As someone interested in transatlantic relations and what goes on in Europe, I look forward to the annual Brussels Forum.  I did not not have my blog when it was held last year, but since I have it now, I want to share what I perceived to be a theme on the first day- shifting power and the future of Europe.

(On a side note, I was able to watch some of the sessions live throughout the weekend, and “live-tweeted” about them; however, given the 6-hour time difference and the fact that I have three kids, I was unable to watch all of them live.  My analysis, therefore, is based on the transcripts provided by the Brussels Forum.)

Timothy Garton Ash’s prologue and Herman Van Rompuy’s speech on the future of Europe both addressed the issues of shifting global power and the need for collective action.  Garton Ash emphasized the need for “legitimate effective institutions” as well as the need for “strategic coalitions of willing and able powers.”  In that light, he argued that the West needed to take advantage of its collective power to shape the international order before the power shift is complete.  Van Rompuy echoed those sentiments, calling the US and Europe “the world’s standard setters” and stressed the “responsibility to work together.”  During the first session, Ambassador João Vale de Almeida of the EU Delegation to the US also spoke of the responsibility of the US and Europe, but then reassured the two panelists from Brazil and China that the goal of the transatlantic partnership is “not [to gang] up against anybody else.”

Garton Ash, however, expanded on the concept of the need for legitimacy, proposing that “the West alone is not enough.”  If we are to solve the pressing global issues, then we need to hear from more voices than just the US and Europe, especially the BRICS and other emerging economies.  This would help with issues of legitimacy of proposed solutions.  Tatiana Lacerda Prazeres seemed to support this in the first session, touting the notion that “[emerging economies] want to shape ideas, to shape institutions,” in order to bring about more legitimacy.  Later in the same session, Qin Yaqing proposed that “developing countries…can do a lot in international institutions, but first of all, they should be treated as equal partners.”  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff reminded the audience, however, that “the attitude we deserve to be there…simply will not budge either Americans or Russians to make a place for us.”  In other words, as the moderator, Nina dos Santos, put it, “it doesn’t matter how big you are in the world scale, if you don’t implement [practical] policies, [you] won’t necessarily get a seat at the table.”

As for the future of Europe, both Garton Ash and Van Romouy spoke of the need for European unity.  For Garton Ash, Europe needs a “more coherent voice in the world” if collective action to solve global challenges is to succeed.  Van Rompuy, on the other hand, was more concerned with responsibility and solidarity to solve European problems. Lambsdorff was straight to the point about the future of Europe when he said, “If we get our act together, we will be fine.”  The operative word there of course is “IF.”  Robert Zoellick, towards the end of the the first session, pointed out that while the EU was “designed to bring Europe together, to overcome old animosities…you actually see the animosity starting to extend.  So the work, by any means, is not done.”  An unfortunate example of this animosity occurred in February 2012, when a Greek newspaper portrayed Angela Merkel as a Nazi.  As for the future of Europe, we need to consider whose vision of Europe is going to emerge.  Will it be a top-down construct from Brussels, or will the EU be fixed from the bottom up?  Perhaps it will be a mixture of both?  On top of the that, we also need to take into account the future British referendum.

The final open session of the first day covered the Mediterranean neighborhood (including Africa and the Middle East.)  While the panelists continued the theme of collective action, what seemed to be missing was a discussion of the lack of European unity in Mali.  It’s this same lack of unity in foreign policy that Garton Ash referenced in his speech.  Last week I engaged in a Twitter conversation with Craig Willy about whether or not the European Common Foreign and Security Policy worked and if a European military was a possibility.  The next day, he sent me an article which I think covers this issue quite well, arguing, in the context of Mali, that “the EU’s inability to agree on major global issues will cost it dearly one day.”  If we apply Zoellick’s words here, we can assert that the work on the structure of the European External Action Service is not done.

While the topics covered in the first day may not necessarily have been uplifting in themselves, the ideas proposed by the speakers and panelists give me hope for the future of transatlantic relations.  Van Rompuy was also quite optimistic about the partnership, declaring, “the West still exists.”  Conferences like the Brussels Forum are important for proposing solutions to pressing issues; however, we need to now move from words and ideas and turn them into actions.

In my previous post, I dissected PM Cameron’s speech about his vision for the future for Europe.  Now, I want to compare that speech with the one given a month later by Germany’s President Joachim Gauck, “Europe: Renewing confidence- strengthening commitment.”

