• Type:
  • Genre:
  • Duration:
  • Average Rating:

caspian report

Is Macron a friend of the Rich?

Recently France has been swayed by large scale protests carried out by tens of thousands of its citizens in response to a series of economic reforms since the new government came to power in 2017. A growing mistrust amid the tax cuts on corporations and high earners while raising taxes for the working class has prompted the people to put pressure on the government to make big changes.

Emmanuel Macron founded the centrist movement named “En Marche!” in April 2016 and much to the surprise of many, won the elections the following year. The French saw promise in Macron’s manifesto, which promised significant economic reforms backed up by his relevant experiences both in the public and private sectors. The fragile economy and mistrust for the previous regime left the people with no options but to take a risk instead of voting far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. However as the recent “Yellow Vests” movement spread out in France the truths behind the reforms have only started to get publicity.

Historical information

Francois Hollande, who preceded Macron as President, failed to live up to expectations having faced major opposition from his proposed economic and employment reforms. He faced criticism for many issues including failing to address difficulties in integrating immigrants into the French society and even pandering to the right with his comments on stripping French citizens with dual nationalities off their citizenship following the high profile terrorist attacks that shook the country, including the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015 and the Nice truck attack in 2016. Hollande decided not to re-run for the election due to a combination of social, political and economic frailties and the huge mistrust shared among the French citizens.[1] Macron on the other hand was appointed Deputy Secretary General to Hollande in 2012, while also serving as Minister of Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs between 2014 and 2016, where he formulated several business reforms to aid the economy.[2]

Macron was born in Amiens, France and is an alumnus of the elite École Nationale d’Administration. He showed great aptitude in the areas of literature, politics and theatre at an early age and had been able to forge powerful connections during his time as an inspector at the French Finance Ministry during Nicolas Sarkozy’s tenure as President. However he switched civil service to work in investment banking at Rothchilde and Co where he swiftly rose up the ranks to become managing director before being appointed as Francois Hollande’s staff. [3] His most significant contribution in investment banking was his crucial role in advising Nestlé on its USD 12 billion acquisition of a unit of Pfizer in 2012 which earned the nickname- “the Mozart of finance”.[4]

Despite public protests as, the business reform package he introduced in 2015 as Finance Minister was forced through parliament by then Prime Minister Manuel Valls who invoked the special article 49.3 procedure which also received criticism from within the ruling Socialist party.[5] However he soon resigned (in 2016), and founded En Marche! And announced his candidacy for the 2017 presidential election. His manifesto attracted a lot of attention, and was even able to gain support from both the left and the right, especially through his proposals that aimed at lowering housing and corporate taxes, reforming pensions and welfare, and allocating substantial resources.

He became France’s youngest ever president by defeating Le Pen in 2017. He had received 66.1 percent of the 47 million votes cast. He had never held an elected post but it did not seem very difficult for him to achieve his objective.

Plans for the economy/budget:

The biggest test, and also Macron’s main objective has been to overhaul France’s economy. He inherited a very poorly performing economy from his predecessor with the biggest challenges being[6]:

  • 10% unemployment, and nearly one in four among under-25s
  • Bloated public spending (56% of GDP compared with 44% in Germany and 39% in the UK)
  • Low economic growth

 His twin aims are to boost investment and set up a “new growth model” that is both good for social mobility and the environment. Macron has been advocating a Nordic-style economic model that mixes spending cuts of 60 billion euros with a 50 billion euro stimulus package over the same period. The “spend and save” system that Macron plans is meant to mix targeted public spending with fiscal discipline as a Nordic model. Besides lowering corporate tax rate from 33 to 25 percent he also has plans to slash 120,000 jobs from France’s bloated civil service while lowering companies and households; tax bill by 20 billion euros.[7] These are part of the major economic reforms that Macron has planned while making France stick to the EU government deficit limit of 3 percent of GDP.[8]

Security and Defence

In light of the recent terrorist attacks that have rattled France and resulted in the loss of hundreds of lives, Macron has proposed increase in defence and policing by recruiting 10,000 new police officers and expand prison capacities. He also advocates the idea of an EU army, and has been promoting joint military projects and setting up a permanent European headquarters.

