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.

Poland says No to watering down Free Movement

The Polish government has made it clear that it will veto changes to the free movement of people in the EU Treaties. Since the EU Treaties can only be changed by unanimity, this is a blow to calls from Cameron's UK government (and from the Bavarian CSU) for changes to the system.

I've written before about how the UK debate seems to frame the single market as the only good thing about the EU when the social elements are such a big part of the bargain. This is desire for the single market to respect national social protections gives rise to a kind of European social contract - a kind of minimum (and from the left's point of view it is very minimum) level of protection that limits the single market in undercutting national welfare and social systems (though the single market has had a big impact on these). But now the debate has shifted to reviewing and limiting one of the fundamental freedoms of the single market.

The fears over EU immigration in the UK (with the ending of the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens) has been the main spark for this, and the idea of being tough on immigration is popular. And because a "market" is seen as just goods you buy in a shop, rather than an economy people live in, the free movement of people is perhaps seen as not really being part of the single market. Despite this, there are polls indicating that Britain would be welcoming of immigrants who play by the rules, so the panic may be more linked to the rhetoric over benefits and the young than might be seen at first glance.

Watering down free movement rights is likely to come up against fierce opposition from many Member States - not just Poland, but also Spain, Ireland, Greece, and other countries afraid to see their citizens treated as second-class EU citizens - so it's unlikely to work. But watering down further the social side of the EU will make everyone more economically insecure and could further undermine support for free movement rights and solidarity in the wealthier Member States, and ultimately support for the single market.

For Cameron to be able to claim victory through renegotiation, he will have to get something big in the area of social policy now that so many other areas are sealed off (the UK is outside of Schengen, the Euro and has an opt in to justice legislation). The undermining of social rules and standards needs to be resisted.

Which Generation are we saving here?

British Chancellor George Osborne said yesterday that another £25 billion in welfare cuts are needed to close the deficit:

"Do we say: the worst is over; back we go to our bad habits of borrowing and spending and living beyond our means - and let the next generation pay the bill? Or do we say to ourselves: yes, because of our plan, things are getting better. But there is still a long way to go - and there are big, underlying problems we have to fix in our economy."

With the pensions part of the welfare budget protected under the Conservative promise of the triple lock - that pensions will increase in line with average earnings, inflation or by 2.5%, whichever is the largest - and the under-25s the targets of most of the cuts, it's an odd rhetorical direction to take. It's traditional austerity rhetoric to insist that the costs of borrowing mean that the next generation is being weighted down by debt instead of the current generation dealing with their own problems.

But the under=25s are the main target of these austerity policies, be it an end to housing benefits or employment benefits. It's difficult to claim that the generation that finds itself under the 25 year threshold played a part in causing the current deficit or economic crisis. When did they speculate on house prices or recklessly run financial institutions? Are these people not the "Next Generation"? Even if they're not, presumably the benefits will still remain withdrawn for whoever this Next Generation turns out to be until they are 25.

This raises a few questions about what the morals behind the Tories' version of austerity. Why should the under-25s have access to fewer benefits than the rest of the population? At 25 you can vote, serve in the army, pay taxes, are entitled to the full minimum wage... but you can't be trusted with housing benefit? Which implies that you won't be seen as a full citizen in the eyes of the British state until you're over 25, and that you're really expected to live with your parents in tough times.

Protecting pensioners - a key voting group for the Conservatives - might be seen as a cynical political ploy (and to an extent it is), but I think you can see the basis of the Tory view of the state in the targeting of the young to close the deficit. The state, or the welfare part of it, it really a giant insurance vehicle in the Conservative view: benefits should really only be paid out to those who pay in. Pensioners have paid in, so their contribution must be protected; under-25s cannot safely be assumed to have paid much tax yet, so they should not have access to the same range of benefits as other citizens. Taxpayer payment to (or investment in) the state should be prioritised.

The problem with this view is that young people start off with nothing or not-very-much (unless they have a generous family) because they are just starting off in life and have yet to establish themselves in work and the world at large. Generally there is a redistribution of resources to the young (education, etc.) to equip them with the skills to establish themselves (and to give the state higher earning workers who will pay higher taxes). People established in careers are expected to pay not only because they have benefited from the system in the past, but also because they want their children to have a good start in life and they want later generations to continue to be able to pay for the state (including eventually their pensions).

By focusing so much on who pays in as a taxpayer, and that on an individual level they broadly get what they paid in back out in the end, it misses the point that the state acts as an investor. Taxpayers matter more than citizens, so if you can't be assumed to have paid much in, then it's not that big of a deal to withdraw benefits. So if you are in (university) education, you're expected to pay tuition fees and to take on debt to do so because you're investing in yourself, and if you're under 25, you don't deserve access to the same benefits as anyone else because we can't assume that you've paid in yet. Of course this kind of thinking means that the welfare state becomes more about those who can or have been able to pay at some point, leading to more inequality.

This attack on the young is an extremely clear sign that we aren't "all in this together", particularly as youth unemployment remains high.

Ironically it seems to be the "pro-business" Conservatives that don't know much about investment - after all, the Royal Mail was sold off at a bargain basement price while the government guaranteed its returns for a year, and the oldest student debt was sold off at a loss rather than the government even bothering to maximise the returns on even the loan system. No wonder the Tories think the private sector can do it better when they do it so badly.

In Search of the Citizen - European Year of Citizens

It was, Commissioner Viviane Reding declared, "A fight against indifference". Speaking at the closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, she correctly noted that the EU is "more than a market", but the story of "freedom, prosperity and stability" no longer worked as a European narrative. Europe certainly doesn't feel so prosperous anymore. From citizen dialogues to reaching out to civil society, the EU is not just trying to reach out to be closer to citizens, but you get the sense that if they could just deliver what people wanted, hopefully a new narrative will spontaneously emerge. Reding didn't say what Europe's new story was - she had to leave quickly for another Citizens' Dialogue in Lithuania.

How to make Every Year a Year for Citizens was the conference's theme, with discussions running from civil society organisation's at EU level to freedom of movement to the upcoming European elections. Hosted by the Lithuanian Presidency in Vilnius with the help of the European Year of Citizens Alliance ("EYCA" - an alliance of national civil society organisations), the conference was very much about how civil society can influence and interact with the EU - and above all the Commission.

And they do have something to say. Organising against the discrimination of the vulnerable in society, speaking out and even intervening in court cases in defense of the marginalised who try to exercise their free movement rights, and advocating giving a voice to 3rd country nationals who come to the EU. Proper consultation! was the cry, not "Insultations"! "Insultation" - shorthand for consulting with civil society groups just to tick boxes without really listening to them - was definitely the word of the conference. EYCA took the opportunity to hand Reding their recommendations for making the EU more open and democratic for citizens.

Here is the public the Commission yearns for - it's active, wants to participate and it has learnt the jargon, from your Charter of Fundamental Rights to your institutional triangles (even if this still proves a barrier to civil society organisations when it comes to knowing who to talk to). They can be disappointed, pleased, listened to or ignored. Most importantly, they talk.

It's a public, but are we talking about European citizens here? At times it felt more like a year of civil society organisations rather than a year of citizens. It's understandable - who else to you invite to this kind of event if not them? Apart from the bloggers, pretty much everyone present represented a civil society organisation (which went some way to slowing down the Q&A sessions, with each audience member taking the chance to explain what their organisation does). But though civil society makes a valuable link between the EU and citizens, you will probably only get that sense of a European public if and when the European elections start to feel European.

