What should the EU’s overall priorities be? Or those of the next Presidency? And what should the EU Council really be talking about when they next meet.

Le 9 mai, fête de l’Europe, en cette année européenne de la citoyenneté, est le moment de rappeler l’importance de la construction européenne pour les citoyens, que nous sommes, dans sa dimension intérieure mais également dans l’équilibre mondial. En effet, l’Europe n’est aussi qu’ une région du monde. C’est ce double mouvement qui est à prendre en compte et qui nécessite, pour être compris, une prise de conscience du projet européen dans sa globalité.

L’UE est aujourd’hui décriée et inquiète. Image, confiance, optimisme dans l’avenir de l’Union, ces trois indicateurs enregistrent des chutes sévères dans les opinions. Pour expliquer cette détérioration d’image, on pense dans un premier temps à la crise financière et économique…Avec des pays plus impliqués que d’autres. Mais une analyse nationale plus fine réalisée par Eurobaromètre démontre que les déterminants des attitudes à l’égard de l’Europe ne sont pas uniquement économiques. De plus en plus d’européens sont tentés par une forme de repli sur soi. Cette situation serait due à la vision tronquée et incomplète qu’on les citoyens vis à vis de l’Union européenne.

Une explication partielle est que les responsables politiques ne mettent que trop peu souvent l’Union européenne en avant mais utilisent les projets européens comme étant de nature nationale ou régionale. C’est souvent le cas, par exemple,  de la Stratégie Europe 2020 souvent utilisée, mise en application mais rarement citée. D’où une absence d’identification de l’action européenne au niveau local ou national.

A un an des élections européennes, importantes, car de la majorité politique sortira la  physionomie de la Commission européenne et la Présidence du Conseil. L’enjeu  est  donc de restaurer la vision que les Européens ont de l’Union. L’explication approfondie de ce que fait réellement l’Union en matière de stabilité et de relations internationales est une action prioritaire. Tout comme il convient de réaffirmer que l’Europe est une culture, vécue et partagée, un espace de liberté et de paix et pas seulement un marché. L’UE est un espace politique ou des choix structurels nouveaux doivent désormais être faits. Deux outils pour y arriver : la mise en application réelle de la subsidiarité et la prise en compte de la dimension interculturelle de la construction européenne.

L’orientation, après les élections de 2014, vers une véritable gouvernance de l’UE implique l’incarnation de la présidence de l’Union et l’émergence de son caractère fédérateur. Mais cela oblige à un partage de certaines souverainetés, de compétences. C’est la condition pour que notre Europe puisse se positionner, dans le respect de ses valeurs, dans le concert des nations et des autres régions planétaires.

Restaurer ce soutien à l’Union européenne, passe par une présence plus soutenue de l’Union européenne auprès de ses citoyens et une reconnaissance de l’entité européenne par les gouvernements. Ils doivent passer à un projet beaucoup plus fédérateur, visible et lisible par les citoyens européens. L’UE doit aussi monter qu’elle est à leurs cotés.

 

 

The energy director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has made astonishing statements about coal investments prompting Bankwatch’s EBRD campaign team to react.

posted on the Bankwatch blog by Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, Bankwatch EBRD campaign coordinator

At about the same time as scientists declared an unprecedented and increasingly dangerous CO2 concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, the Energy Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Mr. Ricardo Puliti, warned in an interview with the guardian against an “ideological” approach to financing energy projects that only takes climate change into consideration. Clearly as a reaction to a widespread call to end coal financing, Mr. Puliti specifically ruled out a “No” to coal.

The news has been received with surprise and open criticism not only by environmental organisations. [*] Colleagues here at Bankwatch were particularly astonished by Mr. Puliti’s understanding that what scientists repeatedly called for was “ideological”: to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible. (We were also surprised by the claim the EBRD only financed two coal-related projects between 2006 and 2012. A quick look at the database for 2006-2011 – one that includes natural resources projects and is based on Bankwatch’s own methodology – shows 16 coal-related projects worth more than EUR 600 million.) [**]

Yet, Mr. Puliti is not the only one at the bank talking about balancing [the apocalyptic threat of] climate change with other priorities such as security of supply and affordability. We have heard the same repeatedly in the corridors and meetings at the EBRD’s annual meeting in Istanbul last week, which is why it is time to make a few points in reaction:

Ideology vs. science

First of all, intensified efforts to halt climate change are not urged by ideologists, but for decades by climate scientists, on the one hand, and by respected institutions like the International Energy Agency, on the other hand. Bankwatch’s demand to exclude coal projects from the EBRD’s portfolio is informed by these scientific analyses and supported by calls from several other international institutions (including other development banks) for a discontinuation of fossil-fuel subsidies and by the warnings about the economic “cost of inaction”.

Climate science suggests one meaningful target, to keep the rise in global temperature under a maximum of 2 degrees if catastrophic climate change is to be prevented. Seemingly blind to this goal, the EBRD has expressed great satisfaction and pride with ANY contribution to CO2 reductions, even if it enforces the status quo by entrenching coal in the energy mix of countries for decades to come.