Some of his notable plans for governance includes reducing number of lawmakers by a third in both the Senate and National Assembly, banning the hiring of family-members as assistants of lawmakers, and banning consulting activity for people holding elected office.[9]

Foreign relations and others

France’s commitment to 2015 Paris climate agreement has been among the key global issues that Macron has promised to back-up and promote since his early days in the office.

When it comes to foreign relations he has voiced support for multilateral institutions such as the UN security council, however also supporting the promotion of the French language and Francophone institutions as “an essential vector of our influence and a weapon against the spread of radicalism”. He stands strong against the Syrian regime led by Bashar al Assad and wants him to answer for his crimes before an international tribunal while being a strong critic of Russian policy, backing EU sanctions following the Ukraine crisis.

Europe

Macron is pro-EU and has campaigned for greater cooperation and integration within the EU on fiscal, environmental and social regulation. In his European agenda he has expressed his plans towards a common fiscal policy, a joint finance minister, implementation of the banking union and a bolstered bilateral relations with Germany.[10]

Macron’s tenure as president

Macron came to power at a problematic time- he faced a massive restructuring of regional powers following the Brexit referendum, as well as US President Donald Trump’s reshuffling of American interests. These major changes made the situation a little more difficult from the very start, and especially after the shocking withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate accord, a decision made my Trump himself, who does not believe in climate change. This prompted Macron to offer France as a second homeland to climate researchers.

One of the first things he did was making a state visit immediately after his election to meet Angela Merkel in his quest for improved Franco-German relations and since forged a strong relationship with Merkel and agreed on a “common roadmap” for Europe. However Merkel has a more cautious approach than Macron when it comes to major issues concerning the EU.[11]

He has always been vocal about increased European cooperation on many issues, and has been pushing for a “European Army” to improve security in the EU-with Merkel quick to endorse Macron’s plan, and . Macron also voiced strong interests to pursue security dialogue with Russia seeking to improve EU-Russia relations especially in terms of security.

In France

Macron had been quick in pressing for reforms soon as he took charge- with one of his first significant contributions being against mass corruption and nepotism in French politics- introducing a ban on elected representative from hiring family members.[12]

Yellow vests movement

In the May 2018, a political movement arose that challenged Macron’s economic reforms. It has been named “Mouvement des gilets jaunes” or the “Yellow Vests Movement” where demonstrations started on 17 November 2018, months after it was created. The main protagonists of the now ongoing movement are the ordinary working and middle class French citizens who strongly feel that Macron is not the leader for the ordinary working class. What triggered the movement was the proposal to keep increasing a direct tax on fuel, as well as the carbon tax. Although Macron stated that these were part of his plans to reduce fossil fuel reliance but it has been widely criticised as an act of “taxing the poor to tackle climate change”.[13]

In his first budget Macron’s business friendly government had proposed trimming corporate rates and a “wealth tax” on the rich, explaining that boosting investment will aid the economy, however also increasing certain taxes such as one on low-income pensioners. While giving tax breaks to big corporations, plans of charging lower taxes on high-paid workers in certain industries have garnered mistrust from ordinary citizens and political rivals alike, with the left-wing calling him “Hero to the rich”.[14] He also moved to loosen hiring and firing regulations on companies to improve France’s paralysed labour market.

Protests have been going on for over a month and hundreds of thousands of French citizens have taken part in what seems to be an anti-Macron rebellion, with the premier making a U-turn by suspending the proposed tax hike amid the protests that have turned violent. French authorities have deployed nearly a hundred thousand security forces during several days of protests detaining thousands and using anti-riot weapons such as tear gas against protestors.[15]

In a very recent bid to end the standoff, Macron announced a package of measures for low-income workers estimated by economists to cost up to 15 billion euros. Besides suspending the fuel-tax hike plans for six months, he also announced raising the minimum wage by a 100 euros per month from 2019 while scrapping the recent increase in social security taxes on pensioners earning less than 2000 euros.[16]

The protests are still ongoing with protestors expecting their 42 directives to be accepted. However recently it has garnered criticism for a lack of leader and organisation, and violence by protestors and use of force by police has already resulted in over 500 injuries. Despite Macron announcing several major changes bowing down to protestors, there are many demands to yet to be met and it is not clear when or how the Yellow Vests Movement will end.

