More Europe Manifesto: pan-European lists and elected Commission president

In order to overcome the crises in the eurozone and the wider European Union, a group of Spanish eurobloggers has launched an appeal for More Europe.

You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.

The initiators act as EU citizens. Thus they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.

After stating the need for greater European integration, their fifth proposal aims at bringing real democracy a step closer at the European level.

“More Europe” Statement

Given the dramatic social situation in many Member States caused by the economical crisis and the anti-European voices predicting the breakup of the Economic and Monetary Union, the undersigned ask for More Europe.

We consider it is necessary to move to a greater European integration in order to address the current situation of social and economic crisis affecting Europe and for this reason we will join our forces as European citizens. To achieve our goal we claim that:

-----

5) We believe it is very important to increase the participation of citizens in the European decision making process. With that aim we suggest the direct election of the European Commission’s President through the creation of supranational European Parliament electoral slates.

Pan-European lists

Andrew Duff MEP has drafted a report adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, but not voted on yet by the plenary.

The proposal would attribute an added 25 seats in the EP to candidates proposed by the European political parties (Europarties) throughout the 27 member states. These members would be elected in a pan-EU constituency from transnational lists.

Every elector would have two votes - one for the national or regional list and one for the transnational, pan-European list:

Committee on Constitutional Affairs: DRAFT SECOND REPORT on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 20.9.2011, rapporteur: Andrew Duff

You can follow the next steps of the procedure under 2009/2134(INI).

The election procedure is one of the rare legislative issues where the right of initiative belongs to the European Parliament. However, the dismal progress of EP electoral law during more than 30 years is due to the lack of political will and the unanimity requirement in the Council (government representatives) and at member state level (ratification by every national parliament).

The proposal means that the political parties at European level would finally have to do what they are meant to do: become active in the election campaign, putting forward their best candidate for president of the European Commission and their political programme for the next five years.


PES primary

Activists in the Party of European Socialists (PES) have proposed that the top candidate, the possible president of the European Commission, should be elected through a primary.

This would set activists going earlier, engender publicity and possible adherents and give the chosen front runner a firmer claim on democratic legitimacy.

The PES has promised to study the proposal (and the practical implications).

It is going to be interesting to see how the EPP, the Liberals, the Greens and the other Europarties are going to take up the challenge.


President of the Commission

Through pan-European debates and media coverage, the election campaign would bring European issues to the fore, instead of the comatose Europarties and 27 national campaigns on mainly domestic issues we have seen this far.

We have to assume that the European Council would not only take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but actually carry out the will of the people when proposing the Commission president to the European Parliament.

The reform would be one step forward on the road towards a functioning representative democracy at EU level, which should entail a parliamentary system of accountable government based on the votes of the citizens.

However, it falls short of truly representative government, if the rest of the commissioners are still essentially nominated by the governments of the member states, not as a coalition government resulting from the EP election.

Even if only a step in the right direction, the More Europe Manifesto calls for electoral reform to give the EU citizens more voice in union affairs.


Democratic European Union?

About sixty years into European integration (Council of Europe, Schuman declaration, European Coal and Steel Community ECSC) the institutions of the European Union have democratic embellishments, but democracy has not arrived at the European level.

With political leaders half paralysed and citizens increasingly despairing, I think we have reached the point of no return. Either the failures continue to pile up, or we establish democracy and sufficient powers where the issues and challenges are: at the level of the European Union or the eurozone.

I recommend reading the following two articles thoughtfully.

Stefan Collignon wrote a column for the Social Europe Journal, where he discusses European level democracy in plain words. Citizens are the sovereign, not states, and they have a common interest in controlling their government, he says in European Catharsis.

A democratic union (eurozone) or disintegration? Ulrike Guérot of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) discusses the crisis in the eurozone and the need for democracy: Germany in Europe: the politics of disintegration.

More ”comprehensive solution” failures, or a new beginning? Our leaders owe us some answers, but citizens need to raise the questions as well.


More Europe proposals

I have mentioned the refreshing More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, as well as fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone.


Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope, hashtag #moreurope, and help to spread the word.

***

Popular sovereignty is the essence of citizenship; so it should be for the EU citizenship we have in name. We have to start claiming our rights.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: Verhofstadt or Barroso?

On the web pages of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) Guido Montani writes Who is my candidate? (19 May 2009).



