Who pays the price for the EU’s lack of ambition?
- EU institutions are working on rules to safeguard rule of law, but leave loopholes
- In the power game between Hungary’s PM Orbàn and the EU on enlargement, there is a clear winner
- After years of political deadlock, the EU has agreed on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum which further erodes human rights
- COP28 could have been an opportunity to talk about Global North/South justice, but it didn’t happen
- Call for fiscal prudence and public expenses cuts puts at risk education in the EU
- EP has lost its ambition to reform the electoral law for the next EU elections in 2024
Rule of law: EU walks a fine line
How secure is the rule of law in Europe? Journalists and human rights defenders have long raised their concerns about strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). SLAPPs are intended to intimidate and censor critics by exhausting them with legal fees. Such lawsuits are often used by businesses or states, and they pose a direct threat to democracy in the EU. At the end of November, the European Council and EU Parliament reached provisional agreement on a law protecting journalists and human rights defenders from such lawsuits. Among the safeguards suggested there are possibilities for dismissal of the claim in early stages and for the demand of financial security from the claimant (e.g. the court can decide that the claimant pays the legal fees). While it is a step in the right direction if the legislation gets passed, these safeguards are not enough to stop SLAPPs. The courts have, in fact, had the power to dismiss such lawsuits long before the proposed legislation but, unfortunately, they don’t always do that. For the new law to work, every court in every Member State needs to be completely corruption-free. According to the European Commission’s Rule of Law Report 2023, systemic concerns remain in some Member States. 67% of Europeans think high-level corruption cases are not pursued enough.
Another rule of law question this December concerns a new directive proposed by the European Commission in a bid to stifle Vladimir Putin’s meddling with EU democracy. Under it, the interest representatives which receive funding from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) need to register in national transparency databases. Transparency is an important part of all democratic processes, but critics have noted that it should not be limited to foreign funding. Brussels-based NGO Transparency International EU reacted to the Commission’s proposal: “If the Commission really wanted to protect democracy, it would cast the net wide and raise transparency standards for all interest representatives—foreign-funded or not—rather than proposing a misguided foreign agent law that may well cause more problems than provide solutions”. The proposal states that it is “carefully framed to avoid stigmatising CSOs or other non-profit associations”, unlike a similar Russian law. However, some Member States’ politicians are sympathetic to the views of Moscow. Another civil society network organisation, European Partnership for Democracy, argued that the Commission would give Viktor Orbán a ‘political green light’ to oppress foreign-backed groups with the new directive.
Enlargement talks proceeding
On 13 and 14 December, the EU made crucial decisions on its enlargement plans. After the release of a 6 billion euro enlargement package in November to support structural reforms, EU and Western Balkan Heads of State met and signed the “Brussels Declaration”. In this document, the areas of cooperation as well as reform for the Western Balkans were reminded, together with a reconfirmation of the EU’s commitment in accelerating the accession process. The summit focused on the progress made on the political as well as economic front over the past year, with the ultimate aim of accelerating the socio-economic convergence between the two “blocs” to advance integration. Focal points of the Declaration are the necessity for Western Balkans to contribute to the continent’s security and defence, as well as fight “illegal migration, migrant smuggling and human trafficking”.
The next day, European leaders decided to open accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova, and to give Georgia the status of country candidate to access the EU. Despite being celebrated in Brussels as a success, this vote in the European Council was “unanimous”, meaning that 26 out of 27 countries expressed their support, while Orban left the room in order not to explicitly veto the resolution. If Orban, just a few days ago, was firmly obstructing the issue of Ukraine’s accession, threatening its opposition vote, how did he change his mind? The answer is to be found in money. In fact, the European Commission strategically unblocked 10.2 billion euros for Hungary right before the EU27 decisive summit: a persuasive move. This money, part of EU regional cohesion funds, had been frozen over concerns about the respect of human rights and rule of law in Hungary. “The Commission considers that Hungary has taken the measures it committed to take” to improve judicial independence, stated the EU’s executive in a press release.
However, on day two of the European Council’s summit, and after having received the amount promised, Orban continued to block a 50 billion euro aid package for Ukraine, during negotiations on the revision of the EU budget. The result is that the European leaders managed both to fail in agreeing on Ukraine’s aid package, as well as to use their leverage power by using financial conditionality to induce Orban to comply with EU law. Most importantly, it was demonstrated that the EU’s concerns and fights over respect for rule of law and fundamental human rights of its citizens can be perfectly sold out in exchange for geopolitical priorities. Lastly, this political manoeuvre opened the way for Orban to keep blocking Ukraine’s access to the EU in the future procedural steps that will come, while legitimately obtaining EU taxpayers money to finance its actions that erode democracy and shrink civic space.
EU institutions agreed to abolish the right to asylum
In 2023, Greece received the highest amount of EU funds earmarked for migration of any EU country, for a total amount of 42.4 million million euros in extraordinary financing handed out by the European Commission. The money was employed in softwares to improve data exchange between border nations, and to enhance social support for unaccompanied minors through foster/community care. Meanwhile, the reception conditions of newcomers in Greece are rapidly deteriorating. A recently published report by Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) denounces aggressions, degrading treatment and physical violence suffered by their patients in reception camps. Other NGOs denounce severe mistreatments of asylum seekers in mainland Greece centres.
