Brussels in Bulgaria

Much ink has been spilled over the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU in 2007, and there are still many questions floating around over the decision. Should they have been admitted, or has the EU bit off more than it can chew in taking on two such poor countries? How can the EU effectively deal with the high level of corruption in the Bulgarian and Romanian governments? And when should the new EU entrants be given the full rights and privileges enjoyed by other EU citizens?

After spending last week in Bulgaria I am perhaps not qualified to offer a solid answer to these questions, but I have come to understand the country much more. For one thing, all this talk about 'Romania and Bulgaria,' as if they were one geopolitical block, seems strange to Bulgarians. When interviewing politicians and NGOs, I would often ask them if the factors they were mentioning in Bulgarian society were present in Romania. They would always respond that they had no idea, and even seemed a bit confused by the question. Though the countries tend to be talked about together now because they entered the EU at the same time with the same set of restrictions, in terms of culture, language and government they're quite different. In fact the photographer in our group was from Romania, and she said she doesn't necessarily feel any kind of strong connection to the country.

The event on Saturday went quite well. In addition to being an EU Debate on the Ground, it was also the official launch of CafeBabel Sofia. The event was hosted by a well-known local radio personality and was in Bulgarian, but the non-Bulgarian journalists had a great simultaneous translator. We had three MEPs there and the Bulgarian Minister for European Affairs, Gergana Grancharova (pictured above left). Essentially it was a debate between EU government officials and the public, designed to foster greater interaction between the European public and Brussels. Coming from Western Europe, it actually seemed to me that Bulgaria has a shockingly high level of interest in EU affairs. The attendees at the event were quite well-informed. Most of the major Bulgarian television networks showed up to film, and it made the nightly news. As I wrote last week, I learned on this trip that three times as many Bulgarians have faith in EU institutions as have faith in the Bulgarian government. This isn't surprising considering the level of dysfunction in the Bulgarian government, but as the MEPs mentioned at the event, the expectations of the Bulgarian public for the EU may need to be ratcheted down quite a bit. After all, the EU can't solve all of Bulgaria's problems, nor is that its intention.

Speaking with the French ambassador to Bulgaria on Friday, I learned this is an increasing concern for Western European nations. The high level of enthusiasm for EU integration in Bulgaria may be flattering for Brussels, but it will liekly lead to inevitable disappointment when the EU is unable to deliver, particularly as the economic crisis hits Bulgaria especially hard. The increasing trend of Bulgarian NGOs and business interests going directly to Brussels to get problems solved, bypassing the national government, is actually a worrying trend, he said. It is the dysfunction of the Bulgarian government that needs to be solved, and if it isn't, it will strengthen the increasingly popular far left and far right. The nationalist, anti-Turkish party Ataka (pictured left), is getting particularly popular, and it's thought that they will gain seats in the June national election as people cast a protest vote against the government.

Having only spent time in Sofia, I can't say I'm qualified to concretely answer any of the questions I posed in the first paragraph after my trip. I can say that while it was a bit rough around the edges, the level of development in Sofia didn't even resemble the post-apocalyptic picture often painted by the British media. As the poorest country in the EU, clearly Bulgaria has a long way to go before it enjoys the same standards of living as its Western counterparts. But at the same time Sofia looked like any other Eastern European capital. We felt perfectly safe walking around on the street at any time of day or night, and the modern conveniences were the same as most other capitals of the East. I'm told that Sofia is extremely different from the rural areas of Bulgaria, but of course that's true for any country.

So all in all it was a very interesting and fun few days, I'm glad I participated in the project. If you're interested in finding out if an EU Debate is coming to your city any time soon, check out the schedule.

The Swiss Say Yes to Europe

Brussels was breathing a sigh of relief today as the news of yesterday's Swiss referendum result reached people's desks. There had been some apprehension about the vote, which extends free-movement rules to new EU entrants Bulgaria and Romania, as opinion polls taken before the vote seemed to suggest that it would have a razor-thin margin. In the end, a massive 60 percent of voters said 'JA.' Only four of Switzerland's 26 cantons voted no.

The vote is being called a "broad yes" by the Swiss to economic collaboration with Europe, and a mandate for pro-European parties in the Swiss government to increase ties. The news is already being taken as a sign that the financial crisis may lead to a more receptive attitude toward the EU and coordinated pan-European policies. With the Irish revote on the Lisbon Treaty just around the corner, many in Brussels are hoping this is a trend that will continue. But is the vote's outcome the result of changing EU attitudes in the face of the financial crisis, or was it simply the result of a skillful vote mobilisation effort on the ground by pro-EU groups?

