Information on the European Economic and Social Committee.

Overview

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957. 

Its main function is to serve as a bridge between Europe and organised civil society, therefore allowing for the representation of various economic and social interest groups. 

The EESC contributes to strengthening the democratic legitimacy of the EU as it is the only EU body made up of citizens and not politicians.

Scope

The EESC gives Europe’s social and economic groups a platform to express their points of view on EU issues. The main task of the EESC is to offer opinions and advise the main legislative and executive institutions of the EU; the European Parliament, The Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

In certain cases, it is mandatory procedure for the Commission or the Council to consult the EESC. Additionally, the EESC may also adopt positions on its own initiative. The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) further broadened the areas for referral to the Committee, and allows it to be consulted by the European Parliament. The Committee issues around 170 opinions annually, of which 15% are issued on its own initiative.

Make-up of the EESC

There are 353 committee members representing 28 Member States including 9 positions for Irish representatives. These members are nominated by their respective Member State governments, and then appointed by the Council. Once appointed, these representatives act independently of their national governments. They have a renewable term of office of five years.

Every two and a half years the Committee elects a President and two Vice Presidents. The current president is Henri Malosse from France and his vice-presidents are Jane Morrice and Hans Joachim Wilms from the United Kingdom and Germany respectively. The president is responsible for the orderly conduct of the Committee’s business. He is assisted by the vice-presidents, who deputize for him in the event of his absence.

The Committee is organised into six sections, each one dealing with a specific policy area.

• Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment (NAT)
• Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion (ECO)
• Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship (SOC)
• External Relations (REX)
• The Single Market, Production and Consumption (INT)
• Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society (TEN)

Furthermore members are split into general groups within the EESC depending on their foremost activities. There are 3 groups

• Employers – consisting of members coming from the private and public sectors of industry.
• Employees – representing all categories of employees. The members of this group represent national trade union organisations.
• Various Interests Group – Bringing together representatives from sectors of economic, social and civil life that are not covered by the first two groups.

As a rule, the full Committee meets in plenary session nine times a year. At the plenary sessions, opinions are adopted on the basis of section opinions by a simple majority. They are forwarded to the institutions and published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This article was originally published on the European Movement of Ireland 's "Just the Facts" web-page!

Greece's failure, Europe's shame!

After 5 years being in the media spotlight for its economic woes, the Greek drama reached finally-or hopefully- its crescendo.

Lat week on early Thursday hours, the Greek Parliament approved the new bitter austerity measures, to ensure a new bail-out package.

The decision naturally caused an outrage among the people of Greece and Europe.

Just days before the Greeks were called to vote in a referendum. Its purpose was to decide if they would accept their country's European partners' demands for further austerity, in exchange for a third bail-out.

However, the European establishment warned-or rather threatened- the Greeks, that the outcome would determine the continuation of the country's euro-zone membership. Initially the referendum was not meant to be about a YES or NO to euro membership; the Greeks have repeatedly expressed their wish to remain in Europe's single currency.

But Greece's European partners in their desperation to ensure a continuation of it's austerity program, proceeded in totally unacceptable threats. They were undermining Greece's democratic process, purely to protect their financial interests.

With the excuse that the previous governments signed for the previous bailout deals, the Troika and the Eurogroup are demanding the continuation of a program which even the IMF admitted they got wrong.

Greece's debt became unsustainable. The second and third bailouts are needed only to pay off the interests of the first, plus the damage that it did in the country's economy. Instead of a renegotiation, a partial debt relief and a new plan to kick-start an economic recovery, Greece's creditors insist on further austerity and the diminution of the Greek public's living standards.

Austerity does not help reforms in Greece. It impoverishes ordinary Greeks and helps radical parties become established. Greece needs growth stimulus in return for structural reforms. It does not need Europe's money in the form of bailouts, which end up in Greek and thus European banks. 

European investments are needed to create jobs and lift Greek people out of poverty, in combination with structural reforms and modernization of the country's economy.

So why is Europe insisting on such disastrous policy for Greece, is it perhaps because the whole European economy is in tatters? Possibly other euro-zone member states are keen on having a steady flow of cash into their economies, in the form of the interest that the Greeks pay on their loans.

