Paper 1
Introduction
As the European elections approach, it is important to define very clearly the crucial stake that the future of the Union represents. It is essential to mobilise public opinion by highlighting the added value that only the European Union can bring in defending many of its citizens' interests.
All the polls indicate that the next European elections risk turning into a referendum for or against the European Union. These elections must not become, by default, a “referendum” on the existence of a Union that is constantly being called into question.
To avoid this situation, it is essential to mobilise the electorate by putting to its vote alternatives for the conduct of European affairs from the economic, social, environmental and other points of view.
The designation by the European “parties” of their candidates for the presidency of the Commission is a novelty introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, but it is only a first step in this direction.
Citizens' disaffection with the Union is largely encouraged by national politicians (in power as in opposition), who place on “Europe” the responsibility for their own failings.
The debate must be focused on the policy options open to the Union, which only it is able to implement provided it is given the necessary powers, while ensuring that the European executive is held accountable and sanctioned by the democratically elected Parliament.
The stake of the elections would then become tangible, instead of serving as an outlet for stigmatising national policies whose weaknesses are conveniently attributed to “Europe” or “Brussels”! The accumulation of the fundamentally “eurosceptic” vote with that of voters goaded by their own rulers' criticism of policies that those same rulers endorsed in Brussels leaves little room for the expression of a European discourse that carries hope.
Where is Europe heading, and why SPRING?
Europe has unique characteristics, including a great cultural diversity based on common roots, democracy and citizenship.
The European spirit is an intellectual construction founded on a cultural tradition. It reflects only part of an “essence” that remains difficult, even impossible, to define concretely. It is impalpable, because Europe is diversity, and because its culture has spread to other continents.
Edgar Morin, in the prologue to Penser l'Europe, explains the difficulty of the task: “The difficulty of thinking Europe is first of all to think the one in the multiple, and the multiple in the one.” For Europe is a “complex” (from complexus, that which is woven together) “whose characteristic is to assemble, without confusing them, the greatest diversities and to associate opposites in an inseparable way.”
Source: Viviane Obaton, “The characteristics of European culture” in “The promotion of European cultural identity since 1946”, EURYOPA, studies 3-1997
At certain moments in our history we forgot these principles, and the consequence was obscurantism and totalitarianism. We must therefore assume our role as citizens by defending the principles and characteristics of Europe.
European influence
A common history going back, on the one hand, to Greco-Roman antiquity and, on the other, to Christianity and secularism has given rise to important advances in different fields such as:
The exact sciences that shaped our vision of mankind, such as the laws of gravitation, heliocentrism, the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the expansion of the universe, the uncertainty principle…;
The universalisation of standards and reference points such as the Gregorian calendar, musical notation, the metric system and the binary system…;
Major technological advances in the transformation of energy, including mechanical (steam engine, heat engine, turbine…);
Influence through the arts: painting, architecture, music, literature, cinema…;
The human sciences in many fields such as economics, philosophy, politics, psychiatry…;
The great foundations of Western thought such as secular morality and Christianity, as well as human rights.
European civilisation has legitimately drawn inspiration from otherness, on which it has based its construction.
Understanding between formerly enemy nations, solidarity, sharing and open-mindedness have developed on the basis of valuing differences rather than smoothing them out.
Differences in languages, cultures, socio-political approaches and models of economic development have brought a culture of debate instead of “a single way of thinking”, an approach of negotiation instead of conflict, a mutual enrichment of legislation and constitutions, a pluralist model of productive, financial and economic development, and a generalisation of the gains in human rights.
Peace
Understanding between nations is probably the most important of Europe's achievements. The peace established between countries that were once at war has become lasting. The implicit renunciation of territorial claims, supported by European interventions in cross-border regions, has become a factor of cultural sharing, wealth and innovation. Many countries today wish to join this area of peace.
Solidarity
Solidarity has been fundamentally inscribed in European civilisation since the French Revolution, which disseminated this principle across practically the whole of Europe.
