Future of the European Union in 2030

From ScenarioThinking
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Team Composition


Introduction



Research Questions

EU & Europe Definitions - Mauricio

  1. What is the definition of Europe?
  2. What countries are part of the European Union?
  3. What is the history of the European Union?
  4. What are the candidate countries that want to be part of the European Union?
  5. What is the euro zone?

Politics - GK

  1. How is the European Union Governed
  2. What are the main bodies of the EU?
  3. How is the European parliament elected?
  4. How is the European parliament structured?
  5. How do the countries work together?
  6. How does the EU take decisions?
  7. How does the EU tick?
  8. How is the EU budget managed?
  9. Are there any planned budget policy changes?
  10. What is the main driver for the EU expansion?
  11. Will the expansion of the EU now come to a halt?
  12. Is public opinion in the EU in favour of more enlargement?
  13. What are the main issues in Europe (other than financial)?

Policy - GK

  1. What are the Agriculture policies of the EU? - check if you agree GK
  2. What are the Energy policies of the EU? - same here, M
  3. What are the Infrastructure policies of the EU?
  4. What are the Regional policies of the EU?
  5. What are the Environment policies of the EU? - same here
  6. What are the Educational policies of the EU?
  7. What are the foreign policies of the EU?

Environment - Sri Hari

  1. What is the key driver for environmental policy changes for EU the past 5 years?
  2. Will the EU change its environmental focus in the next 20 years?

Economics - Sameer

  1. What is the GDP and Growth Rate of the EU?
  2. How is monetary policy governed within the EU?
  3. What can cause the instability of the Euro?
  4. Will the EU change its Economic policy because of the financial crisis in 2007-10?
  5. How will be the energetic matrix in 2030?

Society - Arthur

  1. Does European Union really bond its members together?
  2. How do European inhabitants feel about EU?
  3. What are the immigration trends to EU for EU and Non-EU citizens?
  4. What present of EU states are satisfied with being a member state?
  5. How "European" are EU citizens and do they share a common identity?

Terrorism - Mauricio

  1. What has been the impact of terrorism on the EU?
  2. How the recent rebirth of radical nationalist movements influences the EU?
  3. European countries are fighting against terrorism but, what about separatist groups like IRA and ETA?

Demographics - Sameer

  1. What is the population of the EU and how is it distributed?
  2. What are the main religions practiced in the EU?
  3. What are the main languages spoken in the EU?
  4. What are other key demographic statistics for the EU?
  5. What is the level of immigration and emigration?
  6. What are the main issues with changing religion makeup of Europe?
  7. What will be the main issues with the ageing population of the western EU states?

