Federalism

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.

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.

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

Last night, over 110 cities across Europe and worldwide, from Oslo to Istanbul, from Lisbon to Vilnius as well as in Dubai, Mexico, Pretoria and New York took to the streets against Lukashenko's unjust Belarus dictatorship, demanding a European Foreign Policy.

Napoli, Italy

Activists across the continent gagged statues, symbolically preventing them from speaking freely, much like the current situation for many Belarusian citizens and leaders of democracy and oppositions movements.

Odense, Denmark

Action Co-ordinator Toni Giugliano said:

European youth will never give up fighting for a dictatorship free Europe. Our partners joining us in the action have trebled and our cities have reached a new record.
We will demonstrate each year until the last European dictatorship falls and until the EU addresses the human rights violations in Belarus.
It is absolutely appalling that the EU has suspended Lukashenko's travel ban. We will get nowhere unless the EU tightens sanctions against Belarus in return for respect for political opposition and minorities, human rights and freedom of the press.
The fact that a dictatorship is still standing in the EU's back yard is proof that Europe's dysfunctional foreign policy is not working.

Puebla, Mexico

Mr. Vladislav Jandjuk, Speaker of the Belarusian Government in exile (Council of the Belarusian People's Republic) said:
Today, on the occasion of the anniversary of the manipulated presidential elections, we need to show to the Lukashenko regime what western democratic values are: freedom and human rights.
They are not just empty words, but grounds for a just and responsible organisation of society. Only those who respect the rights and freedoms of others can be respected themselves. Our demand is clear: free and just elections for Belarus!

Samuele Pii, President of JEF Europe concluded:
Over the coming months, JEF Europe will be engaged in raising awareness about the upcoming European elections and advocating change
Change is fundamental in Belarus but is also fundamental in Europe.
Only with a common Foreign and Security Policy will the EU have the means to stand up to dictatorships and address the growing global problems that we are currently facing.

Turku, Finland

The Union of European Federalists today publishes its manifesto for the European Parliament elections. Stronger Together in a Federal Europe responds to the current crises of the economy, climate and international security by calling for the European Union to strengthen its system of government.

In a 12 point strategy, the UEF calls for the rapid entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. It supports the stronger regulation at the EU level of the financial sector and calls for a common macro-economic policy, including the launch of EU bonds, the completion of the single market, a reformed EU budget and a uniform approach by the eurozone to global financial negotiations.

Andrew Duff MEP, President of the UEF, says:

Europe faces a stark choice. Either we pull more closely together, unifying our resources and intensifying our resolve, or we fall apart. The UEF addresses this manifesto to the parties and candidates who are fighting the elections in June.

The European Union which emerges from the present slump must be better equipped to rectify its causes. This means not only unity in economic and monetary policy but also European leadership in combating climate change and a much larger security and defence dimension to the EU's external action.

The old EU treaties have not provided a system of governance which is tough enough to cope with present day conditions. Lisbon is therefore a necessity.

European federalists will play a critical part within our different parties during the forthcoming election campaign and in the next European Parliament. We appeal to voters not to fall prey to the simplistic temptations of demagogic nationalists, but to resist isolationism and protectionism. Europeans will be stronger together.

Article written by JEF Europe

A United Europe. The EU is a successful peace project within, but JEF cannot regard the peace project as finalised until all citizens of Europe enjoy living in peaceful and democratic societies. In order to meet the challenges of an ever changing global world and to play a more active role in international politics, the EU must become a political union by completing necessary reforms and adopting a real Constitution.

One Europe, One Voice. JEF believes that the EU through its unique structure and policies can assume its role as an essential and diplomatic mediator on the world scene if it adopts a Single Foreign and Defence Policy. A European army is a tool to promote and establish peace in regional conflicts. The EU has an enormous potential in the field of peacekeeping and alternative use of military force and a single European Seat in the UN Security Council would enhance the efforts to achieve global peace.

Inclusion, an Open-Door Policy. The EU is able to spread democracy through enlargement. The prospect of future membership of the Union has already proven effective in several European regions. Therefore, JEF supports further negotiations between the EU and candidates such as Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Turkey and other future potential candidates preparing them for membership when fulfilling the Copenhagen Criteria and ensuring secular and democratic institutions.

Reaching Out to Our Neighbours. JEF firmly believes in the benefits of a stable and democratic neighbourhood for the European Union. The EU’s relations to its three new Eastern neighbours – Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine – are of utmost importance in determining the safety of its borders and its relations with Russia. The people of Europe must play an active role in supporting the people living in any non-democratic regime in their fight for democracy and freedom through actions and projects promoting and ensuring democracy. Facing Global Challenges. JEF condemns all forms of terrorism! The commitment to human rights and freedom is the strongest answer to undemocratic and violent attacks. Societies that are strongly based on the principles of democracy, justice and the respect for human rights will not give in to any efforts undermining these cornerstones of federalism.

A Free Belarus. Belarus, often described as ‘Europe’s last dictatorship’, is a country where dictatorship rules. Where freedom of the press, establishment of NGOs and respect for human rights are still distant dreams. Belarus is at our doorstep, not the other side of the world – but somehow Europe is incapable of responding to the serious human rights crimes. Why? Because the EU doesn’t have the necessary means to react. Europe desperately needs a European Foreign Policy to deal with global issues. 27 different national positions only result in dysfunctional action, often failing to address the fundamental issues. JEF Europe demands that an EU Special Representative for Belarus is appointed in order to ensure that democratic elections are brought to Belarus for good. Furthermore, Brussels must make it clear to Minsk that freedom of the press and NGOs and above all respect for human rights, particularly with regard to the opposition, are prerequisites for any EU economic gains and EU entry for Belarus officials.

For more information on the JEF EP elections campaign visit www.itstimeforeurope.eu