Last week, the European Parliament voted with a large majority a comprehensive report on the current state of EU-US relations and some of its articles are of particular interest to Romania, EPP MEP Ramona Mănescu writes in an analysis.

Read below the full text by EPP MEP Ramona Mănescu:

„How binding are the binding quotas?

I think the answer that comes closest to reality is: „who is asking?”

Last week, the European Parliament voted with a large majority (490 votes in favor and 148 against) a comprehensive report on the current state of EU-US relations [1].

Normally, it contains appreciations and critics as well as interesting proposals on how this relationship can be strengthened and work more efficiently and beneficial for the both sides of the Atlantic.

There are many elements of interest in the Elmar Brok’s Report, and the text deserves to be read carefully. Some of its articles are of particular interest to Romania, and here I can recall Article 50, which emphasizes the need for the US and the EU to jointly seek solutions to frozen conflicts and gives as an example Transnistria, or Article 46, which calls on the Commission on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, to adopt the required delegated act which could cause the US to lift the visa requirement for Romanians (and other four EU Member States’ citizens).

Of all the provisions of this report, I would point out Article 28, which refers to NATO’s Member States’ financial contributions to the organization’s budget, namely the objective of spending 2% of GDP on defence. This is an objective already reached by Romania starting with 2017.

Here we observe that the text adopted by the European Parliament makes an amendment to a very clear and unequivocal provision, which requests to all NATO members to allocate at least 2% of GDP annually to defence. The report voted by the European Parliament adds the following:

„insists in this regard that burden-sharing should not be solely focused on inputs (the target of spending 2 % of GDP on defence) but also on outputs (capabilities measured in deployable, ready and sustainable forces)”

This flexibility in contributing to common security, which some European countries want, is now found in a strong text adopted by the European Parliament.

I cannot fail to notice the similarity with another European legislative package, the one on migration and the automatic relocation mechanism.

I remind that on the issue of migration, despite the interpretations given by non-friends, Romania has always expressed its solidarity with the countries that have the burden of receiving and hosting the migrants and never tried to escape from its duties.

Perhaps one should say it louder and more often: Romania is a European country that knows how to share both the efforts and the benefits, to be part of the EU for the better and for worse.

The option expressed by Romania, but which did not receive the necessary support to be found in European texts, was that of the possibility of other types of contributions: contributions to FRONTEX, to third-country sorting centres, to refugee camps assistance programs and the like. This, in opposition to the mandatory hosting of a number of migrants, automatically assigned by a mathematical algorithm.

Romania has also put forward arguments in support of its position, a practical one being the refusal of migrants to come to Romania. The effect of this is the secondary illegal migration, and hence the need for an additional and utterly unnecessary security effort.

Although, much later, European institutions found Romania’s arguments to be valid, the European legislation continues to apply the same rigid automatic relocation mechanism based on mathematical algorithms and not on the realities on the ground (Article 36 of the REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person – recast[2]).

I believe that the text adopted by the European Parliament on the EU-US relationship is one that benefits Romania’s external positions, offering legal arguments in their support.

I also consider that giving flexibility to defence solidarity but denying it in similar mechanisms concerning migration is a direct declaration of the existence of double standards, which brings no honour either to Brussels or the Member States. Of course, asking whether there are double standards in European politics is a rhetorical question. In practice, we see them in almost all areas, from energy security to competition policy, and in most cases, the recipients of double standards are the same big and influential countries that impose their own interests in European politics.

I expect Romania to make the best use of these arguments, all the more so as they are to the advantage not only of our country but also of the efficiency of some European policies that have not yet produced the expected results – those related to the migration crisis.

[1] Report on the state of EU-US relations http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2018-0251+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

[2] REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0270(01)”

.