Elmar BROK, President of the Union of European Federalists, declared that the "Top Candidate Process" is already provided in the Treaty of Lisbon. The Treaty clearly states and makes mandatory that the European Parliament elects the president of the European Commission. The European Council is only entitled to propose a candidate, based on the European elections and after consulting the European Parliament. Therefore, it would infringe EU primary law if the European Council and the EU Member States frustrate this important process.
Brok stated that "the European political families are called upon to name their top candidates by the end of 2018. There have to be election campaigns of these top candidates in every EU Member State, so EU citizens are aware that they are voting for the next President of the European Commission. By involving them in the nomination of the next president, the election turnout will increase."
Today President Juncker has unveiled his proposals for EU institutional reforms feeding into the discussion expected to take place at the informal EU-27 meeting in Brussels on 23 February.
Dear Members of the European Parliament,
Next Wednesday you are called to vote on a resolution on the composition of the European Parliament. It includes provisions for the setup of a European constituency where members of the European Parliament could be elected on transnational lists. We believe this would be an important step to increase the European dimension of the European election, strengthen the European political parties and public debate, and give European citizens an additional tool to engage in European politics. We encourage you to vote in favor of the proposal and reject any amendment against the European constituency.
On the occasion, we would like to react to the puzzling arguments that some members of the EPP group have put forward against the ideas of transnational lists and European (joint) constituency in a video last week [31 January 2018]. See our answers below. You can also read our latest publication explaining how transnational lists are good for European democracy.
OUR ANSWERS TO THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUENCY
1. Such constituency would bypass the current link between the Members and their electorate. Therefore building up on a more distant and centralized Union, rather than a more democratic and accountable one.
This is not correct. The current link between MEPs elected in the national or local constituencies and their electorates would not change at all, as the current constituencies would not be affected by the creation of a European one and the election of additional MEPs. European citizens will continue to elect the same number of Members of the European Parliament in their national (or local) constituencies, like they have always done. Transnational lists ADD a further tool to European democracy and create an additional link between the local and the European level: by casting a SECOND vote for candidates presented on a transnational list, European citizens will double up their say on European political choices, without losing in any possible way their locally-based representation in the European Parliament. It will make Europe closer to its citizens, not more distant, more understandable, democratic and accountable, not less.
2. The transnational list would be perceived as a drift to centralism.
Just the opposite. National representation will continue to be the rule as the size of the pan-European constituency would be a very small fraction of the total size of national (/local) constituencies. It’s more likely that the transnational lists will be perceived as a further tool for citizens to better influence European choices and better participate in the European political system.
3. The list would most probably be utilized by populist movements that would then get further visibility and capitalize on extremist views around Europe.
Populists will be the losers. Populist movements are trapped in their nationalism and prosper on pretending to defend national interests against other national electorates. They would be divided and unable to play a role in transnational lists in a EU-wide constituency. Populist movements will be fought off by using the right arguments and political values, not by halving the voting possibilities of European citizens.
4. Transnational lists do not promote democracy; indeed they subvert its logic to an elitist top-down approach.
Come on! How can the right to choose additional members of the European Parliament reduce European democracy? It will enhance European democracy. It will help transforming the European elections from a patchwork of national elections, focused often on national issues, into a more European election, with clearer European choices and issues presented to European citizens. European political parties could very well choose the method they repute the best to compile their own transnational list. If that is behind closed doors rather than involving their national and/or individual members, that is up to them to decide.
5. Collecting protest votes all over Europe, populists could end up choosing the next candidate to president of the European Commission in the next legislature.
Impossible. The members of the European Parliament elected on transnational lists would likely reflect the same proportion of the political parties as in the national lists. Their limited number would not change the balance of power in the European Parliament when deciding the choice of the president of the European Commission. Nationalist parties will be the losers of such a system, because they will neutralize each other, each prisoner of their own nationalism, unable to be real political forces.
6. A European constituency (whose existence is yet far from being agreed upon) would expand the already existing gap between smaller and larger Member States.
Why should it? In a European constituency there is no small or large Member State, there are only European citizens and their representatives.
