Liberal Hungary being led up the gallows

Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán (of "illiberal democracy" fame) has called on the EU to re-open the debate over the death penalty.  It seems that the growing popularity of the far-right Jobbik, which performed well in the European elections last year, has pressured Orbán’s Fidesz party into lurching even further to the right. With past controversies over meddling with the judiciary and the media, it might seem hard to imagine Orbán has much room left on his right to move into, but bringing back the death penalty is certainly eye-catching.

There is no chance of this debate gaining any traction, however, since being anti-death penalty is practically a point of continental pride (though there are days when it feels like it’s one of the few policies we have left to be proud of ). The abolition of the death penalty is enshrined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, and it’s not simply an EU matter either - abolishing the death penalty is a key part of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is part of the Council of Europe. All of its member states, including Russia, have signed up to it, and most have even abolished the death penalty in times of war (the remaining exception to the original ban on the death penalty). The only country in Europe that still executes its own citizens is Belarus, which is hardly a role model among nations.

It’s increasingly worrying that Hungary is drifting further and further to the right. After years of Fidesz rule, it’s sadly all too easy to be jaded and cynical about Hungarian politics. The civil liberties committee of the European Parliament is looking into the situation in Hungary, and the spectre of the Article 7 procedure – which would suspend Hungary’s EU voting rights if it’s found to be in violation of the founding principles of the Union – is constantly haunting the Parliament’s debates on Hungarian politics. Whatever the merits of Article 7, in the long term lecturing is unlikely to encourage a return to a fuller liberal democracy in Hungary. Perhaps some of the debate needs to turn to the question of how to engage Hungarian voters in less authoritarian alternatives.

Operation Triton falls far short of our proclaimed values

The recent news that 800 migrants died in the Mediterranean is a tragic reminder that Europe has still failed to come up with a proper plan for the humanitarian crisis taking place on its southern shores.  Lampedusa was supposed to be a wake-up call, alerting us to the scale of the crisis and its human cost.  Every year thousands die crossing the Mediterranean Sea in the hope of finding safety and a better life.  Wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq and Somalia have thrown our neighbourhood into chaos.  While the brunt of the burden is borne by the neighbouring countries, the numbers have exploded, with 3,000 dying in the attempt last year.

In the wake of Lampedusa, the Italian Navy launched its Mare Nostrum mission, patrolling the Mediterranean as both a border security and a humanitarian mission to prevent more death along our shores. The mission was a success, but it was an expensive one for the Italian state to bear in facing what is essentially a European crisis.

The Dublin Regulation system was set in place so that asylum seekers would have to apply for asylum in the EU state that they arrived in.  This was to prevent “forum shopping”, where asylum seekers might try to apply in other Member States. The upshot is that Member States with an external border – such as Italy, Malta and Greece – have borne the brunt of the burden. Indeed, in Greece things have become so bad that their facilities and treatment of asylum seekers has been found to be in breach of human rights. Proposals to share the burden more equitably between the North and the South in Europe have rarely received much sympathy from the Northern Member States.  Operation Triton, an EU mission led by Frontex, the border agency, replaced Mare Nostrum last year.  The EU mission has only a third of the budget of the Italian mission, with 7 boats, 2 planes and 1 helicopter – hardly an adequate patrol for the sea lanes of North Africa. Border patrol and surveillance, rather than search and rescue, is the focus, though as this case shows rescues will be attempted.

There was strong opposition to Triton having the same search and rescue mission as Mare Nostrum. Shockingly, the UK position was that saving lives would make Europe a more attractive destination – effectively arguing that the dangers and death faced by migrants is a good deterrence. It seems that Europe is worryingly content to let its values stop at the border. With thousands dying every year just off our coast, you would think that Triton would be upgraded to a full Mare Nostrum-style mission.

This tragedy must wake the EU up to its humanitarian duty and the need for solidarity within the EU on tackling the crises that drive this migration as well as helping those in need.

Juncker’s Euro Army: A Weapon of Mass Distraction?

Commission President Juncker has advocated a European army in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt:

“"Eine solche Armee würde uns helfen, eine gemeinsame Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu gestalten und gemeinsam die Verantwortung Europas in der Welt wahrzunehmen", sagte Juncker. Mit einer eigenen Armee, so der Luxemburger weiter, könnte Europa glaubwürdig auf eine Bedrohung des Friedens in einem Mitgliedsland oder in einem EU-Nachbarland reagieren. So könne man Russland den Eindruck vermitteln, "dass wir es ernst meinen mit der Verteidigung der Werte der Europäischen Union".”