A case in point is the Kolubara lignite mine which provides more than half of Serbia’s electricity. The EBRD’s investment will bring estimated emission reductions of 200 000 tonnes CO2 equivalents while the mine’s remaining lignite reserves will produce 540 million tonnes if burned. (Other examples are the Sostanj lignite power plant in Slovenia and potentially a lignite power plant in Kosovo.)

Does excluding coal contradict affordability?

Mr. Puliti suggests affordability as one possible reason to keep coal in the mix. But affordability calculations often favour fossil fuels, because promoters

• look at a relatively short time horizon, as fossil fuel prices are hard to predict for the life-time of a facility;
• excludes the related health costs: an estimated price tag of coal power generation is from EUR 15 to 40 billion per year in Europe as a recent report has calculated;
• counts renewables subsidies, but overlooks fossil fuels subsidies.

Security for whom and what?

A 2012 report by Corner House vividly discusses the pitfalls of “energy security” (and security of supply), both as policy and as rhetoric.

[T]he more that the term “energy security” is invoked, the less clear it is just what is being “secured” as a range of different interest groups use it to signify many often contradictory goals. The multiple meanings of “energy security” are an obstacle to clear thinking and good policymaking. They are also an open invitation for deception and demagoguery, making it easy for politicians and their advisers to use fear to push regressive, militaristic social and environmental programmes.

I’m certainly not accusing the EBRD of demagoguery or militarism, but our experience with the bank has often been that where security of supply is the core justification, alternatives to the damaging energy sources have not properly been assessed.

If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading

I have been struggling to understand why in our communication with the EBRD we seldom come to a shared understanding. In the endless policy consultations in which the banks engages us these days, if we get to agree, usually it is an agreement to disagree. In Istanbul we reached one conclusion with the bank’s staff, that perhaps our disagreements have to do with our incompatible definitions of ‘sustainability’. Why else would we consider the Sostanj lignite power plant an outrageous investment that will lock Slovenia into a high carbon future while the EBRD places it under its Sustainable Energy Initiative?

If the EBRD believes in a low-carbon transition and indeed wants to act as a responsible “active citizen” (Mr. Puliti) it should invest in projects that enable the fundamental shifts in industrial, institutional, social and political relationships that are needed in our region for an effective response to the climate threat. Anything less than that will not be fit for purpose.

---

[*] The EBRD’s Director of Communications stated on twitter that Mr. Puliti has been misquoted in the guardian article, referring, however, to the notion of a possible expansion of coal funding by the EBRD, not the points discussed in this blog post. By the time of publication, no correction has been made on the guardian’s website.

[**] More details, including an outline and explanation of Bankwatch’s methodology can be found in the report Tug of War: Fossil fuels versus green energy at the EBRD

Related articles

• European energy chief puts forward case for funding coal (guardian.co.uk)
• EBRD with disastrous start in Kosovo, European Parliament not amused (bankwatch.blogactiv.eu)
• Serbia’s unabated quest for coal causes tremors among mining communities | Claire Provost (guardian.co.uk)
• Arab organisations speak out against EBRD  dailynewsegypt.com)

By Andrew Duff MEP Last month, I blogged some questions which, I thought, needed answering by the Commission and the ECB about the chaotic circumstances surrounding the Cyprus bail-in/out. The questions were tabled by my colleague Sharon Bowles before the ECON meeting on 8 May with MM. Rehn and Asmussen. The Greens also tabled some questions. Here are the joint answers of the Commission and ECB to those questions. They are useful and revealing, and deserve to be read.

Mr. Nikos Chountis is one of the oldest and most ardent members of the Left in Greece, currently serving as Deputy of SYRIZA-EKM in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. He kindly discussed with us the crisis in Eurozone, the future of the EMU, the deadlock of austerity politics, the European Elections of 2014, as well as the fight of the young Europeans that is necessary to bring changes in the Union.

1. Do you believe that under the current exceptional situation the European Union finds itself, the European Parliament is considered as an efficient representative organ of the European citizens clearly expressing their voice and concerns?

The crisis, currently affecting the whole of Europe, is a multifaceted crisis. It is not just a crisis of the economy, or of one sector of the economy, such as the banking or the public sector. The current crisis has to do with both the economy and the political superstructure, as well as, the modern european societies, the environment, the geopolitical sphere etc. In this sense, the European Union, as a whole, as a Union of different nations and supranational institutions, like the European Parliament, is crucially affected.

Today, in the European Union takes place an extreme, violent and antisocial attack on the European people, planed and implemented by the neoliberal forces, under the hegemony of the German government. Everyday we read in the press for new austerity measures taken by the European governments, that curb labor rights, in the name of “competitiveness”, privatize public corporations and public goods, in the name of “unfettered competition”, cut public spending for health, education, social welfare, infrastructure etc, in the name of “fiscal adjustment”. Additionally, we observe the unfolding of a slow but steady “totalitarianization” process of the EMU and EU frameworks, in the name of an inexistent “fiscal adjustment” which has, as an effect, the limitation of democracy at all levels – both national and European – and the establishment of austerity as the constant economic tool of EU.