Conclusion

Macron, poised to become “Europe’s next leader” as Merkel nears her exit from politics, saw a major slump in his popularity since the protests. Falling out of favour may mean nationalists such as Marine Le Pen gaining support, and with the rise of the populism in Europe in the past few years, it may not come as a surprise if France leans towards the far-right. A major shift in powers may make the situation in the region volatile and with France being a major power in the EU, and with the UK poised to officially leave the EU in a few months, it would cause a major restructuring in regional powers and interests. Most concerning of all, with countries such as Italy, Hungary and Poland having already given in to populism, a major power joining their ranks will shake up the EU and prove to be a major challenge in the future of the EU. The current situation and its developments in France will have a significant impact on the economic and political stability in the rest of Europe.

[1] https://theconversation.com/where-did-it-all-go-wrong-francois-hollande-flops-out-of-presidential-race-69806

[2] https://www.biography.com/people/emmanuel-macron-050817

[3] https://www.nouvelobs.com/rue89/20160830.RUE5451/au-fait-il-faisait-quoi-chez-rothschild-emmanuel-macron.html

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/9bd62502-12cf-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76

[5] Revault d’Allonnes, David (17 February 2015). “Loi Macron : comment le 49-3 a été dégainé comme un dernier recours”

[6] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39845905

[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39845905

[8] https://www.ft.com/content/37223e92-3319-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

[9] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests/french-yellow-vests-protest-in-their-thousands-for-fifth-saturday-idUSKBN1OE0BF

[10] https://www.ft.com/content/37223e92-3319-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

[11] “Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel pledge to draw up ‘common road map’ for Europe”. The Telegraph. 15 May 2017

[12] “France bans hiring of spouses by politicians in wake of Fillon scandal”. Reuters. 27 July 2017.

[13] https://www.politico.eu/article/macrons-mistake-taxing-the-poor-to-tackle-climate-change/

[14] https://www.thelocal.fr/20170927/hero-to-the-rich-macron-cuts-taxes-for-wealthy-in-first-french-budget-france

[15] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-tax/france-drops-fuel-tax-hike-as-yellow-vest-anger-persists-idUSKBN1O40PQ

[16] https://www.france24.com/en/20181210-macron-france-tax-cuts-raise-wages-speech-yellow-vest-unrest

The Weaponisation of Space

Space: The final frontier, where no war has been fought before. In the past few years, both states and firms have shown a renewed interest for space exploration. New ambitious missions were launched for scientific and commercial purposes, with some aiming even at landing a manned mission on Mars. But will space also become the final frontier of warfare?

Space: Militarization & Weaponization

When examining the use of space for war-related activities, an important distinction must be made between the militarization and the weaponization of space.

The term “militarization” refers to the use of space for military purposes; be it reconnaissance, targeting, communication, direct attack or anything else. In this sense, space was militarized decades ago. The armed forces of advanced countries, as the United States and its competitors like Russia and China, have deployed satellites in orbit to perform such tasks and support their combat operations on Earth.

On its part, the term “weaponization” has a more specific meaning: it indicates the deployment of weapons in space, and sometimes also that of weapons capable of striking space-based assets. Space could soon be weaponized, and in some sense it already is. But to understand the scope of this trend, it is first necessary to consider the legal framework of space use.

The legal framework

Due to its nature, space is part of the global commons. It is therefore a domain that anyone can freely access and exploit for various activities. This conception underlies the legal framework on the use of space, and this is why there have been efforts to prevent its militarization and most of all its weaponization. However, important juridical vacuums persist, and they leave room for exploiting space for military purposes.