One of the most surprising speakers was the new head of the European Movement, Diogo Pinto, who - surprisingly for the EM - said that while the European Parliament does have new powers, it's still rational for citizens not to vote at European elections, because it's hard to see what changes in terms of power. Hopefully having candidates for the Commission Presidency in the election will change this, but it would be a slow process. The political drama of parliaments and elections is where you'll find citizens and a sense of citizenship emerging rather than targets and outcomes.

In future - the theme of citizens will unofficially continue because they couldn't think of a theme for 2014 - it would be good to have a citizens' dialogue as part of the conference (I assume that they were held separately due to falling under different institutions - the Council and the Commission). Having the chance to watch ordinary citizens put their questions to the Commission would bring up interesting issues and would actually be citizens participating.

So was the conference and the Year of Citizens a success? It depends on who you wanted to engage, but there is a sense that a wider public rather than simply campaigning civil society organisations was desired. At the opening of the conference it was admitted that it was "a mistake" to involve PR companies so much because it led to more of a broadcasting campaign than more engagement. After the European election promotion campaign in 2009, I hope the Parliament was listening!

Europe Day 2013 - European Year of Citizens

Happy Europe Day! Although clearly the numbers of people happy with Europe have dropped sharply recently, so it's not likely that you will see many events celebrating it.


It's Europe Day in the European Year of Citizens, so it's probably appropriate to look at some of the issues surrounding EU Citizenship right now.

The European Citizens' Initiative, the big democratic innovation of the Lisbon Treaty, has come under attack recently for being too bureaucratic and inaccessible, though some ECIs have gained a lot of support - like Right2Water - or are using the ECI to push European Citizenship further with expanded political rights, such as Let Me Vote!

Speaking of citizenship and politics, after a successful campaign within the Party of European Socialists for primaries to select their candidate for Commission President for the 2014 elections, the PES has started the election run with a pretty tepid use of the primaries. Hopefully this initiative won't fade away - it could, after all, be used as an opportunity to bring party members into the debate on EU issues, and could be a good way of boosting party activity come election time.

On the legal front, EU Citizenship hasn't evolved much since the Zambrano case and the retreat of the ECJ afterwards in the McCarthy case and in subsequent other cases. I recommend the article over at European Law Blog on the European Court of Justice's approach to EU Citizenship. It can be a confusing area, with citizenship rights largely bound up in the exercise (and ability to exercise) free movement rights. A full definition of EU citizenship will likely only be decided by long years of court battles, it seems.

With all the social and economic problems confronting us today, and the difficulties in engaging with the EU and promoting change, it's hard to be in a celebratory mood from a citizen's perspective. However, with the ECI and the primaries, it's clear that there is a section of civil society out there that is trying to work for more participation and a more responsive EU. So here's to the people plugging away to make things better: that's where you see citizenship in action.

Irish President Michael D Higgin's address to the European Parliament

Today President Higgins of Ireland addressed the European Parliament on the Union and citizenship. (The President of Ireland is a ceremonial head of state that is directly elected, and, sadly, it is difficult to imagine a head of government in Europe giving such a speech today).

I recommend the speech, but to quote a few extracts:

"[T]he inspiration and the achievements of the founders of the European Union we inherit as legacy cannot be taken for granted. Today, citizens in Europe are threatened with an unconscious drift to disharmony, a loss of social cohesion, a recurrence of racism and an increasing deficit of democratic accountability in some decision making of an economic and fiscal kind. These threatening clouds hang over a Europe that in more hopeful times, chose to base its anthem, rather than on anything contemporary, on Friedrich Schiller’s poem ‘Ode to Joy’ and its musical setting by Ludwig Van Beethoven in his Ninth Symphony.

Parliaments do matter and must continue to matter. Centuries of effort have been invested by European citizens in securing the vote. It is to parliament citizens look for accountability, for strategic alternatives. If national parliaments, if the European Parliament, were to lose the capacity to deliver accountability where else might it be found? Is there an alternative that can meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy? I believe not and parliaments must draw on the resources of experience, of inherited intellectual capacity, in all its diversity and above all, from the best of contemporary intellectual work in a pluralist way.

[...]

We cannot, however, ignore the fact that European citizens are suffering the consequences of actions and opinions of bodies such as rating agencies, which, unlike Parliaments, are unaccountable. Many of our citizens in Europe regard the response to the crisis in their lives as disparate, sometimes delayed, not equal to the urgency of the task and showing insufficient solidarity with them in their threatened or actual economic circumstances.

They feel that in general terms the economic narrative of recent years has been driven by dry technical concerns; for example, by calculations that are abstract and not drawn from real problems, geared primarily by a consideration of the impact of such measures on speculative markets, rather than driven by sufficient compassion and empathy with the predicament of European citizens who are members of a union, and for whom all of the resources of Europe’s capacity, political, social, economic and intellectual might have been drawn on, driven by the binding moral spirit of a union.

[...]

Instead of any discourse that might define the European Union as simply an economic space of contestation between the strong and the weak, our citizens yearn for the language of solidarity, the commitment to cohesion, for a generous inclusive rhetoric that is appropriate to an evolving political union that is anxious to reach a future of peace, prosperity, inclusion, and in a sustainable way.

This is a serious challenge, not least because if we were to fail we run the risk of an economic crisis leading to a crisis of legitimacy for the Union. A Union that in its founding treaties is fundamentally founded on values – respect for personal dignity; freedom; democracy; equality; the rule of law and respect for human rights."

ACTA rejected in the European Parliament

A victory yesterday for the Parliament and the demonstrators across the continent who have been keeping up the pressure against the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement: the treaty was rejected by 478 votes to 39, with 165 abstentions. A conservative amendment to send the treaty back to committee and wait for the ECJ judgment on the treaty's compatibility with EU law was also rejected leading up to the vote, resulting in right-wing MEPs abstaining from the vote - supporting the treaty, but afraid to nail their colours to the mast in the face of public controversy. Though 22 Member States have ratified the treaty, the approval of the EP was needed before it would come into force anywhere in the EU.

The public controversy and campaign against the treaty is now the model for using the Parliament to make the EU more democratically accountable. It was not just an online campaign, but included demonstrations all over Europe, and political pressure building through the national parliaments. It helps that the issue was one of online politics, with a constituency that would probably find it the easiest to mobilise across borders. Will we see other such European civil society campaigns? Digital and civil rights related issues will probably remain the most natural campaign issues. When it comes to the digital marketplace and the internal market, as well as crime and child protection on the internet, the EU is a main actor given that these technological developments have appeared and grown as parts of the economy during the internal market's existence, and since purely national regulations don't make quite as much sense as an approach here.

Direct campaigns on this scale are quite difficult to create and sustain, and generally seem to be best directed towards the rejection of a draft law or treaty, and don't often happen in many states. So will this help stimulate the opening up of the European Parliament? So far many of the Parliament's stands have centred mainly on its place in the institutional triangle with the Commission and Council. While there was some institutional self-interest in this case (the EP wants to be more involved in treaty negotiations), the political groups took their positions to garner public support. It was perhaps also an ideological battle since the right in the Parliament was broadly in favour of ACTA or an ACTA-like agreement, while the liberal and left wing groups were more ready to oppose it. Environmental and economic issues are also important and high on the public's agenda, but it is harder to build a campaign for such complicated policy areas for a positive change rather than rejecting proposals. Hopefully the ACTA case will spur political and electoral innovation by the Europarties and parliamentary groups by demonstrating that there is a politically aware public to tap into.

