European political parties on social market economy

If the treaty based aim of the European Union is a highly competitive social market economy, how do the political parties at European level deal with this objective?

I skim a few documents with political principles from the main Europarties.

The 2012 manifesto of the European People’s Party (EPP) begins by presenting the values of the party, then concludes:

The only political system in which these values can thrive is in a pluralist democracy, in which citizens accept responsibility. The best economic concept to safeguard them is the Social Market Economy based on environmental sustainability in which competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom are balanced with social justice. The appropriate framework for this is a strong European Union, which provides the best answers to the challenges of our times.

The 2011 declaration of principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) does not mention the words ‘social market economy’, but the elements seem to be there:

A society based on our values means a new economy that embodies them. Values-driven growth, means that environmental sustainability, human dignity and well being are fundamental to wealth creation. This new economy must foster social progress that raises living standards, secures homes and creates jobs. The public sector plays an essential role in this new economy.

The election manifesto (2014) of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) offered classical liberal fare: to develop the single market, competitiveness and free trade in order to solve social challenges.

According to the Reykjavik declaration, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) is committed to the spread of free commerce and open competition, in Europe and globally.

Without using the words ‘social market economy’, the 2014 election manifesto of the European Green Party (EGP) emphasised a social Europe:

Europe must be built on a foundation of social justice and yet, for an increasing number of people, social hardship has become the reality. European Greens believe in policies that tackle growing levels of inequality and are adamant that there should be no second-rate citizens in the EU. It is therefore essential that social impacts such as inequality and poverty are taken into account.

The political document from the 2016 Party of the European Left congress (EL) rejects the liberal treaty aims and politics of the European Union, but the word ‘social’ crops up everywhere.

***

According to this rough outline of principles (not practical politics), the European People’s Party seems to the only main Europarty to tie itself to the mast of a social market economy.  

The Party of European Socialists and the European Green Party seem to prefer other terms to promote their vision of a social Europe.

Out of 751 MEPs, the EPP Group has 217, the S&D Group 189 and the Green Group 51 (457 MEPs in all).

ALDE (68) and ACRE (74) proclaim functioning internal and global markets, rejected by the European Left (52).

Ralf Grahn

PES candidate for EU Commission president through ”consultation”

The Party of European Socialists (PES) has taken a step forward with regard to the next elections to the European Parliament, by adopting a resolution on the selection of the PES candidate for president of the European Commission:

PES Resolution: Selecting our common candidate in 2014; Adopted by the PES Council on 24 November 2011

The procedure set out from the second page of the resolution is described as open and transparent, and the process is divided into nomination, verification and decision-making.

The PES member parties can consult their members either directly or indirectly, which means that regular primaries won't necessarily be arranged in every country.


Comments

The PES actually fields a candidate for the Commission top job in 2014 and the selection process becomes more open.

The woolly consultation alternatives hardly promise the propaganda victory the Campaign for a PES Primary was aiming for. In the end, much will depend on the national parties.

Even if the PES advances somewhat cautiously, it is enough to challenge the other constructive Europarties: the European People's Party EPP, the European Liberal and Reform Party ELDR and the European Green Party. How are they going to respond?



Ralf Grahn

Painful reading for an EU citizen: Hungarian media law in EP

After the discussion about the importance of EU founding values – for the citizens of the European Union and for the EU in the wider world – it was painful to read the press summary from the European Parliament: Hungarian media law sparks controversy at the European Parliament (18 January 2011).

Instead of putting European founding values and citizens first, the representatives of the European People's Party (EPP) persisted in legal sophistry and in belittling the issues at stake.

I had hoped that the unfortunate early comments from EPP leaders such as group leader Joseph Daul and EPP president Wilfried Martens would – on reflection – have been scrapped in favour of a principled approach from the strongest political group in the EP, the other EU institutions and the member states.

I was wrong, painfully wrong.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. After a week of technical problems, the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu is again online, bringing you the posts from 732 Euroblogs. European political awareness is needed more than ever.