The most important treaty in this sense is the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to which a total of 107 countries have adhered; including the US, Russia and China. Its aim is to regulate activity in space and in particular to avoid an arms race. It states that “The exploration and use of outer space […] shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries”, that space “shall be free for exploration and use by all States”, and establishes that it “is not subject to national appropriation”. But its most important provision appears in Article IV, which reads: “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner”. It also establishes the peaceful use of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

The treaty therefore explicitly forbids the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (or WMDs) in space. But in spite of the will to promote the peaceful use of this domain, there is no clear prohibition on the placement of non-WMD weapons in space. In this sense, an important provision concerning Anti-Ballistic Missiles system (or ABMs) existed in the 1972 ABM Treaty between the US and the USSR (later Russia). The treaty banned the deployment of similar systems in space, but when Washington abandoned the Treaty in 2002 the prohibition became practically void.

Another important concept is the one of non-interference, which is included in several treaties and prevents states from conducting actions that may hinder the verification of compliance with the norms on the use of outer space.

Then, there are a number of Resolutions of the UN General Assembly that call for avoiding the military use of space and for ensuring that only peaceful activities take place there; but for their very nature they are not binding. Still, it may be argued that the existing juridical body and the expressed desires of states to grant that space remains a domain to be used only for peaceful purposes are already sufficient to create a consuetudinary and possibly binding norm against the weaponization of space; but this remains subject to interpretation and, most importantly, the behaviour of states in recent years is going in the opposite direction, thus weakening the solidity and even the existence of this norm.

Types of space weapons

The exact definition of “space weapon” is not clear-cut and it can include a wide array of systems, most of whom remain theoretical or experimental concepts. In general, they can be divided into two broad categories: space-based and Earth-based assets.

Regarding the first, these are all kind of weapons deployed in orbit or on a celestial body, but the latter are more complicated to operate and would be a clear contravention to the Outer Space Treaty. So, satellites would be the most likely option. They could use jamming equipment to interfere with other satellites or use destructive weaponry, which can be either direct-energy weapons like lasers or kinetic-energy systems. It may even be possible to use “suicide satellites” designed to crash themselves against other satellites. Of all these, the most probable are satellites equipped with jammers, as other solutions would be technically more challenging to build and operate. Still, such satellites could affect the nuclear equilibrium: if the satellites used to detect the launch of ballistic missiles could effectively be jammed, then the immediate retaliation capabilities upon which nuclear deterrence is based could be undermined. So, similar jamming satellites would be a contravention to the non-interference norms meant to ensure the verifiability in nuclear matters.

But in theory satellites could also be used to strike targets on Earth. This can be done with lasers, or via kinetic bombardment. The latter refers to the use of satellites to launch projectiles on the planet’s surface: even without any kind of warhead, the sheer speed at which they would hit the target would be sufficient to cause damages comparable to those of a tactical nuclear bomb. As such, they could be considered a form of WMD and be therefore illegal.

Lasers could also be used to destroy targets in in the atmosphere, notably ballistic missiles. Since the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, Russia has firmly opposed America’s ABM initiatives also out of concern that space-based systems could be deployed.

Then, there are Earth-based systems. The most important ones are anti-satellite systems, or ASAT. Various solutions are possible. A first and most common kind are missiles, fired either from the ground or from airplanes. The former type could also include ABM systems, since they could also be used for targeting satellites, and this has caused concern. Then there can be ASAT lasers, that have been tested by both the US and Russia. In addition, Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) could be considered as space-related weapons as well. These are essentially ballistic missiles capable of travelling at speed of five times that of sound or more, and for their characteristics they blur the distinction between the air and space domains.

The actual deployment of most of these systems remain to be seen, as they imply considerable technical difficulties and high costs. But there is one exception: ASAT missiles. These are already a reality, as various powers have successfully tested them; and this is why space can be considered already weaponized to some extent.

Security dynamics in space

In spite of calls for the peaceful use of outer space, in practice this domain is already militarized and is central for the national security of many countries, first of all the US; which has deployed numerous satellites in space that are employed for intelligence gathering, targeting and navigation (via the GPS) and communications. Space is therefore vital for the ability of the US armed forces to operate effectively, and the Pentagon is fully aware of that; but so are America’s competitors.