ACTA itself may be dead, but governments are likely to continue to try to push further and further on enforcement mechanisms for copyright without a reappraisal of copyright in a digital world. It's a very important debate, and it would truly be impressive if the European Parliament tried to take a lead in the debate on how to adapt copyright so creativity in the economy and the arts is encouraged and promoted, yet prevent the misuse of copyright in the courts and in society in a way that actually dampens creativity and could in some cases endangers free speech if badly enforced. It's not enough to halt the mindless and crude enforcement of a flawed system; we need to be proactive in adapting.

If the European Parliament is smart, it can capitalise on this and serve as a platform for an important 21st Century debate. And if they don't, we should force them: we've proven we can have an impact on the European stage.

EU against Swiss Quotas

The EU has remained united against Switzerland's move to introduce a quota on immigration from the Member States from the 2004 enlargement. Introducing the quota is contrary to the EU's agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of people, Catherine Ashton said (PDF). Switzerland is still allowed exemptions for Romania and Bulgaria under the treaty (Member States can - and have - introduced temporary restrictions for Romania and Bulgaria when they joined in 2007, but these are supposed to expire after a few years).

The EUObserver has reported that the right-wing Swiss People's Party:

"...has recently campaigned for a referendum on EU immigration using posters which show black workers' boots trampling the Swiss flag."

The posters read "Jetzt ist genug! Masseneinwanderung stoppen." - "Now is enough! Stop Mass Immigration.". If Switzerland votes against the treaty on the free movement of persons, then the EU might cancel all its other treaties with Switzerland on the internal market.

It's good to see that the EU intends to stick up for the equal rights of EU citizens for free movement - it hasn't been a good year for this right of free movement so far this year, at least politically. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders' PVV launched a website encouraging people to report Eastern Europeans for crime and "economic competition", and a similar website was launched by a far-right Flemish party in Belgium. The Commission yesterday proposed more liberalisation in the labour market by dropping the remaining restrictions, but it's hard to see this position getting anywhere in the current political and economic climate...

Re:New: Europarties and Primaries

When I wrote about the Re:New conference and the lack of policy at the PES level on Friday, I wanted to find out more about the Europarty and how things are done. Luckly there was a workshop on Transnational parties on Saturday, which I attended (annoyingly most of the workshops I would be interested in were on on Saturday afternoon: I would have liked to have asked a few questions at the citizenship workshop on Zambrano and McCarthy).

Understandably the structure of Europarties mitigated against more unified political platforms being put forward at European elections (and in between). Europarties have evolved over the last 20 years, with political foundations (such as FEPS for PES), and firmer legal regulation for their legal status and funding. While there was some interesting presentations on the history and structure of the Europarties (notably from Erol Kuelachi and Steven van Henke). However, of the three aspects raised by Sebastian von Thuena (1. institutional aspects of Europarties; 2. the legal structure; and 3. the role of the grassroots), the question of the grassroots was picked up on by the audience (which counted a few PES activists among its members). How grassroots activists should work alongside national parties - via exchanges and uring election campaigns - was debated. Apparently there have been PES activist exchange programmes trialed that haven't been very successful, and national parties are unsure of how to react to PES activists (in some cases perhaps fearing that the PES is a competitor for institutional control within the party).

I was disappointed that the PES primaries weren't being discussed, so I asked:

"What could be the effect of the PES presidential candidate (and does the PES see it as more parliamentary or presidential)? It could have a chain effect (if there’s enough momentum) – 1. Would it take away from activist influence on the manifesto? 2. Would it bring the Commission closer to the EP? 3. Would it mean coalition Commissions and provoke reorganisation in the Greens, etc.?"

There wasn't enough time to address all of these points, but Steven van Henke pointed out that the PES would confirm both the candidate and the programme, raising the prospect of the candidate not being able to stand on their own platform. Originally I had thought that it could push activists out of the role of manifesto-shaping that they had gained at the last election - it will be interesting to see how the PES balances the national parties, the activists and the candidate's view in the joint manifesto.

Another aspect of the PES primaries is their timing. I hadn't noticed anything about the timing of the primaries during my first glance through the procedure, but I've heard complaints about the process being held over the December/January before the election, since it is extremely difficult to organise events for national parties at that time (at least, I have heard these complaints from the Irish Labour activists; and Irish Labour has been one of the most enthusiastic parties for PES primaries). Together with the uncertainty of the number of parties which will hold direct votes and whether the candidate will have much control over his/her policy platform, the PES's seeming political coup could be strangled at birth. Since it has the potential to boost not only the PES but also push the other Europarties to be more coherent, it would be a big loss to EP democracy.

Irish President Michael D

Last week Ireland elected its ninth president. Though the role is highly ceremonial, the election campaign was hard fought between 7 candidates: the widest choice in the office's history. At the end of the count, Michael D,* an academic, poet, and long-time elected politician, became the first "political millionaire", with over a million votes. He has a strong track record on fighting for human rights, and is a great orator.

Here's his acceptance speech (skip to 3:00 if you want to leave out the Irish language part and the thank yous):



As a resident of Northern Ireland, I didn't have a vote in the election (extending the franchise north of the border and to the Irish abroad will probably be considered as part of the political and constitutional reform agenda in Ireland). However, over the last 21 years the presidency has allowed Ireland to redefine itself and its identity in a very positive way - in terms of inclusion and the peace process - and Michael D clearly aims to continue this from his platform of inclusive and active citizenship. While people and the media complain that the post has little power, it's highly political role (despite being removed from daily politics and policy) that offers a powerful way for citizens to engage in what their identity is and what their republic means to them. Which is why I think this right to elect the head of state is an important and positive thing, why I take monarchists' claims of unity and symbolism with a certain amount of scepticism, and I look forward to Michael D's presidency.


* He will probably be called Michael Higgins/President Higgins abroad, but he's known by his middle initial in Ireland. What it stands for is a popular pub quiz question (Daniel, if you're wondering).

An Education in Fees

Should the English be charged more?

The huge rise in University tuition fees in the UK caused a massive political storm, and the devolved regional governments signaled that they would step in to prevent such increases locally. In Northern Ireland the plan is to stop any non-inflation related rise in fees and in Scotland University education will remain free, but this has raised concerns over NI and Scottish universities being flooded with English students hoping to escape the burden of higher student loans.

To prevent local students from being crowded out, Scotland will introduce fees for non-resident UK nationals at the same £9,000 level, and the Northern Ireland Executive is thinking of following suit. However, these fees are being challenged as a breach of the European Convention of Human Rights* for being contrary to its provisions on education and non-discrimination. It seems unlikely that the case will be sucessful - after all, Scotland has maintained free education for residents whereas English, Welsh and NI students would have to pay a fee (albeit lower than elsewhere in the UK) - but it has highlighted the issue of discrimination being able to take place within an EU Member State between its own nationals, and yet be outlawed between EU nationals.

