On 1 January, Poland assumed the presidency of the Council of the EU. What does this concretely mean? It means that the Council formations, from working parties to ministerial councils, will be in general chaired by Polish bureaucrats and politicians.
Besides, Poland will be able to push the agenda that they deem it necessary for their national, as well as that of the EU’s interest. In fact, Poland chose Security, Europe! as its major theme. It covers defence and security, protection of people and borders, resistance to foreign interference and disinformation, ensuring security and freedom of business, the energy transition and competitive and resilient agriculture and health security. The latter is quite important, and I hope that Poland manages to push forward the idea of having a proper health protocol in place, with checks and balance, lest we face another global pandemic. The EU Commission needs to know the powers that they can push for during a pandemic.
When it comes to climate security, Poland chose to be quite prescriptive and attached this to competitiveness due to the energy transition, agriculture, as well as countering climate disinformation. In December the ECB, along with EIPOA, published a joint paper tackling impacts of insurance and natural catastrophe. The joint paper outlines the required mitigation measures, and natural catastrophe risk management to create a European system able to deal with such events. Climate change is occurring, and it is important to find possible roles, and EU solutions to reduce the impact of natural catastrophes. It would have been interesting to see this on the Polish agenda of the Council of the EU. Indeed, the problem is the way markets are functioning when it comes to natural catastrophe, with a massive insurance protection gap in place. This will get worse if Europe is uncovered with proper risk mitigations.
Also, in the coming six months the European Commission will be finalising the proposal of the upcoming MFF. It is going to be a different MFF. Taking into consideration what the newly re-elected president of the USA is saying, if EU-NATO member states are to spend 5% of their GDP on security and defence, then it is a forgone conclusion that the new MFF would need to be redesigned. There is no way for EU-NATO member states to afford a 5% spending on defence. Somehow the national budgets must reconcile to the indicators imposed by the six pack and two pack rules for euro area member states, and the Maastricht Criteria for deficit and debt to GDP ratio for the non-euro area member states. Italy, France, Belgium, and many other EU member states are already in breach, let alone with additional increases in defence spending.
Surely, by the end of the second term of Donald Trump’s presidency, several EU member states would default requiring a bailout if this had to go through. Otherwise, the EU Commission would need to reduce and rebalance the spending of Own Resources, including the revision of the MFF, or perhaps find new assigned revenues for the EU budget. Forget about imposing fines under the Digital Service Act. Elon Musk is surely testing the EU Commission here. However, he is shielded by the USA’s government. Musk is the one entrusted by Trump to come up with solutions to decrease spending by allocating money efficiently under the new department of government efficiency. Going after Musk would mean going after the USA’s government.
Definitely, if the MFF is going to be redesigned to cut or increase spending, then Poland would be a big loser for Cohesion Policy and Agricultural funds. They are the ones that take a big portion of the budget relative to other member states. Malta must stay on the lookout when it comes to climate security. As I had the opportunity to reiterate in my preceding opinion pieces, Malta must factor in Climate Security when it comes to tapping into new funding. Malta is not part of NATO, and therefore we need to see how to upgrade our infrastructure also in view of the funds covering the military mobility, which might be blended and accounted for as part of the EU-NATO member states’ spending for NATO to reach the 5% target.
The Maltese government can work with other partners, including the private sector, by crowding in private investors to build proper infrastructure that covers climate security, including water defence structures and road network upgrades. I am sure that the Maltese government is doing its Mathematics. When I was posted in Brussels, I had the opportunity to work on the Mid-Term Review of the 2014-2020 MFF during the Maltese Presidency of the Council of the EU and eventually the 2021-2027 MFF along with H. E. Marlene Bonnici. The last EU long-term budget (MFF) covers an additional instrument, NextGenerationEU, to support the recovery plan for Europe after the pandemic. However, these are funds which need to be repaid and an additional 5% spending on defence would make matters worse for EU member states which are already indebted to the point of defaulting.
The presidency of the council of the EU helps national governments to push forward an agenda that fits the needs of the collective. For instance, the next Maltese presidency of the Council of the EU is set to be assumed in the second half of 2030. This means that if the PL wins the next general election scheduled in 2027, its mid-term test would be the EU Parliament Elections in 2029 and a back-to-back presidency of the Council of the EU in 2030. Technically, it would be the second Maltese Presidency of the Council of the EU under a PL government, and another missed opportunity for the party that pushed Malta to join the EU!
Lastly, I wish a speedy recovery to the president of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who is currently recovering from a severe pneumonia at her home in Hanover. Somehow, she’s managing to carry on with her duties, as nobody seems to have been appointed in her stead.
