Recently, the implementation of 5G in Europe has been at the forefront of newspapers. With new controversies or deadlines being met, it is well covered. From the controversy involving Huaweii, protests against potential dangers of the used radio waves or even the slow pace at which Europe is making progress on this issue, 5G has been well covered. What has been slightly less well covered, are the other areas that constitute Europe’s Digital Strategy. 5G has been one of the most visible european digitalisation policies. It is the high tech, speaks to the imagination of people, and allows it to compete in a field with the Americans and Chinese. However it is only part of the European Digital Strategy. Associated to it are other aspects. Aspects such as E-governance, Cybersecurity, Education and Business capabilities. These fields, equally important to the European Strategy have been less visible.
Europe established the Digital Single Market and Digitalisation as one of its top priorities. As Early as 2010, shortly after the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, the Commission, tried to gain more powers in the area of digital policy. In concert with the council, targets were also set for member states to achieve. The targets, in 5 different fields, aimed at ensuring concentrated efforts, and the coordination of member states efforts. Efforts started very strongly. With many European states starting off strongly. However this trend has started to change over the last few years. While Nordic countries such as Finland and Estonia still perform well, many others have started to lag behind.
In the most recent progress reports, published mid June, the commission itself admits, that although progress has been made, it isn’t happening fast enough. The problems with the implementation of 5G technology are just one facet of the blocs general Digital Transformation goal. Many of these problems stem out different priorities for the member states. Although it has many benefits for most governments, it isn’t high on the agenda in most countries. In Belgium for example, although the government started with ambitious plans of becoming a European Digital leader, progress has stalled. In fact it has stalled to such an extent that the Commission took Belgium to court over the slow transposition of European directives on the Digital market.
A strong digital Europe has many advantages for everyone. It would greatly improve accessibility to government services, generating opportunities for people with the use of the internet, and provide a boost to european companies. A first step would be to ensure national interests in these topics. Without the will of member states to contribute, change is not really possible. One core area where more can be achieved is the Human Capital one. Only 60 percent of European have basic software skills, and are more competent than that. When it comes to ICT skills, the number decreases to a mere 3 percent of the population. Although not everyone has to be trained in these skills, allowing for more capabilities building in those areas, will drastically improve the opportunities given to certain parts of the population. It could allow for more social mobility, and provide a new impetus for people to create new European digital ideas.
A similar change can be made in e-governance. When looking at the numbers, there seems to be an advantages given to e-governance services for businesses. While only relatively small, it is still significant. Furthermore, E-health seems to only have lag behind as well. Although much progress has been made, going up 10% in the last few years, only 18% of individuals in Europe seem to use it. For services that can be important for saving lives, more effort can be put into it.
Arguably, already much has been achieved. Many more people are now connected to the internet, with faster internet than 10 years ago. Many businesses are a lot more integrated into new technologies, and make more use of the internet. Yet still many problems remain. In Southern Germany, large areas are without connectivity. Taking the train in Baden Wurttemberg, I have all to often found myself without service, even when my train had been cancelled or running late.
Having internet, although seemingly a luxury today, has become an important part of daily life. From planning your trip, shopping or making a quick search, it has become a commodity that is used in almost all circumstances. Ensuring that services are readily available should be an important priority for all member states. Not just because it brings many advantages for the individual, but because it will bring a large boost to the economies of all member states. Having a modern and digital economy, will allow for stronger competition, create more jobs, and create opportunities for the individual. The digital single market has already brought a lot of wealth and advancement to Europe, but it should be pushed further. A modern economy, using all the technologies currently on offer will not just benefit Europe as a while, but also individual member states. They should strive to maximise its potential.
By Misha Stocker – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
In October 2018, the manifesto “My Body, My Rights”, published in “Le Nouvel Observateur”, called for equal sexual and reproductive rights for all women in Europe. Abortion legislations are currently regulated at the national level and no common framework exists in the European Union. This situation creates huge inequalities among European women. If some countries have known improvements over the past years, such as the abolition of the abortion ban in Ireland, some others, and sadly the majority of them, have known some alarming backlashes. The Polish government attempts to restrict even more the already narrow conditions under which abortion is legal; in Italy 70% of the doctors are using a conscience clause in order to refuse the practice of abortion, creating unrealistic waiting lists and delays in the public service and favouring the private practitioners. Other countries, not to mention Germany, do not officially restrict abortion per se, but reduce the access to information, leaving women in desperate situations, instead of guiding them toward the best options concerning their personal situations.
Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) are considered under the frame of gender equality and access to health, which provides the EU with limited competencies. Various official reports of Institutions highlight the lack of consensus among Member States on the topic. Yet, European legislative bodies seem more willing to implement a supranational framework on SRHR, especially regarding abortion rights. In 2001, the European Parliament encouraged greater access to SRHR among the Member States, including the existence of “legal, safe and accessible” abortion. More recently in 2013, the Council of Ministers signed a common declaration encouraging the implementation of the Beijing Platform of Action. This Platform represents the international legal argument to defend abortion rights, stating that “reproductive health […] implies that people […] have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so” (para. 94). In fact, limiting access to abortion reduces peoples’ rights to have control over their own body and their rights to have a familly if, when and how they want it.
Moreover, restricted access to abortion does not eliminate the practice but creates an incentive for illegal procedures to happen, therefore increasing insecurity. For instance, in the case of Poland, every year, around 1 100 legal abortions are practiced, but between 80 000 and 150 000 are still made under illegal circumstances. Fortunately, scientific advancements give women more possibilities to (il)legally terminate their pregnancy other than the use of a cloth hanger. Abortive pills can either be ordered and shipped from abroad when is it still possible, or pregnant women have to travel in a foreign country, or find a doctor that practices it illegally, or in worst case scenarios, do it at home in dangerous and unhealthy conditions. As the statistics show, in Poland, restricting abortions rigths do not prevent its practice. It just makes it more dangerous and uncontrolled. Therefore, why does the legislation persevere to limit this right instead of helping the people in those situations and giving them access to safe and controlled healthcare ?
NO, women having recourse to abortion do not do it for pleasure. NO, abortion is not used as a contraceptive. And NO, abortion is not easy. Legalising abortion, and making it solely a woman’s choice, is offering women in desesperate situations an alternative to their unwanted pregancy. Abortion has to be made accessible by the state and accompanied by professionals. Yet, some European legislation are depriving women of their rights to information. This is the case of the paragraph 219a of the German Penal Code. The article states that no information related to abortion can to be made public. In 2016, the doctor Kristina Hänel was fined 6 000 € because she indicated on her website that she was practicing abortion for her patients. Her trial provoked a public debate over this article, dating back from 1933. A new version was passed in February 2019, allowing doctors to say on their website that they are practicing abortion. Yet, no further information can be provided and in June this year, two nurses were fined because they added that abortion was practiced “in a safe environment”. When women are finding themselves in a situation of unwanted pregnancy, they have to be able to find neutral and reliable information on their options, and information has to be easily and quickly accessible.
