Editorial — Why there has to be European added value
European added value has been on our list of ‘must do’ topics for the ECA journal for quite some time. And this should not come as a surprise. Because the theme touches on the essence of what the European Union stands for: that the sum of the actions taken together will lead to better overall results for the participants than their individual actions can yield, and the belief that stronger collective action and shared sovereignty will therefore be beneficial for the Member States and their citizens.
By Gaston Moonen, ECA Journal Editor-in-Chief
Over the last seventy years, cooperation between Member states has taken off in almost any area you can think of, with security, economies of scale and cross border benefits as the main drivers. As a result, today’s European Union is more integrated than ever, and matters more for our daily lives than most people realise. But at the same time, the EU has become more complex.
This rise in complexity is also reflected in the discussions about the concept of European added value (we will use this and the term ‘EU added value’ interchangeably throughout this Journal, although, strictly speaking, there is a difference). The first five articles of this Journal highlight important historical, economic, legal and political aspects that come into play when discussing European added value — clearly a multi-faceted concept.
About twenty years ago, I propagated the thesis that the EU works best if the citizen does not notice it. If you go shopping in another EU Member State, you will not notice it since you have the euro as a common currency; if you fall sick abroad, no worry — your national health care system also covers you in another EU Member State; if you want to take up a job somewhere else or continue your education, your qualifications will be recognised. And there are many other benefits, for both consumers and producers in the EU’s single market: common standards, such as in food safety or the CE label for product security, just make our lives easier.
But there are still many areas where the EU does not yet work well, and one may question whether it really adds value. This can be on small things, for example if you cannot buy travel insurance because you are not a resident of the Member State where you book your vacation.
Or on bigger issues, such as security or migration, where Member States still need to agree on a common approach. Or most recently with the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, when coordinating efforts by the European Commission were at times undermined by a lack of solidarity between Member States.
Finally, there is also a growing group of citizens who are sceptical about the European Union. The very idea of EU added value may have been largely undisputed some years ago, but this is no longer the case. The clearest manifestation of this phenomenon has been the lost referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union. Maybe ironically, ‘Brexit’ has rejuvenated the idea of EU added value and interest in membership or the perks of it has not waned. No doubt the remaining 27 Member States will closely monitor the socio-economic consequences of the UK’s withdrawal in the coming years.
The idea of European added value as a remover of burdens easily gets snowed under when EU finances come into the picture. Incidentally, this year, the EU has to decide on its long term budget for the 2021–2027 period. During these negotiations, not much consideration is given to EU added value: instead the focus is on financial benefits and burdens, and outright ‘pork barrel’ practices to secure EU funds for a specific Member State or region. This money is then not necessarily spent on projects with the highest potential to add value — leading to money seeking projects instead of projects seeking money, with risks such as ‘deadweight’ and ‘goldplating’ and potentially detrimental effects on citizens’ perception of the European added value of these projects. And rightly so.
This year’s negotiations have shown again that the simple ‘zero sum’ approach remains a dominant element in the European added value discussion when it comes to financial matters. Budget figures do not explain how much added value the EU generates, whether it strengthens the economy, makes a country healthier, or a more pleasant place to live, work and travel. And how do you quantify adherence to the rule of law as an enabler underpinning the smooth functioning of the single market?
Almost all the contributions to this ECA Journal on European added value — and we received great variety, underlining both the interest and the breadth of the topic — argue that European added value is so much more than what is reflected through the EU budget. Most of our contributors, ranging from institutional leaders such as EU Commissioner Elisa Ferreira, ECA President Klaus-Heiner Lehne and EP Committee on Budgets Chair, Johan Van Overtveldt, to experts such as George Papaconstantinou, Jorge Núñez Ferrer , or Marta Pilati underline that the EU’s greatest impact is created through its legislation, its regulatory role. Or, as the American historian and journalist Anne Applebaum puts it: ‘The EU is a superpower when it comes to regulation.’ She has her hopes for the EU when it comes to anti-trust action and the protection of citizens’ privacy, where for instance the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has set an example of regulation far beyond the European continent. And perhaps the EU should be more confident about its impact, even in more ‘traditional’ areas such as defence and security, as argued by MEP Sandro Gozi and Carolyn Moser.
Impact is also one, if not the, key preoccupation of EU public auditors, both at Member State and EU level. In the end, the EU citizen and the auditor will have the same question: did it help, did the EU’s action make a difference, and to the maximum extent possible? And if it did not, this might make a more lasting impression than if it did. After all, citizens might more easily recall the EU funds spent on a road to nowhere than the EU funds provided for the bridge they use in their everyday commute to work. But assessing the impact of regulations, particularly EU regulations, is not an easy task, even less so in a complex society where regulations intertwine at several policy and implementation levels.
For external public auditors, exiting their comfort zone to look more at macro-economic effects instead of merely financial number crunching is quite a challenge. Let alone cooperation between public auditors within the EU to assess whether a certain EU policy has created added value, or not.
However, examining EU added value should also entail looking at the opportunities forfeited by a lack of integration, what is known as the cost of non-Europe. There have been several studies carried out on this aspect, including from the European Parliament Research Service, which provide interesting data. After all, as Pierre Moscovici, First President of the French Cour des comptes, points out, society has the right to demand public servants account for their handling of public money, especially when critical choices made today will impact future generations.
Getting reliable information, and conclusions, on European added value, from the EU’s public audit institutions — as the ultimate fact checkers — is key for the existence of the EU itself. Because if there is doubt about such European added value, why bother? Why continue with this or that specific European action if it means public support for the EU will crumble as a result, and with good reason. Such information will help key choices on where EU action should be focused, because, in a period of limited resources, not only financial resources, the focus should not necessarily be on ‘more Europe’ but on those issues where the common interest is greatest and most essential, the ‘European public goods’. They might be material, such as infrastructure, or, perhaps even more important, immaterial. One of the outcomes of the Covid-19 pandemic might be a reorientation on what matters most for EU citizens, which is not only economic well-being, but also social well-being, a protective layer to ensure physical ‘bien-être,’ as captured in the Copenhagen criteria. These criteria are not new, dating back to 1993, but need to be lived and relived by every new generation.
It is perhaps no coincidence that, in this time of the Covid-19 pandemic, these ‘immaterial’ values that are so important have become the cause of the current stalemate in the European Council regarding the next EU multiannual budget. A sign for the future, where the EU can make a difference, as value setter? Hopefully this edition of the Journal, now off our bucket list, adds value for you, and opens up new perspectives on why creating European added value is essential both in the short and long term.
This article was first published on the 3/2020 issue of the ECA Journal. The contents of the interviews and the articles are the sole responsibility of the interviewees and authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Court of Auditors.
