No Free Movement Rights for the Working Class?

The debate over the free movement of people is continuing to grow. It's worth remembering that EU citizens currently have the right to reside in another Member State for 3 months to look for work, with no obligation on the host Member State to provide benefits (Citizen's Directive, PDF). They can stay longer than 3 months if they are employed, self-employed, or have the resources to support themselves. When they're a worker (an employee), then they have access to the same social and tax advantages as the host country's nationals (Directive 1612/68).

In the UK, some Tories are calling for a 2 year period before EU citizens will have access to the welfare system. That's 2 years of living, working and contributing in a country without being able to draw on the same support open to other citizens. Given that so many supported by the welfare system are in work (an indication of how wages have stagnated and the worrying necessity to support those in work to ensure that they can actually make a living), such a long period would greatly disadvantage poorer people from exercising their Treaty rights in practice.

Labour appears to be thinking of controlling intra-EU migration for the skill levels of the migrant, as Chuka Umunna said on the BBC's Question Time last Thursday:

"Umunna said the EU should change its rules to prevent citizens from travelling to other member states in search of work, with a focus on banning highly skilled workers from less affluent EU members taking low-skilled jobs in richer member states.
[...]
He said this would revive the spirit of the EU's founding fathers, who wanted to encourage freedom of movement for highly skilled workers to highly skilled jobs."

I'm not sure what founding father he's talking about; he didn't quote any and I can't remember any famous quotes about Europe only being for graduates. Labour's position is very confusing. They seem to be talking about preventing movement to other countries to find work (so you'd already need to have a job before you move), preventing highly skilled workers from the new accession countries from taking lower-skilled jobs in the older Member States (which sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to define and enforce, never mind getting all the Member States to sign off on it), and limiting the free movement rights to the highly skilled.

This last point, which seems to be the most likely, is an odd position for the Labour party. So the highly skilled (presumably also those from more privileged backgrounds) should have these rights but the less well skilled shouldn't (which is hard to define and probably just means "poor")? It's a sad state of affairs when the Labour party is for disenfranchising the poor in Europe rather than opening up more opportunity and creating work and security...

Even the Liberal Democrats have voiced support for limited access to benefits. Perhaps someone can explain the electoral rationale behind this move, because I can't see it. Nobody who wants a tough stance on immigration is going to vote for the Lib Dems over the Tories because of this. The net result is that there's no real political voice that is speaking out in defence of free movement rights.

It's widely reported, and accepted by supporters for tougher immigration controls such as Migration Watch, that EEA migrants claim less than locals, and contribute more to society and the economy than they receive in social welfare. The political weather has changed so much that even the politicians that make this argument are supporting a dilution of free movement rights. This political cowardice just lets the panic over immigration to grow. Without dissenting voices, the political culture as a whole shifts in an ever more anti-immigrant direction - you could say that it's a microcosm of the overall EU debate in the UK.

Political attitudes of the CSU in Germany are also hardening on this, though opinion polls suggest that a majority thinks that Germany has benefited from immigration and that it has benefited from EU membership overall.

Childers resigns from the EP Irish Parliamentary Labour Party

The Irish Labour Party has had a rough few weeks. Currently in government with the centre-right Fine Gael, it had finally become the second biggest political party in Ireland after the last election (an achievement for the main centre-left party that had always been the 3rd party in Ireland). However in government the Labour party has gotten the flak for aligning itself too closely with Fine Gael's conservative policies. Labour had promised "balanced government" through moderating Fine Gael's influence, but it has little to show for its concessions in government.

The shockingly low result for Labour in the Meath East by-election at the end of March - where they only managed 4%! - is an indication of just how angry the party base is with the parliamentary party. Nationally, Labour's support is polled at between 7-13%, but a combination of low turnout and disaffected grassroots led to the collapse in the Labour vote. If it's going to mitigate the damage at the next elections, Labour in government will have to make a greater show of defending their centre-left values. Without this, it will be hard to motivate the party base or convince other voters of the value of giving their transfers to Labour candidates (votes transferred from candidates eliminated for not attracting enough votes is important in the Single Transferable Vote system). Then again, if a centre-left party doesn't fight for its centre-left values, it's hard to see the point of it in the first place...

Following this defeat, Nessa Childers, the Labour MEP resigned from the parliamentary party because of its support for the government. Childers has been at odds with the leadership of the party for some time, so the resignation is being dismissed as the loss of a semi-detached member, but her suggestion that Labour values may be more effectively expressed outside the Labour Party will probably have a ring of truth with some people.

In Brussels and Strasbourg this will not have much of an effect: Childers remains a Labour party member and will remain part of the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament. However, since she was the only Labour MEP to have been elected in the 2009 election (Labour's other two MEPs were substituted in after the resignations of the former seat-holders), it will be even more difficult for the party to retain these seats (electoral support in Ireland is more directly linked to the candidate than the party in comparison to other European electoral systems). Just a year before the 2014 European elections, it looks like the S&D Group will be lucky to retain even one seat in Ireland.

Youth Guarantees and Youth Unemployment

Youth unemployment is a serious problem across recession-hit Europe. In each country there is increasing concern that the crisis is producing a lost generation denied the opportunity to get into the workforce, and of a brain drain as people educated and trained at home cannot find that economic opportunity once promised to them.