Against this tide of economic and social “violence” imposed by the European governments and the EU, the European people react, struggle against austerity and require their dignity back. Unfortunately, the rulers of the EU do not hear the voices of the European people. Neither the European Parliament, since the neoliberal alliance of Conservatives, Liberals, Social-Democrats and Greens, has served as the best ally of Ms. Merkel and Mr. Schäuble’s plans, as, for example, happened in the voting for Economic Governance.

 

2. There is a growing debate inside the European Union regarding democracy, especially with reference to austerity policies and the increasing phenomena of racism. What is your opinion on these major issues?

The implementation of austerity measures in Greece has led 22% of the population below the poverty line, 26% of the active population to unemployment, with more than half of them being young people, while the cumulative decline of GDP, since 2008, is now estimated at 21.8%. This is a total economic and social disaster that takes place with blessings of the EU, the IMF and the Greek oligarchy.

Such an unprecedented disaster of a european country, could not be achieved without the circumvention of fundamental democratic rights and processes, even of the Greek Constitution. All the Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) that accompany the aid packages to the Greek economy, have been approved via “parliamentary coups”, while at the same time the demonstrations of the Greek people against the austerity measures have been supressed by the violence and tear gasses of the police.

With democracy and its institutions under seize, but also with millions of greek citizens striken by the economic crisis, the far-right and fascist movements find a fertile ground. If the European Union and the european governament are really worried about the proliferation of the racist phenomena, they should take into account seriously the consequences of the implemented austerity policies, unless racism, xenophobia and right-wing violence are part of the dominant neoliberal response to the economic crisis.

 

3. Has GUE/NGL developed an alternative program in order to combat austerity politics in European level or should we consider austerity as the one and only political roadmap?

GUE/NGL brings together MEPs from Left parties, which are fighting against the austerity policy and for the reestablishment of Europe. For a Europe of solidarity, of social justice and of socialism. Therefore, GUE/NGL opposes the logic of neoliberal one-way road of the dominant economic and political elite. Inside the European Parliament, it struggles to halt the policy that loads the burden of the crisis on workers and youth.

The alternative proposal is based on the denial of the memoranda and the implementation of a development program that will address the unemployment and poverty, the breakdown of social and labor rights, the environmental protection, the commercialization of social goods, the destruction of the environment, for peace and democracy.

 

4. Why do you believe we do not have deeper political integration in the European Union?

In my opinion, the European Union is being integrated deeper and deeper, though in a neoliberal, undemocratic and antisocial direction. The “unifying base” of this integration is the failed and unjust neoliberal model of economic development, under the hegemony of the German Government, which limits labor rights, strengthens the powers of capital and dehydrates the democratic processes at both, national and European level. Therefore, for the Left, there is a growing concern for the fact that the EU is moving away from the fundamental democratic principles and the tradition of the “social contract”, despite any delay in the realization of the political project of European federalization.

 

5. The European Union is spending unlimited funds for the purposes of its Neighboring Policy. Should this policy be reconsidered as far as we cannot even have a mutual agreement on how to allocate and gather the necessary funds for the member-states?

The European Union, as a supranational institution, has the duty to defend, by its acts, the values ​​of humanism and peace. To support, for example, peoples and countries that are being torn by food and humanitarian crises and wars, not only in its neighborhood, but also around the world. This need, however, must not cover particular imperialist interests that are served through the assistance to the third countries.

 

6. What is your opinion upon Dublin II Regulation and the restrictions it creates to migrant flows inside the European Union?

The European Union needs a new progressive immigration policy in contrast to the Dublin II Regulation, which has to change radically. Unfortunately, the ongoing debates show the exact opposite. The EU leadership and the majority of governments are dealing with the migratory flows towards Europe, with the neoliberal logic. At the same time, they do not take up any international initiatives that could possibly reduce any new outbreaks of immigration flows and tensions in the near region.

 

7. Greece is consistently spending much on defense budget. Is there any actual threat the country has to be protected from?

For many years, Greece has been spending huge amounts on armament programs, ranking it first in the rankings of NATO and European Union, as a percentage of GDP. This fact is mainly justified by the attitude of the neighboring country of Turkey, especially after the military invasion and the occupation of northern Cyprus. Nevertheless, this is not the way to justify these expenses, which have significantly contributed to the current, extremely high, level of government debt. The inflation of the armament programs cost comes as a result of the overall NATO requirements and the so-called “diplomacy of armaments”, as many military purchases were made in order to ensure the political support of Germany, France and others. Our suggestion is to achieve a large decrease of military expenditure, since it does not ensure the actual defense needs. At the same time, we politically promote the mutual reduction of military expenditure in Greece and Turkey and the subsequent transfer of these funds to social policy programs.

 

8. Do you believe that Eurozone will survive?

What I can say is that the structural errors and the functioning mode of the EMU are being exacerbated by the ongoing neoliberal policies that expand regional and social inequalities inside the Eurozone. The global economic crisis has a particular ferocity, intensity and depth in Europe, and as a result it brings forward your question in the daily agenda.

 

9. Is there any way to address European Youth and make them get involved in European Affairs? What is the vision you could personally give them?

