In Monty Python’s 1979 film The Life of Brian, a character living in the time of Jesus asks: “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
In the UK’s pre-referendum debates, there was more than a hint of this sort of stubborn refusal or inability to understand just what the EU has achieved. Elena Grech, the head of EC Representation in Malta, is clearly frustrated that there is so little appreciation but she is also wary of the rise of ‘fake news’:
“The pro-Brexit side came up with many nonsensical arguments, including savings of £350 million which would be spent on the NHS. But no one bothered to challenge this fake news.
“The UK may save on what it pays to be a member of the EU but they will need to pay it somewhere else, as their tariffs will be much higher. Their businesses will struggle much more and the pound sterling has lost so much of its value. They will not be spending it on the NHS!” she said with passion.
“This is why the European Commission is taking action now and urging us as its representatives to challenge information which is distorting the truth.”
Part of the problem is that the European Commission is going to be 60 next year, and fewer and fewer people remember the ravages of World War II. She admitted that this results in complacency because people “have had their bread buttered on both sides” in recent decades. In the meantime, new issues have cropped up, foremost among them migration, the economic crisis, the threat of terrorism, international security, and job security.
Another problem is that the European Commission is too big and easy a target for most people to resist.
“When something is good, the government of the country takes the praise, but when something goes wrong, then it is all too easy for people to find a scapegoat in Brussels.
“The fact that you can roam at domestic rates, for example, isn’t that a benefit for Europe? There is already fear in the UK that roaming charges will go up after Brexit – which will affect Malta because of the number of Maltese who travel there and the number of British tourists who come here.
Talk of federalism has come and gone and now the fears are not of a bigger and more powerful EU but of a fragmented one with a timebomb ticking which could tear it apart
“And having the euro is such a blessing for those who travel and who don’t have to think in different currencies, to exchange currency and so on,” she said.
However, these things sometimes do not get the attention they deserve, she admitted. The tabloid media – especially in the UK – forged many of the misconceptions and myths, from the non-existent ban on curved cucumbers to the threat that British car number plates would be axed. But some of the criticism was much more serious: “Take the economic crisis, for example. It had nothing to do with member states having to abide by Brussels economic rules. If member states like Greece had done so, rather than cheating and cooking their books for decades, there would not have been a crisis in the first place!” she emphasised.
“But is this Europe’s fault? If it were, then you would see a pattern across all the member states. Why is Italy doing so badly and Germany doing so well?
“It is down to national policy. How can the EU create jobs? What it can do is facilitate frameworks but then the member states have to implement the policies to create actual jobs. That was the whole point of Structural Funds and one of the yardsticks to measure how effective they were was the number of jobs created. Take an isolated area which has land for industrial development but no roads. It is national policy which determines that this area will be used for an industrial park, that roads will be built and that plots will be allocated and jobs eventually created. The EU then provides the funds to help create the road access,” she said.
Another problem is that in spite of howls of protest about bureaucracy, it is often the member states themselves that try to embroil the Commission in controversies to solve their own issues. One recent example came from the member states in the Visegrad Four who asked the Council to ensure that brands tasted the same in each member state, and only backed off once they realised how nonsensical that would be to apply, let alone enforce.
But whatever the reasons for the perception of the European Commission, the bottom line is that it was set up for six countries with similar economic development and is now having to cope with 28 – soon to be back down to 27. Talk of federalism has come and gone and now the fears are not of a bigger and more powerful EU but of a fragmented one with a timebomb ticking which could tear it apart.
It was with this in mind that president Jean-Claude Juncker came up with a list of five possible scenarios for the future (see box). His State of the Union speech will be made just two weeks before the German elections – seen as the least likely to rock the boat. The Netherlands has had its elections and rejected extremism and populism but France’s could still result in some surprises.
“The least wild card is Germany as it is most likely that the status quo will prevail. And in Merkel, everyone sees a stable, pro-EU person, even though her popularity might diminish.
“However, if Le Pen were elected in France that would be the end of EU and there wouldn’t even be a State of the Union speech…” she shrugged.
The scenarios challenge the current levels of subsidiarity but it is clear that at some point the EU would lose the rationale for its existence. Ms Grech believes that one of the most crucial elements – and the biggest benefits – is the common border.
“Either we protect it more or leave it as it is. What we do need to do is ensure that there is greater control at the external borders.
“When border controls were reinstalled because of the summit in Malta, there was a report that numerous people with fake visas and passports were apprehended. How is this possible? They must have crossed an EU border at some stage so someone was not doing their job properly because they should have been caught then, not when travelling between one country and another.
“In the last State of the Union, they proposed an entry/exit system similar to what they have in the US, where you have to register who you are, why you are visiting, how long you plan to stay and what kind of document you have. I think it makes a lot of sense,” she said.
Alas, she admits that this would not solve migration, a topic which has so far defied solution.
Are we doing enough to check where investors’ money is coming from?
“We need a balance between those we have a duty to protect and those who are seeking opportunities. This is the first distinction that needs to be made. It is question of coming to terms with the fact that people come to Europe because it is viewed as being a safe place, where you can have a future. I guess everyone who has children would want a better future with more opportunities.”
