EUdebate2009

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

Following the agreement of the Heads of Government on Ireland’s legal dispositions today at the EU summit, UEF President Andrew Duff said:

The Irish government has done well to craft interpretations of the Lisbon treaty which are specific to the Irish case and which will not affect its interpretation in other States. The substance of the original treaty contract is untouched. But Ireland has got what it needs to clarify the meaning of the treaty so that its second referendum will be free from the distortions and confusion which marked the first referendum campaign.

Coupled with the decision not to reduce the size of the European Commission (as long as the Lisbon treaty enters into force), the pro-treaty parties have won enough to fight a self-confident, united and successful campaign to win over Irish hearts and minds in favour of a stronger and more democratic European Union.

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.

By Guido Montani, Vice President of the UEF

In 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”.

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.

However, 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.

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 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).

Good 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

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.

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.