Power

By Joan Marc Simon, Secretary General of the Union of European Federalists

European and world economy are submerged in an economic crisis, direct result of the financial crush of last months. Two comments on this: One; the EU has not fixed the problems that caused the current chaos in the credit market, Two; the response of the EU to the crisis continues to be insufficient. To which extend is this an institutional failure?

Firstly, it is important to fix the problems that the crisis caused. Whilst much of the G20 debate has concerned issues such as global fiscal stimulus, the real challenge remains in choosing a new philosophy for the international financial system and its regulation.

Unless we want to hermetically close the borders and change the economic system, we will need capitals flowing in and out. So far this has been done without much control and the lack of information on what was being traded has created the bubble that exploded a year ago. How to fix it? It is the old story of choosing the right tools to address the problem which is the fact that financial markets are global when the regulators remain national. Understandably, as soon as capitals start flowing between countries it is more and more difficult to keep track of what is being traded. Different accounting rules, lack of transparency, lack of accountability… As soon as information is missing, speculation escalates and a few get filthy rich whilst money disappears from pension funds, saving accounts and people lose their jobs because the company they work for can’t have access to financing. This is institutional failure. The system is failing to protect their citizens from legal theft. This requires a change of system or justifies and upraising from the citizens against the institutions representing them.

Although, if we take into account the increasing integration and interdependence of the world economies, a world financial regulator would be the solution, it still seems to be too far away for many; especially for those countries not used to the exercise of sharing sovereignty -which has delivered so much to the European citizens-. However, within the EU it is unacceptable that we can have a common market, free movement of people, goods, capitals and services –at least on paper-, a common currency and monetary policy and a high level of economic integration without having a functioning European financial system. It took this crisis for the non-interventionist/regulation-phobic European Commission to start working on the regulation of hedge funds, transparency of derivatives markets and improved accounting rules aiming at creating a level playing field between EU countries. It is better late than never, but this will fall short to prevent a new crisis. As long as European financial markets continue without a regulator -which should be democratically managed, transparent and with the power to enforce its decisions we will continue to live under the threat of a new financial meltdown. The decision to allow more or less speculation, to allow using money for the sake of just create money instead of directing to productive investments is not a technical one that can be self-regulated by a market. It is highly political and it requires intervention of European legislators.

Secondly, whilst working on the prevention we need to act to fix the damage done by the crisis. Of course money matters when we want to protect those who are losing their jobs and at the same time invest in economic reconversion but is also a matter of political leadership to pick and implement a coordinated approach to transform the European economy. So far there is no serious European recovery plan as such but a sum of multiple stimulus plans. The European Commission put forward a recovery plan that falls short in scope and objectives when the EU needs bold new vision to move forward. European taxes –without increase tax pressure on EU citizens- or issuing EU bonds to increase the financial capacity of the EU is not a “tabu” issue only supported by some “lunatic federalists” anymore; time has proven that the unbalances of power and competences within the EU may be able to exist as transitional structures but when going through troubled waters the EU needs fiscal federalism and a consistent European budget.

This is why in the new legislature starting next month we need the European Commission to start behaving more like a federal government in order to manage an expanded EU budget of at least 2% of the community GDP, with the capacity to issue Union-Bonds and develop a European fiscal policy matched by an increase in the political responsibility. This reaction is far from radical; it is what any state is doing right now, from China to the US and from Argentina to Germany. In the EU the level of economic integration and the fact that we share a monetary policy justifies why this is the only sensible, yet politically difficult, way forward.

Continuing with the current indecisive situation puts at risk more than just the recovery of the economy but the current structures of the EU because the increasing and unbalanced indebtedness of national budgets will endanger the common market and the euro. We can talk of institutional failure when the institutions fail to deliver the pillars for normal functioning of a society; namely rules (regulatory framework), transparency, fairness and political and budgetary capacity to act in times of crisis. This is needed today and it doesn’t look like is going to be delivered by the EU.