The German economy for example has benefited hugely from the Greek loan repayments and as it is one of Greece's main creditors, it is also one of the main beneficiaries from the whole situation. It is no wonder that Germany's Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, has adopted such a hard-line position towards Greece, refusing a debt relief.

This is a sign that the EU has lost its original purpose. The Eurogroup, an informal body comprised by all euro-zone member states, is dominated by the "vision" of just one country's minister of finance.

In an interview in the New Statesman magazine, the former Greek Finance Minister explains how Mr Schaeuble controls the decisions taken in the Eurogroup. In addition he describes the utterly disgraceful demeanor of Greece's European partners, towards him and his government.

"It’s not that it didn’t go down well – it’s that there was point blank refusal to engage in economic arguments. Point blank. … You put forward an argument that you’ve really worked on – to make sure it’s logically coherent – and you’re just faced with blank stares. It is as if you haven’t spoken. What you say is independent of what they say. You might as well have sung the Swedish national anthem – you’d have got the same reply. And that’s startling, for somebody who’s used to academic debate. … The other side always engages. Well there was no engagement at all. It was not even annoyance, it was as if one had not spoken".

Not that Mr. Varoufakis himself or Syriza, do not have a fair share of blame; but at least he had the decency of resigning, something that Mr Schaeuble has not yet the backbone to do. Greece and the Syriza government have made huge concessions to their creditors, only to be met with irrational hostility by them, under the excuse of lack or "trust".

In reality, Syriza in in power for just 6 months. The lack of trust the Europeans are insisting on, is deriving from the previous governments that they supported and they still wish to re-establish.

Under such negative climate and scaremongering, the Greek referendum result was of course a NO. Prior the election date, there was a different rally daily.One day Greece's main cities were hosting a demonstration supporting a YES vote, the next supporting NO. Political TV spots became very common, alongside numerous televised political debates.

Never was the country so divided, since the devastating civil war. Businessmen and wealthy individuals openly supported a YES vote. Business is easier within the euro-zone and ensuring Greece's membership was a priority for the country's elites.

On the other hand, public sector employees, lower class and working middle class or pensioners were strongly supporting a NO vote. They are the least flexible and competitive groups, that are opposing change and reforms.

A major role in the defeat of a YES vote was the fact that the Greeks did not wish to return to pro-austerity governments. Many analysts believe that the voters voted NO, because they did not want the former New Democracy leader and Prime Minister, Antonis Samaras to return in power. 

A YES vote could have led to a crumbling of the SYRIZA government and a return of the New Democracy. So the fact that Mr. Samaras made the mistake not to resign as the New Democracy leader, after he lost the general elections in February, may have contributed to the referendum result.

Well that what's happens, when personal egos and ambitions are stronger than democratic legitimacy. European leaders such as Samaras or Schaeuble, do not want to admit defeat or that they made a mistake. Instead they wish to remain in power, while it is obvious that the people do not want them.

With a majority of 61%, the ΝΟ side the Greeks made it clear to Europe that they do not want any more austerity. They also made a point that with threats you do not win and that they have no place in a democracy; as Greece and Europe itself pride themselves of being. 

Despite all this, Europe ignored the result of the referendum and continued its financial strangulation of Greece and the Syriza government. 

They had the ECB turning the cash tap off for the indebted country, thus forcing Syriza to proceed to capital controls for Greece's banks, further damaging its economy. 

People could only withdraw €60 per day from ATMs. Pensioners were particularly hit as most of them do not hold bank cards. 

Cash became scarce within the Greek market. Employees could not be paid and even online orders could not be made with Greek credit cards. Companies were not able placing orders to import goods from abroad. Trade within Greece also became difficult, as nobody had enough cash to purchase necessary quantities. 

The tourism industry was severely hit, as people were afraid to spend and travel. In addition foreign visitors were cancelling their reservations in fear of becoming stranded and without cash, during the Greek tourism high season.

Is that how Europe wants to help Greece and its economy to recover? Could they at least have the decency to admit that their interests are anything but for the interests of the Greek people? European leaders want to punish Syriza or make sure that this leftist government collapses so others won't spring up across Europe. 

