Europe’s Troubled Politics and Uncertain Future
The migrant crisis and pending UK referendum are weakening EU integration
Europe is facing a confluence of serious political challenges that put at risk the region’s continued integration as envisaged in the various treaties that govern the EU. Although many of the challenges of the economic crisis are still evident, a clear – and understandable – shift in policy priorities has taken place. Political and security matters that have come to the fore are proving at least as challenging as the fiscal and economic issues that preceded them.
The migrant crisis, along with trends in several countries toward political fragmentation and polarisation, are contributing to an environment in which European governments are increasingly at odds with each other, and with regional commitments and objectives. Europe’s future is once again in some doubt.
Schengen an Important Symbol and Possible Precedent
A striking consequence of the migrant crisis has been the reintroduction of border controls between states in the Schengen Area. Schengen facilitates the free movement of goods and persons across 26 member countries and is one of the most important symbols of European unity. Since 2015, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Malta, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden have introduced temporary border controls, with the most common justification being a “big influx of people seeking international protection”. A broader suspension of Schengen – perhaps for a two-year period as was discussed by EU ministers in January – would be a serious setback for European integration. If Schengen proves reversible, it could be argued that so is almost any other integration initiative, and, with an important precedent in place, the probability of other reversals would be higher.
There is a variety of reasons for more fragmented and/or polarised politics, although many factors are not specific to the European agenda, such as the greater use of social media, allowing for a wider range of political ideas to circulate than traditional media outlets. The wider political spectrum in Europe often includes more sceptical views of the EU than most mainstream parties.
Plenty to Stoke Euroscepticism
Euroscepticism was boosted by the financial crisis, as there was a view in some countries that received support packages that fiscal austerity was being imposed from outside, and not always with the full support of host governments or the general public. At the same time, in some contributing countries there was a sense of having to bear an unfair regional financial burden. In both cases, the underlying unease centred on perceived losses of sovereignty associated with ceding control of national finances.
Euroscepticism is being boosted again by the migrant crisis, with a different, more fundamental set of concerns regarding sovereignty focused on control of national borders and populations. The latest “Eurobarometer” poll (Autumn 2015) reveals a decline in positive sentiment toward the EU in 24 of 28 member countries, and immigration overtook the economy last year in the public’s view as the region’s most important issue. Open disagreements between national leaders, and between national and EU leaders, do not inspire public confidence in an acceptable regional solution being reached. In these circumstances, reverting to national policy approaches makes political sense for many countries’ leaders, including those in states with strong historical commitments to the EU.
Looking ahead, there appears to be no immediate solution to the migrant crisis with respect to either the conflict zones from which migrants are fleeing or the logistical and political problems Europe is facing with their arrival. It is in this unfavourable environment that the EU is facing another meaningful political challenge, the UK membership referendum.
The UK Referendum: No Good Outcome for the EU
Regardless of the UK referendum outcome, the EU will have been weakened in the process. A vote to leave would deliver a powerful message of dissatisfaction, possibly emboldening anti-EU campaigns elsewhere and complicating EU decision-making in cases where national and regional interest are not aligned. A UK vote to stay may encourage renegotiation campaigns elsewhere, particularly if the British government is understood as having successfully improved the country’s membership terms and strengthened its sovereignty with a “better deal”. This runs the risk of opening up any number of issues that other countries may have reluctantly accepted earlier as part of the downside of EU membership, but were either offset by other benefits or thought no longer negotiable. At the very least, the next attempted EU treaty change is likely to be more contentious, as several countries must hold referenda as part of ratification.
Even with all the challenges faced by the EU, it will remain Europe’s single most important unifying force for the foreseeable future. The notion of “ever closer union” as per the treaties may run its course earlier than Europhiles would prefer, but with judicial, legislative and bureaucratic infrastructures in place, the institutional integrity of the EU is under no meaningful short-term threat. The real questions surround the reach of the EU’s policies and institutions versus those of member states, and whether governments choose to confront emerging policy issues at the EU or national level, regardless of previous agreements on which authorities prevail. Unlike any other time in the history of the EU, Europe now faces the real prospect of eroding support for further integration, and quite possibly a serious setback regarding membership.
FITCH RATINGS