Hungarian media law and EU Council presidency: Evolving European opinion

A measure of European public opinion is already reflected on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, which aggregates 732 Euroblogs. The Hungarian media law is one of the recurring themes on the front page.

Naturally, there is an impact from the fact that the Bloggingportal.eu blog called for action against censorship in Hungary (21 December 2010), but all journalists, newspapers and bloggers follow their own conscience and express their own views. There is a link to OSCE's legal analysis, and sixty comments present some of the reactions to the call.


Hungary topics page

Let us turn to the topics page on Hungary to see the impression the Fidesz (member of the European People's Party, EPP) government of Viktor Orban has made among European journalists and bloggers.You can see the Hungary topics page for yourself (and return for possible updates), but I will refer to and comment on a few blog posts at a time.


Netzpolitik

Netzpolitik.org was one of the first European blogs outside Hungary to react to the media law (in German): Hintergründe zum ungarischen Mediengesetz (21 December 2010). The informative blog post is followed by 47 comments with complementing views and links.


Metronaut

China is great in many ways. However, when we speak about freedom of opinion, the parallel with China is hardly flattering for an EU member state, but this is how Metronaut referred to the Hungarian media law due to its authoritarian character (in German): Zensur in Ungarn: China mitten in Europa (22 December 2010).

Metronaut wondered at the silence from European governments (with the exception of Luxembourg).


EESC

Vice-president Anna Maria Darmanin, responsible for communication at the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), wrote on her blog at the EESC website that the media law casts a black cloud over the commencement of the Hungarian Presidency, and that she believed that any attempt to reduce the freedom expression is a direct attack on democracy and in the longer term a disservice to the whole country and its citizens. Darmanin joined the Bloggingportal.eu action against censorship: Hungary's media law raises eyebrows and concerns (22 December 2010).

***

When I reread these blog posts, I find them serious and reasoned, hardly evil spirited, party political or emotional outbursts of the kind Hungarian government representatives have depicted. But, dear readers, that is for you to judge.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. I want you, my readers and friends, to follow blogs on European issues and – why not – start blogging yourselves. Today I want to highlight the blog of Irish Eroblogger Stephen Spillane, who deals with current issues in Europe and Ireland.

EPP president Wilfried Martens versus Free Press for Hungary

A short while ago 2,129 persons had already joined the new Facebook group Free Press For Hungary. International Version.

Established earlier, the Hungarian version had attracted 54,834 supporters against the authoritarian media law of the government of Viktor Orban.

There are many convincing media reports and blog posts about the essentials of the Hungarian censorship law, but translations into English and other EU languages would be most welcome for those who want to study the legislation in detail.


EPP ”dominant position”

The European People's Party likes to remind editors of its importance:

The EPP is the largest and most influential European-level political party of the centre-right, which currently includes 73 member-parties from 39 countries, the Presidents of the Commission, Council, and Parliament, 14 EU and 6 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 members of the European Commission and the largest Group in the European Parliament.

Update 2, 5 January 2011: Actually even this note is too modest. If the president of the Council means the rotating presidency, now held by EPP member party Fidesz in the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, the text forgets to mention the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.


From EU competition law and policy we know the concept ”abuse of a dominant position”.

We have seen all too many examples of cronyism, turning a blind eye and abdication of responsiblity from the EPP in various situations.

This is why we have to ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Top down reform

The real low water mark internationally was recorded by the EPP chairman Wilfried Martens who actively lauded the Hungarian media (censorship) law as an improvement ”with the aim to strengthen the freedom of the press, the culture of respect, the protection of minors and human dignity”.

I would like to see the biggest Europarty, the European People's Party, taking the greatest responsibility for our basic values, but instead I realise the need for a crash course from the top down concerning the European Convention on Human Rigths (ECHR), the founding values of the European Union (Article 2 TEU), the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rigths of the European Union (Article 6 TEU) and the process to start determining a serious breach of the founding values (Article 7 TEU).

They are the cornerstones of European integration and for the citizens of the European Union, and they should be for the EPP (otherwise it is ineligible for Europarty funds).

Perhaps EU citizens could tweet @MartensEPP before his Europarty has become even more discredited.