Because while students will pay different fees depending on where they live within the UK, EU citizens from outside the UK will be able to access university education on the same basis - the same fees - as locals. Of course, it's not quite as simple as that because UK nationals will be able to draw on benefits that EU students who aren't working won't be entitled to, but the difference on fees is still significant. The political implications are huge - within the UK it will spark many debates: why should the regions with develoved governments be able to have lower fees? should the regions be able to discriminate against the English metropole? is it just that EU nationals should be treated better than part of the UK population?

On the EU question, it's a matter of the weakness of EU citizenship. EU citizenship is limited to cross-border situations, and Member States are free to decide how they grant citizenship and how they treat their own nationals. For a while, it looked like the European Court of Justice** would break down this connection between a cross-border element and relying on citizenship rights in the Zambrano case, but it categorically ruled it out shortly afterwards.

That students from elsewhere in the EU will be charged less is being called a "loophole", but it's a part of the fundamental rule of EU law of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality. The difference arises because EU citizenship rules only regulate cross-border relations, while these fees are being regulated by national and regional rules. The tuition fees debate will rumble on in the UK for some time yet, and get caught up in the wider debate of the relationship between the UK's constituent nations, and, perhaps, the EU too.


* Part of the Council of Europe, and not the EU!

** The EU Court.

Citizens will have to drag Europe closer to them

There's an interesting article in the New York Times (hat-tip Grahnlaw), "E.U. Elites keep the Power from the People", reporting on criticism from Habermas and others on the EU's democratic deficit:

"“The process of European integration, which has always taken place over the heads of the population, has now reached a dead end,” Mr. Habermas said at a forum hosted by the European Council on Foreign Relations. “It cannot go any further without switching from its usual administrative mode to one of greater public involvement.”

The political elites “are burying their heads in the sand,” he said, adding, “They are doggedly persisting with their elitist project and the disenfranchisement of the European population.”

Those who agree with Mr. Habermas often cite the behavior of José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, the Union’s executive, and Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, which represents the 27 member states.

During these past months, both have failed to explain to a wider public what is happening to Europe and the euro. When they give interviews, they tend to address an elitist audience. Neither reaches out to citizens. “I doubt if they ever thought of doing town-hall meetings,” said Pawel Swieboda, director of DemosEuropa, an independent research organization in Warsaw.

“They don’t bother to do such meetings because they don’t have to stand for election,” added Reinhard Bütikofer, a German and leader of the Greens in the European Parliament."

I agree. However, the solution seems to be changing the Treaties, and this doesn't really address the problem. While Treaty change can help (for example, giving the Parliament the sole respobsibility for electing the Commission without Council input, and severing the national backgrounds of Commissioners from national nominations), the biggest and most urgent challenge has nothing to do with institutional tinkering.

The EU is already formally democratic. The Parliament is directly elected and has almost equal power with the Council, the weakness being mainly in the area of foreign affairs. This is real power, with US Vice President Joe Biden making the trip to implore the Parliament to pass the SWIFT Agreement between the EU and US last year. The Parliament elects the Commission (just like the government is in many national parliamentary systems), which is nominated by the Council. The Council consists of the elected national governments, and the European Council - the Member States' heads of government - direct general policy. So in all the main legislative institutions, offices are either directly or indirectly elected.

But despite this, the main focus on EU politics is the summitry that takes place every few months or to combat crises - an increasingly common event. Summits are the face of the remote decision-making that's going on. Member States gather together, not all with an equal say in practice, and hammer out compromises based on haggling over national interests, instead of working out what would be the best solution for the EU or Eurozone as a whole. If this sidelines the Commission, then it definitely sidelines the Parliament: after all, how can they reject emergency agreements made at a European Council summit? These summits could even be sidelining the ECB, which has been one of the most influential players in the crisis so far.

If the EU is formally democratic, then the problem is that it isn't functionally democratic. The addage that in democracies the electorate get the government they deserve doesn't quite apply as there hasn't been much political competition yet at the European level. That might change at the next election, with the PES considering running a primary to select a candidate for the Commission Presidency. Political competition is what's necessary to bring the EU closer to citizens. The EU can't be sold or airbrushed into people's lives: people need to be engaged on European issues, and we have to talk about these issues from the perspective of arguing for EU or Eurozone policies.

We're in the middle of a massive crisis, but when it comes to the solutions, we are talking about national solutions to European problems. When Irish politicans talk about Eurobonds, they're thinking of the next five years and Ireland's interest rates, not how to make the Eurozone work - without even thinking about what fiscal union means, and how it should be run, how can it be properly debated or sold to an electorate? These conversations with ourselves mean that we're talking past each other on a European stage, rather than properly discussing what are our best collective options. Which is why working on giving substance to the Europarties is much more important than institutional tinkering. Citizens need to be engaged with the issues - using citizens' assemblies would be a good way of involving people and informing them on the options ahead.

Oddly, institutional tinkering is the sexy and glamorous side to ideas to tackle the democratic deficit. Hard graft within political parties and outside them in civil society to make them more responsive to European issues - and to make them fulfil their political function as a way of enabling citizens to influence policy - is a much more substantial task, even if it doesn't yet the attention of another constitutional treaty.

The Curious Case of Citizen McCarthy

In my previous post I've written about how the Court of Justice (that's the EU court based in Luxembourg) has been influenced by the cases that come before it when it comes to citizenship, and how it has shaped EU citizenship. Last week the Court handed down its McCarthy Judgment which complicates things. (This post is my immediate reaction to the ruling, which I've just read).

Again, these cases and the legal arguments that go into them really affect people's lives, and it's interesting to see how the different circumstances of a person can affect which side of the line they fall on.

As a recap, in Zambrano the question was how far EU citizens can rely on their EU citizenship rights in the Member State of their own nationality, when they have never moved to another Member State. The judgment was vague so I outlined two models of citizenship: either relying on EU citizenship in your own country is only available as an option where you've either used your free movement rights before or where you might be prevented from using them effectively in the future ("Back to the Future" model; or you have a right to reside in your own Member State independent of your national citizenship,* and therefore you can rely on EU citizenship simply if EU law applies to EU citizens in those cases. This second option means that Member States can't discriminate against their own citizens so that EU citizens are treated better than their own nationals ("reverse discrimination").

[* Member States control who gets their citizenship, and therefore who gets EU citizenship deriving from this.]

The problem in the McCarthy case is pretty much an issue I raised with the Back to the Future model (because I knew the case was coming up, and I know people the senario has affected in real life [for want of a better term]):

"Under UK law if a British national marries a third country national and wants to bring them home to the UK, and they haven't used their EU free movement rights, then they have to pay to get them into the country. So other EU nationals and British nationals who have used their free movement rights have preferential treatment over British nationals who never used their free movement rights. It is unlikely that, under the Back to the Future model, that that British citizen could claim that they wouldn't be able to use their EU rights effectively in the future if their spouse couldn't join them in the UK, so they wouldn't be covered by EU citizenship law."

This is essentially what happened to McCarthy, who had never left the UK, nor been a worker under EU law. She applied for an Irish passport, which she got, and tried to assert her EU citizenship rights (based on her Irish citizenship) to bring her spouse from a third country (not an EU citizen himself) into the UK to live with her. Could she rely on her EU citizenship?

Though I stated that I thought the Court was using the "Back to the Future" model in Zambrano (the reasoning was vague), I thought that over time the Court would become more explicit in its reasoning and follow the separate right to reside reasoning. So I thought 3 outcomes were possible, in order of desending likelihood:

1. She could, because she had Irish citizenship, and therefore she could be said to be living in a Member State of another nationality despite never having moved. That she only applied for the Irish citizenship so this would be the case ("cherry picking" her legal rights in the words of Advocate General Kokott) doesn't matter as there is nothing wrong in making use of legal rights made available to you. This would not concern the Zambrano decision.

