Feedback for Junckers' State of the European Union #SOTEU

Yesterday we looked at response to Junckers' address from three European think tanks. Today we study some more feedback generated by the #SOTEU speech at the European Parliament.

JEF

The editors in chief of the webzines of the Young European Federalists (JEF) - Christopher Powers, Hervé Moritz and Marcel Wollscheid - gave president Junckers' State of the European Union address 9 September 2015 positive feedback for honesty and proposals to manage the refugee crisis, while they noted the failures of the member states of the EU (the comments in English, French or German).

New Europe

According to Alexandros Koronakis, of New Europe, Juncker brought sorely missed new elements into his address:

“We need more Europe in our Union, We need more Union in our Union,” Juncker said, early in his speech. The President brought to the European Parliament hemicycle in Strasbourg one thing that was missing even more: More vision, in our union.

Hope and moral legitimacy were the messages Basil A. Coronakis highlighted:

Inspiring, down to earth, human and European, the State of the Union address of President Jean Claude Juncker has opened to worried citizens a slot of hope. Hope that politics, after so many years of absence, will return to Europe and moral order will be eventually restored. The European Union needs that, it needs moral legitimacy.

APCO

Tiernan Kenny, for the APCO consultancy, noted five takeaways from Junckers' #SOTEU address: 1. relocation of refugees and paths to legal migration; 2. the inadequate and conflicting responses of the member states to the refugee crisis; 3. defence of the Schengen border and action to deal with the root causes of people fleeing conflicts, as well as the need for the euro area to speak with one voice in international financial institutions; 4. praise for solidarity shown on the ground by EU citizens; and 5. the need for any new Greek government to stick to its commitments in the eurozone, plus the will of the European Commission to deregulate and to look for a solution to the concerns of the UK government.

Con acento hispano

Jesús González Mateos posted a ringing endorsement of Junckers' address on his Con acento hispano blog, highlighting action to alleviate the hardship encountered by refugees, as well as investment for full employment and means to curb social dumping. We need more Union and more Europe. We must show the world our capacity for unity, honesty and solidarity.

Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: War and Peace

Today, 8 May 2010 the Western Allies remember Victory in Europe Day 65 years ago, whereas Russia is commemorating (Soviet) Victory Day with a parade in Red Square and other festivities on 9 May.

The war dead and the end of WW2 devastation are worth remembering, but it is just as important to recall how the opportunities offered by peace were utilised and should contribute to a better future.

In Western Europe the phoenix rose from the ashes to mark a new beginning in the form of European integration.



The Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 marks a new vision and the start of a new era.

During these 60 years we have made some headway. 27 member states, with a total population of 500 million, have been able to join the European Union.

Although the EU is far from perfect at its current stage of development, its founding values are admirable (Article 2 TEU):

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Two major steps are still needed:

We must surpass the present hybrid state of technocratic supranationalism and intergovernmentalism, by giving the new European Union a fully fledged system of representative democracy.

As EU citizens, we must start making room in our hearts for the true solidarity of ever closer union.




Share your Europe



Europe Day 9 May 2010 is a good occasion to start sharing your Europe.



The editors of Bloggingportal.eu invite you, bloggers and non-bloggers, to share your visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog during this week until tomorrow, Europe Day 9 May 2010. You can read the roundups on My Europe Week, or you can access the posts tagged #myeurope on the special Bloggingportal.eu page.

Twitter away under the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Transatlantic learning for better lawmaking

Share your Europe, say the editors of Bloggingportal.eu. They have invited bloggers and non-bloggers to offer their visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog during this week until Europe Day 9 May 2010. A short while ago, there were 48 posts tagged #myeurope on the special Bloggingportal.eu page.

After a number of posts from an internal perspective, the time has come to widen our horizon. My question is:

Are we humble enough to learn?


Altiero Spinelli, Jean Monnet and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing are among those Europeans who have evoked the birth and the establishment of the United States of America as an inspiration for Europe, sometimes at a highly symbolic level.

However, the part vision I am going to offer here is more mundane.

When I read a Finnish Government Bill, there is routinely a discussion about the legislation and recent reforms in other countries. As in Sweden, the proposed changes are presented in detail.

When I turn to a Communication (proposal) from the European Commission, the contents generally feel more formalistic and less illuminating. There are seldom, if ever, arguments about how things are done elsewhere.

Is the European Union really so ‘sui generis’ that we have nothing to learn from the outside world?

Is it somehow politically incorrect to refer to the USA, which has a federal Constitution?

Is it more comfortable to entertain the illusion that we have invented the wheel, instead of openly admitting that we could learn from others and improve on what they have done?