I am not against the European People's Party. On the contrary, I want a better EPP and a better EU for voters, citizens and businesses of the European Union. Taking a principled approach is the only salvation from the current morass.


Update 5 January 2011: Thanks to Andreas Müllerleile who pointed out an English translation of the Hungarian Act on Media Services and Mass Media (about 200 pages).



Ralf Grahn


P.S. Despite the diminished stature of the presidency of the Council of the European Union, the government of Hungary has deservedly gained an astonishing amount of visibility in a few days, as seen on the front page of Bloggingportal.eu, the multiligual aggregator of 729 Euroblogs. Should we congratulate PM Orban on the achievement?

Help EPP group leader Joseph Daul defend media freedom

The leader of the European People's Party group in the European Parliament had this to say on Facebook with regard to fundamental rights of EU citizens, especially the Hungarian media law:

Let's see what the Commission says after it has examined the law. You remember the Roma case ? The Commission concluded that there was no breach of Eau law. But very few reported about that decision. So if this law contains dispositions contrary to EU law or international conventions, it will be changed. Let's see. But don't be naive: it is not purely because of their preoccupation for the rights of the media that socialists, liberals and greens atrack an EPP government.

Selective memory

Despite the conspicuous lack of support for the Commission, with regard to the Roma issue, Daul forgot to mention that the European Commission dropped the threat of infringement procedures after the French government submitted detailed documentation to the Commission, including draft legislative measures and a credible calendar for putting the procedural safeguards required under the EU's Free Movement Directive into French legislation by early 2011. When the demolition instruction to target Roma camps had leaked, the government had hastened to change it. France is still under Commission scrutiny.


Party political arguments - whose?

Scores of media reports and blog posts about the contents of the Hungarian gag law have seemed unequivocal enough to allow for clear condemnation long before now.

How much is still unclear after an article such as Slugger O'Toole ”Draconian press laws in the EU's new Presidency” (1 January 2011)?

Is it possible, in good faith, to avoid the impression that Daul is procrastinating or worse?

I feel offended when Daul equates criticism of the Hungarian censorship law with party political schemes to discredit an EPP government. I try to base my evaluation of the actions of the EU institutions and political actors on principles, primarily the interests of the citizens of the EU.

If various Europarties come out differently, it is not necessarily my fault.

I hope that I could see the EPP as an active protagonist for free speech, but I wonder if Daul's argument can be seen to be exempt from party political bias and cronyism. (Various Hungarian government representatives have dismissed criticism as party politically motivated.)

For me the European Convention on Human Rigths (ECHR), the founding values of the European Union (Article 2 TEU), the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rigths of the European Union (Article 6 TEU) and the process to determine a serious breach of the founding values (Article 7 TEU) are the cornerstones of European integration and for the citizens of the European Union.

I would like to see the biggest Europarty, the EPP, taking the greatest responsibility for our basic values.

Dear readers, even if we are aware of the troubled history of the rule of law in France regarding freedom from political interference, please enlighten EPP group leader Joseph Daul about founding principles, non-discrimination and fundamental rights, as if the EU was intended to serve its citizens first.


Non-discrimination

Since the Treaty of Rome (1957), any discrimination on grounds of nationality is prohibited (now Article 18 TFEU).

Time enough for the basic principle of non-discrimination to sink in, methinks.

The Hungarian government of Viktor Orban is under fire for a number of controversial policies, including Commission scrutiny for alleged discrimination. According to the Wall Street Journal, thirteen large companies from France (Daul's country of origin, a founding member of the EEC), Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic complained to the EU Commission, saying Hungary is targeting "select sectors and foreign companies in particular, to balance the state budget."

You can comment on this blog, tweet @JosephDaul or comment on Daul's new year wishes on Facebook for 2011 to become a better year.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Swedish MEP Gunnar Hökmark has shown that high profile EPP members can take a principled approach, as he has done in his blog posts ”Det blev ett nytt år – om Ungern, Estland och Sarkozy” with regard to the media law and ”Dåliga signaler från EU:s ordförandeland” concerning discrimination. Respect.

