Theory of European disintegration

Will the European Union survive the crisis?

• In recent years, the European Union has encountered a number of unprecedented challenges that put it in a difficult position.
• Experts are concerned about the influx of migrants, Brexit in the UK, a wave of populism and nationalism, a rise in ultra -right and EuroSrkeptics.
• Existing challenges are largely changing united Europe, perhaps even providing it with a new resource for development.
• The European Union is an open project, now its expansion occurs mainly due to small Balkan countries.

Sergey Medvedev: For Europe, the future seems to be no longer coming. More than a hundred years ago, in 1918, Oswald Spengler wrote "Sunset of Europe", and how many times again and again they foreshadowed this sunset: after 1945, and after 1991 there were doubts. Now Europe is again in crisis: migration crisis, crisis in connection with Brexit. What awaits Europe in the near future?

We are visiting Vladislav Belov , Deputy Director for Scientific Work of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences , and Irina Busygin , professor of the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg .

There was a book by Jan Zelenka - he writes that there are many theories of European integration, but there is not a single theory of European disintegration. What is happening in recent years is increasingly reminiscent of European disintegration. Here is Brexit - if he suddenly takes place, despite all the intra -British ups and downs, how much and various other "ecies" can undermine the role of the European Union?

Irina Busygina: I was a member of some debate regarding the European future, a reader of a large number of texts about the European future, and they all are somewhat apocalyptic. It seems that we almost expect that Europe cannot cope with these difficulties. But it seems to me that Europe teaches its lessons.

There is no disintegration, there are our fears. We can consider Brexit a problem, but we can consider the condition for the existence of any integration union. If the European Union positions itself as an open association, then you can both enter it and get out of it. Actually, what happened terrible? But the problem is that this is the first time. There is no other way, there is no one to look at, because there is no other integration association on the map of the world, which would be comparable to the European Union and such a way has passed in a relatively short time.

Another thing is that it covered a little, different threats beat from different sides, and this makes the impression of an almost collapsing ninth shaft, especially from a biased look. And if the look is more impartial, then we can say that Brexit is where to work out, because voluntary unions suggest the possibility of exit. The more integrated you make space: politically, economically, the more difficult it is for you to get out, because there are myriads of ties and players who, relatively speaking, from the victors become losers and vice versa: of course, someone wants compensation, someone wants a status quo, someone wants a complete break, and it is extremely difficult to agree. But this, in fact, is art, this process is going on.

If there were no Brexit, it would have to be invented for the European Union

Sergey Medvedev: If there was no Brexita, he would have to invent for the European Union.

Vladislav Belov: The European Union is something consciously formed: the process begun in the past continues in the present and will continue in the future. This is the process of forming a single economic, political, socio-economic, cultural and historical space. The beginning was laid in the 50s, after the Second World War, these are economic interests: steel, coal, for which they fought. First, the European association of coal and steel is formed, the European economic communities, where the UK, in general, was not expected. France and Germany reconciled - let's say, France reconciled Germany with Europe. France is a policy plus economy, Germany was a subordinate. And Great Britain did not want France. Eternal opponents are not only France and Germany, but also France and islanders. What was supposed to happen: Great Britain was an unwanted member in the European Union. 2016, June is a minority that rules the majority. This is the theory of the one who controls the processes, whether it be the Bolsheviks in 1917 or the minority in the UK, because the minority came to vote to the referendum: 52.1 for the exit. And then it turned out that this is not a joke, that there was a lot of deception. A million is now entering the streets of London, he says: you have deceived us.

Next is the rule of law. The English parliament, Teresa May say: we have a 400-year history of English law, it doesn’t matter what will happen to us, we will come out.

Brexit, in my opinion, is an essential element for the revival of centracration trends in the European Union. For three years we saw what could happen, that there is an EU. These are not only funds, this is a really single labor market, against which the British also protested a little. But at the same time, an understanding of the benefits came.

Another thing is that the EU, consisting of 28 countries, is heterogeneous. There are no trade conflicts. Other conflicts - please: migration, social, political, but not economic, they remained outside the European Union: the USA - the European Union, the European Union - China, the United States, and so on. This is a clear achievement that we do not always evaluate according to merit.

And there are problems, like centrifugal trends, young Europeans, problems with how to form a single space of labor, capital, services. There is no single financial and tax policy. But the project itself remains and is implemented.

Sergey Medvedev: As I understand it, the rest of the "ecsites" are still postponed, especially after the Dutch vote.