The austerity policies implemented in the European Union alienate the european people from the political and democratic processes. The same happens, maybe to a greater extent, with young people, who face huge social problems, such as unemployment especially for those who live in the countries of European South.

Young people in Europe are no longer envisage any sustainable future life. Even the well-advertized EU-programs, such as the Youth Guarantee, that combat youth unemployment, are a mere farce, since their budget is only 6 billion for the 2014-2020 period. Furthermore, even these EU financed programs, will create jobs without ant substantial insurance or any other labor rights, as they re-inforce the so-called “flexicurity”.

European youth must respond and fight against the neoliberal regime. They must be coordinated in order to ward off further attacks from the austerity programs and the new structure of the EMU and the Euro. They have to fight for a new political direction for Europe, for a new Europe of the people, of solidarity and peace.

 

10. What you consider as the most important topics that European Elections 2014 should focus on?

There are two issues of high importance that will have to be discussed on the way to the European elections in 2014. The first has to do with the austerity policies implemented by the EU countries, under the guidance and hegemony of Germany. The second important issue is the very course of the EU and EMU, in particular. That is, to what extent the structures and processes of the EU, by imposing extreme austerity programs and limiting the scope and power of democratic institutions and labor rights, keep up with the will of the majority of European citizens, who are seeking for a new European direction, towards solidarity, development and cooperation. I believe that in the forthcoming elections, the forces of neoliberalism, the forces of austerity, unemployment and poverty, the forces that patronize the extreme-right and fascism in Greece and elsewhere, will receive a powerful message from the peoples of Europe.

EU elite celebrated again Europe Day when they had succeed to maintain the fasade their to the score rotten creation with taxpayer money squeezed from the common people. The Day went again so that I noticed it only next day from newsreel. It might be not so exceptional as the institutions – the commission, the parliament and the council – and its 27 member states use the day for celebrating mainly themselves. For the rest of Europe as well for people outside elite there was not any reason to celebrate.

The EU is a bold and unique project. It resembles less that of the United States of America and more that of the Soviet Union. Until the last decade the EU has been more or less a community of democratic nations. While the USSR was a communist dictatorship the EU has been following its steps last years due a full-on economic crisis. Vladimir Bukovsky a former soviet dissident, once made a comparison: ‘We were told, that the purpose of the Soviet Union is to create a a new historic entity, the soviet people, and that we must forget our nationalities, our ethnic traditions and customs. The same seems to be true to the European Union. They don’t want you to be British or French, they want you to be a new historic entity: European.’ There is amazing similarity in decision making between EU and ex-Soviet Union. USSR had also some “democratic” institutions like parliament and government, but the real power was in party machine and its “politburo”. Anyway as USSR already went so when will we celebrate EU remembrance Day.

The supranational organisation planned by Nazis?

‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’ (Joseph Goebbels)

EU gratuitously got Nobel award as a peace project: to underscore the very reason that it was created on 9 May 1950, which was to limit any future wars or conflicts on the continent (more in my article Devaluation of Nobel Peace Prize Continues But EU Could Show Way For Better Crisis Management ). An alternative history shows that EU is continuation of war with economic means. This view came to my mind while reading about now published secret report about how Nazis were planning the Fourth Reich.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany’s post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ‘strong German empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again. The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire – but not just German. The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Ludwig Erhard (economist) pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism – the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body. German industrialists were also members of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union. Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today. However one should remember that the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe – was built on mass murder and gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries and that a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich – an economic rather than military empire.

Note: I have summarized this secret report item from: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich – in the EU by Adam Lebor
EU today

Forgetting EU’s organogram as illusion and speaking today’s reality one can easily find different decision making practices in EU depending about importance of issue. Most important core group is cooperation between France and Germany sometimes earlier (pre-€) adding UK to group. Commission of course has great de facto power not only on implementation level but also designing proposals handled in EUs inner cores; the same can be said about bureaucrats in national ministries who are designing policies decided EU meetings at summit/ministry levels.

So where is this leaving European Parliament? It may handle some energy bulb level issues but honestly the whole institution seems to be unnecessary creation only to keep some democratic illusion on show. As EU citizens are not so stupid to keep his institution more than a puppet theatre they show their attitude by low turnout percentage. Before last EU Parliament elections I proposed and argumented (in my article Let’s elect Donkey Parliament) why replacing MEPs with monkeys might not be so bad idea. Today EP is practical place to locate some second class politicians for retirement or out to not make any mess in national policy. They also can show good places to get fresh mussels while voters are visiting in EP as their quests. Designing EU policy happens anyway somewhere else.

EU Out

Today there is increasing EU Out movement lead by Britain. Besides populist UKIP party many leading Tories are supporting cutting ties with Brussels. Former Tory chancellor Nigel Lawson supports a referendum for Britain to leave the EU while Michael Portillo, former Tory cabinet minister, describes the Euro as a “disaster” and says the UK does not share the EU’s vision. The Tories might have their own motivation to pull out from EU (to save speculators and money laundry in London City) as well UKIP and other populist movements in EU (to keep poor immigrants out, rich ones can bye entrance anyway as usual) and leftist grassroot movements (to stop austerity measures). Whatever reasons are the aim is against EU’s federalist development.