Exploiting France’s “Romagate” for party political ends? European Parliament

"I sincerely hope that following the deletion of any explicit reference to Roma in the circular in question, France will redress other legal and procedural shortcomings as well. I also hope that the European Commission will take the necessary actions if the French measures prove to be discriminative and the rights of Roma as European citizens are not fully guaranteed", said the Hungarian member of the European Parliament Lívia Járóka in a press release on the web pages of the EPP group.

So far, so good, but Járóka went on to say:

It is vital, however, that the Roma issue is not taken hostage in a squabble between the Commission and a Member State, or abused by political groups for short-sighted and cheap political purposes.

When the president of the European People’s Party Wilfried Martens welcomed the conclusions of the European Council, he said:

Also the Roma issue was discussed at the EPP Summit and all parties involved were able to air their differences in a positive and constructive manner. It is very unfortunate that our political opponents tried – unsuccessfully – to exploit this delicate issue and to use it as a weapon against us.

(I’ll leave the positive and constructive airing of differences aside, although it appeals to my sense of humour.)



EPP wrong-footed?

Our series on the French “Romagate” affair have stayed clear of party politics this far, but the government actors in Italy and France, the heads of state or government convening in the European Council, and the European Parliament (even the Commission, although tempered by the general interest) have their party political ties.

Do party politics explain some of the stances taken, such as the defensive posture of the European People’s Party?

Let us look at the European Parliament.



The summary of the Roma debate in the European Parliament showed marked differences between the political groups.



The resolution adopted by the EP plenary 9 September 2010 called for France to end all expulsions of Roma, as well as intervention by the Commission, the Council and the member states. The resolution as a whole was approved by 337 votes to 245 (with 51 abstentions).



According to the Legislative observatory Oeil, the text adopted in plenary was tabled as a joint resolution by the S&D (Socialists and Democrats), ALDE (Liberals and Democrats), Greens/ALE (Greens/European Free Alliance)and GUE/NGL (European United Left/Nordic Green Left).



This defeated the evasive or long grass motion for a resolution tabled by the centre-right EPP (European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)) group, with the lead government party in most EU member states, and the ECR group (European Conservatives and Reformists, which includes the UK Conservatives, the bigger coalition party) to wind up the discussion.



The Socialist-Liberal-Green-Left motion for a resolution also prevailed over the sovereignty oriented motion by the EFD group (Europe of Freedom and Democracy, which includes the UK Independence Party and the Italian Lega Nord).



The largest political group in the European Parliament is the EPP with 265 members. Of these, 29 (including the group leader Joseph Daul) come from France, whereas 35 are Italians, both contingents tied to the domestic government.



Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and president Nicolas Sarkozy have been the main leaders of government crackdowns on Roma, challenging what Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty called the benevolent self-image of Europe.

Even if the members of the European Parliament are joined in party political groups (Europarties), they have both their nationality and their domestic party political affiliation.

Sadly, I must say, the EP Roma resolution was not the finest hour for the European People’s Party as a defender of EU citizens’ rights. The EPP got wrong-footed by its government ties. This, in my view, explains the defensive posture. Accusations that others exploit the issue have a hollow ring to them.




Ralf Grahn

European Parliament political groups

The opening page of the European Parliament has a handy box with access to the political groups.

According to size, you find the centre-right EPP Group (European People’s Party), the centre-left S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats), ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), the Greens/EFA (Greens and European Free Alliance) – all with updated information.



***


We then proceed to the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists). The link for the anti-EU right leads nowhere.


***

The leftist GUE/NGL (European United Left – Nordic Green Left) features functioning web pages with news and information.



***


The link to the europhobe EFD (Europe of Freedom and Democracy) group leads nowhere.


***


The European Parliament was elected in June 2009, but the nationalistic parties on the right have been unable or unwilling to assemble working web pages with information to the public.


Ralf Grahn

European Union: Rising Poland

In the European Voice, Peter S. Rashish mentions the emergence of Poland to complement the European heavyweights Germany and France, and he looks at the implications for the transatlantic relationship: A new balance of power emerges (12 June 2009).