I think, as of the March April of 2019, we understand that Brexit, on the contrary, gives the European Union some kind of injection of vitality, England itself rises on its hind legs ...

Vladislav Belov: litmus paper - the end of May, elections to the European Parliament.

Sergey Medvedev: Another question is more than a million migrants. How much is Europe capable of digesting this civilizational challenge, which, completely obviously, will remain not for one decade?

Irina Busygina

Irina Busygina: Regarding numerous "eccits". It seems to me that Madame Zakharova gives her desires, not even very secret: it would be nice to fall apart now, preferably with a roar and whistle, so that we say: here, they do not know how to build anything ...

Vladislav Belov: She is the speaker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and her immediate chef considers a little differently, he clearly stated at a press conference: we are interested in a strong, united European Union. There was such a message, because Merkel just played on the fact that, no, Russia is interested in the domino effect, in EuroSrkeptics, God forbid, they will influence you, God forbid you will choose them.

Sergey Medvedev: Isn't it really? Mrs. Zakharova, it seems to me, is much more voiced by the segment of the subconscious of the political class.

Irina Busygina: As for the migrants, I feel sorry for European institutions: Lord, how much they hung on them! In a sense, they signed up to be responsible for everything. They cannot remain indifferent to either the processes within the country, or to the processes of globalization, that is, they stand with a shield for everything, and it is very difficult for them to stand. The system of institutions of the European Union was probably not formed under this kind of crises, when you seem to have a general threat in a sense, but it is extremely asymmetrically hits the countries. Somewhere migrants want, somewhere they do not want, some country is ready to accept them, the other is not ready, and constant conflicts arise.

At the same time, European institutions are weakly able to force states to what they do not want to do (and this problem is also associated with new democracies). Two years ago there were panic moods: now everything will break up. It seemed that it could have been worse, a complete collapse and chaos. The problem cannot be solved in two years - this is a strategic challenge, but the European Union has not collapsed.

Vladislav Belov: About migration there is a good indicator: the core of Europe where the largest number of migrants. Migrants are chosen by countries that are tidy pieces. The economic and political space consists of 28 economies. You can criticize Merkel, Germany, but Germany is ahead of the European Union. This is a socio-market economy with all its diseases, but at the same time, being an export leader, Germany proves its ability to sell goods and services that are not bought by states, but households, private manufacturers, and so on. Germany is criticized that the foreign trade asset exceeds 26% - the border set by Brussels in relation to GDP. I laugh all the time: how do you force the state to reduce the foreign trade asset?

Most of the country's migrants begin to integrate into their socio-economic environment

When Merkel said on August 31, 2015: we can handle it, tens of thousands of people are standing on the border - however, she forgot to add through a comma: but it will be expensive for us. She did not say this to the population, her voters, nor migrants. But today is 2019, and the numbers are already returning to the summer of 2015, when the first waves of migration went, and the boundaries are more or less under control. Most of the country's migrants begin to integrate into their socio-economic environment. The law on qualified labor, which provides, inter alia, the integration of refugees, has been adopted. A refugee is the person who managed to submit a petition for refugee status. We always talk about illegal immigrants: there is no such thing. If a person did not have time to file an application in 72 hours that he is a candidate for refugee status, he must be automatically deported.

Sergey Medvedev: The system digested a wave: we can say that it entered Europe.

Vladislav Belov: with the exception of one: young martyr, the Vsevograd group -Hungary, Poland, to a lesser extent the Czech Republic and Slovakia (after all, these guys survived 1968, they have a slightly different perception of these values). Poles: We are Catholics, alien to us. This is the post -socialist syndrome, which since 1991 has not been digested by the European Union.

Sergey Medvedev: Unforeseen bombs began to break: Kachinsky’s phenomenon, Orban's phenomenon, new nationalism and populism in Eastern Europe. And in the West - Greece, Italy, a new wave of populism. The last manifestation is the "yellow vests" that generally speak on behalf of the unexpected majority. How will the European Union deal with this? These statements of Orban, what he does with the freedom of the press, with the Central European University, how does it all combine with the membership of Hungary in the European Union?

Irina Busygina: I do not quite agree with your setting of the problem. This is not a European problem at all. Why are we looking at Eastern Europe, why are we so preoccupied with these seemingly small countries and say that they can undermine the unity of the project, lead it somewhere in there? Because we did not expect this. When there were large waves of extension in 2004-2007, it was expected that there would be a completely uncomplicated blue -eyed enthusiasm, when all the institutions of the European Union and all the rules will be stretched to these countries, and they, with the desire to realize all this, will act in order to make their transit democracy more consolidated, excluding the turn of back.

