DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2020/01 Damjan Lajh and Meta Novak Slovenian Bubble in the Brussels: From Best Student in Class to Passive Observer? DebatEU Jean Monnet Paper No 2020/01 May 2020 URL: jmce-ljubljana.eu To cite this article: Lajh, D., & Novak, M. (2020). Slovenian Bubble in the Brussels: From Best Student in Class to Passive Observer? DebatEU Jean Monnet Paper, 2020/01. JEAN MONNET PAPERS publishes pre-print manuscript on the policymaking process and policy studies in Europe. The series is interdisciplinary in character and accept papers in the field of political science, international relations, European studies, sociology, law and similar. It publishes work of theoretical, conceptual as well as of empirical character and it also encourages submissions of policy-relevant analyses, including specific policy recommendations. Papers are available in electronic format only and can be downloaded in pdf-format at jmce- ljubljana.eu. Issued by University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences Kardeljeva ploščad 5 1000 Ljubljana Email: [email protected] Tel: +386 1 5805 227 Fax: +386 1 5805 103 www.fdv.uni-lj.si This publication has been co-funded with support from Erusmus+ Programme of the European Union. This publication [communication] reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 1 DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2020/01 Slovenian Bubble in the Brussels: From Best Student in Class to Passive Observer? Damjan Lajh and Meta Novak Abstract: With dissolution of socialist Yugoslavia Slovenia turned towards the European Union (EU) membership. Since independence the European idea has been widely acknowledged by political elite as well as general public. Due to absence of any real and successful Eurosceptic parties, main goals related to European integration became national projects, including EU membership, adoption of Euro as the national currency, entering Schengen area, and holding the Presidency of Council of the EU. During accession and full membership periods Slovenian citizens nevertheless have met various negative experiences with the EU: pressures to open the real estate market to foreigners and closing down duty free shops, imposition of austerity measures during the financial crisis, lack of effective EU policy during the migration crisis, and absence of understanding and support from the EU partners concerning the border dispute and other open issues with neighbouring Croatia. Although these events to some extent increased the level of Euroscepticism it remained limited until today. On the other hand, Slovenian political elite with meeting all initially set goals in European integration lost concrete strategy and role Slovenia should play in the EU. After fifteen years of membership this has led to the image of Slovenia as being one of the most submissive players in the EU policymaking. Key words: European Union, Slovenia, membership Damjan Lajh is associate professor at Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ljubljana, Jean Monnet professor, Head of Centre for political science research, recipient of Altiero Spinelli prize for outreach 2018 and coordinator of University of Ljubljana Jean Monnet centre of excellence. Meta Novak is assistant professor and research at the Faculty of Social Sciences University of Ljubljana. 2 DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2020/01 Introduction: Slovenian Accession and the Copenhagen Learning Process Slovenian relationship with the European Union (EU) is as long as the history of Slovenian independence. Process of Slovenian transition from socialist political system in Yugoslavia to independence in the late 1980s and early 1990s was already characterised with the ambition to join the EU with the aim to become economically successful and internationally recognised democratic country (Lajh, 2012). In this regard the EU membership was defined as a national project even before Slovenia’s formal independence. The reformed former Slovenian League of Communists even adopted the document “Europe now – for the European quality of living” for its congress in autumn 1989 and used slogan “Europe Now!” for the first multi-party and democratic elections in 1990 (Balažic, 2002). Other political parties as well included integration with the EU in their electoral programmes for the first multiparty elections (Krašovec & Lajh, 2009). Fink-Hafner even claims that Europeanisation had ‘become a kind of substitute for the old ideology’ (Fink-Hafner, 1999). In 1991, the ambition to become the EU member was formally declared in the Basis of Slovenian Foreign Policy (Fink-Hafner & Lajh, 2005). Among the Slovenian elite existed general consensus of Slovenian membership in the EU as a national goal. Except for the Slovenian National Party that openly expressed soft Eurosceptic stances, all other parties supported Slovenian membership in the EU and even signed a unique agreement on cooperation during the process of Slovenian accession to the EU (Lajh, 2012). Slovenian parliamentary parties along with support to EU membership also started to connect outwards and began collaboration with their European counterparts already before the Slovenian membership in the EU. This collaboration did not bring major changes in organisational structure of the parties during the accession period but only in the period of EU membership when party rules and structures changed in a direction to include parties MEPs in relevant party bodies (Krašovec & Lajh, 2009). However, the Social Democratic Party of Slovenia changed its name to Slovenian Democratic Party as a result of its cooperation with the European Peoples Party (Krašovec & Lajh, 2009). Despite the general support to the European integration, the process of joining demanded some unwanted adaptations that Slovenians were not too happy to took over. Three most salient issues were (1) the so-called Spanish Compromise, which enabled the right of foreigners to buy Slovenian real estate and triggered fear of especially Slovenians living close to the borders that former “occupier” will again occupy the land, (2) the issue of closing down duty free shops at Italian and Austrian borders, where foreigners used to buy luxury goods such as cigarettes, 3 DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2020/01 alcohol and cosmetics, as well as (3) transition period for the free labour movement (Krašovec & Kustec Lipicer, 2008). Open issues connected with membership in the EU triggered decrease in public support and slowly emerged some Euroscepticism among Slovenian public. Additionally, in 2002 news appeared that Slovenia due to its stable economy will join the EU as net contributor and pay more into EU funds than it would receive (Nations in Transit, 2003). Even with minor problems during the Slovenian accession to the EU the public in high percentage supported Slovenian membership in the EU even after the rumours that Slovenia might be a net contributor (Lajh, 2012). During the process of Slovenian accession to the EU the national political system needed to adapt to new circumstances. Fink-Hafner and Lajh (2005) demonstrated that national institutions, processes, traditions and politico-cultural context remained flexible and pragmatic in its adaptation. No radical change was made instead political structures only rearranged its setup to meet the demands of the accession process. In October 1995 special units for handling EU affairs were established within most ministries and other governmental bodies. EU tasks were in this way dispersed rather than concentrated in a special unit with EU- knowledgeable elite (Fink-Hafner, 2007). At the end of 1997 the coordination of European affairs was set up. It started with the establishment of the Government Office for European Affairs (GOEA), led by a minister without portfolio that took on management and coordination of the Slovenian accession process, the formation of the Negotiating Team of the Republic of Slovenia for Accession to the EU, and inter-sectoral working groups that comprised representatives of ministries and relevant institutions to prepare negotiating positions. However, Ministry of Foreign Affairs remained chief negotiator while the Prime Minister led the coordination of managing EU affairs (Fink-Hafner, 2007, pp. 818-819). At the end of negotiations, in February 2003, the Minister for EU Affairs was prolonged into the first year of membership and GOEA was reformed and institutionalized as the central coordinating unit (Fink-Hafner, 2007). In October 2002 a Commission on Non- Governmental Organizations was established by the government to help involve NGOs in the EU accession process (Nations in Transit, 2003). The Government decided that Slovenia enters the EU as a single region to receive funds for regional development from the EU. Office for Structural Policy and Regional Development was established to coordinate various national actors for balanced regional development and for the implementation of the EU’s structural and cohesion policies (Nations in Transit, 2004). In 2005 the government agreed to divide Slovenia into two 4 DebatEU Jean Monnet paper No 2020/01 cohesion regions: Western Slovenia and Eastern Slovenia. The division between Western and Eastern Slovenia does not originate in geographical or historical division and was made artificially for the purpose of drawing European cohesion funds. The debate on the division of Slovenia on several regions was initiated again in 2019. New proposal suggest implementation