Since 1 May 2004, the Czech Republic has been member of the European Union. Our country can benefit from a large permeable market and from financial assistance that can be used to heal deep economic wounds caused by decades of Communism. The sum of net subsidies received from EU funds have reached more than CZK 700 billion (EUR 27 billion) since then, and the share of Czech exports to EU countries has extended up to more than 80 percent. The economic interconnection of Czechia with the EU has thus been almost complete.
The last economic crisis of 2008 – 2014 made differences and divergences among EU member states more obvious, especially from the financial and political points of view. It became also more and more clear that cumbersome structures of and procedures within European political and administrative bodies need reforming. The Commission proposed five scenarios of further development of the whole Union, of which the vision of a “multi-speed Europe” has become the most probable. The departure of Great Britain from the Union has forged a much firmer linkage between Germany and France, both the giants within the EU structure, which created an imminent risk that smaller EU countries may gradually sink into insignificance and be more often overridden by decisions of the newly modified majority in the Union.
The Czech position during this development can be characterized as passive and hardly productive. This may be attributed to prevailing ambivalence and euroscepticism in Czech political circles preventing them to assume active participation in the discussion on the future of EU, as well as to limited Czech representation in European structures reflecting an initial struggle among political forces that prevented to send a sufficient number of capable individuals to “Brussels” to succeed in tenders. Czech diplomacy also repeatedly failed in creating functional alliances that would be able to support Czech national interest.
Now a discussion can be opened what may be the main dividing factor creating the multi-speed framework. A traditional one is linked with the membership in the eurozone. Countries outside the euro system may be in a growing number of cases subject to decisions they cannot influence. The Czech political structure was until recent times reluctant to prepare for the adoption of euro with the reasoning that the country should not pay for the problems of others, e.g. Greece. As the situation is growing more unfavourable, the adoption of euro returns back as a theme for debate.
But a more serious dividing factor has originated in recent years with a potential split between “old” and “new” EU countries. It was triggered by refusal of introduced migration quotas where Czechia plays the part with other Visegrád countries. It is not so much a question of solidarity with refugees from warzones – this can be solved also in other ways – but much more a question of lack of solidarity with “old” EU partners like Spain, Italy or Greece directly facing migration waves. The atmosphere vis-à-vis the Visegrád countries in the “old” EU countries dramatically changed in the adverse direction. And the response – although asymmetrical in both scope and real matter – came soon. New EU directives are pushed through to force companies from the “new” countries to pay workers posted to the other countries at least the local minimum wage, all to be subject bureaucratic documentation and inspection. This may be critical for many companies in the “East”, especially road transport companies, who cannot afford such a wage level. Seemingly it looks like a beneficial measure for the workers but a closer look can detect a great deal of protectionism. It seems that in the general upsurge of national egoisms both the principle of cohesion and the existence of the single market of services are now at stake.
Central Europe was an exposed area during all ages with influential powers interfering with it from almost all directions. The EU membership of countries of the region has been so far observed as a guarantee of democracy and of a free market economy. Any weakening of the linkage and commitment to the West will inevitably evoke a strengthened Eastern influence. No country forming a bridge between rivals can benefit from such position. According to one renowned statement of the legendary post-war Czech foreign minister Jan Masaryk, “bridges are usually trampled upon”.
It is high time for countries like the Czech Republic not only to decide what position towards the EU it is needed to have, but also how to participate in the general debate on the future of the Union. Let’s hope that the new Government originating from the parliamentary election of October 2017 will be able to adopt a clear and functional position to the challenges and risks of the European development, become a good and respected partner for the rest of EU countries, and be at the same time able to actively and self-consciously pursue Czech national interests. The notion should prevail that it is necessary in any company not only to take the benefits, but also share the costs. And all those who advocate a voluntary Czech exit from the Union should wait for the final outcome of Brexit. One of the best things ever is to gain necessary knowledge from others’ experience, not on own account.
Emanuel Šíp