ACTOR OR PLAYGROUND?

EU is entering the new year 2020 with new leaders each of them promising tremendous changes, the brightest one being the cease of greenhouse gas emissions completely by 2050! The author of this idea is the new head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who believes the plan is no less captivating than the American lunar missions of the 1960s.

Apparently, this call was made at the right time. According to recent studies, almost half of the Europeans are more afraid of climate change than losing their jobs, migration or a terrorist attack. And 41% of young Europeans between 15-29, especially from southern countries such as Spain, Greece and France, are thinking about moving to cooler countries. Overall, 82% of Europeans believe that climate change affects their daily lives.

The fact that only nine out of twenty-eight EU member states were ready for decisive action six months ago also manifests a rapid change in the attitude of Europeans towards global warming. The rest believed that this issue would become relevant only in the second half of the 21st century. Currently, only one EU member state, Poland, opposes the plan due to its high dependence on the coal industry.

The 'green' deal

In her keynote speech, The Green New Deal for Europe, Ursula von der Leyen emphasised that Europe is confronted with two crises — economic and climatic. Inequality in Europe today is at a record high - the first 10% of households own half of the wealth of the continent, while the last 40% control only 3%. The proportion of workers living in poverty is growing. 118 million Europeans, almost one in four, were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, with homelessness rising across the continent.

By March 2021, the EU Commission plans to make climate neutrality (reduction of harmful emissions) legally binding in order to achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (compared with 1990) by 2030. And by 2050, Europe wants to be a "climate neutral continent", which means the complete cessation of greenhouse gas emissions.

EU presented a grand investment program designed for the next ten years with a budget of 1 trillion euros, which, according to authors, "links economic aims with a broader vision of environmental justice: decarbonising Europe's economy, reversing biodiversity loss and tackling inequalities in Europe and around the world."

Among other measures are the installation of at least 1 million charging stations for electric vehicles by 2025, air traffic restrictions due to the introduction of high taxes on fuel, industrial and shipping companies subject to purchasing rights for CO2 emissions, agriculture and forestry companies subject to reduce to half the use of chemical products and antibiotics by 2030. EU authorities also consider the possibility of introducing a tax on CO2 emissions when importing goods from countries with a low level of climate protection, as well as new standards for clean air and clean water, and so on.

Budget 2020 and onwards

It is planned to spend a fifth of the EU budget (168.7 billion euros) for 2020 on combating climate change. But the debates over the new budget for 2021-2027 are ongoing because the EU authorities will have to do something to cover the budget gap as soon as Britain leaves the union. In addition, the funds that have been previously used to support farmers and poorer regions of the continent are also channelled into new priorities, such as combating climate change and managing migration. But opinions on ways to resolve this issue are different. Some offer to increase the contributions of the remaining EU members, others offer to further reduce costs.

The 2014-2020 budget was formed thanks to 1% deductions from the gross national income (GNI) of all 28 member-states, including the UK. In order to keep the budget at the same level, the contributions of the 27 remaining countries will be equal to 1.13% of GNI starting from 2021. Certainly, large fundraisers, including Germany, are not happy. But poorer, subsidised countries in the east and south of the continent want to maintain funding from Brussels for their economies and offer as much as 1.3% of GNI. As a compromise, the current president of the EU, Finland, proposes the rate of 1.07-1.08% for the next seven-year budget, while France supports the introduction of an EU-wide digital tax on technology giants such as Facebook and Google to replenish the joint treasury without increased contributions from member-states. In general, trying in vain to solve the puzzle at the summit in December, the leaders of the EU countries agreed to return to this issue in February 2020. The decision should be made by the middle of the year, but it seems that few people believe in it.

Discussions on a package of reforms to protect the Eurozone (19 countries) from a new crisis was also postponed until the summer of 2020. By and large, there is still no package as such, although discussions have been ongoing since 2015. European countries cannot come to a compromise on issues related to the integration of banks, the Eurozone budget and the increasing role of the rescue fund , ESM (European Stability Mechanism).

According to forecasts, economic growth will be less than expected, since the production crisis in the EU may spill over into the services sector considering the protracted global trade tension. According to IMF, in 2019, the growth was only 1.2%, which is significantly less than in 2018 (1.9%). In fact, the head of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) Klaus Renling believes that there is no reason to panic, assuring everyone that "we are in a phase of slowdown, but not a recession."

In parallel, the EU authorities continue the development of the digital currency of ECB, and promise a visible progress as early as next year. Plans for a European public digital currency began to emerge after Facebook announced in June its Libra project, which frightened the EU regulators who hastened to announce that the Facebook project might be banned in Europe. According to ECB, a public cryptocurrency would be an alternative to Libra and other private projects and could reduce the cost of international transactions.