If it is important to provide women with reliable and available information, and it is equally important to guide them over the entire process. A report requested by the European Parliament Committee on Women’s rights and gender equality identified only two countries in Europe having legal dispositions supervising post-abortion care. Those consist in psychological and social support and councelling sessions before and after abortion. I do not say that every woman needs psychological support before and after abortion, yet, such an event is never painless and easy, therefore, women should be offered the possibility to be adequately and professionaly supported.
Another problem identified in Europe is the ineffective implementation of abortion rights. In most countries, doctors have the right to refuse the practice of abortion, using a conscience clause. So be it. Yet, such clauses, when they are used by the majority of doctors, create situations in which it becomes hard to access one’s rights. It is reported that in Italy, 70% of doctors are using this conscience clause, creating inadmissible delay to have an abortion once they found a doctor willing to deliver them a required certificate. In 2014, almost 15% of Italian women had to wait more than 21 days, and regular testimonies report that they almost missed the legal time limit due to these delays. This is why it is important to legalise abortion, it is equally important to ensure an effective access to it.
Additionally, it is also crucial to provide adequate training to gynecologists. Taking the case of Italy once again, only 15% of the doctors are using the conscience clause for religious reasons. Most of them report a lack a knowledge and training. They have to declare if they will be conscientious objectors at the beginning of their studies, and if so do not learn how to practice it. In Germany this is not taught at university. The 1 200 doctors still practicing it today have learned it 40 years ago, creating a worrying situation for the years to come. The least that could be done, would be to teach medicine students that can after decide if they want or not to practice it.
As a reminder, the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that any lack of access to abortion was considered as a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. AND IT IS. It denies the right to women to have full control over their own body, shaming them and, forcing them to find unwanted alternatives, and therefore creating dangerous situations, instead of providing them with optimal care. All these reasons should be sufficient to justify a common European framework legalising abortion, making it effectively accessible, safe, and free.
By Mélanie Véron-Fougas – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
European policy-making regarding immigration has been increasing in the last decades. The Schengen agreement and the set-up of the of the European agency Frontex for instance, are examples of how the European Union is involved in this field. Especially the controversial deal with Turkey in 2016 could be seen as a far-reaching example of how the EU is decisive in the area of immigration. When it comes to a field which is closely linked to immigration however, the area of policies on integration of immigrants, European involvement is less visible or extensive. As formulating integration-policies is not an EU-competence, the room for manoeuvre for European action is seemingly small. It remains rather limited to a supportive and coordinative role towards the individual Member States (MS), which decide themselves how migrants should be integrated into their societies. European action can take multiple forms however. In this blog, before some general remarks, I want to address two instances in which the EU is active with regard to integration of immigrants in Europe.
First of all, integration is not an easy process; building a bridge between a receiving society and incoming immigrants can be a tough two-way road. Therefore, formulating an effective and social integration policy is a challenging task for an individual country. To make things more difficult, integration as a concept inevitably deals with national identity. Before questioning how a migrant becomes a national, a country first has to ask itself what it means to be a national living in the country. Arguably, this provides a reason for European MS to protect their national competence of integration policies. Why should the EU decide how people are fitting into their national societies? Integration of immigrants is therefore characterized as a sensitive policy area.
Overall MIPEX scores European countries (2014)
Luckily, not all debates about competences regarding integration policies are constrained by such cultural and national identity-arguments. In practice, the EU is able to use ‘soft governance’ in the field of integration of immigrants. For instance, Europe provides a useful platform for sharing and comparing best-practices on policies for integration. One of those tools is the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), sponsored by the EU. This tool measures integration policies and outcomes in 38 countries, using 167 indicators to give scores about how well migrants are integrated in the respective countries. Scores are for example based on the degree in which immigrants find access to the labour market, receive education and are politically participating in the respective countries. This tool also provides a comparing-device, as it gives the opportunity to ‘name and shame’ MS who are failing to integrate migrants in an effective manner.
In addition to European platforms regarding immigrant integration policies, the EU also plays a more substantive role, for instance with the fund of Asylum, Migration and Integration (AMIF). The budget of this fund is not insignificant, with a total of 6.6 billion euros for the years 2014-2020. All EU member states of the EU except for Denmark, are able to receive money from this fund to effectively integrate migrants into their societies. This is necessary sometimes, as there are MS which are not reserving money themselves for initiating effective integration policies. Poland for instance, a country with a relatively low proportion of immigrants to the total population, has no “dedicated national integration strategy”. This is revealed in their MIPEX score, with an overall rank of Poland of 32 (out of 38 countries). This specific case shows in my opinion the added value of the European AMIF fund. It is able to provide some degree of basic integration policy, even in countries with no existing national integration policies like Poland. Therefore, the AMIF could help immigrants coming to Europe finding their place in a new society.
At the moment, there exists a gap between strong
and decisive European policies in the field of immigration, and soft European
action in the field of integration. Whether this gap needs to be filled is a difficult
question, but European cooperation regarding the integration of immigrants proves
to be important in my view.
by Tim Draijer – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
The past two decades of the European Union have been characterised by crisis after crisis. Each have played a role in shaping our current union and financial crises have, in particular, been significant in transforming existing policies concerning financial markets and institutions. Serious political and economic upsets often occur as the consequence of financial crises. Beginning as a contained issue in a market or institution, it can quickly spread to other agents, often necessitating a swift reaction from policymakers. The direction of this reaction, either towards further integration or disintegration, has been difficult to predict.
Despite the staggering challenges the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was faced with, it has continued to evolve through incremental path-dependent changes. This also held true for the area of banking supervision, until 2012. At a summit meeting in June 2012, the EU adopted policy that shifted the authority for banking supervision. Around the same time, banking rules were harmonised based on legislation that gave more significant and intrusive powers to supervisors than before. Banking governance represents a jealously guarded aspect of national sovereignty, and by no means was a decision taken lightly by member-states. The creation of the Single Supervisory Mechanism for the euro area banking sector is one of the most dramatic and progressive institutional developments of recent years. The responsibility of banking supervision taken at the European level represents a major shift in sovereignty and, as Mario Draghi, ‘the most significant integration step since the Maastricht Treaty’. It must also be noted that, by EU standards, this step in integration was adopted exceptionally quickly. In comparison to the previous slow and incremental evolution, as well as other EMU crisis responses, the fast evolution of the SSM presents a ‘punctuated change’ in the institutional development of the EU.
