babelblogs

hosted by cafebabel.com

european institutions

More powers for Brussels!

By Richard Laming, Federal Union

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the European Union has too many powers. Politicians from across the political spectrum call for “reform” to reverse what they claim is an ever-centralising trend.

Of course, there is no logic in the argument that a test of whether the EU is up to date is whether it is giving up powers. The powers that the EU ought to have are those that the member states cannot exercise effectively on their own: no more and no less. Maybe the passage of time means that some of the powers of the EU can be returned to the member states, maybe not. There is no certain claim that they must be.

(That is not say that there are not aspects of individual policies that might be unnecessary at the European level, but that is not what our reformers are arguing.)

Given that the public climate of powers for Brussels is so hostile, how come powers ever end up there in the first place? Here’s an example.

I received a message entitled “Please support the right to free healthcare within the EU”. The message reads:

“I don't know if you will be able to assist but I have created a government petition requesting free healthcare for UK citizens resident in Spain. The wording of the petition is as follows:

“Many UK citizens, currently living in Spain are unable to obtain healthcare. This is because the reciprocal agreement is that healthcare will only be paid for a maximum of two years. There is "freedom of movement" within the EU so why is it that after paying into the NHS for many years there is not "freedom of healthcare benefits". At this time of economic crisis it is virtually impossible for British citizens to find work in other Member States and many are living below the poverty line.”

You can find the petition on the Number 10 website

Up until now, it has been taken as read that healthcare provision is a matter for the member states and not for the EU. The public health provisions in the Lisbon treaty are carefully and awkwardly worded so as to limit their effect to public health alone and not to impinge on broader health policy.

Article 168(7) reads: “Union action shall respect the responsibilities of the Member States for the definition of their health policy and for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. The responsibilities of the Member States shall include the management of health services and medical care and the allocation of the resources assigned to them.”

This seems to exclude an EU policy on who is eligible for healthcare and who can pay for it. But, as a result, we have an apparent mismatch between free movement and residence rights on the one hand and healthcare provision on the other.

Conventional wisdom says that it is wrong that there should be more powers for the EU. But conventional wisdom is often wrong.

This article was first published on Federal Union Blog

Thursday, June 25 2009 By manajan

Andrew Duff urges voters to support pro-lisbon parties

Andrew Duff UEFIn a statement Wednesday June 3rd, Andrew Duff MEP, President of the Union of European Federalists, says:

European citizens should vote in large numbers to support the legitimacy of the European Parliament.

Above all, they should vote for candidates and parties which support the Treaty of Lisbon.

Lisbon will transform the European Union into a genuine parliamentary democracy and give it the clout to act effectively on world issues.

Those, like the British Conservatives and the Polish Law & Justice Party, who seek to wreck the Lisbon treaty are condemning Europe to return to its rotten nationalist past.

This election is the opportunity for voters everywhere to show their support for a stronger and better Europe.

10 comments

Thursday, June 4 2009 By manajan

Guy Verhofstadt is my candidate for President of the European Commission

By Guido Montani, Vice President of the UEF

WIYC square bannerIn 2007, the Union of European Federalists decided to launch a campaign for giving the European citizens the possibility to choose a President for the European Commission . A politicization of the electoral campaign was necessary in order to avoid a low citizen’s participation to the next European election. The way to build a supranational democracy – the Prague resolution says – is that of allowing European citizens not only to elect their representatives in the European Parliament, but also to choose the President of an executive, i.e. the European Commission, to implement their electoral programme. In effect, the title of the resolution was “A Government Programme for Europe”.

WIYC banner

In the eve of the European election, we are in a position to evaluate the results of the ''“Who is your candidate?”'' campaign. Our attempt to create a “public European space” through a direct and public confrontation between two or more candidates to the Commission clearly failed. At present, Barroso is the only candidate. Hence, there is no public debate on the future programme of the European Commission and the European elections have turned into the addition of 27 national elections, with national boring debates among national political leaders interested only in national issues. The participation rate will fall down further and the euro-sceptics will be able to say that Europe is of no interest to the citizens. The main responsibility for this situation rests on the Party of European Socialists, because although some of its members (the French, the Italians, the Young Socialists) have asked for a candidate, the European party leaders have refused to do so.