Quite common view is that EU is an opaque bureaucracy cut off from the citizens it was (publicly) intended to serve. The unofficial core and value of EU in my opinion is that EU is a system to protect, favor and facilitate the interests of big economic powers. A steady decline in voter turnout over the past three decades for European elections has lent credence to the idea that citizens feel increasingly estranged from the European project. The crisis appears to be making this worse by prompting politicians to rush through policies that concentrate more power in Brussels with limited public understanding or support.

From my point of view subsidiary principle should be widen so that more legislation should be implemented at national level and those few remaining issues could be decided between governments and implemented by slimmed European Commission and its agencies. With this approach the whole EP could be closed as useless extra body. This outcome – which I have called as EU lite version – is about the opposite to ongoing federalist tendency and indeed I support rebuilding EU with confederalist approach. This subject I dealt recently with my article My 1st May Manifesto .

Epilogue

The two dominating trends among EU leaders are to cut losses of players in virtual economy at the expense of taxpayers and to guide EU towards strict federation at the expense of democracy. (Ari Rusila)

After 63 years of existence of EU what do we have to celebrate? Financial speculators, banksters and EU elite can congratulate themselves for creating such a massive well connected system that it is hard to break. The citizens have enjoyed from few benefits such as student exchange programme, Schengen area and common agricultural policy which subsidized farmers to produce goods that nobody wanted, dumped excess supply on world markets creating falling incomes for world farmers. The decline of EU as actor in international politics continues with its disastrous European External Action Service (=foreign policy, EEAS) so that the union can concentrate to its core function as distributor of agricultural funds and as aggregate of high-flown statements. The present challenge is, how to distance unsatisfied citizens and state parliaments away from disturbing egocentric and sel-governing elite. I hope that grassroots finally will get fed up with this experiment and starts to demand some power back.

El pasado día 9 de mayo celebramos como todos los años, el día de Europa. Lo primero que sorprende es que si somos una Unión, tal jornada siga siendo día laborable, mientras festejamos vacacionalmente todo tipo de días de contenido local. Vamos que al menos a mi, me resulta difícil de entender, con todo el respeto a tradiciones y religiones, que nos deje en casa sin trabajar San Saturnino o San Isidro y pase desapercibida la fiesta de Europa que une a más de 500 millones de habitantes y evoca las ideas de paz y libertad que todos deseamos. Pero hecha esta pequeña digresión, voy al nudo de mi reflexión: qué opinamos los españoles de las instituciones europeas, ahora que la crisis económica ha puesto en solfa todo lo que nos rodea y da sentido. ¿Nos sigue uniendo, más que lo que nos separa? ¿Seguimos creyendo que juntos nos va mejor que por separado? ¿Nos sentimos representados por quienes administran nuestros asuntos a nivel europeo? ¿En suma, nos sentimos parte de una realidad que cada vez se impone más en las decisiones que condicionan nuestro presente y futuro?

A estas preguntas han respondido los españoles en una encuesta realizada por el Foro Europa Ciudadana, un think tank independiente que tiene como objetivo contribuir al debate de la construcción de la Europa del futuro, fomenta la participación ciudadana. Los principales resultados de la encuesta dejan poco lugar a dudas sobre la percepción y estado de ánimo que los españoles tienen de la Unión Europea y la forma de administrarnos que está teniendo. Os los resumo en pocas líneas:

- El 81,5% de los españoles considera que el actual número de órganos políticos y administrativos impide tomar decisiones rápidas y consensuadas.

- El 66% de los encuestados opina que el tamaño actual de la UE ha favorecido que cada Estado actúe según su interés particular y no en función del interés europeo.

- El 96% de los españoles reclama una ley de transparencia a nivel europeo para que los ciudadanos conozcan más y mejor a las instituciones europeas.

- El 89,5% considera que los ciudadanos deberían tener más peso en las decisiones políticas y económicas de la UE.

- El 72% de los encuestados opina que la gran cantidad de leyes comunitarias es una traba para la creación de empleo y el desarrollo de las empresas.

- Valoración de 0 a 10 sobre la transparencia de las principales instituciones europeas: Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: 4,7; la Comisión Europea: 4,0; el Parlamento Europeo: 3,8.

- Para los ciudadanos españoles la Unión Europea es sinónimo de… Burocracia: 72,5%. Convivencia: 53,2%. Libertad: 51,3%. Democracia: 43,8%.

- Valoración de 0 a 10 sobre el sentimiento de pertenencia a la Unión Europea de los ciudadanos españoles: 5,5.

- Las instituciones europeas, para ganar en eficiencia y calidad, necesitan… Establecer sistemas de elección más democráticos y transparentes (92,5%). Abrir canales de comunicación con los ciudadanos (91,2%). Fomentar las iniciativas legislativas populares (87,8%). Reducir y simplificar la legislación comunitaria (81,7%).

- El mayor logro de la Unión Europea ha sido… La ciudadanía europea y la unión política (41,5%). El euro y la unión económica ( 32%).

