European Union response to the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic and its spread in Europe has had significant effects on some major EU members countries and on European Union institutions, especially in the areas of finance, civil liberties, and relations between member states.
A video conference was held by the members of the European Council on 10 March 2020, in which President Charles Michel presented four priority areas which the leaders had identified:[10]
At a second video conference on 17 March, a fifth area was added:[11]
At the 17 March video conference, leaders also agreed to place temporary restrictions on non-essential travel to the European Union for a period of 30 days.[11]
At their third video conference on 26 March, Council members vowed to urgently increase capacities for testing for coronavirus infections, in view of WHO recommendations.[12]
On 9 April, finance ministers from the 19 Eurozone countries agreed to provide €240 billion in bailout funds to health systems, €200 billion in credit guarantees for the European Investment Bank, and €100 billion for workers who have lost wages.[13] At their fourth video conference held on 23 April, the European Council endorsed the plan, and called for the package to be operational by 1 June 2020.[14] On the same occasion, the council also tasked the European Commission with taking steps towards the establishment of a recovery fund, the size of which was expected to be at least around €1 trillion. Modalities of the latter fund were still disputed by member states, with France, Italy and Spain leading demands for grants to stricken economies, and Germany strongly favouring loans.[14][15]
On 27 May, the EU Commission proposed a recovery fund dubbed Next Generation EU, with grants and loans for every EU member state accounting for €500 billion and €250 billion respectively. This followed after extensive negotiations in which the so-called "Frugal Four", comprising Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, had rejected the idea of cash handouts, preferring loans instead. Under the proposal, the money raised on the capital market would be paid back between 2028 and 2058.[16][17] On 21 July, after a four-day negotiation marathon, EU leaders reached a deal in which the core grants component of the recovery fund was reduced from €500 billion to €390 billion, which the loans component was increased to €360 billion, for the same total as in von der Leyen's original proposal. The deal included a governance mechanism that will allow individual member states to raise objections on the usage of financial transfers from Brussels, and to temporarily block these during a review process of governance of the receiving country of three months maximum duration.[18]
Control measures[edit]
Legal context[edit]
According to a publication in Le Monde of 3 members of the University of Michigan, the European health policy relies on three EU pillars:
Controversies[edit]
European External Action Service self-censorship controversy[edit]
The European External Action Service, charged with combating disinformation from Russia and China, produced an initial status update report on 1 April in which highlighted China's attempts to manipulate the narrative. It asserted that Chinese state media and government officials were promoting "unproven theories about the origin of COVID-19", as well as emphasizing "displays of gratitude by some European leaders in response to Chinese aid".[77] The original report had said that there was evidence of a "continued and coordinated push by official Chinese sources to deflect any blame".[77]
It was revealed that wording was amended under pressure from China to say: “We see a continued and coordinated push by some actors, including Chinese sources, to deflect any blame”, and that according to The New York Times the office of the High Representative of the European Union, Josep Borrell, intervened to delay the release of the initial report to secure the desired change of wording.[77] The scandal of self-censorship ensued after an email from a staff member EEAS which warned that the softening of the report would "set a terrible precedent and encourage similar coercion in the future", had been leaked to the New York Times.[78][79] Borrell ordered an internal investigation into the leak.[78]