Guy VerhofstadtHowever, the federalist campaign is producing some important results. In a meeting in Bilbao, the Democratic Party, led by François Bayrou and Romano Prodi, proposed to support Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister, as candidate to the presidency of the European Commission of a coalition reuniting the liberals, the greens and the socialists. During a press conference at the European Parliament, Mr Guy Verhofstadt blamed Barroso for his incapacity to effectively face the financial crisis and said that “the candidate to the presidency of the European Commission should present his political programme to the European Parliament before the vote of confidence” and that only on the basis of this he will then decide his position.

Moreover, it may be useful to know that Sandro Gozi (Italian Democratic Party), the President of the Federalist intergroup in the Italian Parliament explained that Guy Verhofstadt's proposal was conceived in order to oblige the socialists to clarify why they would not propose a candidate (is there any hidden agreement with national governments?) and, eventually, to create a coalition with the greens and the liberals inside the future European Parliament in order to “Stop Barroso” .

Of course, today it is impossible to know the outcome of that situation. We can only say that the logic of the Guy Verhofstadt's proposal is to shift the political pendulum from the Council, which was until now holding the monopoly of the nomination of the Commission President, to a majority inside the European Parliament. It is a bold and difficult initiative. But it is a step forward for the transformation of the European Union in a supranational democracy, because the European citizens will consider the European Union a bureaucratic body, and not a political community, until a real debate among a majority and a minority takes place inside the European Parliament. Without a permanent European debate there will be no European people.

We can say something more. Guy Verhofstadt is in favour of the United States of Europe. He is in favour of a federal budget, a federal foreign policy and the removal of the veto right. A public debate, in the European Parliament, on the choice of the President of the European Commission is also a debate on the federalist future of the European Union. Therefore, I have no doubt. If there is the possibility to choose between Barroso and Guy Verhofstadt, I choose Guy Verhofstadt and at the next European election I will vote for a European party supporting Guy Verhosfstadt as the next President of the European Commission.

9 comments

Tuesday, May 19 2009 By manajan

Humble Socialists will never make Europe democratic

By Asa Gunven

Socialist leader Martin Schulz is not interested in power. Not for Europe’s socialists nor for its voters. This very humble position might help against the picture of politicians as power maniacs, but it will hardly contribute to a more democratic EU.

Martin SchulzMartin Schulz is against the notion of a Socialist president of the Commission even in the case that the socialists would get a majority in the European Parliament Financial Times Deutschland reports. Europe’s governments are mainly conservative and hence, Martin Schulz concludes, the Commission president should be conservative no matter how Europe´s voters cast their votes in June. It is clear that for Martin Schulz the Commission represents Europe´s governments rather then its people. But does he really think it is just a coincidence that the Commission president is appointed straight after the election of the European Parliament? Or that it has been a struck of luck that the Commission President always been picked to represent the majority of the European Parliament? It is hardly an accident that the European Parliament is the institution that has the final approval power on the Commission President.

With the Lisbon treaty the Commission President has to be picked to reflect the composition of the Parliament. But there is nothing stopping this from happening already before Lisbon is ratified - it is already now up to the European Parliament and its majority who they appoint. Martin Schulz is suggesting to give up the power of the Socialist and the voters to appoint their Commission President without any need for, or anything given in return, for this humbleness. But maybe there is something in return – not for the Socialist Group that Martin Schulz is the leader of, but for Martin Schulz himself. As likely commissioner in the next Commission Martin Schulz seems to trade in this full-fledged support for conservative Barroso for a comfortable seat in the Commission where he could enjoy a bigger support by this conservative majority of governments he refers to.