Switzerland has a rather unusual arrangement with the EU. While it's not a member, it has a series of seven 'special accords' with the block that make it effectively a shadow member. It isn't an official member, so it doesn't have any representation in the European Parliament or Commission, but the accords oblige Switzerland to follow many areas of EU legislation. Free movement, which allows any EU citizen to work in any EU country, is one of those areas. However, now that EU membership hassuch a change must be put to a public vote (they basically have to have a public vote for everything in Switzerland). But here's where it gets tricky. The EU has made clear that Switzerland doesn't have the right to 'pick and choose' which parts of EU law it will follow, and under the infamous "guillotine clause," if the Swiss voted no to extending free movement to Bulgaria and Romania, all of their agreements with the EU would be torn up. Considering that the vast majority of Switzerland's trade is with the EU, and that non-Swiss EU citizens make up a huge percentage of its skilled workforce, a collapse in the accords would be catastrophic for the country's economy. So one has to ask, is this really a vote for increased EU ties, or a desire to maintain the status quo? And if it's now economically impossible for the Swiss to vote against policies enacted in Brussels, isn't this really just an illusory independence anyway?

Switzerland's biggest political party, the rightist Swiss People's Party, had waged an aggressive ad campaign urging people to vote no, arguing that the two new EU entrants were too poor to be allowed unfettered access to Swiss jobs. (this photo is of one of their billboards that was on the street outside my parents' house). The issue was complicated by the fact that Switzerland has had a less than smooth history with immigration from the Balkans. During the 1990's the country took in many refugees from the former Yugoslavia as the Balkan wars raged on. Now the country has a sizable former Yugoslav population, particularly in Zurich, which hasn't integrated with the wider Swiss society and who treated with much hostility from the native Swiss population (complete with a nasty epithet that I won't repeat here). Many, particularly in German-speaking Switzerland, aren't crazy about the idea of taking in more immigrants from Serbia's neighbors in the Balkans.

A Sign of the Times?

So does the wide victory in Switzerland mean that people's fears about the financial crisis are going to make them less likely to snub the EU, for fear of the economic consequences? I've speculated that the economic turmoil in Ireland will likely make the Irish too scared to vote against the Lisbon Treaty again when the revote occurs later this year. It seems likely that the hold-up in approval by the Czech Parliament may also be resolved quickly now that the future looks so uncertain. On the other hand, many commentators have speculated that the recession could lead to an increase in populism and protectionism, which could put the European single market in jeopardy. The recent walk-outs in the UK and the one-day strike in France have certainly been a worrying sign in that direction.

For now though, Brussels has reason to be encouraged by the Swiss result.

Rioting in Iceland

When there's rioting in Iceland, you know we're in trouble. The small Scandinavian country in the middle of the Atlantic isn't usually associated with domestic strife, but rather high quality of life and abundant natural resources. But yesterday thousands of people took to the streets to protest the government's handling of the economy, which has plunged in recent months as a result of the larger global turmoil. Gross national product is down two-thirds, there has been a 45 percent rise in unemployment and the country is defaulting on loan repayments. In October the country's financial system collapsed and its currency plunged under the weight of billions of dollars in foreign debt taken on by its banks.



These weren't just mild demonstrations. Riot police had to fight with a large number of violent protesters outside the country's parliament. Pepper spray was fired at the protesters and 30 arrests were made.

Coming on the heels of the riots in Greece last month, many in Europe are becoming increasingly worried that the economic turmoil could lead to violent clashes between disaffected people and their governments across the continent. Eastern Europe is seen as particularly vulnerable to such violence, with some even predicting a "spring of discontent" in the region to be around the corner.

Eastern Europe has been hit hard by the financial crisis, especially Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states - all recent EU entrants. As the Guardian recently reported, incidents have been steadily increasing. Last week police in Vilnius, Lithuania had to tear-gas a crowd of demonstrators protesting tax rises and benefit cuts designed to save the state from bankruptcy. Sofia, Bulgaria has also seen recent widespread violence in which 150 people were arrested. Riga, Latvia has seen street battles as well.

These Eastern European economies are increasingly experiencing unexpected turmoil after years of posting double-digit growth. Their anger will likely be compounded by the fact that they were expecting that growth to continue, particularly after they joined the EU. The post-cold war governments are still new and relatively weak, and could be unprepared to deal with widespread unrest. And the increasing hostility isn't just being directed at the governments. Attacks on minorities are also becoming increasingly common, particularly against Roma (gypsy) communities. Recently 700 members of the far-right Workers' Party in the Czech Republic fought with police when they were prevented from marching on a Roma area.

Of course Iceland is just about as far as you can get from Eastern Europe without leaving the continent. If the global economic turmoil can cause rioting in a country with one of the highest quality of life ratings in the world, could rioting be far behind in the major Western economies? And even if it isn't, how will the major economies of Western Europe respond to growing political unrest to their east, in countries with which they are now united? Clearly the EU has an obligation to help Eastern Europe through the financial turmoil, but if the situation becomes fundamentally dangerous, can the EU do anything to stem the violence without a proper policing military force?

The "spring of discontent" will be an anxious time for Europe.

No Passport in Liechtenstein

I'm back in Switzerland after my holidays in New York, and yesterday I decided to take a drive over to the border with Liechtenstein to see if they had set anything up as a result of the Schengen discrepency. As I expected, there is no new passport check along the section of the Rhine seperating the tiny principality from Switzerland, but interestingly, I didn't see any sign of the reported surveilance systems that they've now set up either.