Yet they are missing the forest while looking for the tree. Europe and the euro, as well as the fortunes of the people of the continent cannot be hijacked by personal aspirations, ideologies and interests. 

Syriza came in power and it might soon go, but so will Chancellor Merkel or Mr. Schaeuble. Yet their current actions will have an impact on millions of Europeans for decades to come. What will be their legacy in the future generations of Europe?

USA:When the model of Western societies, fails.

For decades the United States of America has been promoting itself as a country of equality, opportunities for all and as a model for the rest of the Western world.

In the recent years though, I am not so sure that USA can claim the role of the leader in our hemisphere,or that it can expect the rest of us to follow its example.

During the past years, a disturbing and shameful phenomenon has been increasingly becoming an occurrence; young African Americans have been shot or brutally killed by US police.

Ever since February 2012 and the death of Trayvon Martin, who was shot by neighborhood watch coordinator George Zimmerman, about 16 more black Americans were killed in similar way.

The latest case was of Freddie Gray from Baltimore in April 2015, who fell into a coma after sustaining injuries to his spinal cord, due to police violence during his arrest.

This incident led to the Baltimore Riots, a protest and response towards police brutality. As have numerous other incidents before, like these in Ferguson-Missouri, which saw a repetitive wave of violence as result.

These deaths of course are only the tip of the ice-berg. The United States of America is not the country that it wants to believe it is anymore; at least not for its African American citizens.

Discrimination, lack of equal opportunities and alienation is the reality for a large number of black youths in the US. Their government has failed them, as it prefers to waste money on wars abroad, instead of investing in projects that will promote equality.

In some other cases, African American criminality is being exaggerated or distorted, as the American discourse on crime is deeply politicized and influenced by racial and class bias. (AlterNet)

Often the number of criminal activities that are attributed to black Americans are overestimated, as the above article in AlterNet describes. Resulting of course in further discrimination and stereotyping.

The United States often lectured Europe on what type of society it should aspire to become. They actively promoted and encouraged multiculturalism in our continent and elsewhere, human rights, freedom of speech, liberalizations and privatizations.

All of the American values became eventually and gradually European as well. As result, our continent is increasingly becoming a multicultural continent, that resembles more and more the USA.

But what aspirations is America giving Europe now? That it has to allow millions of non-Europeans to legally become citizens of a unified continent, only to be treated as second class citizens and be discriminated against by the very state they were born in?

Will Europe adopt the exact model of America, or will it be capable to avoid its closest ally mistakes and shortcomings?

If African Americans still struggle to achieve justice and equality centuries later after the creation of their motherland, what chances have the more recent arrivals in Europe from other continents to achieve these?

It is evident that the struggles of some people for equality in USA have not ended. Europe's closest ally resembles progressively Hans Christian Andersen's story, the Emperor's New Clothes.

Everybody is aware what is going on, but they just don't dare to express their honest view because well, it is the emperor and it can't be criticized by his subjects!

If America wants to lecture Europe and the rest of the world on freedom, democracy and equality, it better show a better image of itself to us. Plus it needs to start looking after its own citizens and internal problems first.

In an ever changing world, they can not rely on their military might for too long, to promote their model of society and ideology on others. They need to start aspiring their values to the rest of us, just like they did decades ago.

Obviously it is not just Europe who is suffering from a crisis of values and direction, together with an economic, political and social crisis. America has its own demons to face still.

It would be of a great benefit to people of both sides of the Atlantic, to get to know their weaknesses and mistakes. Learn from and help each other, to avoid repeating the same errors.

For that we need a closer cooperation, but not solely on a business level that our elites are insisting. We need to start engaging social groups from both sides, to teach one another about integration, social justice and equality.

If Europe is to become like the USA, then I am not sure I want to live in any sort of federal political or economic formation, in which minority groups are treated like the African Americans nowadays.

Luxembourgian blow to pan-EU citizenship voting rights.

On June the 7th, another referendum took place in Europe; this time in the small state of Luxembourg.

Just like the recent Irish referendum on same sex marriage, the Luxembourgian vote could influence the continent's future policies.

Well over 70 percent of the Luxembourgians, voted against granting foreigners the right to vote.