“”Such an army would help us to shape a common foreign and security policy and to take the common responsibility of Europe in the world seriously,” said Juncker.  With its own army, the Luxembourger continued, Europe could credibly react to threats to the peace in Member States or in the European Neighbourhood.  That way Russia would be given the impression “that we take the defence of EU values seriously.”” [Own Translation]

Given that the interview was mostly focused on the Eurozone crisis and economic questions, it was strange of Juncker to raise the issue of a European army, which isn’t exactly on anyone’s agenda at the moment. Member States already co-operate on defence to some degree through the European Battlegroups, and co-operate on common missions such as Operation Atalanta, which tackles piracy off the coast of Somalia.

Integrating defence is obviously a sensitive issue, and there is a lot that can be done in co-ordinating research, earmarking troops for joint battlegroups for peacekeeping missions, and a better division of labour. However, a Euro Army is a mad fantasy without a greater level of democratic coherence in the EU and a better consensus on how to act on foreign policy. I daresay everyone realises this, and Juncker knows this, so the EU army remark comes across as a silly distraction, even if it’s one that can effectively generate headlines.

Security without Liberty – the UK joins the Schengen Information System

A Fistful of Euros has discovered that the UK will join the new Schengen Information System II, which is designed to allow border control, customs and police authorities to share information. Under SIS II, information on suspects, potential illegal immigrants, missing persons and stolen property can be shared. Biometric data, such as fingerprints and photographs, and European Arrest Warrants can also be shared.

The fact that the UK is joining in on this aspect of European integration is not going to be trumpeted from the rooftops of Westminster in the current Europe-bashing climate. It does point to the fact that cross-border co-operation on crime and law enforcement is necessary in a globalised world – and in a common space like the EU in particular. However, UK citizens aren’t exactly getting the full benefits of the Schengen system. Passport controls are still an issue, and Britain loses out on potential tourism from countries such as Japan and China because they are not part of the common visa.

All the extra security and co-operation that the Schengen zone entails is meant not only to create better security for the sake of more security – rather, it is to help create more liberties and freedoms for citizens. Not for the first time, it seems that security is preferred over liberty in the UK, at least when it comes to “Europe”.

Taking out the Troika

The vilified Troika – the group consisting of the Commission, ECB and IMF that oversees the implementation of the bailout programmes – should be replaced, Juncker said in his election mission statement. The full quote was (PDF, page 8):

“In the future, we should be able to replace the ‘troika’ with a more democratically legitimate and more accountable structure, based around European institutions with enhanced parliamentary control both at European and at national level.”

The revival of this statement probably points to how Juncker feels the Greek negotiations should go. Debt forgiveness is too controversial and divisive (and Greece appears to be less fixed on it now), but a change in debt terms and a replacement of the Troika system would be a big win for Syriza that might be sellable to the rest of the Eurozone. Merkel has poured cold water on the idea of replacing the Troika, and Spain has also reiterated that solutions are in the gift of the Eurozone states acting together, not the EU institutions. Still, it could be an element to Eurozone negotiations if they successfully manage to attain a Europe-wide, as well as Greek, focus.

So what would replacing the Troika mean?

Replacing the Troika raises a lot of questions. First, the IMF is part of the Troika – if it’s replaced by the EU institutions in some form, then what happens to IMF support (and Member State contributions to it)? Would it be replaced by a Eurozone Monetary Fund which would in turn be part of the IMF system?

A bigger question is what greater democratic accountability would look like. Simply replacing the Troika with, say, a joint European Parliament and national parliament committee to review implementation or to hold the relevant EU official/commissioner to account would be problematic. If the budget and debt rules are already set and the allowances for public investment already built in, then what is it that MEPs and MPs would bring to the process? Decisions about implementation should remain with the national parliament, which would leave the EP little to do if the overall direction is already part of the rules.

Such democratic scrutiny would be helpful, however. By analysing the situation and flagging issues, it would make the process more responsive to the country’s needs. The European Parliament, which has voted through funds for crisis-hit countries for specific purposes, could better target such money as a result. But the money that the EU provides directly would be small. There would still be a sense of bilaterial contracts between creditor and debtor states and the sensitivity over implementing rules, loaning money and negotiations would remain. In this sense the German position – that the Troika is an instrument to help the Eurogroup assess programmes and decide how to proceed – has a point.

And this leaves out the power and influence of the ECB, which it gains from being the only European actor with the financial firepower and authority to act decisively – and ask for its conditions to be observed.

Replacing the Troika is not just about getting rid of some hate figures; it goes to the heart of how the Eurozone is run, including the unanswered question of fiscal union.