2. She could not rely on the Citizens' Directive (2004/38), because she is a national of the the UK. However, she has a right to reside due to her EU citizenship regardless of having such a right due to her nationality, and therefore the UK could not discriminate against her compared to EU citizens of non-UK nationality if they are in the same position. [Explicitly adopting the reasoning of AG Sharpston in the Zambrano case that was implicitly, but not clearly, endorsed].

3. As 2, but referring to the vague idea of the substance of EU citizenship rather than reasoning clearly. So as in Zambrano.

What the Court actually did, was rule that she did not have the protection of EU law as a citizen as she was a national of the Member State and had not exercised any free movement rights. Her Irish citizenship was irrelevant, and, in fact, there is no right of residence separate from the exercise of free movement rights. In other words, there is only the Back to the Future model.

To quote the Court (skippable if you're not interested in the technical legal reasoning of the Court):

"39 Hence, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in so far as the Union citizen concerned has never exercised his right of free movement and has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national, that citizen is not covered by the concept of ‘beneficiary’ for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38, so that that directive is not applicable to him.

40 That finding cannot be influenced by the fact that the citizen concerned is also a national of a Member State other than that where he resides.

41 Indeed, the fact that a Union citizen is a national of more than one Member State does not mean that he has made use of his right of freedom of movement.

[...]

The applicability of Article 21 TFEU

[...]

47 Indeed, the Court has stated several times that citizenship of the Union is intended to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (see Case C‑34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 41 and case-law cited). Furthermore, the Court has held that Article 20 TFEU precludes national measures which have the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of that status (see Ruiz Zambrano, paragraph 42).

[...]

49 However, no element of the situation of Mrs McCarthy, as described by the national court, indicates that the national measure at issue in the main proceedings has the effect of depriving her of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights associated with her status as a Union citizen, or of impeding the exercise of her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, in accordance with Article 21 TFEU. Indeed, the failure by the authorities of the United Kingdom to take into account the Irish nationality of Mrs McCarthy for the purposes of granting her a right of residence in the United Kingdom in no way affects her in her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, or any other right conferred on her by virtue of her status as a Union citizen.

50 In that regard, by contrast with the case of Ruiz Zambrano, the national measure at issue in the main proceedings in the present case does not have the effect of obliging Mrs McCarthy to leave the territory of the European Union. Indeed, as is clear from paragraph 29 of the present judgment, Mrs McCarthy enjoys, under a principle of international law, an unconditional right of residence in the United Kingdom since she is a national of the United Kingdom.

51 The case in the main proceedings also differs from Case C‑148/02 García Avello [2003] ECR I‑11613. In that judgment, the Court held that the application of the law of one Member State to nationals of that Member State who were also nationals of another Member State had the effect that those Union citizens had different surnames under the two legal systems concerned, and that that situation was liable to cause serious inconvenience for them at both professional and private levels resulting from, inter alia, difficulties in benefiting, in one Member State of which they are nationals, from the legal effects of diplomas or documents drawn up in the surname recognised in the other Member State of which they are also nationals. [Own note: so EU law only applied since national law might prevent EU citizens from using their EU rights in the future].

[...]

53 Thus, in Ruiz Zambrano and García Avello, the national measure at issue had the effect of depriving Union citizens of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of that status or of impeding the exercise of their right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.

54 As stated in paragraph 49 of the present judgment, in the context of the main proceedings in this case, the fact that Mrs McCarthy, in addition to being a national of the United Kingdom, is also a national of Ireland does not mean that a Member State has applied measures that have the effect of depriving her of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of her status as a Union citizen or of impeding the exercise of her right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States. Accordingly, in such a context, such a factor is not sufficient, in itself, for a finding that the situation of the person concerned is covered by Article 21 TFEU."

There may still be some cases where EU citizens can rely on their Union citizenship against their own Member State on grounds of non-discrimination, but this makes it extremely difficult to argue if the Court refuses to acknowledge the significance of your Union citizenship in the first place. The judgment makes clear that in Zambrano the decisive factor was that the Union citizens would be required to leave the territory of their home country, and that of the whole Union as they were young children dependent on their non-EU national parents. We still don't know what the new idea of "substance of EU citizenship rights" is, but it doesn't mean what we thought it might mean - the Civis Europeus Sum that a more rational, unified idea of citizenship might bring.


It's obvious that the law on citizenship is messy - and, in my opinion, highly unsatisfactory. It is difficult for citizens to know when they are protected, and when they are not - and sometimes it can be based on a tiny detail of their life or how they might lead their life. Whether children are involved or not can also be a factor - perhaps this shows a certain sentimentality of the Court that it tries to rationalise through its case law. In any case, McCarthy is a blow for those supporting a more equal citizenship.




**(As an aside, the Court referred to Article 21 TFEU rather than Article 20 as it did in Zambrano - since they repeat each other to a certain extent makes the relevance unclear, but it's a debate best left to academic literature rather than this blog post).**

Citizen Zambrano

Eurocrats: reviled faceless creatures that have no sense of fellow human feeling, right? Well it actually seems that a lot of them are softies whose conscience can influence the outcome of their decisions. Even the European Court of Court of Justice in Luxembourg (not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is part of the confusingly, similarly named Council of Europe), critised by the European left for the Laval and Viking decisions on union action, can be swayed by the human stories that come before them. In fact, there's a good case to be made that the development of the law on European citizenship owes a lot to the stories of families and individuals in difficult situations.

In early March the ECJ ruled in just such a case, in what is a milestone case on citizenship, in Zambrano. Not that you would have read about it in the media. In fact I only read about it in The Irish Times, which covered the case and the subsequent reaction of the Irish Government. The excellent Verfassungsblog covered it in German. Zambrano is a landmark case as it strikes a blow against reverse discrimination (the idea that Member States can give fewer rights to their own citizens than to EU ones from other Member States), and it could have an effect on immigration and national citizenship laws. So here are my own belated thoughts on the case - as with all court stories, it will require some side-stories to give it context, but I hope the human interest element will keep it interesting, and that it will provide some insight into how the Court can act and think.


Citizen Zambrano

Ruiz Zambrano and his wife , Moreno, left their home country of Colombia in 1999 for Belgium. They were looking for asylum as Ruiz had been subjected to 2 years of extortion demands, backed up by death threats, by private militias, and had witnessed assaults on his brother and his 3-year-old son had been kidnapped for a week in January 1999. Their application for asylum was refused, but a non-refoulement condition was attached - Belgian authorities could not send them home as the civil war situation in Colombia was too dangerous. Ruiz Zambrano worked in Belgium without a work permit, but he paid taxes and social security contributions. He was fired from his job as he didn't have a work permit, and he wasn't allowed unempolyment benefit as the work he had done, and contributions he paid wouldn't count as he never had a work permit. In addition, with the deportation order hanging over the family's head, it took years of legal challenges to get even a temporary residence permit. In the meantime the couple had 2 children, who had Belgian citizenship (and therefore EU citizenship) under Belgian law.