7. It would launch a debate on the status of the Members of this house, whether elected through national or transnational lists.
This is not correct. All the MEPs have the same rights and duties, regardless from their constituency. They are set out in the Treaties and in the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. Despite MEPs elected in bigger Member States currently represent more people than MEPs elected in smaller ones, there is no distinction in the status of the former and the latter MEPs within the European Parliament. The introduction of a European constituency would not alter this. Moreover, in many states inside and beyond Europe, members of national parliaments are elected in overlapping constituencies with different sizes, without this entailing any difference in the status of elected MPs.
8. Besides, in the absence of a European constituency, it is hard to know to which citizens these putative transnational list MEPs would be accountable.
Incomprehensible. Art. 14(2) TEU is quite clear: “The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union’s citizens”. Should any doubt remain on this issue, recalling that MEPs elected on European lists are voted by European citizens should be enough.
9. At the end of the day, a possible transnational list cannot be adopted without the necessary legal basis, which is currently not provided neither in the Treaties nor in EU Electoral Law.
It’s time to fix this! The Treaties provide sufficient legal basis for the competent institutions (European Parliament, European Council and Council of the EU) to make the necessary decisions to both set up the European constituency and agree an electoral law which includes transnational lists.
10. Not even the most successfully integrated federations, such as the United States, Switzerland and Germany, have a single national constituency.
This is a misleading comparison. The EU-wide constituency would not be the only constituency, just an additional one, side by side with national constituencies. Existing federations have other systems to ensure a direct link between the citizens and the federal level, which the EU doesn’t have yet. The transnational lists would be one of the many elements of novelty of the EU as a political system that wants to find the best balance between the national and European levels.
European citizens count on your support for a better European democracy.
Best regards,
European Federalists
Current conditions are ideal to push the EU towards becoming a European federal state, according to one of the vice-presidents of the European Parliament, Rainer Wieland. EURACTIV Germany reports.
Rainer Wieland (European People’s Party, EPP) is vice-president of the European Parliament and president of the Union of European Federalists Germany. He spoke to EURACTIV Germany’s Steffen Stiehle.
As president of the Union of European Federalists you want to develop the EU towards a European federal state. Is this goal closer after the German elections, or will a deepening of EU integration be more difficult with the so-called Jamaica coalition (Christian Democrats, Liberals, and Greens)?
During the election campaign, there was an odd mixture: we probably had the most European election of all time. This, however, was not really visible. There should have been more talks about Europe. On the other hand, everyone agrees that the dominant issues, such as internal security, the fight against terrorism or migration policy cannot be dealt with without “more Europe”.
Europe was therefore always present, albeit rather hidden. I believe this will come to light again. With the SPD we will have an opposition which will be more willing to extend EU integration. And we will have a fundamentally pro-European government, which certainly will have some tough nuts to crack and compromises to reach. This is going to be difficult. However, I believe that in terms of key European issues good agreement will be made, and this said, these issues can be addressed with the necessary seriousness.
Essentially, through initiatives from France, there is an ideal basis for a deepening EU integration. We must use this window of opportunity.
The FDP has very clearly positioned itself on key EU issues in the run-up to the elections. Christian Lindner, its party leader, would rather see Greece outside the monetary union. Could a step like this contribute to stabilisation, or would disintegration of the eurozone be a step backwards?
This is certainly a crucial point, on which the coalition negotiations will not be easy. But I am convinced that a common line will be found. A part of this line will be to hold on to the previous stance, that support for Greece should be continued and the country kept in the eurozone, if the Greeks continue to work hard – even if for some the reforms are not going fast enough
Together with the FDP and the CSU, it will not be easy to agree on financial transfers that offset unequal trade balances. Do you think a permanent stabilisation of the eurozone could be possible without such transfers?
The key lies in the phrase “solidarity against reliable solidity”. Here in Germany, it also had been a long road until we found a solution for handling regions with different levels of development. At European level, this is no different. We must accept that there are member states which will still not be rich in the medium-term, but that at the same time there are also things we as Europeans want to achieve together.
