A Short Guide to the Key Issues in European Politics Right Now
Europe is changing. Here’s everything you need to know about what is on policymakers’ minds, straight from one of Europe’s high-level political meeting points.
I recently returned from TEPSA’s (Trans-European Policy Studies Association) Czech Pre-Presidency Conference held in Prague. Biannually, TEPSA holds a prestigious, high-level conference bringing together academics, policy makers, media, and civil society to discuss the key issues of the upcoming Presidency of the Council of the EU. I was invited as a winner of a TEPSA policy paper competition (read my paper here).
The conference involved two days of panels and discussions with great minds at the heart of European politics. It was opened by Jim Cloos, TEPSA’s Secretary-General who played a key role in drafting the Maastricht Treaty and is currently involved in shaping the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. Returning from the conference, I felt inspired and privileged that I had gained real insight into the current challenges and opportunities facing the European Union.
Here’s a rundown of these key issues and what is on the mind of Europe right now…
Russia-Ukraine and European Security
The number one focus for the Czech EU Presidency (and beyond) is the war in Ukraine. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has irreversibly altered what was known about European security and the effectiveness of diplomacy.
The EU’s immediate response to the conflict was unified, a positive sign that Europe can act together effectively and swiftly. However, it was emphasised by Ilke Toygür, CATS Fellow at the German Institute for International and Security Studies and Adjunct Professor at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, that Europe must be ambitious in leading and moving forwards. Now is not the time for complacency.
Furthermore, it was highlighted that the EU Strategic Compass, a common vision for the next decade of European defence, was formed before Russia’s invasion. This means it may not be fully accurate and potentially needs revisiting.
One of the key concerns on the topic of security was energy. Europe’s dependency on Russian gas is untenable and must be resolved as a matter of urgency. However, speakers emphasised that this must comply with the Green New Deal and should also consider the economic and social costs of restructuring. I took the fact that the climate and inequality were at the heart of this debate as a positive sign that a multi-dimensional approach was being taken.
There was also the positive recognition that there had been strong support for Ukrainian refugees and the humanitarian crisis both within governments and by the public. It was strongly emphasised that new financial sources may need to be found for reconstruction, and that the reconstruction project should be framed as a modern democratic project in a future EU member state. Furthermore, the current solidarity in Europe must be maintained despite the war’s indefinite duration and the increase in energy and food insecurity.
Finally, Europe must prioritise its own internal security if it is to be a credible actor in international security matters. This is key to the EU retaining an effective global position and ability to influence other regions.
The Transatlantic Relationship
The EU’s relationship with North America was perceived as key to the matter of security. This cooperation is already substantial but must be further strengthened.
Turkey’s threats to obstruct Finland and Sweden’s current applications to NATO were seen by Senem Aydin-Düzgit, Professor of International Relations at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of Sabanci University, as a way to avoid acting so strongly against Russia especially with elections coming up. She also noted that Europe must remember that other regions may have a different perception of the Russia-Ukrainian war.
Despite the eagerness to strengthen the transatlantic relationship, it was highlighted by multiple speakers that the US is no longer a fully reliable partner. The US has multiple domestic political pressures including the transformation of the Republican Party into one dominated by Trump’s ideology and political approach.
This is of great concern to Europe as the election of Trump or someone like Trump as President could negatively impact Europe’s security and transatlantic cooperation. Europe must strengthen the transatlantic relationship but keep one eye on the situation.
Carbon Neutrality and the Green Deal
The climate crisis was a topic that came up in every plenary session, a positive sign that it is becoming integrated in the EU’s political approach. It also had its own plenary session focusing on the question of whether the Green Deal is fit for tackling the climate crisis and whether there is hope for the future.
As a positive sign, the EU has increased its support of the Green Deal since COVID-19 indicating that economic strains are no longer seen as sufficient reason to avoid prioritising the environment. However, there is an uneven perception of the urgency of the climate crisis in Europe. Aleksandra Palkova, Researcher at the Latvian Institute of International Affairs, noted that only 1% of Latvians see the climate as a big problem.
This is concerning as it undermines the idea of Europe’s ability to collectively act against the environmental threat. And Latvia is by no means the only country with a similar apathy to the climate crisis. This fact is particularly alarming as Europe has experienced devastating climate-related disasters in recent years including deadly heatwaves and floods.
Marco Siddi, Senior Research Fellow in the European Union programme at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, also highlighted that although Russia’s invasion has prompted a rapid acceleration of Europe’s energy transition, renewable energy cannot replace all of Russia’s gas supply to Europe.
Furthermore, Siddi highlighted the danger that new energy sources, such as importing green hydrogen, could lead to similar global energy dependencies as the current gas industry. This is an especially relevant concern as Europe, China, and the US are currently engaged in a green technology competition.
Veronika Slakaityte, Research Assistant at the Danish Institute of International Affairs, also discussed concerns and opportunities generated by Europe’s transition away from gas. She noted that some gas pipelines can be built to also be compatible to hydrogen, a cleaner form of energy. However, it is important that this opportunity is considered now and integrated into current projects as energy infrastructure lasts decades. If hydrogen adaptability is considered, we have an opportunity to create future circularity instead of constructing infrastructure that will soon be obsolete.