If the 2 children had been EU citizens from another Member State, they would have been protected by EU law, and their parents would have been allowed to live and work there while they were still children without permits. Even as Belgian citizens, they could have the protection of EU law if they had used their free movement rights (e.g. moving to another EU country for a while) at some point in the past, but as they had never left the country of their nationality, it appeared that Belgian law would discriminate against its own citizens. So the Belgian court essentially asked the ECJ: does EU law protect against such discrimination, and if so, would the Zambrano parents be entitled to stay and work in Belgium without the relevant permits as the carers of EU citizens?

Yes, the ECJ said, since without the right to live and work in Belgium, they (the children with citizenship) could be removed from the Union to remain with their parents if they were ejected from the country. By being removed from Belgium (or risking that removal), the children:

"... [would be deprived] of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by the virtue of their status as citizens of the Union." [paragraph 42]

A victory for equality of all EU citizens before the law! Um, well, actually, not necessarily. In fact, it's a bit unclear how far reverse discrimination has been ruled illegal. What is the "substance of citizenship rights"? The ECJ hasn't mentioned it before, and it didn't explain it in its judgment. There were also 2 arguments that would have had the same effect for the Zambrano family, but different effects for other EU citizens, and it's not clear which one the ECJ accepted.


Back to the Future Citizenship

Here's where EU citizenship becomes more messy and complicated. There's a Citizen's Directive (Directive 2004/38/EC), which grants rights to EU citizens living in another Member State other than their own, and which expressly says that it does not apply to citizens living in their own Member State. The ECJ has got around this in the past by finding an EU law angle. So in Surinder Sigh, a non-EU national married a British citizen, and they then moved to Germany to live and work there until they moved back to the UK. When they moved back, his wife wanted to divorce him, and the UK tried to deport him before they were divorced. The ECJ said that it would render the right to move and work in other Member States unattractive if the spouses of citizens could be deported when they came back - however, once the divorce is final, then third country nationals no longer enjoy the rights of a spouse of an EU citizen.

In the Zambrano case there was no movement, but the ECJ may be protecting the potential exercise of EU rights by the children citizens. It's done this before in Rottmann, where an Austrian citizen living in Germany lost his citizenship of Austria when he gained German citizenship. The problem was that he hadn't disclosed all the necessary information on his application for German citizenship, and the German authorities decided to remove German citizenship from him - which would have left Janko Rottmann stateless. The ECJ stepped in and said that it was up to the Member States to decide when citizenship was granted, but they re prevented by EU law from unilaterally withdrawing it (and therefore Rottmann's German citizenship in this case) were it would result in a citizen not being able to exercise any of his or her rights. So a citizen could rely on their EU citizenship to protect thagainst their own Member State if they would be deprived of all potential future use of those rights.

The problem with the "Back to the Future Citizenship" is that it's messy and unclear when someone is covered and when they're not. Under UK law if a British national marries a third country national and wants to bring them home to the UK, and they haven't used their EU free movement rights, then they have to pay to get them into the country. So other EU nationals and British nationals who have used their free movement rights have preferential treatment over British nationals who never used their free movement rights. It is unlikely that, under the Back to the Future model, that that British citizen could claim that they wouldn't be able to use their EU rights effectively in the future if their spouse couldn't join them in the UK, so they wouldn't be covered by EU citizenship law.


Civis Europeus Sum - I am a European Citizen

While the Citizen's Directive doesn't apply to EU citizens living in their own country, the Treaty articles on citizenship and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality (Articles 18 & 20 TFEU) are, in legal jargon, "directly effective". This means people can rely on them without extra laws being passed by the EU or Member States.

Article 20 TFEU gives EU citizens the right to "move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States". The second method is perhaps an example of law being almost laughably technical, because it depends on how that "and" is interpreted. If you have to both move and reside, then you have to use free movement rights and the Back to the Future model applies. If you have 2 separate rights - to move and to reside - then citizens living in their own Member State would have a right to reside there under both their national citizenship, and their European citizenship. Then the non-discrimination clause would mean that they could not be "reverse discriminated" against by their own Member State!

This is the method proposed by British Advocate-General Eleanor Sharpston in her Opinion on the case. It would mean that just by living in the EU - anywhere in the EU - a citizen would be under the same protection as other EU citizens, and rights would not be dependent on complicated legal reasoning.


What was the Court thinking?

You can't really tell which of these the Court supported in it judgment, but it still wanted to help the Zambranos. It's not good enough, however for a Court to be so unclear about what the law is. As the Court cannot give the separate reasonings of the different judges, but only a single court judgment, there may have been a compromise to fudge the issue and not take Sharpston's more radical proposal.

However, I don't want to leave you with the impression that it's only the ECJ that influences the development of EU citizenship. The only reason a Belgian court asked the ECJ in the first place is that the Belgian constitutional court had held that reverse discrimination was not permitted, setting how EU law should work in the area into doubt.

Zambrano was a big step for EU citizenship, but it will be a long time before we know what it really means.

We, the Citizens, suggest...

Recently I had to write a short paper on the Citizens' Initiative (specifically, the admissibility procedures under the Commission's proposed regulation [PDF]). The EP is still considering the proposal, and a rapporteur's report is expected in November. Still, the main points that are emerging from the Parliament are: to set 16 as the minimum age for signing a CI; dropping the ID requirement for signatories; requiring that significant numbers of signatures come from 1/4 rather than 1/3 of Member States; and increasing the time-limit for collecting 1 million signatures by 6 months to 18 months.

A lot of these ideas seem to have already been suggested by the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, but the Couoncil has only sggested lowering the number of signatures that need to be collected before the Commission checks CIs for admissibility from 300,000 to 100,000. The European Parliament needs not just a consensus, but a coherent and well-argued consensus to be able to change the proposal for the better.

There are 2 big issues with the current proposal: one is simply the ease of use of the CI for citizens, and the second is the balance between the aims of ease of use and the encouragement of transnational debates.

Encouraging transnational debates is a challenge because the wider you want the debate to be, the harder it is for people to use the CI successfully. The proposal of 1/4 rather than 1/3 of Member States being the threshold number would make it easier for citizens to use the CI. But 7 rather than 9 Member States isn't a big step down. In my view, since the Commission isn't bound to act on CI proposals, it's important to make the CI as accessable as possible. In a EU of 27, 1/5 or 5 Member States is probably as low as you can go and still remain credibly within the meaning of a "significant number of Member States" (a requirement in article 11(4) TEU), but it would help promote a greater quantity of political interactions across borders, and this would give the CI greater social value. It could be argued that this would lessen the political power of the CI, but a good idea is a good idea - even if it's controversal, it is better that it is discussed transnationally and that it's brought to the attention of the institutions than not being expressed.

Ease of use is pretty straight forward. Under the current proposal, the Commission checks a proposed CI twice for admissibility - once at the point of registration (article 4), and then again with the explicit admissibility check after 300,000 signatures have been collected (article 8). Clearly people would be frustrated to reach 300,000 signatures in a transnational campaign only to find out that the Commission won't consider their proposal, but the checks under article 4 are very poorly framed, and seem to give the Commission an ill-defined discretion to reject some submissions at the start of the process because they are abusive or devoid of seriousness or manifestly against the principles of the EU. Finding out the limits by trial-and-error (or even court challenge) is not a mark of good legislation. (I also doubt the need for separate check on the principles and rights of the EU - since Treaty changes are excluded, and the institutions are bound to act in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I would imagine contrary submissions to be excluded under the article 8 check anyway).*

The Parliament's working document (PDF) mentions a threshold of 5,000 signatures before doing an admissibility check - a massive difference to the Commission's and Council's proposals. Along with the end to the ID requirement, this would make launching a CI much more attractive to citizens. The EP needs to clearly articulate the cause of transnational debate, and amend the legislation to enable this through clear criteria and conditions, and easy and practical requirements.