In spite of their military power, Russia and China still cannot compete with the US on an equal basis in military terms. Therefore, they are adopting an indirect approach which aims at America’s weak spot: the satellites, which are essential for US military operations. This is why they, but the US as well, are so engaged in developing ASAT weapons. The first successful test of a Chinese ASAT missile dates back to 2007. This test has been largely considered as signal to the US, who in turn experimented a similar weapon shortly after. On its part, Russia tested its Nudol system several times, and there have been speculations that a missile spotted on a MiG-31 fighter in September this year could be an ASAT weapon.

Another driver in Russia’s and China’s quest for ASAT weapons is America’s Conventional Prompt Global Strike initiative, or CPGS. The aim of this program, that was revived since 2008 to counter the Anti-Access / Area Denial strategies of Moscow and Beijing, is to enable the US military to strike a target located anywhere in the world with conventional weapons in no more than one hour. Various systems have been proposed to satisfy the CPGS’ requirements, including some that are linked with space: among them, the most important are hypersonic missiles, as they require satellites for targeting and guidance. Russia and China started developing ASAT weapons also to counter this threat. But satellites could also be used as early-warning systems to detect incoming hypersonic missiles: considering that all three powers are testing such vectors, it is clear why they all invest so much in deploying satellites and in being able to take down those of their adversaries.

This also explain the calls from Moscow and Beijing for a treaty to ban space weapons, known as PAROS; an acronym for Prevention on an Arms Race in Outer Space. By now, Washington has constantly declined to adhere to this project; but the actual goodwill of Russia and China is debated, with some suggesting that their offers are not driven by the actual desire to avoid a space arms race, but by the willingness to conduct it on their own terms. Here, the distinction between “weaponizing” space and “deploying weapons in space” is important: Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov talked about forbidding the latter, which would make space-based systems illegal but would allow ASAT weapons like those that Russia and China are developing.

Beside ASAT systems, there are also other activities that the three powers are conducting in space which may have a military connotation. In cooperation with SpaceX, the US Air Force has already performed several missions using the X-37B space plane, which was used to carry classified payloads in orbit. This raised rumours that a new weapon could be involved, but it is uncertain and some analysts reject this hypothesis. Again, earlier this year, the strange behaviour of a Russian satellite created concerns among some US officials that it could be a space weapon, possibly an ASAT system. Similar worries exist over Chinese activities in space. All this may indicate that space weaponization is moving to its definitive form, namely that of having proper weapons into space.

Finally, while the US, Russia and China are surely the main actors in the weaponization of space, they are not the only ones. Beside them, Japan, India and Israel are testing ASAT or ABM systems as well. Along with Germany, Italy and France, they also have their own reconnaissance satellites. In addition, North Korea has recently launched a satellite, and Iran is working on ASAT systems.

The final frontier of warfare?

As seen, space is already militarized, and new systems developed by major powers are leading to its weaponization. It is to be expected that this trend will continue, and it is practically certain that in case of conflict space will turn into a battleground, with space assets being targeted and possibly becoming attack vectors themselves. Space is the final frontier, also for warfare.

Will the EU Collapse and lead to a Civil War?

The last decade has been a difficult one for the European Union. In the wake of the 2009 debt crisis, much debate has arisen around its nature, its powers, its governance and its policies.

The situation got only worse when the migrant inflow boomed in 2015, triggering a EU-level crisis.

In this strained socio-economic context, diverging views on the EU as a polity have emerged at the political level both inside the single member states and inside the organization’s institutions.

Recently, two events have revived once more the debate. The first is the re-election of Viktor Orbán, a prominent conservative and Eurosceptic politician, as Prime Minister of Hungary.

The second is the statement by France’s President Emmanuel Macron that the EU is facing a “civil war” on its fundamental values resulting from different opinions between its Western and Central-Eastern members.

This affirmation seems exaggerated, at least at a first glance. But in such a turbulent political context, it raises a legitimate question: is the EU on the edge of a civil war?

The Conditions of a Civil War

To answer this question, the first thing to do is determining in which conditions a civil war does start. Essentially, this happens when two or more socio-political groups belonging to the same political entity disagree on the existing and/or future institutional order; and, being unable or unwilling to peacefully find a compromise through the existing institutional mechanisms, opt for armed conflict to impose their view and determine who will (re)shape the existing order by the use of coercion. Usually, a civil war opposes one group fighting to preserve the standing institutional framework (along with the prerogatives it enjoys thanks to it) and another group who wants to dismantle it (and set up a new order more favourable to its interests).

