• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Joe Biden
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

EU Challenges in Post-Brexit Period

By John Bruton • Aug 17, 2016
European Union

© Bet_Noire

The EU is a fragile, voluntary union that can only work if there is a give and a take, says former Prime Minister John Bruton.

There is no denying that the United Kingdom’s Brexit decision is a blow to the European Union (EU). Now, there is a real risk that the remaining 27 EU members will start pursuing national interests at the expense of the common EU interest. If they do, everyone will lose.

The 27 EU states need to act resolutely to strengthen EU-wide democracy, to ensure respect for EU rules, and to show that the EU can do business efficiently with the rest of the world.

The European Union is not a monolith. It is a voluntary union of 28 states, with no independent tax raising power. It operates on the basis of rules, which its 28 members must freely respect. If they fail to do so, the EU ceases to mean anything.

These rules are made under the authority of the EU’s treaties, which have been ratified by all member states, and the treaties can only be amended if all 28 states agree. The more members the EU has, the harder it becomes—by a form of geometric progression—for the EU to amend its treaties. A club that has no power to change it basic rules will eventually fossilize and die.

The 28 EU members are, in theory, sovereign equals, regardless of differences in population or wealth. But voting weights do recognize differences in size, on all issues where unanimity is not required.

The EU makes trade deals on behalf of its members, using the extra bargaining power that the union’s size gives it. But because it negotiates on behalf of 28 states, not just one, it can be harder for the EU to finalize a deal than it would be for one state negotiating alone.

In the case of some trade deals, it is sufficient for them to be ratified by the European Parliament alone. In others, all 28 national parliaments must ratify them too. In these cases, the EU has much more difficulty being an effective trade negotiator.

RESPECT FOR RULES

If one or more member states get into a habit of failing to respect EU rules or directives, the EU ceases to be operational, particularly if the states failing to respect the rules are the bigger ones.

In July, France threatened to flout an existing EU directive because efforts to amend it—in a direction that France wanted—were being blocked by the national parliaments of 11 EU states. In response, French Prime Minister Manuel Valls threatened not to implement the existing directive, which would completely undermine EU rulemaking.

Embed from Getty Images

Valls said: “If it is not possible to convince … France will not apply this directive.” That is a direct threat to the EU from a founding state. It is really dangerous.

COMPROMISES BETWEEN NATIONAL INTERESTS

Likewise, if it becomes too difficult for the EU to complete trade agreements because a few states within the EU hold up the agreement in order to advance national interests, then the EU’s utility as a trade negotiator fades away. This was an argument advanced by some of those who favored Brexit—namely that the UK could negotiate its own deals more easily outside the EU, without having to wait for 27 other countries to agree. That thesis will be put to the test soon.

The European Commission conceded, under pressure from national government facing early elections, that the trade deal with Canada must not only be ratified by the European Parliament and the 28 governments, but by the 28 national parliaments as well. This is a risky decision.

If the EU’s deal with Canada collapsed because one or two national parliaments failed to ratify it, years of work by Canadian and EU negotiators would go down the drain. Other countries would begin to doubt if negotiating with the EU is worth their time. The Brexit advocates would have won part of their argument.

But a lot more is at stake here than the content of the agreement with Canada.

TREATY CHANGE MUST BE POSSIBLE

It has become accepted wisdom in every EU capital that treaty change is off the agenda. This is because of: the requirement to have a referendum in Ireland on a treaty change involving a transfer of sovereignty; the voluntary decisions of France and the Netherlands to have referenda on certain EU matters—in the Netherlands’ case, even on a minor agreement with Ukraine; and the expectation that a treaty change would be preceded by a cumbersome convention.

The net result of this is that the EU will not consider treaty changes, even ones that might make it more democratic. If that remains the case, the EU will eventually freeze up because it will not be able to respond to new circumstances, and its member states will have to look to other, less democratic or transparent institutions than the EU to advance their collective interests. One could even see the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) being called into service for more broadly defined “security” purposes.

