Catherine E. De Vries is professor of political science at Bocconi University.
MILAN — When the British voted to leave the European Union, some in Brussels saw a silver lining: At least now striking a compromise at the EU table wouldn’t be so difficult, they thought, and the remaining 27 could move ahead unimpeded by the British veto.
The acrimonious debate over the EU’s coronavirus recovery fund has killed off any lingering notions that the bloc is not deeply divided — even without the U.K.
In part, this is because the old wounds of the eurozone crisis never truly healed. Countries are still locked into familiar positions — the Northern frugal “saints” versus the Southern “sinners.”
But the real problem lies elsewhere — in how EU politicians have increasingly weaponized the topic of European integration to serve their domestic political goals.
The rise of these Euroskeptic political entrepreneurs — and the resulting political fragmentation — has had profound effects on the EU.
Whether you’re Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte or Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, you’re similarly beholden to a vocal, and ultimately powerful, political fringe that is agitating for a certain vision of the EU’s future — and those various domestic visions are almost always in conflict with one another.
The European Council summit, where EU leaders are attempting to hammer out a deal on the funds needed to mitigate the economic disaster wrought by the pandemic, has laid bare deep political divisions over Europe’s future: between North and South over financial solidarity and between East and West over the rule of law.
There may be strong approval of EU membership across the Continent, but citizens in different countries don’t necessarily agree on how to shape the bloc’s future or what its role in their lives should be.
As the EU has grown to include more members, it has moved from being mostly a project of economic integration to including other areas of cooperation — a hotly contested issue where member countries increasingly don’t see eye to eye.
These questions of European integration have become a perfect issue for political entrepreneurs who thrive on anti-establishment rhetoric and exploiting divisions within the political mainstream. Now part-and-parcel of the political debate in most countries, these Euroskeptic players have increased pressure on national leaders to show they are advocating for the national interest at the EU level.
The rise of far-right politician Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is a prime example of this trend. He founded his Party for Freedom on the heels of a successful campaign against the establishment of an EU constitution in 2005, where a majority of Dutch voters came out against the treaty in a referendum. Buoyed by that victory, he mobilized Euroskeptic sentiments among voters of mainstream parties to his electoral advantage.
In Italy, Matteo Salvini’s ascendancy as leader of the far right was the result of his successful mobilization of widespread views among Italians in the aftermath of the eurozone and refugee crises that the EU had left Italy hanging. In Brussels, he found the perfect scapegoat for a large array of domestic problems.
The rise of these Euroskeptic political entrepreneurs — and the resulting political fragmentation — has had profound effects on the EU. Most notably, it has made brokering deals much more difficult.
This is most apparent when elections are close — Rutte’s tough negotiation stance is partly an electoral calculation — but the pressure of upcoming votes is only part of the story. Both Austria and Denmark are also playing hardball in negotiations, even though elections were held last year.
Matteo Salvini, leader of the Italian League party | Tiziana Fabi/AFP via Getty Images
The way the issue is politicized varies tremendously between countries, which doesn’t help matters much: Every government has its own Euroskeptic agitator to appease and its own public sentiment to navigate.
Take the Dutch and Italian situations, for example — two countries that symbolize opposite sides in the current budget fight. In Italy, Salvini’s League and Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy are pushing the prime minister to a position of joint-issued debt without conditionality.
According to recent data by eupinions, Italian public opinion is wary of the EU not because Italians think there is too much integration, but because they think there has been too little. They feel they have been abandoned by the EU, and Conte needs to deliver on a deal that moves significantly beyond the current status quo.
In the Netherlands, meanwhile, Wilders’ Party for Freedom and Thierry Baudet’s Forum for Democracy are pushing Rutte to reject a deal that involves a significant amount of grants, joint-issued debt and little conditionality.
Again according to eupinions data, Dutch public opinion is in favor of less, not more, European integration. Rutte needs to deliver on a deal that stays as close to the current status quo as possible.
Both leaders — governing on razor-thin governing majorities, in one or both chambers of parliament — are up against a vocal political opposition that is agitating against Brussels, albeit it for different reasons and in opposite directions.
Factor in similar dynamics in other EU countries and you’ve got a recipe for long, painful negotiations — for this summit and for many more to come.