Taking back control : the European way of adding value
While some want to bring government ‘home’ to their Member State, others have pleaded for more European action to tackle transnational issues, arguing for a unified rather than a cooperative approach. Such issues vary from EU measures addressing the Covid-19 pandemic and tackling climate change to strengthening the Union’s single market and competitiveness, or enhancing the EU’s powers on the rule of law and tackling organised crime. Sandro Gozi belongs to the second group. He is Italian, but was elected Member of the European Parliament in France. For many years, he has been pleading for more transnational EU policies, including for example the introduction of transnational lists for European Parliament elections. He previously worked for the EU civil service. Subsequently, he was elected as Member of the Italian Parliament and served as Europe Minister in the Italian government. He is convinced that EU solutions are the way forward to address core challenges that EU citizens care about. Below he explains why he believes in the European way of adding value.
By Sandro Gozi, Member of the European Parliament
Addressing Europe’s long-term problems jointly
The 2008 financial crash, migration crisis, terrorist attacks, and now the Covid-19 pandemic have demonstrated how national governments alone cannot provide the solutions needed to match the scale of the challenges we face. Europeans therefore have a choice to make: the EU’s approach to solving transnational problems, or retreating to nationalist measures. Nationalism suffers from weaknesses, but one in particular: it falls short of solving any of today’s problems in the long term. Whether it is health policy, defence, digitalisation, the green recovery or migration, finding solutions at European level is the only way for us to truly ‘take back control.’
The EU needs to offer a better and more credible response than the one provided by nationalists by showing the value it can bring to domestic policies. This means taking back control through deepening the process of political, economic and fiscal integration at European level. The best example of this European approach in recent months was the European Council agreeing to the Recovery Fund back in July: the EU demonstrated it could match dramatic circumstances with extraordinary measures that can be quickly deployed Europe-wide. And it was clear that only through EU action and stronger cooperation can we win the battle against a global pandemic such as Covid-19. For me, there are several key areas where the EU can add value to our continent’s recovery from the crisis: health policy, defence, digitalisation, the green recovery and migration.
The need for a European health policy
The Covid-19 crisis demonstrated that EU competences in health are clearly lacking and limited to what the European Commission could do when the pandemic first struck Europe. This is why I am particularly pleased that European Commission’s President von der Leyen, in her first State of the Union speech last September, called for the EU to be able to act in health policy. This would allow for the adoption of rapid response mechanisms to avoid, for example, conflicting reactions by Member States which put the health of their citizens at risk. Knee-jerk reactions by governments during the outbreak of the pandemic resulted in selfish national policies in complete disregard of other Member States’ needs. We need common criteria for risk assessment and stronger cooperation. The EU should then have the competence to act in the common European interest, and carry out ex-post management of crises through common procurements and joint investment in research.
The Covid-19 pandemic also revealed the vulnerability of Europe’s medicine and medical equipment supply chains. 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients and 40% of finished medicines come from India and China. Our quasi-total reliance on imports shows the EU’s lack of strategic autonomy in such a vital sector and resulted in shortages of masks and vital equipment to tackle the pandemic quickly. This not only poses risks to the resilience of our healthcare systems, but also prevents EU citizens getting access to the necessary equipment if supply chains are disrupted.
Updating the existing Joint Procurement Agreement would help: the Commission could then issue public tenders for ventilators, vaccines and medical treatments. It would bring more transparency and an efficient and fair distribution of vital medical equipment across member states. It is unacceptable that masks and other medical equipment needed to tackle the coronavirus were in surplus in some countries and lacking in others; we are a community of values with solidarity at its core and a single market to support it.
Second, we need to step up our game when it comes to research and innovation. We must pool resources by funding a European research consortia on prevention, detection and treatment of future diseases. In 2015, EU countries allocated only between 2% and 4% of their total healthcare expenditure to the prevention of diseases. The reason? Governments preferred to show to their voters more tangible action on the treatment of diseases. Let’s hope we have now learnt from this mistake: healthcare systems across Europe need to be based on prevention rather than on treatment. Instead, health needs to be seen as an investment rather than a cost.
The EU’s new coal and steel: digital and green energy
As Churchill said, one should never waste a good crisis. The only way to recover from the Covid-19 crisis for good is by transforming the European economy into a green superpower. Digitalisation and green energy need to become the EU’s new ‘coal and steel.’ The combination of digital transformation and the green recovery are crucial for Europe to become stronger and more sustainable than ever before thanks to new opportunities, jobs, and investments. The EU needs to take control by achieving digital sovereignty: creating its own platforms, improving connectivity and massively investing in artificial intelligence. Action at EU level on data access will also be crucial to boost investment and business opportunities for big tech firms and SMEs while protecting EU citizens from potential abuses. Citizens’ personal data should be collected and protected in the EU under our laws in accordance with our values.