It manifests itself at several levels. At the level of countries, a social solidarity has been put in place, ensuring a redistribution of wealth among all members of society (including the most deprived, the sick, the unemployed, and people at the beginning and end of life). Over time, this solidarity has extended into education (free or symbolically priced basic education) and culture (subsidies for the various forms of culture). Europe supports this solidarity, even though it remains essentially a national responsibility.
The European dynamic was born in the context of a post-war Europe, carried by survivors and turned towards economic reconstruction, in a spirit of intergenerational transmission (unlike other continents). Although it took some time to establish itself, intergenerational solidarity is now on the agenda of EU forums.
At EU level, the founding principle of solidarity was put forward from the very first steps of European construction. In his declaration of 9 May 1950, Robert Schuman stressed: “Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.”
The principle of solidarity has since applied between member states (economic, financial – including the EBRD, the EIB and the EIF – cultural, environmental…), between member states and candidate countries (through the allocation of substantial budgets to candidate countries), and between member states and developing countries (through an obligation to invest a percentage of GDP in aid and cooperation projects). The example of this solidarity is supposed to be passed on from the state (represented by national, regional and local administrations) to the citizens.
To date, the European Union (member states and European institutions combined) provides more than half of the world total of official development assistance, making it by far the leading donor to developing countries. About half of European aid is intended for African countries.
Sharing
Europe is still being constituted. By this we mean that it is taking shape through enlargement, with the aim of definitively ending the division of Europe into two blocs that lasted fifty years, and that it is being built through a process of institutional strengthening.
A Europe under construction remains a civic and social space to be invested in, a pluricultural and intercultural project to be inhabited, and it therefore cannot be reduced to an institutional construction.
To understand the enlargement process is to question the relationship to otherness, the relationship to the past, and the democratisation processes as advocated by the European Union in “the other Europe” and as perceived by the candidate countries. It is to speak of a European political imaginary, or of European political imaginaries, in transformation. It is to ask the question of the relationship to the margins of this enlarged Europe, on its East, North and South. To speak of democratisation at the borders is to ask whether one can imagine a relationship of Europe to others that would not be one of inclusion/exclusion, but one of equality in exchange.
Source: L'EUROPE EN PARTAGE, Revue Lignes n°13
Open-mindedness
The European spirit is an intellectual construction founded on a cultural tradition… It is impalpable, because Europe is diversity, and because its culture has spread to other continents. (Source: ibidem)
A Europe of innovation is a reality, even though this reality is losing ground to formidable American innovative power. For comparison, in 2011 the number of doctoral theses per 1,000 inhabitants was 1.6 in the USA and 1.4 in the EU. Patents invented (per billion GDP in PPS EUR) were 4.3 in the USA and 4 in the EU; exported medium and high-tech products (as a % of total exports) were 59 in the USA and 47 in the EU.
A few examples of innovative achievements with a European flavour:
CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is one of the largest and most prestigious scientific laboratories in the world. Founded in 1954, CERN was one of the first organisations on a European scale. It now has twenty member states and employs 10,000 researchers.
Airbus is a European aircraft manufacturer. A division wholly owned by the Airbus industrial group, the company makes more than half of the airliners produced in the world and employs more than 60,000 people.
ESA, the European Space Agency, with the Ariane programme, has become the world's largest launcher of geostationary satellites.
GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) is THE digital standard for mobile telephony. The working group in charge of defining it was set up in 1982 by the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). The research and development funds allocated made it possible to quickly establish a legal framework and a single European standard.
Wi-Fi. Initially developed with EU research funds, the slowness of the process of adopting a common EU standard meant that American companies established de facto market standards.
The Euro, in less than ten years, has become the world's second reserve currency.
The ERASMUS student exchange programme has reached 3 million students who have benefited from study grants in one of the 33 participating countries (EU, EFTA, Turkey), i.e. 10% of European students (the target is 20% by 2020).