The outspoken refusal to take on the Commission president from the Socialists seems to take the problem of democracy in Europe to another level. Not only are the parties unable or unwilling to nominate candidates for the highest executive post in Europe – they don’t even want it if they would be offered it. Whereas me as voter expect to influence the composition of the Commission with my vote, Martin Schulz want to remove even my potential to democratic influence. This highlights the importance of real institutional reforms that reduces the chance of individuals in the party leadership to determine my opportunities for democratic influence. I say ‘individuals in the party leaderships’ as it has been very clear in the federalist campaign for multiple Commission president candidates that the party people outside the leadership are not even aware of the debate, nor the possibility, to nominate their own candidate.

The Commission should represent the voters of Europe – a first step is to make the president elected trough the European Parliament elections. A second step is to make the all commissioners accountable to the European Parliament and European voters rather then each one to his/her national government (that by the way often change color throughout the time of the Commissioners mandate).

Tell BarrosoGood for Barroso that he can run a highly visible election campaign, fully paid by EU and its taxpayers, centered around his own webpage www.tellbarroso.eu with a snazzy picture of himself. Probably he could ease down slightly in his eccentric campaigning though, as he seem to stand completely unchallenged by the other European Parties. What I ask my self is who I should vote for if I don’t want Barroso? Schulz answers seems to be that I shouldn’t worry at all – Barroso will stay safely no matter what we vote.

This article is also published on The New Federalist

6 comments

Monday, May 4 2009 By manajan

Europe needs Lisbon. Now.

Written by Matteo Garavoglia, PhD candidate, Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies (BTS), Research Group on the Transformative Power of Europe (KFG), Union of the European Federalists (UEF)

At a time of crisis, Europe needs the tools to effectively deal with new challenges. Unfortunately, the European Union is an “unfinished project” which still functions with the flawed institutional architecture inherited from the 2000 Nice Treaty. The EU is therefore almost 10 years late in addressing today’s challenges.

Far from being perfect, the Lisbon Treaty is the only realistic option to try to quickly address the institutional shortcomings of the EU. All but 4 member states have ratified the Lisbon Treaty and it is time for the remaining ones to follow suit. The Treaty would contribute to make the EU 1) more democratic and transparent, 2) more efficient, 3) more responsive to the values and the needs of Europe’s citizens, and 4) a more effective actor on the global stage.

Without the Lisbon Treaty, the EU would risk remaining stuck in its old habits: there would be no stable Presidency of the European Council, no coherent foreign policy, a marginal role for national parliaments and so on. If the Lisbon Treaty is not ratified, there might even be the possibility of some more “integrationist” states to decide to move forward and forge a closer, ad hoc, Union.

The current crises are threatening the achievements Europeans enjoyed over the last half century: the common market, the Euro and freedom of movement are only some among such achievements. Europe is at an historical crossroads and it needs the tools to face the challenges of the 21st century.

Europe needs Lisbon. Now.

12 comments

Tuesday, April 28 2009 By manajan

Cohn-Bendit’s rhetoric not matched by clues for a Green candidate-Commission President.

From the UEF Action ‘Who is your candidate?’ at the EGP Congress in Brussels, Nico Segers reporting for the Union of European Federalists (UEF)

Submersed in a buzzing atmosphere of green, a small yet tenacious delegation of UEF spearheaded an awareness-raising action on the 28th of March at the European Parliament. During this second day of the European congress of the United Green parties of Europe (EGP), the European Federalists tried to entice the Green delegates to reflect about the fact that they’ve neither considered nor presented their own Green candidate to run for the seat of European Commission President.

With over three hundred flyers dispersed amongst the seats, both in the hemicycle as well as those on the elevated debate stage, the political bait was in the water. Left and right, there were attendees who curiously examined the flyer and a lone group of five was even noticed discussing and finger-pointing to the pamphlet with lowered voices. Unfortunately, there were no substantial hints indicating that EGP delegates present were compelled to take UEF’s explicit call for a lack of demand in contenders for the office of President of the European Commission serious enough. Also, neither did any reference to the Lisbon Treaty, either positive or negative, make it into the ultimate version of the EGP manifesto, which was voted upon that morning. This is a very deplorable decision, one that undermines the democratic principle underlying the European elections and blatantly ignores the voter’s right to a fair procedure amongst a broader list of candidates in line for succeeding the incumbent President of the Commission.