On 3 November 2013, the Council Regulation establishing the Single Supervisory Mechanism was adopted (SSM). It delegated to the ECB a range of supervisory tasks related to the newly conceived banking union and, perhaps most importantly, it set up the key pillar of the banking union, a common supervisory framework for banks in the euro area. Importantly, the SSM is characterised by supervisory cooperation between European national levels, with the ECB directly supervising significant national banks. In addition, Article 6(5) of SSM Regulation stipulates that it provides oversight over the whole system by monitoring the conduct of supervisors of smaller or ‘less significant’ institutions that remain supervised by national authorities.
It seems that in the area of finance and banking, crises have become almost essential to continuing the process of integration. States only realise, or perhaps are forced into acknowledging, the benefits of closer integration when they are faced with the fear of a collapsing union. This begs the question – bar other crises in our future, how can we foster further integration between member states in a way that is wanted? In the case of the SSM, unprecedented cooperation between EU institutions promoted integration at every stage of the decision-making process. Inter-institution cooperation and bargaining might be the best way forward for these high salience sovereignty issues.
By Niamh Saunders – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
Just after the European Parliament elections, two editors of the Europe Ahead blog met up with Prof. dr. Frank Schimmelfennig to discuss the past, present and future of the European Union. Frank Schimmelfennig is a professor in European Politics at the ETH Zurich, one of the leading universities in the world, and is one of the most prominent scholars in the field of European Integration studies.
Reflecting on the European Parliament elections: What do you think of the outcomes of the recent elections of the European Parliament?
My take on it is that the EU has benefited overall from the elections, for instance by the larger turnout which strengthened the overall legitimacy. Inside the European Parliament (EP), the cartel has been broken up, but it did so without weakening the mainstream parties. The loss of the Social Democrats and the European’s People Party have been compensated by wins of the Liberals and the Greens, but this fragmentation of the EP requires more effort to form new coalitions.
Do you see this fragmentation as a bad thing?
No, I don’t think it is a bad thing, because it mirrors what happens all around Europe. Much of the former issues of the EP have been due to oversized party groups, which were functioning as a large tent for other parties. The conflict with Orban, for instance, can be seen as an opportunity to sharpen a new profile.
How do you think the power of the European Parliament will change after this elections, also in relation with the Spitzenkandidaten process?
The fact is now that for a stable legislative majority inside the EP, you need at least four party groups. There has been a broad empowerment of the EP, but one has to be clear of what the EP can do: it is not the engine of change inside the European Union. As long as you have a blockage in the Council of Ministers, the EP cannot overcome this. Regarding the Spitzenkandidaten process, the principle itself has been established and will be hard to ignore. Furthermore, when it comes to the chances of one of the Spitzenkandidaten, Manfred Weber, he will also need a broader coalition of 4 groups. His chances therefore largely depend on how he finds support from the Liberals and Greens. In addition, he will have to make big promises. What worked well last time was the swift rally inside the EP, as they would not accept any other candidate proposed by Council. The process is more open this time and Weber’s success will depend on the coherence of the EPP and the commitment of the other parties to the Spitzenkandidaten principle.
Personal questions
Why did you choose the field of European politics?
I have been trained as an International Relations scholar specialized in Eastern Europe. When I first started my PhD, I wanted to focus on the Soviet Union. Basically, before I started doing research, the Soviet Union ceased to exist so that I had to find something else. As I wanted to remain in the field of European politics I chose to specialize in Eastern European politics. A big research issue during these years, was how new institutional structures were formed in the new context after the Cold War.
Looking back, are you satisfied with your choice?
Yes. At that time socialization had been understudied, the relatively scarce work on that topic was deeply a-theoretical, therefore I was able to bring some IR tools. I think it worked well, my work on enlargement, conditionality and socialization has been a stepping stone in my career. My interest of becoming a researcher developed during my studies, as I got really fond of theory and methodology.
How have your experiences abroad improved your view of the European project?
For instance. a major advantage of living in Switzerland, is that I can now see the EU from outside, there is a different discourse there than in Germany. The German view of EU is largely affected by its post-war identity, never only as cost-benefit analysis because the European integration is part of German reconstruction after the war. It was a major anchor for democratizing and rehabilitating the country. The Swiss people see the EU as utterly pragmatic, as they already have democracy and wealth, so they feel that they need to integrate only so far as they need. Working in Switzerland was helpful to develop the differentiated integration theory where I was able to look at the EU as a project which can integrate to various degrees, based on a number of factors like wealth and identity.
The Concept of Differentiated Integration
Regarding this concept, is there no danger of cherry picking where MS integrate only in the policy fields they like?
I think there is always an incentive for cherry picking, but I think the EU core is strong enough to prevent that. In the UK negotiations for instance, the EU has had a firmly negotiation position. Bit the same in the case with Switzerland: there is always an incentive to cherry pick, but the EU has made clear that for instance the European internal market comes with obligations, for example by paying some money for cohesion. A big domestic issue is about the institutional framework agreement in Switzerland, but it is a side issue in the rest of Europe. Here I think the market and bargaining power of EU is large enough to prevent cherry picking.
Is there no threat of a large increase in complexity with the concept of differentiated integration?
This danger exists, but I think it’s a trade-off. If you would like to have a ‘clear’ EU, there would be less integration. In addition, the possibility of increasing complexity is not a very big concern for me; when it comes to the institutions the EU has maintained quite a uniform core. For instance, according to some people, it would be best if the EP was differentiated into a normal parliament and a Eurozone parliament: this is not happening I think. Furthermore, a large number of MS are integrated in all policy areas at the ‘highest’ EU policy level, which provides a large numerical core.
What do you think if some MS want to integrate more and more, where others do not?
First of all, if and when the UK leaves, the EU will be more uniformly integrated in any sense. The UK has been the ‘champion of differentiated integration’ for a very long time. Second, as the Brexit will put pressure on smaller MS, that have been hiding behind the UK, to integrate further. In addition, there are strong interests that prevent an overshoot of differentiated integration. Macron for instance, wants to move ahead, where for instance Eastern European countries don’t. France can only differentiate the EU further with Germany, but Germany moderates this as it has important economic ties with the central European countries who are less in favour of more integration. France therefore can not push the agenda alone: all in all, differentiation will be slower.
Regarding the Western Eastern divide: do you think there will be more convergence of characteristics of the Member States, also for instance in the relation between religion and politics?
I think that in order to say something about this topic, one has to really dive into the different national histories. From the perspective of modernization, the eastern European countries have been lagging behind, but secularization is even taking hold of Poland. One instance in which divergence and differentiation are bothersome, however, is fundamental values and the rule of law. Independent institutions have been one of the basic foundations of the EU. In some countries, like Hungary and Poland, however, the preservation of this foundation is under pressure. On the other side, when it comes to the protection of fundamental values in Eastern European countries, we see the rise of the anti-corruption movement, for instance in Romania.
What is your take on the movement of Eastern European youth towards the richer Western European countries?