Last weekend youth unemployment was the topic of a Relaunching Europe conference organised by UK Labour and the Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament. I went along to the conference, and I had the opportunity to talk to Hannes Swoboda, leader of the S&D group, and Glenis Willmott, the leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party.


Youth Guarantees, EU budget and joint campaigning

From the Party of European Socialists Conference in September, the Youth Guarantee was clearly the centrepiece of the PES's policy on youth unemployment: €10 billion Euro from the EU budget to help guarantee jobs and training for young people. But how would that work, and what would the money be spent on?

Hannes pointed to his own experience with Youth Guarantees in Vienna, where a collaboration between local government, unions and business could link unemployed young people with opportunities in work and training if they had been unemployed for a certain amount of time after leaving education. The idea for Member State youth guarantees supported by EU money (the €10 billion would come from the European Structural Funds), with the EU facilitating the exchange of expertise from countries like Austria and Finland who already have guarantees in place. Funding for education and European programmes such as Erasmus was also highlighted by Hannes, who said that the increasing centrality of mobility to the workforce underlined the importance of the programme.

With €10 billion the proposed price tag, the EU budget would clearly be an issue. Labour is behind the youth guarantee with its proposed jobs fund as its version of the national guarantee, but Glenis had to defend Labour's EU budget position. She said that Labour's aim is to shift the focus from CAP spending towards investment and guarantees like the youth guarantee. However, with CAP, rebates and cohesion backed by national vetoes and with the European Parliament as the sole defender of investment programmes under the budget (some of which are already under threat), I can't see how Labour's rationale for a real terms cut in the EU budget will achieve this. Shifting money in the European Structural Funds to a new project was always going to be difficult in itself, but winning EU funding for youth guarantees in a climate of budget cuts is going to be an uphill struggle. Glenis and Hannes made the argument that the Member States are hypocritical when it comes to wasteful spending, with offices for the European Patent system shared between Britain, France and Germany. I agree, but sadly this doesn't change the voting situation.

So given these divisions would there be much of a pan-European election campaign for the PES and Labour in 2014? What would the effect of a PES presidental candidate for the Commission be and will there be a common manifesto? Glenis reflected on the last campaign, saying that the last common manifesto didn't get much press attention, and that the lack of PES candidate for the Commission presidency was a handicap when it came to electing the Commission - "why were we [Labour] supporting a conservative candidate [Barroso]?". She seemed optimistic about PES cohesion and the manifesto for the next campaign, given the anti-austerity stance of the party as a whole (Labour agrees with "about 80%" of S&D positions). For Hannes, while the PES will be putting forward a candidate, no candidate will be able to have name recognition and appeal across all Member States.

I understand the caution over the presidential candidate - the lack of appeal for a single candidate across 27 or 28 Member States is part of why I favour a parliamentary Europe - but with the primaries being held over winter 2013, and the caution in the air over how to use a candidate in the election, it feels as if there's a real possibility that the PES could not make the most of an electoral asset out of fear. The pro-European left desperately wants to make it clear that current European policy is the fault of the Coservatives in power, but it will hard to do that at election time if they're not bold about putting up an alternative vision with alternative candidates.

Youth Unemployment, Europe and Campaigning: Relaunching Europe Impressions

On Saturday I was at the Relaunching Europe event in Nottingham on Youth Unemployment, where I got to meet Hannes Swoboda, S&D Leader, and Glenis Willmott, leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party, who organised the event. It was an interesting conference, with debate jumping from local to national to European level, as well as debate on Labour as a party.

Youth unemployment is unfortunately a very live issue at the moment, and there were several deeply personal stories from people affected by unemployment, from the Oxford graduate unable to find a steady job 2 years after graduating (and with many friends in similar positions), to an unemployed Labour councillor who had been advised by her JobCentre to quit the council to help her job prospects. The big idea of youth guarantees (more of which tomorrow) would lend some EU help to reducing youth unemployment, but the very personal nature of unemployment means that any help must also have a strongly local character.

Employment and social protection are areas where the EU has very little influence and not much financial firepower. Attempts to help workers retrain and find new work under the Globalisation Fund, which is under severe budgetary pressure, shows how difficult it is for the EU to have an impact without the money necessary to act. Some of what the S&D can do is working on changing the single market rules to help employment - Glenis Willmott highlighted work on the new Public Procurement Directive to strengthen social and environmental criteria for public authorities when placing orders with businesses. The more abstract nature of EU work was reflected in the debates, however, as most of questions and panel discussions centred around making Labour more campaign-orientated and focusing on what could be done in universities and locally by counsels to boost employment.

All of this is important, but little explicit link was made between these local campaigns - or local party members - and engagement with the European party or European campaigns. Is there support for Labour party members not only to launch local campaigns, but also to try and launch grassroots European campaigns? What about the Youth Guarantee - there is a website dedicated to the Youth Guarantee, but it is well known locally in the party and are there ways for the local party to get involved in the campaign? Also, can Labour counsels get involved in the campaign and link up with local authorities in Austria and Finland, where such guarantees already exist to see what they can already do without EU funding (or just with PES/S&D support)?

There were a lot of interesting debates around unemployment on Saturday, but it still felt like there was an invisible wall between the discussions on action at a local and national level, and on action at a European level. The raw material for linking them together, getting local party members involved in European projects, and bringing Europe closer to citizens seems to be there, but they need to be drawn together. If Youth Guarantees are about bringing EU policy, national policy, business and unions together to enable young people to find their way into the workforce, then perhaps there also needs to be a stronger party version of pathways into participation on European campaigns and policy.

