Mediaboss Marketing

Since the beginning of the year, we have seen a genuine communication offensive the Brussels bureaucrats have been insistently promoting among the public in the 28 member states of the European Union. Its objective is to convince that the new European Commission staff is more effective and operative. At least in the energy area. An economic segment the EU cannot cover even in break-down situations. The European Union is an economic power faced with an unimaginable energy imbalance. With two or three exceptions represented by countries that have exploitable resources, the Union depends on import oil and gas. In Central and Eastern Europe, Romania is the only country with resources to meet its demand and export, in the near future. The Iberian Peninsula sources its gas from Algeria. And so does the Italic Peninsula. Northern states have the Norway and Great Britain gas handy and the ones in the Centre and East of Europe depend over 60-70% on Russian gas. The situation is not a reason of joy. The EU imports over half of the energy it uses, with an annual bill of almost EUR 400 bn. The energy dependence on import frails its geopolitical position. Also for this reason, the economy of the EU had a deficit of competitiveness compared to the US, plus many analysis say a far too ambitious environmental strategy given the scarcity of energy resources.

The discrepancy in what regards the sources of supply are visible in the Union. The situation has also caused the lack of unity and interest of the European Union in building a unitary policy in the field. Although Poland has insisted, ever since it joined the EU, that the Union should define its own energy strategy, Warsaws efforts have been ignored and deemed as anti-Russia. And that is true, to a great extent. The objective of Polish politicians has been and is the isolation of Russia. Or, if not that, at least raise a dam to discourage Moscows monopolist policy. Neither has been successful. On the other hand, since almost a year ago, the European Union and the Russian Federation have been in a state of economic war which can degenerate at any time. Divergent national policies have so far disunited the EU in the area of energy policy. Germany had and has a secure Russian gas supply and is now pushing for renewable resources. France doesnt want to give up its nuclear energy facilities that provided a certain indifference to the misfortune of central and Eastern European countries. Poland, since five years ago, has strived to impose its strategic objective of coal.

Meanwhile, the energy situation in Europe, including the EU, has deteriorated, especially following Moscows latest blackmail action. That is with reference to the termination of the South Stream project and steps to set up an energy hub either in Bulgaria or, more recently, in Hungary. Of course, Turkey, too.

In this situation, the Commission headed by Jean Claude Junker presented, on 24 February 2015, with a lot of emphasis, a Union of Energy project. Not energy union. The terminology is not just semantic, it defines, again, the lack of EU interest in the future of this strategic sector. On 19 March, the Council of the Union, made up of heads of state and government, approved the Union of Energy. The unity of views ascertained during the days of the Council indicates that the document had no stake political or economic. Each of the 28 state representatives signed the document knowing that it wasnt going to have any practical consequence. The 15 action points of the Union of Energy do not configure any deep change. We can say the status-quo is preserved.

A Commission official has told the EUobserver that the Energy Union was actually a process.

One cannot say at a certain point in the future, this is the date when the Union of Energy will be set, it is not like (A borderless area) Schengen or when the euro currency was introduced. It is a process, the official said.

Such an unclarity made it easier for EU leaders to endorse the formula of energy unity. Austrian Energy Minister Reinhold Mitterlehner said that each member state reads the EU paper in its own way.

Some focus on the internal energy market, others look at the issue of the security of supply. The Commission proposal is greatly uncontroversial but, evidently, the devil is in details, Polish Minister Rafal Trzaskowski told the press last week. The devil is not just in details, but also in the substance of a genuine Union in the field. As we have said, the Poles wanted a clear energy strategy, with a time scale, to remove Gazprom monopoly, then, still the Polish people insisted on an Energy Union where Brussels should make clear commitments and measures, with sanctions for failure to fulfill them. As the Monetary Union Treaty stipulates, for instance.

In the absence of a consensus for an Energy Strategy, the result was what is now called Union of Energy.

Shape without substance.

Continued here:
Union of Energy, not Energy Union