European election results

The internal power balance in the European Union and the relationship with the USA are determined primarily on state level, but the European Parliament elections strengthen the position of Poland.

The Civic Platform (PO) of Prime Minister Donald Tusk was victorious, with 25 seats in the European Parliament and 44.3% of the vote. Together with 3 MEPs from the Polish People’s Party (PSL), the Polish representatives make up the fourth largest contingent in the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the biggest political group in the European Parliament, with 264 out of 736 seats.

Thus, they are anchored in the European political mainstream, which means that they are better able to influence policies both at government level (Council) and in the European Parliament.

Poland’s ex-Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek is one of the prime candidates to become President of the European Parliament, as reported by Dominika Pszczółkowska in the Gazeta Wyborcza: Poland's Buzek Closer to European Parliament Presidency (9 June 2009).




***

PiS

During the previous government, the Kaczynski twins became famous for their confrontational and obstructionist EU policies. The Kaczynskis watered down the Lisbon Treaty and opted out of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Despite approval of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Polish Parliaent, President Lech Kaczynski has refused to sign the ratification document.

The Kaczynskis were increasingly seen as an embarrassment for Poland, and they were swept from government power by the Civic Platform, but still hold on to the Presidency of Poland.

In the European elections the Law and Justice Party (PiS) of Jaroslaw Kaczynski (and his twin, the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski) took a beating, but got 15 MEPs elected on 27.4% of the vote.

The PiS exits the disparate EP political group UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), outside the political mainstream, in favour of the new political group (European Conservatives?), which will be formed around the UK Conservative Party, the Czech ODS (Civic Democrats) of former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek; ex-party of President Vaclav Klaus, with additions from other EU member states yet to be announced.

This means that the ultra-conservative Polish main opposition party will remain entrenched outside the European political mainstream, with presidential elections coming up in 2010.


Sources:

European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections: Distribution by member state: parties and political groups (provisional 11 June 2009 11:26 CEST).



Wikipedia: List of political parties in Poland




***


Germany has its parliamentary elections (Bundestag) scheduled for September, but already the composition of the European Parliament and the national governments are in sync in France, Italy and Poland through the preponderance of the European People’s Party (EPP) and its national parties.

Poland is well positioned to profit from its strategic positioning.

The treaties force the political groups to reach majorities of the component members of the European Parliament (369) in order to amend legislative proposals. The EPP is likely to continue to work closely with the second largest EP group, the socialists and democrats (ASDE, ex PES), with the two other mainstream groups, the liberals and democrats (ALDE) and the Greens in supporting roles.


Ralf Grahn

Alain Lamassoure on the next challenges for the European Union

Euros du Village is an important provider of information, comment and analysis related to the European Union. In addition to the French web pages, they produce information in English (theEuros), German (dieEuros) and Italian (gliEuros). The Euros are well worth following.




This time, we recommend their French pages, where they have a long interview with Alain Lamassoure, a veteran of the European Parliament and EU politics. Lamassoure represents the French UMP (Sarkozy’s party) and the European People’s Party (EPP):

Alain Lamassoure : « Le front anti-Barroso n’existe que dans la tête de Daniel Cohn-Bendit »



Lamassoure presents partisan, but extremely well informed opinions on a host of themes, including:

• The European election campaign
• A grand coalition between the EPP and the Socialists (to be renamed ASDE) in the European Parliament
• The election of José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission
• The increasing homogeneity of the EPP group in the spirit of the founding fathers and the social market economy, when the UK Conservatives and the Czech ODS leave the EPP-ED
• The need for a real budget for the European Union and budgetary powers for the European Parliament
• The incredible lack of discussion about the (socialist) President of the European Council, even if the Lisbon Treaty might be in force in a few months time


Whatever you think about Lamassoure’s opinions, don’t miss the interview.




Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Two mainstream majorities

The overall results of the European Parliament election results shifted only marginally yesterday, with the recount awarding one MEP to the Greens at the expense of the PES (provisional results 10 June 2009 12:20 CEST).



