Editor's note
International Internet Magazine. Baltic States news & analytics
Wednesday, 24.04.2024, 23:07
Modern EU reforms: effect for Baltic States
The first day of March when the EU’s future was contemplated
by the Commission was a big day for some but rather disappointing for others. As
is already evident, many European states consider the Union as either too
distant from their needs or too interfering in the national affairs. Commission
President’s vision for the EU’s future consisted of five possible scenarios; what
the “new future” would have for the Baltic States?
Five scenarios uncovered
European Commission is the most important EU’s executive
institutions. In the rank of importance, as it is mentioned in the Treaty (it
is number four, see art.13 TEU); but actually its importance is outstanding: the
Commission “promotes the general interest of the Union and take appropriate
initiatives to that end” (art. 17 TEU). One of such initiatives has been the
five scenarios of the EU’s future, presented by the Commission President on the
1st of March 2017.
It was a very big day for some EU member states praising the
first day of march, while several others kept calm and thought to carry on like
“business as usual”.
The Commission’s five approaches to future might seem quite
complicated; here are some simplified versions of what the President actually
meant:
1. “Carrying on”. This first option/scenario
is based on national governments agreeing to deepen the EU’s single market,
pool some national capabilities (e.g. security & military), and “speaking
with one voice on foreign affairs,” while leaving other competences: e.g.
taxation, border control, education, etc. mostly in the hands of national governments.
Hardly any complaints will be on this option: the division of competences is
explained in detail in the Treaty.
2. “Nothing but the Single
Market”. The Commission acknowledged that the member states were “not able
to find common ground on an increasing number of policy areas” in integration,
as the “capacity to act collectively is limited” and “this may widen the
gap between expectations and delivery at all levels.” Companies could face more
border checks, and the states would revert to pursuing bilateral relations.
Crossing borders for business and/or tourism would become difficult due to
regular checks. Finding a job abroad is harder and the transfer of pension
rights to another country not guaranteed; those falling ill abroad could face
expensive medical bills.
3. “Those who want
more do more”. The EU-27 (without the UK) would proceed with the present
integration but allows willing member
states to do more together in specific areas such as defence, internal
security, social matters, etc. One or several “coalitions of the willing” might emerge, said the Commission. Among
such “coalitions” there are already existing ones (19 euro-zone states, incl. 3
Baltics) and some in future, e.g. incl. civil/criminal law, corporate taxation
or drone surveillance, etc.
4. “Doing less more
efficiently”. This option is instigated by the reduced EU funds in future;
hence problems with financing European Border and Coast Guard or establishment
of a European Defense Union. However, the Commission sees other priority areas
for deeper and efficient cooperation: such as research & innovation (could
be focused on digitization, circular economy, sustainability and CO2
reduction), trade and security, etc.
One problem is envisaged in this scenario: it needs EU
states’ mutual agreement on the areas of “more efficient cooperation”. Probably
among the three Baltic States that wouldn’t be a problem.
5. “Doing much more
together”. In fact, this option is a
hidden idea of a federal EU. The EU would get more of its “own resources” (the
ability to raise revenue through tax), the eurozone would be completed along
the lines of the Five Presidents’ Report issued in 2015. Under this
scenario the EU would also assume greater powers common trade and foreign
policy, as well as assume global leadership in combating climate change.
So, there would be no complaints about the lack of EU’s legitimacy.
Bottom-line:
Commission’s five scenarios aimed to reignite debate on the future of Europe at
the end of March: the White paper calls for leaders to “either promise
less or do more”. His message to national leaders is not to overload
the EU institutions with work they can’t deliver on. The Commission wants all
other EU institutions to “have the power and authority to implement decisions
they are responsible for”, e.g. if the EU states’ leaders want the EU
institutions to eliminate youth unemployment then they have to get some
“powers”; otherwise the leaders have “to stop promising to wipe it out”.
The “EU paths/options” are going to range from a
fully-fledged federalist EU to a two-speed Europe. Some other options are in
sight as well: the future EU-27 acting as a free trade zone only with a
euro-zone block for the time-being next to.
Besides, all references to concepts like “ever closer union”
and “more Europe” have been also withdrawn from the five scenarios’ text.
These are important points for the Baltic States’
politicians to think about before the next summit at the end of March…