That said, history is full of examples of civil wars; from those which paved the way to the end of the Roman Republic centuries ago to the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen. But one is particularly significant due to its similarities with the situation the EU is facing today: the American Civil War.

The American Civil War

The US Civil War, also known as War of Secession, was an armed conflict that split the United States between 1861 and 1865.

The contenders where two: one was the Union (the North), formed by states that remained loyal to the government of the United States;

and the other was the Confederacy (the South), made up of states which seceded from the US and form a separate political entity known as the Confederate States of America (CSA).

Usually, this war is portrayed as a fight over the issue of slavery, with the Union supporting its abolishment and the Confederacy favourable to its preservation.

But even though slavery was indeed a central issue in sparking the conflict, the situation was far more complex than a clear-cut black-vs-white clash between conservative and progressist ideals. As a matter of fact, there were also major political, juridical-institutional and economic factors linked to the debate over slavery and human rights.

To understand this, it is necessary to perform a rapid historical overview on the prelude to the conflict. After being recognized as a sovereign polity by the Paris Treaty that officially ended the War of Independence in 1783, the United States began developing and expanding to the West. Rapidly, new states were founded and admitted to the Union.

But the economic outlook of the member states started diverging: those located in the North embraced industrialization, whereas the states in the South remained essentially agricultural.

There, rich landlords owned vast plantations, and exploited a large workforce of black slaves to work them. With time, this North-South gap became more and more marked, and it ultimately assumed a political dimension as well.

As a matter of fact, the Northern states needed cheap manpower to sustain their rapid industrialization. The mass of black slaves living in the South was the ideal solution, but it was impossible to hire them since they were a private property of the Southern landowners.

Consequently, the North states started calling for slavery to be abolished, provoking the firm opposition of the Southerners who needed slaves to cultivate the plantations that were the base of their local economy.

Besides, the two sides also diverged over trade policies: the North wanted protectionist measures to shelter its developing industry, while the South supported free trade as a mean to continue exporting its agricultural products abroad.

This led to an intense constitutional debate over slavery, and ultimately over the power of the federal government to introduce and enforce legislation on the matter all over the US territory.

Again, the opinion diverged between the North and the South: essentially, the former claimed the central government had this authority, whereas the latter considered this as a violation of the constitutional limitations on the powers of the federal institutions.

So, the debate took a dimension that went beyond the issue of slavery and focused on the nature of the US as a polity. The Union favored a strong central government having large powers,while the Confederates defended the rights and prerogatives of the single member states. The combination of all these factors finally led them to secede from the US in 1861 and form an alternative polity, the Confederate States of America (CSA).

The name itself is significant, as it reveals the different way these states interpreted the Constitution and conceived America as a political entity: they wanted a Confederation, so a polity granting more powers to the member states; in contrast to a Federation where the central authorities have larger constitutional competences.

Striking Similarities

Now, there are striking similarities between the situation of the US before the Civil War and that of the EU today.

The latter has also expanded during the previous decades by admitting new member states, with the most important “enlargement wave” taking place in 2004 with Central and Eastern European countries; and the most recent new member being Croatia, which joined the organization in 2013.

Again, similarly to America at the eve of the Civil War, the EU is also facing an intense debate over human rights that has greater economic, political and “constitutional” implications (there is not a proper EU Constitution, but the general sense of the term is still applicable to the Treaties at the base of the EU). In this context, two camps are identifiable, the complexity of reality notwithstanding.

Differences

As I argued in another article, one is formed by the original (or at least more ancient) members of the EU, concentrated in Western Europe; while the other includes the more recent ones, located in the Central-Eastern part of the continent and whose core is made of the four countries forming the Visegrád Group (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia; known also as V4).