A la vista de respuestas tan rotundas, no cabe duda que la principal queja y, por tanto, demanda que los ciudadanos españoles realizan tiene que ver con la sensación de lejanía y distancia que las instituciones europeas les produce. Y eso se traduce en un sentimiento de apropiación de la burocracia de Bruselas de lo que uno creía que era propio y ahora siente como ajeno. Europa raptada por una mezcla de tecnocracia institucional y una clase política incapaz en encontrar el consenso necesario que demandan los europeos. Estamos, pues, en el filo de la navaja con mucho riesgo de cortarnos en el proyecto europeo. Los ciudadanos pueden optar por dar la espalda a la idea política que más beneficios ha dado al continente en su historia. 65 años de convivencia en paz y democracia están en serio riesgo porque los verdaderos protagonistas de la cosa, que no somos otros que las personas que vivimos en Europa, no vemos a la Unión como algo nuestro, algo por lo que seguir luchando. El desenganche del europeismo es galopante y los desertores corren a toda velocidad hacia posturas euroescepticas en el mejor de los casos, cuando no claramente ultranacionalistas y xenófobas. Un paisaje triste y desolador que puede verse reflejado en forma de paradoja en la composición del próximo Parlamento europeo. Las elecciones de junio de 2014, a escasos 12 meses de celebrarse, pueden dar cobijo en sede legislativa a numerosos representantes contrarios a la idea misma de una Europa unida. Y lo que aún es más grave, serán los electores directos del presidente de la Comisión Europea y su colegio de comisarios. Nos jugamos, pues, más que nunca este año venidero el futuro de Europa. Si no somos capaces de centrar en Europa el debate político de los Estados miembros y seguimos mirándonos embelesados el ombligo patrio, indefectiblemente nos precipitaremos por el abismo de los enfrentamientos históricos del continente. La tarea no es otra que liberar Europa. Sacarla del secuestro a la que la tienen sometidos tecnócratas y políticos sin visión de Unión. El reto una vez más es de todos y lo es individual.

The Italian Government is threading dangerously towards evaporation or, mutatis mutandis, citizens are likely to hit the wall and lose their “wallet”.

In the last election of February 2013, three prominent Parties, PD, PDL and M5S showed similar results of 25% each, with PD scoring marginally ahead. A hard bargaining ensued with PD trying to include M5S (Grillo) in a coalition against Berlusconi (PDL). The wedding could not be celebrated because M5S refused to mingle with “old stale politicians” while PD (Bersani) would not make a joint venture with Berlusconi (PDL) because discredited.

A Party crisis followed inside the PD making the election of the new President impossible, although the two top indications, Prodi and Rodotà, both high-calibre personalities originated from leftish backgrounds. At this point Bersani (PD) resigned, President Napolitano was emotionally asked to reconfirm his own mandate for the next 7 years and Mr Letta was appointed to form a new government.

Having Mr Grillo insisted that M5S would play the opposition, Mr Letta successfully formed a government in coalition with Mr Berlusconi (PDL); official explanation: for love of the nation and on condition that the house tax (IMU) be scrapped. It stands to reason that this is a giddy venture subject to the judicial misadventures of “il cavaliere”.

A consideration is due at this point: had Mr Grillo (M5S) agreed to form a coalition with PD (Bersani or Letta) this unconvincing outcome would not have occurred and the Country would have had a smoother political sailing. It must be added that a sizeable part of the M5S electorate is furious with Mr Grillo’s refusal to join in a government with PD and they see the present outcome as the cause of presenting a world-renown discredited figure, as Mr Berlusconi is regarded. It must be recorded, however, that last week’s pools rate M5S as still boasting 25-26%, a score revealing the extent of people’s repudiation for the old establishment.

The main cause of the tangled political situation is due to the current electoral law named “porcellum” (pigsty) reserving the nomination of members of parliament to the individual parties, meaning that citizens can only vote parties and not delegates. This law, originally introduced by the former Berlusconi government, was meant to be amended (reformed) since when Berlusconi was in charge but succeeding parliaments never came to a new definition due to empty or insincere talk.

The newly-inaugurate Letta Government has given itself 4 intervention priorities: Scrap the house tax (IMU), change the electoral law, pursue structural reforms and propel growth. Mr Letta plunged immediately in the job of finding 4bn Euro to make up for this year missing IMU intake and possibly – Mr Berlusconi rumbled – a further 4bn Euro to return last year’s payment already effected by citizens. The Finance minister is working on this topic and Mr Letta flew to Brussels to introduce his position and make the point for the growth aspect. Mr Squinzi, head of Confindustria (the Industry Union) has warned that 5,300 medium-small companies have closed shutters in 2012 for lack of credit and the drain continues.

For this and other aspects the present Government is threading on eggs (a very difficult position); scrapping the 4 or 8bn Euro house tax, the 40bn Euro government debt long-promised to be credited to small companies, refunding the 4th instalment of the ESM and a state bailout of 4bn Euro in February to rescue the Monte Paschi Siena bank; all items that could easily evaporate this year objective to confine the deficit to 3%.

