making a collective leap into a fully federal future. For now, many of the suggestions are vague and exploratory.
One thing that will not change anytime soon is the glacial pace of European decision making. The process of determining what path to take will probably take at least two years, a similar time frame to the one negotiators will have to complete Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Guy Verhofstadt, a pro-European lawmaker who represents Belgium in the European Parliament, was expected to tell Mr. Juncker that there was a simpler solution to deal with the migration crisis, to stabilize troubled banks and to lower energy prices: Scrap the need for all member states to agree on major policy decisions, a root cause of deadlock.
For now, many of the suggestions are vague and exploratory.
“The unanimity rule has become an obstacle, a permanent blockade,” Mr. Verhofstadt said in remarks prepared ahead of a Parliament debate set for later Wednesday.
Guy Verhofstadt, a pro-European lawmaker who represents Belgium in the European Parliament, told Mr. Juncker that there was a simpler solution to dealing with the migration crisis, to stabilizing troubled banks and to lowering energy prices: scrap the need for all member states to agree on major policy decisions, a root cause of deadlock.
Which of the visions outlined below is most likely to prevail? That will depend in large part on which one is favored by the winners of the next round of European elections, to be held in 2019.
“The unanimity rule has become an obstacle, a permanent blockade,” Mr. Verhofstadt said.
The first scenario would keep things as they are: Brussels would continue to make an effort to deepen cooperation in the fight against terrorism, build up joint defense capabilities and defend borders, and the eurozone would see “incremental” attempts at improvement.
The issues are sensitive. Even the suggestion of a varied Europe brought some howls. Gianni Pittella, the leader of the Socialist Democrats in the European Parliament, suggested that Mr. Juncker had shied away from choosing a single pathway to restore faith in the European project because of political cowardice.
However, consensus would remain elusive in crucial but contentious areas, and, the white paper says, “the unity of the EU27 is preserved but may still be tested in the event of major disputes.”
“We cannot accept the sacrifice of a common European future as a result of the shortsightedness of the council or because of a fear of possible outcomes of national elections,” Mr. Pittella said in a statement, referring to the European Council, which brings together national leaders, but not explicitly naming France, Germany or the Netherlands.
The huge influx of migrants to Europe in 2015 has already led to the revival of border checks in many countries that once largely allowed passport-free travel. According to this scenario, citizens should expect some holdups to persist when crossing between European Union countries. They should also expect a continued patchwork of national rules that hinder economic progress, such as in e-commerce.
Which of Mr. Juncker’s scenarios is likely to prevail will depend on the outcome of elections in those countries and on the winners of the next round of European elections, to be held in 2019.
The paper also warns that trade deals are likely to be delayed by discussions and disagreements in national and regional parliaments if the status quo continues. That was the case in the recent wrangling over whether the European Union should sign a deal with Canada on the so-called Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.
A second option would acknowledge the difficulties in getting member states to cooperate by essentially asking them to no longer try in most areas. Instead, the focus would narrow to the so-called single market and its 500 million consumers.
This scenario would represent a dramatic and humbling rollback of long-held European aspirations. It would mean an end to efforts for further integration in areas like migration, security and defense.
The European Union would start “withdrawing two existing pieces of legislation for every new initiative proposed,” the white paper says.
What would it mean for Europeans? There would be little or no Pan-European oversight of the water quality in rivers like the Danube and the Rhine that run between nations, for example. They might face higher medical costs when falling ill abroad, because reciprocal agreements between member states on health care would probably come to an end. And it would be harder for the remaining 27 member states to punish foreign powers that mount cyberattacks in Europe.
This proposal calls for what is known as a multispeed Europe. Countries willing to integrate in specific areas would do so as “coalitions of the willing.” Others could join over time.
Core areas for cooperation could include defense, with European armies readied for joint missions, and the fight against organized crime, which would require deeper cooperation between police and intelligence services and the use of “fully interconnected” databases.
Trade deals with countries outside the bloc would continue to be managed entirely by the European authorities in Brussels, and there would be “greater harmonization of tax rules and rates” to reduce compliance costs and limit tax evasion.
Even so, the white paper sounds a cautionary note. “Citizens’ rights derived from E.U. law start to vary depending on whether or not they live in a country that has chosen to do more.”
Elements of this scenario have already met with skepticism in parts of Central and Eastern Europe, where countries fear that such an approach would create elite groups within the European Union.
This scenario is all about defining choices and setting priorities. Member states would reclaim responsibility in sectors where they do not want to cooperate; in other, predefined areas, the European Union would act more like a fully federal entity.
“As a result, the EU27 is able to act much quicker and more decisively in its chosen priority areas,” according to the white paper, which adds that, “stronger tools are given to the EU27 to directly implement and enforce collective decisions, as it does today in competition policy or for banking supervision.”
One benefit of this approach is that it would align Europeans’ expectations about what Brussels can deliver by making more clear where European officials have authority. In a recent case where automakers broke pollution rules, Brussels was “widely expected to protect consumers from cheating manufacturers,” but it had “no powers or tools to do so in a direct and visible manner.”
The paper also suggests a single “European Asylum Agency” to handle all refugee cases. Areas where Brussels might relinquish power include overseeing public health and social policy.
Can the European Union transform itself into a fully federal entity in which all 27 member states abide by rules set in Brussels in all existing and future policy areas? Probably not — at least not any time soon, given the rise of anti-Europe forces in so many member states.
Doing so would offer “far greater and quicker decision making” at the union level, according to the paper. But “there is the risk of alienating parts of society which feel that the E.U. lacks legitimacy or has taken too much power away from national authorities.”
Some proposals will infuriate populists who see the European Union as meddlesome and who want to destroy the bloc entirely. This scenario envisions European Union embassies; trade agreements that would be “initiated, negotiated and swiftly ratified by the E.U. on behalf of its 27 member states”; and the European Parliament overseeing a European Monetary Fund with the ability to bail out member states with failing economies.