One of the few exceptions I can readily remember were Mario Monti’s speeches about the need for convergence in competition matters, especially cartels (antitrust) where authorities on both shores of the Atlantic grappled with the practices of the same business Behemoths.

Despite the structural differences ─ the USA a federation, the EU a treaty based organisation ─ both are faced with similar challenges.

The USA and the EU are multi-level systems of governance, trying to facilitate life and commerce on a continental scale.

The terms in use are often different, but the underlying problems and challenges are more or less closely related, even if this is an extremely rough guide: Commerce Clause (internal market, external trade), Necessary and Proper (subsidiarity and proportionality), Full Faith and Credit (area of freedom, security and justice) etc.

However, we should routinely go beyond that to practical levels of application.

Do we have the humility to learn? Do we have the candour to admit it? Are we mature enough to move from furtive peeks to open discussion?

Better lawmaking is profiting from the experiences of others.

Is the European Union self-confident enough for a new level of transatlantic (mutual) learning?




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Why not the United States of Europe?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are landmarks in human history. They attest to the continental vision and the political will of the Founding Fathers.

Still in the 21st century, Europeans cannot escape the example set by the innovative Americans at the end of the 18th century. For some visionaries the USA has been an inspiration. For others, tribal instincts are paramount, and they vehemently reject everything beyond classic international cooperation, even when sovereignty is turning into an empty shell.



When Jean Monnet became a free citizen in 1955, he named his NGO the Action Committee for the United States of Europe.


Why not USE?

Despite the inspirational value of the Founding Fathers and the subsequent development of the USA into the leading world power, it would be wrong to call the future European federation the United States of Europe.

Why?

The existing European Union is a treaty based international organisation. The EU has member states.

The coming European federation would be based on its citizens, with a democratic system of government.

Thus, the new union would primarily unite people, not states. This should be reflected in the name.


The distinction is not a new one. For instance, Umberto Campagnolo writing Repubblica Federale Europea in 1945 (new edition Rubettino, 2004; page 68) argued that the name United States of Europe would be wrong from a theoretical, historical and political viewpoint.


A federal Europe is based on representative democracy and an appropriate division of powers, based on a simple formula: How are the security and prosperity of its citizens best enhanced?

The USA became something of a melting pot of nations, but the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is based on existing states and linguistic communities. This is something the federation needs to serve and protect.

With regard to the daily lives of citizens, a federal system based on private initiative and complemented by local, regional and national democratic decision making would not be especially intrusive.

On the other hand, there is a need for more Europe. In fundamental policy areas our interests as citizens are best served by establishing sufficient powers at the European level according to a written Constitution, based on a principle of solidarity:

• Foreign policy, including defence
• Freedoms, justice and security
• Economic and monetary policy
• External and internal trade
• Research, communications, energy and the environment

It goes without saying that these powers require a real federal budget and that they have to be exercised through free and fair elections to the European Parliament, leading to accountable government.

If this vision seems too audacious, we can continue on the path towards decline and oblivion.

Ahead of Europe Day, your vision is welcome on My Europe Week. Share your Europe.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Quadrivium of European integration: European Union

In the 5th century the seven liberal arts were set as the basis for the new school curriculum, with first Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (later known as the Trivium), then Music, Geometry, Arithmetic and Philosophy (or Astronomy) (the later Quadrivium). (Source: Keith Sidwell: Reading Medieval Latin; Cambridge University Press)



Quadrivium: Deeper integration

Perpetuating the ineffective models of intergovernmental diplomacy, which had failed to prevent previous warfare and two World Wars, the Council of Europe ─ which turns 61 on 5 May 2010 ─ was given only limited opportunities for deeper integration.

The integrationist countries had to embark on a new road, slowly winding towards the European Union, while the intergovernmentalist governments tried to counter by establishing the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

Of these parallel further projects, the European Communities proved the more successful, which lead to the erosion of EFTA. As a consequence, the European Communities received members who were ready to sign on the dotted line for “ever closer union”, but without a real change of heart.

The Council of Europe continues to fulfil the Trivium function for European integration in the sense that no country has become a member of the European Union without being a CoE member.

In medieval educational terms, this would make the (revised) Copenhagen criteria for EU accession the equivalent of the Quadrivium for higher learning (Music, Geometry, Arithmetic and Philosophy/Astronomy).



Shortcomings

Even if the European Union is a unique experience internationally, its structures and powers seem only partly adapted to its primary tasks: enhancing the security and prosperity of EU citizens in a rapidly changing world.

Here are just two examples of critical views on EU failures:



Your Democracy in Europe sees intergovernmental diplomacy as a betrayal. Only democratic and supranational principles will do.



