The European Union is in trouble. Deep trouble. And Brexit, two-and-a-half years on from the 2016 referendum, is arguably the least of its problems.
Money – or the lack of it – continues to haunt the treasuries of the 27. Italy is perilously close to junk status; France, after the predations of the gilets-jaunes, is suddenly committed to a hike in the minimum wage that will cost the exchequer in excess of €10 billion; while Germany faces the prospect of an economic downturn led by a calamitous slump in car sales.
Just as crucially, there has been zero progress on the crisis of mass-immigration, which continues to plague politics right across the 27. No one wants an uncontrolled in-rush, but no one knows how to stop it. The West says, let’s talk and come up with a plan; the East, plus Italy (the country most obviously affected) says, let’s build a wall. The West – in public at least – says, it’s time to deepen the commitment to Ever Closer Union; the East says Brussels should keep its nose out of its business. The West says, we’re all in this together; the East says, who’s “we”?
For the next six months, starting this week, Romania will hold the presidency of the EU, meaning that it will chair all meetings of the European Council, including those at which the final shape of Britain’s departure is agreed. But Bucharest is a problem-child. The Social Democrat prime minister, Viorica Dãncilã, a former oil engineer who it has been claimed does not even speak proper Romanian, is widely seen as a proxy for Liviu Dragnea, a wealthy and controversial businessman who heads his party but was barred from the premiership after convictions for voter fraud and abuse of office.
Dragnea may yet regain power as a result of a proposed change in the law aimed at granting him an amnesty for past offences. The European Commission is deeply concerned about such such a cynical manipulation of the judicial process, but has thus far been powerless to act.
In the meantime, the Government, which has campaigned actively against “foreign” interference (i.e. the influence of Brussels), has moved closer to the four Visegrad states, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, each of which has vowed to resist future Muslim immigration even if it means the imposition of financial sanctions by Brussels.
No wonder Romania’s embattled President, Klaus Iohannis, said recently that his country wasn’t ready to chair the EU. “In my opinion,” he said, “we are not prepared for this. There’s no chance of good government … or proper involvement in European affairs.”
To which Jean-Claude Juncker, himself the embattled president of the Commission, responded in an interview with the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, “While I consider that Romania is well prepared at a technical level, I believe that the government in Bucharest has not yet fully understood what it means to preside over EU countries”.
There is an undoubted element of old-school arrogance in Juncker’s rebuke. A natural bureaucrat, the Luxemburger has been an EU insider for most of his adult life. He was already humiliated by the fact that Brexit began under his watch. The idea that he could leave office this summer after six months of institutional chaos is almost more than he can bear.
He is, however, right to be worried about Romania, which, like the Visegrad group, likes to extract every penny it can from Brussels while demanding the right to pursue its own course. It is not entirely impossible that Viorica Dãncilã will behave with due decorum while presiding over EU summits and setting the agenda for debate. She may even be persuaded that the looming financial crisis, plus the likelihood of a No-Deal Brexit, is bound to impact the readiness of net-contributors to the EU budget to underpin spending in the rest of the 27 at anything like the current rate. Alternatively, the selfish gene could kick in. If you are from the East, the West is a milch cow with at least 15 teats, and the idea that it might dry up is not something on which you would wish to dwell.
A champion of her country’s farm lobby, Dãncilã has a reputation as a poor communicator. She once accused opponents of her views on judicial reform of being “autistic”. On another occasion, while on an official visit to Montenegro, she referred to its capital as Pristina (the capital of Kosovo) instead of Podgorica.
What the Romanian presidency will mean for Britain between now and Brexit depends on whether or not Dãncilã plans to play it straight, without obvious showboating. The likelihood is that she will be concerned chiefly to ensure that Britain pays the £39 billion set out in the withdrawal agreement, at least a billion of which will be earmarked for Romania. Other than that, while stressing the duty of the British Government to safeguard the rights of EU nationals, she will be hoping that the UK’s departure will underline the need for Brussels to afford greater scope in future to the wishes and ambitions of member states.
But who knows? We are into uncharted territory. If the Visegrad states, with the possible backing of Austria, choose to line up behind Romania, not only Brussels, but Paris and Berlin could find the next six months extremely trying.
The scope for revolutionary change will be increased in May when elections take place to the European Parliament – the first such without UK participation. A populist surge, not only in the East, but in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, could create an entirely new political climate, giving rise to increased assertiveness on the part of those governments and movements that wish to see a rolling back of the power of Brussels and the acceptance of a new, nation-based laissez-faire.
Could it be that the EU is arriving at its Diocletian moment, when it divides into its Eastern and Western halves? If so, in which half will Italy sit and what happens to the single currency and open borders? There is everything to play for, and it could be that under the Romanian presidency we will begin to see how the pieces might fall.