The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).



The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.

Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.

Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).


Indispensable EPP

In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.


Grand coalition

The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.

This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.


Non-socialist coalition

It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).

The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).

The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.

But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.


Jokers in the pack?

The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.

Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.

Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.

We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Four constructive choices

Most of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) we vote into office in the European elections 4 to 7 June 2009 are going to work in and with the political groups, which form the backbone of EP work.

Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.


The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.

The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).

In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).

Here are the four responsible political groups:



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.






PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).






ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).






The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.




***

You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Voting for Europe

Plan A


When the heads of state or government signed the Treaty of Lisbon, they promised to take into account the elections to the European Parliament and to hold appropriate consultations before proposing a candidate for President of the Commission (Article 17(7) TEU).

Thinking that they were honourable ladies and gentlemen, I decided to vote for the (Euro)party launching the best candidate to head the Commission.

Long before most EU citizens were even aware of the upcoming European Parliament elections, a bunch of these heads of state or government (and national party leaders) had backed a new term for José Manuel Barroso and reduced their European level parties to impotence.

Actions speak louder than words, and our political leaders showed their disregard for one of the few concessions the Lisbon Treaty offered directly to the citizens of the European Union, and consequently for European level democracy.

In the end, only the European People’s Party (EPP) dutifully endorsed its candidate for the Commission Presidency, José Manuel Barroso backed in advance by a great portion of the electoral college of 27.

As a voter, I have been robbed of a choice.


***

Plan B

With Plan A on the scrap heap, the time has come to resort to a Plan B.

Despite the minimal impact of my one vote, it is still important for me. How should I decide?

I feel a moral obligation to use my limited vote in a constructive manner. The European Parliament has been growing in importance, and the Lisbon Treaty would improve its position, despite the overwhelming union of heads of state or government and their governments.

Even if I vote in a national election, my choice has European implications. I vote for an individual or a party, which will join one of the political groups in the European Parliament.


***

Admittedly, the EP is far from perfect. It has actively suppressed information on abuse of MEPs’ expenses and its late-coming reforms have been half-hearted. It should openly publish detailed information on expenses and audits. It should also automatically publish the meeting documents of its internal bodies (Bureau, Conference of Presidents).

But where the European Parliament has powers, it does a decent job to co-legislate and to debate, and its information is more readily available than the Council’s.

Lacking powers, the absence of accountable government with distinct government and opposition alternatives, sometimes required oversized majorities leading to fuzzy consensus, as well as the trend to agree on legislative acts between the institutions in advance tend to dampen the EP’s role as a vibrant arena.


***

The European Parliament should embrace real openness, transparency and accountability in its internal affairs. Hopefully the Westminster “duck-house scandal” propels the EP and national parliaments to mend their ways. The dominant political groups could do a lot to enhance the respect of their institution by embarking on a course of decisive reform.

The institutional limitations are harder to overcome, but the European Parliament is the citizens’ best hope for an effective and democratic European Union.

Luckily, the EP does not only vote on obligatory proposed laws, but it gains know-how in areas which the member states’ governments jealously guard as their prerogatives, such as foreign, security and defence policy, long term budget, economic and monetary policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and agriculture.

The European Union can debate any issue on its own initiative, and although its formal powers to propose laws are limited, it can call for legislation or action.


***

Four constructive choices

Despite the internal shortcomings and the external limitations, I see four constructive alternatives for the European voter. It is to vote for a candidate or party, which would join one of the responsible political groups in the EP. Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.



PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, with a probable Conservative government around the corner).



ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the dubious right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).



The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.


***


Vote for Europe

My vote is going to one of these four groups, which I see as responsible forces for a better Europe. I hope that increasing numbers of my fellow-Europeans decide to vote and that they, cast their votes for a responsible candidate. To reject sterile protest is a sign of civic duty and maturity.

A better Europe starts within ourselves.

Vote for Europe in the European elections.



Ralf Grahn

European People’s Party: A more coherent group?