After discussing the post of the President of the Commission, Montani concludes:


“We can say something more. Verhofstadt is in favour of the United States of Europe. He is in favour of a federal budget, a federal foreign policy and the removal of the veto right. A public debate, in the European Parliament, on the choice of the President of the European Commission is also a debate on the federalist future of the European Union. Therefore, I have no doubt. If there is the possibility to choose between Barroso and Verhofstadt, I choose Verhofstadt and at the next European election I will vote for a European party supporting Verhosfstadt as the next President of the European Commission.”


***


Guy Verhofstadt

Here is Wikipedia’s article on three times Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (last modified 10 May 2009).



***


“It’s your choice”


We citizens of the European Union have been told about the European elections that our votes matter and that the kind of Europe we want is our choice.

In my view, Guy Verhofstadt is the most credible candidate put forward to date as an alternative to José Manuel Barroso.

Heads of state or government may have trumpeted their preferences long before they listened to our voices or counted our votes, but political parties, MEP candidates and EU citizens are not bound by their deals.

What we need now is clear information about the possibilities to vote for parties or candidates who support Verhofstadt.

Please, comment in order to give citizens a choice.


Ralf Grahn

Barroso and I - European elections

Euronews in European elections – EPP backs Barros mandate II tells us:



“The center-right European People’s Party has given public backing to the re-appointment of Jose Manuel Barroso for a second term as the president of the European Commission.

The EPP’s unanimous decision came at the end of the party’s two-day congress in Warsaw, at which it launched its European Parliament election campaign.”

***

What has this backing to do with me?

It is no great surprise that Barroso’s own political fraction, the European People’s Party (EPP), endorses a new five year term for him at the helm of the Commission.

However, in the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon and within the possibilities of the Treaty of Nice, I had expected each political party at European level to nominate its own candidate for the post.

There are no other words for it: The Socialists, the Liberals, the Greens and other Europarties have defected.

Martin Schulz seems to have forgotten that the nomination of the President of the Commission has to be approved by the European Parliament.

Graham Watson is deflecting interest by campaigning for the post of President of the European Parliament.

The Greens have said that they dislike Barroso, but they have failed to find an alternative.

“Holy Alliance”

Members of the European Council, heads of state or government, have incapacitated their own Europarties in order to relieve the EU citizens from the burden of influencing the future course of the Commission and by extension the European Union.

“North Korea”

Long before these quisling acts, I made a public promise to vote for the Europarty with the best top candidate.

Now I face a North Korean style choice.

Shall I vote for the only candidate available?

Or should I go back on my promise, because our national leaders have ridiculed even the limited choice they had signed up to and the Europarties have flunked the very cause of their existence?

Nobody but Barroso?

Who in his right mind can call the European elections 2009 an exercise in transnational democracy?


Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty implementation (European Parliament: Dehaene report)

Are the “second order” elections to the European Parliament in June 2009 going to have any higher order meaning for the citizens of the European Union?

The first question is if the Europarties, officially the political parties at European level, launch credible candidates for the Commission Presidency and campaign on engaging European platforms.

The second issue is how the President of the Commission and the college of Commisioners, including the High Representative/Vice-President, is played out after the elections.

The third matter is if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, and how the relations between the EU institutions are arranged (implemented) on the new treaty basis.

***

Nominations and implementation

The first question is in the able(?) hands of the Europarties, but a draft Report to be voted by the European Parliament gives impetus to the other EU institutions to move forward on the second and third issue.

Even if the proposals are guidelines more than details, Jean-Luc Dehaene has written a draft Report packed with implementation issues.

It is one of the three draft reports the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament (AFCO) will put to the vote on Monday evening 9 March 2009.

The draft Report on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (26 January 2009) is available at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-405.890+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN


The procedure to follow for this own-initiative report is 2008/2073(INI).



***

Union method

Students of European integration may note with interest the replacement of the “Community method” by a (new) “Union method”, based on the Lisbon Treaty.

The essential traits of the Union method are presented like this:

– the European Council defines the general political directions and priorities,

– the Commission promotes the general interest of the Union and takes appropriate initiatives to that end,

– the European Parliament and the Council jointly exercise legislative and budgetary functions on the basis of the Commission's proposals,

The report welcomes that the Lisbon Treaty preserves and reinforces the essential elements of what is currently the Community method (point 3).

***

Institution by institution

The Report goes on to present the viewpoints of the European Parliament on the treaty reforms and their successful implementation, institution by institution. These include remarks on the conclusions of the December 2009 European Council.
The European Parliament, the European Council, the fixed Presidency of the European Council, the Council (including the separation of the General Affairs Council and the Foreign Affairs Council) and the Commission are dealt with in clear and instructive comments pointing out both positive amendments and challenges for the cohesive functioning of the European Union.