That is a true dilemma. The EU is about creating freedoms and opening borders, but not to the benefit of everyone. Educated elites of Eastern European countries for instance, have gained a lot from European integration, where other people did not. When those educated, open-minded elites leave their country, they will not be able to affect the political development of their home-countries. Related to this, one can say that right wing populism in countries is not only driven by immigration but also largely by fears of emigration. It is the combination of emigration and immigration that makes populists fight against migration.
The role of the EU outside Europe
How do you see the future of globalisation, and international cooperation?
First of all, I think that the heyday of globalisation is over! What we see now is stagnation, or even slowballisation. We observe stagnation of trade and receding capital movements.This might be a result of the global financial crisis and Trumpian politics as they have put a break on globalization. I think it depends on a lot of developments. While the worst of the financial crisis is over, we have not seen a return on transnational dependence levels which were observed before. As the China and U.S. trade war continues, we now live in a time in which the EU should not only think about how to integrate itself in a globalized world economy, but also how it will hold its place in this worsening economic climate.
Do you see a leading role of the EU in the field of climate change?
It is one thing what the EU does inside of Europe; here I think it can still do a lot on climate change. But I think that outside Europe, the EU’s potential for a leading role is quite limited. There exist many examples of trendsetter role of the EU: for instance when it comes to consumer rights. However, without the backing of policies on climate change in China and the U.S., I don’t think the EU has a very important role to play in this field. In addition, I think the issue really is here that this problem of climate change is simply to big for the EU to tackle alone, and to move ahead decisively.
In general, do you see the EU as a normative or more as an economic power?
To start, seeing the EU as a normative power is a very 1990s concept; in that time this view couldn’t be blamed, following processes of increasing democratization and integration. In the 21st century, however, I think the EU lost that normative power during the migration and Euro crisis. Thereby the outside attractiveness of EU as an international cooperation model has also been suffering. Initially, the normative power idea of the EU was that it would be a shining example of a new type of international relations. You might argue that the whole idea has been a bit too rosy a picture. Even in the 1990’s what really made European integration go, was the economy, and not human rights.
Crises in Europe
The media often gives us the impression that there is always a crisis to deal with whereas a majority of people living in Europe are enjoying a good life with more wealth and liberty than ever before, what do you think about this?
I think for the moment the worst is over, people are recovering, and are having a more optimistic view, also of the EU. If you look at the latest eurobarometer, the EU has never been as popular since 1992. It has really rebounded in public opinion well. I think that this crisis narrative still is important, and the famous quote of Jean Monnet
“Europe will be forged in crises, and will be the sum of the solutions adopted for those crises”
Jean Monnet
is partly vindicated by what happened during the crisis. In retrospect we can clearly see that two of the major projects which the EU has been driving forward in the 1990s, the Euro and Schengen, were really built on very shallow foundations, being really fair weather integration projects. What Jean Monnet said is going to happen because governments have to find a consensus but when a crisis comes they will understand what they have in the EU. They will understand that they will be worse off disintegrating and they are better off fixing the issues. To some extent the Eurozone has done this, not fully, there will be future crisis and there will be future fixes but I think everyone in the Eurozone has understood there is no way of going back and we have to work constructively towards consolidating the eurozone, because the interdepence is so strong. Interestingly this did not happen in the Schengen zone as the interdependence is much lower and the cost of disintegration is lower too. It is like Jean Monnet said, it is the risks of disintegration which actually keep countries moving forward. It is not a deep conviction that we have to build Europe, but it is really a way to solve day to day issues.
That seems like its a positive thing to you, the slow way that the EU has been integrating is through crisis. Is it the right way forward or should the EU also look further ahead rather than just looking at issues on their path at a certain moment?
The argument I just made is in line with this failing forward idea, you build something, it fails, you have a problem, you fix it, not particularly well and you fix it again. It is the old neofunctionalist idea, incrementalism and spillover: it’s all in there. If you ask me, it’s a very costly way, only learning through crisis instead of building the institutions right from the beginning. Just think of the sufferings we could have spared the Greek or the Spanish if we had gotten the institutions right from the beginning,
Recently, Luuk van Middelaar wrote a book about how improvisation plays a major part on the EU level, would you agree with this?
It depends on whether you talk about the EU in normal routine mode or crisis mode. We have long had that technical, incremental development but then when the crisis hits and regimes break down and you need to move into crisis mode in the EU council and improvisation to deal with issues that regular policy routines can not deal with. I think for me this is not a fundamental distinction.
Democracy and the EU
What do you think about creating some sort of a stronger link between national parliaments and European policy making to stop national parliaments from saying “everything good is because of us, everything bad is because of them”?
It is not only what national parliaments do, it is also what national governments do too. I mean, we have to be very clear of the tradeoffs that this has. On the one hand it would give national parliaments a stake in EU politics, and I think there are many MS where this is underdeveloped, even though there are member states this is very well developed and also functions rather well. But if it goes to the point that national parliaments obtain a veto in EU policy making it would basically lead to a paralysis Just think of the eurozone crisis with every national parliament having a veto on the rescue measures, the Eurozone would have fallen apart. National parliaments are often more Eurosceptic than national governments and they are also keener on keeping national positions which governments in negotiations have to find compromises on. One has to be careful what to wish for.
What is often criticized is that you can only vote inside the country on national parties during European Parliament elections, would it be good to vote for European parliamentarians as well, to have transnational lists?
Yes, I think that would be a good idea, and I was deeply disappointed that the European Parliament itself said we would not have it.I think in the very beginning I think that it is more something that cosmopolitan elites are fond of, but I think it will create a dynamic. It will not mean that transnational lists will actually take over, but having this opportunity would be very nice and of course both the European Council and national parties will be very much against it. National parties want to keep their control over national parliamentarians, it will be a difficult fight but it should definitely be something that the European Parliament should push for. I would have expected the European Council to fight against this, but I was disappointed that some in the European Parliament actually joined this resistance. And what we of course also need to have is a right for legislative initiative for the Parliament.
Theorising about reality
There exist many lenses to explain EU integration. How do we deal with this plurality of theoretical perspectives?
I think it makes our perspectives on the European Union a lot richer if we keep this theoretical pluralism and the fact that the theoretical pluralism has survived also tells you that there is no single theory that explains everything. Of course that shouldn’t produce an attitude of “anything goes”. I think that in each of the cases we have to test theories quite rigorously and we have to really make an effort to see which theory gives us the best handle on specific cases or patterns. I think that the EU and EU integration is such a complex and multifaceted process that a single theory will not capture everything and it should not, because if a theory captures everything it also captures nothing.
Is there a strong enough link between the insights professors like you find on what is the best way to move forward and the real integration taking place in the EU?