Violations of human rights and the dysfunctionality of asylum systems, especially in “front line” countries, are before everyone’s eyes. After years of political deadlock and inconclusive negotiations, on 20 December EU institutions finally agreed on the New Pact on Asylum and Migration, and the result is what everyone was, unfortunately, expecting. The Spanish presidency of the Council and the European Commission tried to streamline discussions, reassuring stakeholders and civil society on how the positions of the European Parliament and Member States align. In reality, a document circulated by the Spanish Presidency of the Council reveals that “the core part of the Council mandates is being preserved in all files. This has been possible due to the fact that the European Parliament has accepted to make significant concessions”. This means that the EP has given up on its traditional position of defender of human rights and of a solidarity-based migration.
EP’s concessions to Member States have resulted in the agreement on measures that lower human rights protections for migrants and refugees entering the EU. Many NGOs across Europe are pointing out how this final agreement has not brought any progress in asylum management. Human rights organisations are avdocating against entrenchment of pushbacks at the borders, increase in the use of detention, risk of racial profiling, enhanced outsourcing of migration policies to third countries with no mechanism for accountability, focus on deportation and lowered procedural safeguards, and finally the use of asylum procedures conducted at the borders, forcing people into de facto detention camps with limited access to legal assistance. Rights defenders warned that “complex decisions with huge consequences are being rushed through”: these rushed and under pressure negotiations have officially opened the door to further abuses of people on the move.
Environmental conference COP28 was a missed opportunity to make historical change
The 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) took place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and it didn’t start well from the very beginning. Ahead of the conference, leaked documents showed that UAE planned to use its role as the host to strike oil and gas deals. This was not surprising as this year’s climate summit president, Dr Sultan al-Jaber, is also the head of a state oil company. Unfortunately, the conference proved that the UAE lacks commitment to climate solutions. The president of COP28 made comments that according to experts “verged on climate denial”. It is obvious why the head of a state oil company would push against any meaningful environmental solutions. The question is – how could we allow for such a conflict of interest during a crucial fight for our planet’s future?
As expected, COP28 didn’t deliver on the ambitious suggestions presented in the beginning. One of the main promises of the summit was a full phaseout of fossil fuels. In his opening speech the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said “We cannot save a burning planet with a fire hose of fossil fuels…The 1.5-degree limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate.” The ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ is mentioned in the final decision text, and the European Parliament has called it a ‘historic’ moment: ‘The adopted text does not mention the word ‘phase-out’, but it is a ‘phase-out’ of fossil fuels’. Experts point out that the text provides multiple loopholes to avoid the transition and doesn’t require countries to do so.
Another important point that the final decision doesn’t consider is the inability of developing countries to transition away from fossil fuels without additional funding. In an open letter, Yanis Varoufakis, Thomas Picketty, Vanessa Nakate and other leading economists, development and climate experts called for the debt cancellation of global south’s countries. These latter are in fact forced to borrow from global north countries to cover the costs of climate change adaptation and mitigation, suffering the impacts of a climate crisis they did not create. This means they are stuck in a debt-climate trap, while wealthy banks, corporations and institutions in the global north make profit from this unjust situation. Even though COP28 was the perfect opportunity for rich countries to agree on debt cancellation, they didn’t even discuss the issue.
Back to austerity? Education might pay the price
The Spanish Presidency of the Council proposed to amend EU funding for 2025-2027, making cuts on education and training programmes, namely Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. At present, there are different scenarios for budget cuts, ranging from a 3.5% cut to 13.5%. This has been proposed to face the ever increasing interest rates, with Member States being under pressure to reduce their national debts and deficits. The European Commission and European Parliament opposed this proposal, requesting budgetary increases from Member states, rather than cuts.
The paradox is that while the European Commission requests not to cut expenses, it also called for fiscal prudence in terms of states’ public deficits and debts. Also Member States themselves are skeptical in reforming the austerity-driven macroeconomic framework of the EU, also known as the European Semester. And yet, Covid showed how underinvestment in education and training resulted in lack of infrastructure for digital education, educators shortages, lack of equity and inclusion in Erasmus+, with young people with lower socio-economic backgrounds being disadvantaged in academic performance. Resulting from the Conference on the Future of Europe, European citizens themselves asked for increased Erasmus+ funding, as this latter enhances the feeling of European belonging and is perceived as a tool for active participation.
During the last six months, the Spanish Presidency underlined through different Council Conclusions how the role of research contributes to policymaking, and how education strenghtens democratic citizenship, aspects that are usually neglected by Member States. So why is education being now framed as a cost, instead of a sector that boosts civic participation and that is fundamental in answering societal challenges?
2024 EU election process will stay the same
On 12 December, MEPs adopted a proposal that aims to strengthen the democratic dimension of the 2024 EU elections and to put in place a lead candidate system. This latter is a mechanism, also known as the spitzenkandidaten, that allows to democratise the elections of the European Commission president. In the last 2019 EU elections, this system was not respected. With the present proposal, the EP asks to make it binding, as well as to make the process of choosing the lead candidate for each political group more transparent and outside closed doors. MEPs also asked to ensure accessibility of elections, in terms of information availability, assistive and inclusive technologies and the possibility to cast the vote via post for citizens residing in different countries.
Regretfully, the core proposal of creating transnational lists with 27 candidate MEPs that could be voted by EU citizens across borders, that is to open up elections over national contexts, has been completely washed out from the final text.
Introduction for the newsletter:
Who pays the price for the EU’s lack of ambition?
This December European leaders decided to open accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova. A power struggle between Hungarian Prime Minister Orban and the European Council paved the way to further abuse of Union values.
EU institutions finally agreed on the New Pact on Asylum and Migration: many NGOs stood up against the pact, claiming it de facto eliminates the right to asylum.
Member States are being pressured to reduce their national debts and deficits, and the first thing to go for is to reduce spending for education and youth training. This and much more on this month’s edition of Our Eye on the EU.