One firm call that challenged the complacent, biased attitude in support of a new ‘Barroso term’ came from invigorated German MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit. He conveyed a strong message that “to make these politics of social security and ecological transformation work, we need new people and a new Commission” and added that “we can’t accept that the heads of state, (...) the Christian-Democrats and the Conservatives in Europe already decide before the elections that the next Head of the Commission will be Barroso. We say: no!”. Cohn-Bendit’s main argument why Barroso’s legitimacy had been tainted for a re-election, was that he allegedly allowed CIA-chartered planes to covertly transport terrorist suspects residing in Europe and extradite them to U.S. detention facilities. He also promised that if the European Socialist, Liberal and/or Communist parties would ally against Barroso’s third term, the EGP would join their cause, that they indicate their intentions plainly in the European Parliament.

Unfortunately, such adamant and charismatic rhetoric did not match expectations, as not even a mere suggestion for a proper counter-candidate transcended from EGP ranks. Just as Samuele Pii has indicated, the Greens clearly missed out a great opportunity to make the elections of the Commission president essentially more transparent and democratic, as would be beneficial for the public interest of all European citizens. So the Greens scored big on rhetoric but failed to do more than adopt a manifesto and presenting their campaign heavyweights, about to enter the EP election arena.

In fact, EGP’s common policy stances touched upon a variety of pressing and critical topics outside the ecological concern as well. There even was a ‘realist’ consensus that the current economical recession will necessarily invoke government deficit spending. All amendments patched to the lengthy EGP manifesto were swiftly adopted, even the initially contested one concerning a common approach to actively repel the increasing levels of organized crime within certain European countries. The scope and tone of this latter proposition was ultimately softened and survived a Green dissident fraction by a minor majority in the voting outcome.

Three serious proposals calling for reform or innovation on an institutional level emerged out of the ‘Green New Deal’. First, the desire was reiterated for the European Parliament to be granted the right to draft legislation by its own initiative. Secondly was the demand for the creation of an European Renewables Community (ERENE), to facilitate the advancement of an energy policy towards zero-emission renewables. Thirdly, more closely related to the EU’s common foreign and security policy (CFSP) was their proposal to establish a European Civil Peace Corps, much like the ‘European blue helmets’ mentioned in the JEF Manifesto.

Despite the high level of self-confidence boosting amongst the ranks of the European Greens, who proclaim themselves as being the most closely cooperating political family at their 15th anniversary in the European Parliament, they failed to unite altogether in support of a single candidate who could ‘democratize’ the selection of the next Commission presidency.

10 comments

Thursday, April 2 2009 By manajan

Barroso also candidate for European Green Party?

WIYC Action EGP 3Green Party Congress de facto supports Christian Democrat Barroso for President of European Commission '' Andrew Duff MEP, President of UEF said: "After last week's nomination of Mr Barroso as candidate for President of the European Commission from the EPP it is revealing to see that the European Green Party didn’t come up with a candidate to contest the Christian Democrats."''

"The Manifesto approved by the European Green Party has valid federalist points like EU regulation of financial markets or the need for Europe-wide transnational lists, but it is regrettable that there is no mention of the Lisbon Treaty. In view of the current world crisis, where institutional functionality and joint action is more urgent than ever, I hope that the Greens across the Union will campaign for the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty" said Andrew Duff, MEP.

Federalist action in Brussels WIYC Action EGP

Today federalist activists have called for linking the result of the forthcoming European Parliament elections to the election of the President of the European Commission in an action in the European Green Party Congress.

"European voters want to see real results of their votes. If the European parties nominated their candidates for Commission President, the citizens could finally have a say on who is governing Europe. The Greens missed an important chance to make Europe more democratic" said Samuele Pii, President of the Young European Federalists.

"The European Political Parties should be major players in European Parliament elections and listen to the demand of the main youth political organisations. Putting a face to their programs is important to motivate electors to vote" concluded Pii. WIYC Action EGP 2

10 comments

Monday, March 30 2009 By manajan

Barroso: the candidate of all European parties

Article written by Joan Marc Simon, Secretary General of UEF

This is as confusing as it is absurd. In yesterday’s meeting the EPP leaders back Barroso for a second term as President of European Commission but still no party is behind Barroso's ambition to renew his mandate as President of the European Commission.