Relaunching Europe: Nottingham Event Tomorrow

Tomorrow I'll be at the Relaunching Europe event on Youth Unemployment in Nottingham, to see the Relaunching Europe project of the Socialists and Democrats Group in practice.

I've previously posted on the PES's Congress here (and the S&D Activity Report) and on Relaunching Europe here, with an article on questions for Relaunching Europe here.

I've also written about UK Labour and the EU earlier this week.

If there's anything you want me to look out for, or if you've any questions or arguments on youth unemployment, I'd be interested to read them (either comments below or you can Tweet me @EuropeanCitizen), and I'll try to Tweet and Blog about the event on Saturday/Monday - internet willing.

And let me know if you'll be at the event too!

UK Labour and the EU

In Britain, Labour is in a curious spot. After it allied with Eurosceptic Tory rebels to defeat the government on a non-binding motion on the EU budget, Labour Leader Ed Miliband tried to outline a sort of pro-European realism (interview with The Telegraph here), which has managed to convince neither the Eurosceptic Telegraph or pro-European Jon Worth. Jon Worth argues:

"Would Labour dare say it has a “hard-headed” approach to schools or hospitals? No it would not, because being seen to be harsh on such issues is at odds with the values of the party, the values that we are all better off if we work together to achieve collective goals.

Labour’s rhetoric should be that to achieve what we need to achieve in the UK, we also need the European Union. An unrestrained free market, with Britain outside the EU, would mean less social protection, more of a race to the bottom on tax, harsher conditions for workers. The social systems of countries across the European Union should be an inspiration for the UK. Labour has made noises saying the German social model is to be admired; the means to achieve it is at EU level."

Leaving aside the tactical issues with Labour trying to present itself as an option for those who want to be tough on the EU (see Jon's post for more), the central issue for Labour when it comes to the EU is that it finds it almost impossible to articulate a centre-left vision on Europe. Occasionally there are noises on the left that leaving the EU would lead to a more deregulated (and unequal) Britain, with less economic and political clout. But such a basic idea is hard to express, since the major narrative in Britain on the EU is of the internal market as an indisputably good, but fundamentally technical, arrangement that has been cluttered up by the EU "extras" of social, environmental and home affairs policy. (I have previously argued that as the trade-off for opening up and giving up national controls, Member States projected parts of their social contract [parental leave, etc] on to the European level to balance the socially negative parts of market liberalisation out, as a kind of quasi-European Social Contract).

Labour, while realising that the internal market is political when it comes to employment rights and the social impact of competition across Member States, mainly accepts this narrative - at least in general - and only occasionally defends established benefits won at the European level. This basically means that Labour agrees that the EU is just an intergovernmental deal-making machine, but the UK happens to come out of the cost-benefit analysis a bit better than the right thinks. This argument isn't a credible position because it doesn't deal with Euroscepticism either in general or on the left - that the EU goes too far in the technocratic imposition of free-market policy - and it says nothing of the issues of democratic deficit or even suggest a vision for the reform.

Also, the idea that the EU's credibility problem could be solved with a few reforms - and vague and undefined reforms at that, because apparently just demonstrating the ability of the UK win any reform will prove the EU's credibility - is a patently tokenistic approach. It focuses too much on bringing trophies back from EU summits: a short-term and shallow way of conducting politics that will not make a convincing EU policy.

So what should Labour do? It may seem academic at first, but Labour needs to look at it's values, and build up from there. It needs to say why, from a centre-left perspective, (a) a European level of governance is a good thing to be a part of, and (b) what participating in that means in terms of reforming the EU, and what Labour stands for in the EU.


A Social Democratic/Labour vision for Europe

I've already written about the failings of the intergovernmental argument for the EU - the basic peace argument and a simple cost-benefit analysis of membership doesn't answer the pressing questions of representation and participation. Earlier this month, the Guardian/Observer outlined a harsh anti-vision to parallel that of the Eurosceptic press in Britain: that withdrawal will mean less economic sovereignty and more deregulation - essentially that the UK will have less power to steer itself through the global economy. A more positive vision from the centre-left would be to articulate a vision where participation in the EU enhances not just the UK's position as a Member State, but allows the people to participate in economic decision-making to a greater degree than if the UK wasn't a member. Implicit in the concern on the left that withdrawal will lead to deregulation and rising inequality is that the EU, by building the richest market in the world, gives the UK a share in the economic power needed to maintain its social contract.

When it comes to the internal market, it should not just be accepted that the internal market is a good technocratic arrangement - the left doesn't think that the market at home is an unalloyed good or that it's unpolitical, so why should it be accepted on the European level? The idea of the internal market not just being about free markets, but fair markets would reconnect Labour's Europe policy with its values, and give it something to stand for during the European elections. At the moment, Labour can hardly be said to be giving people a choice at elections, or thinking much about why it wants seats in the European Parliament at all. What connection does budget cuts on a European level have with Labour's domestic mantra that more investment in the economy is needed? What connection does Labour's rejection of a European Financial Transaction Tax have with its position on the financial sector? What's Labour's position in the Socialists and Democrats Group in the EP compared to the Tories' ECR on the internal market?