Switzerland joined the Schengen zone, which allows passport-free travel between European countries, last month. However Liechtenstein has not yet joined, because the EU is trying to strong-arm it into cracking down on tax cheats before it will allow the principality in. Liechtenstein, which has had an open border with Switzerland since 1923, is now wedged between two Schengen countries and in theory, Switzerland must now set up border checks with Liechtenstein for the first time. This could be a big headache because for all intents and purposes Liechtenstein is pretty much part of Switzerland. It uses the Swiss franc, relies on Switzerland's military for defense, and many people live in one country and work in the other. Aside from a few small signs at the border, there is little differentiating the principality from its neighbor.

The border guard corps in Eastern Switzerland has said it is setting up a series of surveilance cameras along the bridges in order to comply with Schengen rules, and in theory if any cars look suspicious they have border guards ready to investigate. However I didn't see any sign of such cameras when I was there, and considering I was walking around taking pictures you'd think if anyone was watching they might have come to ask me what I was doing! Perhaps they haven't set them up yet. Interestingly, I've heard that this surveilance system is going to cost several million francs, just to be dismantled once Liechtenstein does eventually join. Liechtenstein has even had to issue Schengen visas free of charge to foreign nationals living there, who would now in theory be legally trapped within the 160 square kilometre country. I guess Brussels has proven that it can make life difficult for the tax havens when it wants to.

I had never been to Liechtenstein before, it's a pretty weird place. It is true that from the prince's palace you can see almost the entire inhabited area of the country. It's really just a small strip of land on one side of the Rhine in a valley. It was a Saturday afternoon and Vaduz, the capital, was completely deserted. It was just me and some Eastern Europeans who seemed to also be there for the novelty factor, taking pictures of every Liechtenstein flag in sight.

On the way back I came across a reminder of another ongoing issue with Switzerland's entry into the Schengen Zone. Switzerland's bilateral agreements with the EU requires that all EU nationals be allowed free movement in and out of the country, but Switzerland is going to vote on whether the two newest entrants, Romania and Bulgaria, will be afforded the same access. That vote will be February 8th, and in St. Gallen I came across this billboard from the FDP urging people to vote yes to giving Romanians and Bulgarians the same rights as other EU citizens. The billboard points out that a no vote, being advocated by the conservative SVP party, would send a hostile signal to Switzerland's neighbors and lead to further isolationism. It shows two people with SVP signs destroying a rail bridge to the rest of Europe. It reminds of the Swiss of the infamous "guillotine clause," which says that if Switzerland renegs on any treaty its already signed with the EU, all of the bilateral treaties will be rendered invalid, effectively completely cutting off the country from its neighbors.

Tonight I noticed that the SVP has put up a contrary billboard right outside my dad's house urging people to vote no (photo below), with their usual motif of dark nefarious foreigners greedily eyeing Switzerland's riches.

Honestly the idea that people would be making decisions on these important issues based on some childish cartoons seems pretty absurd to me, but it's typical of this country's obsession with referendi. Neither of these cartoons clearly conveys what's really at stake with this vote. The SVP ad seems to be suggesting that this is some kind of additional right that the Swiss people can choose to give to their neighbors to the east, when in reality a no vote would be reneging on a treaty that Switzerland has already signed. The EU has made very clear that Switzerland cannot pick and choose which parts its bilateral agreements it's going to obey as if it was some sort of dipomatic buffet. On Saturday Switzerland's EU ambassador Michael Reiterer told the newspaper Tribune de Geneve that if the Swiss refuse to extend the free movement clause to the new entrants it will invalidate the country's entry into the Schengen Zone and the whole agreement will be torn up.

I'll be watching with interest to see what happens in that referendum. After stopping in Leichtenstein I drove over the border with Austria and as expected I found the border check dismantled. If the Swiss vote no in February 8th, those checkpoints may have to be hastily reassembled. And contrary to Reiterer's optimism, I'm not so certain the referendum will pass. A few years ago the referendum to join Schengen did not pass by a large margin, and the recent success of the SVP may reflect the fact that public attitudes on immigration may have continued to harden since then. In the mean time I'll be interested to hear from people here whether they understand what reprocutions a no vote could have.

Europe Caught

The big story today is the Council of Europe report implicating 14 European countries – including Britain, Germany and even Sweden – of aiding or being complicit in the illegal kidnapping and transfer of suspects by the US. Swiss Senator Dick Marty, in a press release accompanying the report, said despite their protestations after the Washington Post revealed the existence of secret detention centers in Eastern Europe, certain individual European governments knew of the plan.

What the report doesn’t include is hard evidence of the existence of these detention centers or the transfers, but concludes it is nearly certain they exist in Poland and Romania. The reaction by those two governments has been laughable, with some representatives claiming to be incredulous that such an outrageous accusation has been made, and others candidly admitting that the findings are true.

One thing is for certain: this entire debacle will cause lasting damage to US-Europe relations, and European countries will be extremely hesitant to cooperate with the US when it requests assistance in the future. In fact, I suspect some countries, like Germany, may question whether the US base presence in the country can still be justified, and may insist that these bases be put under NATO control.