For example, Portugal will not be able to secure the external borders alone in the extent that we all want it to be. Or take environmental policy: Not all countries will be able to implement the third stage of cleaning in sewage treatment plants alone. These are costly tasks, in which the weaker members, for the sake of common interest, must be supported. Just as structurally weak municipalities in Baden-Wuerttemberg in certain areas are supported by the state, in order to achieve the common goals.
This is a matter that people support when it is well explained and reasonably implemented. What people do not want is that money is invested in other countries that are just partying on.
Shortly after the German election, French President Macron presented his plans for deepening European integration. He focused on the demand for a eurozone budget and finance minister. From your point of view, could those steps point towards a European federal state, or might such a focus on the monetary union itself rather lead to a division, because EU countries without the euro are left behind?
It is a good thing that there are impulses coming out of France. Germany now must examine the proposals so that we can find the way to go forward together. In the end, Macron’s proposals will lead to further integration. This is positive.
However, I also believe that the time of big headlines is over. We have done ourselves absolutely no favour in slaving away on combat terms like ‘Eurobonds’ or ‘Euro-Parliament’, which only lead to superficial satisfaction or reflexive rejection. In the end, it depends on the content.
A Commissioner for budget does not have to be called finance minister. It depends on his competences. If such a Commissioner for budget, for example, had his own resources from the value-added tax, we could spare ourselves the big, constantly recurring wrangling over the multiannual financial framework. The FDP could certainly be won over for collaboration.
Jean-Claude Juncker would argue that more budgetary competence could be reasonable at European level, but that this should also be located in the other EU institutions rather than creating an additional policy framework at the level of the monetary union.
I feel the same way. If we further differentiate inside Europe, this must not lead to a differentiation of the formats. Decisions on the Schengen area are also taken in the European Parliament without anybody calling for a Schengen parliament. There are several examples of topics that are settled in the EP although not all member states are involved.
It is good that individual countries are able to go forward on important issues. But a multi-speed Europe must not be a Europe of different formats. As for today, most citizens do not know the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe anymore. This should not be made even more complicated.
It is a different thing when the Parliament finds internal regulations, such as the Brexit Committee, which does not have British representatives. Or during talks about the Unitary Patent, where Spaniards and Italians are not on either side of the table. This can also be done with questions concerning the monetary union.
Besides deepening the monetary union, the creation of a defence union is another major issue. How far would you go? Would a European army make sense?
It is precisely here that the window of opportunity I mentioned, opened by France, is very valuable because France has the longest way to go.
A decision like the one made by President Hollande during the Mali intervention could not possibly be done by most heads of state and government, not by a German Chancellor either, as we have a parliamentary army. Germany, because of its state organisation, would give away less of its sovereignty here than France. It is therefore a question for France.
But since we also have neutral states inside EU, this is a difficult field. Countries such as Austria or Sweden would have had some difficulties with accession to the EU, if the defence union had already existed at that time. Here again, we need a multi-speed Europe. I am not a defence expert, but I believe that Eurocorps is the ideal approach for deepening European cooperation in this area and building a pillar that supports NATO but also has its own autonomous beam and stability.
Concluding on migration policy: Didn’t the EU member states prove they are totally unable to respond to common challenges with a common European interest?
Well, it is similar to the debt crisis. At the core, we are dealing with a crisis at the national level, not with a European crisis. For me, it is sometimes hard to bear to what extent the refugee crisis is presented as a failure of Europe itself.
The question is, to what extent there is the strength to work out a common European policy here. It does not help to insult each other. It is quite normal that the member states need a certain time to develop their attitude. The Commission has now started infringement proceedings and I am convinced that in the end all countries will respect the European agreements. In the past, Germany also sometimes only reacted after infringement proceedings.
Then there will be the question, in the example concerning external borders, of further contingents or the harmonisation of recognition standards, if there is going to be strength for more coordinated action. There will be transitions to more shared sovereignty. With this topic, there are a lot of screws to adjust. Unfortunately, we have done too little in the past. Now it will take time to find good common solutions.
