Daniel Guéguen is the European Union’s longest-serving lobbyist, the former Director-General of the European sugar lobby and former Secretary General of COPA-COGECA (the Association of European Farmers). He is a Senior Advisor at EPPA, a consultancy firm, a Visiting Professor at the College of Europe in Bruges, a writer, editorialist and blogger who has campaigned for an EU that is closer to citizens. Daniel Guéguen talked to us about where the Ursula von der Leyen-led European Commission has gone wrong, why he thinks over-regulation is stifling the European economy, and why the EU will not survive in its present format.
Ursula von der Leyen’s five-year term at the helm of the European Commission is coming to a close. How do you evaluate this period?
Very poorly. As I wrote recently in an article, I think that these five years have been wasted. The general opinion is that she is representing the European power, but this is not how I see it. The core business of the President of the Commission should be to finalise the single market. This is very important. Since the Maastricht Treaty, we have free movement of citizens, capital, goods and services within the twenty-seven member states, but the single market is not finalised, from taxation to trade, finance and the banking mechanism. The former Prime Minister of Italy, Enrico Letta, recently published a very severe report, saying that the finalisation of the single market was not properly managed during the five years of the Von der Leyen Commission. Her core business should have been to deal with the single market.
Instead, she was in constant conflict with Charles Michel, the President of the European Council, on foreign affairs issues, and she was taking over the duties of Josep Borrell, the Commissioner in charge of external affairs, moving from Ukraine to Gaza, with cameras and microphones following her every step. Thirdly, the Commission has spent too much time on the Green Deal, and put too much power in the hands of Green NGOs. That was in particular the case with former Commissioner Frans Timmermans. The ban introduced from 2035 on sales of new cars that produce carbon emissions is a very bad decision, destroying the car industry in Europe, and benefiting China. The farmers’ protests also show how the bureaucrats are exercising their power through norms and measures. So, yes, these five years were wasted and my personal opinion is that Ursula von der Leyen will not be re-elected.
It seems the EU has moved away from focusing on deepened economic cooperation between the member states to more bureaucracy and a more political union. Would you agree with that?
Yes, you’re right. But there is a paradox: if you have a political vision, you are not a bureaucrat. And here, they have tried to achieve a political vision in a very bureaucratic manner, which is a contradiction. But what is the result of this political vision? If you compare the position of the EU to China or to the United States five years ago and now, you can see how the EU is lagging behind in terms of efficiency, productivity, competitiveness, power, and influence in the world. So the political vision in practice has been a failure. But in reality, we are dealing with a bureaucratic Commission. To them, the process of making norms is more important than ever. I am a lobbyist. I am operationally involved in the decision-making processes, and you cannot imagine how bureaucratic, how complex, how non-transparent the system has become. And I am speaking as a true pro-European.
European institutions have not only become too bureaucratic but seem to have grown in power and become less democratic. Would you agree?
The Commission has a bureaucratic power, not a geopolitical one, even though von der Leyen tries to be the spokesperson for big political issues. But this is a fake image. The Commission’s power is a bureaucratic one, it has the power to produce norms and to regulate—which it does in a non-democratic way. There is nothing more anti-democratic within the EU institutions than the trilogues [inter-institutional negotiations between the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament]. Decisions are made behind closed doors, ratified quasi-automatically by the Parliament and the member states, and then regulated via the delegated acts and the implementing acts [acts that are adopted by the Commission instead of EU countries]. This is objectively non-democratic but this is how the system works.
Has the European Union evolved into an organisation which is run by the big states, Germany and France? Smaller member states seem to have less and less of a say in decision-making.
I wouldn’t say that, but what I would say is that the Commission is driven by a sort of mainstream approach, a politically correct approach. There are not many dissenting voices—you have Hungary, and some other member states. I think the media is also very oriented towards this mainstream approach, towards the Brussels bubble. So we have one direction, and anyone who isn’t satisfied is considered to be bad. That is a problem, because I like democracy and I like the capacity for people to debate freely. Is it the Commission’s role to be the moral authority, and teach ethics to the rest of the world? I think not.
