Karel Lannoo: "Von der Leyen should watch more what she says in public"

London/BrusselsKarel Lannoo is the executive director of the think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), based in Brussels. The entity is a relevant voice in community policy and debate. A graduate in philosophy and modern history, he has spent more than twenty-five years observing the internal and external shocks that the European Union has faced. He is therefore in a privileged position to analyse the challenges of the 27 at a time when the global order has fallen apart and threats to the EU are of all kinds.

Is the European Union stronger or more vulnerable after four years of war in Ukraine?

— I think we are more united. It is true that one can look to Hungary or Slovakia to say no, but we have achieved things that would have been impossible without the war. Let's think about the security plan, about the fact that the EU, which has no military competencies, has launched a European initiative for the industrialization of the defense sector.

Has the war in Ukraine confirmed that Europe still depends too much on the United States for its security?

— Do we depend on the US for security? We don't know for sure. It has been said that yes, but I cannot judge because the information is not public. I think we have the capability, but we need to see if we can work together in the military field. Only then will we realize if we can do it on our own. As long as European states accept that they can no longer rely on the US and that they must be able to respond on their own, we will succeed. Some still believe that everything will go back to how it was, like Germany, but that will no longer be the case.

Is Donald Trump a reliable partner for the EU?

— No. Now we clearly see that several countries, including the USA, Russia, and China, may want the end of the EU.

Is it possible to achieve strategic autonomy within the framework of NATO?

— I think so, as long as there is an agreement within NATO that determines which strategic threats are specific to Europe and which are not. The EU should use its European part of NATO to defend itself.

How serious are the current internal divisions within the EU, both between states and between institutions?

— It is normal for there to be divisions; it is part of democracy. In Europe, with 27 states, processes are slower than in the United States, but I prefer the European system to the North American one. Open debates and majority decision-making are normal and necessary.

But contradictory statements between the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the President of the Council, António Costa, do not offer a vision of chaos and weakness of the EU?

— Mrs. Von der Leyen went beyond her competences. The president is responsible for the Commission, while the president of the Council is in charge of managing the relationship between the member states. Since the EU does not have a formal responsibility in foreign policy or defense, this should be coordinated by the president of the Council, together with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs. Von der Leyen should be more careful about what she says in public. Europe must ensure that it is coherent with the principles on which it is founded, and that it respects the multilateral order and international law.

Could a new Orbán victory in Hungary weaken the EU's cohesion and decision-making capacity?

— It could also strengthen it. We could act more firmly in the face of situations that contravene EU treaties. Orbán has used Russia's support for his campaign. And if he is finally re-elected, legal proceedings could be initiated, because what he has done goes against the treaties. Orbán has already lost more than a billion euros in cohesion funds for not respecting the conditionality regulation. This is almost a crime: if you are the prime minister of a relatively poor country, which is not in a good economic situation, and you can receive 1,000 million euros and you say no out of sheer stupidity, then, in my opinion, you should end up in prison.

Has the energy crisis reduced Europe's dependence or only shifted it to other partners?

— It is still early to know. Europe has a limited dependence on the Gulf; other countries depend on it much more. Prices have risen, true, but we can function almost without oil or gas from the Gulf.

Is the EU seeing itself much more forced than initially conceived to become a more geopolitical and hard-power-oriented actor?

— No. The treaties already allow the EU to be a more geopolitical actor, especially in defense, building a European pillar within NATO.

Do current international crises expose structural limits of the EU's institutional model?

— Yes, for sure. It is a very elaborate model, it should be more integrated, with more capacity for quick decision-making and with a qualified majority to avoid blockages, as is currently happening with Hungary regarding Ukraine.

What kind of majority? For example, two-thirds of the Member States?

— Exactly, there are different forms of majority provided for in the EU treaties. The most common is the double majority, which consists of two-thirds of the countries and two-thirds of the population. This ensures that there is strong enough support, also in terms of population, when a certain decision is made.

Is Europe prepared for a prolonged period of global instability with simultaneous conflicts affecting its security and economy?

— It is relatively prepared, better than three or four years ago. Programs like the European defense industrial strategy show that Europe is reacting. But coordinating 27 states is complex and requires time.

Ten years after Brexit, would the EU accept the United Kingdom rejoining?

— I think so, but it would be difficult. The United Kingdom would have to accept all the rules and be without the many exceptions it enjoyed. Wouldn't it also have them, on budgetary matters, for example, which allowed it to contribute less? Furthermore, some member states would have difficulty accepting the return of the United Kingdom, starting with France. Because France considers that it has more weight in the current European Union than it would if the United Kingdom were to become part of the EU again.

Is it a good time to think about an enlargement of the Union?

— Yes, but achieving the necessary consensus will be very difficult. Let's look at Iceland, which may be changing its mind, which could accelerate the whole process. But I also think we urgently need to incorporate the Western Balkan countries, which are very small: 16 million inhabitants and economically very little weight. It would be no problem to incorporate them quickly and it would benefit our own security.