But everything turned out to be a thousand times more difficult. The first not Hungary, but Poland began to raise a political voice and say that he sees the European Union differently. Poland is a large country: by the population, by group in the European Parliament.

We see that there is populism in the States and in Canada. I think this is a property of global economies, open societies that have much entered globalization. Please note that in Africa no one talks about populism. And here, as they say, "return everything back to me." But, as we know, the minced meat cannot be handed back. It seems to me that the head of the layman living in an open global country ceased to perceive and digest the challenges that he encountered.

Sergey Medvedev: The difficulties of the modern world, the number of risks and challenges is understandable. But if you take the European Union, then all this is combined with a certain amount of obligations, including in relation to human rights, freedoms that have taken upon themselves the countries. On the other hand, we see Orban, Kachinsky. How to be with it?

Vladislav Belov: Very often they criticize Merkel and Macron for saying a lot about values, and values are freedom, equality and brotherhood, and at the same time the respect of the rights of others, which, of course, limit your rights. You must be able to live with this. This is a new generation that Western Europe has raised. In parallel, another upbringing was underway, supposedly proletarian internationalism, which in fact was not.

Vladislav Belov

As for Poland, this is a rejection of strangers, and at the same pole of Estonia. Poland is a country that knows how to work, the only country in which there were positive growth rates during the global financial crisis of 2008-10, but at the same time, with regard to freedom of speech, here the "senior comrades" have their own opinion.

I am interested in what those who grew up in the 90s will say. While these people go out in Germany, walk lessons, vote behind the climate. This is a new generation brought up by "green" in the 80s. Orban, Kachinsky - these are our peers who did not absorb these values of freedom with mother’s milk. But I'm not sure that the new generation will speak the same. Now new voters are going on, they will determine everything. Let's wait for the 2025-30s when young politicians come. From young politicians, I do not hear what Orban or Kachinsky is saying now. It seems to me that this change will be.

Sergey Medvedev: Let's imagine Europe 2030. About a month ago there was an article by Macron, which was very actively discussed. How realistic is this European vision, how much France can again take on the role of a locomotive of European unity? Do you see further opportunities for expanding Europe?

Irina Busygina: I see that this process is already in the Balkans. Now for any expansion you need to collect a consensus. The expansion process works in such a way that any country is a veto-player. It will be difficult to collect consensus. It is clear that there are states whose decisions are practically adopted: these are small Balkan countries. It is not clear where to expand further. The European Union fundamentally positions itself as an open project.

If you look into the future, then I am slightly pessimistic. It seems to me that the thing, which is called “populism” and especially “radical movements”, will not go away in ten years: I’m afraid that it would not worsen. It seems to me that the matter is not at all in Kachinsky, not in Orban, not in Salvini and not in Berlusconi, in general in any specific people, but in the fact that this is a request. There would be no request, there would be no answer, no one would vote for them, because it was scary to be a populist: you promise, you are not doing anything, and for the next four years you are not chosen, goodbye. But this does not happen. The layman screams: Protect me. He expects that national elites can protect him. Unfortunately, there is no sense that the European Union can protect you from something.

I'm trying to understand why these people go out into the streets, what the European layman needs? The only thing I was able to rationalize for myself: this is security. And, as it were for centuries, it is still linked to the idea of a national state. Europe for a long time dissolved it, but did not dissolve it.

Sergey Medvedev: She created other security mechanisms. When I lived in Finland, there were discussions about her joining the European Union. Such an argument was put forward that the main guarantee of Finland’s security is not tanks, but joining the euro. Euro is an existential security guarantee: we have a common currency.

Vladislav Belov: I do not agree. Safety has many measurements, we are talking about economic security, now cybersecurity, environmental safety, and so on are popular. Macron's article was needed to recall his speech in the Sorbonne September 27, 2017, where there were the main breakthrough ideas addressed primarily to Germany. Germany partially recognized them, abandoning the idea of the Eurozone parliament. They abandoned the Eurozone budget, agreed to the investment budget. He is criticized by attempts to socialize Europe, to introduce certain concepts of minimal wages. But first of all, it is safe competitive Europe, which is able to provide jobs. You work, do not sit on the neck of the state, the state should give an opportunity to earn.