I cannot miss to add to the balance the judicial problems in which Mr Berlusconi is grappled; it was announced yesterday that the Italian appeal court has upheld Silvio Berlusconi’s four-year jail sentence concerning purchased films by Mediaset at inflated price to minimize tax (a third and last grade of judgement is expected); besides, another sentence for having made sex with an underage is expected for next month. In addition, today’s news of Berlusconi having bribed leftist MPs to cause former Prodi government to fall contribute to make the atmosphere unstable. Albeit the cavaliere is not formally engaged in the present government, Mr Alfano (his deputy) is acting as Government vice-President and he is widely regarded as Mr Berlusconi surrogate.

In conclusion, the Government is jostling with two priorities: first, scrap the house tax or Berlusconi (PDL) withdraws his confidence (unless Grillo-M5S steps-in), second, find a way to spur growth maintaining the GDP deficit inside the figure of 3%.

Italian citizens, however, have a pressing priority: that to have an electoral law allowing people to vote their chosen candidates, by that improving democracy and making the Country governable. Should the Government fall before a new electoral law is approved then the Italian vessel would sink.

In a conference organised by Policy Network in London this week, Lord Tony Giddens argued, in a session I had the honour to chair, that the problems we are facing at the moment are not just European but also global. The key question facing Europe, as well as the US, China, India and Africa, is “Where are the jobs coming from?”

Therefore, Europe needs to fundamentally rethink its policies in order to respond to global challenges. It is a question of acting and reacting quickly as a continent to the rapid and persistent transformations in the world.

Governance is about setting and implementing rules. It is based on reciprocal trust between governments and citizens. The more citizens share similar values and traditions the easier it is to govern. Big countries or those encompassing different cultures therefore resort to federal structures, which allow much of the rule setting to take place at regional level.

As the number of member states and subject matters covered by EU legislation increases EU governance is bound to become even more complex.

Recent rifts on macro-economic policies between North and South, UK resistance to perceived EU encroachments on national traditions, Polish hesitations about stricter EU climate policy standards or poor compliance of southern member states with EU directives illustrate the conundrum of EU governance.

Europe cannot suspend legislation until national mentalities may have converged towards a single European one. That process will take decades; even then will Europe remain a federation of nation states with strong national identities, which distinguishes it from “born federations” like USA, Canada or Switzerland where primary loyalty goes to the Federation.

There are at least six ways for the EU to mitigate its conundrum with policy making.

• Keep a brake on enlargement

  Candidate countries should undergo a much longer apprenticeship in European culture and governance. The bureaucratic transposition of EU law is insufficient proof of their preparedness to act like a full club member. Much longer and intensive training of political elites about the special ways of EU government must precede formal membership.

• Put a cap on the number of Commissioners

  Their number should not exceed 75 per cent of member states, as provided by the Lisbon Treaty. This would also curb the expansion of EU staff, who quite normally want to demonstrate their abilities by proposing new rules.

• Put more emphasis on compliance with EU legislation

  Part of the present difficulties in southern member countries is due to lax implementation of EU legislation. The EU Commission must become a much stricter guardian of EU law and devote more of its energy to this rather unpleasant mission.

• Impose more self-restraint before proposing new rules

  The tense relations between EU and citizens are largely due to the flood of new rules from Brussels, which citizens are less and less able to digest. The EU Commission should restrain its urge to propose new rules. Before any new proposal it should systematically ask if it is absolutely necessary in the interest of all It might more frequently limit itself to making recommendations and leave it up to member states to follow according to their interests, without burdening the legislative process.

• Resort more frequently to enhanced cooperation

  It will often suffice to set rules only for the most interested member countries, or to introduce them very progressively, as in the case of EMS. That minimises the risks of backlash.

• Encourage adoption of «private» standards

Private/public networks of regions and municipalities may often serve as a flexible substitute for legislation. The EU should encourage such cooperation wherever feasible.

Eberhard Rhein, Brussels

By Georgi Gotev Interview with Sir Graham Watson, President of the liberal ALDE party, 7 May 2013, Brussels. The European Parliament Civil Liberties LIBE committee will vote today (7 May) to decide what follow up the European Parliament and the EU in general should decide on the unfolding eavesdropping scandal in Bulgaria, which was dubbed by the foreign press “the Bulgarian Watergate”. This is happening just before the early parliamentary elections on 12 May. What is your comment?

In September 2012, Ministers responsible for Youth from 47 Member States of the Council of Europe congregated for the Ministerial Conference in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to agree on ensuring equal access to Youth Rights for every single young person in Europe. The aim was to achieve this through the adoption of the Declaration “Young people’s access to rights: Development of innovative youth policies in Europe” which would have served as a guideline to all the Ministers’ work in their respective countries. Some officials, however, had problems with ensuring access to Youth Rights for ALL young people inclusively. Ministers failed to agree on the issue that there should be no discrimination towards people of sexual orientation different from heterosexual, and with recognising other gender identities different from man or woman. In AEGEE we find it truly alarming that this vision came from some Member States of the Council of Europe – the European institution which core values are to uphold Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Yet, we very much appreciate the fact that several bodies within the Council of Europe indeed did make sure that a proper follow up to the Ministers’ fiasco at the Ministerial Conference will take place.