Barroso One could expect that if the leaders of a party back a candidate of the same party and nobody in the party opposes, this candidate would become THE candidate of THE party. Not in European politics.

Same as EPP, the European Socialist Party has no official candidate for President of the European Commission. When Rasmussen, PSE President, was asked about the PSE candidate in the presentation of the PSE manifesto he said that they hadn't decided on a candidate "yet". At the same time socialist prime ministers such as Zapatero, Socrates or Brown already openly expressed their support for Barroso. I guess it is easy to back a candidate when the contest is a false one...

Barroso, the President of what is to be the executive body of the EU, is backed by individuals. These individuals are not "normal" individuals; they are heads of state and heads of governments. However, what does it say about the future President of the European Commission and the Commission as a whole?

Barroso and Zapatero
Source European Communities, 2009

Firstly, that the "European interest" can't be defended by a body whose president is held hostage by heads of state and governments. The role of defending the interest of the member-states was the role of the president of the European Council but it seems like the Commission is dangerously shifting towards the intergovernmentalist option.

Secondly, and as a consequence, no expectations about leadership or initiative should be put on a body elected without a political program and that is held hostage of the interest of the member-states.

Leadership is crucial in times of crisis and without a strong European Commission taking the initiative to regulate the financial markets, in raising resources for a economic relaunch, in investing in the infrastructure necessary to launch a new green economy the EU is doomed to fail to its citizens.

Leadership comes from personality but also from legitimacy and recognition. Why should the Europeans, even those who will to vote in the European Parliament elections, feel that Barroso is representing them? They will vote for a program that can't be implemented because Barroso's program is improvised in the heads of state meetings and not subjected to public scrutiny.

If the EPP happens to have the same political program as Barroso -which would make sense if he belongs to the party the leaders of which support him- why isn't Barroso the candidate of the EPP? Is the EPP scared that if they declare Barroso as their candidate the socialists might be forced to declare that Barroso is NOT their candidate?

By Barroso not being the candidate of any party... should we interpret that he is the "de-facto" candidate of all parties?

If so, we certainly live in a strange stage of European democracy.

This article can also be read on The New Federalist

3 comments

Monday, March 23 2009 By manajan

PES Campaign launch without flesh - where is their candidate?

Article written by Åsa Gunvén

On March 11th the Party of European Socialists (PES) launched their election manifesto. But as long as PES fails to nominate their candidate to the position as Commission president we have to ask our self how serious they are in profiling themselves as one political party and giving Europe’s voters a real choice?

PES 2009 Manifesto Rasmussen

The question is in no way unique for PES – the fact is that none of the European parties have yet nominated a candidate for the Commission president. The result is clearly that they indirectly support conservative Barroso as the next Commission president, irrelevant of their party colour. How is the voter in Europe then supposed to have a democratic say on the leadership of the EU? And how are we supposed to see a real result of our votes? Eurobarometer clearly shows that voters stay home as they see no real impact of their votes – nominating a party candidate to the Commission president could hence also contribute to changing the shockingly low voting turnouts.

At the press conference the PES president Rasmussen talked about the need to “politicize” both the EP election as well as the Commission. Rightly he pointed out that the point of discussion should be about political options rather then national interests. But this fits badly together with PES failure to nominate a candidate.

I asked Rasmussen why PES has chosen not to nominate a PES candidate along their election manifesto and interestingly enough he stated that there has been no decision NOT to nominate, and opened up for possibility to nominate a candidate later in spring. This means that PES does see their unique opportunity to make the EP elections and the Commission composition more democratic – the question is of course why they not act accordingly.

Fact remains that Rasmussen’s “We don’t do it, and we don’t NOT do it” did not manage to produce a face to the campaign when it was launched on March 11th.

This article was first published on thenewfederalist.eu

8 comments

Wednesday, March 11 2009 By manajan

Entries feed