Brexit on the final

Reaction of the heads of EU member-states to the election results in the UK was a mix of frustration and relief. After all, they admit that the uncertainty is over. At the EU summit in December, leaders of European states and governments reaffirmed their desire to have as close relations with Britain as possible in the future. However, they believe that these relations should be based on "a balance of rights and obligations, as well as ensuring equal conditions for partnership."

The problem is that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's ideas about future relations with the EU are contradictory: on the one hand, he wants to maintain full trade relations with the EU, and on the other hand, he wants to be free from EU rules such as those concerning environmental standards and taxes. As the EU is unlikely to accept this combination, complex negotiations are inevitable. According to Ursula von der Leyen, the EU will have three goals in negotiations with the UK: "zero tariffs, zero quotas and zero dumping."

Everyone hopes that Johnson, under the pressure of time, will agree to a standard agreement in order to prepare a "soft leave" by December 31, 2020. The agreement provides for an extension of the transition period, but requires that this decision be made before July 1. But it is unclear whether Johnson and his new parliament will extend it.

Sceptics claim that the existing schedule is unrealistic, and it will take at least three years, or even seven years, as was the case with Canada, to agree a free trade agreement.

The other problem is that the European Parliament does not have the authority to ratify all articles of the agreement. In areas such as services, financial transactions, data protection or investment, the consent of national and even regional parliaments may be required, which may take years.

Finally, negotiations include more than just a free trade agreement. Both parties should also clarify how they intend to cooperate in the future on security issues. When a country leaves the EU, it is deprived of access to important databases, such as the Schengen information system, which contains information about people who are prohibited from entering the union. The EU is ready to agree on the exchange of information with London. In response, it hopes to have access to intelligence reports from the Five Eyes alliance, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the U.S. It is also necessary to reconsider the issue of London's readiness and conditions to participate in the EU defense projects.

Language of power

The new EU leaders also have plans to increase the role of the EU on the world stage. "Soft power" will no longer be enough if the EU wants to assert itself on the world stage. Europe must also learn the language of power," Ursula von der Leyen said announcing the creation of "geopolitical commission".

According to High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security, Josep Borrell, "we see the rebirth of geostrategic competition, notably between China, Russia and the United States, where the EU has the option of becoming a player, a true geostrategic actor, or being mostly the playground." As the first step, it's planned to launch the preparatory work for a global sanctions regime to address serious human rights violations which will be the EU equivalent of the so-called Magnitsky Act of the United States. The act empowers the U.S. government to punish human rights abusers worldwide, freeze their assets and deny entry into the country.

President of the European Council, Charles Michel, told about Brussels' plans for the euro to take over the global dominance of the U.S. dollar.

Dead Brains Still Needed

So far, all these belligerent statements have little in common with the defense policy of the EU. The Permanent Structured Cooperation on Security and Defense (PESCO) program launched in 2018 does not guarantee that Europe will become militarily independent of the United States and will be able to defend itself.

While French President Emmanuel Macron recently described NATO as "a brain-dead organisation", the protection of Europe has been and will remain one of the main tasks of NATO. Even if the EU wanted to, it would hardly be able to do so. Apparently, PESCO will not change the existing situation in the near future.

Migration crisis

The head of the European Commission in February promises to introduce a new Pact on Migration and Asylum, which, she hopes, will be acceptable to all EU member states. The fact is that the European Union has not been able to agree on a common asylum policy for four years now. The most controversial issue continues to be the principle of the distribution of migrants within the EU. According to the Dublin Agreement, adopted back in 1990, the responsibility for considering asylum lies with the country whose refugee originally crossed the border when entering the European Union. In recent years, it is, first of all, Italy, Spain and Greece, which in fact were not ready for the invasion of a huge number of refugees.

In 2016, the EU Commission proposed allocation in accordance with quotas. The logic is this: instead of several Mediterranean countries, all countries should be obliged, in a spirit of solidarity, to accept migrants in accordance with established criteria. Those who are not involved must pay heavy fines. This proposal caused massive resistance from many countries of Central and Eastern Europe - Austria, Poland, Hungary and others. They do not want to be dictated to them how many and what kind of people they will accept. Because of this dispute, all further EU legislative plans for an asylum system have been blocked. Everyone understands that the Dublin Agreement is outdated, but so far no one has offered an option that suits everyone.

Common home

The European common home has many different problems. With the departure of the UK, it has become even smaller. But this does not make the EU less attractive to new members. So, the fate of the rejected Northern Macedonia and Albania will be decided in the new year, and, most likely, positively, since, according to the recognition of the vast majority of EU members, the expansion of the bloc is in their own interests.