Parts of the solution require treaty changes, some others don’t. A strong leadership is necessary to lead either of them and this leadership should come from the European Commission. If the current Commission is not up for the work the newly elected Parliament should exercise its democratic power and reject any new commission that lacks leadership and a plan for the future of Europe.

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 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.

Green 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

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

Europe must be more united if it is to face up to its current economic and constitutional crises. This is the message of European federalists on the eve of the European Parliamentary elections.

1. The Treaty of Lisbon must be ratified and implemented efficiently as soon as possible. Once the new treaty is in force the Union will have acquired a unique capacity to act on the world stage. It will be a much more powerful, open and democratic Union. If the Lisbon treaty does not enter into force, the European Parliament should push immediately for a new constitutional Convention.

2. The EU must move quickly to establish strict, transparent supervision of the banking, securities and insurance sectors, leading to the creation of an EU financial services authority. The current weak coordination of national policies should be replaced by a common macro-economic policy. EU bonds should be launched to bolster the economic recovery plan.

3. The weak economy is no excuse to return to national protectionism. The EU should dedicate itself to the completion of the single market in finance, services, energy and intellectual property. Structural reforms of the labour market which build Europe's social dimension are badly needed to create the right conditions for renewed long-term investment. The WTO negotiations must be re-started.

4. The EU needs a radical review of its financial system. Relevant spending should be shifted from the national to the European level to get real added value out of the Union. More spent jointly at the European level means less wasted by disjointed national efforts. The EU budget should have adequate resources, financed by fiscal federalism, to fund common policies which enhance competitiveness and create green jobs across Europe. EU spending should be made fully accountable.

5. The eurozone states must assert their autonomy from those who cannot or choose not to join the single currency. The eurogroup must act as one in world monetary matters and take the lead over the reform of the international monetary system. The EU should advocate the establishment of a global network of prudential supervision across currency zones, with the longer term intention to create a world currency unit.

6. The EU must be the driving force at the UN sponsored talks on climate change. The goal is to leave Copenhagen in December 2009 with an internationally agreed package based on the EU model of cutting carbon emissions, conserving energy and increasing the use of renewables.

7. The single market must be extended to energy supply so that consumers benefit from a more competitive and better interconnected industry. The EU should invest directly in diversified sources of energy. It must help energy companies to build the European super-grid as well as the infrastructure necessary to import supplies from Asia and Africa.

8. Whatever the fate of Lisbon, the EU needs to strengthen its contribution to world peace and disarmament. This means a dedicated effort to reform the United Nations as well as building up Europe’s own civilian and military capability to be a credible peace-maker wherever it is needed.

9. Those EU states with the political will and the military means to do so must form a core group in security and defence. This will help NATO modernise and put transatlantic relations on a sound footing. If the Irish again reject Lisbon, the next urgent step must be to agree a separate EU treaty in security and defence between some but not all EU members.

10. The Union should confirm its existing commitments to enlargement, projecting its values, stability and relative prosperity throughout its own neighbourhood. As a top priority reconciliation must be achieved between the two communities in Cyprus, united in a new federal republic.

11. The task of building Europe’s common area of freedom, security and justice has only just begun. The EU urgently needs to sort out its visa policy, and fashion common policies for asylum and for legal and illegal immigration. European states must act together to combat international crime and to ensure that there is decent justice and civil liberty for all. More integration in civil law will help families and consumers.

12. The European Parliament must exercise its new democratic powers and responsibilities with energy and skill, in particular by shaping the programme of the new Commission. MEPs should reform their own electoral procedure so that, in 2014, a number of deputies are elected from a single, transnational constituency. This reform is key to making European political parties fit for purpose, connecting them directly with the citizen and giving citizens a strong voice in how Europe is run.

The Union of European Federalists is a supranational political movement committed to uniting Europe along federal lines. It addresses this manifesto to the parties and candidates campaigning for election to the European Parliament in June 2009. www.federalists.eu