Mr. Manfred Weber, MEP and Chairman of the EPP Group in the European Parliament opened the annual European Federalists’ Summer Reception 2017
“There is a new atmosphere in the European Union, with the believe that Europe is the future of this continent” affirmed Mr. Manfred Weber, MEP and Chairman of the EPP Group in the European Parliament opening the annual European Federalists’ Summer Reception which took place on 5th September in Brussels, gathering hundreds of participants supporting federalism in Europe.
Despite this positive feeling about further European integration, reinforced by the results in national elections in Austria, the Netherlands and France, Mr Weber insisted “it is too early to say that populists are defeated”. “It is foreseen that about 20% of Germans will vote on their national elections for extremist options”, said the conservative leader, before encouraging citizens to take the next European elections in 2019 seriously.
As a key element to motivate citizens he advised all European institutions to “deliver” and highlight the benefits provided by the European Union to European citizens’ daily lives. “If you want to convince people, you must do it through your job, citizens must feel we are working in their interest”.
Mr Weber briefly commented at the end of his speech on some common challenges: Brexit, the protection of rule of law in Poland and the future of Europe. Mr Weber shared his concerns regarding ongoing Brexit talks: if we go to the European elections in 2019 and we are in a transitional period, people across the European Union will feel that leaving the EU would have no consequence”.
Mr Weber recognized the challenges arising from the current Polish situation but praised the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of citizens against the reform of the country’s judiciary propelled by the PiS-led government’s as a positive sign. He was also optimistic about discussions regarding the Economic and Monetary Union. Mr Weber welcomed recent French proposals and celebrated the positive feedback from German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to work together towards the development of a security umbrella for all Europeans.
The Union of European Federalists welcomes President Macron’s proposals and calls on other EU Member States to support them
In an interview with the newspaper Ouest France published on 13 July 2017, the President of the French Republic acknowledges that current European Union Treaties need to be changed “because this Europe is incomplete. The point is not whether treaty change will be necessary, but when and how”.
During the interview, he outlines his vision of the future of Europe.
To strengthen the Eurozone, President Emmanuel Macron proposes “a budget, a government that determines the allocation of that budget and a democratic control which currently does not exist”. On building a genuine European Defense, President Emmanuel Macron reaffirms his will to make progress, particularly “as regards expenditure, capabilities and external missions”.
The Union of European Federalists welcomes his proposals, which are in line with resolutions the European Parliament recently adopted.
Elmar Brok, President of the Union of European Federalists and Member of the European Parliament stated: “It is crucial for France and Germany to take the initiative and lead the Union out of its current impasse, putting forward joint ambitious proposals on the EU reform, particularly on the Eurozone and on European Defense. After the German elections, measures to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union should be implemented urgently and then a roadmap for changing the Treaties should be discussed. This process can’t be limited to Member States, it requires a dialogue with the European Parliament and the European Commission and public debates in Member States”.
EDITOR’S NOTE:
The Union of European Federalists (UEF), is a supranational political movement dedicated to uniting Europe along federal lines. The UEF consists of 25 member organisations across Europe that are autonomous centres of the UEF activities, reaching out to EU citizens and spreading the federalists' message to them by organizing various activities in their countries.
PRESS CONTACT:
+32 (0) 2 508 3030
Today the European Union has been awarded the Princess of Asturia Prize for its contribution to concord and peace in Europe and throughout the world. The European Federalists have been vocal supporters of the award.
Elmar Brok MEP, President of the Union of European Federalists, has endorsed the nomination of the European Union for the Princess of Asturias Award for its innovative contribution to European peace and its global role. Other key supporters of the European Union’s nominations were the Spanish Members of the European Parliament Enrique Calvet Chambon and Jonás Fernández, both members of the Union of European Federalists organisation in Spain.
While this Prize represents a recognition of the European Union’s past achievements, it’s also and above all a reminder of its not yet fully realized promises of unity, democracy and promotion of peace and stability around the globe. The European Union will be able to fully achieve these goals only if it completes its political union towards a true federation.
By Sarantis Michalopoulos | Link
Thousands of EU citizens gathered today (25 March) in Rome to celebrate but also deliver a wake-up call to their leaders to improve policies and address the rise of nationalism across Europe. euractiv.com reports from Rome.
EU citizens travelled from all over Europe to Italy’s capital to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
Concerned about the growing popularity of extreme-right parties, activists gathered in Italy to send a clear message that there should be no way back to nationalism.
Remarkably, many young people from all the corners of Europe attended the march, holding EU, federalist, and even, UK flags.
March for Europe movement [Sarantis Michalopoulos]
In favour of Europe, not the EU
Guy Verhofstadt, chairman of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, noted that more than declarations, we need action to move forward.
“Contrary to what people think, the majority of the citizens are in favour of Europe. They are not in favour of the EU of today,” the liberal politician said.
“Criticism has gained ground, there is a reason for this criticism,” said Verhofstadt, who was recently strongly criticised when he attempted to form an alliance with Beppe Grillo’s populist 5 Star Movement.
European People’s Party (EPP) MEP Elmar Brok gave a speech attacking nationalist parties across Europe.
“The Le Pens and Wilders want to tell us that Europe should be destroyed and we should return nationalism. Nationalism has always meant war […] we should say no to any dictatorship again,” Merkel’s ally said, accusing the nationalists of lacking a plan for the future.
“Europe has to be better in competitiveness and social balance,” the German center-right politician noted, adding that US President Donald Trump should avoid trying to hold individual negotiations with the EU member states.
“Mr Trump, Europe will stick together,” Brok said.
French activist: “The main reason that I am here today is for my children.” [Sarantis Michalopoulos]
Gianni Pittella, the Socialists & Democrats (S&D) chief in the European Parliament, stressed that the social model should take center stage in the future of the EU and added that the next President of the European Commission should be directly by the EU citizens.
“Without a Social Europe, the EU project will hit against a wall. We need the United States of Europe!” the Italian politician noted.
Citizens fed up with nationalists
Jessica Chambat, a French pro-EU activist, expressed her concerns over the rise of nationalism.
“The main reason that I am here today is for my children. I would like them to live in a united Europe and I am afraid of the movement that is going on, which aims to put up borders, to divide, to convince us that solidarity has to stop,” she said, adding that coming back to nationalism is a terrifying scenario.
Chambat stressed, though, that the EU had the chance to develop in prosperity but this prosperity created more inequalities among people.
“Solidarity, equality and the social agenda should return to the EU project,” the French activist said.
Vice-President of Young European Federalists (JEF) Ophélie Omnes travelled to Rome from Paris. She told EURACTIV that the pro-EU movement was still alive but “this Europe has to change”.
“The 60 years is something we can be proud of but it’s not enough. These are troubled times and the EU has to make the right choices to move on,” the federalist activist noted, stressing that Brussels should start getting out of the its “bubble”.
In the pro-EU demonstration, a Ukrainian movement was also present. This movement organises activities across Italy and protests every Sunday in favour of EU accession for Ukraine.
Ukrainian flags at the pro-EU demonstration. [Sarantis Michalopoulos]
“We are here because we feel European. We respect your values and we feel close to you,” 15-year-old Anastasia Tatarin said.
Catherine Guiburg, an activist from southern France, said that she went to Rome to fight nationalism. “We are fed up with all the lies of nationalists against the EU.”
Guiburg noted that in France, politicians from across the spectrum had done a poor job of explaining the EU and had always used it as a “scapegoat”. “They are responsible for the current situation,” she said.
Good words need putting into practice
Luca Visentini, General Secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), which organised a separate march in Rome, noted that the Rome Declaration offers some hope for the future of the EU.
“Good words on paper need to be put into practice. The test will come soon with the publication in April of proposals for the new European Pillar of Social Rights, in May with new economic policy recommendations, and later in the year at the EU Social Summit in Gothenburg,” Visentini said.
“Workers need to see concrete measures to redress the enormous damage done to living standards, and hope for the future, by the financial crisis and the disastrous years of austerity-for-some which followed,” Visentini added.