EU unity has been challenged by almost a decade of low growth and high unemployment. This has led to populism and nationalism challenging mainstream political parties. The refugee crisis, Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and Brexit exacerbate the EU's fundamental governance challenges. The Cipher Brief's March interview with Sir Michael Leigh, Former Director-General for EU Enlargement at the European Commission, discusses the geopolitical landscape and motivations needed for the future of European integration.
The Cipher Brief: Is the landscape of unity within the EU changing and why?
Michael Leigh: The fundamentals of EU unity remain in place: the single market, the EU's exclusive responsibility for trade, and the primacy of EU law over national law. The EU and its member states are the largest providers of development assistance in the world. The EU still does many things right. But the EU suffers from over-reach and a changing geopolitical setting.
The euro was set up for political reasons, following German unification, without the economic fundamentals being in place. A currency union requires fiscal transfers between stronger and weaker countries. This is banned by treaty in the Eurozone, and Germany refuses to share the debt of weaker Eurozone countries. France doesn't accept the Eurozone meddling with its fiscal stance. Banks are still shaky in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere.
EU unity has been challenged by almost a decade of low growth and high unemployment. This has led to populism and nationalism challenging mainstream political parties. The refugee crisis, Russia's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and the risk of Britain leaving the EU exacerbate the EU's fundamental governance challenges. Reconciliation after World War II, the Cold War, the collapse of communism, and EU expansion provided a geopolitical impulse for European integration over many decades. Now the geopolitical landscape is different, and Europe needs to find new motivation and new incentives if it is to move forward.
TCB: What is the biggest challenge Europe now faces?
ML: Europe's biggest challenge is to prevent today's crises from becoming permanent disorders that undermine what has been achieved over the past half century. To survive, the EU must put into place a firmer foundation for the euro. It needs to find new ways to boost growth and jobs, making better use of Europe's comparative advantages in areas like financial services, clean energy, and high tech. Labor markets need to function more smoothly and with fewer obstacles in order to help bring down unemployment, especially youth unemployment. The EU needs to ensure that current restrictions on the free movement of people, in response to the surge in refugee numbers, are lifted as soon as possible, both for humanitarian reasons and to preserve the single market. The British need to show common sense in resisting populists and demagogues who call for withdrawal from the EU. This is the last thing that Britain and the rest of Europe need at a time of so many real challenges.
TCB: Can collectively overcoming the current crises in Europe strengthen solidarity within the EU? Or has the EU already lost its solidarity?
ML: Solidarity is a misleading term. States have always pursued their own interests within the EU. The French, the Dutch, and other founding members did not hesitate to do so when there were only six member states. The EU has always worked best when national interests coincide with European interests. Today, the two appear to diverge on a number of sensitive issues, including immigration and how to cope with a resurgent Russia. The member states will have to learn to work together in new and more flexible ways in order to preserve and strengthen the many areas of EU activity that do work well and which hold out hope for the future.
TCB: What will Europe look like in the future? Is an ever-closer union out of the question?
ML: Over the next decade, the EU will change. Decisions will be made less by the Brussels institutions and more by the member states, through permanent diplomatic interactions. This is already happening at summits that occur now almost weekly. The commission will become less of a political institution and more of a regulator.
The European Parliament will not become the forum that overcomes the EU's "democratic deficit." It has failed to establish its legitimacy with the electorate. Too often, the E.P. seems more concerned with sharing the spoils among its members, through deals reached in the modern equivalent of smoke-filled rooms, than with the well-being of EU citizens. Why, for example, does the European Parliament have a "socialist" President when the center-right won the last E.P. elections? What takes place there is incomprehensible to the people of Europe. Instead, national parliaments and governments everywhere will gradually reassert their primacy. The EU will become even more "multi-tiered" with members picking and choosing the activities in which they wish to participate. This is not to be lamented; rather it is the only way the EU can continue to function and to provide benefits to the population in the changed conditions of the 21st century.
TCB: What would a less unified Europe mean for U.S. national security and business interests?
ML: President Barack Obama has said that he wants to see a strong Britain in a strong Europe. It is in the interests of the United States that Europe should continue to thrive because of our high levels of interdependence in trade and investment, cooperation on intelligence, security and defense, and because of a common commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and the protection of human rights. Europe and the United States provide the main support globally for rules-based ways of ordering international relations. With rising international actors who do not necessarily share these concerns, a strong Europe has never been more important for the United States. It is up to Europe to decide how best to structure its own internal relations. A multi-tiered Europe, working through "coalitions of the willing," may well cooperate more closely with the United States than an EU that requires unanimity before deciding on common action.