Macron talks about the reindustrialization that Germany supports. By 2030, the share of the industrial sector as a whole should increase by more than 20%, and in Germany to 25%. Europe should be competitive in relation to the United States and China. The state’s intervention is allowed: by 2030, perhaps we will see conductiveism when the European Union will change competitive law and new concerns will arise. Now we are talking about a certain European battery alliance. Возможно, Европа пойдет по пути достаточно жесткого вмешательства государства: она будет превращаться в некую экономическую крепость, которая борется против государственных концернов и стратегических инвесторов из Китая. Это обеспечит как раз ту социальную накачку, которой требуют популисты, и она способна это сделать.

Как экономист я вижу, что без конкурентоспособности Европа не будет жизнеспособна. Поэтому не будет этих европейских бюджетов, европейских фондов, не будет выравнивания регионального развития. Нужны инвестиции в образование, должен быть человеческий капитал. Возможно, если это произойдет (а сейчас уже обсуждается финансовый план на 2021-27 годы), в 2030 году удастся преодолеть популизм, не опирающийся на конкретные экономические механизмы.

Сергей Медведев: Как может выглядеть Европа с точки зрения границ?

Владислав Белов: Я противник расширения. Если бы я консультировал Брюссель, я бы сказал: ни в коем случае! Пожалуйста – соглашение об ассоциации, допуск на рынок рабочей силы.

Сергей Медведев: А постсоветские страны, Украина?

Владислав Белов: Они имеют теоретические шансы войти в Евросоюз, но я против этого. Сотрудничайте с нами на разных условиях: рынок труда и прочее, – вот это была бы модель. Но, по всей видимости, два-три государства все-таки будут там к 2030 году, в ЕС будет 30 стран – скорей всего, за счет Балкан.

Как показывает практика, мощное оружие Европейского союза – это перспективы членства

Ирина Бусыгина: Как показывает практика, мощное оружие Европейского союза – это перспективы членства. Никакая перспектива ассоциации не является таким оружием. Когда обсуждали это с Турцией, тоже предлагали и стратегическое, и полустратегическое партнерство, и суперассоциацию: не работает ничего, кроме членства. Если вы хотите конвенционально запустить какие-то реформы, вы либо предлагаете членство хотя бы в перспективе: не исключено, – и это уже начинает работать.

Владислав Белов: Украина – хороший пример, они пошли на ассоциацию.

Ирина Бусыгина: Боюсь, что Украине ничего не светит в этом смысле. Консенсусное решение из-за Украины не собрать – это просто невозможно. Одна идея Украины – "все беды от России", другая идея – нам должна помочь Европа и сделать что-то вместо нас. К сожалению, это не сработает.

Сергей Медведев: А другие постсоветские страны: Молдова, Беларусь?

Ирина Бусыгина: Беларусь с 1990 года находится в состоянии союзного государства с Россией.

Сергей Медведев: Мы почти час говорим о будущем Европы и ничего не сказали о России.

Ирина Бусыгина: Как вы это интерпретируете?

Сергей Медведев: На данный момент мы не можем рассуждать о совместном будущем Европы и России. Европа столько лет мучилась с Турцией, 25 лет мучилась с Россией, – через ассоциации, через все программы, и сейчас, наконец, расставлены все точки над i и с эрдогановской Турцией, и с путинской Россией. По крайней мере, на обозримое будущее проект сотрудничества закрыт.

Владислав Белов: В коалиционном договоре нового правительства Германии записано: от Лиссабона до Владивостока. Я вижу это как пространство, где, помимо государств, взаимодействуют регионы, где постепенно открываются границы. Я могу ездить, работать, мне все равно, где я живу. Я не пользуюсь фондами Евросоюза, но меня допускают в Европу, шенген – это уже прорыв.

Сергей Медведев: То есть это низовая гражданская, человеческая, региональная и экономическая интеграция. Упал "железный занавес" с Европой?

Ирина Бусыгина: Это какой-то стереотип. У Европейского союза есть принципы Могерини: они, может быть, не очень хороши, но, по крайней мере, люди в ситуации, когда тяжело, пытаются что-то вытащить. Где симметричная реакция со стороны России? Где наша повестка в отношении Европейского союза?

Владислав Белов: Мы предложили аудит всех наших 16 отраслевых диалогов. Могерини молчит.

Ирина Бусыгина: Разве речь об этом?

Сергей Медведев: Закончу парадоксально фамусовским "пожар способствовал ей много к украшенью". Я думаю, и Трамп в Белом доме, и Брекзит в Лондоне, и Эрдоган в Анкаре, и Путин в Кремле, – может быть, все это парадоксальным образом способствует реконсолидации и некоему переизобретению Европы, которая понимает свою идентичность. Видимо, на рубеже 2030 года мы будем иметь все тот же старый и добрый Евросоюз.