She acknowledged that quotas for migrants did not work as so many member states baulked at the idea, but argued that this was a particular shame because their fears of the impact were probably unfounded: “Germany accepted almost a million refugees – most of them Syrian – in 2015 and almost all of them are employed. And in fact, Germany’s unemployment rate was not affected. But it only worked because there were the right policies.
“How could you expect Italy to absorb migrants when it has such high unemployment for its own under-40s. This is why so many workers – local or migrant are being exploited and abused. When there are a lot of people looking for work, employers play them off against each other.”
Apart from its own internal problem, there are also external ones – including what Trump’s pre-electoral statements will mean in practice for the EU. The TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was one of the first casualties and Ms Grech said that it was now a question of “wait and see”: “The ball is in the American court. The EU has openly shown its cards with regards to what it wanted to do – even before Trump’s people were saying that TTIP was dead.
“But it is too early to see what direction Trump will choose. He said many thing in his electoral campaign and some seem to be more of a priority than others. There has been contact between the EU and the Trump administration, although not directly with him. [Vice President] Pence has been to Brussels but TTIP was not on the agenda.
“A break can be healthy as it allows us to take stock and see whether we really want to get into an agreement which is so volatile that it can be changed whenever an administration changes,” she stressed.
And what about closer to home? Is there anything about Malta which she feels needs attention? She raised two issues, one far more serious than the other: fees associated with cross-border bank transactions; and the reputational risk for Malta from money laundering.
On the former, she has already spoken to Finance Minister Edward Scicluna asking why she can use her Belgian bank account to pay and withdraw money in Malta at no extra cost – but that the reverse does not hold true.
“Given the free movement of currency in the eurozone, and the Single European Payment Area, I cannot understand this,” she said.
The second issue is a bit more thorny. She admitted that some member states are less than happy with Malta’s prosperity.
“Malta is getting a reputation as a tax haven in some cases and this is not good, not only because Malta is a member state, and because other member states complain if they have stricter rules and stricter regimes but are not getting as much business as Malta because of its lax tax regimes. Then of course, they start making noise.
“There have been cases of money laundering, of suspicious companies setting up shop here. I think Malta needs to check what is behind those companies. It is a compliance issue, not an enforcement one. Are we doing enough to check where investors’ money is coming from?” she warned.
Choosing the future path
The White Paper presented recently by president Jean-Claude Juncker sets out five scenarios, each offering a glimpse into the potential State of the Union by 2025 depending on the choices Europe will make. The scenarios cover a range of possibilities and are neither mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.
President Juncker’s State of the Union speech in September 2017 will take these ideas forward before first conclusions could be drawn at the December 2017 European Council. This will help to decide on a course of action to be rolled out in time for the European Parliament elections in June 2019.
Scenario 1: Carrying On
The EU27 focuses on delivering its positive reform agenda in the spirit of the Commission’s New Start for Europe from 2014 and of the Bratislava Declaration agreed by all 27 member states in 2016. By 2025 this could mean:
■ Europeans can drive automated and connected cars but can encounter problems when crossing borders as some legal and technical obstacles persist.
■ Europeans mostly travel across borders without having to stop for checks. Reinforced security controls mean having to arrive at airports and train stations well in advance of departure.
Scenario 2: Nothing but the Single Market
The EU27 is gradually re-centred on the single market as the 27 member states are not able to find common ground on an increasing number of policy areas. By 2025 this could mean:
■ Crossing borders for business or tourism becomes 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 face expensive medical bills.
■ Europeans are reluctant to use connected cars due to the absence of EU-wide rules and technical standards.
Scenario 3: Those Who Want More Do More
The EU27 proceeds as today but allows willing member states to do more together in specific areas such as defence, internal security or social matters. One or several “coalitions of the willing” emerge. By 2025 this could mean that:
■ 15 member states set up a police and magistrates corps to tackle cross-border criminal activities. Security information is immediately exchanged as national databases are fully interconnected.
■ Connected cars are used widely in 12 member states which have agreed to harmonise their liability rules and technical standards.
Scenario 4: Doing Less More Efficiently
The EU27 focuses on delivering more and faster in selected policy areas, while doing less where it is perceived not to have an added value. Attention and limited resources are focused on selected policy areas. By 2025 this could mean:
■ A European Telecoms Authority will have the power to free up frequencies for cross-border communication services, such as the ones used by connected cars. It will also protect the rights of mobile and internet users wherever they are in the EU.
■ A new European Counter-terrorism Agency helps to deter and prevent serious attacks through a systematic tracking and flagging of suspects.
Scenario 5: Doing Much More Together
Member states decide to share more power, resources and decision-making across the board. Decisions are agreed faster at European level and rapidly enforced. By 2025 this could mean:
■ Europeans who want to complain about a proposed EU-funded wind turbine project in their local area cannot reach the responsible authority as they are told to contact the competent European authorities.
■ Connected cars drive seamlessly across Europe as clear EU-wide rules exist. Drivers can rely on an EU agency to enforce the rules.