The similarities between the two speeches have more to do with the buildup to their respective visions than anything else.  Both speakers address the past and how far Europe has come since 1945.  Gauck, however, spends much more time addressing the visions of the so-called founders.  Also similar to Cameron, the German President mentions the complaints that have been directed towards the EU- too much regulation from technocrats, not enough transparency, and the complexity of trying to even understand how the EU works.  This is pretty much where the similarities end, because while Cameron focuses on the Single Market and the UK in the EU, Gauck talks about the larger picture of Europe as a whole.  And, whereas PM Cameron’s speech has a bit of pessimism throughout, Gauck seems fairly optimistic about the future of the EU.

Before he begins looking forward, however, President Gauck reminds listeners of two important points: 1) The crisis in Europe is more than economic, it is “also a crisis of confidence in Europe as a political project,” and 2) when discussing the idea of “more Europe,” people should know what exactly that means.  Despite these issues, we see that Gauck is still convinced that the EU is a worthy experiment, as he outlines some of the advantages and benefits of belonging to the EU.

What comes after is perhaps a more philosophical discussion about European identity and values.  Gauck believes that it is “hard to pinpoint what it is that makes [a] European, what it means to have a European identity.”  In addressing these issues, however, Gauck lays the foundation for bringing Europeans closer together.  While there a multiple levels of identity among Europeans, they must look for “unifying bonds.”  Those bonds can be found in the shared values- “peace and freedom…democracy and the rule of law…equality, human rights, and solidarity.”  If those values truly “bind [Europeans] together,” as Gauck argues, then shouldn’t those form the basis for a European identity?  Perhaps his strongest point follows, when he says that “European identity grows out of our deepening cooperation and the conviction of those who say we want to be part of this community because we share common values.”  (As a side note, you may want to read my previous post on American Values and European Values).

Once he finishes the section about values and how they can bring Europeans together, Gayck begins dissecting the problems facing the EU and some possible solutions.  Similar to Cameron, Gauck mentions the issue of the extent of regulations coming from Brussels.  Whereas Cameron lays out a specific solution (giving power back to the national parlimaents), Gauck proposes further discussion about the European project.  Another similarity between the two is found in their argument that, in Gauck’s words, “only a united Europe has any chance of holding its own as a global player” (this is similar to Cameron’s principle of competitiveness).  Gauck differs from Cameron, however, in his solution- he calls for “further harmonization.”  Additionally, unlike Cameron, Gauck mentions the necessity of unity in the context of “foreign, security and defence policy.”

So, how do Europeans get there from here?  The answer, according to the German President, is with the consent of the people- “The pace and depth of European integration will ultimately be determined by Europe’s citizens.”  It seems to me, however, that if the citizens are going to be integral in the decision-making process, then the institutions of the EU need to address the perception of the existence of a democratic deficit.  Gauck proposes that one way to do this is by improving communication.  His solution is to establish some sort of forum (perhaps a news channel) devoted to promoting more Europe.  The forum would “disseminate knowledge, help to develop a European civic spirit and also act as a corrective when nationalist media adopt a nationalistic approach and report on neighbouring countries without sensitivity or real knowledge, thus encouraging prejudices.”  I understand where Gauck is coming from, and I applaud the efforts at reaching out to people, but it seems to me that such a forum, coming from the technocrats in “distant” Brussels, might be seen as propaganda and as a top-down measure.  Would it make more sense to promote citizens’ initiatives that encourage diversity and European unity?

In his closing remarks, Gauck puts forth three calls for action to those who want to see a better Europe- 1) “do not be indifferent,” 2) do not be lazy,” and 3) “recognize your ability to make a contribution.”  This is one of the biggest differences with PM Cameron’s speech; Cameron never really encouraged the people to get involved.  I hope that people do get more involved, and I hope that the EU institutions give them platforms to voice their opinions.  I am encouraged by President Gauck’s vision for the future of Europe and the EU, and I wish continued success on that worthy project.

Within the past six weeks or so, two important speeches have been given about the future of Europe.  The first speech was delivered on January 23 by UK Prime Minister David Cameron and concerned the future of the UK in the EU.  On February 22, Germany’s President, Joachim Gauck, spoke about the prospects for the European idea.  I am well aware that journalists and bloggers have commented about the Prime Minister’s speech ad nauseam, but after he gave it, I knew I wanted to write about it.  The problem with being a part-time blogger, however, is that as I continued with my regular job, I saw the headlines come across my news feed of various reactions and commentaries about the speech.  How was I supposed to add to the discussion when so much was being written immediately after the speech had been made?  So, I made the conscious choice to not read any article related to the speech and wait before I began writing.  In the mean time, President Gauck gave his speech, and while I have not seen as much commentary as there was towards PM Cameron’s speech, I thought that perhaps I could compare the two speeches and their visions for Europe.

My initial thought on PM Cameron’s speech was that the UK wanted its cake and to eat it, too.  “For us,” Cameron argued, “the European Union is a means to an end- prosperity, stability…” That being the case, it would follow that the UK would want to see the EU be successful, a point he concedes later in the speech.  He follows that up with a line that he wants “a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps [the British] in it.”

While arguing that Britain should be in the EU, however, Cameron outlines what he deems “three major challenges” to Europe.  The first challenge is that the Eurozone crisis is affecting all other policies throughout Europe.  Cameron’s concern is that he does not want those problems affecting British “access to the Single Market.”  Second, European countries are in danger of falling behind other nations around the world.  Out of the three challenges, this one receives the least amount of attention.  (As an aside, Javier Solana brought up this same concern in a recent article, “The European-American Dream.”)  The final challenge, and one that Cameron comes back to often, is a growing “gap between the EU and its citizens…which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent…”- in other words, the dreaded democratic deficit.  The British people are frustrated with the decisions coming from Brussels and want their concerns heard and acted on.

Once he finishes describing the challenges facing Europe, PM Cameron outlines his vision for the EU.  In his discussion of the first principle, competitiveness, Cameron calls for a “leaner, less bureaucratic Union,” arguing that the size of the EU hurts the ability of Member States to compete as well as the success of the Single Market.  I get the sense, however, that this section is more about making sure the British economy is not hurt and addressing the democratic deficit than making all of the European economies more competitive on the global stage.

In the section about the second principle, flexibility, Cameron emphasizes the importance of the Single Market to the EU, calling it the “essential foundation;” the Euro, however, is not as important to the success of the EU.  In the same section, he also discusses the degree of integration Member States should hold in the EU.  First, he argues that a “one size fits all approach” to integration does not work.  Next, he proposes that accepting varying degrees of integration will actually “bind [the EU’s] Members more closely because such flexible, willing cooperation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.”  If countries do not want the same level of integration across the board, then why join the EU in the first place?  Then, further in the speech, Cameron seems to contradict himself when he states, “The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.  You will not always get what you want.”

Principles three and four both address the concept of giving more power to the Member States and their respective parliaments.  This reinforces his earlier notion of the need for a smaller EU and his third challenge of the democratic deficit.  Here he argues that “national parliaments [are] and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.”  Cameron’s argument, however, lacks any sort of discussion about the future role of the European Parliament, and so the reader is left to make his/her own conclusions.

Cameron’s final guiding principle for the future of the European Union is fairness.  Once again, he brings up the Single Market, this time stating that it is the main reason for UK membership in the EU.  What’s interesting about this is that towards the end of his discussion about the referendum he cannot define what the EU is or is going to be.  As a result, the UK will make its decision when the Eurozone crisis has been solved.

The last section of the speech is where PM Cameron basically tells the EU “this is how it’s going to be, or we’re gone.” First, the Single Market will be “at [the] heart” of the relationship between the UK and the rest of Europe.  After all, a successful Single Market is “vital for British business and jobs.”  This means then, that a strong Single Market is in British national interests.  If, however, the European nations cannot act together, then the UK will have to carefully weigh its options.  Cameron closes all of this by arguing that “just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.”  If we take into account everything he said prior to this point in the speech, what he is really saying is “Britain will be in the EU as long as the EU makes the necessary changes outlined by me and gives power back to the Member States.  If not, then we will have to revisit the nature of our relationship.”  As a parting shot, he then goes on to say that “it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain’s departure.”  Again, reading between the lines, “This will hurt you more than it hurts us, so unless you want us to leave, thereby causing you more problems, make those changes I just proposed.”

To sum, it appears that in the best of worlds for the UK, a new EU would be: 1) smaller in size and scope, 2) relinquish powers back to the Member States and their respective national parliaments, and 3) do everything possible to ensure the success and fair access to the Single Market.  What I would like to know is, exactly whose vision is this- is this the sentiment of a majority of Britons, or is this coming from a small minority?  If, of course, my analysis of the speech is way off, I hope that somebody would be so kind as to help me understand.  I am genuinely interested in this topic, and I do want to understand the relationship between the UK and Europe, so I hope that if anybody does actually read this and feels the need to comment, please do so in a constructive manner.

In my next post (whenever that may be), I will compare PM Cameron’s speech with President Gauck’s speech, which was aptly titled, “Europe: Renewing confidence- strengthening commitment.”