
These high-level political issues represent the top-down face of the medal which is greatly important for the EU functioning. Nevertheless, it seems that media and analysts have forgotten the bottom-up dynamics. In fact, it is too often forgotten the fact that roughly half of the Union's budget is still spent on Common Agricultural Policies expenditures. This is an evident paradox for an organisation which would have aimed at being one of the most dynamic economy on 2010, as the slogan of the so called Lisbon Strategy witnesses. Thus, we cannot once again avoid to tackle this very issue comparing the current needs of the Union and its strategy for the future.
In addition, great contrast have occurred between the EU and developing countries when it has come the time to discuss agricultural arrangements before the WTO. We will just touch upon development issues to notice the fact that the EU is the first aid donor in a global scale, especially with regards to Africa. Another paradox which is not circumventable discussing the budget sharing within chapters of expenditures.
This premise is just to clear the fact that the Union is, in some domains, firstly unbalanced within itself and in a second round also with regards to his role as a global actor. Even though we are not denying the importance of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, there is an increasing widespread sensation that the current debate EU has set aside the internal policies aspect to concentrate on its purely political-diplomatic issues and on the necessity of a structural reforms.
If Europe has to find its path to a greater external influence, it should not make the debate on its internal polices shrink down. In fact, if the Union has greatly improved the capacity to expand and regulate the internal market, it seems that the priorities of deepening the integration on the so called social policy domain and of continuing to bet resolutely on educational, cultural and civil society-related issues are slightly fading.
Europe has been created, but how about the Europeans?
There are basically two aspects on the light of which it could be useful to engage the matter, namely the internal and the external part of the issue.
First of all, internally. After the Maastricht Treaty, the rethoric on EU has astonishingly progressed to the point that we can state that the early 90s have constituted one of the golden periods of the communicational actions within the Union. In addition, the reshaping of the EU structure in three pillars, have made easier for citizens to understand the basics on the Brussels-based institutions.
Despite some critics who claimed that the Maastricht Treaty has been barely nothing but a marketing operation, it is empirically measurable that the awareness on the importance of EU institution among citizens has improved in this very time and despite technical or academic disputes, putting into force at the European Citizenship has unarguably enhanced both the consciousness of a common identity and the capability of the European Court of Justice to regulate discriminations on the grounds of nationality. These facts coupled with the several European programmes for mobility (Erasmus, EVS and so on) have made more affordable to move from one country to another.
Notwithstanding this evidence, the effort has not been sufficient as these programs have touched upon only a limited number of citizens creating a valuable but still not large “elite” of people who have been able to overcome the obstacles which hide behind the mobility within the Union. In addition, these virtuous dynamics could not be enhanced without a strong civil society and NGO sector which should be able to connect the various territories across Europe in order to give the larger number of possibility to travel, work and learning “foreign” languages.
In all the manuals on European Integration economy we can find an extensive explanation of the importance to react at economic asymmetrical shock by the so called labour mobility. Nevertheless, we can hardly find a piece of literature explaining how this process should be enhanced. One of the best way of making that occur could be through an improving of the above-mentioned projects. On the contrary, one should propose other options, as usual in theoretical discussions.
Are new Enlargement Strategies advisable?
The EU has been and is greatly engaged in Enlargement issues, granting a vast range of programmes in order to make candidate and neighbour countries converge to its standards. Even if we consider the financial side of the issue we cannot avoid to notice the high members of funds transferred to third countries, one of the most powerful anchors for change. Actually, the most critical part of Enlargement is the current political-diplomatic debate, thus the top-down process.
Nevertheless, the Union should take more into account the educational and cultural cooperation as a long term strategy for the enlargment process. Offering the opportunity of study, work, volunteering ad exchanging experiences and good practices to third countries could induce two main spill over effects: the improving of their economic performances (as a result, increasing the economic opportunities also for EU stakeholders) and the expanding of the Union's values.
It should be in any case seriously taken into consideration both as a deepening and as an enlargement strategy for the very simple reason that building trust among European peoples would improve a positive perception of the EU.
No comments:
Post a Comment