Donations
Veridica.md
Leaders of the most powerful European political group are meeting in Bucharest. Their decisions might influence the EU and Romania in the years ahead, should the EPP win the European Parliament election again.
The EPP will present its plan for the next European Parliament legislature in Bucharest. Why should we care: unlike Romanian political parties, European parties tend to keep their promises
Although it risks being perceived locally as a political drama staged to the benefit of the National Liberal Party (PNL) or of other center-right European parties, the Congress of the European People’s Party (EPP) in Bucharest has the potential of making ripples in international media. Admittedly, participants who are expected to arrive in Bucharest are famous. The list includes Ursula von der Leyen, Valdis Dombrovskis, Romanian Adina Vălean, EU Commissioner for Transport, European Parliament president Roberta Metsola, heads of state such as the president of Greece, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the Prime Minister of Croatia, Andrej Plenković, the Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristerrson. Other keynote participants include the EPP leadership, from president Manfred Weber to Secretary General Thanasis Bakolas. Adding to them are representatives of people’s parties outside of the EU, such as the president of Moldova, Maia Sandu. What matters most, however, is that this political show will be extremely relevant for European policy and Romania’s future.
As expected, the drama is about the European Parliament election of June 6-9. The EPP will be disclosing its political manifesto for the upcoming five-year framework (2024-2029). The program is highly important, as the current political structure of the European Union, controlled by the EPP-PES-ALDE/Renew coalition, with EPP as a senior partner, will most likely be upheld after the June election. Whereas in Romania political programs tend to be scrap paper politicians throw away shortly after taking (or not taking) office, the manifestos of great European political parties represent clearer promises that need to be implemented, at least to a certain degree. While the final draft of the EPP manifesto is yet to be made public, the media has published various working drafts, so at present we can get a pretty clear idea of what the EPP is planning, while at the same time anticipating the impact of its upcoming policies on the future of the European Union, and by extension, Romania.
Major changes concerning the EU security policy and Europe’s military capabilities
For years, EU politicians have been highlighting the need to consolidate the joint military capacity of the European Union. These statements / warnings have intensified against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, but also amidst Donald Trump’s “NATO-sceptic” statements during his term in office and in the current election campaign, which might very well secure him a new term at the White House. Should it remain the dominant political group in the EU, the EPP wants to take the following measures, broken down in sector-specific categories:
- The creation of an EU defense budget, accounting for 0.5% of the EU’s GDP. According to The Watcher Post (which is also the source of more information to follow), the EU’s military budget would stand at some 100 billion EUR. To get an idea of what this amount stands for, it is double what the European Commission had proposed by 2027, and approximately four times the level of military assistance already provided to Ukraine. Compared to the 2% GDP ratio allotted to defense spending by national governments, this budget gives an even clearer idea of where this money can be put to good use. Most likely, EU investment will be supplemented by NATO funding. In Romania’s case, this will translate into an additional effort 0.5% of the GDP, which is not exactly nonsensical having in mind the state of Romania’s military.
- An EU Commissioner for Defense. The idea was voiced also by Ursula von der Leyen on the sidelines of the Munich security conference, where the acting president of the European Commission announced her plans to “run” for a new mandate at the helm of the Commission. The creation of this new portfolio is, of course, closely tied to the abovementioned point on the EU defense budget, whose existence entails the need to manage it, i.e. a Commissioner and possibly a General Directorate.
- The European Defense Union. The name of the newly created entity speaks for itself. It’s worth noting that such an entity represents a carry-over of the European Defense Fund and the so-called PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) in the military field, inaugurated by the Juncker Commission. It is unclear, for the time being, what this European Defense Union will act as. What is clear, however, is that it will be an abstract EU concept halfway between an Excel table and an actual army. It remains to be seen how far this Union will reach and how efficient it will be.
- Border security. Consolidating the EU’s borders is tied to anti-migration sentiment, which brought in power Geert Wilders’s (VVD) extremist party in the Netherlands, and also resulted in tighter migration oversight across the community bloc. Among other things, the EPP wants to increase the staff of Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard agency, from 2,000 at present to no less than 30,000 employees. To Romania, the EPP’s endeavor spells good news, all the more so as the European People’s Party has explicitly and repeatedly expressed its support for Romania’s full accession to the Schengen area, which puts us on “this side of the border”.
- Cyber-brigades. Obviously, we’re talking first and foremost about combating cyber-terrorism with a force similar in size and capabilities to that of Frontex, although less centralized. Of course, Romania would benefit from participating in this international organization, much like in every other case.
