Deconfinement has started after two months of pandemic, although with a lot of caution. It is still particularly important to observe safety measures, social distance, etc., because new waves of infection must be avoided or, at least, minimized. On the other hand, border controls were re-established in most European border after the declaration of pandemic, and many border crossings still remain closed. This creates a lot of difficulties in border regions, where many depend crucially from the other side of the border. As CESCI has defined in a very appropriate sentence: now, solidarity means separation between persons, but we do not need to separate countries.
This is a new and unknown virus, which produces many asymptomatic infections, which makes it difficult to detect and much more difficult to prevent, since there is no vaccine available yet. Patients who develop pneumonia have the worst prognosis, the greatest impact on health systems, and they are also difficult to detect in advance. According to intensive research in Asia, Europe and America, the reliability of the tests remains very doubtful, and it cannot be stated yet the type of immunisation that is acquired after infection, but people are probably not getting re-infected (latest studies show that 99% of infected people develop antibodies). Any positive results on retesting are more likely a result of residual viral material, but this is not fully confirmed yet by available evidence. However, the scientific community knows a lot about Coronavirus, and everyday a bit more. Current massive serology tests are providing very precious information, and researchers are progressing with vaccines and specific treatments for worst cases. In the meantime, contention, handling of sick people, control measures such as social distance, and common sense, seem to be the best available arsenal.
It is true that such threats have been known for decades. International agencies, especially the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other health institutions, think-tanks, etc., have warned long time ago, and also very recently, of a lack of preparedness to prevent a major epidemic from becoming a pandemic: deficits in protective equipment in ICUs, public health cuts in some countries, especially as a result of the previous financial and economic crises, and endemic shortages of quality public services in others. Health expenditure indexes have been published and many recommendations have been made by plenty of specialized agencies, organisations and experts. The EU has also regulated some particular aspects of interest, such as cross-border healthcare (with a directive adopted in 2011, yet to be effectively implemented in all Member States to address the specific health needs of border citizens), but had also reacted when the pandemic broke out, fine-tuning certain cross-border aspects, especially in view of the measures being taken unilaterally, of course, by some Member States with many borders.
Mariam Martínez-Bascuñán writes in her article “Variable geometry globalisation” in El País (Madrid, 17 May) that “we thought we lived in a global society where the market provides everything we need. But the pandemic has shown us that we do not produce Paracetamol in Europe, and China produces 80% of world antibiotics”. Who will control the provision of vaccine against the coronavirus? The need to guarantee strategic reserves of healthcare material and essential medicines, and supply chains, perhaps will allow us to realize that nation states are too small to do so, and global society is too inhospitable to rely on it. Europe could have one single voice, strengthening cohesion and identity, and awareness about its place in the world.
In any case, the EU can only publish recommendations and guidelines, since health is the exclusive competence of the Member States, managed directly by the central governments in most cases, or by the regions and municipalities in others. The enormous asymmetry of skills, portfolios, and quality of services, as well as on therapeutic approaches, and other circumstances specific to cross-border environments, are additional difficulties to be taken into account. The different ways of dealing with this crisis in different countries have been very surprising. But it is also true that the pandemic has come in different forms, showing different social dynamics and patterns where the virus has spread with different intensities.
Some countries, very well equipped for different reasons, but particularly as a consequence of lessons learned from previous threats and appropriate preparedness, have been able to identify the initial outbreak and isolate it, controlling from the outset the expansion of the virus, with a manageable impact on health systems. In other cases, the virus entered the country through different channels and in societies where interpersonal and intergenerational contact is remarkably close. Despite taking strong measures, the virus was transmitted very quickly and put at risk the systems’ ability to react. In other countries, despite a significant expansion of the virus and an increasing incidence of the disease, not enough restrictions have been put in place and the effects this may have on the impact of Covid-19 (on the number of victims, and on the economy) are still unknown.
As far as the European Club is concerned, the start of the crisis was appalling: a growing number of cases and fatalities, strong national measures, closing messages and hard statements by some finance minister in the north, described as repugnant by some prime minister in the south, maximalist positions on both sides, unilateral reactions, etc. Fortunately, the situation improved in many cases and very rapidly, from Eurogroup’s commitment on most urgent measures to the more constructive and calm tone of the Council on 23 April (compared to the previous ones, especially that of 26 March). Current budgetary proposals sound promising, but let’s see the Council’s reaction to the Commission’s proposal on 13 May. The Parliament seems to be on board looking at their almost unanimous (people’s, socialists, liberals, greens, and Eurosceptics) resolution on 14 May, but the Council’s opinion is the most important, at the end of the day.
We should not forget that there have been discrepancies in almost everything: the size of the reconstruction fund, how to finance it (contributions, common indebtedness), how to deliver the aid (grants or loans), and its territorial and sectoral distribution. Southern affected countries asked for a trillion, with Community debt and disbursements in the form of grants. The austere north wants a smaller fund distributed in the form of loans. But even this is considered too much by some. The south does not want to lose the battle of debt mutualization and the north does not want more pressure. An intermediate solution envisaged as a collapse of the south is not strategically in the interests of the north (and the Single Market), and the south should not underestimate the popular rejection of certain measures in the north. Half-trillion seems to be the best bet on table so far, and a Pandemic Crisis Support instrument has been established within the European Stability Mechanism.
Meanwhile, decisions such as that of the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe on 5 May do nothing to clarify the question of the size of European solidarity in the face of this crisis, after their call to review the Bundesbank’s participation in the purchase of public debt by the European Central Bank (ECB). There have been reactions in Germany, in other Member States, and at EU institutions, reminding that the European Court of Justice prevails on EU law. The discussions remain after the presentation of a new EU budget proposal by the Commission on 13 May) and the Council is expected to react very soon.
Nevertheless, this virus is likely to change our lives and can also accelerate the transition to a more sustainable energy model. Some see this as a direct application of the Ockham Knife to politics. Fossil fuels harm health and exacerbate climate change, while clean alternatives are available, although undervalued and underdeveloped.
There are many visions and perspectives about the changes this pandemic will leave in our daily life. Towards those asking for more “national withdrawal” and the end of globalisation, German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk thinks of our extreme interdependence and has defined the concept of co-immunity, an individual commitment to mutual protection. In general, most messages go in the direction of a joint effort for recovery, not returning to previous development models, but addressing climate change while rebuilding Europe’s economy.
Back to overview