Geopolitics - Sri Hari

  1. Do non EU countries prefer to deal with EU or to deal directly with individual members?

Back on June 30, 2009, the UK House of Commons Defence Committee issued a report entitled “Russia: A new confrontation.” What a title to make friends and influence people? Looking at EU-Russia relations, the report points out that Russia has a preference for dealing with EU member states bilaterally rather than multilaterally. The report quotes Russia’s 2008 foreign policy which says that “Russia will seek due respect for its interests including in the sphere of bilateral relations with individual EU member countries.” Where is the problem? The report goes on to say that a bilateral approach enables Russia to secure itself the best deals and play one country off against another and this approach is adopted in the dealings of Russia with the EU. Should Russia be blamed for that? All European nations have done this when the opportunity arose. It should be recognised that there are profound differences between member states on the EU’s relationship with Russia. The reality is that some EU countries (especially the larger ones) prefer to address some of the main issues on a bilateral basis, in particular in the energy area. Some member states prefer to deal directly with Moscow on economic and energy matters and leave the most difficult issues –such as democracy and human rights, trade barriers and reciprocal access to investments in some sensitive sectors– to the EU. In any case, Russia isn’t the only country that takes advantage of the European Union’s divisions. The United States regularly takes advantage of its relationship with the United Kingdom, Holland and Poland. The United States continues to use bilateral relations even with non-preferred partners when it suits its purposes. The open skies agreement for example with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Germany, Luxembourg and Sweden did allow US airlines to improve their position in the European market. The unwillingness of the European member states to allow the Union to negotiate for them did provide an opportunity for the US and given the upper hand the US has used the bilateral negotiations strategically and skilfully. In areas of crucial importance to the US, the EU is not a unified actor. The US continues therefore to rely primarily on bilateral relations with national capitals. Or consider the case of Japan. In the 80s Japan sought to have an increased role and a stronger voice in international affairs. But the Commission’s role and powers were a source of some confusion or even frustration for Japanese officials as it claimed to speak for Europe, except on matters which they were no agreement between the member states and was therefore constrained in it ability to conclude any agreement it would have wished. Remember at that time the Commission President Jacques Delors was particularly vocal about the need to prevent Japanese domination of certain industry sectors. Or consider the case of China and the frustration that develops about the EU as a foreign policy actor when the EU cannot speak with one voice. It has been difficult for the EU to reach a single common policy towards China. Each member state has its own history –from extremely rich to almost inexistent– with Asia and especially China and some have competing economic interests. Values and their understanding and interpretation can be a factor of divergence; on human rights there are different sensitivities amongst European countries. Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands put the issue at the top of the agenda since their public opinions and parliaments pay great attention to the problem. At the other end of the spectrum, the Latin countries seem relatively less concerned. Germany, the UK and France fall in the middle. Varying European economic interests are also a source of divergence within the EU over China. The 27 member states have different interests. Neither do member states agree on the interpretation and consequences of China’s strategic rise. So Russia is not the only country that takes advantage of the European Union’s divisions. In fact every country probably spends a great deal of time thinking about how it can use tactics against the EU. How can the EU solve the problems of the world if it cannot solve its own problem of disunity. By its incoherent action the EU remains an under-achiever in its relations with Russia and that’s not Russia’s fault. There is no Russian “divide and conquer” strategy. Russia does not play the “divide and conquer“ game attributed to its EU policy. On the contrary, Russia wants the EU to conduct a coherent common policy on all matters, as was pointed out in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, approved by President Dmitry Medvedev “The Russian Federation is interested in the strengthening of the European Union, in the enhancement of its ability to present agreed positions in the areas of trade and economy, humanitarian issues, foreign policy and security.” Russia’s pragmatic protection of its national interest is defined in clear, non-ideological terms in common-sense language. What is clear is that there is an absence of unity on the part of the EU. The European Union, which is now at a highly critical moment in its history, must articulate more options with respect to Russia than seeing it simply as a threat that uses so-called geopolitical tactics. By interacting, both sides can have an extremely positive influence on each other but the European Union needs to put first its house in order. Let us remember that Europe needs Russia, while the EU is the partner that Russia needs to develop an economic base which is not almost wholly dependent on the sale of crude oil, gas and certain other mineral and metal products. Christian D. de Fouloy is President of the Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament and a political scientist. He’s a frequent writer and public speaker on international issues. Source:http://www.neurope.eu/articles/95524.php,Christian D. de Fouloy,26 July 2009

  1. Enlargement of EU?

Article 49 of the Maastricht Treaty (as amended) says that any European state that respects the "principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law", may apply to join the Union. The Copenhagen European Council set out the conditions for EU membership in June 1993 in the so-called Copenhagen criteria. The Western Balkan states had to sign Stabilisation and Association Agreements before either applying for and gaining candidate status, and all have already done so. The countries prioritised for membership are those in the Western Balkans, Turkey, and Iceland with three of these — Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia[1] — gaining candidate status. However in June 2008, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that the EU cannot enlarge beyond 27 states without reform of the institution of the current Treaty of Nice rules. Such a reform would happen if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, however as yet this is by no means guaranteed. If the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles goes ahead, there would be a minor enlargement (within the Netherlands) from the three Caribbean islands that chose to integrate with the Netherlands. The Netherlands has suggested that the proposed Treaty of Lisbon allow the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba to opt for the status of outermost regions if they wish.[12] However, this is dependent on the Lisbon Treaty coming into force. A referendum on Mayotte becoming an overseas department of France in 2011 was held on 29 March 2009.[13] The outcome was "yes" (95.2%).[14] This will mean that there will be another minor enlargement of the European Union to Mayotte. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/EU27-candidate_countries_map.svg/680px-EU27-candidate_countries_map.svg.png Source: Enlargement of the European Union, Wikipedia.org

  1. What is the EU's outlook towards full membership of the Balkans and Turkey?
  2. Would EU disintegrate like the USSR?
  3. Can EU form a larger economic block with Russia, India and China?
  4. In case that the EU will form a large economic block, what USA would do?
  5. If Iceland will be the 29th member state, will it cause any friction between the EU and other application states?
  6. How will EU and China relationship develop?
  7. How will EU and India relationship develop?
  8. How will EU and US relationship develop?
  9. How will EU and North Africa relationship develop?
  10. What role does Africa play for Europe?
  11. What if Primakov's triangle becomes a reality?

