Vulnerabilities and Preferences in EU Member States: Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic

1. Vulnerabilities, Accession Hangovers and the Presidency Role: Slovakia, Slovenia and the Czech Republic’s Choices for Europe Tim Haughton University of Birmingham SFPA/Katedrapolitologie, Bratislava 8 February 2010

2. Key underlying questions • What shapes an EU Member State’s choices on a range of policy areas? • Why do some states seem much more enthusiastic about integration in some areas than others? • To what extent is the process of National Preference Formation (NPF) of the New Member States different from longer-established members?

3. Why look at NPF in New EU MS? • Existing literature mostly looks at OMS • Most scholarly discussion of NMS has focused on accession and conditionality, but what explains their preferences at the European level as MS? • But also examining the process of NPF in NMS also illuminates the dynamics of domestic politics • inc. power and influence of societal groupings etc. • questions of state capacity • Legacies of communism, post-communist transition and the consequences of the accession process • Insights into future direction of EU • Feeds into theoretical debates about what drives integration and broader debates about preferences

4. National Preference Formation Various explanations used in the literature: • Unique historical experiences (George, Paterson etc) • Size (Archer and Nugent) • Public opinion (Nguyen; Hooghe and Marks) • Dependency (Trade and EU-funds) (Stone Sweet & Sandholtz; Aspinwall) • Ideology (Aspinwall) • Societal interests (Moravcsik) • Vulnerabilities and perceived weakness (Copsey and Haughton, 2009; Haughton, 2009)

5. Focus of study: Choice of Countries • 1. Ideology • Govts of different ideological hue have held reins of power • 2. Societal interests • Slovenia’s history of deliberative democracy • 3. Presidency of European Council • 4. Lisbon/Constitutional Treaty • Very different experiences in the three states • Although presidency can be very unusual time, does throw lots of issues into sharp relief

6. Focus of study: Policy Areas

7. Slovenia’s Choices for Europe

8. Slovakia’s Choices for Europe

9. Cz R’s Choices for Europe

10. Economic Preferences • If ideology key to NPF might expect changes in all three cases • Ideology – not absent • Europe without barriers • Dzurinda on the Services Directive • However – change not stability of prefs • Powerful societal interests? • Topolanek’sgovt and energy liberalization –CEZ –altho linked to dependences • Fico’s opposition to tax harmonization – foreign business lobby –although vulnerabilities • Weak unions – or just focus on domestic politics?

11. External Preferences Support for Enlargement espec to WB: • Ideology – some element in the Czech case (Klaus and Svoboda) • Trade and business links • imp for Slovenia: top list of priorities for presidency • Decision to block negotiations for Croatia in Dec 2008 due to deeper set of motivations

12. Institutional preferences • Ideology – yes on the catholic conservative right in all three cases • SK and Lisbon Treaty • Experience of 2003-4 IGC – decision to ‘retreat to the bench’ (Bilcik and Haughton, 2010) • Instrumentalization of Lisbon ratification • Fico welcomed decision to launch new IGC in 2007, but his priority eurozone entry

13. Institutional Preferences (cont) Czech Rep: • Support of CSSD leader Paroubek rooted in social democratic belief in cooperation • Ideologically-based criticism of Lisbon Treaty of ODS Senators • Klaus couldn’t contain glee when Irish voted no in Oct 2009 However Topolanekgovt remained committed to ratify because: • More pragmatic than ideological • Presidency effect

14. Completion of integration Imp for Slovakia: • Valence issue • Business interests – in 2006 Fico’s publicly voiced doubts – impact on koruna • Vulnerability – fear of ‘capital flight and devaluation’ (Gould, 2009) • Link here to deeper sense of vulnerability associated with SK’s complicated accession – preference sublimation/entrapment?

15. The Presidency Effect - SI + CZ • Raised profile of European issues • Changes in institutional architecture • Affected stance of key politicians • SI – preparations for a gaffe-free presidency cast long shadow over SI – fostered consensus

16. Vulnerabilities and Weaknesses • Vulnerability vs dependency: • Dependency is narrower concept which focuses on economics • Perceived weakness not just about eco stats • All of the key priorities of the 3 states (liberal internal market, energy security, opposition to tax harmonization, further enlargement and flow of EU funds) can be explained. • 2 components: • economic and the perceived place

17. Economic 4 measures of vulnerability: • Net recipient/net beneficiary • Openness of economy • Trade dependency on EU-27 • Debt to GDP • Bring together in composite measure

18. EU Dependency: Net Recipients and Net Contributors (2007)

19. Openness of Economy

20. Perceived place • Much harder to quantify • Vulnerability of labels: • SI – liminal state; seen as ‘Balkan’, ‘former Yugoslav’ etc. • ‘Insecurity discourse’ in Slovakia – link to no at Lux in 1997 • Fainter echo in Czech case

21. 4 vulnerabilities • History of 20th C: benefits of European co-operation and being seen as part of Western European club of established democracies • Size – dependent on neighbours not just for security, but for economics • Klaus et al EU as a ‘marriage of convenience’ not a ‘marriage of love’ (Braun, 2008) • EU as a protective umbrella vs harsh rains of globalization • Lack of power and voice in multinational organization –Benes decrees (Fico and Klaus)

22. Conclusions • Accession hangover – time and effort on accession – still coming to terms with membership • Presidency effect in cases of SI and CZ • Vulnerabilities = key, but bases of vulnerabilities not all set in stone – what happens when/if become net contributors? • Economic crisis and vulnerabilities – will this change stances?

23. Future Avenues for Research • More policy areas and across all EU-27 • More on the presidency effect • 2004-8/9 – largely a period of healthy economic growth – how might global economic downturn affect NPF?