***

Commission President

In the view of the European Parliament, the election of the President of the Commission by the European Parliament on a proposal by the European Council will change the nature of his/her designation (point 33).

Under Lisbon Treaty

The Report proposes the following procedure and timetable for the nominations under the Lisbon Treaty:

– weeks 1 and 2 after the European elections: installation of the political groups in the European Parliament;

– week 3 after the elections: consultations between the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament, followed by separate meetings between the President of the European Council and the Presidents of the political groups (possibly also with the Presidents of the European political families or restricted delegations);

– week 4 after the elections: indication by the European Council, taking into account the results of the consultations mentioned in the previous indent, of the candidate for President of the Commission;

– weeks 5 and 6 after the elections: contacts between the candidate for President of the Commission and the political groups; presentation of that candidate in the European Parliament; vote in the European Parliament on the candidate for President of the Commission;

– July/August/September: the elected President of the Commission agrees with the European Council on the nomination of the High Representative and proposes the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);

– September: the European Council adopts the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);

– September/October: hearings of the Commissioners-designate and of the High Representative/Vice-President-designate by the European Parliament;

– October: the European Parliament votes on the entire college (including the High Representative/Vice-President); the European Council approves the new Commission; the new Commission takes up its duties;

– November: the European Council nominates the President of the European Council (point 42).



After June 2009 European elections

Crucial issues concerning EU citizens and the European elections from 4 to 7 June 2009 are if the Europarties launch credible candidates for the Commission Presidency and how the nomination procedures are conducted, when the modified Treaty of Nice is still in force, but the governments in 27 and the parliaments in 25 EU member states have approved the Lisbon Treaty (politically).

Therefore it is highly interesting to see what the Dehaene Report proposes for this transitional period with regard to the latter question.



The draft Report calls for a political agreement between the European Council and the European Parliament in order to ensure that the procedure for the choice of the President of the next Commission and for the nomination of the future Commission will, in any case, respect the substance of the new powers that the Treaty of Lisbon recognizes to the European Parliament on this issue (point 44).

Should the European Council launch the procedure for the designation of the President of the new Commission without delay after the European elections of June 2009 (as stated in the European Council’s Declaration on the appointment of the new Commission agreed on the 11 and 12 December 2008), it should duly take into account the necessary timeframe to allow the consultation procedure, as foreseen in the Lisbon Treaty, to be completed informally.

In that case, the President of the Commission, who may be approved by the European Parliament under the Nice procedure, could then be elected under the Treaty of Lisbon if the latter was to come into force, without the whole designation procedure needing to be resumed (point 45).

The draft Report stresses that, in any case, concerning the nomination of the new college, the procedure should only be launched after the results of the new referendum in Ireland are known; points out that as such the institutions would be fully aware of the future legal context in which the new Commission would exercise its mandate and could have duly into consideration their respective powers in the procedure, as well as the composition, structure and competencies of the new Commission; in the event of a positive outcome of the referendum, the formal approval of the new college by the European Parliament should only take place after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the election of the President of the Commission (point 46).

If the outcome of the referendum in Ireland is negative, the Treaty of Nice will continue to apply. In that case, the European Council has to take steps to reduce the number of Commissioners (point 47).


***

Programming

The Report makes several proposals for improved joint programming the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of activities and budgeting for each legislative term. This would entail moving from seven to five year financial frameworks (long term budgets) (points 48 to 51).


***

High Representative/Vice-President

The Report regards the creation of the "double-hatted" High Representative/Vice-President as a fundamental step to ensure the coherence and visibility of the whole external action of the Union (point 54) and stresses the importance of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The EP reminds that its approval is needed for the double-hatted High Representative/Vice-President as part of the college of Commissioners, and it stresses that it is fully committed to exercise its budgetary powers when the EEAS is established (points 55 and 56).

***

External representation

The Report acknowledges the complex nature of the EU’s external representation under the Treaty of Lisbon, and it proposes guidelines for coming implementation measures (points 61 to 63).


***

The Dehaene Report is interesting for everyone interested in the Lisbon Treaty and curious to imagine what the life of the EU would look like under the new treaty.


Ralf Grahn

Elected EU President 2009?

With the Lisbon Treaty in the doldrums, the next five years for the European Union look set to begin under the auspices of the unreformed Nice Treaty. The European elections in June 2009 will take place without the timid Lisbon Treaty reforms, although few have spoken out against a ‘more democratic’ EU.

Can anything be done to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, even marginally?

Since the Maastricht Treaty every person holding the nationality of a member state is an EU citizen, according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).

The European Parliament is elected by direct universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 190(1) TEC.