I don’t see myself in the business of making recommendations on how the EU should move forwards…
The policy makers reading this blog will be very disappointed to hear…
Haha, yes but what we as academics should focus on first and foremost is providing sound explanations of what has happened, you can only build sound recommendations for the future if you have a very good understanding of how things have happened in the past and this is where I see my role as academic, provide to the extent possible methodologically rigorous analysis of processes of European integration, also testing causal inferences of policies that work or don’t work also in order to say “be careful, this might be a normatively desirable policy but there are many issues with how it will be put into practice.”
Brexit
People often blame Theresa May for messing things up, but too what extent has she been given a poisoned chalice? To what extent is the messup of Brexit blameable on Theresa May as a person and too which extent on the structural condition of her negotiating position which was terrible.
I read a quote a long time ago, from some British parliamentarian which I thought was fitting, “It is very difficult to see how anyone else but Theresa May should really have provided a smooth ride to brexit, but it is also difficult to see how anyone could have messed it up any more badly than she did.” I think it has always been a very difficult negotiation from the very beginning because there have been too many illusions on the side of the brexiteers of what would be possible in the negotiations with the EU. I also think that Theresa May has made it even worse by formulating too strong red lines from the beginning and not being flexible on exploring issues, on alternative coalitions and alternative ways of brexit until it was basically too late and the camps were too entrenched.
How negative are you about a no-deal scenario, which is getting more likely by the day?
If there is anything that the House of Commons (HoC) can agree upon it is that we will not have a no-deal, it does not have a positive agenda but it is very strong on avoiding this negative outcome. As long as you don’t have a second referendum or new elections, but the same constellation in the house of commons I think it will do all it can to prevent the no-deal scenario. We would have to wait for either fresh-elections or a new referendum to see where this is moving. If it was going to happen, all models that we have predict that a no-deal Brexit will be the solution that does the most harm to the UK. This is also why we have this anti-Brexit coalition in the HoC.
The future of the EU
How would you think the EU will develop over the coming years?
Looking back on the last twenty years what we have seen in EU integration is a huge expansion of policies and members, it’s a huge process of opening up borders and what we are now in is a phase of correction, consolidation, contraction, where the focus will be on consolidating what we have rather than moving ahead. It is a bit like breathing in and breathing out. The post-cold war era is one in which the EU has expanded in all kinds of different directions and in a certain way it has over-extended, gone too far. The shallow foundations have been revealed in these crises, so what we will see is a period in which I don’t think the internal boundaries of the EU will be renationalized but I think that we will see a process in which the external boundaries of the EU will be consolidated. We will not see major enlargement. We will see a hardening of Europe’s borders, more emphasis on border protection. This is the one thing that mainstream parties and populists can agree on, a kind of a common agenda: we have to safeguard the common borders and curb migration. We will not open up further towards non-member states, that is going to be the movement in which the EU is going.
Breathing in and breathing out made me think of the standard economic view of how different economies develop, which also occurs with a sinus curve, how do you see the future, is it like this curve, sometimes expanding and sometimes consolidating, but with an upward trajectory?
I mean, if you look back at the history of EU integration it has started really small, it has ran into a period of stagnation in the 60 and 70s, freed itself from that stagnation by opening up hugely towards the outside world, integrating with the globalizing world economy and enlarging into new member states. I think now is on the agenda is not a period of retrenchment but a period of consolidation and strengthening the foundations. Making the EU ready for the next step. For now I think a lot of work will be put in and has to be put in consolidating the institutions and correcting some of the overstretch.
Are these future challenges not something which requires more Europe. What would you say to those who say “we need to integrate more”?
In certain areas the EU needs to move ahead, but this is not the current mood now. I think it would also be wise for the next 5 years to say “lets consolidate what we have, let’s prevent disintegrating and moving back”. There are many good signs: even many right-wing populist parties understand, that calling for exit, calling for the disruption or the abandoning of the EU is not popular with the people, will not help the MS, some Dutch parties are behind the learning curve. They will learn it the hard way, so I think that the EU is on a very good path to consolidate, also to make the sceptics part of the system, rather than forces for exit. Also Macron’s motto “the Europe that protects” is very much in line with where the EU needs to go. Of course there will be these cyclical changes at some point, there will be some point like in the 1980s where people will understand that too much protection, too much consolidation will also limit the opportunities that the EU will have but I think this is something for the future, first of all what we see is more effort in consolidation.
Personal advice
As a last question, do you have any advice, perhaps personal, for students in this field or researchers living in the EU?
Benefit from the opportunities, see what you have, engage with the EU and with elections. Many bad decisions have been taken because young educated people have not bothered to vote or not bothered to engage and I think it is quite clear that these people benefit from the EU the most and would also lose the most if they leave their votes to others.
By Tim Draijer & Maarten Lemstra – 1st year Master students in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
Two centuries after international efforts started to end slavery around the world, it is hard to name any state that still actively and purposefully violates article 4 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights on the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. Finding such a state that is at least partially supported by the international community is even harder. But it does exist. Namely Eritrea, sometimes referred to as the “North Korea of Africa”. Eritrea, is situated on the shore of the vital sea lane of the Red Sea in the Horn of Africa, and consequently is of geopolitical relevance. Multiple countries, including Israel and the UAE have military bases on its territory. Eritrea is also an ally of Saudi Arabia in its war in Yemen, and is forging closer ties to Russia. More importantly however, the EU has promised to invest 20 million into the country to improve the local infrastructure.
Ordinarily, a development aid scheme of building roads in one of Africa’s poorest countries would not be regarded as problematic. Especially not coming from an entity such as the EU. It spends billions on development every year, and 20 million is a small drop in the ocean of international cooperation. Additionally, development aid has often been used to create a good climate for other political and economic objectives, such as improved trade. The stated aims of the project are also not radical. The money is meant to create better access to the sea and to harbours. The project aims to dissuade migration from the Eritrea by creating more economic opportunities.
The problem in this case is the use of forced labour in a project implemented by the EU with the Eritrean regime. The record of the Eritrean government – a direct partner in this project, is a matter of serious contention. Year after year, the UN Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council and Special UN rapporteurs have described the dire state of systematic and severe Human rights violations in the country. Ranging from high ranking military officials being engaged in human trafficking, the near total control of the state of any economic and cultural activity or the fact that the state conscripts the majority of its citizens into an indefinite military service. It is a practice that the UN has described as forced labour and enslavement. The National Service, as this is called, is used for a multitude of tasks, and the conscripts do the brunt of all labour in the country. No infrastructure project in Eritrea is possible without it. The European Union admits it is going to use that workforce in its policy action fiche, published when it announced the investment. The European project plans, therefore, show serious flaws in European policy making. The result is a squandering of Europe’s greatest asset: the high standards it upholds.