This also speaks to the type of reforms that would matter at the EU. Trophies won at EU summits have a short political shelf-life and exclude people from power, rather than opening up the EU to democratic participation. It may be argued that being part of the EU gives the UK more influence, but what use is that to people if the power is wielded more by diplomats than democrats? The national interest does not define everyone, and people should be able to participate in the opportunities that pro-Europeans argue being a member opens up for the Member States. Reconnecting Europe policy with centre-left values would link up questions of economic regulation, social justice and democratic representation and participation in a way that lends itself more to a credible and coherent vision.


Labour and the EU

Of course, my opinions on the left and Europe are far from representative of the UK Labour party, so you couldn't just turn Labour around into advocating that the EU becomes more democratic and less intergovernmental. But looking again at Labour's values when it comes to market regulation and social justice should be the starting point when formulating its position on the EU. It needs to ask itself if it thinks that being part of the EU means that the UK is more able to construct the kind of social and economic future that Labour would be in favour of,* and what kind of future does Labour want to articulate.

This doesn't mean that Labour politicians should ramble on about Labour values and the EU any time it comes up - this is more about knowing where you're coming from so you can be credible in where you're going. For example, when employment rights and the EU comes up, Labour could talk about being for the internal market, but that it needs to be fair (e.g. protect parental leave across the EU so a minimum standard cannot be undercut), and that the rights of all workers should be protected. Labour could also say how they want the internal market to be more effective or fairer, and contrast its position with the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. (Having examples of what Labour is doing in the European Parliament would be a help too).

Being able to say what you're for and what you want to change is, obviously, an essential part of being a political party. If Labour can't say what it's for based on its claimed values, then it shouldn't draw attention to its lack of ideas on Europe.

*The right could do just as well politically in the EU, however.


Postscript: UK Europhiles

Jon Worth also made a good argument about the bad position of UK Europhiles, though I disagreed with him on having a "let a thousand flowers bloom" approach to winning referendums:

"I don’t think the “letting a thousand flowers bloom” model is a viable one for a pro-[anything] side in a referendum. A strong case – and persuasive narrative – needs to be built around the rationale for the EU, single market, etc., if it’s to win support. Pick and mix when challenging the status quo (which is the UK’s mindset towards the EU no matter how established the EU institutions may be) will not work. Personally the lesson I’ve learnt from referendums in Ireland is that political parties are simply not designed to fight them properly, and that civil society groups win referendums."

While I stick to that, if Labour, and other pro-Europeans on the right and centre, articulated their own narratives for why EU membership is good, that would strengthen the pro-European position. It would supplement the core argument by giving people of different political backgrounds a path to buy in to the core argument. However, for a referendum, the core argument of a campaign for something would need to be pretty coherent for it to win.

Labour and the Commons vote on the EU Budget

The UK government was defeated in a non-binding vote in the House of Commons yesterday, with rebel Tories being joined by the opposition Labour Party to call for a real terms cut in the EU Budget (307 votes for, 294 votes against). Though David Cameron signalled support for a budget cut at yesterday's Prime Minister's Questions, it's clear that he doesn't think that anything more than a real terms freeze can be negotiated.

The debate over the EU Budget is depressing. There is no discussion of what the spending priorities should be, so the argument for cuts seems to have crystallised into a moralistic tale of mutual cuts, rather than a rational debate focused on what our priorities and values should be and what our capacity to find them is. As Olaf Camme in The Guardian wrote:

"The size of the EU's budget is not the actual problem and its reform will require more than opportunistic lip service and national point-scoring. At the very least, it will need to involve governments and opposition parties alike entering a serious debate about where Europe can add value and what kind of financial governance can best provide for it. Both dimensions are somewhat found wanting in the British debate, on the right and the left. Yet failure to do this would only underline the saying, often attributed to Henry Kissinger and paraphrased here: the politics (around the EU budget) are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

Labour's decision to side with the anti-EU wing of the Tory party to attack David Cameron is crass party politics.  Labour argues that the EU should cut its budget when EU Member States are implementing austerity flies in the face of their rationale for slower cuts and more investment in growth and job creation. Earlier this month it was revealed that an emergency budget is needed to plug the gap in the Globalisation Fund that is directed to helping workers retrain so they can find employment. What does Labour say about the various EU programmes to help boost growth and competitiveness in the poorer regions of the EU? Even if the UK is a net contributor, how often have we heard over the past two years that the lack of growth in the EU has hurt the UK economy? Should supporting recovery in the UK's main export market not be part of its recovery strategy? (Though the health of the UK economy is mostly in the UK government's hands).

Again: the gap for the Globalisation Fund was €10 billion, and the proposed increase in the EU budget is €9 billion. There needs to be a practical debate for how we shape the EU budget to best serve us during the recession and strengthen everyone's position in the single market. And this needs to be done as part of a negotiated solution - remember, every Member State has a veto! Supporting massive cuts in the absence of any reasoned debate beyond a "austerity for all" mantra does not make a credible budget policy.

BBC Radio Four: Britain and the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act 1998, which transposes the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, is controversal in British politics: the Liberal Democrats and Labour are for the HRA, while the Conservatives are against. The Conservatives want to bring in a British Bill of Rights, but it has never been spelt out what this means in practical terms. Will it contain less rights than the ECHR? More? Would the UK leave the ECHR (and therefore the Council of Europe - which only junta Greece has ever done)?

BBC Radio Four has produced an interesting programme this week on Britain and Human Rights, and what the practical legal implications of moves to change it are. You can listen to it here.

