European elections 2009

By Åsa Gunven

…at least if you look at the disastrous low turnout predictions for the European Parliament elections. Lets look at the elections more bluntly and determine if to vote or not to vote by asking ourselves 3 metaphysical questions:

Question 1: Is there a European Parliament?

The EP has gained power in every treaty change, and today it co-decides on almost all legislation and it indirectly decides on around 70% of the legislation that is decided on the national level. Last term it has produced over 1200 laws including consumer protection, lower roaming rates, chemical safety, carbon reduction measures, the service directive and also taken important stands such as endorsing the Charter of Human rights when the Council failed to do so. Yes – there is an European Parliament worthy its name and it definitely has important powers that can be exercised by its voters, but its legitimacy is severely weekend by the low voting turnout.

Question 2: Is there a European election campaign?

A friend of mine said that she has to vote blank as the debates only focus on national politics and she does not have a clue about what the different parties want for Europe or will actually do in the European Parliament if elected. Everywhere we see the same problem - national parties fighting European elections with over national politics. For accountability and transparency media and political parties need to secure a proper debate on the European policy choices ahead.

The European Parties manifesto that they have produced for the first time (Greens for a second time) remain largely lowest common denominator politics and it is a fact that it is national parties that run a national competition mainly on national issues. Who even knows about the European Parties and the groups in the Parliament? Or the fact that my vote for a national party will support parties from other countries that belong to the same political group even if they politically actually stand light years away from me? This is confusing, in-transparent and a big problem for accountability.

A way to overcome this national bias of the election is to establish transnational party lists that would allow me as a voter to choose between candidates from different countries. This would focus the debate on European political choices and increase the debate taking place across the borders of Europe – away from the national politics! It would also increase the electoral choice as it would allow me to pick candidates from another country where often members of the same party family stand for really different political choices. The European Parliament is currently discussing an electoral reform for 2014, where one suggestion is the inclusion of a trans-national constituency with transnational lists for a small proportions of the seats in the parliament. This is a good, even if slightly slow, start and it is important for Europe’s democratic development that this reform goes through.

Question 3: Is there a European Parliament election?

What are we actually electing when voting for the European Parliament? A candidate, a party, a European Parliament… but one thing is clearly missing compared to national parliamentary elections; the election and holding into account of the executive.

No matter what I vote, and no matter what is the new majority of the European Parliament, conservative Barroso will head the new Commission that is appointed right after the elections in June. Even if it is the Council that nominated the Commission president, it is the newly elected Parliament and its majority that has the power to reject or accept him/her – and so the voters trough the parties could actually elect their own Commission president (even before the Lisbon treaty)

The failure of the European Parties, and particularly of the Party of European Socialists that are the only one that could realistically have challenged Barrosos, is a failure for European democracy. Next elections hopefully the European Parties will see the advantage of putting a face to their campaigns and at the same time increase the motivation of Europe’s citizens to go and vote by giving them the power to elect (and reject!) their political leadership.

Conclusion:

To vote or not to vote – that is the question. Let’s vote, but let’s vote for someone that is prepared to lead the way for important federal reforms that can make the Parliament, the Campaigning and the Election worthy their names for next time around. Only then we will get the voting turnout the European Parliament deserves.

The Union of European Federalists, meeting in Brussels on 18-19 April, has appealed to the political parties to intensify their campaigns in the upcoming elections to the European Parliament.

Speaking at the conclusion of the meeting, UEF President Andrew Duff MEP said: People will only turn out to vote for the European Parliament if they are provoked to do so by a hard-hitting party political campaign with a clear European dimension. This campaign has got to connect the things which interest people in their daily lives - today notably, employment and savings- with the politics of the European Union.

Political parties should have the honesty to admit that narrow and disjointed national 'solutions' to economic recovery are at best insufficient and at worst counterproductive. Only a united European response to the economic crash will make a significant difference. This means, among other things, higher investment from the EU budget and European Investment Bank into productive, sustainable jobs.

Candidates should also have the wit to campaign for the expansion of the eurozone and a single EU policy for the international monetary reform negotiations. Stricter supervision of the financial sector at the EU level is now inevitable.