Policy-wise, the EU is indirectly funding and enabling forced labour in slave-like conditions. 20 million has been granted to a project which cannot be implemented without the use of forced labour. The project plan informs about the use of three forms of labour, all of which appear to fall under the National Service conditions. Although the EU has attached conditions on this funding such as the relaxation of the national service or the release of political prisoners, these conditions are not sufficient to end forced labour or prevent its use in this project. As for the conditionality, these conditions have been agreed to in the past in exchange for development funding or related to the loosening of sanctions posed upon the country. Results have yet to materialise, and there is no indication that the Eritrean government will comply this time round. Yet, even with some pre-conditions that have a chance of success, I find it highly problematic that the EU would fund a regime that according to the UN practices state-sponsored slavery. The EU is supposed to set standards, not weaken them. The EU is supposed to uphold those values. The EU should be a torch-bearer for Human Rights. Having even one single policy that undermines basic Human Rights sets a dangerous precedent, one that cannot be accepted. Protecting Human Rights, good governance and the rule of law are essential elements of European legitimacy. May it be at home in Europe or abroad, the EU must be an example. For if it does not, why have a value-based European Union at all? And if we do not have a value-based Europe, what do we then stand for?
There is an argument to be made for hardcore realism in international relations. That values, democracy and Human Rights matter little, and that instead one should be pragmatic in trying to achieve interests. In fact, an entire school in international relations is dedicated to this paradigm. Yet, the EU should avoid the temptation of this logic. It would go against the very essence of what the EU stands for and undermine its identity. Within the Lisbon treaty, it is clearly stated that the EU’s action shall be guided by the standards and values that have led to its own creation. These are Democracy, the Rule of Law and respect for Human Rights. It is important for the EU to continue to uphold and spread these values, because it is at the basis of the Union’s legitimacy. Out of the ashes of the Second World War, a United Europe was born. A Europe that solemnly promised to ensure that the horrors of war would never be experienced again. A Europe that declared it would break from its past.
Tank Graveyard near Asmara
Equally, there is an argument to be made for pragmatism. That the EU should not demand absolute compliance with Human Rights but progress towards their realisation. That it should be used as a way forward to enable cooperation, which remains crucially important in this interdependent world. Equally, the EU should consider its own interest and protect these. Whether towards a peaceful neighbourhood, or the unity of the Union. However, such considerations are not mutually exclusive. While compliance with Human Rights to European standards can be weighted, compliance with the most basic ones, such as forced labour and slavery can never be traded. In our modern world, the abomination of slavery should be a given, and it should never be used as a bargaining chip. We should also not forget that the association of the EU with its founding values of Democracy, the Rule of Law and Human Rights is its key asset. It increases European power and influence abroad. While many African countries have accepted support from China in recent years, there has been much discontent with this new partner. Few results but increased corruption has started to create opposition to the Chinese development model. Their no-strings attached investment, has propped up dictatorial regimes and created anger and resentment in the local population. With a value-based approach, the EU can build stronger and more sustainable ties. Ties that allow it to protect its own national interests, while creating new alliances.
Currently the EU can still maintain that it is inextricably tied with the values that spearheaded its foundation. This is crucial. This approach has increased European soft power considerably. Soft power has given Europe influence beyond its borders. In the absence of a European army or a single European Foreign Policy, it is Europe’s most potent way of influencing international relations. Europe should be careful to not create its own Vietnam, tarnishing its image, and losing the good will of many. Following the Vietnam-war and later the Iraq-war, the United States became increasingly seen as self-serving. It is not isolated, but many now distrust it and seek alternatives.
The EU should not fall into the trap of undermining the very values on which it is based. There is no doubt that this project in Eritrea is detrimental to Europe’s image. It is a mistake. The EU should be pragmatic, but it should be so in a broader sense. It should be an example of good governance and human rights standards. The EU should also keep eye on the future. It should build relationships based on goodwill and cooperation, underpinned by the values it stands for.
By Misha Stocker – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
In today’s article I decided to talk about something more related to my personal experience with European health policies. Member states see public health as a core element of their competences and wish to maintain the field under their national competence. Nonetheless, with the development of the freedom of movement for European citizens, cooperation on the public health field had to be improved. With more than 300 000 students per year going on Erasmus, others moving into another member state for an extended time for work, or even more going on holiday in Europe; we should expect people to get sick or hurt and therefore need to use local medical facilities. Keeping health policies at a national level, was seen as major threat to mobility. Cooperation in the field was then a mandatory path to take for member states to develop and truly implement the freedom of mobility. Based on my several experiences abroad, and friends testimonies, today’s article will therefore focus on one main question : Is health a stress for someone moving to another member state for an extended period of time (6 months, 1 year)?
The European Health Insurance Card
Since 2002, citizens of the EEA and Switzerland have had the possibility to get free access to a « European Health Insurance Card » on a simple request to their health insurer. It allows them to benefit from almost all the same rights for healthcare as when they are in their own country. Usually, it only requires a simple call to your healthcare organisation or an online request. This European card system does not only provide you with health insurance, it also removes all the stress while traveling. Speaking from my own experience, you could easily be a French student doing your Erasmus in Hungary; during that time, going skiing in Slovakia, break your knee on the slopes and be sent to the closest hospital without paying anything, thanks to the European Insurance Card. Unplanned treatments are usually covered at the same level of reimbursement that would be provided in your member state of affiliation.
Despite this cooperative policy, some problems can still be encountered by EU citizens traveling abroad and using the local care system. Since healthcare systems stay under national competences, every member state has their own system and procedures. If one knows what kind of rights he/she is entitled to with in his/her own country of affiliation, it can still quite easily become tricky abroad to know if your are entitled to have private care reimbursed or not. As a French student, I have a basic public health insurance, completed with a private additional health care cover, and don’t believe that this situation is unusual. It then gets hard to explain in Slovakia that you benefit from a public health care system, but might be additionally entitled reimbursement if you use private institutions. Therefore, further cooperation between member states to establish a common European system on public and private health insurance and complementary organisations would be really appreciated by European citizens.
The Recognition of Medical prescription Abroad
Another problem encountered by people living abroad concerns the recognition of medical prescriptions when issued in a different country. Officially, since 2012, the European Directive 2012/52/UE attempts to facilitate the mutual recognition of prescription with the European Union area. No complete harmonisation on the criterion of recognition, has yet been done among all member states. However, information can easily be found on the Commission website, about the condition of recognition in every member state: (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/cross_border_care/docs/cbhc_ncp_en.pdf).
According to the Commission, legal provisions aiming at the recognition of medical prescriptions have been implemented by every member state. In reality, it is still quite hard to get a treatment with a foreign prescription. It is not unusual to hear friends complaining that their medication is actually not available where they are living, or that the local pharmacy refused to recognise their prescription, even if they fit the national criterion for recognition. Those specific situations might seem irrelevant and seldom, yet, with more than 300 000 students going in Erasmus every year, these situations affect most females on contraceptive pills or more generally to anyone susceptible to be under a long term treatment (i.e. antidepressant). Such situations might become problematic when treatment can’t be changed easily or stopped abruptly.