You mentioned that the EU has declined economically, and it is falling behind the U.S. and China in the realm of new technologies. Where did it go wrong for the EU in this sense?
Politics is action. If you decide to launch a [post-COVID] recovery plan of €750 billion, which is a huge amount, and you don’t see the results, then it’s a failure. Initially it was a good idea, promoted by French President Emmanuel Macron. But in reality, the funds have mostly not been distributed, the execution is a fiasco. In contrast, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act has boosted the American economy with only half of what the EU planned to spend, and you can see the impact it has had on economic development, how it has attracted investors and businesses.
So the EU funds are there, but they are not being used properly?
Only 40% of the €750 billion has been distributed effectively. What about the rest? And again, it was up to the Commission to decide what was relevant or not relevant, and to decide if a project was good or bad. This is not the role of the Commission. This is a bureaucratization of everything. There is an injection of a massive amount of 750 billion euros and it is wasted.
The other big failure, in my opinion, is research and development. We are lagging behind in this field, we are like satellites of the U.S. and China. Where are we when it comes to new technologies? Where are we in the energy sector? Has the energy crisis, brought about by the war in Ukraine, been properly managed? No. Are the common agricultural policies good? No. Is the sovereignty of the EU in a better shape now than it was five years ago? No. Again, I would like to emphasise the impact green policies are having on the EU, their opposition to research and development for GMOs [genetically modified organisms], and for new technologies. We are hardly anywhere compared to China and the U.S., where all the agricultural technologies and food technologies are based on new technologies. I cannot understand the Greens: they are against farmers consuming too much water, but then they are also against new seeds that save water. We have no clear direction.
Farmers all around Europe have been protesting for months against EU green policies that threaten their livelihood. Is this a sign that the EU’s Green Deal and the ambition to have net zero by 2050, has failed?
I would not use the word ‘fail’ but I will say that the farmers’ community is complaining and challenging the Green Deal. I am sure that this topic will impact the outcome of the European elections. I think climate change is real but we have to act smartly. I am against the banning of the sale of new combustion engine cars after 2035. I am favourable to new technologies for food. With regards to achieving net zero by 2050: if you take the time to study a little bit about artificial intelligence, you will see that in 2050 we will be living in another universe with new types of energy and technologies. Everything will be different. So how can we aim for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050? Would it not be better to go step by step?
So do you think that the EU is not prepared for this new world of artificial intelligence?
No, we are not prepared at all. And when I see the project to enlarge the EU from 27 to 36 member states, I think to myself: this is crazy. I can understand the desire to have associations or strong partnerships, even giving financial assistance to the Balkans, to Georgia, to Ukraine. But to grant membership? The system doesn’t even work properly with twenty-seven member states. If we don’t change the EU Treaties, how could the EU work better with thirty-six member states, including a very big one like Ukraine? It’s total nonsense.
In a recent article you criticised the EU’s “absolute support for Ukraine.” Why?
First of all, this war should never have happened. Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany had been negotiating for many years which resulted in the Minsk Agreements. These were a failure. Now that we do have a war, the priority should be to stop it, not to escalate it. Emmanuel Macron said he wants to send troops. French troops in Ukraine? Is he mad? When young Ukrainian men don’t want to go to war, why should we? This is absolutely appalling. It is an absolute necessity to stop the war and find a consensus.
You criticised the sanctions against Russia as well.
No, I am not criticising the sanctions but I think they have been useless. It’s logical to impose sanctions against Russia which is the aggressor but the reality is that, even with all the sanctions, Russia is in an economically stable position which demonstrates that the sanctions have not been efficient.
Russia has been able to find new trading partners, like China. Do you think that one of the reasons why the EU is failing economically is its seemingly protectionist stance, and its strategy of de-risking, decoupling from China?