In an open letter to Michel Barnier, Nick Panayotopoulos shows how the internal market fails the basic needs of mobile Europeans.



Beyond the Quadrivium: Primary tasks

Instead of evaluating if the European Union is up to its primary tasks, our leaders have left us with the Lisbon Treaty (a treaty based organisation) and a Group of Wise Persons expressly forbidden to ponder institutional (constitutional) change.

The contrast could hardly be greater than to the main purposes of the United States of America and the US Constitution, clearly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:

“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.

The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”

Instead of punching below its weight, the European Union should self-evidently act as one in an increasingly unpredictable world. For value added, we need to pool all foreign policy instruments at EU level, including defence, in alliance with the USA and Canada through NATO.

Since the days of Hamilton, the importance of budgetary issues, economic policy, the common currency, international trade, financial markets and administrative matters has grown enormously. A real federal budget is a necessity.

Naturally, important EU level powers require fully developed union level democracy: a federal Constitution based on the citizens of the union.

The citizens of the EU must be able to vote their heroes in and the bastards out of the government through federal elections to the European Parliament.

Given the cultural diversity of Europe, proportional representation and coalition governments have to be the norm. A second chamber would complicate legislation and scrutiny, but perhaps it is inevitable.

In short, the new European Union would fulfil the Copenhagen criteria for membership.

Replacing the old union of member states with a new union based on the citizens is one of the rare cases where a referendum is in order. The new Federal Republic of Europe would be founded by the citizens of the states where a majority of the voters approve the qualitative leap.



Ahead of Europe Day 9 May 2010, My Europe Week invites you to present your vision for the future of Europe.

If you find the vision of a federal Europe too audacious, I challenge you to explain how your preferences would enhance the security and the prosperity of EU citizens more effectively.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: de facto solidarity

The editors of Bloggingportal.eu have invited bloggers and non-bloggers to offer their visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog, from today 3 May until Europe Day 9 May 2010.



At the beginning of My Europe Week, there can hardly be a better first step than a thoughtful reading of the Schuman Declaration sixty years ago, on 9 May 1950.

We do not have to be great experts on European history to understand the devastation caused by centuries of internecine wars and the fundamental importance of peaceful relations for life, liberty and our relative prosperity.

Robert Schuman was aware of the need for concrete steps to create a de facto solidarity, leading to the federation of Europe.

Already the first Community was entrusted with making enforceable decisions, subject to judicial appeal.

Schuman's invitation sixty years ago was open, but only six countries were willing and able to join at the time.

Deepening has taken us from the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) via the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) to the European Union, now under the Lisbon Treaty.

The enlargement process reflects the gradual restoration of full sovereignty, human rights and representative democracy in many European countries, most notably the “big bang” following the fall of the Berlin Wall.

During these sixty years, Europe has changed profoundly, but has it kept pace with the world around us?

Europe is very much a work in progress.

Sixty years since the Schuman Declaration, we are still far from the federation – the United States of Europe – envisioned by Jean Monnet.



My Europe Week invites us to think about our security and prosperity in a rapidly changing world.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Write on My Europe Week, or link a post on your own blog, in the language of your choice. Twitter away under #MyEurope and #EuropeDay. Share your Europe.

Calling European bloggers: Spread the word about My Europe Week

The editors of Bloggingportal.eu invite bloggers to participate in a blog carnival, by presenting their visions for the future of Europe between 3 May and Europe Day 9 May 2010, in the language of their choice.

You can submit a text or link to a post on your own blog.

But first the word has to be spread. We have a small beginning, but we need your help: more posts in more languages to make people aware of My Europe Week.

Here are the posts and languages I have noticed this far.



English




Stephen Spillane: My Europe Week – Celebrating Europe Day Online (19 April 2010)



Grahnlaw (in English): My Europe Week is about your vision for Europe (22 April 2010)



Mathew Lowry’s Tagsmanian Devil: What Europe do you want? The My Europe Week Blog Carnival is coming (23 april 2010)



Deutsch




Martin på Europaeum: Wer Visionen hat, sollte bloggen (20 april 2010)



Svenska



(bloggen.fi) Grahnlaw: Din vision för Europa: My Europe Week (23 April 2010)



Grahnblawg: Inför Europadagen: Din vision för Europa på My Europe Week (25 April 2010)



Suomi



Grahnlaw (blogs.fi): Sinun Eurooppa-visiosi: My Europe Week (23 April 2010)



Eurooppaoikeus: Kutsu blogikarnevaaliin: My Europe Week (25 April 2010)




Ralf Grahn


P.S. You can participate under the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay on Twitter.