Some may argue that treaty change in general is not urgent. Indeed, there is no need for a comprehensive review of the treaties so soon after the Lisbon Treaty came into force. But a treaty change to respond to concerns that emerged in the UK referendum campaign—for example, changes to make the EU more visibly democratic and accountable—should be possible.

For example, treaty changes could be envisaged to:

1) Have the president of the European Commission be elected directly, in a two-round election, by the entire electorate of the EU. Have the president of the euro group be similarly elected by the eurozone countries.

2) Give national parliaments of the EU—if a minimum number agree—the power to require the commission to put forward, for consideration, a legislative proposal within the EU competence in the treaties.

3) National parliaments already can delay EU legislation, so why not allow them make a positive proposal?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Bet_Noire


Fair Observer - World News, Politics, Economics, Business and CultureWe bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, Blog, Europe, Politics TagsBrexit, EU, European Union, United Kingdom
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

How a British Court Ruling Could Delay Brexit Negotiations
By KnowledgeWharton • Nov 12, 2016
Can Brexit Be Achieved With Minimal Damage?
By KnowledgeWharton • Oct 17, 2016
Brexit and Populism’s Verbal Judo
By Eliot Assoudeh • Sep 08, 2016
Pulling the UK Out of Europe is No Easy Task
By John Bruton • Sep 01, 2016
Brexit Brings Revolution to Britain
By Christina Dykes • Jul 20, 2016
Brexit Blues Set In After EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Jul 19, 2016
Brexit Talks Could Run Till 2020
By John Bruton • Jul 11, 2016
From Brexit in the UK to Austerity in Spain
By Conn Hallinan • Jul 10, 2016
Brexit Party Over, Hangover Sets In
By John Feffer • Jul 01, 2016
First Steps for Post-Brexit Government
By John Bruton • Jun 29, 2016
Tell Me Again How Racism Played No Part in Brexit
By Natalie Pitimson • Jun 29, 2016
Why Brexit and the Success of Trump Should Not Surprise You
By Yasmeen Sami Alamiri & Ryan J. Suto • Jun 27, 2016
Why the British Said No to Europe
By John Pilger • Jun 27, 2016
Turkey’s EU Dream is Dead on Arrival
By Nathaniel Handy • Jun 26, 2016
Brexit and Trump Are For Baby Boomers, Not Millennials
By Vasundhara Saravade • Jun 26, 2016
The UK-EU Separation: How Fast Does it Happen?
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 25, 2016
Does the Brexit Vote Mark the End of Internationalism?
By John Feffer • Jun 23, 2016
With Brexit, London Would Lose Business as a Global Financial Center
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 23, 2016
Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Brexit
By Fair Observer • Jun 21, 2016
Britain Should Stay in the European Union
By John Bruton • Jun 20, 2016
The Human Factor in the Politics of Fear
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 19, 2016
To Brexit or Not to Brexit?
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 16, 2016
What if the UK Makes a Brexit?
By Fair Observer • Jun 11, 2016
As Brexit Approaches, Europe’s Left is Divided
By Conn Hallinan • May 31, 2016
The Fuss About the UK Government’s EU Referendum Booklet
By Michael Julien • Apr 22, 2016
The Question of Sovereignty in the EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Apr 02, 2016
Why a Brexit Could Sink the EU
By KnowledgeWharton • Mar 26, 2016
UK Security Would Benefit From Brexit
By Bruce Newsome • Mar 15, 2016
The Road to Brexit and What it Would Mean
By Douglas Webber & INSEAD Knowledge • Mar 07, 2016
UK Exit Affects All of European Union
By Maxime Larivé • Feb 24, 2016
Brexit is More Complicated Than You Think
By John Bruton • Jan 28, 2016

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious The Cost of Escaping a Syrian Prison
Next PostNext Education Alone Cannot Eradicate Poverty
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept