EU
must become protector of its citizens
The
EU needs to rebalance its core values to win the battle against
populists, experts and EU officials argue.
By Eszter Zalan
BRUSSELS, Today,
07:44
The EU needs to
rebalance its core values to win the battle against populists,
experts and EU officials argue.
The Brexit vote has
served a blow to the EU’s centre, and it is clear that the old
narrative that the EU is there to provide peace and freedoms is not
enough to win back disenchanted voters who are disillusioned with
integration.
The 27 EU
leaders will put their heads together in mid-September in Bratislava
to figure out the way ahead without the UK. (Photo: Consillium)
The rise of
populism, with the EU in its cross hairs, is evident across the
continent.
Voters will head to
the polls in Austria, the Netherlands and France in the coming
months, where populist politicians are making headways, creating more
uncertainty about the bloc’s future.
The 27 EU leaders
will put their heads together in mid-September in Bratislava for an
informal discussion on the way ahead after the Brexit vote.
But the answer is
far from clear.
“This is not
business as usual,” argues Luuk van Middelaar, historian and writer
of The Passage to Europe, a look inside the power politics of the EU,
who earlier served on the cabinet of EU Council president Herman Van
Rompuy.
He argues that the
Brexit vote contradicts the “Brussels doctrine” that integration
is a one-way street, and that economic interdependence among EU
countries leads to “grateful societies”.
“For the EU it is
very bad news. This attack undermines the raison d’etre of the EU,”
he told this website.
Van Middelaar says
it is unhelpful to dismiss the Brexit vote as irrational.
He argues that the
underlying problem is that many in Europe and Western societies feel
left behind and even threatened by globalisation, open borders and
markets, and the EU is often seen as a facilitator of that, rather
than a bulwark against it.
He says it “leads
to an attack from the political extremes on the open, international,
European order as it has been constructed since 1945”.
He warns against
framing this battle as elite versus the people.
“It is basically
two houses of society, almost half-half of the voters in the UK and
in Austria [in the recent presidential election], a line down the
middle between two world views,” he said.
The EU’s problem
is that it is only working for the half of the population that has
benefited from globalisation, producing more freedoms and
opportunities for the 50 percent that already likes it,” Van
Middelaar said.
That has to change
if the EU expects different outcomes.
Instead, he argues,
in order to reach out to those who see globalisation as a threat “the
EU should produce not only freedoms and opportunities, but also
protection”.
“It means
reinforced external borders, safeguards from the global disruptive
forces, like for instance Chinese dumping, and not to be perceived as
the ‘Trojan horse of globalisation’,” he said.
“The new narrative
of the EU should better balance providing freedoms and providing
protection and order, either by itself or by not undermining existing
protection, like the welfare state,” he argued.
The other 50
percent, who already support the EU and open societies, would have no
other option but to agree, van Middelaar argued.
“Less Brussels,
more Europe,” should be the message coming from Bratislava, argues
the historian. “There needs to be a change in self-image,” he
added.
Seeing the fate of
David Cameron, who resigned as British prime minister after the
Brexit vote, Van Middelaar said national politicians would have to
understand too that if they wanted to hold on to the political
centre, they would have to make the pro-European argument themselves.
A shift in tone has
already been noticeable by Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte, who has
done a “Cameron-light” earlier, as Van Middelaar put it, in
blaming the EU, but has been markedly more positive when talking
about the union since the day after the UK referendum.
The balance of power
would have to shift towards the Council, because member states still
have the exclusive power to take action on the ground.
Inside the bubble
Inside the EU there
is also a realisation that things need to change and the institutions
need to be more open to the concerns of member states and citizens.
“Trade, jobs and
the single market are important, but not enough,” said a senior EU
official, who did not want to named.
“What is at stake
is the whole model. The big question for Europe is, do we want the EU
to continue to represent a liberal society, which reconciles freedom,
equality and diversity,” the official told this website.
“The new narrative
has to be rebalanced: keep the four freedoms, but acknowledge that
life in society is not only about freedoms, and there is need for
protection not only on the external borders, but also in terms of a
fairer economy.”
The official
acknowledged that member states do not like to be ordered around by
the commission.
The source added
that the commission needed to understand that the post-communist
states might want to move at a different pace on issues like gay
marriage, for instance.
Juncker, Schulz and
the future
Some commission
officials sound genuinely frustrated with the way the leadership of
the EU executive is communicating and pushing member states without
properly preparing proposals by listening to EU countries.
They argue, the
commission is trying to "bulldoze" through proposals, when
it should better prepare them by listening to member states'
interests and sensitivities.
Sources say EU
commission president Juncker's chief of staff, Martin Selmayr's
confrontational style with member states builds unnecessary tension
with EU countries, when for instance pushing for a mandatory quota
system in the migration crisis.
Some argue that
Juncker's habit of surrounding himself with aides loyal to Selmayr
does not help him getting all perspectives from different member
states.
But there seems to
be little chance the institution is to change any time soon.
According to a
source, Juncker sees Brexit as British exceptionalism, “not
inevitable, but not surprising”. “He is does not think Brexit
questions the whole enterprise,” the source added.
Some argue that the
centralised structure reinforced by the Juncker commission adds to
the ivory-tower mentality in Brussels, and that it cuts off new ideas
and hampers communication.
“We are cutting
off creativity and possibilities to communicate to the people on the
ground for whom we have concreted benefits,” argued another senior
EU official, who also did not want to be named.
“It is not
sufficient if Juncker and [European Parliament president Martin]
Schulz are calling each other every day. They are not the future of
Europe, do not represent the needs of the next generation, if the
next generation is to still believe in Europe.”
This might be the
time for EU Council president Donald Tusk to emerge as a formidable
leader in the EU.
In Bratislava, the
27 with the “UK ghost” – as one official put it – in the
room, will have to show unity. They will also need to avoid a turf
war with the EU institutions.
But expressing a
united European leadership will be a difficult task, as some of them
face elections, terror threats, or a hostile public at home.
“We face huge
challenges, and to simply to argue that this is business as usual
would be short-sighted,” an EU official argued.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário