Brexit, with the departure from the EU of a free-market champion, has boosted the coordination of the free-trade countries of northern Europe.

▲ 16th century engraving showing a view of Lübeck, when it was part of the Hanseatic League.

ANALYSIS / Jokin de Carlos Sola

The Hanseatic League, made up of the small countries of the northern coast of Europe, controls the sea and the money that moves through it. This definition applies to two organizations, one medieval and the other recently created, ready to make its voice heard on the European stage.

In 2017, eight northern European countries (Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) began the process of creating the New Hanseatic League initiative. Its main goal is to maintain and increase economic orthodoxy, now that the United Kingdom - one of its main supporters - is leaving the European Union, and to prevent France from taking advantage of this moment to implement its expansive Economics policies.

The first League

The first Hanseatic League or simply the Hansa was a commercial and defensive alliance of trading cities and guilds of the major maritime cities of the Baltic and North Atlantic. Founded in Lübeck in 1158, the first alliance consisted of the free German maritime cities of Lübeck, Hamburg, Lüneburg, Wismar, Rostock and Stralsund.

Later many other cities joined the Hansa, such as Cologne, Groningen, Berlin or Stockholm. In addition, the Hansa established trading posts in the ports of almost all of northern Europe, and even established its own districts - called kontors -in other places such as London, Antwerp, Novgorod and Bruges.

This alliance acquired great commercial as well as military importance. Since its foundation the Hansa had maintained an almost symbiotic relationship with the monastic state of the Teutonic Knights, established in the Baltic. Later it would establish its own fleet. With the growth of the nation states and the decline of the guilds, the Hansa declined until it consisted only of Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen, and was finally dissolved with the German unification.

Creation of the New Hansa

With the enlargement of the European Union, new opportunities have arisen to balance the power of the Franco-German bloc (also called the Aachen bloc), which is dominant in the European committee . Thus, the Visegrad group , the Three Seas Initiative or the Craiova group have been created in Central and Eastern Europe. In recent years, the New Hanseatic League has emerged in the north of the continent.

The latter initiative was born in the wake of Brexit. Being the third country by economic weight in the EU, the United Kingdom has had a great influence on the Union's economic policy, defending ideas such as economic stability, deficit cutting, debt reduction, economic deregulation and a stable monetary policy that avoids inflation, as well as a free trade policy.

These ideas clashed with the French economic policy of greater economic dirigisme and interventionism, which emphasized social projects and protectionism. Meanwhile, the cautious German attitude acted as a balance and a middle ground between the two positions. London's positions have also been supported by the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as by other countries with a maritime trade tradition, who, faced with the prospect of the United Kingdom's departure from the EU, decided to establish greater coordination among themselves.

Another cause for the training of the New Hansa is the coming to power of Emmanuel Macron and his rise as a strongman in the EU. Macron has abandoned part of the economic speech with which he was elected in 2017 to move closer to traditional French positions, also followed by countries such as Italy or Spain.

A final trigger for the Dutch and Irish-inspired initiative was the January 2018 replacement of Jeroen Dijsselbloem as Eurogroup president by Mario Centeno, Portugal's Socialist minister. For many northern European politicians Dijsselbloem's intransigence in the face of the Greek debt crisis in 2015 was correct and a way forward in EU and Eurozone economic and monetary policy.

This group was initially known by names such as "The Vikings" or "Bad Weather Coalition". In February 2018 the finance ministers of the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania signed the founding document of the New Hanseatic League.     

Political and economic values

The main objectives of the New Hanseatic League are based on free trade ideas, as well as on maintaining a balanced budget . Its main objectives are the development the European Stability Mechanism, established in Luxembourg. The idea would be that this development would eventually turn the ESM into a plenary session of the Executive Council European Monetary Fund, which would redistribute wealth between member states with surpluses and those with trade deficits. The Hansa is also in favor of giving the ESM more power to interfere in national budgets in order to avoid exceeding deficit limits.

However, although the founding document sticks to the European Stability Mechanism, the Hansa does not intend to stop there. Some representatives of these countries have spoken out against a eurozone budget , a eurozone finance minister and a common deposit insurance system, as proposed by Macron. They also criticized the European Commission for its decision not to initiate a disciplinary procedure against Italy for its deficit and debt.

The Hansa positions have achieved general popularity in their respective countries. On the one hand, the right-wing parties in those places have long advocated free-trade approaches, while the left-wing parties do not want the welfare state of their respective populations to be put at risk in order to help the countries of southern Europe.

The ideological origins of the New Hansa could be traced back to British Thatcherism in the 1980s. This political ideology included on the one hand a liberal approach to Economics, advocating ideas such as deregulation, privatization and free trade. Thatcherism did not advocate the breakup of the EU, but included a skeptical vision, defending a union limited to Economics, without advancing in political union. This thought, an adversary of traditional French dirigisme, has had a clear influence within British politics and within the Conservative Party. However, its influence on other European politicians, such as various leaders of the Netherlands and Denmark, is less well known.

The defense of a liberal and capitalist Europe, contrary to a strong central power, is shared by many countries, all of them located in the northern fringe of the Union. This pits them against the Mediterranean countries, which have required Community aid in recent years.

However, there are other elements that characterize these countries beyond their wealth and geographical position, such as their size and their dependence on trade, derived from their maritime nature. This makes them favorable to the growth of trade agreements and forces them to seek resources that they do not have in their own territory.

group leadership

The New Hanseatic League is an initiative and not an organization as such, so it has no official leader; decisions are taken in unofficial councils of heads of government and finance ministers. However, several personalities have been prominent, most notably Mark Rutte, the Dutch premier, and Wopke Hoekstra, his finance minister.  

Wopke Hoekstra is considered the architect of the New Hansa. Aged 41, he is a Christian Democrat, a practicing Protestant, a member of the Remonstrant Brotherhood and a former student of the Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires (INSEAD), Europe's most prestigious business school. He has shown the most intransigent side of the Dutch government on economic issues in recent years. It has reached the point that Dijsselbloem himself has criticized the training of the New League because, according to him, it damages the idea of solidarity within the Union.

Mark Rutte, on the other hand, has used the creation of the New Hansa to increase the weight of the Netherlands in European politics. Rutte is considered one of the most active Dutch premiers in foreign policy since World War II and has tried to assert the Netherlands in the EU against France and Germany. At the same time Rutte has tried to occupy the British voice in the European committee by showing himself as one of the most Atlanticist leaders.

Other leaders who have shown their involvement in this project have been the Danish finance minister until 2019, Kristian Jensen, and the Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney. Moreover, the role of Denmark and Sweden was a core topic for the Baltic countries to move away from the Visegrad group and join the New Hansa.

Economic, financial and technological weight

The Hansa has managed to bring together an economic weight that other initiatives of the same style have not been able to muster. Currently, the combined GDP of the Hansa countries is more than 2.2 trillion euros, close to the 2.5 trillion euros of the French GDP, the second largest economic force in Europe.

The group also has a clear financial clout. Cities such as Amsterdam, Stockholm and Dublin have been climbing up the list of Europe's leading financial capitals in recent years, although they have yet to overtake Paris and Frankfurt. In addition, these are countries where technological innovation exists, especially Estonia and the Netherlands.

The fact that the group does not exceed 10% of the European population somewhat mitigates its influence, since the votes of the countries and blocs in the European committee are partly based on the issue of inhabitants, but it is nonetheless a relevant political actor in the EU. In contrast, the southern European countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece) account for 30% of the European population, but are considered less decisive.

The positions of the Hansa represent a break with the EU principle that, for reasons of inter-territorial social cohesion, those countries that have more and are more developed contribute more. The ideas of the more radical sectors of the Hansa can even be labeled as a certain neo-colonialism, insofar as they intend to use the supranational mechanisms of the EU to ensure that the debtor countries of the South repay loans, which will keep them at certain levels of debt.

The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Ireland are among the countries that contribute the most to the common European budget , behind the top four (Italy, the United Kingdom, France and Germany). From a per capita perspective, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are at the top of the list. While Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are beneficiaries, they are less so than Poland, Greece and Romania.

Given its greater contribution to the EU, or less dependence on aid, the Hansa is demanding a greater say in the EU's management. For the time being, in the 2020 budget , it has succeeded in imposing various criteria, as opposed to those of the recipient countries.

Exercise of influence

One of the main objectives of the New Hanseatic League was to make sure that the two figures of major control over European Economics (the presidency of the Central Bank, and the leadership of the International Monetary Fund) were to its liking. In both cases it has failed, largely because of the intervention of Emmanuel Macron.

The Netherlands had a particular interest in the appointment of the ECB, as the outgoing president, Mario Draghi, had pressured the Dutch government to activate economic stimulus policies. The New Hansa's candidate was Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann, known for his criticism of Mario Draghi's stimulatory policies and for advocating a high-interest policy. Macron agreed with Germany that the European Commission would go to a German (Ursula von der Leyen) in exchange for the ECB to be chaired by Christine Laguard, who would continue Draghi's policies.

For the IMF Rutte proposed Dijsselbloem, despite his criticism of the Hansa. The final vote was between him and Bulgarian economist Kristalian Georgieva. Although Germany ended up voting for the Dutchman, Georgieva became the new head of the IMF. 

However, the Hansa has also had some victories, such as holding the Commission firm on the Italian budget , which was going to exceed the deficit limits; exerting influence on the European budget , which has suffered a drastic reduction; or slowing down, if not completely blocking, Macron's project for a common budget for the Eurozone.

visit of Dutch Finance Minister Wopke Hoekstra (right) to his Irish counterpart Paschal Donohoe (left) in late 2018 [Gov. of Ireland].

Expansion strategy and alliances

One of the problems previously mentioned for the Hansa has been its lack of weight in the European committee . For this reason, its leaders have sought the political harmony of countries with which there may be ideological coincidences.

One of the first countries to establish contact with the Hansa countries was Austria. This makes sense since Austria has a similar economic structure to the other Hansa countries due to its small size and population. In addition to that, the government of Sebastian Kurz, seemed to have a marked program towards Europe very much in line with the Hansa. Famous is the proposal of several Austrian politicians for the creation of two European currencies, one for the north and one for the south. This subject connections would be very important in order to later be able to influence Germany. In the new von der Leyen Commission, the Finance Commission was won for Austria by the economist Johannes Hahn.

The Austrian courtship also seems to have a strategic goal as a step to also start influencing Germany, which acts as a balancer of the balance. Several German politicians from the CDU and CSU are favorable to the Hansa's thinking and have been very influential throughout the Merkel government. But when Wolfgang Schäuble was removed from the Finance Ministry and replaced by the Social Democrat Olof Scholz these positions lost importance.

In a similar way, the Hansa (and especially the Netherlands) have been establishing contacts with the government of Flanders in Belgium. Although Flanders is just another state in the Belgian federation, the lack of government in Brussels gives it great importance, along with the government of Wallonia. In addition to that, the Flemish control the port of Antwerp and have always been closer to the ideas of the Hansa.

On the other hand, the Hansa seems to have started contacts also with Slovakia and the Czech Republic. This was seen when in March 2019 both countries signed a declaration together with the Hansa countries against the Italian budget . It would be unusual to see these countries getting very close to the Hansa because they are still natural recipients of European funds. However, considering that they are countries with healthy accounts they could be seen allied with the Hansa in some future actions.

In a way, we could see Hanseatic diplomacy as a partial evolution of Otto von Bismarck's diplomacy (to keep France out of power by training regional alliances). The aim is to form a sufficiently strong bloc that can present itself solidly in the European committee and convince Germany to tilt the balance towards budgetary orthodoxy and the interests of the northern countries. Alongside France are most of the countries of the South. It could be said very generally that the objectives of the Hansa are: "Mobilize the North, seduce Germany, silence the Mediterranean".

Strange alliances in front of the Hansa

The Hanseatic configuration of alliances around Europe and their influence on the new European budget seems to have created curious alliances, the largest of which is undoubtedly the one that may arise between Poland and France.

This may sound strange, because when it comes to foreign policy, social policy and on certain points of European construction, Poland and France have been poles apart. But when it comes to economic policy and the European budget , France and Poland coincide and this may result in a common front against the Hansa.

The reasons for the Franco-Polish rapprochement are varied. Both nations follow the tradition of the social welfare state, France because of its republican fraternal bequest and Poland because of its Catholic heritage, both opposed to the Hanseatic absentee state. Moreover, both countries have reasons to want to avoid restrictive budgets. The Polish government fears that a drastic reduction of investment in Poland would force it to make social cuts, which would lead to instability. France sample opposed for a more ideological reason: Macron has championed the idea of "A Europe that protects" and would have trouble sticking to this idea.

However, Poland and France maintain some sticking points, especially with Macron's attempt at a new Ostpolik to calm relations with Russia.

Conclusion

The creation of the New Hanseatic League is ultimately written request a reaction to two movements: the creation of European regional systems and the withdrawal economic policies favoring Northern Europe. 

If the countries of Europe organize themselves into blocs, it may be easier to carry out certain initiatives as there are fewer interlocutors to negotiate with.

On the other hand, the creation of an initiative with the specific goal of defending the interests of the North could pose a risk for the countries of the South, accentuating the North-South differences in Europe. This would put Germany, which wants to avoid being involved in such a compromise, in a complicated status .

The smartest thing would be to avoid these confrontations directly by looking for other sources of revenue for the EU that do not compromise the wealth of the Hansa countries, as Morawiecki expressed and Macron has also pointed out. Thus, some taxes have been discussed, such as on air travel, financial transactions and the digital world. But again, with the importance of the financial sector and new technologies in countries such as Ireland or Estonia, this may find civil service examination. It is not a simple task.

In any case, it should be ensured that European politicians have sufficient vision and understanding to make agreements that take into account all the idiosyncrasies of the European Union.

With the agreement reached between the EU and Johnson and the polls favorable to Johnson in the December 12 elections, a possible end to Brexit is in sight.

▲ Installation against Brexit, during a protest in Manchester in 2017 [Robert Mandel, Wikimedia Commons].

COMMENT / Pablo Gurbindo

Since June 23, 2016, the date on which the referendum on the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union was held, the British exit has overshadowed any other topic, such as the momentous past European elections, and has caused the division of the British political spectrum between those who support remaining and those who support leaving.

 The "Brexit" has also taken two prime ministers by surprise: David Cameron, after the referendum, and his successor, Theresa May, who left the position after failing to get her agreement reached with the EU to be C the British Parliament. And it may be her successor, Boris Johnson, the controversial former Mayor of London who campaigned for the vote to leave the Union, who manages to lead his country out of these more than three years of uncertainty.

Johnson's arrival at 10 Downing Street caused great concern in European capitals. From the outset, he stated that he would get his country out of the European Union, agreement or no agreement, before October 31. And, in September, he did not hesitate to temporarily fail the Parliament so that the civil service examination could not veto a possible exit without agreement. This closure was declared illegal by the Supreme Court and the civil service examination succeeded in ensuring that the hypothetical exit without agreement could only be agreed by Parliament. Despite all this, negotiations in Brussels did not stop and, on October 17, it was announced that an agreement had been reached. agreement.

The agreement reached is, to a large extent, similar to the one reached with Theresa May. The main change has been the Irish "safeguard", the section most criticized at the time by the civil service examination and by the hardest wing of the "Tories". This measure implied that, if the European Union and the United Kingdom did not reach an agreement by 2020, Northern Ireland would remain in the single market and the customs union, while the rest of the United Kingdom would leave.

This system provoked a great rejection, especially in the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). May and Johnson depended on this Northern Irish Unionist party to approve the agreement in the British Parliament. This concern about the new border between the two Irelands responds to the risk it poses to the Good Friday Agreements. Thanks to these agreements, peace was restored to Northern Ireland, which was at war in the last century between Catholic groups, who advocated unification with Ireland, and Protestant unionists, who advocated maintaining ties with the United Kingdom. The breakdown of these agreements could provoke the return of violence to the island.

agreement reached

This new agreement on Northern Ireland, proposed by Johnson, is based on three main elements, according to the European Union's Brexit negotiator, the Frenchman Michel Barnier:

(1) Northern Ireland will continue to comply with certain EU customs rules, especially those related to goods and products. However, in order to avoid any border subject with Ireland, checks will only be carried out on goods arriving at Northern Irish ports. These checks will be carried out by the British in compliance with EU rules.

