Last week in Brussels we saw European Commission chief Jean Claude Juncker presenting a White Paper on the future of Europe. Earlier, the European Parliament adopted three landmark reports setting out radical and feasible deliverables of change required for the Union’s effectiveness in the decades ahead.
Both contributions arrive in the run-up to the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome where all Union Member States and Union institutions will be in Rome to sign a declaration on the future of the European Union.
That event, planned for March 25, may be yet another ceremony ripe with political declarations. Some of us, however, hope that it might serve to trigger the change we need to face existential threats on all fronts. From populism in most Member States, to a dramatically unilateral United States, to Brexit on the doorstep, the path of the European Union is riddled with potentially fatal appointments.
I would like to share my two cents’ worth of perspective on the debate about the current challenges, and by extension, the paths to solutions for the future of Europe.
Donald Trump in US Congress last week declared with pride: “My job is not to be President of the world but to be President of the United States.” The Republicans applauded. The rest of the world should not.
Several of the local threats we face right now have root causes in other regions of the world. In this increasingly globalised and connected world, multilateralism – and hence the notion of states solving problems together – was an anchor of stability. That anchor is losing grip.
Internally within our Europe we are seeing another equally worrying phenomenon. Not far from the beaches of D-day in Normandy, Marine Le Pen commands an ever-increasing support with mainly rural communities buying her argument that the European Union is a threat to their livelihood, their beloved traditions, their sovereignty. Her logic is compelling. Economic downturn and unemployment in these regions are pinned on France being in a straightjacket due to Union membership.
Freeing oneself from straightjackets can hardly be objectionable, right? Problem is that Le Pen’s alternatives to that straightjacket stop at the juiciest parts. But what do you do once you get out of the euro? How do you compensate for the falling employment due to the proposed protectionism?
The Brussels world is intoxicated by the who’s who, yellow stars on blue backgrounds, and can hardly speak the language of the farmer in Normandy or the anti-globalisation student in Valletta
Le Pen does not proceed to answer those questions. It is a ‘democratic’ dynamic akin to the choice for Brexit, where the main instigators of Leave packed their political wares and disappeared from sight within a week after the result.
The two scenarios above set the scene of the challenges of the EU today. One is external and requires answers on how we continue to provide leadership in the world if the world does not want to cooperate. With the current revisionism of the virtues of globalisation, the Union has to get smarter before it is outsmarted. The trade agreement with Canada paves the way for a relationship on the same standard level, with the Union gaining access to a new, 36-million-strong market. Next in line, Japan and Mexico are close to concluding deals with the Union.
The Union can continue to be a world leader on trade and economic diplomacy notwithstanding the current pollution around the virtues of globalisation. But we should get much hungrier with our trade ambitions. We should get smarter and tie our commercial interests with other objectives like migration and security.
From Malta looking south, we can see the imperative of roping in Libya and the whole of Africa in a true partnership propelled by the proposed Marshall plan for Africa.
On the internal front, populism can only be faced by doubling our efforts to deliver concrete results to the citizens. This is, for instance, the compelling ethos and message of the newly elected President of the European Parliament Antonio Tajani, who is insisting on every relevant occasion that the only way to bring the Union closer to its citizens is not through more terminology or high-level statements but through concrete results that they can feel in their lives – answers to concerns like migration, terrorism, quality employment and climate change.
The path to a future of Europe comparable to the glorious achievements of its past, be it on the internal or external front, rests on a single most important caveat. All our efforts to deliver – and the Union has indeed delivered in the past and at present – will serve very little unless we invest as much effort in communicating our deliveries to the citizens in their own language.
The Union has become a glossary of technical terminology, procedures and institutions. The Brussels world is intoxicated by the who’s who, yellow stars on blue backgrounds, and can hardly speak the language of the farmer in Normandy or the anti-globalisation student in Valletta.
That farmer and student play a key role in deciding the future of Europe. We have to start by explaining our project to them in a way they can relate to. If not, we leave citizens with little choice but to take heed of the alternative truths of the likes of Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.
Peter Agius is the former head of the European Parliament office in Malta.