Only around 22 percent of voters supported foreigner voting rights. The result was met with surprise, after final opinion polls carried out earlier this year had seen 42 percent in favor versus 48 percent against, leading many to predict a narrow outcome on the question. (Luxembourger Wort)

The referendum was called by liberal Prime Minister Xavier Bettel as part of his modernizing agenda for the grand duchy.

"There is no other European country where only 40 percent of the population elects its representatives," he stated.

About 46 percent of the country's total population of 565,000 are foreigners, with 16.4 percent being Portuguese, followed by French nationals at seven percent, Italians at 3.5 percent, Belgians at 3.3 percent and Germans at 2.3 percent. Non-European foreigners account for a further seven percent.

A majority for "Yes" would have seen all foreigners who had lived in the country for more than 10 years given full voting rights (Deutsche Welle).

Such outcome would have positively influenced European politics and societies as whole. With the free movement of people being one of our fundamental rights as EU citizens, our nations are increasingly becoming multicultural.

Many of the EU migrants settle for good in their adopted countries, pay taxes, invest or open new businesses, constructively contributing to their economies and societies.

Wouldn't it make sense then, to extend full voting rights to people who are legally and permanently residing in a country for the past 10 years?

"No taxation without representation," was a slogan once used during the 1750's and the American Revolution for independence from the British Crown. Yet somehow it sounds so relevant still, in modern Europe.

Immigrants contribute in every aspect of a country's society. Apart from economic advantages, they could also bring cultural or social and even -most importantly- political ones.

Native voters have often a very conservative point of view, regarding their nation's politics. Many have formed a nepotistic relationship with many local or national politicians, while others vote for a particular party after following "traditional" family political lines. 

Under such practices, change and reforms are frequently hard to achieve. Immigrants that are well integrated in a society can offer a new outlook to the country's political and social issues. 

They could shake up or help reshape the political landscape of a nation, since they have a slight different mentality and point of view than the native population. 

Given the fact that after 10 years residing in a country, they must have a fair amount of knowledge of national or local politics, they can constructively help ending economic monopolies or political stalemates; if only they are given the voice.

And maybe that is why most EU nations avoid giving their immigrants political rights. Europe is still a very conservative continent and the economic crisis has made things even worse.

The past few years we have witnessed a rise of xenophobia, euro-skepticism,  nationalism and Far Right political parties, in most EU states.

But Europeans must realize, that progress will never come if we remain conservative; we are only safeguarding certain national elites' interests, while ours as citizens are being diminished. 

In an increasingly changing and developing world, Europe can not remain conventional. The globe is not what it used to be and our continent is being diversified rapidly; economically, socially, politically and culturally.

We must adapt with the changes, while creating a more equal and fair European society for all its inhabitants, either they are native or not.

Sadly Europeans still prefer to live in societies strictly dominated by an ethnic dominant group, with more rights than for any of the minorities.

Luxembourg is only showcasing the failure of Europe as a whole, to create a truly integrated, equal, modern, open minded and dynamic continent. 

Καιρός είναι η Ελληνική ηγεσία να δείξει σεβασμό πρός τον λαό που την ψηφίζει.

Πρόσφατα ο πρώην Υπουργός Εξωτερικών Θεόδωρος Γ. Πάγκαλος, άσκησε δριμήτατη επίθεση κατά του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, αλλά και του Ελληνικού λαού.

Σε δηλώσεις του, ο κύριος Πάγκαλος υποστήριξε ότι «οι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι κατέλαβαν το κράτος και ασκούν μια δικτατορία πάνω στους Έλληνες που εργάζονται».

Για τον ελληνικό λαό, δικαιολογώντας το ότι επί κυβερνήσεων ΠΑΣΟΚ δεν εφαρμόστηκαν οι αρχές που είχε διακηρύξει ο Ανδρέας Παπανδρέου, ανέφερε πως αυτό συνέβη γιατί «ο ελληνικός λαός είναι διεφθαρμένος. Ο ελληνικός λαός θέλει ρουσφέτια, θέλει διορισμούς, θέλει να μην εργάζεται. Θέλει να κλέβει τους φόρους και να μην αποδίδει τον ΦΠΑ».

Παράλληλα, εξέφρασε την έντονη διαφωνία του για την στοχοποίηση των ξένων, όπως ο Γιούνκερ, η Λαγκάρντ και η Μέρκελ και συμπλήρωσε: «Βάλαμε κάτω τους Γερμανούς και 70 χρόνια μετά τη λήξη του Β’ Παγκοσμίου πολέμου, θυμηθήκαμε το ναζιστικό παρελθόν τους». 

«Εγώ δεν λέω να μη κάνουμε κριτική στους Γερμανούς, αλλά τι είναι αυτό που τώρα θυμηθήκαμε ξαφνικά, το Δίστομο και όλα τα’ άλλα, επειδή τους χρωστάμε λεφτά. Δηλαδή τώρα ο εγγονός ενός Γερμανού οφείλει κάποια λεφτά στο γιο μου». (newsbomb.gr)

Τα σχόλια του κυρίου Πάγκαλου, είναι σκανδαλώδη ακριβώς επειδή διετέλεσε Υπουργός Εξωτερικών στο παρελθόν.

Εάν πολιτικοί που εκλέγουμε να μας εκπροσωπούν στην διεθνή διπλωματία, έχουν τέτοια γνώμη για εμάς και την μεταφέρουν και στο εξωτερικό, τότε υπάρχει καμία αμφιβολία γιατί οι Ευρωπαίοι εταίροι έχουν μια αρνητικότατη εικόνα για την χώρα μας?

Αυτό που κάνει ακόμα πιο εξοργιστηκό τις δηλώσεις Πάγκαλου, είναι το γεγονός ότι ο πρώην υπουργός και οι όμοιοι του, υπήρξαν πάντα μέρος του προβλήματος στην Ελλάδα. Για 40 χρόνια η χώρα μας κυβερνήθηκε από το ΠΑΣΟΚ και την Νέα Δημοκρατία. 

Εάν αυτές οι κυβερνήσεις που ο κύριος Παγκαλος διατέλεσε ως υπουργός και υψηλό στέλεχος, δεν προώθησαν το είδους των μεταρρυθμίσεων που χρειάζονταν η Ελλάδα ώστε να καταπολεμηθεί ο νεποτισμός, η διαθφορά και φοροδιαφυγή, απο ποιούς να περιμέναμε να προβούν σε μεταρρυθμίσεις? 

Από τους αγρότες και τους συνταξιούχους ίσως? Ή μήπως έπρεπε να λάβουν δράση η οι φοιτητές για να καταπολεμηθεί η γραφειοκρατία?

Ο λαός μας έχει την παροιμία οτι το ψάρι βρωμάει απο το κεφάλι. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι αν οι προηγούμενες κυβερνήσεις είχαν την ικανότητα να πατάξουν την γραφειοκρατία και την φοροδιαφυγή συν να εκμοντερνίσουν την χώρα θα το κάνανε, οπως το κατάφεραν ως ενα βαθμό άλλες χώρες.

Αν ο κύριος Πάγκαλος πιστεύει οτι ο Έλληνας είναι τεμπέλης, τότε στο εξωτερικο γιατί δεν κοιτάει το βόλεμα, αλλά εργάζεται σκληρά και πετυχαίνει; Ίσως επειδή το σύστημα των άλλων κρατών του το επιτρέπει και επιβραβεύει την σκληρή δουλειά του? 

Μήπως στην Ελλάδα το σύστημα που οι κυβερνήσεις του ΠΑΣΟΚ/ΝΔ ενθάρρυναν και καλλιέργησαν, ενισχύουν τον νεποτισμό και την διαφθορά, ώστε να σιγουρέψουν την εξάρτηση του Ελληνικού λαού από τα κόμματα αυτα? Μετατρέποντας φυσικά την χώρα σε μια ολιγαρχία, παρά σε μια μοντέρνα δημοκρατία.

Εάν δεν έχεις "μεσο" στην Ελλάδα ή διασυνδέσεις, ανέλκεσαι δυσκολότερα στον επαγγελματικό τομέα, αυτό είναι η αλήθεια. Ευκαιρίες για εργασία ολοένα και σπανίζουν ενώ η γραφειοκρατεία είναι τόσο εκτεταμένη, που κάθε απόπειρα για ένα ξεκίνημα μιας καινοτομικής ιδέας στον επιχειρηματικό χώρο συναντάται από ναρκοπέδια κρατικής παρέμβασης και προστατευτισμού.

Και ο κύριος Πάγκαλος νομίζει ότι για αυτό ευθύνεται ο απλός Ελληνικός λαός! Θα έπρεπε να ντρέπεται λογικά αλλά από ότι ήδη γνωρίζουμε, πολιτικοί σαν και αυτόν δεν διαθέτουν την οποιαδήποτε ευαισθησία η ντροπή.

Ζώ τα τελευταία 11 χρόνια στην Ιρλανδία, και αυτο που εχω μάθει απο τους Ιρλανδους ειναι οτι αγαπούν την πατρίδα τους και της κανουν τις καλύτερες δημόσιες σχέσεις. Δεν βγάζουν ολα τα κακώς κείμενα προς τα εξω, ουτε χαρακτηρίζουν συνέχεια αρνητικά την χωρα τους. 

Ισως γι'αυτό καταφέρνουν να προσελκύσουν πολλές επενδύσεις στην Ιρλανδία. Πως περιμένεις κάποιος να επενδύσει στην χωρα σου, οταν εσυ ως υπουργός βρίζεις και μειώνεις τον λαό σου, αποκαλώντας τον τεμπέλη και διεφθαρμένο! Ποιος θα ερθει να ανοίξει επιχείρηση στην Ελλάδα με τέτοιους πολιτικούς και ηγέτες; 

Ενώ οι Ιρλανδοί, παρόλα τα προβληματα που έχουν στην κοινωνία τους, αυτοαποκαλούνται ως η καλύτερη μικρή χώρα που μπορεί να ζεί κανείς. Αυτό το όραμα έχουν για την πατρίδα τους και αυτο το μύνημα προσπαθούν να περάσουν προς τα εξω.

Και το έχουν καταφέρει ως ενα βαθμό. Εμείς αντίθετα έχουμε μάθει να αποκαλούμε την χωρα μας "μπουρδέλο", ενώ εμάς τους ίδιους τεμπέληδες και διεφθαρμένους. Υπαρχει λοιπόν η οποιαδήποτε αμφιβολία γιατί αυτή την πατρίδα έχουμε καταφέρει να δημιουργήσουμε και γιατί αυτό έχουμε πείσει όλον τον κόσμο οτι ειμαστε;

Φυσικά μόνο οι δημόσιες σχέσεις δεν θα φέρουν επενδύσεις στην Ελλάδα, χρειάζονται να γίνουν και οι απαραίτητες μεταρρυθμίσεις. Αλλά για αυτό χρειαζόμαστε μια ικανή κυβέρνηση με όραμα, και όχι αλαζόνες, ολιγάρχες πολιτικούς με χαμηλότατο ήθος όπως ο κύριος Πάγκαλος.

Το μεγαλύτερο ίσως λάθος των Ελλήνων, είναι ότι για χρόνια ψήφιζαν πολιτικούς σαν τον Πάγκαλο και τους εμπιστευόταν. 'Οτι δεν ψήφιζαν με την λόγικη ή με όραμα και αγάπη για την πατρίδα τους, αλλά ώς επαίτες σε πολιτικούς του τύπου Πάγκαλου.

Ο Ελληνικός λαός πάσχει από έλλειψη υπερηφάνειας και αυτοσεβασμού, καθώς και αξιοπιστία και οράματος για την πατρίδας τους. Όταν εμείς δεν πιστεύουμε στον εαυτό μας και την Ελλάδα, περιμένουμε σοβαρά να το κάνουν οι ξένοι εταίροι μας?

Οι δηλώσεις Πάγκαλου και κάθε Πάγκαλου ας γίνουν μάθημα για το τι είδους πολιτικούς ψηφίζαμε τόσα χρονια στην εξουσία, και τι είδους πολιτικού θα πρεπει να αποφεύγουμε στο μέλλον.