Search results

.

The European Union is being dragged deeper into another systemic crisis, largely caused by itself. The EU usually saved face from the crises and got stronger, modernized, with broader powers vested by the Member States. Now the situation is different. The EU has hedged its bets. Using the tools of "deliberative" democracy, it held a Conference on the future of Europe, which is discussed in detail in this article. It was organized in a modern network format. Owing to it, the EU leadership was able to involve tens of thousands of people and all segments of society in the discussion of implementing the European project and deepening integration. According to their plan, such an impressive representativeness legitimizes in advance the widest range of recommendations approved by the Conference. Given these recommendations, the European Parliament, the EU Council and the European Commission can now draw any recipes for revitalizing what they are already doing, tightening their course and renewing the EU. They got a free hand, which they counted on: it will be difficult for opponents of reforms to go against the mandate of voters. Some of the measures proposed by the Conference have already been taken up by the EU institutions. Some may require amendments to the founding agreements of the integration bloc and the convening of a convention. The result could be a profound transformation in the way the EU is organized and functions. However, Brussels' plans seem to fall far from reality, contradict the interests of other world players and promotion of equal international cooperation and multilateralism.

.

.

.

.

.

The Covid-19 pandemic was a catalyst for the growing systemic crisis of the EU and at the same time gave the Union an impetus towards its qualitatively new development in favor of deeper integration, expressed in a change in the financial and economic space of the EU. Realizing the risks of their internal destabilization, the EU core countries decided to sacrifice the surplus from their economic successes through the socialization of debts in order to save the most affected peripheral Member States to preserve both the integration union and the European idea itself. The purpose of this article is to explain the difficulty of making this decision and its compromise nature, as well as to clarify the likely consequences and suggest options for the further development of the situation. The authors first compare the pros and cons of debt socialization. Then the variables are compared: the Spanish proposal, the Franco-German initiative and the negotiating platform on the "next generation EU" by Ursula von der Leyen with the fundamental points of the European Council compromise decision. It also provides answers to questions about the volume, conditions, mechanism, and control over the expenditure of the financial assistance provided. The breakthrough steps taken by the Member States towards finding an optimal solution are analyzed. The result of the study is a balanced conclusion about the ambiguous nature of the decision adopted by the EU but having a historical significance and opening prospects for the further deepening of integration processes. This is facilitated by reaching an agreement on the need to bring the core of the EU closer to the periphery through the socialization of debts, as well as the importance of structural reforms that would ensure the construction of a harmonious economy of the future based on a new technological platform and formulated in a breakthrough plan called the next generation EU. Success is not guaranteed, as it depends on the behavior of all Member States, but it is real.

The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 was adopted during the severe crisis caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In the face of a rapidly deteriorating economic situation, EU countries took unprecedented steps radically changing the principles of resource allocation in the Union. These included the recovery plan for Europe, making the EU budget conditional on respect for the rule of law and the new EU resources system. This article seeks to identify the essential characteristics of the decisions made within the Multiannual Financial Framework and define their significance for advancing integration. The study attempts to answer two questions: do these decisions mark the transition to a new stage of integration and to what extent do they comply with the law of the Union. Several EU initiatives related to debt redistribution are analysed, along with the impact of these initiatives on Eastern European countries, particularly those of the Baltic Sea region. The research explores the decisions from the standpoint of legal and political science. In particular, it is stressed that, when reaching a compromise on making the budget conditional on respect for the rule of law, the EU and its member states had to use a mechanism for postponing the execution of an act of the Union, which contradicts the basic principles of EU law. From a political point of view, the adoption of a package of legislative acts within the Multiannual Financial Framework means growing dependence of the member states and an increase in solidarity and loyalty within the Union.