First of all, I would not say that the EU has failed economically. But it has definitely not been successful. The question I would ask is: what is the EU? The EU is not a state but it is more than an international institution. The EU is a market but we have a single currency, the euro, which is a federal tool. And this is the big problem. We have a system which is not federal, but we have the federal euro. That’s a big contradiction. When you say that the EU is not a global leader of the world, that is not surprising. The EU is not a state, it is a market.
I go back to my first answer: Ursula von der Leyen’s task should be to finalise the single market. And then, perhaps, we could build some federal elements on top of the single market. So this is the problem: we want to appear as a major, sovereign structure but we are only a market and nothing else. We have no European diplomacy. We have no European defence. We have no European foreign policy because we are not a state. Von der Leyen may want to appear as the leading politician but this is not the case.
Do you think she will be re-elected for another five years, or will the member states look for a different approach?
I don’t think she will be re-appointed, because she doesn’t deserve to be re-appointed. When people ask, but who else? My answer is—you or me, no problem. It is not a problem to find someone. Mario Draghi [former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Central Bank] would certainly be a good choice. He would be more focused on the single market, but he may be a bit too old. Another person that comes to mind is the current Belgian Prime Minister, Alexander De Croo, who is young and pragmatic.
So you think that the large member states, Germany, France, Italy, and some others are disillusioned with von der Leyen?
Yes. Emmanuel Macron is very ambiguous about re-electing her. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni favours von der Leyen to some extent, but who knows. But let’s wait to see the results of the European elections. I believe that the results will come as a shock to a lot of people. And they will impact European policies and the composition of the European Commission.
But in what terms will it be a shock?
You will see a shift to the Right. Why is that? Because people want more protection. They want less green policies, more control of immigration. They are fed up with all kinds of norms and regulations affecting their daily life.
As a lobbyist, were you surprised by the Qatargate scandal?
Yes. Yes, I was.
The Qatargate scandal suggests that foreign entities and some NGOs have too much power in the European decision-making process, and that European lawmakers are easily corrupted.
I was very surprised because, first of all, for a professional, a lobbyist like me, corruption is difficult to understand. There is no need to do things like that. It’s not acceptable. The second big surprise for me was to see that they were paid in cash. Cash. In boxes. It’s amazing. But the real problem is that nothing has changed. The measures which have been taken by the European Parliament are useless. I am in favour of a compulsory regulation of lobbying. I think that we have too many lobbyists, far too many. I also find it shocking that 25% of the Members of the Parliament have another activity. They are consultants or lawyers. When you serve in an elected body, that is a full time job, and you shouldn’t be doing anything else. It’s incredible. It’s a potential conflict of interest. The European Parliament has too much money. Its costs amount to nearly €2 billion. It’s a big machinery with a huge staff, 9,000 people.
Has the European Parliament become too powerful and at the same time unaccountable?
Yes, I would agree with that. And again, the system is very unbalanced, as I have tried to describe. The Parliament is not really a parliament because it has no power of legislative initiative. In recent years it has become the spokesman for the NGOs and a major player in over-regulation that I denounce.
Are you positive or negative when it comes to the future of the EU?
I’m very, very negative. Extremely negative.
Even if Ursula von der Leyen is replaced?
Even then, yes. I will tell you why, and this is a feeling I have had for a long time. I’m totally convinced that the EU will not survive and will disappear in its present format. For one very specific reason: the euro. The euro is a federal tool but we don’t have a federal system. When we had the debt crisis in Greece, I was in favour of paying their debt, but argued that they should then leave the eurozone. They should have restarted their economy with no debt, but with the drachma. But what do you do if a country like France gets into the same situation? You cannot even pay the interest of its debt. What would plan B look like? I was absolutely against the introduction of the euro, because it was implemented too early, like putting the cart before the horse.
So what is your conclusion on the state of affairs in the EU?
Despite the criticisms, I remain a convinced pro-European. First of all, I don’t believe in retreating to national states. I believe the future belongs to large entities such as the EU. Secondly, we can be proud of our shared achievements: the single market, solidarity, and shared progress. We must take time to reflect, define our priorities and our methods. We must not be afraid of the crises that lie ahead. Crises are a resource.