The dispute regarding the first priority in the foreign policy of Russia – whether it should have the Western or the Eastern orientation – has been going on for quite a long time already. The discussion was not surfacing much only during the Soviet era, perhaps. However, it would not be correct to compare the foreign policy of the USSR with the one of present-day Russia. The issue of the Russian foreign political priority has been gathering pace for the recent six or seven years. The then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who currently chairs the Chamber of Industry and Commerce, became the person, who spurred the issue up again. Mr. Primakov set forth the idea to establish a special relationship between Russia, India and China. The idea was later referred to as “Primakov's Triangle” in Russian journalism. It goes without saying that the idea of creating such a triangle is based on the wish to challenge the supremacy of the USA. This desire can be seen rather clearly, although it differs a lot with the real state of things. The idea seems to be quite nice, although Primakov's triangle is not likely to take the shape of something real. Yevgeny Primakov's idea was impromptu, for the politician did not put forward any certain suggestions on the matter. Beijing and Delhi were not inspired with the perspective of the trilateral strategic partnership because of the above-mentioned reason. The two countries are not ready to challenge Washington just because of the fact that they are happy with their cooperation with the USA in comparison with Primakov's idea to come into a certain political alliance with Russia. In addition, the US administration has recently lifted restrictions for arms deliveries to India, which might cause very big problems to the Russian defense export to this country. The USA does not have an intention to make such a concession to China, though. On the other hand, Washington has recently removed its objections regarding lifting the embargo for arms deliveries from the European Union. In addition, the USA is an extremely important trade partner for India and China. Russia will not be able to make a competition at this point, at least in the nearest perspective. Needless to mention that neither Delhi nor Beijing will agree to sacrifice the profit for the sake of a rather obscure goal. To crown it all, both India and China used to experience keen rivalries in the struggle for their influence in the Asian region. Pakistan was supporting China in that struggle, whereas India was having traditional problems with it. Russian experts are being rather skeptical about the idea to establish an alliance with India and China too. Yevgeny Primakov stated last week at the Diplomatic Academy of the Foreign Ministry of China that such an opportunity seemed to be possible for him. “The triangle will be very helpful in maintaining the regional security,” Primakov said. Sergei Karagonov, the chairman of the presidium of the Russian Council for foreign defense policy, is certain, though, that Primakov's idea is nonviable. The specialist believes that none of the three states want to create a direct opposition to the USA: “China, Russia and India want to be friends with the USA,” Karagonov said. Mr. Karagonov also pointed out considerable cultural differences between the three countries, as well as intense relations between China and India, RIA Novosti reports. It was reported on Monday, however, that India and China concluded a strategic partnership agreement. Details of the new document were not exposed, although it is known that the parties came to agreement on the issues of the long-standing border dispute, bilateral trade relations and the economic cooperation. Indian and Chinese prime ministers stated that the document would boost diplomatic and economic links between China and India and help the two states resist “global threats.” For the time being it is not known if Russia is going to have at least something to do with the “strategic partnership” of India and China. It is not ruled out, though, that Beijing and Delhi decided to do without Moscow's participation. Source:India, China and Russia to create new alliance to challenge USA's supremacy, pravada.ru

  1. Would Russia with its huge gas reserves would like to play a pivotal role in Europe?
  2. How does the world (US, BRICS,etc.,) perceive the EU? Would they want a strong EU?

Infrastructure - Arthur

  1. Does the EU need to focus on new infrastructure approaches?


Systems Diagram



Driving Forces

Political Driving Forces

  1. World Unification
  2. Threat of war
  3. The Rise of BRIC Economies

Technological Driving Forces

  1. Public attitude to science and technology
  2. Mobility
  3. Nanotechnology

Environmental Driving Forces

  1. Greenhouse gases emissions trading affecting production in the EU
  2. Scarcity of Water in the EU
  3. Increasing need to clean energy

Economic Driving Forces

  1. EU ambitions for economic growth, as expressed in the Lisbon Declaration.
  2. Threat of total financial meltdown
  3. European integration
  4. European dependence on Russian Gas

Societal Driving Forces

  1. EU view of itself – culturally diverse or seeking homogeneity – with the associated political implications
  2. Increasing Mobility
  3. Aging population
  4. Changes in Religion buildup of Europe
  5. Aging Europe


Scenarios

References

Scenario Reports

Economic Reports

Presentations

News & Other Sources

Interview Questions

  1. What are the main political issues currently facing the European Union
  2. What are the main political forces in the European Union
  3. What will happen if Turkey is accepted as part of the EU?

Meeting Agenda

September 9, 2009 - 17:00 to 18:30
September 14, 2009 - 14:00 to 15:00

Retrieved from "https://www.scenariothinking.org/index.php?title=Future_of_the_European_Union_in_2030&oldid=27992"