European decline
Today Europe is sick, in a world in crisis. “…Europe prefers preserving what it has achieved to taking risks. While it faces ageing, a shrinking workforce, rising energy costs and therefore a weakening of its competitiveness, it is closing in on itself. Yet we should turn more towards the future, by managing to pool our efforts.” (1)
Socio-economic decline
With 505 million inhabitants (2), the European Union now represents only about 7% of the world's population. It has the lowest population growth rate in the world (0.4% European average) and is ageing rapidly, but its inhabitants live longer.
Economic growth is low: 2.2% on average (EU) in 2012 for the 27 countries of the Union. European states are heavily indebted: public debt represented 93.4% of GDP in the euro zone at the end of the second quarter of 2013 (in the EU28, the ratio also rose, to 86.8%). Public debt represents about 170% of Greece's gross domestic product, and about 130% for Italy, Portugal and Ireland. In 2010 (3), about 17% of the European population lived below the poverty line, a rate that rises to 20% among young people. The poverty rate in Europe varies from 5.7% to 16.9% depending on the threshold used (4).
Contextual decline
Probably the most serious, but totally obscured by the socio-economic and institutional decline. The decline stems from our growth formula, which rests on two assumptions that prove inaccurate: unlimited resources and generational balance (5).
An underperforming economic and industrial environment;
Too many regulations;
No proactive energy strategy to develop both traditional and new energy sources;
An ageing population and no coherent demographic policy (which was one of the elements of growth);
We borrow too much to finance current expenditure rather than productive investment.
Institutional decline
Italian Prime Minister E. Letta thinks that nobody is able to answer precisely the question “Who runs Europe?”.
The European Union adopts different types of legislative acts, which aim to fulfil the objectives set out in the treaties. Not all of them are binding. Regulations are binding legislative acts, which must be implemented in their entirety across the European Union. Directives set objectives for all EU countries, but leave each one the choice of means to achieve them. Although a Directive is a normative act of the Council of the European Union, depending on the field concerned the European Parliament has more or less power to intervene in its adoption.
The role of the European Parliament
Originally, the Treaty of Rome of 1957 gave Parliament a consultative role in the legislative process; it was the Commission that proposed legislation and the Council that adopted it.
The Single European Act (1986) and the Treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1999), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2009) have successively extended Parliament's prerogatives. It is now co-legislator on an equal footing with the Council in the vast majority of areas.
Nevertheless, to date and after all these changes, the European Parliament still has very little power, mainly a power of blockage. Indeed, the European Parliament can approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments, but the Council is not legally bound to follow Parliament's opinion.
The European Parliament has only a limited right of initiative. The legislative initiative belongs to the Commission. However, the Maastricht Treaty, reinforced in this by the Lisbon Treaty, granted the European Parliament a right of legislative initiative allowing it to ask the Commission to submit a proposal. Under the treaty, the Commission takes the initiatives for the Union's annual and multiannual programming. After its adoption by the Commission, a trilogue is held between Parliament, Council and Commission with a view to concluding an agreement on the Union's programming.
Parliament can, on the basis of a report drawn up by one of its committees, ask the Commission to submit any appropriate legislative proposal. But the competent parliamentary committee must first ask for the authorisation of the Conference of Presidents. The Commission may either agree or refuse to submit the requested legislative proposal. When a new Commission is appointed, its members — one per EU country — cannot take up their duties without Parliament's approval. If MEPs disapprove of the choice of a commissioner, they can reject the entire college. Parliament can also force the Commission to resign during its term (“motion of censure”).
EU enlargement too rapid, lack of economic convergence;
The unanimity rule is too constraining;
Poorly defined powers between the European Institutions (Commission, Council and European Parliament);
Legitimacy of the Presidents of the Council and of the Commission;
Domination of the Franco-German tandem to the detriment of the other countries.