Language barriers
One last point I will talk about today is the problem of language barriers. Going to live or study abroad does not always mean that EU citizens and students are fluent in the language of the country they go to live in. It becomes even harder when involving medical vocabulary.
When one goes to the pharmacy, all the instructions and precautions of the medicine you get will be written in the language of the country you are in. It might not seem so important, but this is always reassuring to know that you could read the instructions if you want it, especially in the case of unplanned treatment. It is still possible to use Google translate, agreed. Yet, when it comes to medical terms, google offers you more funny than instructive translations. I am perfectly aware that printing precautions in 2 languages would be costly and not sustainable. However, every time I get something from the pharmacy, I wish I could have a link at the end of the instructions to be able to find an English official translation online.
By Mélanie Véron-Fougas – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
Climate policy has generally been viewed as one of the few areas of EU policy in which a unanimous and coherent voice has been developed. Since its early stages, the EU has showed signs of taking the issue of climate change seriously, emphasising the responsibility of industrialised countries in championing ambitious emission reduction goals. It was crucial in negotiating the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and the 2015 Paris Agreement, two of the most important events in the climate regime so far. Despite all this, the question arises: is the EU’s quest for progressive climate policies based on altruistic normative ideals or economic and political pragmatism?
This question is not solely asked to satisfy theoretical curiosity of Europe’s role as normative actor, but also to explore the practical implications for policy-making and future outcomes. A legitimate and consistent commitment to climate justice has the power to stabilise the policy area, rather than a decision-making process influenced heavily by short term ethical and political considerations.
Recent examples like Brexit, Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and the rise of populism in Europe all have potential ramifications for a pragmatic approach.
Europe’s normative role in climate policy began in the 1980s, a time when climate change represented a rewarding issue to champion some of Europe’s core foundational norms like multilateralism and sustainable development. Early actions also had a consequential foundation, as progressive climate policy provided justification for European integration, as well as the expansion of institutions like the European Parliament and Commission which often held the most progressive views. However, this account only explains some aspects of Europe’s climate policy, not its prolonged contribution to climate action. Instead, the EU’s position seems to have rested on a strong sense of historical responsibility. This becomes particularly evident when questions of distributional and corrective climate injustice are considered. This can be seen in its early support for the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ and the ensuing exception of developing countries from strict mitigation targets in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Despite the undeniable influence of normative considerations, they were not the only motivations for progressive climate policies. Climate change will lead to economic costs. These costs, often called the ‘costs of inaction’, provide key information to the policy debate on mitigation, adaptation and climate risks. EUROCORDEX provides climate projections that reconfirms Europe will warm more than the global average. At 2℃ of global average warming, the Iberian Peninsula and other areas of the Mediterranean could warm by up to 3℃ in the summer, and Scandinavia and the Baltic up to 4℃ in the winter. Warming of these levels leads to an increase in extreme events with economic consequences in a variety of areas like coastal flooding, water cycles, fishing and forestry, agriculture, transport and energy. However, the EU’s progressive stance on climate and energy policies also came with a powerful first mover advantage. Basically, the EU benefited from the development of green technologies and from the resulting export of European regulations onto the global stage through its pursuit of international climate agreements.
While the economic perspective does not entirely devalue the importance of the EU’s normative approach, it does present a truer picture. Although it has gone well beyond many developed countries, the EU’s dedication to climate policies represents a global political economy that dramatically favours more developed nations, causing climate changes and injustices in the first place.
By Niamh Saunders – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
With the European Parliament elections just around the corner, it is important to reflect on the state of the European Union. Last week’s article asked you to formulate your vision on what the future of Europe should look like. To formulate such a forward-looking vision, we first need to start by looking back. After the cold war, and in a moment of overzealousness, history was proclaimed to be over by Francis Fukuyama. Liberal ideas of freedom and democracy would finally triumph everywhere. Yet a quick glance at European politics paints an entirely different picture. We thought that the post-Franco democracy in Spain would never show the reactionary, nationalist discourse which Vox now puts forward and we were wrong. In Germany, the Alternative fur Deutschland party also employs a kind of rhetoric which we assumed had disappeared. With the emotional underbelly of the European citizens being stirred, it is good to heed the warning of Bertolt Brecht „The womb is fertile still/ from which that crawled.” In other words: we have to be watchful that history does not repeat itself. As thunderclouds seems to be collecting over the European project, this article will try to investigate what is at stake during the upcoming European Parliament elections.
As any student of history will know, Europe’s history is very much that of conflict but also occasional cooperation. Bloody wars were fought over religion, independence, dreams of imperial grandeur and liberty. Periods of peace and war alternate, sometimes longer and sometimes shorter, but no peace ever lasts. Gradually the pressure within the tectonic plates of Europe builds up and unleashes itself upon the continent; no coalition, empire, commonwealth or union ever lasts forever. The last 74 years have been a period of immense peace compared to previous times. A generation has grown up whose only connection to the cruelties of war consists of stories and movies, tales of courage and self-sacrifice. Are we about to sleep-walk our way into a period of instability or can we still change course? As Europe tears itself apart and reconstructs itself time and time again, a more structural change is taking place. The locus of power is gradually moving away from the European Continent, as power shifts from Berlin to Beijing. A united Europe could still stand strong, advocating for a rules-based multilateral global order, but a divided Europe could become a playing ball for other actors advancing their own interests.
Not everyone lives in a world of Erasmus exchanges, high mobility, and opportunities. rather, their reality is a world of dangers and threats. While we celebrate the liberties and freedoms which Europe offers us, we should not turn a blind eye to history and its frequent turns to exclusionary nationalistic discourses. The French philosopher Pierre Hassner warned after the fall of the Berlin Wall: “Humankind does not live by liberty and universality alone, the aspirations that led to nationalism and socialism, the yearning for community and identity, and the yearning for solidarity and equality, will reappear as they always do.” While anyone would be hard pressed to find a Europe throughout time which is more prosperous, free and safe than it is now, that does not do away with the fact that European Integration, especially after the Maastricht Treaty, has created winners and losers. That does not mean however that we need to reverse back everything which has been created over the last 70 years, throwing out the baby with the bathwater so to say. Populist parties propose easy solutions to complex problems and if politics and history teaches us one thing it is that reality rejects simple answers. That does not mean however, that we are not in use of bold ideas to create a better future. For example, Germany has flourished economically under the “Große Koalition, the coalition between the socialists and the christian democrats, but is often criticized for a lack of vision on how to tackle the new challenges of tomorrow, such as climate change and digitalisation. Macron seems to be the only head of government who has concrete plans on how to reform the EU, but is small on details and big on rhetoric. As mentioned in an earlier essay: the concrete policies which are proposed must be detailed enough so they can be scrutinized for possibly negative feedback effects. Such scrutiny should not only happen on a European level: national parliaments also have a role to play in legitimising the European project. Political buy-in on a national level and more engagement from national parliaments prevents them from blaming everything on “Brussels” and thereby improves the democratic deficit which the EU is accused of having.