If the link doesn't work, try looking the programme up on the BBC Radio Four website - though you have to be in the UK to use the iPlayer, but I've been able to listen to BBC radio programmes through their websites from outside the UK before.

A few thoughts on the Irish Election 2011

Tomorrow is the big day, where the next Dáil will be elected in Ireland. I had hoped to write more about the actual campaign, but sadly real life got in the way. So instead, here's the election boiled down to one badly-written post:


Trends and Strategy

Fine Gael, the centre-right party, looks set to win almost 40% of the vote, which could get them a single-party majority in the Dáil - something which hasn't happened in Ireland for decades. They'd a good campaign, deciding to hide their leader, famous for his poor media performance, while presenting a good team to fight the election battle on the airwaves. There were 4 leadership debates (and Enda Kenny only took part in three of them, which caused a bit of a fuss), where Enda simply had to not say anything incredibly daft and Fine Gael wouldn't be harmed.

Labour had a terrible campaign. The popularity of their leader, Eamon Gilmore, tempted them to run a presidential campaign with the slogan "Gilmore for Taoiseach" (Labour have never led a government in Ireland before). Given that Labour is the third party of Irish politics, it would have been hard to conduct a cabinet election since they had a more limited gene pool to draw on from their last Dáil cohort, which might explain the lack of a Plan B when the presidential campaign failed. Their finance spokesperson, Joan Burton, was disappointing on TV - the now famous outburst on Tonight with Vincent Browne damaged her image, and the strategy of selling a vision meant that in debates with her competitors she rarely got around to the detail (time limits and impatient presenters made sure of that): not a good position in a generally policy-dominated election. The "vision" point goes for all Labour performances: the party seemed more concerned about its brand than the policy. This changed after the first week and a half, with Gilmore doing well in the debates and trying to insert more substance, and Labour's poll ratings consolidated, but I wonder how much it will add anything to Labour's vote.

It should be said that Labour haven't had a good campaign in the light of their ambitions, but they will increase their vote and their seats. With a different strategy they could have done better yet.

Fianna Fáil probably had as good an election as they could have. In the last leadership debate, Micheál Martin was on the attack, and probably turned people off by talking over the other leaders, but it made clear that FF needs to consolidate its core vote. It seems to be around the 14-16% mark, which means that it's disasterous, but there was little that could be done about that after its record in government.

Sinn Féin and the ULA seemed to have done well for themselves with their messages of withdrawing from the IMF-EU bailout and insistuting a socialist economy with nationalised banks respectively. They will still be small parties, but it shows a fragmentation of the left, and it probably attracted support away from Labour.

The Greens look like they might be wiped out. I agree with Jason O'Mahony that this would be a pity, since they actually tried to achieve - and did achieve - some of their manifesto promises. that's not to say that they don't deserve punishment, but a wipe-out is a bit disproportionate in my opinion.

There are a record number of independents running this year, and around 17 could get elected (how votes split and transfer may decide this). There are still very localist independent who only care about constituency matters, but there are a new breed of independents who are campaigning on national issues, either from the left or the right. The phrase most often uttered by these independents is: "I will work with like-minded independents", to which my brain can't help muttering "what, you mean like in a party?". One of the tensions in democracy is between having independent-minded representatives, and the need to build broad coalitions to enact change. the party system has many faults, but I'm not convinced that independents will improve things much.


A European election?

Europe was a big issue in this election, but only in the limited sense of discussing what could be won from a renegotiation. There was no proper debate about what would need to be done about the entire Eurozone, though there was a brief mention (I counted 1 time during the campaign!) of Eurobonds being a good thing for Ireland. The level of tax harmonisation or budgetary convergence that might be negotiable in return for this and renegotiation of the bail out deal wasn't discussed, except to restate over and over that the coporation tax would not be for sale. In many ways it's natural that parties don't want to give away their negotiating position beforehand. However, these changes will require a referendum in Ireland, and perhaps in other Member States - we need to start speaking in a language of what is just for everyone in the Eurozone, and not simply "if it's good for us, it's good for everyone, because then we can pay some of the money back". The shape of the Eurozone will stay with us after we recover (however that happens, and however long it takes), so there should have been a more open discussion about this.


The Next Dáil

It's pretty clear from the poll trends that FG will near a majority on its own, and could form a government with the support of some independents. I'd like to see Labour stay out of government and lead the opposition. That would be a massive change in Irish politics as it would help solidify an opening left-right divide and end the old civil war political divide. Being in opposition and having that bigger gene pool (because Labour has done well in the election in that it will increase its seats, just not reach the huge ambitions it set itself in leading the next government) to construct a better alternative/shadow cabinet government. It could have big consequences for FF, who might not recover to lead a government in the forseeable future, and become the third party of Irish politics. Irish politics will be fluid in the future, so much depends on Labour's position over whether or not the civil war divide returns...

The Politics of Debate

The former foreign minister, Micheál Martin, has won the contest to become the leader of Fianna Fáil, and immediately called for a series of leaders debates between himself, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, and Labour leader Eamonn Gilmore. He's asked for one at the start and at the end of the election campaign, as well as one in Irish. He is also calling for other head-to-head debates. So far Gilmore has accepted, while Kenny has sounded more cautious about Martin defining the structure of the debates.

