Oldal 167 [167]
Global Europe and strategic sovereignty ] 165
Third, there also exist several streams of right-wing conservative and
nationalistic criticism of the Unions trade regime. While most of the major
conservative parties in Europe support free trade, there seems to be a growing
aversion towards such policies among right-wing constituencies. Some would
argue that sovereignty pooling has reached its limits (Fekete 2018), and that
this is also true in free trade. From a more nationalistic perspective, this
means that nations should support their own domestic producers, and that
this is exactly what free trade policies are preventing.
These views also consider the strict EU policies on state aid and the
ultra-liberalised open borders within the Union as measures that hinder
nation-states in reacting to international developments and supporting their
own interests and producers, by ignoring or denying that these nation-states
remain the fundamental building blocks of the international system. From
this perspective, the EU’s free trade policies are criticised from an empirical
perspective as well, and are often presented as the main cause of the collapse
of certain economic sectors within the Union due to their dislocation to other
countries, mostly in Asia.
We may not share and accept these critical viewpoints, but it would be
a mistake to ignore them. In the light of the changing world order, the EU
needs to invest in a genuine rethinking of its trade system with the aim of
enhancing its legitimacy and efficiency. In this process, citizens’ voices and
demands should be listened to and paid special attention.
Furthermore, it is now high time to engage in a broader reflection on
the Unions trade policy objectives. It should be asked what the aims to
achieve through free trade agreements exactly are, and whether these aims
are achievable through such deals at all.
Market-bias in EU policies has been well documented, and this bias should
be kept in balance. Consequently, it is crucial to compensate the losers of
free trade. Right now, this only happens in the field of agricultural products
via the Unions Common Agricultural Policy. There is a need to restructure
other sectors as well. Otherwise, the EU will lose on both the competitiveness
and legitimacy sides.
All in all, while free trade shall be maintained as a cornerstone of
contemporary European and global systems and order, an honest and
democratic public debate about its downsides should also be encouraged.
In this context, some important questions regarding the trade-strategic
sovereignty nexus are to be answered as well. First of all, how much will the
EU let its trade preferences be shaped and steered by business actors, or how
much will it consider this to be the role and prerogative of political decision¬
makers? And even if the Union decides to consolidate its political control
over trade policies, another dilemma is whether, and in which way, it aims
and is ready to use trade as an instrument for enhancing its stance in the
global arena and achieving its geopolitical objectives.