Euros du Village have interviewed one of the French top candidates in the European Parliament elections, Dominique Baudis: « Le depart des tories permettra au PPE d’être plus coherent ».




The departure of the British Conservatives will allow the European People’s Party (EPP) to be more coherent. It is necessary that the EPP consists of parties in favour of a strong European Union. The EPP has played a major role in the construction of Europe, and it can stay more faithful to its legacy, says Baudis:


« Le départ des conservateurs britanniques va surtout permettre au PPE d’avoir une attitude plus cohérente. Il est nécessaire que le PPE soit composé de partis politiques favorables à une UE forte. Le PPE a, dans son histoire, toujours exercé un rôle majeur dans la construction de l’Union Européenne. Le départ des tories permettra donc au PPE d’être plus cohérent et plus fidèle à son histoire. De plus, malgré ce départ, il reste en mesure d’être le groupe parlementaire le plus important au Parlement Européen. »


At the national level, Dominique Baudis represents the party of France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy (UPM).

Earlier German Chancellor Angela Merkel has excluded warm relationships with those who reject the Treaty of Lisbon, but want to promote EU enlargement.


***

Ahead of the European elections, David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party ride on waves of anti-European and Euroskeptic feeling as well as indifference to Britain’s position in Europe. But for a future government indifference and contempt towards France, Germany and other EU members is a sure-fire recipe for How to lose friends and influence.

In the United Kingdom, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for increasing isolation. The Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Labour offer better prospects for constructive engagement in Europe.



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

When in Europe or North Korea

When in Europe, do as the North Koreans do. Or so it seems.

The heads of state or government affiliated to the European People’s Party (EPP) have unsurprisingly backed José Manuel Barroso for a second term as President of the Commission:

http://www.epp.eu/newsdetail.php?newsID=487&hoofdmenuID=5&submenuID=49&subsubmenuID=147

In the Treaty of Lisbon the leaders of the EU member states have signed up to the principle to take the results of the European elections into account when appointing the Commission President. If the EPP emerges as the largest group after the elections, we now know who the EPP affiliated heads of state or government are going to back. Fair enough.
Not everyone would agree with the reasons given by EPP President Wilfried Martens:

“Jose Manuel Barroso has a broad appeal in all the main political families and is by far the best candidate for this position taking into account his successful term as Commission President and his wide political experience at the national level.”

Is the ‘best candidate for this position’ based on Barroso being the sole candidate?

Does support among heads of state or government ─ an electoral college of 27 ─ really equal broad appeal in all the main European political families?

How successful has the first Barroso term been?

The EPP leaders in the European Council have exercised their judgment, which many see as conducive to the pre-eminence of the European Council.

***

Now it should be up to the voters to respond to the choice of candidate, but here we run into the North Korean dilemma.

With the British Tories defecting from the EPP-ED group, the Socialists and Social Democrats have a fighting chance of becoming the largest group in the European Parliament, if they launch a credible candidate with pan-European appeal.

The leaders affiliated to the Party of European Socialists (PES) met ahead of the spring European Council, but again failed to endorse a PES candidate.

The European Liberal Democrats (ELDR) have also failed to launch their own candidate to head the Commission.

***

375 million EU citizens eligible to vote are offered the choice of one candidate for the top spot: Nobody but Barroso.

Could there be a more damning self-indictment by the political parties at European level?

North Korea, here we come ...

Ralf Grahn

Will UK Labour return EU Conservatives to power?

A few days ago we read the following headline on EurActiv: Will UK Tories return EU Socialists to power?

In a great show of sportsmanship Gordon Brown has now evened the odds: Will UK Labour return EU Conservatives to power?

As far as I know, Brown is now the third PES (Party of European Socialists) affiliated prime minister to endorse a new five year term for José Manuel Barroso at the head of the Commission.

***

What can I say?

I feel really sorry for the PES activists who spent time and energy debating the 2009 election manifesto.

Why should nearly 400 million Europeans vote if totally ignored ─ in advance ─ by an electoral college of 27?

Why should European taxpayers finance political parties at European level and their foundations to the tune of 18 million euros a year, if the choice of candidates for the top spot is as abundant as in North Korea?