I was also delighted to ask some questions in the climate session. Firstly, I raised the post-colonial idea that as Europe is home to many early industrialisers (and therefore significant polluters), it arguably has a moral duty to be a significant actor in addressing the climate crisis.
I followed this up with the fact that countries have different capability and motivation levels to address the climate crisis. For example, some in the Global South may not have the resources to ignore any natural resources they could exploit, and countries like the US and China, who are leading polluters with the resources to act, may avoid taking action. I asked the panelists whether this suggests Europe could have a unique role as a mediator and use its soft power to coherse others into action.
The panels agreed that Europe’s history has created a moral duty to lead the global response to the climate crisis. Furthermore, they highlighted its potential role in climate diplomacy, suggesting that Europe should be more active in multilateral contexts (for example, in the G20 and UN) and share technology more generously. Furthermore, the EU Global Gateway is an invaluable platform for expanding beyond the realm of traditional development and investment, and into a strategy of prioritising sustainability globally.
The panel closed with a key question: is there hope for the climate?
This broadly produced the same response from all panelists. Europe and the world is not on track but we must retain hope in our ability to address this crisis. There are multiple technological developments and cooperation mechanisms which have laid the ground for progress, and we must believe in our collective ability to adapt if we are to move forwards.
The Outcomes of the Conference on the Future of Europe
Weeks before the Czech Pre-Presidency Conference, the results of the Conference on the Future of Europe were released. This was a year long project focusing on gathering the options and policy ideas of European citizens.
Ilke Toygür highlighted that the Conference on the Future of Europe directly shows that the EU is there to serve citizens, not just organise member state relations. Nicoletta Pirozzi, Head of Programme on European Union and Institutional Relations at the Istituto Affari Internazionali, noted that involving citizens gives additional legitimacy to the EU and its functions.
It was highly encouraging to see that citizens were significantly concerned with three topics the EU has been focusing on: health, energy, and security.
However, there were a number of issues raised concerning the Conference on the Future of Europe. Frank Schimmelfennig, renowned university professor at ETH Zurich and board member of TEPSA, argued that although those involved in policy discussions are more diverse than in the past (for example, through the Conference on the Future of Europe), this hasn’t necessarily produced real consequences and decision making is still in a removed space.
Furthermore, one participant highlighted the fact that the EU had held various citizen summits and similar projects before. She claimed that these had ultimately been inconsequential and this indicates the need to rethink these sorts of activities.
This potentially relates to Ilke Toygür’s suggestion that the EU explores ways of advancing citizen participation. For example, by forming a permanent citizens’ assembly.
Although a positive exercise in promoting dialogue and European values, it remains to be seen what the future and impact of these sorts of activities will be.
The Future of European Institutions and Integration
Throughout the Czech Pre-Presidency Conference, there were multiple references and discussions around the future shape of Europe.
Firstly, the new threat Russia presents has fundamentally changed Europe and exponentially increased the need for the EU to act decisively and swiftly. It is also important for the EU to reinforce its values internally and potentially explore mechanisms that could be used against those who go the rule of law, like Hungary and Poland.
Similarly, the EU must ensure members aiming to join adhere to its values including democracy and the rule of law. It was highlighted that the accession of multiple states in the Western Balkans should be resolved so that the EU is prepared for the new wave of potential member states including Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia.
Significantly, Jaap de Zwaan, emertius Professor of European Union Law at Erasmus University Rotterdam and former Director of Clingendael, stated:
The time for unanimity is over.
Other panelists also shared this view that the requirement for unanimity can lead to inefficiency and deadlocks on certain issues. For example, Hungary’s current attempts to block a ban on Russian oil.
Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) was discussed as a serious prospect which would signal a large change in EU decision-making. Of course, it was recognised that the implications of this must be explored. Even if QMV is not fully adopted, a serious debate around it could lead to some of the most significant developments and attitude shifts in the EU in the next decade.
Finally, there was some mention of Macron’s recent idea of a European Community but it was agreed that there needs to be more detail of how this would work and what its aims would be before a full evaluation can be made. Panelists and participants were open-minded and willing to seriously discuss all ideas which was a highly positive element of the conference.
Summary
- Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the main topic on the agenda. Ensuring European security is essential and requires a closer transatlantic relationship.
- However, the US’ domestic pressures and the spectre of Trumpism make it a somewhat unreliable ally, potentially showing that the EU should pursue some level of strategic autonomy or capacity.
- The climate crisis is of key concern. The need for decarbonisation which has been accelerated by Russia’s threat. Furthermore, Europe must address uneven internal perceptions of the climate crisis’ importance and ensure it is a global leader because of the moral duty generated by its historical damage.
- The Conference on the Future of Europe was a positive exercise which emphasised that the EU’s focuses align with citizens’ key concerns. However, the long-term impacts of this are unknown.
- The EU must prepare for enlargement and institutional changes. Arguably, recent events have pushed the EU into a new era in which is needs to be more adaptable than ever.
