Reforms are in the air and the EU does not see them coming
- Where are the EU’s enlargement plans going? The European Commission is speeding up accession talks with Western Balkans and Ukraine
- An opportunity for a reform of the EU Treaties is opening, and this is closely connected to citizen participation
- The EU remains divided on many issues in Gaza, including left-wing European parties
- EU institutions have agreed to increase funding for youth initiatives
- The new Italy-Albania migrant deal is opening questions on its legality
- What do we know about the European Artificial Intelligence Act?
EU-Western Balkans enlargement: speeding up is not the answer
The European Commission wants to bring Western Balkan countries’ economies closer to the EU, through what has been defined as the most important enlargement package for many years: a 6 billion euro Growth Plan, put forward at the beginning of November, would allow Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia to enter the EU’s common market. However, the path towards these countries’ accession to the EU will not continue without administrative and political reforms, among which is the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo.
Twenty years after the Thessaloniki summit which concluded that all Western Balkan countries would become part of the EU upon a reform process, and following a ten-year stalemate after Croatia’s accession in 2013, the EU woke up with a renewed need to reinforce its relations with the six Balkan countries and reaffirm their engagement in the accession perspective. In other words, the EU has been working to ensure that the Western Balkans stay attached to “the bloc”, with the war in Ukraine ongoing and Russia’s continued efforts in influencing the region. Meanwhile, the aspiring EU members have been backsliding in important areas such as democracy, rule of law, media freedom, corruption fighting and building a functioning market economy. These are criteria enshrined in EU Treaties (the so-called Copenhagen criteria) that must be met for accession, but no aspirant member is close to meeting them.
On the same page, accession talks with Ukraine are ready to start. There is still a long way before it joins – Western Balkan states are in line for accession, which is also a usually lengthy process. Moreover, a power struggle between the Hungarian Prime Minister and the head of the European Council, Charles Michel, is ongoing, with Orban threatening to block all EU aid money for Ukraine as well as its future accession unless the terms of EU support for Kyiv are re-negotiated. Also, Ukraine needs to undergo a profound reform in the fight against corruption, lobbying regulation and protection of national minorities. The EU’s executive power is trying to speed up this process on the grounds of geopolitical necessities, without considering it also needs to adapt and undergo internal reforms to welcome new members and their 60 million citizens – reforms which it resists even starting to discuss.
Is the prospect of EU access enough to solve democratic backsliding problems? The path followed for the previous enlargements to the east in 2004 and 2007, with an “all or nothing” approach, does not seem to fit the current context. Overcoming its traditionally colonialist approach, the EU should open up to explore different degrees of integration, according to candidate countries’ real possibilities and needs.
What does citizen participation have to do with EU Treaties reform?
On Wednesday 22 November, the European Parliament (EP) approved a proposal asking EU Heads of State to open a convention to discuss reform of EU Treaties, although with a not-so-strong majority of 305 votes to 276. This vote has not received public resonance and yet it is a very important step towards …. Just before the EP elections in June 2024, and with the possibility of new countries’ accession to the EU, the window of opportunity to open a convention on EU Treaty reform is timely, yet narrow. In fact, the issue is not yet an item on the next European Council’s agenda in December, which may demonstrate Heads of States’ reluctance to discuss major reforms. However, this could change, and what’s most important is that no unanimity is needed on this decision.
The proposal for a Treaty reform comes straight from the recommendations of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CoFoE), where citizens called for a profound reform of the EU. This month’s EP votes bring forward an issue that has until now been silently ignored by both the European Commission and the Heads of States. The report adopted asks to create appropriate participatory mechanisms for citizens and to give European parties a stronger role. These requests are in line with recommendations by CoFoE to make sure that the Treaties’ amendments go hand in hand with strengthening citizen participation and deliberative democracy.
Moreover, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from the Constitutional Affairs Committee proposed ways to enhance democratic aspects of the upcoming EU elections, in particular to respect the lead candidate system (also known as Spitzenkandidaten) which ensures that the European Commission President is chosen according to voters’ choices. Other proposals include measures to increase turnout, especially for EU citizens living in a Member State that is not their own, to ensure citizens’ rights and make participation more accessible. This report will be voted on in December’s plenary session.
But there is still a long way to go. The European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, who has the role of holding EU institutions and agencies accountable and promoting good administration, expressed her concerns about the necessity of following up on the recommendations which emerged in the CoFoE: “without clear action on these ideas, the conference may be seen simply as gesture politics, a hollow exercise in ‘citizen-washing”. Major decisions on climate, EU enlargement, migration and much more are now being rapidly made with the aim of concluding important chapters before the new parliamentary term that will start in June 2024. With democracy becoming a burden rather than the only way forward, concrete participation of citizens in deliberative processes is needed more than ever.
Half-decisions and double standards: the EU can’t decide what position to take in Gaza
Left-wing parties in the EU are still divided on the Israel-Hamas war. One point that different Socialist parties in Europe disagree on is the need for immediate ceasefire. While the newly re-elected Pedro Sánchez spoke in support of Gaza and demanded a humanitarian ceasefire, Olaf Scholz used a more tame word ‘pause’. The final resolution agreed upon by the national delegations uses the least radical language possible. For example, it says ‘humanitarian tragedy in Gaza must stop’ without mentioning Israel or the war. The resolution, in line with Scholz’s language, calls for a ‘pause’, rather than permanent ceasefire.