These provisions offer an objective base for some citizens’ influence in EU governance, although the European Union falls far short of a functioning democracy.

***

The limited powers of the European Parliament and the slow emergence of a ‘European consciousness’ have resulted in the low intensity of European election campaigns and low participation. The electoral campaigns have been fought primarily on national issues, not pan-European ones.

Article 191 TEC offers a germ ‘to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union’ in the form of political parties at European level.

In practice, the European level parties are still in their infancy. Funding for European parties (and foundations) has recently been provided, but they still resemble loose coalitions of national parties more than effective shapers of pan-European programmes.

There are, however, some promising signs. In the 2004 elections the European Green Party campaigned on a common programme, and the Party of European Socialists has conducted a long public web based consultation for its 2009 election manifesto.

The European elections 2009 offer the European parties an opportunity to inform the public about the political choices facing the European Union, but their success is still dependent on the contributions of the national parties, which – in general – have done little to enhance the knowledge of the public or the participation of their activists at the European level.

***

In addition to programmes, politics is about personalities, and democracy is about the citizens’ power to elect the office holders and to set the course for government.

The real President, since the Rome Treaties, is the President of the (EEC/EC) Commission, and the Commission still forms the executive in its areas of competence, as far as the European Union can be said to have an operative government (although the superimposed European Council has increasingly morphed into a ‘transitional government’ with a distinctly intergovernmental flavour).

Neither is democratically accountable in a satisfactory way.

***

The President of the Commission and the Commission are appointed by the Council by a qualified majority, but the preceding nomination of Commission President and the list of the Commission as a block are subject to votes of approval by the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 214 TEC.

Even without the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has the possibility to make the European election results count, when it approves or rejects the person nominated by the heads of state or government.

Gianni Bonvicini, in his article ‘Elezione “diretta” del Presidente della Commissione europea?’, notes that the conservative European People’s Party has nominated Manuel Barroso for a second term. Bonvicini suggests that the Socialists field Pascal Lamy or Giuliano Amato, and that the European liberals put forward their own candidate.

In Bonvicini’s view this would lead to two positive outcomes. It would give weight to the Commission President and it would give a minimum of power and credibility to the European level parties.

See:

http://www.affarinternazionali.it/

***

In my view, it would enhance the credibility of the European election campaign if the European Council states well in advance that it intends to be bound by the election result, by nominating the candidate of the largest group as President of the European Commission.

This could be one small but important result of the French Council Presidency, at the December 2008 European Council.



Ralf Grahn

EU: Let the people speak!

After the Irish ’no’ vote, Jean Dominique Giuliani acknowledges that the European Union has a problem with its population. The chairman of the Robert Schuman Foundation puts forward his proposal to avoid the crisis in a web article titled ‘If the people say no – let the people speak!’:

http://www.jd-giuliani.eu/en/article/cat-2/91_If-the-people-say-no-–-let-the-people-speak-.html

The European Union must now show that it is possible to respect national identity and yet build a supranational democracy. Giuliani proposes allied national lists to put forward their candidates for the Commission president in the European elections 2009 and a simultaneous referendum on the choice of a president for the European Council.

***

I have supposed, even without the Treaty of Lisbon in force, that the main European level parties are going to put forward their candidates for president of the European Commission. Even under the Treaty of Nice, nothing prevents the European Council to act in accordance with the election result.

The president of the European Council is, in my view, a trickier proposition.

First of all, the semi-permanent president of the meetings of heads of state or government is a creation of the Lisbon Treaty. If the amending treaty is still in tatters ahead of the European Parliament elections, there is no post to fill (immediately).

Second, even with the Lisbon Treaty in force, every move to strengthen the role of the intergovernmental branch of the European Union tends to overshadow the role of the European Parliament and the European Commission, potentially closer to reforms for democratic legitimacy and accountability. Thus, the best option would be to let the Commission president chair the meetings of the European Council, as proposed by the ‘Who do I call?’ campaign:

http://www.whodoicall.eu/

If the member states refuse to combine the posts, they should at least see to fair and transparent procedures, with open nominations, public debate and transparent decision-making.

***

The merit of Giuliani’s analysis is the acknowledgement that the EU needs some democratic reform.

Sadly lacking in Giuliani’s editorial is the wholehearted endorsement of EU level democracy. Instead, his proposals are selective sops aimed at appeasing an increasingly hostile population.

Far from enough, Giuliani’s Europe would still have a problem with its population.

Only wholesale EU level democracy can give the necessary European project the legitimacy and accountability it needs.


Ralf Grahn