EU'S FADING IMAGE

Recurrent problems in the European Union are new no longer. It does not fall apart, as predicted several years ago. Quite the contrary, the UK cannot decide to leave the arms of Brussels, while the two Balkan countries, Northern Macedonia and Albania, want to be member states of the Union, although nobody did not even remember them this year. Nevertheless, all these facts show that there is no unity within the EU, while past common values ​​hardly help fulfil its unification functions. This is really a bad sign given the global leading role of Europe. Apparently, the heads the EU member states, who attended the summit in Brussels on October 17-18, are also well aware of the situation.

The English divorce

No one expected that the UK withdrawal from the EU would progress so painfully and become a joke. Observers use the word "divorce" as a metaphor but if it really happened between human beings, then it would have probably looked something like this. After thinking for a while, the wife (Great Britain) decides to leave her husband (EU). The husband does not really want a divorce, since he is interested in saving the family, but he understands that one cannot be made sweet forcibly, and there is no sense in resisting and standing in the way of a freedom-loving wife. Therefore, he reluctantly expresses his readiness to sign divorce documents. But then it turns out that the wife is not in a hurry to leave: she begins to bargain with herself trying to figure out more profitable ways to leave her home, common rights to share, etc. So, for more than three years since 52% of the Britons said "yes" to the leave, Brussels has twice agreed with London the conditions for separation and three times the British Parliament rejected them.

A similar thing happened on October 19, when the British House of Commons once again supported Boris Johnson’s deal with his European colleagues concluded two days earlier at the EU summit. British parliamentarians even for the first time since the Falkland conflict agreed to go to work on the weekend. Actually, the agreement was not considered at all, since it was not put to the vote claiming that all the laws necessary to formalise an orderly exit from the EU have yet to be adopted. These are the laws governing the stay (or not) of Britain in the EU Customs Union, as well as the extension of the transition period and the possibility of a second referendum. As a result, Johnson, who had previously promised that he would rather "die in a ditch" than ask for a prolongation of the term, again had to turn to Brussels by law. He found an original solution in order not to fulfil his earlier promise but stay within the prescribed legal requirements: he sent two letters to the continent. He did not sign the first letter, which refers to the postponement of the withdrawal but telephoned all European leaders to warn them that the letter was "not from him, but from the parliament". But he signed the second letter, in which he said that he still hoped that he would manage to withdraw the country from the EU before Brexit's day, October 31.

On October 22, the House of Commons voted for the first time for a draft agreement on the withdrawal from the EU but then immediately refused to accept it urgently. In other words, the EU rejected the accelerated schedule. According to Johnson, this simply means early elections (and postponement), which, by the way, would take place anyway if the House of Commons rejected the agreement. It is perfectly normal if you are still confused because even the venerable British political experts seem to get lost in the whirlpool of events.

Apparently, the struggle for and against Brexit conditions has already entered a phase in which all means are good. Sometimes the events taking place in London resemble a bad comedy. This happens in a country that has been proud of its centuries-old streamlined and clear political system. There too many obvious differences between the parties. For example, not all Conservatives support Johnson and not all Labourites are against him; the strategies, which often use legal amendments that sometimes date back the 17th century; old scores are settled skilfully and revenge for past losses takes precedence over common sense. The amendments mentioned above actually nullify the practical meaning of the withdrawal from the EU or extend the process for so long that it is unclear when to expect the end of it. For example, if London remains in the Customs Union, this will deprive it of an opportunity to conclude free trade agreements with other countries independently. Even without the forthcoming amendments to the agreement, there are still many ambiguities. For example, why did London agree to pay $42 billion of compensation to the European budget for the exit if it wanted to leave the EU precisely for the same reason — because London no longer wants to give its money to the EU? Brexit proved to be a convenient cover for internal political struggle showing excellent opportunities for bargaining and manipulation. For the Labourites, for example, it was important that Johnson could not accomplish his mission (Brexit) before the early elections, which means he would fail to keep his promises to the voters (for now, the Tories are far ahead of the Labourites in all polls). On the other hand, the Labourites do remain committed to their position, while the centrists (Liberal Democrats) do not want the left socialist Jeremy Corbin to be the next British Prime Minister. Democratic Unionist Party (by the way, Johnson’s allies, who provided the Tories with the votes necessary for the majority) have big claims. There are still concerns about the border issue with the Northern Ireland when Brexit does take place. By the way, this issue is an easy one to solve compared to the negotiations on the essence of trade relations between the UK and the EU, which should begin after the Brexit. So, despite the availability of documents on 'divorce' and the current dramatic ups and downs of this scandalous process, everything is just beginning between Brussels and London.

Red light

Obviously, the protracted Brexit is a heavy burden for Brussels but not the only one. The other thing is the expansion problem, which has been set this time by the French president Macron.