Turning to the UEF's Who's Your Candidate? campaign -in which political parties were asked to name their candidate for the new Commission President- Mr Duff said: The campaign for nomination of candidates for president of the European Commission seems to be over. Mr Barroso has certainly been campaigning for his own renomination and, in view of the results, he has been successful. No other political party decided to put up a candidate. UEF can be proud to have at least stimulated a debate about this issue. The big breakthrough for political parties will come once we have a pan-EU transnational constituency for the election of a proportion of MEPs. This reform must come by 2014.

On the role of the UEF, Mr Duff added: The UEF stands ready to combat the rising tide of nationalism and xenophobia. At a time when federal solutions to Europe's problems are more clearly needed than ever, candidates from whatever political party are welcome to use us as a resource in their election campaigns.

Written by Matteo Garavoglia is PhD Candidate at the Research College Group (KFG) on the “Transformative Power of Europe” at the Free University of Berlin.

One reason for the low turnout at the elections of the European Parliament (EP) is that citizens do not see the point of voting: why to go to the ballot box when one doesn’t know what leader the vote will bring to power?

On the 27th and the 28th of April the European Greens celebrated their congress and one feature was missing: the manifesto failed to nominate the candidate for the presidency of the Commission. This is shameful in that the Greens are not taking up the opportunity of making the Union more democratic by providing European citizens with clear options concerning who should lead the Commission.

Last week the European People’s Party (EPP) announced it would back current incumbent Barroso for another term as president of the Commission. This is not surprising given the fact that Barroso himself comes from the EPP. What is surprising is that no other European political party has put forward its own candidate.

As the only political party with a realistic chance to challenge the EPP, the European Socialists (PES) should eagerly promote a candidate of their own but this is not the case: a lot of soul-searching has so gar been followed by inaction. What sort of impression are the PES and the Greens giving to the European electorate? This situation is all the more shameful in a context whereby the EP has the political tools to force the Council to appoint the leader of the largest European party as the president of the Commission. Are the European political parties ready to give more democracy to the citizens?

Matteo Garavoglia is PhD Candidate at the Research College Group (KFG) on the “Transformative Power of Europe” at the Free University of Berlin.

Written by Åsa Gunvén, FC member of UEF

Tomorrow the Liberals are having their Campaign Lunch. But without a candidate for the position of Commission President they are not offering much real influence for the voters and are missing a great opportunity for political leadership among the other European Parties that also seem to be unable to present the voters real choices.

ELDR adopted their election manifesto already in October in their Congress in Stockholm. It was an excellent move to have the Congress half a year before the other European parties and it provided a great opportunity to put forward new ideas and to show political leadership. But then somewhere along the road this opportunity was lost – 6 month later there is still no liberal candidate for the Commission from the third largest group in the European Parliament. Instead they have nominated a candidate for the President of the European Parliament – a position that does not even come close to the executive power the Commission president has.

Barosso is still standing strong – not only backed up by his political group EPP but also by several socialist prime ministers around Europe as Socrates, Zapatero and Brown. The Socialists have obviously not been up for the job to nominate a contra candidate – both at their Congress and at their Campaign launch we asked them for one but they failed to produce neither a candidate nor an argument why not to put one forward.

The Greens made an interesting move in supporting a non existing socialist candidate at their Congress recently and as first party they show an interest in making the appointment of the Commission President influenced by the European elections. This would for sure increase the chances of removing Barroso IF the Socialists nominated their candidate but the question is how much it contributes to making Europe more democratic? Thinking one step ahead, in 5 or 10 years time when hopefully the Commission has undergone some democratic reforms, do we really want to go in the direction where the option is only conservative or socialist? Coalitions are common and in my opinion very healthy for a democracy – but a coalition is usually a combination of several party programs and minister posts where me as a voter can influence how much green, red or blue should be in there. A coalition should be politically more of a Matisse collage then a Klein one-color painting and that is why wee need all of Europe’s parties and voter to claim their right to ad their color.

If one prefers a “quick fix” to the Barroso problem the support of a Socialist candidate by the smaller parties might indeed be a good option. But even here we run in to a problem as the matter of fact remains that there IS no socialist candidate. And exactly because this failure of PES to nominate a candidate there is actually a unique space for the smaller parties to do so. The liberals, as the 3rd largest group, have a unique chance to show courageous leadership to make Europe more transparent and democratic by nominating their candidate and to push the other parties to also nominate their candidates.

