“This has been catastrophic for the reputation of the European Union,” mentioned Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations.
At the beginning of the disaster, as nations erected borders and hoarded protecting tools, masks and robes, there was an enormous want for European cooperation, he mentioned, “not because people liked the E.U. or its institutions, but because they were so absent.”
But the query now, he mentioned, is purchaser’s regret. “The E.U. waded into an area with no expertise and competence and put a spotlight on itself,” he mentioned. “In the minds of many who look at the U.K. and U.S. and Israel, they think we’re doing badly because of European cooperation, and that will have a corrosive impact in other areas.”
Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European research on the University of Oxford, mentioned that the “fundamental legitimacy” of the bloc got here much less from its democratic establishments, that are weak, than from its efficiency, which is how it will likely be judged. Its actual legitimacy, he mentioned, “is what it delivers for Europeans.”
But the bloc’s different main initiative, a groundbreaking pandemic restoration fund, has but to be put in place and is dwarfed by American stimulus packages.
While nationwide leaders generally take credit score for each success and blame the Commission for each failure, the pandemic has displayed the vulnerabilities of a paperwork with weak and divided management. An effort by the Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, a medical physician, to boost her energy and profile by grabbing vaccine procurement from member states has proved disastrous.