Although, if we;re not happy with the end result, I suppose we could try and launch a Citizens' Initiative to change it...



*[As a thought on a possible legal impact of the CI and the admissibility criteria: could actions against admissibility decisions become a more direct way of citizens challenging the extent of the EU's competences than via direct effect before a national court? Or at least an invitation for the court to rule on pseudo-hypothetical cases, should complaints get that far? Although it couldn't result in the challenge of existing legislation, the number of people with potential for actions against negative admissibility decisions could lead to an increase in opinions and cases on EU competences. This just occured to me, however, so it's not a fully thought out idea.].

The Commission bravely missed a good opportunity to stay quiet

"This is not how you speak to a major power like France," said France's junior EU minister, echoing Chirac's comments on the support of some eastern European member states for the Iraq War: "It is not really responsible behavior. It is not well brought-up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

It was a response to yesterday's strong position taken by Commissioner Reding on the treatment - the mass deportations - of the Roma in France:

"My patience is wearing thin. Enough is enough," Ms Reding said, while pounding her fist on the pulpit.

France will be taken to court by the Commission for breaching EU law, which does not permit mass explusions based on ethnicity, which seems to be have been explicit French policy according to a French memo on the policy. Though the explusions were taking place too quickly for a case-by-case approach (which would have been permitted), French officials had been reassuring the Commission that they would deport people on a case-by-case basis. This deception by French officials empowered to discuss the matter in Brussels has upset Reding too.

I'm glad the Commission is finally taking a strong, outspoken stance on the issue. Reding had made an earlier statement, but this goes much further and has rightly attracted more attention, and is a welcome counter to attempts to make the explusions respectable by Europeanising the issue.

France's response highlights the government's view on Europe: as a place where a privillaged few major powers are treated differently to the smaller member states. This is a destructive attitude for the EU, since it erodes the confidence of small states and of citizens in the Commission when this vision is played out. When Paris feels that it can issue a lettres de cachet and not be effected by the rule of law, it naturally strikes at the heart of a system backed up only by the rule of law. It is easy for the Commission to become trapped between the big states and to play down its voice when they verge on breaking the law, so it's great to see the Commission bravely miss an opportunity to remain quiet.

You can watch Reding's statement here.

Europe: Speak up on Rights and Citizenship!

It's been disturbing over the last week or so to read about the state of politics in Europe when it comes to the Roma community and immigration. There's a great post over at 1848 that picks up on a Guardian story of the treatment of the Roma across the EU, and it's hard to understand at a basic level why the EU institutions or politicans don't speak out strongly against this. What happened to European values and our supposed pride in human rights standards? Is it to do with the East-West power balance in the EU - i.e. it's ok to speak out against Eastern member states on gay rights issues, but western member states prejudices are ok?

So I'm writing an open letter to Commission President Barroso, Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Commissioner Viviane Reding and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy to urge them to speak out more on these issues, and explaining why I think these matters are not just "national issues", but issues that are vital to how we view ourselves, and the kind of Europe we want to live in today. I don't know if it would have any effect whatsoever, but as I've written before against political apathy, I think I should at least say something.

In the past few days I have read and heard about political moves against the Roma community in several member states (see the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/30/european-union-roma-human-rights) as well as debate in France regarding stripping people of citizenship or rights as being a possible feature of the criminal justice system. Expulsion and the loss of citizen rights is a horrifying prospect and shows that we need to remain vigilant so that European political discourse does not slide back into the politics of exclusionism and the scapegoating of minorities. The criminal justice system is meant to deal with law-breaking and law-breakers through fair process based on the equality of citizens before the law. Attempts to set individuals or groups outside the normal processes - to label them as "other" or "non-citizens" - is contrary to the European values and the rights we claim to uphold. Therefore it has been very disappointing that there have been no strong voices from the EU institutions on this matter.

Obviously in each case the legal and social circumstances are different, but the same values and rights are at stake. Will the EU closely monitor each case to prevent any breach of rights (e.g. of free movement) under EU law? In cases where EU law is directly involved there is a natural role for the EU institutions in speaking out against discrimination and rule-breaking. However, I would urge you to take a political lead in defending European values. Even though cases may involve national law and politics, these issues are of such gravity that they touch on the ideas of what kind of Europe we want to live in. The European Union, in its current and past forms, was founded to help Europe and her nations cement values of equality and tolerance as well as working to break down barriers to help make this continent prosperous.

The importance of rights and values in the EU can be seen from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, plans for the EU to join the European Convention on Human Rights, and in Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides for the suspension of certain rights of a member state which breaks these standards. Therefore I believe that there is a place for political debate and leadership at a European level on these issues. How will the EU help strengthen citizenship and human rights in Europe, and how will the EU help protect minorities and protect the right of free movement? It may be more difficult and politically sensitive to speak out on these issues at home than abroad, but I believe it to be a vital part of the debate, and I urge you to take a public part in these debates.

Yours sincerely,

Conor Slowey.

NOTE: It turns out that my email didn't send properly to Reding and Barroso. I'll try again later/tomorrow (internet hasn't been working well lately).

UPDATE: I've sent it to Viviane Reding, but the website still refuses to send it to Barroso.

UPDATE: I've been slow to do this (because I've just moved house), but I've sent the email as a letter to Barroso. Better late than never! (23/8/2010)

My Europe Day

My Europe Week has opened up a blog carnival for ideas, thoughts and opinions on Europe, to get a sense of what people hope, want and expect for the future of 500 million people - and counting. Over the last week it's been open to bloggers and non-bloggers alike, and I'd encourage everyone to make a contribution if you can and submit it.





What I'm celebrating

Europe Day should be a celebration, if nothing else! Europe is more to me than the politics that this blog deals with - through language learning (well, attempted language learning!), blogging, traveling and debating, I've met many great people both at home and across the continent, and I've had many brilliant experiences that I otherwise wouldn't have had. Like Julien Frisch, trains and railways symbolise Europe a lot to me. Standing in a train station in Germany, I feel the freedom of being able to travel to practically anywhere on the continent, across several countries and cultures.

It's that feeling of freedom and possibility, along with all the people I've met that makes me so enthusiastic and passionate about Europe, and I'll be celebrating all of this today.


What I want

The flip side of Europe Week is what you want from Europe, and where you think Europe should go.

When politicians speak of Europe, they always seem to talk about the past - and they shouldn't. Speeches on Europe tend to focus on absence, and what isn't: Europe means that there's no war on the continent, etc. While this is obviously something to cherish and celebrate, what I want to see is a more positive vision of Europe, and the leadership to back it up. Lately environmentalism and fighting climate change became Europe's more positive crusade, but there needs to be a vision and a greater level of citizen involvement to make the European project more relevant to people today.