And Quiet Flows the Spree ─ Merkel’s Germany in the EU

Yesterday I managed to find the full text of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s speech on Europe at the Humboldt University and to post it on this blog in Merkel’s Germany: The European Union mainstream?



Now is the time for some impressions.


Limits

The first things that come to mind are the limits set by Merkel, on the scope of the speech and the European agenda.

Nine years ago, then Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer managed to make the Humboldt University speeches into an institution, resonating around Europe. In his speech "From Confederacy to Federation – Thoughts on the finality of European integration" on 12 May 2000, Fischer spoke about “the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarization as a European Federation, something Robert Schuman demanded 50 years ago. And that means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the Federation. This Federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.”

Merkel refused to speak about the long term goals of European integration, which she saw as potential complications for the practical next steps.

Despite the upcoming European Parliament elections, Merkel did very little to connect the European Union with the daily concerns of citizens. Instead, she chose to convey her personal views and experiences of her work with heads of state or government as well as governments of the EU member states.

Despite the oblique remarks, she did set out some clear preferences and a number of limits.


Franco-German engine

The two most populous states, Germany and France, are the “engine” of European integration in the sense that progress is difficult if they fail to agree. Anyway, Merkel’s assessment was fairly low key, far from some exalted views. (Is her silence of the third biggest country, the United Kingdom, a sign that it is more a part of the problem, than part of the solution?)


European and national interests

Merkel acknowledged that Germany looks after its own interests (and many have surmised that this tendency has been on the increase since the days of Gerhard Schröder and during the economic crisis).

But Merkel sounds credible when she argues that the German government acts with the common European interest in mind and that it is natural that Germany is a net contributor to the European Union.

The view is tempered, but responsible in the main, although many would argue that Germany has fought its corner on financial issues and defended its car industry too keenly during the recession at the expense of the common good.


Lisbon Treaty

Merkel sees the Treaty of Lisbon as a necessity for the functioning of the European Union and as a precondition for further enlargement.

On the other hand, she offers practically nothing on the need for future reform or even for progress among reform-minded countries on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty.

Still, she must be aware of how brittle the hope of effective international action and internal reform on energy and other crucial issues are, even if the Lisbon Treaty is in force.


***

Merkel’s view of the European Union is very much a union of heads of state or government, assisted by their governments.

The EU is clearly a force for the good in Europe, but progress is the sum of untold small steps, without a master plan.

Germany’s role is cautious and constructive.

Perhaps Merkel’s Germany in the European Union could be summed up like this:

Germany is not “in the European mainstream”, it is the European mainstream.

There is little fire, vision or engaging dreams, but a lot of determination to do the daily chores in a responsible manner.

And Quiet Flows the Spree.



Ralf Grahn

Europe Day 2009 stocktaking

Europe’s history is full of mass slaughter and devastation, but Europe has also been the home of the universities, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, leading to representative democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.


Schuman declaration

We read the visionary, yet realistic words of the Schuman declaration of 9 May 1950: Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.




Enlargement and some progress

Since then, the European Union has come into being, encompassing 27 member states. It was a major achievement when Central European countries were able to reunite with the democracies of Western Europe. But this larger EU is far from ready to master the challenges of the 21st century.

Despite remarkable achievements, the nation states of Europe have remained more wedded to the past than committed to the future.

Just as their rejection of the Briand plan opened the door to the Second World War, shortsighted political elites sunk the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community, cold-shouldered the Spinelli draft Constitution and ushered in an era of endless institutional tinkering, instead of opting for a strong and democratic union.



Behind the curve

We Europeans are behind the curve, and the misdirected anti-EU campaigners are even more oblivious of the world’s challenges than our leaders and we citizens in general.

The state of the union is sobering: The Treaty of Lisbon is like a revised issue of a maintenance manual for the European Union. Minor faults in the Treaty of Nice have been corrected, but the main failings are preserved, even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.



In the United States, more than 200 years ago, the main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:


“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.


The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”


***


Vision: Real powers and real democracy

Cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as national, regional and local politics can continue to thrive, but two main areas require more Europe:

1) If we want the European Union to enhance our security on the global scene, and if we want it to do good in the world, the EUt needs to be effective.

2) For our prosperity, the European Union needs to become a borderless area for people, services and justice.

In order to be effective, the EU needs real powers, where they count.

Real powers must be based on democratic legitimacy: the directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable government, based on the citizens’ vote.

When EU citizens have understood this much, future Europe Days will remember the coming of age of Europeans and of Europe.

Even with the limited political rights that we have, between 4 and 7 June 2009 you can vote for a forward-looking version of Europe, instead of a continent rooted in past prejudices.


Ralf Grahn