According to European media, Emmanuel Macron arrived at the summit completely annoyed by the fact that the nomination of a French politician Sylvie Goulard as one of the European Commissioners responsible for the domestic market, as well as the defence and space industries was rejected by the European Parliament. Macron considers Germany involved in this failure, namely the conservative and the incumbent EC President Ursula von der Leyen. According to some observers, the failure of Goulard's nomination was revenge on Macron from another German, Manfred Weber, the leader of European conservatives. In July, Macron blocked Weber’s nomination for the president of the European Commission agreeing to von Leyen. France’s objections to a German candidate for the president of the European Commission have always been based on the fact that in this case the role of Germany, the largest state and economy in the European Union and the leading contributor to the pan-European budget, will become too dominant. It is no coincidence that German politicians have never led the European Commission since 1967. German Chancellor Angela Merkel chose to remain silent about the incident at least in public.

But Macron did not and unexpectedly opposed the start of the negotiation process with Albania and Northern Macedonia regarding their accession to the EU (which is also supported by Germany). The French President, and only the leaders of the Netherlands and Denmark agree with him, first of all, insists on the need to reform the EU and the procedure of accession of the new members. "The EU is poorly functioning with 28 members or 27 without the UK. I am not sure if 30 members will work better... You need to show realism," Emmanuel Macron said. Apparently, it is not about accepting Tirana and Skopje as EU members, but only about the beginning of long negotiations on the subject of compliance of the domestic legislation of these countries with the norms and requirements of the European Union. Outgoing President of the European Council Donald Tusk called a decision regarding Albania and Northern Macedonia a "mistake" and urged these countries not to give up. "I fully understand your disappointment because you have done your part, and we have not," Tusk said. But he spoke even more or less softly in comparison with the outgoing head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker: "This is a serious mistake of historical scale!"

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Northern Macedonia, Social Democrat Zoran Zaev, who came to power in 2017 thanks to his position on the EU accession, called for new elections in his country. A year ago, Macedonia amended its constitution, carried out a reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption, and even changed the name of the country to end the long conflict with Greece. In fact, Macedonia received a status of a "candidate" for accession back in 2005 but faced opposition from Greece because of the name of the country. But the process has been frozen since a unanimous decision was required to start negotiations. After more than a decade, the name of the country was changed in a referendum but Northern Macedonia was demanded to make a choice: "either the previous name, or you can join the EU and NATO." While the issue with accession to NATO is practically solved, prospects for the EU accession are still ambiguous. Apparently, talks with Albania and Northern Macedonia will continue next year at a special summit in Zagreb, when Croatia will become chairman. Now experts are concerned that this could push rejected countries to Russia and even to China. In fact, compared with Northern Macedonia and Albania, the prospects for Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia to become members of a single European family are even more elusive. Moreover, the chances of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova to become full EU member states are not even worth mentioning. According to the Financial Times, "France leaves the EU without a credible base of relations with its neighbours." Meanwhile, Macron proves his position with the issue of migrants: "How can I explain to my fellow citizens that the representatives of the second country, which seek political asylum in France most, are Albanians?" The closer the next presidential elections in France, the more committed to this point of view he looks like.

On the other hand, both Albania and Northern Macedonia are the poorest countries in the Balkans, and they will bring their problems to Brussels. In other words, the EU enlargement is also closely related to financing, which is a problematic issue given that the EU countries have yet to agree on the EU long-term budget for 2021-2027. The UK withdrawal creates a hole in financing (12-14 billion euros each year), and there is an ongoing bargain on who gets into that hole. The southern and eastern European states want a larger budget, and are against the expected reductions in agricultural subsidies and aid to the poorest regions of the union. France also warns that it will not accept reductions in farmer financing. Germany, the EU’s largest economy, wants more money to go to innovation and migration, but is categorically against the appeal of the European Commission to increase budget allocations by more than 1% of the gross national income. There is no agreement on a very ambitious 2050 Carbon Neutral Climate Target initiative to reduce carbon emissions in the EU by 2050, which is also closely related to the EU budget. The Southeast European countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Estonia have already expressed their indignation. For example, Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Moravecki has bluntly stated that Warsaw would not support the project until compensation for developing EU countries was included in it.

There are also internal problems of Spain, which is again going through a period of protests throughout Catalonia. They began after the Spanish Supreme Court sentenced 12 Catalan politicians in connection with a referendum on independence in 2017, which the kingdom recognized as unlawful. Remarkably, one of the most important moments of the existing situation in Catalonia resembles what is happening in the UK, not legally and historically, but by the deep division of the society. According to the Public Opinion Research Centre, 48% of Catalans are against the independence of Catalonia, while 44% support the creation of an independent state. Proponents and opponents of the Britons are divided in roughly the same proportions...

Crises and challenges that divide Europe and undermine its stability, of course, are serious, but they are unlikely to destroy the union. The threat, however, is coming from an entirely different direction. Now that the world is rapidly moving towards multipolarity, the internal problems within the EU seriously undermine its role as a global actor. The excessively protracted Brexit, disagreements regarding the adoption of new members, difficulties in approving the budget considerably reduce the power of Europe’s main tool used in recent decades, the so-called "soft power" represented by the neighbourhood policy, attention to standards of democracy and human rights, humanitarian assistance, educational and cultural programs. Brussels demonstrates excessive obsession with itself, inability to make and adopt decisions quickly and even keep promises — something that can prove costly for Brussels…