With Fianna Fáil still well under 20% in the polls, Martin will naturally want to highlight his approach to both distance FF under him and under Cowen, and at the same time stick to the original message that Fianna Fáil is taking the tough but necessary decisions. Current Fianna Fáil strategy is to point out the differences between FG and Labour, since they will most likely form a coalition after the election. To some extent FG and Labour are happy enough with this: they tried a pact in the last election and failed, and their strategy this time is to run separate campaigns.

In some ways, this line of reasoning should be turned against FF: who would they form a coalition with? The Green Party are facing a likely wipeout - and in any case, FF will be a shadow of its former self in the next Dáil. Martin has spoken about not letting the election turn into a "coronation" of a Fine Gael-Labour coalition, but the sense I get from the question-and-answer session after Martin's leadership press conference is that the focus is on damage limitation, and therefore not on government. This in itself would suggest that the election will be a coronation of sorts, and as long as nobody even thinks to ask the question: well, who would you form a coalition with?, it will remain that way.

The politics of the debates is revealing, though it highlights something that has long been common knowledge in Ireland. FG's leader, Enda Kenny, is not a good speaker in the Dáil, and isn't seen as a strong leader. Gilmore, however, is, and its his leadership that was credited with the now-waning climb in the polls by Labour - called the "Gilmore Gale". The enthusaism of Gilmore and Martin for debates is clearly rooted in their desire to capitalise on this. Labour have never held the position of Taoiseach before, and they will want to revive the call "Gilmore for Taoiseach" in a meaningful sense - I wouldn't be surprised if Gilmore tries to use Martin's charges of irreconcilable differences between Labour and FG against Kenny by suggesting that a FF-FG coalition is a possibility. Such an outcome would be political suicide for Kenny and FG, but the ploy may attract some votes to Labour as a more anti-FF party (though I doubt the effect would be great).

The debates may just inject more fluidity into the polls and excitement into the Irish election.

Promising Political Reform

Political reform is high on the agenda in Irish politics these days. Labour now has a paper of 140 proposals (the Twitter approach, perhaps?) for "New Government, Better Government" (PDF). Generally, the papers proposals are fair enough - longer periods with the Dáil in session, greater opportunity for private members' Bills and amendments, greater transparency of executive decision-making (whether it was a minister or a delegated power to a level in his/her department)...

Some of the major changes have been highlighted in The Irish Times:

"-A 90-member convention to draft a new constitution within 12 months
-Abolition of the Seanad
-An Independent Electoral Commission [Note: several functions of this proposed body are currently split among government departments, local government, and independent bodies]
-50 per cent increase in Dáil sitting days
-System for citizens to petition Dáil
-New whistleblowers’ legislation
-An Independent Fiscal Advisory Council to undertake economic projections
-Restrictions on contributions to parties and politicians
-Spending limits on elections
-Ministers to be more accountable for decisions to parliament
-Comprehensive reform of the public service."

Labour would also call a Constitutional Convention to review the Constitution, and proposed changes would be put to referendum. The Convention would consist of 90 members - 30 politicians, 30 citizens drawn randomly as they are for juries, and 30 NGOs/academics. 30 citizens seems too small to me if they want to get a good cross-section of society, and what impact they would make would depend on how the Convention is structured - if debates are fragmented, it could be steered one way or another. I'm also not comfortable with NGOs being represented (or people being included because they are part of a certain NGO): surely Constitutional reform should be a matter of the common good, rather than being open to change by sectional interests? (It also raises the question of: which NGOs? The composition could affect the debate - how strongly, for example, should Catholic views [or religions in general] be represented, with voting rights in today's Ireland?) It would be preferable if NGOs could report to the Convention, but they would not have a vote.

Labour now support the abolition of the Seanad (the Senate). The upper house is elected by panels of outgoing Senators, incoming TDs and by local councillors, university seats, and by Taoiseach appointment (the appointments to ensure a strong government voice). Reofrm of the Seanad has been proposed many times, but has never got anywhere. Fine Gael first called for the abolition of the Seanad last year, and now Fianna Fáil and Labour have jumped on the bandwagon - so now the 3 big parties support Ireland becoming a unicameral state.

I'm not a supporter of abolishing the Seanad, despite it being in a desperate need for reform. There is a place for a legislative house that isn't purely directly elected, which can serve as a check on the whip-driven majoritarianism of the lower house, and which may have time for less party political or more expert debates (depending on how it is elected). Though that's not to say there aren't some good points to be made against having a second house, since there are dangers for duplication. It's good to see the report rejecting the idea of (partially) turning the Seanad into a specialised body for scrutinising EU law because EU law is a broad part of Irish law. This led to the report's best line - "There would be no more point in having a body dedicated to scrutinising EU laws than there would be in having one that specialised in laws passed on Wednesdays."

On relations between the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) and the EU, the report pretty much repeated a lot of what was in the Oireachtas report on the subject last year, though with a few tweaks. Still, it's good to know that Labour is promising to implement these measures.

Ireland: Election 2011

2011 is going to be a big year in Irish politics. Fianna Fáil, the ruling centre/centre-right party (currently in coalition with the Greens and some independents) which has been the governing party in Ireland for most of its history since independence, is consistently low in the polls (14%, equal with Sinn Féin in the latest one), and appears on course for the worst result in its electoral history. The next government, which is likely to be a Fine Gael-Labour coalition (a Grand coalition), will have to steer Ireland through the recession, and implement the IMF-EU Bail-Out agreement.

