In his speech in Prague’s Charles University on Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has pushed for the idea of ending national vetos, and gradually transitioning to majority voting on foreign policy and tax issues in the European Union. The goal is to prevent the bloc from becoming paralysed by the vetoes of individual states, as it is about to take in new members. It is not the first time that a high profile European leader, has openly called for such radical step in EU. Mr Scholz's speech, comes almost five years after Emmanuel Macron’s in Sorbonne, that laid out his grand EU agenda.
As a pro-European and a federalist myself, I am partially intrigued and excited that European leaders are finally mulling over ditching their national vetoes, something that brought so many delays, frictions, disagreements and missed opportunities during the past decades in Europe. However the ride is not going to be easy, as it will be very hard to persuade small states like Malta, Ireland, Greece plus so on; and rightly so.
It will require some serious negotiating, convincing the leaders but also the citizens of the smaller members- Ireland requires a referendum for any constitutional changes remember, that Europe is ready for the big leap, it is mature enough to think collectively in solidarity and "European". For example, the EU Commission early in 2019 kick-started a debate on reforming decision-making for areas of EU taxation policy, which currently requires unanimity among member states. Malta and a number of other small nations have traditionally opposed any move towards tax harmonisation on an EU level.
If these states, such as Ireland, are to be convinced to abandon a policy which gives them competitiveness and wealth, what guarrantees will they get in return, that their economies will receive substantial assistance to compensate for the loss of revenue? Since by abandoning their veto will inevitably mean that a part of what contributed to their prospetity, will be compromised for the greater European cause. What will the rest of the EU offer them as an alternative; industries, job creation or simply subsidies?
Or what if the EU Council decide to allow refugess to enter its territories on the grounds of humanitarianism, but decline to agree on ditching the Dublin III Regulation and distribute the refugees or asylum seekers equally among the member states. As result, the countries on the outer borders of EU like Greece or Spain, will have no say or opportunity to dispute what is being unfairly enforced on them. Will the rest of their European partners think "European", do what is right and help in a situation that they took part agreeing upon? Until now, all we have seen was bickering among EU member states, but so far we had the unanimity decision making to blame.
This development will also bring new challenges and questions elsewhere. How will the three EU governing bodies (European Parliament, EU Commission and the EU Council) be affected by the new reality? The most interesting case of course, is that of the Council, since it is there that the national vetoes happen. If majority voting will replace unanimity, how can a nation safeguard its interests, if the rest do not share or understand its sensitivities?
In addition, since the bigger, richer countries like Germany, even if they lose their own veto, they could bribe, pressure, blackmail or influence enough governments to get their point accross, how smaller poorer EU states like Bulgaria can secure their red lines on a issue and if they cannot, how will they be convinced by Macron and Scholz, to abandon their veto.
If we fail in this attempt for decision making streamlining, the only other two alternatives would be firstly if we aimed for the gradual full empowerment of the European Parliament, as the main decision making of the EU. Leaving out of course, the bickering of national governments, by merging the Council and the Commission in one single body, acting like a Senate, Congress of any form of a bicameral government. But that is something even more radical, plus I doubt that Europeans are ready for such fully fledged federalist solution. Never mind our governments. Secondly, we could leave things as they are, leaving Europe always a tail follower in global developments.
Finally, how do Macron and Scholz view the future EU foreign policy that they so much want to form, since Europe is still a dwarf in the global stage on this matter and on defense, thus it requires US support and protection? I have never hidden that I am not an Atlanticist and this reliance of Europe on America, is increasingly troublesome for me.
The US Administration has recently opened not just one front with the war in Ukraine-fighting Russia, but they are also itching over Taiwan, potentially angering China. If they are not carefull, they could start a global conflict and Europe-as their side-kick, won't have other option but to take sides and join them, with whatever the outcome and consequences. As it did in the case of Ukraine and is paying a much higher price, both than the US and Russia, on economic terms. Instead of our American cousins, waiting to see how will the war in Ukraine conclude, they are keen on sending their Senators in Taiwan, "as a message to China", that the US will always support the Republic. Is this the right time to do it? They should be pulling Russia and China apart, not uniting them as a common enemy!
Clearly they are troubled by what is happening in the world, like the BRICS enlargement , or the "de-dollarization" of the global economy, as attempted by Russia and its partners in BRICS, notably India. The two countries have agreed to create "RuPay",a system of cards based on Russia’s Mir payment system be accepted at ATMs and POS in India. In addition, during 2021, 53.4 percent of all payments from India to Russia were made in rubles while 38.3 percent were in dollars. India emerged as a leading foreign country to switch to the Russian currency.
The aim is obviously to topple the dollar and to wean the world of the American economic dominance. So where does this leave Europe then? If the world changes and BRICS achieve their goal, will a unified Europe always fight the US corner, or form its own destiny? Unless the plan of Scholz and Macron is to crush any dissidents in EU ranks, making it easier for the US influence to be maintained, at least in Europe. Then should we allow such thing?
Hungary for example, announced in mid-August that it is importing more Russian gas than previously planned under trade deals, following a visit by its top diplomat to Moscow in July. Bulgaria also stated recently, that talks to resume Russian gas supplies are 'inevitable.' It is clear that EU member states are "cracking" in their support for sanctions against Russia, since Europe failed to provide them until now, with viable, long term solutions or alternatives. The pressure by the US to keep up the hard-line stance towards Russia in support of Ukraine is mounting, however Europeans are afraid of what will happen this winter.
As businesses suffer, many fearing closure and households struggling to pay their bills, could European leaders successfully push now for such a radical and bold development in Europe, plus how will it be received by the voters, who are angry and desperate at the moment? As we have witnessed before in difficult times, citizens tend to turn to national politicians, not the "Brussels bubble" for solutions, nor they rely on other European partners to save them.
Only today, 6 months after the war in Ukraine broke out, EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said officials were “working on an emergency intervention and a structural reform of the electricity market”. She stated that the current crisis was “exposing the limitations” of the current structure, with EU energy ministers set to hold urgent talks in Brussels on 9 September. MEPs called for an “EU wide cap” on prices and said that efforts must be made to”decouple electricity and gas prices altogether.” Will that be enough to save the face of EU in the voter's eyes and maintain their confidence in its institutions?
To conclude, Mr Scholz' suggestions are long overdue, plus much welcomed in most pro-European and federalist circles. They get a reserved "yes" from me. However their timing, implementation, willingness of the national governments and of course of the citizens, in a such challenging time such as this, could potentially defeat and derail his plans; no matter how useful, or righteous. It remains to be seen if Europe is mature and ambitious enough to decide and press ahead on its own, or remain in America's shadow forever. Sadly with the collaboration of our leaders, as the globe moves quickly forward to a new era and a multipolar world.