- Qualified majority vote (as opposed to unanimous vote) on defense-related decisions. It’s common knowledge the European Union’s voting process reaches a stalemate every time Viktor Orbán feels like stonewalling the latest package of sanctions against Russia in the European Council. It’s also true any other country can do that, due to the unanimous vote currently required to pass all key decisions. Discarding this type of voting requires the modification of EU treaties, which is a tedious process. Until recently, this idea had been publicly promoted only by Emmanuel Macron and Renew, but now it has the endorsement of the biggest European political family. Romania is expected to lose its veto right in the Council, although in the past it had little reason to ever exercise it.
Green Deal, digitization and cutting red tape
Security policies account for merely a small part of the EPP manifesto, which also covers traditional chapters on the environment, digitalization and so on and so forth. The following data are taken from a pre-final draft of the document.
- Environment policies. With regard to the so-called Green Deal, as already discussed for Veridica.ro, discarding it is arguably unconceivable, even if environment policies are to undergo certain adjustments, to a degree that remains to be seen.
What is interesting to note is the fact that, following the article’s publication on Veridica, the plan to extend the life-cycle of the combustion engine beyond 2035 was eliminated from the EPP manifesto drafts. The explanation could have to do with internal tensions and pressure the EPP is facing from European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, to back the Green Deal. Her persistence might in turn be explained by an alleged attempt of the European Socialists to accuse von der Leyen of planning to scrap the Deal.
As regards the economic impact of these environment policies, they will weigh more heavily in less prosperous countries (and that means Romania as well).
- Digitalization. If the EPP leads the coalition that is expected to dictate the future course of Europe and if it upholds its own manifesto, then the future sounds much better than the past or the present. The European Union’s appetite for regulating digital space is by now common knowledge. The Data Protection Directive, legislation on digital services (Digital Service Act) and on the digital market (Digital Market Act) try to declutter a less regulated sector. The issue with existing regulatory attempts is that, with very few exceptions, they are defensive and have too little to do with innovation and the creation of a more competitive sector for information technologies. The European Union fell behind on almost all counts, from computer chips to artificial intelligence and social media. Attempts at banning or regulating this or that aspect of digital space usually end up as boring and annoying pop-ups with various disclaimers on cookies or personal data. And these do little to solve the problem they typically refer to.
“We want artificial intelligence, not artificial bureaucracy”, the EPP states. The party wants combined investments of 4% of EU’s GDP, in order to achieve “scientific excellence”. The funds are expected to be channeled in the development of key sectors, such as artificial intelligence. The manifesto also encourages start-ups, which are created in particular in the digital sector. And the good news is that AlliedForStartups is picking up just as “optimistic” and “constructive” vibes from the political programs of the Party of European Socialists and ALDE/Renew.
It is obvious how Romanian researchers would react at the news of such a large percentage of the GDP being allotted to a field as underfunded as in Romania. It’s just as obvious that the digital world as a whole was born in Silicon Valley, built on research funding provided most generously with few red tape limitations by the US government, in particular the Department of Defense. At present, China can also sustain a similar policy in the digital sector, not simply because it matches its geopolitical ambitions, but also because an autocracy unfortunately works faster, “without pop-ups”. Beyond the conflict in Ukraine, the Green Deal and other aspects, the 2024-2029 legislature is one of the last trains the European Union can catch to keep itself in the digital race.
- Cutting red tape. Bureaucracy appears in a number of paragraphs in the EPP manifesto. Were we to think this is a fanciful or declamatory undertaking, we cannot but notice the manifesto’s revolutionizing undertones: at one point the document speaks about the introduction of the “1 in, 2 out” principle in items of legislation. In other words, any new piece of legislation might lead to discarding two older ones. So far, the European Commission explored the possibility of working with the “1 in, 1 out” principle in several of its legislative initiatives.
Since such planning strictly refers to European decision-making, it won’t produce any institutional effects in Romania. And if did, the Romanian Parliament would probably explode, with no arsonist involved.
- The elimination of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and the introduction of a European Commissioner for Foreign Policy. An effect of frictions between Ursula von der Leyen and the current High Representative, Josep Borrell, this measure is, at least at declaratory level, meant as a solution to the lack of a uniform EU geopolitical action, sources in Brussels say. The demotion of the EU High Representative to the level of “Foreign Minister” essentially marks his break with European institutions other than the Commission. At present, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs sits and chairs the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and is appointed by the European Council (made up of heads of state). The solution appears to be based on a false assumption: what keeps the European Union from assuming a decisive and relevant geopolitical role is the long history of discord between Member States (one clear example in this regard is Hungary repeatedly standing in the way), not the appointment and job description of the EU High Representative. Often ridiculed in political and bureaucratic circles in Brussels, the incumbent High Representative, Josep Borrell, became the target of derision in the absence of a clearly articulated mandate, rather than of his own making.
Despite the underlying problem, a Commissioner for Foreign Affairs or whatever this office will be titled, could produce more consistent results, as it will report to the European Commission alone and might express more coherent stances in the tactical, if not strategic sense. The fact that Ursula von der Leyen’s position in the wake of the events in Gaza was completely at odds with those of Josep Borrell (the former favoring Israel and the latter drifting towards the pro-Palestinian camp) has raised many eyebrows in Brussels.
