On Saturday, Europe will be marking 60 years of unity and economic integration, which for 500 million citizens has also meant six decades of peace. But on the day, leaders at the Rome Summit will also have an important discussion on the Union’s future, as opposing forces pull it in different directions.
The foundations of the Europe that we know today were laid in Rome 60 years ago and led to the longest period of peace in the continent’s written history.
Instead of uniting the continent using armed forces, the founding fathers chose the force of law, and on March 25, 1957, the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community. This led to the creation of the Single Market in 1993.
But the recent rise of populism and anti-EU sentiment, which was reaffirmed by the Brexit referendum last year, has raised doubts across the board about the Union’s future.
Ahead of the Rome Summit on Saturday, the European Commission presented a White Paper on the future of Europe, setting out the main challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. It presented five possible scenarios for how the Union might evolve by 2025.
Two Maltese MEPs, a former European Commissioner and the former head of the European Parliament Representation in Malta were asked which of European Commission Presi-dent Jean-Claude Juncker’s five options for the future of Europe they felt were in Malta’s, and the EU’s, long-term interest.
Doing less but more effectively
For former European Commissioner Tonio Borg, reducing the EU down to a common market is not on.
The founding fathers’ intention for the common market was as a political measure, that is, for the European States to become interdependent to the extent that war between them would become impossible, Dr Borg said.
Referring to the day that the agreement was signed in Rome in 1957, Dr Borg noted that the founding fathers of what is now the EU – Italy Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – had started their treaty with the words “…determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.
Creating a premier division could create unnecessary friction and tensions- Tonio Borg
They also resolved “to pool their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty and call upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts”, Dr Borg added.
Hailing from the smallest EU Member State, Dr Borg admitted he was, by nature, wary of two-speed models.
The Union has moved from unanimity on everything to a Union of qualified majority on practically everything. It remains a Union of sovereign States. Creating a premier division could create unnecessary friction and tensions, warned Dr Borg.
“At the same time, I understand that the current malaise requires a strengthening of resolve to unite in the face of an ambivalent United States that is more inward-looking than before.”
With China and the other BRICS countries becoming important players on the economic plane, a message had to be sent that the EU intended to keep going forward with or without Brexit, and that indeed Brexit would allow further integration. This was the message of the Versailles Summit, he noted.
However, having larger States coming together before each summit or meeting gave the impression (to smaller States), that council meetings were just rubber stamps for what had already been decided by the larger States.
Dr Borg fears this could be the danger of a two-speed Europe.
“I would prefer to strictly apply the subsidiarity principle, enforced in a proper way with better regulation, and simplify the complex comitology procedures, trying to do less but more effectively.”
Full harmonisation may not be in Malta’s best interest
Malta’s best bet would be somewhere between scenario one (carrying on) and scenario three (those who want more do more), according to Peter Agius, former head of the European Representation in Malta.
“First of all, in all the talk of crises and need for relaunch, let us not discount the virtues of the current system… The current setting of a principled, yet incomplete, single market has allowed us to exploit markets like financial services and online gaming on the premise of the treaty principle of free movement.”
The lack of complete harmonisation in these areas has been exploited by Malta, which has carved out niches hanging precisely on our competitive advantages, Dr Agius added.
Full harmonisation, although deemed desirable by our partners, may not be in our interest in some of these areas. For this reason, the status quo may be better than an evolution from it, he continued.
“The dilemma is that in a number of other areas, we are certainly ready to do more within the European project. Take immigration, the environment and civil rights, for instance. In these areas, Malta may be part of the leading group of Member States seeking deeper integration while exploiting the synergies of the Union’s decision making and economies of scale.”
In these instances, we would not have the reservations mentioned earlier, he said, adding that to this end, scenario three would appeal to Malta.
The current setting of a principled, yet incomplete, single market has allowed us to exploit markets like financial services and online gaming- Peter Agius
Dr Agius pointed out that this scenario is, to some extent, already taking shape. The Union is in fact already pushing a good number of initiatives through the so-called “enhanced cooperation procedure”.
This procedure started out as an exception to the rule and was extended to several areas in the Lisbon Treaty. Legislative initiatives like the European Patent, the cross-border divorce directive and now the European Public Prosecutor’s Office are taking shape through this mechanism, which allows a group of Member States to push forward integration in areas where it would not be possible due to blocking minorities in the Council of Ministers, he explained.