This year, in April, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted two important documents: “Young people’s access to fundamental rights” and “Young Europeans: an urgent educational challenge”. Moreover, one of the recommendations coming to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe was to adopt a legally binding document on Youth Rights, a policy document that will recognise and respect Youth Rights in their uniqueness, that European governments can then decide to implement in their countries.

This is where young people are stepping in. Several organisations came together to develop a Youth Rights campaign with three main aims: (1) to raise awareness on the situation of Youth Rights, (2) to make the topic of Youth Rights a priority on political agendas and (3) to strengthen the voice of young people in the Council of Europe Member States and structures.

The organisations starting the campaign:

· European Students’ Forum (AEGEE-Europe)

· Young European Federalists (JEF)

· International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student organisation (IGLYO)

· European Federation for Intercultural Learning (EFIL)

· Youth for Exchange and Understanding (YEU)

· World Esperanto Youth Organisation (TEJO)

· National Youth Council of Portugal (CNJ)

· Flemish National Youth Council (VJR)

· Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU)

Together with a legal advisor – the European Law Student Association (ELSA), and a local youth organisation from Kosovo – MUSE-E. And with the support from the Advisory Council on Youth and the European Youth Forum and with many more organisations to join.

The campaign comes at a very important moment in Europe. Today, Europe is a continent where national governments do not always value the voice of young people in decision making processes. It is a continent where governments are continuously making financial cuts influencing young people’s welfare drastically in a very negative way. It is a place where youth organisations are not recognised and are often not given proper support. As the Ministerial Conference showed, it is also a place where young people cannot be guaranteed safety and inclusion.

This is why we are calling for action through a campaign called “Youth Rights. NOW!”: a campaign that aims to mobilise young people to fight for our rights and influence decision makers to put this matter high on their agendas. From 25th to 28th April, the campaign took the first steps, but it will take time to implement all the steps planned, gain finances and provide other prerequisites to set up the campaign.

Nonetheless, the Comité Directeur of AEGEE-Europe will mobilise its members to initiate a dialogue with national decision makers and to start a process of recognition and respect of our Youth Rights! We call also for other youth organisations to join the campaign and to mobilise their members. Finally, we call on policy makers – Youth and Education Ministers, Foreign Affairs Ministers (members of the Committee of Ministers of CoE) and Ambassadors accredited to the Council of Europe, each in their own capacity – to team up with young people and use our ideas and their power to make Europe youth-friendly, NOW!

by Lord Liddle – Chairman, Policy Network A lot of what has been said since Mr Cameron’s Europe speech in January seem to make an assumption that he is going to be Prime Minister after 2015, and that therefore the referendum promised for 2017 is going to take place. This is by no mean a [...]

Written by Lana Tomic (member of IPWG) Due to bad experiences related to former enlargements, stricter criteria were set for Croatia. In the past, several candidate countries turned out to be unprepared at the moment of accession, which later caused serious problems not only for those countries, but to European Union as a whole. These [...]

Je viens de lire ce dernier livre de Daniel Guegen, plus critique que moi mais toujours stimulant et précis à la fois. Contrairement à beaucoup d’ouvrages académiques sur l’UE, que j’ai de la peine à terminer. (Et puis, il mentionne mon nom dans la liste des remerciements: visiblement, ça déclenche de l’intérêt, ça marche!) Le [...]

The map of Europe which shows the levels of unemployment in the European Union countries is worth the look.

Let’s first exclude, however, two dark islands – Spain and Greece. These countries depart significantly from the average (already quite high) unemployment rate in the EU.

A number of conclusions which break down a stereotype over unemployment deserve to be emphasised here.  Firstly, there is no connection between eurozone adhesion and unemployment rate. There is, furthermore, no relation between the “old” and “new” Union division and level of unemployment whatsoever. When we look at the line of high unemployment which starts in Latvia and finishes in Portugal or in Ireland, we can see that the situation on the job market does not necessarily depend on issues related to the eurozone adhesion.

Germany and Austria are two countries which witness relatively lower levels of unemployment. We can, however, also observe a longer line marking lower unemployment which starts in Great Britain and finishes (surprisingly!) in Romania.

I would like to spare a few word on four countries of the “new” Union where the statistics are quite favourable – Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Romania. Estonia was the first to start a fight against crisis. Making use of its location and economic bonds with Finland and Sweden, the country managed to push the economy into a relatively good state. Similar reasons made Czech and Slovenian’s economy doing quite well. Romania’s result is sensational. I believe its low unemployment rate is due to the fact that the country is still quite poor and the sate remains to be a big employer itself.

Making plans for combating unemployment in Poland, with those 2, 3 million unemployed citizens in mind, we shall remember that it is not the miraculous, single system that could be in force in all European countries but a well ordered internal economic policy that matters the most. Poland has a big internal market whose capabilities might trigger significant changes on the job markets. What might boost our economy is the trade cooperation with the East, especially with the Russian Federation. This potential has not been fully developed yet. Finally, there is a need to introduce a radical change in the use of the European money to boost entrepreneurship. Where apparently trivial, these are quite fundamental issues, which will be promoted by Europe Plus with regard to the job market in Poland and in Europe.