Not too long from now the European Parliament elections will take place in which both new parties and old ghosts will compete over the future of Europe. Multiple futures are available for Europe, and disintegration and radicalism are not the only paths going forward. We should be careful of taking the prosperity and peace we have experienced over the last decades for granted. Those who worked on the foundations of the European Union we now know today had experienced the death and destruction of the First World War and had seen the consequences of a lost generation. Then came the generation who too experienced the terrible acts man can commit against man during the Second World War and built further on this European Project to create a better and more united Europe. There exists a large temptation to take the prosperity we now enjoy for granted. That would be a mistake, as the maintenance of that prosperity and freedom requires hard work, continued democratic engagement and deliberation on how exactly we want our future to look like. It is exactly that crucial question, that of how we want our future to look like with which we are engaged during the upcoming EP elections. Testing whether this European Union or any union so conceived and so dedicated can long endure, citizens need to trust in the power of the pen over the power of the sword. To vote in the ballot box during the upcoming European Parliament elections is to fight for a Europe worth fighting for.
By Maarten Lemstra – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht. You can follow Maarten on Twitter here!
In less than two weeks’ time, the European election will be upon up. Across Europe, people will have the chance to vote for their representatives in the European Parliament. Political parties all over Europe are working hard to get their message out and get a more substantial share of the vote. European Party groups are doing their best to ensure the continuation of the Spitzenkandidat process. New coalitions Parliamentary groups are being formed. Centrist and well established parties are frantically looking at polls to ensure that populist parties will not be the biggest. European Elections are important in more ways than one. It allows smaller parties to be represented. It promotes democracy Europe wide. It elects the representatives that will sit in the European parliament for the coming five years. Although parliament might not be the most powerful of European institutions, it still has a lot agenda setting and legislative powers. It has to approve legislation, meant for Europe wide implementation, and appoints the European Commission, the only institution allowed to propose laws. It is also the institution that you have the most control over. It is important to take part in them, and to properly consider who should represent you. Party promises and candidates own ideas are important. Yet it is equally essential that you have your own concrete Vision, and that it is properly represented.
Elections, both at the National and European level, are about how the administrative area is going to be run the following years. The party in power will try to implement the promised policies, and change the country to fit their vision of what it should be. Green parties will do their best to create a more sustainable future, liberal ones will tend to the markets and social-democrats have a strong focus on social rights. Fundamentally elections are thus decisive for the countries heading. The character of society can be changed. The changes might be subtle, but a sweeping transformation can be achieved over the course of multiple years. The same can be said about Europe. Arguably, one could say they are even more important. Europe is still being formed. It is a continuous process of integration and disintegration, Crisis and response. Europe for a large part can still be shaped. It can be shaped much more easily than a country that has centuries of policy choices and history influencing it. What was to become the European Union was founded only sixty years ago and it only exists in its current form since the early 90s. Europe is still young, and it can still be moulded. The debate is still raging about what Europe should strive to become. Populists parties want stronger Nation States, while progressives tend to prefer more Europea Cooperation. A single course has not be set yet, and you and the Vision you have for Europe could play a part in this debate.
The European parliament plays an integral part in the shaping of European Policy. It has been at the forefront of the fight against facebook and data protection regulations. Many MEP’s have stated they believe the company should be split up. When Mark Zuckerberg came to parliament to answer questions, all the big political groups were critical of Facebook and wanted reform. The European parliament has also been a strong player in pushing for more consumer protection. Directly after the election in 2014, the European Parliament established it wanted to keep regulatory standards high and did not wish to see deregulation. It was a clear message to the Juncker Commission of the existing mood in Parliament and the direction it wanted the Commission to go.
There are a lot of variables that go into why you would vote for a certain party. Party issues and candidates are of course one of them. Nevertheless, I believe that for European Parliament elections you need more. It is your unique opportunity to influence the European agenda and promote those issues you hold dear. Ideas that you believe should be the core of European affairs. Whether it be Federalism, Climate Change Action or Animal Rights, these interests can be represented and push for a European change. Ultimately everyone has ideas about how society should be run. Whether on a national level or European, many people have opinions on the importance of tradition and social rights. Some are more pronounced than others. Some have specific ideas about the welfare state, while some just have vague beliefs about a more just society. You stand up for those ideas and vote to get them represented in Parliament. It is your way of affecting European change and promoting your Vision of what Europe should be.
It is important to establish your own Vision on the future of the European Union. Because Europe is still a project in the making, your voice can be much more instrumental than driving change in your own member state. Yet it is equally important in the effect it has on everyday life. Whether you agree with the direction in which the European project is going or not, you can still shape the way it will move forwards. Having a concrete vision about this, and pushing for them by voting in the election, allows you to take part in the debate. To push for this vision one does not always have to vote for the same party or the party that aligns most with your policy ideas. Instead one can vote for minority parties that represent one important aspect of your belief, or for the mentality that a party has.
Sibiu, Romania. Location of Last week European summit on the Future of Europe
There are a lot of different reasons why you could vote for a party. Having a concrete idea of what you want to move forwards is important. For many people this happens subconsciously, by looking at policy ideas that you agree with and voting for the party that proposes them. Many others choose for a party due to the charisma of a political leader. Others, especially younger students, have clear and strong beliefs about how Europe should be organised. Being aware of this vision, conscious about them, will give your more interest, and allow you to follow what is happening more. Everyone is passionate about one thing or another. Forming concrete visions around these passions will allow you to promote them more and do research into them. In the process you might learn new things, that make you reevaluate your ideas, or allow you to understand European political processes more.
When thinking of the European Parliament, many people see it as an institution of no consequence, that the Commission calls all the shots. Despite its best efforts, it is seen as distant and out of touch. People do not know what the EU does for them, or why they should care. It is reflected in its status as a secondary election. Since 1999, election turnout for the European elections has been less than 50 percent. In some cases, such as Slovakia in 2014, a mere 13% of the eligible population voted. Those are staggeringly low numbers, which provide little legitimacy to the institution. All this while the institution could be an important instrument to push their own visions forwards, centred around their passions and interests. With the influence that the European Parliament has, it should be equally important as national elections. It nature as being a misunderstood child, hampers its effectiveness. With a real electoral turnout, regardless of which parties end up being elected, the European Parliament will have a real mandate to push for even more ambitious plans. European Parliament elections, is a chance to be properly represented, not only on the national level, but also on the European one. Having two voices is always better than having a single one.
So tell us, what is your Vision of Europe? How would you like to see it evolve over the coming years?
By Misha Stocker – A 1st year Master student in European Governance at the Universities of Konstanz and Utrecht.
Europe Ahead 