But the liberals do not seem interested to show leadership. The liberals are instead strategically avoiding to put forward a candidate that would later damage their credibility by “losing” the election. But in a situation where the citizens are losing faith in the political establishment, accusing EU for being undemocratic and where only 1/3 of Europeans plan to vote, we need brave and daring moves from the parties rather than a chicken play. By choosing not to nominate their candidate there is no other conclusion to be made by the voters then that the Liberals, just as the Socialists, seems to support conservative Barroso. Europe’s parties seems to be colorblind!

I want to be able to influence who has the highest political position in Europe to start with and in the long run influence the entire political collage sitting in the Commission. For this we need one party to take a lead by nominating their candidate – a role non of the parties seem prepared to take. I remain as confused as ever on who to vote for with socialist supporting a conservative, Greens preferring a socialist and Liberals seemingly supporting a political vacuum.

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.

Article written by Julia Brink, Young European Federalists

The European institutions are fighting the low turnouts in the European Parliament elections with a common strategy and a single message throughout Europe: “It’s your choice”. The problem: A choice requires different alternatives. A single campaign requires a single discussion.

Paradoxically, the turnout in European elections has been decreasing ever since the first direct elections in 1979 while the power of the European Parliament has been steadily increasing. More and more laws are made by the ‘citizen’s chamber’ while less and less people take advantage of their right to directly influence these decisions.

Does the EP campaign promote the idea of Fortress Europe?

It’s all about choice

This year, there will be no lectures about citizen’s responsibilities or duties in the European Parliament’s communication strategy - the European elections 2009 are all about choice. The key message is that all citizens can influence policies by giving their vote. This message is spread with a single campaign throughout Europe: Postcards, billboards and 3-dimensional street installations will raise important questions concerning energy, climate change, agriculture, consumer protection, security, free markets and other important topics. In room-sized cubes with the name “choice boxes”, citizens can record their views on European issues – selected scenes will be played on Europarl TV, Youtube and on screens outside the boxes. In order to reach all potential voters, the campaign will also be present on TV and radio, young voters are supposed to be attracted by My Space, Facebook and Flickr.

So far so good. In times of crises, with important challenges ahead, it is important to convince European citizens to take advantage of their right to vote. It is very pleasing that for once the European Parliament and the European Commission are using a single campaign throughout Europe raising questions that definitely need to be discussed on a European level. But to which extend is this campaign a European one and how much choice do voters really have?

“Choosing” the pig in the poke

It is true that the European Union is facing important challenges in the fields of economics, finances, environment and society that demand common action. The main argument of the European Parliament election campaign is that by voting for one party or another, citizens can influence the choices made in the next period of legislation. However, voting in the elections to the European Parliament is still a bit like buying a pig in a poke. Voters opt for national political parties that form part of European parties. On the ballot, there is no hint as to which European party this will be.

If the European Parliament offers choices, it would be important to clarify what these choices really consists of and what they result in. Presenting the names and logos of the Groups of European parties on the ballot would be a first step in the right direction. It would, however, change nothing about the fact that European parties are very heterogeneous due to their composition of various national parties. The only way to actually know what the parties stand for, the only way to really make a choice, is to vote for Paneuropean parties with transnational lists, allowing citizens to elect candidates from all over Europe, regardless of their nationality.

Barroso, Barroso or Barroso?

It starts with the names of the European Parties, it continues with the faces of the candidates to the most important positions in the European Union. What do we really choose? Who do we elect by giving our vote to one party or another? In principal, it would be possible for European citizens to elect the executive of Europe, the European Commission, with their vote for a party. Right after the elections to the European Parliament, the next President of the Commission will be appointed. The ‘citizen’s chamber’ has the final say on who this will be. It would make absolute sense and be very democratic if the candidate of the strongest party or coalition would become President of the Commission. This way, voters could influence the composition of the Commission and hold it to account - if only the European Parliament and the European Parties took their responsibility of delivering political choices seriously and nominated a candidate to this position. No party did. Names and faces of the candidates to the main political positions of the European institutions will only be presented after the election. No matter who people vote for the president of the Commission will most likely remain Barroso that has already been backed for the second term as a President of the European Commission – by the heads of states, even socialist ones like Brown and Zapatero, not by the citizens or the Parliament. So what is there to choose from? Unsurprisingly, European citizens feel that their vote does not count and that the whole EU system is not transparent. From this point of view, a campaign with the slogan “it’s your choice” sounds like a hoax. “Choosing” means that you can select from a number of alternatives. Unless the European Parties nominate their candidates to the position of the President of the Commission, the citizens “choice” will be: Barroso, Barroso or Barroso.