“I am indicating scenario three as an alternative to scenario five (doing much more together), given that this other scenario would, contrary to scenario three, presume a deeper integration across all fronts.
“This would probably require significant adaptation from the Maltese economy and would possibly affect negatively the comparative advantages that we have carved out in our experience of membership of the EU so far.”
Moreover, deeper integration on all fronts could negatively affect Malta if it excluded non-eurozone Member States, which would then gain major flexibility to attract foreign direct investment through tax competiveness, currency autonomy and other economic tools.
An alternative scenario
MEP Alfred Sant is not enthusiastic about the approach adopted by the Juncker Commission in launching a discussion about the future of Europe.
He agrees with the idea of the Commission not taking a position now and instead encouraging a free and open debate.
However, preselecting five scenarios without first undertaking an assessment of where the EU stands and how it got where it is seems for Dr Sant to be a technocratic method that will be counterproductive.
“None of the presented scenarios appear ‘real’ as future options, since they do not follow from a critical analysis of what the EU has done ‘right’ and where it has gone ‘wrong’.
“As a result, the scenarios themselves amount to an assembly of the ‘logical’ options that could be devised, completely divorced from the historical and social context in which Europeans live their lives.”
In his view, the main problem with the European project is that, as a result of the enlargement and deepening policies which the EU chose to follow in the 1990s, it is now in a situation of overreach.
The scenario I prefer, and which is not included in the Juncker package, is for the EU to consolidate across the board- Alfred Sant, MEP
This has led to political stalemates, economic underperformance, a growing divergence between the EU’s parts and popular disenchantment with the Union.
“The scenario I prefer, and which is not included in the Juncker package, is for the EU to consolidate across the board following a wide-ranging political agreement to re-establish, as the top and absolute priority, economic and social convergence within the Union.”
However, such a convergence could not happen successfully simply by extending further the current neo-liberal rules of operation.
It would require a sustained and concrete exercise of coordinated political will and action, involving all main political actors within the Union.
This was admittedly a tall order, but it would definitely be in the interests of the Union (and of Malta), Dr Sant added.
A conversation between nations
For MEP Roberta Metsola, the future of the European Union must be a conversation between nations.
Dr Metsola recalled that the signing of the Treaty of Rome saw the coming together of different peoples who realised that what united them far outweighed what divided them and that in diversity, Europe found strength, not weakness.
The European project is constantly evolving, and as we find ourselves at the crossroads, it is time to decide what sort of Union we want to see develop in the coming years, she noted.
If Brexit has taught us anything, it is that we need to do more to bring the EU closer to the citizens it represents, and to do that, we need to ensure, as Juncker said, that “Europe remains big on the big things but small on the small things”.
In a climate of political populism, Dr Metsola warned against going down the road of over-regulation that choked innovation.
“I believe that it is possible to have a balance between the strong social safeguards and standards we take for granted in Europe and the innovation we see in the Silicon Valley, for example – but that means that we sometimes need to adapt to the changing times.
The future of Europe is a question that goes beyond a White Paper- Roberta Metsola, MEP
“If Europe is to remain competitive, we cannot legislate as if it is 1990. We need to be adaptable.”
Dr Metsola added that she had got into politics as a young student because she was part of the generation who believed that Malta’s place was around the same table as our European partners.
It is a belief that she holds as strongly now as she did then. “The future of Europe is a question that goes beyond a White Paper. It must be a conversation between nations and peoples.
“My view is that there are many areas where enhanced cooperation is the ideal, but such a scenario must safeguard the specific situation in each Member State. We must strike a fair balance between EU integration and regional realities.”
Five scenarios proposed by the European Commission
1: Carrying on
The EU27 sticks to its course, focusing on implementing and upgrading its current reform agenda.
2: Nothing but the single market
As the Member States are not able to find common ground on an increasing number of policy areas, the EU27 gradually re-centres on the single market.
3: Those who want more do more
The EU27 proceeds as today but allows willing states to do more together in specific areas such as defence, internal security and social matters.
4: Doing less more efficiently
Attention and limited resources are focused on select policy areas.
5: Doing much more together
Member States decide to share more power, resources and decision making across the board.