Tackling climate change is one of the most obvious areas where action at supranational level makes sense. 27 different national measures would lead to confusion, wasting resources, fragmenting the single market and little progress. Only at EU level can we match the scale of the climate emergency with the measures needed to become carbon-neutral by 2050 and make the greening of the economy a source of growth and investment. Thanks to digitalisation, it will also be easier to improve energy efficiency, reduce our oil consumption for heating, and make agriculture more sustainable, and thanks to AI and data, easier to use less pesticides and fertilisers. We have everything to gain from this digital revolution.
Europe’s defence policy: stronger together
Defence policy is another example of national solutions limiting Europe’s effectiveness in the world. Today EU Member States individually would be unable to defend themselves against an external aggression and account for only 20% of NATO’s military expenditure. Those who argue against a stronger EU defence policy ignore the fact that EU countries rely far too much on US military capabilities, as we saw during the EU-led missions in Libya and Mali.
The second point often overlooked by sceptics is that EU Member States have already engaged in a process of military integration due to the continued decrease in military spending and forces in Europe. Yet in 2020, Russia had 603 warships, the USA 490 and China 777 — whereas the EU27 collectively had 1 444. France, Italy and Germany combined have 700 diplomatic representations worldwide, while China has 276 and the US 273. The question is then whether the EU wants to achieve a watered-down foreign and defence policy after years of military spending reduction, or whether it wants a strong common structure that would enable it to better protect security interests, coupled with stronger diplomatic might worldwide.
This would allow the EU to play a stronger role in neighbouring countries lacerated by conflicts. These conflicts are right on Europe’s doorstep, and the consequences for Europe are well-known: tragedy in the Mediterranean and on our shores, humanitarian crises, people trafficking, and unmanageable pressure on the communities who are forced to manage migration with too few resources.
Reforming the EU’s migration system and management of external borders
This leads me to the fourth area where EU action can bring significant benefits to citizens in the EU and beyond: better management of migration flows by working with our immediate neighbourhood. The first step towards a better defence of external borders is of course reforming the Dublin Regulation. The current mechanism, based on the 2019 agreement reached in Malta on voluntary participation in the automatic reallocation of migrants, is only a starting point for a more ambitious reform. Yet the unanimity rules in the Council block every attempt to create a fairer migration system. The only way out is for the Commission and the Parliament to adopt new immigration rules that are binding on Member States. A high hurdle to overcome, but necessary in order to be true to our European values of solidarity, respect for human dignity and human rights.
The EU also needs to take a broader approach to migration policy by not giving funds to countries which do not cooperate on migration. Instead of providing funding to countries of origin and transit, the EU should channel these resources to the same countries as states with voluntary return programmes. Such conditionality would ensure safer migration flows, and would not necessarily require new agreements between the EU and African states since the Cotonou Agreement already links development aid to cooperation on migration. Incentivising voluntary return programmes would make legal migration channels more attractive while simultaneously supporting the economic development of countries of origin.
Managing the EU’s external borders is another area where there is a need for decisive action at supranational level. The single market and the Area of Freedom Security and Justice makes immigration and securing borders against terrorism a common responsibility. This is why the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) was created, and more funding would allow it to expand its personnel and acquire new vehicles such as helicopters and vessels, thus making its contribution to the defence of common borders even more effective.
The EU needs to embody post-national sovereignty based on solid democratic foundations
In conclusion, Eurosceptics suffer from an outdated vision of the nation state where sovereignty only belongs to the national government. Yet global pandemics, the climate emergency, the digital revolution and migration flows cannot be solved by nation states alone. This is why European sovereignty is so important: rather than a central and overcontrolling state, the EU is a uniquely post-national one that allows us, collectively, to take back control. If the EU27 have the courage to reform it, then the EU can provide many of the solutions citizens demand.
Yet EU policy reforms and new competences are not enough. They go hand-in-hand with an extensive process of democratisation of the European public space. This can only be done by strengthening EU democracy, starting with real transnational movements, policies and elections, giving the European Parliament the right to initiate legislation, and simplifying the rules on citizens’ initiatives. In order for Europe to ‘provide value’ in all these policy areas, it is high time to make the EU the democratic powerhouse it needs to be to do so.
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.
