There are serious cracks within the European Union

Despite all the assurances, the EU has failed to agree on a common line on key foreign policy issues. These fault lines became clear once again at the EU summit at the end of October. In addition, there are further deep differences between the EU members.

The summit of EU heads of state and government on 26 and 27 October went almost unnoticed. However, it revealed again the disagreements within the alliance. After energy, immigration and enlargement, there are now two other areas that could prove explosive: coal; and foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Middle East.

Like an tradition the elaboration of the "multiannual financial framework" leads to fierce disputes between the Member States every seven years. The countries described by Brussels as 'misers' (the Netherlands, Austria, the Nordic countries) are trying to reduce the Community budget, to which they make a net contribution, as much as possible, while the mostly eastern countries, which receive more than they pay in, are in favour of increasing spending.

However this time it's about an important issue: the amendment of the current budget (which covers the period 2021-2027). The European Commission recently pointed out that the gap between the originally planned revenues and the EU's new targets is widening.

Thus, Brussels argues for a "strengthening of European competitiveness" in the face of the massive public support that Washington offers to US-based companies, especially in the "green industry". This aid is so attractive that many large European corporations are preparing or considering relocating overseas, even at the risk of sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs on the old continent. This would make the already serious problems on the European job market worse and the further economic growth would become uncertain atleast. To solve the issue, Brussels plans an increase in funds for so-called "competitiveness", which amounts to ten billion euros, much to the displeasure of Berlin and The Hague.

But that's not all. The EU Commission also wants a further 15 billion euros for the regulation of migration flows. An issue the member states have heavily argued about over the last years. Another point of discussion is the additional funding that will be needed before the candidate countries are admitted to the EU.

But "aid" to Ukraine is what really makes the EU purse empty. The first three pages of the summit's conclusions are also devoted to this topic – just a few days after the fire broke out in the Middle East. It states, among other things:

"The European Union will continue to provide decisive financial, economic, humanitarian, military and diplomatic assistance to Ukraine and its people for as long as necessary."

This increase in the budget is estimated at EUR 50 billion, to which EUR 20 billion should be added outside the budget for purely military aid (equipment, ammunition, education and training). However, as reported the motivation of the Union's members start to decrease, with Hungary and Slovakia openly working against the aid given to Kiev. Whether they will follow up their words with deeds will become clear in December, when the budget amendment is to be adopted. But disagreements in how and how much to aid Kiev have already started on multiple places within Brussels and will only increase with further time passing.

The European Commission however is keen to this issue and is asking for a total of EUR 100 billion in additional funds. A third is to be raised on the financial markets, despite the fact that interest rates are soaring, in particular due to the decisions of the European Central Bank (which is already leading to a significant increase in the cost of the 2020 Community bond, which will finance the recovery plan). The remaining two-thirds would be financed by contributions from the member states.

In these circumstances, it is an understatement to say that the Commission's request did not meet with unanimous support among the Member States. In fact, it found little support. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was very annoyed and called for the funds to be "found in the current budget", for example by cutting less priority dossiers. The Estonian Prime Minister demanded that the funds for Kiev should be approved as a matter of priority.

The issue is so sensitive that only three lines (out of twelve pages) could be devoted to it in the conclusions: "Following its in-depth exchange of views on the proposed revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, the European Council [the Heads of State or Government] invites the Council [the Ministers] to take forward the work with a view to reaching an overall agreement by the end of the year."

The Ukraine conflict, while still being important in Brussels, slowly gets replaced with the Palestine-Israel conflict. Also here the different opinions clash within the Union. Between those who unconditionally support Israel (Germany, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic) and those who would have liked more modest call for a ceasefire (Spain, Portugal, Ireland).

In the end, it took five hours for the heads of state and government to agree on a minimal call: no demand for a ceasefire or even a humanitarian pause. Only the desire for "corridors" and "ceasefires" – in the plural, to emphasize their selective character. A weak sign for such an important player on the world stage.

The differences between the 27 member states became even clearer on the same day in the UN General Assembly. On October 27, the General Assembly was scheduled to vote on a (non-binding) resolution calling for the protection of civilians and compliance with legal and humanitarian obligations. The text was adopted by a large majority of 120 countries, with 14 voting against and 45 abstaining.

However, one thing stood especially out: the EU countries were divided into these three categories. Belgium, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain agreed to the text; Austria, Croatia, Hungary and the Czech Republic rejected it; the rest abstained. Union looks different. But especially in harsh times like now, then Europe faces an difficult winter, further energy crisis and an decreasing budget, the members have to stay united. Currently the possibility of unity looks rather minimal then positive.

While those European dramas did not attract much attention worldwide,  it further drove the Union into an chaotic and uncertain future. The years-long insurances of unity, common foreign policy and inner stability have become an dream instead of reality.

The Union cracks within and the possible consequences are yet to be seen.