Another issue split the European Commission. After 7 October, Neighborhood and Enlargement Chief Olivér Várhelyi proposed to stop all humanitarian aid to Gaza, which was met with resistance. So, instead of a full freeze, he suggested a review to make sure that none of the EU money was going to Hamas. However, even after the review showed no links with the group, Várhelyi’s plan was still to introduce stringent conditions for aid. According to one official, if such conditions were implemented, almost no aid would reach Gaza. Later on, the Commissioners proceeded to discuss the proposal to provide 18 million euros in support for Israel. How can the same meeting discuss both conditions for humanitarian aid to Gaza and millions of euros in support to Israel? And, most importantly, how can the former cause more debate?
News on Youth and Education from EU institutions
Council
Ministers for Education from all EU Member States met and approved conclusions on the contribution of education and training to strengthening European values and democratic citizenship. Ongoing challenges such as shrinking civic space in many European countries, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, wars and sustainable development requirements are unfolding in terms of the sustainability of “western democracy”. According to EU Education Ministers, the achievement of a European education area and a renewed European citizenship education are therefore necessary in shaping the future of the EU.
Member States asked the Commission to monitor the development of citizenship competence, to develop qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure citizenship competences in the EU, and to strengthen the Erasmus+ programme’s priorititisation of participation in democratic life, common values and civic engagement.
European Parliament
On 21 November the EP voted on European Solidarity Corps programme implementation for 2021-2027. The report includes many of the requests coming from civil society on budget increase, the newly implemented European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps and, finally, to make 2025 the European Year of Volunteers.
On 22 November, the EP adopted the EU budget for 2024: almost 670 million euros have been added to address key EU priorities, among which are humanitarian aid, transport infrastructure and Erasmus+. The latter has seen an increase of 60 million euros.
European Commission
Almost entering 2024, we are still waiting for the EC’s communication on the legacy of the European Year of Youth, an initiative that happened in 2022. One of the main points which emerged was the youth test, an impact assessment tool for the EU to use to make sure that all new EU legislative proposals have a positive impact on young people. According to the European Youth Forum, integrating a youth lens on all policies is an aim of the EU youth strategy and one of the four key objectives of the European Year of Youth. The CoFoE also called for this, and both the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions have supported the idea. The youth test is already in use in some Member States (Austria, France and Germany) and the endorsement of this tool by the European Commission is expected by EU-wide civil society organisations.
Italy-Albania migrant deal: a quick solution likely to breach the procedure
On 6 October, Giorgia Meloni and Edi Rama, respectively Prime Ministers of Italy and Albania, met in Rome to discuss migration, among other topics. As a result, they came to an agreement that Albania will house migrants who come to Italy via the sea, while their asylum bids are processed. This extraordinary initiative sparked controversy. International organisations and European NGOs expressed their doubts about the execution of this initiative. The general concern is that populist politicians are looking for ‘quick fixes’ to complex problems like migration. Member States try to look for solutions outside the bloc, which increases the already high number of refugees suffering human rights violations.
When it comes to the European Commission, the responses about the lawfulness of the contract differed. On the one hand, European Commission spokesperson Anita Hippers said “If you have a vessel within the territory, then you have the asylum procedure recommendation, which applies”. This means that anyone picked up in waters belonging to Italy has the right to request asylum and stay there, according to the agreements with the EU. However, a different point of view was presented by European Commissioner Ylva Johansson. In her statement, she mentioned that ‘[the agreement] is not violating the EU law, it’s outside the EU law’ as ‘EU law is not applicable outside EU territory’. This take poses more questions than answers. Not only are the logistics and costs of the agreement unclear, but, as Albania is not an EU Member State, it cannot guarantee to uphold European protocol on asylum-seekers.The EU should ensure dignified treatment for those who arrive at its shores. Looking for loopholes will only pave the way for further justifications of immigrants’ mistreatment.
The Italy-Albania agreement finds place in a controversial paradox: on the one hand, EU countries are doing their “best” to manage migration by their own terms, making bilateral or unilateral agreements with third countries to externalise their responsibilities. On the other hand, the European Commission is asking EU capitals for additional funds (15 billion euros) for the 2024 EU budget to cover migration deals with foreign countries – a request which many EU leaders are skeptical to support.
The European AI Act opens loopholes for human rights violations
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become the focus of the public debate this year. While it creates many new opportunities, the ways it can be used raises ethical questions. The new AI Act is currently at the last stage of the legislative process as it is being negotiated between the EU Parliament, Council and Commission.
The new act suggests dividing the use of AI technology into unacceptable risk, high risk and limited risk. Unacceptable risk AI systems are systems considered a threat to people. These include real-time and remote biometric identification, cognitive behavioral manipulation, and social scoring. Generally, the consensus is that these should be banned. However, contrary to the name, unacceptable risks might be accepted in some cases. So far, the text states that the regulation doesn’t apply to AI used exclusively ‘for military, defence, or national security’ purposes. In these cases each Member State is allowed to make its own decision. Moreover, the Remote Biometric Identification ban seems to include more exemptions with each reading. While the Act suggests that only specific individuals can be targeted, it allows for both in real time and ex-post recognition. Thankfully, the possibility of authorisation from administrative authorities on that.
Many NGOs have been worried for a few years that AI Regulations will not provide sufficient human rights guarantees in the areas of monitoring, compliance and enforcement. The State Watch published an open letter together with more than 60 organisations calling on legislators to ensure the AI Act upholds the rule of law. ‘(The) accountability framework can only safeguard the rule of law and fundamental rights if it applies to all high-risk AI systems,’ it states.