The political drama: a stage for Ursula von der Leyen, a “fake Spitzenkandidat”
Were we to actually look at the EPP Congress in Bucharest as a political drama or show, what PNL hopes to achieve here seems of secondary importance, because the director and the author of the play are the global EPP, and the local people’s party is more in charge of the props. Beyond how much the EPP top brass will enjoy the windy setting of the mushroom-like Romexpo exhibition venue, the event will serve to springboard Ursula von der Leyen’s already announced candidacy and the EPP’s election program. Hence the inverted comas – the EPP will most likely designate von der Leyen “Spitzenkandidat” at the Congress in Bucharest, although the status of “lead candidate” (which is how the German term translates) is seen as “fake” or formal. The controversy arises from the fact that in 2019, Ursula von der Leyen was handed her first term at the European Commission by Member State leaders, to the detriment of the European Parliament-backed Spitzenkandidat designated by the EPP at the time, Manfred Weber, still the president of the EPP today. This means that, unlike in 2019, this year Ursula von der Leyen will have no trouble navigating the Spitzenkandidat process. The 2019 political incident is not a violation of legislation per se, as this process is rather an informal practice based on a 2013 resolution of the European Parliament, and strictly not an obligation stipulated by EU treaties. The sense this will all be a political show stems from the fact that Ursula von der Leyen did not announce her candidacy for the European Parliament, a necessary halfway stage, and the accusation of being a “fake Spitzenkandidat” came from none other than Martin Schulz, the Socialist leader who in early 2010 laid the foundations of the Spitzenkandidat system as president of the European Parliament.
This subtle and baroque discussion hides a more important matter: the von der Leyen Commission or Commissions are depending more on the Member States and their leaders (France and Germany most notably) rather than on European parties and, by extension, on the electorate.
Let’s now put Romania in the spotlight, beyond the “photo ops” (or Facebook pictures, as they’re also called) of local Liberals alongside the EPP big guns. The media in Bucharest has suggested Klaus Iohannis might be designated as the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. I listed the full title as I might not get another chance, given Ursula von der Leyen’s plans to discard this office. Besides, even if the job was upheld and the EPP actually considered making a symbolic gift to the current president of Romania, this has little to do with the actual mechanism for designating the High Representative – which is normally the remit of the Party of European Socialists or ALDE/Renew.
Finally, another scenario circulated in Bucharest is the possibility of PNL making public its own list of European Parliament candidates on the sidelines of the Congress. In that event, PNL would only kill one bird with two stones (in terms of image or impact), because both the Congress and the list of candidates have a great visibility potential, regardless of how oblivious the general public in Romania is to all the elements discussed above.
The EPP is in lead position, but is burdened by great responsibility
The EPP is the political international with the widest representation in the last few structures of the European Parliament, and by way of consequence, the focal point of alliances that generated the Barroso, Juncker and von der Leyen Commissions. What’s surprising is the fact that Europe’s oldest political group also turns out to be the most alert and reactive to the sharp geopolitical transformations of the current context, as shown by the aforementioned long list of measures tied to security. And it was also EPP that fueled the European Commission and its president in implementing the famous Green Deal, leaving the European Greens high and dry.
How exactly did EPP accomplish that? An old saying about Stalinism states that a “right deviationist” is someone who keeps straight when the party swings to the left. Curiously enough, the same saying applies to the EPP’s trajectory in recent years, although with the roles in reverse: the party is the electorate now swinging back to the right, after swinging to the left in 2019, while the EPP is the right deviationist keeping straight ahead (if it is unclear, I’m in no way suggesting it is a communist party).
But then again, the electorate mattered little in Stalinism, although the opposite is true in democracies. The fact that a party that, until recently, was perceived as “Conservative” has now earned the reputation of a “center-right party”, due to the growing voice of radicals in ID and ECR, is relevant. An old party, maybe even uncool, the EPP eventually does the job in the EU, based on voters’ preferences. Ukraine and the negative effects of the Green Deal place the EPP in a lead position in 2024, enabling the party to easily distance itself from right-wing extremism while preserving its moderate supporters.
The responsibility that befalls the EPP in this happy vortex of circumstances is extremely high. The party cannot afford to “keep straight”, like the Stalinist saying goes, because the geopolitical transformations at global level are game-changing. The following years are decisive for the future – not only EPP’s. And, to quote another saying, this time about the Habsburg dynasty, which ruled Europe for approximately 1,000 years, the Habsburgs were not known for winning wars, but for their carefully crafted marriages. Right now, the EPP has a happy menage à trois with the Socialists and Renew, but it also has a war to win.