However, the two parties have different approaches to the crisis (though there is common ground). Enda Kenny, the FG leader, is widely considered to be lacking in charisma, though he has shown some killer instinct when facing down a major challenge to his leadership last year. Eamonn Gilmore, the Labour leader, is the most popular leader in the country according to opinion polls, but the upswing in Labour support in the polls has waned recently (which is damaging to their hopes of an electoral breakthrough to become one of the 2 main parties). FG is thought to have the most researched and well thought-out policies (it accepts the same targets that have been set by FF, and would adjust the budget by €6 billion this year, front loading the spending cuts), while Labour, despite churning out policies recently, is open to charges that they haven't been properly considered or thought-out (Labour's adjustment would be €4.5 billion this year, putting off more pain for later).

Both talk about some renegotiation of the bail-out deal, and both talk about the need for some investment in the economy (a sign that simple austerity has been devalued over the last 2 years). If any renegotiation is to take place, it will have to include a political vision and platform beyond Ireland - they would, after all, have to convince other EU Member States to renegotiate. At the same time, there is likely to be more crisis in the Eurozone this year, and different ideas of fiscal union will remain relevant. It's important that we know exactly what each party's stance on the Eurozone is, not just for Ireland's short term advantage, but for the effective running of the currency zone well into the future.

Debates about political and constitutional reform are very prominent and appear to be high up on the various parties' agenda, so if these plans are realised, then it could be a further great shift in the landscape of Irish politics.

In October, there will also be a presidential election - the first in 14 years.* It's a ceremonial office, but it could turn out to be a hard-fought race.

So I've decided that I'll try to cover some aspects of the elections - especially the European aspects. Doubtless there'll be plenty of blogs in the Irish blogosphere doing a better job than me (I'll still be writing about EU politics!), but politics in the Eurozone will be more important than ever this year, and the Irish elections are a good way to look at some of the arguments through both the national and European lenses. The post tag I'll use is "Ireland 2011".



* The presidential term is 7 years, and as nobody could get enough support to be nominated to run against Mary McAleese after her first term, she was automatically re-elected. Between Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson, Ireland has had a female head of state for the last 20 years.

UK Election 2010

It's polling day in the UK for the 2010 general election. The 3-way race between Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats (itself a surprise outcome from the televised leaders' debates) has widened, and it looks likely that the Conservatives will "win" in terms of seats, even if it fails to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons. If the result is a hung parliament, then the Conservatives (or perhaps, wildly unexpectedly, Labour) could try to govern as a minority government (which is what the Scottish National Party has been doing in the devolved Scottish Parliament), or form a coalition.

So what coalitions are on the cards? The party in the strongest coalition-forming position is the Liberal Democrats, the centre-left pro-European party. Though the third largest party in a 2-party system, they're set to increase their share of the vote even if this doesn't translate well into an increase in seats due to the First-Past-the-Post system. Their natural coalition partners would be Labour, but it would be politically difficult for them to support a government that seems to have lost the support of the public, and Nick Clegg (the LibDem leader) has said that the LibDems couldn't support Gordon Brown as Prime Minister if Labour come third in the popular vote (though this could translate as second or even first in terms of seats).

It's a strange way for the LibDems to think about coalitions if they want to break the old system, as they've claimed. In a proportional representation voting system, coalitions are likely to become the norm, and the test of legitimacy would be whether the coalition had the majority of voter support, rather than that of the leading party, which is the old logic that the LibDem's language seems to indicate they follow. Still, they have left the possibility of a coalition with Labour open, even if Brown's head is the price. Such a coalition would make more sense than that of one with the Conservatives since they're both progressive, centre-left parties that are more supportive of working within the EU than the Tories, and have similar philosophies on the approach (if not detail) on how to deal with the economy and tackle the deficit.

Yet they still might form a coalition with the Tories (which I think would alienate a lot of their voters - after all, if they are taking support mostly from Labour supporters, how long will their supporters stick with them if they are keeping a, perhaps Thatcherite, Tory-LibDem government in power?).

Apart from the LibDems, the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties would be likely to support any government on a case-by-case basis, based on whatever concessions they can get out of Westminster. In terms of the Northern Irish parties, the unionist parties would be natural allies of the Conservatives, while the nationalist SDLP, a left-wing party, would be more likely to support Labour/Labour-LibDems. Sinn Féin would be a big opponent of the Tories - but they don't take their seats in the Westminster Parliament in protest against the Union and the Oath to the Queen.

The ideal outcome for me is a Labour-LibDem government, so I hope people will be voting tactically to ensure that the centre-left get as many seats as possible (though I want the LibDems to do really well in order to boost the chances of electoral reform).

I'm against the Conservatives for several reasons:

1. I find them grossly and dangerously constitutionally illiterate. Their opposition to the Human Rights Act (with no clear explanation for what they'd do differently) is populist and their attacks on judicial power are something I cannot support given the lack of constitutional checks on the Parliament. The judiciary have proven to be better defenders of rights than the Parliament under the Tories or Labour, and I doubt the wisdom of diluting their power further.

2. Their Euroscepticism. It's unclear what powers they want to repatriate, how, and what difference this will make. Nick Clegg highlighted the advantages the EU brings to policing cross-border crime, etc. It is likely that Cameron would be more pragmatic in government, but then again I cannot trust a party which cannot clearly argue for the good points and against the bad points of a project. I don't see any clear vision, and suspect that the populist posturing will make it harder to be pragmatic, and policy will be confused and even hostage to backbench MPs (who are very Eurosceptic in the Tory Party).