The Europe I want should be about citizen empowerment. Brussels is bureaucratic and distant, but its politics need to be opened up and people need to be drawn in. There's nothing new in saying this; most people in the Euroblogosphere want more interaction and better communication. But empowerment and participation could be part of an engaging vision and renewing narrative for Europe. If the member states are in the EU because they are stronger together than apart, the political parties at a European level need to start communicating and engaging with the public on what "Europe" can do for them. National governments may not be able to tackle these problems alone, but citizens should be empowered to debate the solutions and engage in solving the problems facing Europe today. It's a simple thing to say, but obviously be an arduous task to undertake. But I think it's the only way Europe can become relevant and closer to its citizens.

This requires the Europarties to get their acts together. In the last election, voters rewarded parties to had a relevant message for the European stage - for example, UKIP in the UK and the Greens in France. Explaining challenges, providing solutions, communicating with voters; all these things will pay off in elections, even though the Europarties seem resigned to dependency on national politics providing them with lucky electoral windfalls. So parties need to become more structured in their engagement with the national media and on the internet. Parties should pick MEPs as their spokesperson(s) in a member state, build up relationships with the main broadcasters and newspapers, and be ready to supply talking heads when European issues arise. Having party faces and connections available will help the news media report on European issues: party-point-of-view makes occasional mentions more interesting, detailed and involving, and familiarity with MEPs will open up the EU system to journalists more.

I'm likely to be disappointed in this, but I believe that Europe needs active leaders in Parliament, and Council, and active citizens in NGOs, locally and online to add to the debate and vision so citizenship can be enriched and Europe can move forward. There has recently been indication that electoral reform will be on the European Parliament's agenda. Let's hope that MEPs will be bolder and braver in engaging with the public. 60 years on from the Schuman Declaration, Europe needs a citizen-centred vision that can deliver for citizens and involve them in building a pan-continental future.



Happy Europe Day from The European Citizen blog!

Citizen's Initiative Proposal

The Commission has produced proposals on how the Citizen’s Initiative, the ability of EU citizens to petition the Commission to make legislative proposals in an area, will function. The legislation would have to be passed by the Council and Parliament before becoming law, but the main points of the proposal are:

- minimum age for signees is the same as that for European elections,
- the 1 million signatures must come from at least 9 of the member states,
- there will be a threshold for each member state that must be reached for it to count,
- after 300,000 signatures have been collected from 3 member states, the Commission can be asked to say whether or not it would be admissible should it reach 1 million signatures,
- not only can petitions be rejected on the grounds of being outside the Commission’s area of competence, but also if they are judged to be frivolous, abusive or against European values (which seem to be judged against the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the values set out in the TEU),
- online petitions must be in a format approved of by the member state(s) concerned,
- organisers will have to be able to prove that they are not lobbyists.

The proposals set a high bar for the Citizen’s Initiative, and the intentions behind this seem to be: (1) to cut off time wasting petitions quickly/limit the amount of petitions the Commission may have to review; (2) create as wide a member-state basis to the petitions as possible; (3) (possibly) give a boost to the role of the European parties, since a petition on such a scale would probably need a level of organisation that the Europarties would be better placed than most to provide.

Rose over at A Bit More Complicated has raised the issues of ID cards and the worries over ID theft for UK & Irish citizens, and the complexity and validity of the member state threshold.

I can understand the member state threshold to a degree – it would be strange if you could say you’d support in a member state just because 1 citizen from that state signed your petition. However, I think that the proposed rules are too strict in this area, and forms too much of a barrier for citizens who might want to use the C.I. While it should be the role of the Europarties and NGOs to organise petitions and deal with the bureaucracy, would it really happen that often? And want does that say about true citizen involvement if organisations need to fill the gap in most cases? The C.I. could be in danger of being used so infrequently that it won’t contribute to bringing citizens closer to the EU.

So what could be done instead? Citizens should be freer under the petition system from member state-based restrictions than in the EP and in the EU institutions generally, since it’s supposed to be a more direct form of interaction with the EU. A lower threshold of member states – or at least lower member state thresholds – would go towards fixing this, but I think that it shouldn’t matter if the petitioners are geographically concentrated. Perhaps if the relevant EP committee in the policy area could review a petition to say whether it would support legislation in this area or not would act to balance it out – after all, if there’s nowhere near a majority in Parliament for the possibility of a proposal, it won’t pass (some level of threshold of member states would remain logical, however).

Finally, it seems strange with all these hoops to jump through, that when a petition is accepted, and the Commission says that it will produce a proposal based on it, there’s no time limit for the Commission to do that:

“Once a citizens' initiative has been registered, the commission has to say whether or not it is going to propose legislation in the area within four months. But, critically, there is no time constraint on when the commission actually then produces a draft law.”

Hopefully this will be changed. Given that the Commission would have committed to producing a proposal, it should have to come up with one within a reasonable time, or have to give good reasons for delays.

Now Lisbon's in force, Parliament has nowhere to hide

1st December 2009, and the Lisbon Treaty is in force (well, it has amended the two treaties that make up the constitution of the EU, anyway). It's biggest innovations were the extension of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council and the increase of Parliamentary power - the two are pretty much in step. The European Parliament wasn't powerless before, but now it is virtually an equal to the Council, except in areas of unanimity, such as foreign affairs.

So now there's nowhere for Parliament to hide - it has to prove that it's deserving of these powers; that it's willing to go further in holding the to account, in staking out it's own position more clearly from the Commission and Council, and it must go further in transparency - both from itself, and from the Council and Commission. The Commission President's Question Time needs to become more focused as well: now MEPs have more power, they should prove themselves able to get a good handle on the different issues and ask the awkward questions - this doesn't mean ranting on about political points (I'm looking at you, Martin Schulz), but digging around and making sure you put Barroso and other Commissioners on the spot to open up the Commission to real scrutiny.

The hearing of the Commissioners in the run up to the vote in January must be rigorous, revealing, and truly testing for the Commissioners-designate. In particular, Baroness Ashton's positions on Iran, Russia, the Middle East peace process, energy policy, the Eastern Partnership, etc. must be made clear. Likewise, Oettinger needs to be pushed on how he wants to see the EU's energy policy develop; it's an important portfolio, and one that the Commission has proven quick to move on in Barroso I, with important energy market reforms and the implications of climate change politics - is Oettinger up to the job? The Parliament needs to be willing to reject the Commission if it doesn't correspond to its political views; it shouldn't just rely on there being someone who can be easily recognised as objectionable even through a lazy media glance - a list of good policy reasons should be enough. There doesn't need to be a rejection of the Commission just to ritually assert the Parliament's position, but they should make sure the opportunity to shape it doesn't pass them by.

Finally, and as a greater task, all the parties in the Parliament should work to make their mark outside the Brussels Bubble in the public's minds. Better Parliamentary debates help, and will hopefully entice the media to report on them more, but the parties need to make their presence felt more in the mainstream media and at grassroots level. The Citizen's Initiative could be an excellent way of doing this if done right: a campaign for a certain policy for the media to report on, co-operation across borders with common campaigns, engaging people in European politics ("We need your support! This is what we're trying to do for you in Parliament and the EU!") and it builds up at least some recognition of the Euro-parties (or at least the position of the national parties on European issues, which will be helpful in any case come election time).

The Citizen's Initiative requires 1 million signatures across borders, and the Euro-Parties are supposed to help express cross-border political debate. The link and the logic should be obvious, and the party to latch on to it and to runs campaigns well - and follow them up in Parliament effectively - would be laying good groundwork for the 2014 elections.

Now that Lisbon's in force, we deserve a better working Parliament - more transparency, scrutiny and engagement. There are no more excuses for not trying.