The starting point to understand the divergence between these two “factions” is the migration crisis. As a matter of fact, the former group is demanding the Central-Eastern partners to accept a larger share of migrants. But the Visegrád states oppose these requests. As in the 1850s America, the issue is not merely humanitarian, since there are economic and political reasons behind the respective positions.

Countries like Italy, Greece and others (including France and Germany to some degree) worry that the migrant flow will put their socio-economic order under stress and that it may hamper the sluggish recovery from the recent debt crisis.

In contrast, the V4 and other states oppose such policies of migrant redistribution because they may slow down their ongoing economic development. But the divergence is also a matter of past experiences. Western countries have a long tradition of immigration from abroad (often as a consequences of their colonial past) and their societies are more used to the presence of foreigners; thus explaining their softer stance on immigration. This is not the case of Central-Eastern European states, that therefore prefer stricter measures in regard to immigration.

Finally, similarly to America before the civil war, the current debate in the EU also has a prominent institutional dimension. This can be explained from a historical perspective. Countries from the Western part of the continent took their current form as a result of a centralization process, which makes them more willing to accept devolving parts of their sovereignty to a supranational entity like the EU. That is why (in spite of mounting Eurosceptic forces) they remain favorable to further European integration; especially in the case of France, that appears willing to become the driver of deeper integration through devolving more powers to supranational institutions and by crating a true fiscal union (even though this met resistance from Germany).

On the contrary, the Visegrád states and those aligned with them oppose strengthening the powers of the EU institutions and want to preserve their fundamental sovereign rights. The reason lies in their past: these countries arose after the collapse of larger multinational polities affected by severe institutional deficiencies, and also had a long history of foreign domination and meddling which ended only in 1991 with the fall of the Soviet Union. As a result, they see the EU as another cumbersome supranational entity that will put them in a subordinate position and are therefore unwilling to devolve more powers to it.

Can they Compromise?

This underlying contrast over the powers of European institutions is the most important aspect in the current debate, because it will have direct repercussion over the future of the EU. Now, the problem is that, while opinions are discordant among the member states; the complex institutional mechanisms of the EU do not facilitate the search for a compromise

Introducing deep changes (both in the sense of increased integration and of more protection of the states’ sovereignty) requires a revision of the Treaties that form the bloc’s “constitution”; but this demands in turn a long and multi-stage procedure where reaching a consensus is hard and where a single “wrong” step can block the entire process (think of the French and Dutch referenda that sunk the proposed Constitutional Treaty in 2005).

Considering that the divergences are growing, finding a common agreement over the EU, its powers and its values may be impossible; and this could lead to an institutional stalemate.

Is a Civil War Inevitable?

And what then? Will the EU plunge into civil war as the US did in the past? Not necessarily. Modern-day European states and their societies are strongly averse to war, which is already a huge safeguard against extreme solutions.

And if it is true that European powers have been fighting themselves for centuries, it is also true that the EU was established after the trauma of WWII also as a mean to put a definitive end to that continuous bloodshed.

Moreover, in spite of its slowness and difficulties, the EU proved capable to adapt and preserve itself during the past. In more cynic terms, since the EU is not a state, even if one or more of its members decided to unilaterally “secede”, it would not have its own military means to enforce its rule and re-bring them in as the Union eventually did with the Confederates in 1865. Finally, this scenario is unlikely for the simple fact that the Treaty on the European Union (Art. 50) contains provisions allowing a member state to withdraw; as the United Kingdom decided to do after the 2016 vote on Brexit

But it is exactly a mass Brexit-like scenario what can raise concerns over the long-term tenure of the EU.

A full-scale civil war seems unlikely (unless the international situation becomes so severely deteriorated in economic and political terms to bring states to the point of using war to secure their interests); but if the existing divergences continue to mount and no solution is reached, then it is still possible that some member states (most likely the V4 ones) will decide to leave the EU.

The consequences are difficult to predict, ranging from an easier path to greater integration between the remaining like-minded members to a dissolution of the organization. In any case, the EU would be weakened at the international level, possibly leaving room for alternative blocs. All this would bring uncertainty in political and economic terms, and (especially if the EU were dismantled), it would certainly be a turning point in European History, as the Civil War was in America’s.

Scroll to top