Ralf Grahn

European Union: Nobody but Barroso?

Even if José Manuel Barroso happened to be the best Commission President ever, the European political families should be hard at work competing for the next five year stint at the helm of the Commission. If political parties at European level, representing 500 million EU citizens, are unable to find one qualified candidate each, they betray both their calling and the voters.

However, progress has been slow and the preliminary discussions mainly confined to intergovernmental discussions brought to light by snippets of information to the public.

Consequently, blogger friend Jon Worth launched the campaign Anyone But Barroso on his Euroblog, in order to kick-start the democratic impulses among the European parties:

http://www.jonworth.eu/do-you-think-barroso-is-rubbish-if-so-then-help-us/

The aim is commendable, but the results are dismal.

***

European People’s Party

One of the few things we EU citizens have seen, is that José Manuel Barroso seems keen to take on another five years as Commission President.

But the latest news item from the European People’s Party is EPP President Wilfried Martens commending the Commission’s economic stimulus package under Barroso’s leadership (26 November 2008). But this still falls short of a public nomination or even an endorsement of Barroso’s candidacy:

http://www.epp.eu

In other words, even Barroso has not been nominated as yet, although a number of members of the nominating European Council from different political families have spoken out in favour of him.

***

Party of European Socialists

Yesterday the Party of European Socialists (PES) published its manifesto for the June 2009 European elections ‘People first. A new direction for Europe’. The election manifesto was adopted by the PES Council in Madrid (1 December 2008):

http://www.pes.org/content/view/1457/72

Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, is positively brimming with confidence in an EurActiv interview today:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/interview-socialists-confident-leading-parliament/article-177676

Schulz argues that the socialists are going to become bigger than the conservatives and the liberals combined after the June 2009 elections. He seems oblivious of the current predilection for centre-right parties in EU member states and of internecine warfare among French socialists, split three ways. But most of all, he fails to address how his boundless optimism is going to be transmitted to European electors by a faceless campaign without a top-drawer candidate for the Commission Presidency.

***

European Liberal Democrats Party

The great annual event for the European Liberal Democrats Party (ELDR) was the party congress on 30 and 31 October 2008 in Stockholm. The congress adopted resolutions with a view to the European elections, but not a word was communicated on the party’s candidate to take over the post as President of the European Commission:

http://www.eldr.eu/index.php?newlang=english

***

European Green Party

I tried to find a press release on the leading Green candidate on the web site of the European Green Party:

http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/rubrik/9/9034.htm

Hardly surprising by now, but I found nothing (nobody).

***

Election results

The Treaty of Lisbon is not going to be in force in time for the European Parliament elections in June, but Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the approval of the European Parliament for the President of the Commission:

Article 214(2) TEC

2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.

***

Even under the current rules, a European Parliament with backbone could ensure open nominations in advance, public campaigns interacting with the citizens of the EU and respect for the outcome of the EP elections.

Nothing prevents the heads of state or government (European Council) to proclaim that they are going to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, because they already committed themselves politically when they signed the Constitutional Treaty in 2004.

***

Political parties

Still under the existing rules, Article 191 TEC sets out the important task for the European political parties, the one for which they and their foundations can draw funds from EU taxpayers:

Article 191 TEC

Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
-----


How can the political parties at European level even pretend to fulfil their basic tasks, if they fail to field candidates for the Commission Presidency?

***

Libertas

After this depressing perusal of the state of the union, I have to return to the Anyone But Barroso slogan.

Instead of ruminating about my preferred candidate, I don the cap of an independent political tactician.

If I happened to be in Declan Ganley’s shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate a moment before becoming or launching the Libertas candidate for President of the Commission.

The European level parties have, as it seems, rejected the voters and created a vacuum waiting to be filled. In the case of Libertas this gift from heaven would give them at least three aces on a silver tray: one positive campaign message instead of only negative ones, a face to project to millions of television and PC screens all over Europe and the potential for a real break-through in the EP elections.

If this happens, the established European political parties have brought it upon themselves.


Ralf Grahn