Opinions

EU Fast-Track Reforms: Needs and Priorities After COVID-19

Many readers of this article will be at home quarantined. Some students may be busy with distance learning courses, others with the charade or, in some case, the earnest challenges of ‘work at home’. Many will be worried about finances or the future but will still retain sufficient serenity to think calmly about how the EU has managed the crisis and what it will look like in the future. Unfortunately, devoted health care workers will not have much time for these musings on future reforms of the Union.

The EU has been criticised during the current pandemic for a lack of empathy and the slow response. It has been challenged for its response’s limitations. In fact, significant levels of aid to Member States have been provided by the Community. Many of the limitations for which it has been criticised come from restrictions placed on the mandates that the Community is allowed to address by the Member States. The health of its citizens is a dossier that has been deliberately retained by the Member States and for which the Community encounters resistance in expanding its competence and taking action.

Will The EU Expand its Purview?

A common response to the virus is impossible under the current treaties unless in the unlikely event of agreement by all 27 Member States. The Community simply does not have the authority to impose common rules, quarantine or isolate certain communities or impose testing or common treatment protocols. Where it does have authority in monetary policy and some limited fiscal powers it is often hampered as it is currently in negotiations over Eurobonds by Member State vetoes. Nevertheless, a 500 billion Euro relief package from the “EU Stabilisation Fund” was agreed too.

Majority voting on all issues, enhanced and enlarged mandates and greater powers generally would aid the Community in responding better to member’s appeals for aid in this crisis and beyond. These basic reforms are required but have been impossible under the current structure where Member States are jealous of their ability to veto matters they consider important. Reforms, surrendering national powers in favour of greater federalism, but guarding prerogatives for those countries insisting on retaining current treaty guarantees, would allow the Community, or at least those participating in this reformed or ‘fast-tracked’ group, to respond to crises regarding health, environment or international with greater speed, reach and flexibility. Such an arrangement, a ‘fast-track’, could take place while maintaining current treaty frameworks.

reforms
The EU has agreed to a relief package, but division among Member States remain on how to respond to the global pandemic

Imaging Future Reforms

Reforms in the EU are often discussed to make the economic and political functioning of the bloc work more smoothly. Health has not been at the forefront of these discussions, but given its insurgence as a major concern certainly should be considered going forward. The argument around Eurobonds and the economy already high on the reform agenda has also been urgently highlighted by the crisis. Other proposed reforms seek to add new functions like a defence force or common foreign policy and diplomacy. The environment is also an area where urgent action is needed.

With 27  Member States, each possessing a veto power on matters of essential interest, reforms are difficult. One thought has been to fast-track reforms, applying them to only a smaller group of countries willing to move forward at a more rapid pace with federalism. There are many ways to do this coherently. This article will suggest one model, hopefully opening a discussion on the merits of further reforms whether fast-tracked or applying to all members. It is to be anticipated that the current crisis will enhance the urgency of these reforms and greater federalism generally.

How to Fast Track Reforms

Like all else new in the community fast-track reforms would need to be negotiated, here among potential willing partners. In the first instance these discussions, then negotiations, might understandably fall outside the legal EU framework which is, after all, one set-up for the needs of all the 27 Member States.

Proposals that might eventually be codified in an agreement, should if at all possible not contradict existing EU treaties or directives, so as not to require amendment and ratification by non-participating states, already part of the EU. Once a set of proposals was agreed to the fast-track states would ratify them and begin implementation.

Enhancing Federalism

One of the critical goals of fast-tracked reforms would be to enhance federalism, in view of making the community function more efficiently and democratically. A key arena that already discussed in an earlier article is the single market. The functioning of the union as a single market where goods and people can circulate freely and transactions take place across borders without impediment has been an essential goal in building the EU. Further federalising the enforcement of market regulations would be one way of overcoming persistent obstacles resulting mainly from the enforcement by self-interested member states.

A federalised market enforcement might take the form of an EU regulatory service that could piggy-back on national services, federalising them and replacing national leadership with the service’s own bureaucrats. Such officials would be required to speak the language of the country they were assigned to as well as a core language and would rotate between regulatory service headquarters in the European capital, and different service offices in member states. Their responsibility would be to see that all market directives are applied without prejudice resulting in free movement of goods and services across the fast-tracked Member States.

fast-track
Is now the perfect time to advocate for the ‘United States of Europe’?

A Shared Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branch

A proposal for integrating executive, judicial and legislative branch functions for the fast-tracked countries would be to use existing EU organisations, sitting in special session to deal with fast-track country legislation and enforcement. This might work by having the elected members of the EU Parliament from the fast-tracked countries convene in special session, aside from their regular duties, to meet and legislate fast-track legislative affairs.

The EU Commission and European Court of Justice would not need to be reconstituted as their members do not represent specific countries but could act in camera in meetings devoted uniquely to fast-tracked member issues or jurisprudence.

A separate President of the Commission for Fast-Track could be elected by popular vote in the fast track countries and sit alongside the regular President. Its jurisdiction, however, should be strictly reserved to issues regarding the fast-track countries and not those governed by existing EU treaties.

Majority Voting

All issues regarding the fast-tracked countries should be decided by majority vote. A two-thirds majority weighted vote might be required with small countries receiving a weight of two and large countries three. Obviously this aspect of any federalisation will be highly fought over in any negotiation.

Joint Foreign Policy and Defence Force

Majority voting can pave the way for a consistent foreign policy and defence force. Members of the EU-27 could join in on the foreign policy initiatives on an ad-hoc basis and could participate in the defence force if they agreed to the majority voting provisions regarding its implementation. The elected President of the Commission (Fast-Track Countries) would represent these countries in their foreign policy.

Health & Environment

A common health and environmental policy should be part of any ‘fast track’ negotiations. If these policies are adopted by majority vote, buy-in should be possible by non-‘fast track’ Member States. Though probably coming too late for the current crisis such policies will aid in fighting future pandemics.

A Joint Budget

The common EU budget for the fast-tracked countries would be enhanced relative to the current commitment of these countries to the EU-27 budget. Majority voting would govern expenditures and additional revenues.

Enlargement

A period to build the new fast-track Union should be reserved without envisaging its enlargement. After such a period, say for example seven years, a new member might be added every three years – to allow for its integration – after a majority vote.

Next Steps for EU Reforms

Reforms in many of the areas discussed here could be helpful in the development of the EU into a viable and more sustainable body. They have been challenging to achieve because of the diversity of a 27-member Union. Whether the reforms would be better as fast-tracked or achieved perhaps in a slower manner but for the entire Union is an open question. So, too, is the nature the precise reforms might take and which ones are the priority.

For Member States, it is sometimes difficult to put forward reforms, even merely as ideas, because of the possibility of a strong domestic political reaction. The crisis will have given EU reforms more urgency and hopefully made advocacy and discussion easier. Though the article suggests a concrete and hopefully plausible way forward, its immediate goal is to inspire discussion without committing or advocating for a single preferred way.

Tags

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button
Close
Close