Historians will look back on the current moment as a key decision point for the European Union. On the one hand, the EU political class and its supporters are more enthusiastic than ever about the future of the European project. Brussels regulators are pursuing a raft of bold new policymaking initiatives, including appointing the EU’s first ever housing commissioner and introducing world-first regulations on AI, antitrust, and the environment.
On the other hand, storm clouds are gathering. Following months of protests from furious farmers and anger ratcheting up over immigration and crime, the right-wing Patriots for Europe group is now the third-largest grouping in the European parliament. Other parties resorted to a ‘cordon sanitaire’ to keep its representatives, which include MEPs from Hungary’s Fidesz and France’s National Rally, from winning any key appointments, such as committee chairmanships.
As tensions heat up, there is increased scrutiny on Brussels, where there is little political accountability. Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected to her role heading up the European Commission in a secret vote behind closed doors. Her second term, paired with the ‘cordon sanitaire,’ neatly sidesteps the populist outcry of the parliamentary election results and sends a clear signal to member state electorates that their concerns are less important than the EU’s grand mission.
The Patriots of Europe are coarse and objectionable in both tone and policy, but the ‘cordon sanitaire’ against them is difficult to defend, nonetheless. Is it right that they should be so explicitly excluded from the governance process? The centrist consensus of the EU establishment is too focussed on navel-gazing. Shutting out the far-right will only fuel polarisation. It lends credibility to euroscepticism. All this, in the name of a boundless regulatory agenda to seize control of every issue in sight and centralise Europe’s policymaking power in Brussels.
Europe’s leaders ought to return to the basics. What is the European project? What is it for? Writing from Britain, it is fascinating to watch the EU change and grow. After Brexit, Britain forged new trade ties outside Europe and is now joining the CPTPP, a global trade bloc where there is no ‘parliament’ or ‘housing commissioner’ and no one tries to regulate other members’ industries or internal affairs.
When did the EU stop being a trade bloc? When did it evolve into an all-consuming beast intent on gobbling up member states’ regulatory sovereignty? The European project has devolved into a race to the bottom. Brussels is too intent on making its mark on the world stage, especially by impressing Washington with its ‘world-first’ regulations, at the expense of the interests of European citizens and companies.
With the beginning of a second five-year term, von der Leyen’s administration had the opportunity for a reset. Instead, it seems determined to put its blinkers on and press ahead with its destructive agenda of overregulation. The Green New Deal, besides a few small tweaks, will go ahead, paving the way for more short-sighted attempts at environmental regulation. Technology regulations including the Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, and AI Act will continue to wreak havoc, jettisoning innovation and investment in Europe.
The continuing stream of mammoth new laws from Brussels means the door remains open to whatever ham-fisted regulatory crusade the centrist cabal wants to pursue next. No doubt, they will strengthen their footprint in other areas over the next five years, such as through an unscientific vaping crackdown. Already, Brussels has been shoring up support from member states for aggressive regulations, even bans, on vaping products, which are healthier than cigarettes and help smokers quit. The effective burial of new Eurobarometer smoking data is a bad omen for light-touch regulation and sensible, evidence-based policymaking.
The EU is long overdue a reset. Voters and protesters are crying out for one. But the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats is unwilling to countenance switching paths. Instead, the answer always seems to be gifting themselves more power. They may well succeed in forestalling political dangers in the short term, but looking further into the future, they are putting the European project in grave danger by refusing the confront the existential threats it faces head-on.
Dear reader ,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