Poor communication
The absence of a unifying project, and therefore no buy-in and no pride;
The absence of European communication with a single voice;
The absence of a common language;
No good story to tell about the three founding ideas – peace, stability and prosperity – of which only the first has been achieved.
Can we get out of this?
Europe's current unpopularity must be fought vigorously. Far from being the problem, the European Union is an unavoidable element of any solution.
Decline is not inevitable; it is our responsibility to act. Yes, we can act. We will soon be able to elect our representatives, who will be even more concerned with:
Responsible management of the economic and banking crisis;
A change in energy policy and the management of the transition;
Investment in education and training;
Pooling and increased investment in research and development;
Analysis and control of the impact of ageing;
Public affairs management that is less electoral, more strategic and more responsible;
Responsible management of immigration.
Conclusion…
The vote in the European elections of May 2014 should be the opportunity for a European rebound, hence our initiative called SPRING. The vote is about the future members of the European Parliament.
To conclude the previous chapter: the European Parliament in fact has very little power, mainly a power of blockage; it has (almost) no right of initiative; European directives generally originate from initiatives of the European Commission, and on many of them Parliament has only a consultative role, or even no role at all.
It is therefore the national governments, through the Council, that truly hold legislative power. The Commission is designated by the European Council, and here again the European Parliament has only a power of blockage. Parliament's only real power lies in adopting or rejecting the EU's annual budget, jointly with the Council.
As a result, the functioning of the European Union is inseparable from the national question, and national governments are directly involved in all decisions taken by the European Union. Hiding national problems behind obligations “imposed by Brussels” is therefore a delusion. Nothing can be done at European level without the agreement of the government of each member country.
The vote in the European elections of May 2014 should be the opportunity for a European rebound, by making citizens' voices heard. Citizens can (for example) express through their vote their opinion on whether:
The institutions are adapted?
The sharing of power between the Institutions is effective?
The European perimeter should be redefined?
The unemployment of 27 million individuals is acceptable?
The management of demographics and immigration should fall under a common policy?
A common energy policy is necessary?
The voting system is really democratic?
The solution would be to protect ourselves individually in the independence of our national states?
European politics needs to be fully accepted by citizens. To that end, we argue for a genuine European dynamic in the area of political parties. European citizens must be able to make their European political choices on the basis of European programmes, and not on the basis of local or national issues.
Until the previous elections, and still to this day, members of the European Parliament have been elected on lists whose organisation, communication, political stakes and programmes (where they existed) came under the national level. European citizens therefore do not have a clear choice: “What is the programme of the European Socialist Party? That of the French PS, or that of British New Labour? What is the programme of the European People's Party? That of the German CDU or that of Berlusconi? Citizens are reduced to voting on the basis of national issues and never have the opportunity to choose a real European project.” (1) “What is important is to foster the emergence of a genuine European political awareness, capable of giving citizens the assurance that Europe is being built with them and not in spite of them.”
In the 2014 elections, the changes brought by the Lisbon Treaty will take effect for the first time. For the first time, the European Parliament will elect the President of the European Commission, taking into account the results of the European elections, but it is the European Council (heads of state and government) that proposes candidates. A European Parliament that is strong in its members and its convictions will be able to steer the heads of state and government, which would be a step forward towards more democracy.
It is therefore a matter of sending a clear signal as voters. A massive turnout will give credibility and representativeness to the elected members, which in turn will give more weight to parliamentary action. A strong parliament can bring about change! Let us therefore create this strong parliament together!
Let us not forget: every European citizen can vote and stand as a candidate anywhere on European territory. Few parties practise this, but in some countries parties have started to understand the stakes better: for example, the Dutch Social Democrats have just issued a call for candidates all over Europe to field new (and foreign) candidates in good positions (2).
By voting, citizens take part in the exercise of power. Those who do not vote automatically exclude themselves from the debate. The meaning of your vote is your decision — make yourself heard!
February 2014