(2) However, it will continue to be part of the British Customs Union, so any trade agreement reached by the United Kingdom after Brexit will include Northern Ireland. The problem is that these two elements conflict: Northern Ireland would be part of both the British and EU customs unions. In order to solve the problem that this "customs bicephaly" could produce, products from third countries - which will not then move to another country in the common market - will be taxed in the United Kingdom. However, if the products are at risk of entering the common market, the UK authorities will apply the EU tariffs.

(3) Finally, the agreement with Johnson will be a permanent agreement unless the Northern Ireland Assembly decides otherwise. The agreement enables this body to vote on whether to maintain or abandon the agreed status, once four years have elapsed since the protocol came into force. In the event that they ratify the agreement , it will be extended by four or eight years, depending on whether it is a simple majority or whether it has majority support (with the support of the Protestant and Catholic communities). Otherwise, European laws will continue to apply for two more years, during which time the EU and the UK will have to reach a new agreement.

Extension and call for elections

After the advertisement the agreement reached, the most complicated part remained: ratifying it in the British Parliament, and in record time, since the deadline was October 31. Johnson was forced by Parliament to ask Brussels for an extension until January 31, 2020, contrary to his wishes to keep his promise to leave on October 31. This request was not without controversy as Johnson sent two letters: one requesting the extension, which he did not sign, and another signed in which he expressed that he would see the extension as a "mistake" and that it would be "deeply corrosive" for his country.

On October 29, the European committee accepted the extension to January 31, 2020 to allow time for the ratification of the Exit agreement . The United Kingdom could leave the Union earlier, on December 1, 2019 (a date which has already passed) or on January 1, 2020 in the event of both parties ratifying the support. This extension was unanimously approved by the 27, despite France's reluctance. France argued that this long extension should be granted only if there was certainty that there would be elections in the United Kingdom; otherwise, they advocated a shorter technical extension, so that there would be time to ratify the Exit agreement .

To carry out the Brexit, Johnson, faced with "parliamentary obstructionism", called for early elections to change the arithmetic of the Parliament and to be able to approve the agreement reached with the EU. This call was rejected twice by Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, the main party of the civil service examination. But after learning that the European committee accepted the extension, it supported the call.

Conclusion

With elections scheduled for next December 12, the wind seems to be blowing in Johnson's favor. The polls favor him with a percentage of 40% of the vote. Far behind, Labour, with 29%, would lose support to Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrat Party, which would rise to 15% (from 7.4% in the previous election). This rise of the "Lib Dems" would be mainly due to their strong support for remaining in the EU, unlike Corbyn, who has maintained a neutral position despite the fact that 70% of Labour voters support remaining. On the other hand, the Conservative majority would allow the "Tories" to stop depending on the DUP to achieve sufficient parliamentary majorities.

As if that were not enough, the leader of the Brexit Party, Nigel Farage, has announced that in order to facilitate a Conservative majority, his party will not stand in the constituencies where the Conservative Party won in the previous elections. In order to ensure the exit of the United Kingdom from the Union and to avoid a new referendum.

If these polls come true, Johnson would obtain his long-awaited majority to be able to approve the exit.

After more than three years, a plausible end to Brexit is in sight.

DOCUMENTO DE work / Lucía Serrano Royo

SUMMARY

The European Union was born as a mechanism for cooperation between countries, but its recent history makes the system still very fragile. At the same time, its diversity makes decision making complex and many political interests come into play, which may conflict with each other. One of the most relevant events that is currently taking place and that has shaken the pillars of the Union is "Brexit", the exit of the United Kingdom as a member state of the Union. This paper will analyze the slow implementation of article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which is activated for the first time in history. In addition, it analyzes the reasons in the European and internal context that have led to this status and the consequences from a political, economic and social point of view. Faced with this climate of instability and uncertainty, different alternatives to this status will be proposed and it will be analyzed how the European Union has responded to this problem in its White Paper, where different scenarios for the continuation of the Union have been established.

 download the complete document [pdf. 4.4MB]