A single European campaign?

Moreover, the European elections are still dominated by nationality. Citizens have the “choice” from their national parties rather than from transnational party lists with candidates from all countries. As a result, discussions are limited to the national level. Raising questions like “what kind of energy do we want?”, “how much security is too much?”, or “how far should standardisation go?” is very important. However, as long as discussions do not reach across borders and parties run campaigns based mainly on national politics, these questions will not result in finding the right answers. Instead, they might well go into the next national elections – which in some countries, like Germany, are upstaging the European elections anyway. Moreover, by tailoring the campaign to the member states, the strategy adds to the tendency of debating at the national level. The posters and installations concerning borders will above all be prominent in Southern Europe. They feature a fortress and a hedge and raise the question “What kind of borders should we have?” Not only does the presentation simplify the debate to a level that impedes serious discussion, it also prevents discussions on a European level.

This way, the strategy misses the most important point: Explaining why it is so important to solve these issues at a European level and encouraging discussions that go beyond the national perspective. One of the main campaign ideas was to speak the language people speak, the main message is choice. It is time for the European Parliament to engage its voters in real discussions. It is time to provide the basis for real choices.

This article is also published on The New Federalist

Article written by Joan Marc Simon, Secretary General of UEF

Time is ripe for Europe. The current economic downturn can be a dangerous threat for the European project but it can most certainly be the window of opportunity that federalists have been waiting for during last years. It is in times of crisis when the added value of a United Europe is more visible and it is in times of crisis when we have to advocate even louder the need for a new Constitutional settlement for the Union, a coherent economic governance, a solid European budget, a common voice in the world…

I’m happy to present the UEF Manifesto: Stronger Together for a Federal Europe is the message of the manifesto and highlights the importance of staying united in times of crisis and avoid nationalist attitudes.

In the manifesto there are the 12 points that should guide those who beleive in a Federal Europe during the next 4 months. From the Treaty of Lisbon to the financial and economic crisis, from energy strategy to climate change and from foreign and security policy to justice and home affairs. The manifesto brings together the federalist viewpoints in the current historical moment. To read the manifesto click here.

The next months present an opportunity for Europe to jump to a higher stage of integration. One of the goals of UEF for next months is to motivate the citizens eager to get engaged in the building of a stronger and more democratic Europe able to better deliver to the expectations of the European citizens.

JEF is a supranational, politically pluralist youth organisation with about 30,000 members in over 30 European countries. The aim of JEF is to work for the creation of a European federation as a first step towards peace and a more free, just and democratic society. Their ideas are spread through international activities and youth exchanges, publications, public actions and co-operation with other youth-organisations.

We young Europeans believe in the values of peace, freedom and solidarity.

We recognise the success of European integration in securing democracy and prosperity in Europe through the unification of the continent.

The European Union is our present and a federal Europe our future, but the rapid evolution of globalisation presents new challenges. The crises are evident in economic, financial, security and ecological matters. We can successfully face these challenges only if the EU is able to speak and to act as a real Union.

It’s time to act!

We expect brave and innovative decisions. We want concrete benefits from the EU in our everyday life. Therefore, we demand:

• a European Economic Policy for ensuring growth, employment and sustainable development, in particular to benefit young people;
  

• a European Energy and Environmental Agency for ensuring global leadership in the battle against climate change and managing a European Energy Reserve to guarantee a strategic independence of the EU;
  

• a Solidarity Clause to ensure Member states protection against terrorism and natural catastrophes;
  

• European Blue Helmets enabling the EU to contribute to peace-keeping in the world in the framework of a real European security and defence policy;
  

• a Citizens’ Right of Initiative in order to listen to the voice of European citizens;
  

• a European Civilian Service to promote EU citizenship among young people;
  

• European symbols to be officially recognised by all European institutions.

We ask the candidates for the next European Parliament elections (June 2009) to support these proposals. Furthermore, we ask the European Parliament to exercise the right to initiate a treaty change process – as established in the Lisbon treaty – to produce the necessary constitutional and legislative framework for these reforms and to give the European citizens a true federal government.

We invite European citizens and civil society to express their support to our Manifesto.

IT’S TIME FOR CHANGE… IT’S TIME FOR EUROPE!