3. I believe a more gradual reduction of the deficit is better for the economy. Basically I'm agreeing with the Labour/LibDem assessment here. Additionally, though it has a few (lonely) good points in it, Cameron's "Big Society" appears to merely be a salve for Tory consciences as they cut deep into the public sector. A culture of mass volunteerism won't spring up overnight, and I don't believe that a Tory government has the time, policy consistency, money and vision to nurture such an expansion in civil society. He's effectively asking people to volunteer to do some of the government's job for them. (Though obviously the point is that they think that the government shouldn't be doing it anyway). Again, I can't support this.

However, I live in a difficult constituency. The 2 leading candidates are a joint unionist one (likely to be pro-Tory), and a Sinn Féin one (anti-Tory, but won't take the seat if she wins it). Therefore, the pro-Tory forces will be added to, or we'll get a vacant seat which will reduce the majority number the Tories need to get to form a government.

I guess I'll just have to vote with my conscience to boost the vote of a party I support, but who probably won't win, and keep my fingers crossed that a Labour-LibDem government will be the result of today's voting...

Dublin EP Elections on TV3's Nightly News

Vincent Browne hosted a debate between some of the candidates in the race for 3 Dublin EP seats. (People Korp's site flagged this up).

Only one of them was a sitting MEP (Proinsias de Rossa - Labour/PES), but the programme was interesting none the less, with a Green candidate (and current Sentator - one of eleven who had been appointed by Bertie when he was still Taoiseach) Deirdre de Burca and a former Green Patrica McKenna (who lost her EP seat in the last election and campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in the referendum) arguing over their independence from the government should they win a seat. Caroline Simons, the Dublin Libertas candidate was also there, and gave a lamentable performance when Browne tried to pin her down on policy.

The debate raised 3 issues: the independence of MEPs from their parties when they're in government, MEPs expenses, Libertas' lack of policies.

De Burca and McKenna battled over the issue of independence. McKenna has just left the Green Party (she is at odds with the party's decision to go into government with Fianna Fáil) and is standing as an independent, and claims that she will be better placed to press for Ireland to properly implement environmental directives and fight for environmental and social policies when a Green candidate would be pressured into following the government line. De Burca rubbished this, but I think that all national party executives exert pressure on their EP contingent - especially when they're in government. I don't know how the Green party is in this area, but, as Jon Worth has explained, national party executives have divided the PES and effectively wrecked moves to run a socialist candidate for the Commission Presidency.

De Rossa and De Burca also highlighted the importance of political groups within the EP, and De Burca said she encourages people to check out the groups. It's good to hear candidates trying to communicate the politics of the EP, and De Burca deserves credit for calling on voters to support the left leaning parties to ensure an EP that will be strong on Green and social issues. It's not exactly a strong European campaign, but it's good to hear that some candidates are trying to communicate what votes can mean for the make up and policies of the parliament.

Simons was torn to shreds by Browne. It took a lot of waffle and increasingly impaticent interjections from Browne for Simons to give an example of what kind of powers the EU should return to member states - she settled on labelling: she believes it burdens businesses with too much cost. Browne wasn't impressed, and De Rossa easily asserted the value of labelling rules for consumer protection and the free movement of goods. It was a very poor choice by Simons - there are undoubtedly arguments for and against regulation in many areas, but it's a different argument to at what level the power to regulate should be vested.

Later, Simons went on the attack over the actions of the ECJ. She didn't do well here either - after raising the issue, Browne pressed for an example, which she had to admit she hadn't prepared and couldn't think of one off the top of her head. This is very damaging - after all, Simons is supposed to be a solicitor, and I imagine she was choosen as a candidate to lend credibility to Libertas' claims in areas of EU law. Not that's she's been very good on the subject before - as her performance in front of the Sub-Committee for Ireland's Future in Europe shows.

She did a bit better attacking De Rossa over expenses, but the blows didn't really land. De Rossa wasn't great at explaining his position over expenses, but he defused the issue by asserting that he's put information on his expenses on his website (here). It was still quite shocking to find out that he received €300,000 in expenses. It raises a lot of questions of the worth/need for this level of expenses. (The video showing this is the second half here).

Labour overtakes Fianna Fáil in polls

Wow. This is big news - it's never happened before. Unlike most European countries, where the centre left party is one of the big two, in Ireland Labour is the third party. This is a bit like saying that the LibDems have overtaken Labour in the UK polls!

And Eamon Gilmore is now the most popular party leader by quite a margin. I knew Labour was making an inroads, but this is quite impressive.

So is Ireland shifting to the Left? It's a strange thought for a country whose two big parties have been centre-right and centre-ish since independence. In the '90s Labour support/electoral success increased too, known as the "Spring tide" after the leader of Labour at the time, Dick Spring. However it was short lived, and Labour was still in third place at the time. But now that Labour's overtaken Fianna Fáil in the polls...

Is is sustainable? This says that Labour's support is based more in the older demographic, perhaps because older people will find it harder to recover than younger people. But if it establishes itself as the second party, then it could possibly end up with a more durable support base that comes from being a possible senior government party. It will be interesting to see how Labour does at the European elections.