Powered By Blogger

Sunday, March 2, 2014

An interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, on past, present and future of the EU.



http://www.gaymitchell.ie/?tag=gay-mitchell&paged=2
In a recent interview with Gay Mitchell MEP, we discussed about the impact of the economic crisis in Europe, the Irish EU membership and the future of our continent. 

Mr. Mitchell strongly believes that Ireland became truly sovereign the day it joined the EU. “Everyone should think of what it was like before the country joined the block, when the value Ireland’s currency and interest rates were set by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,” he says. 

“Our biggest export was people,” he adds.  There are 800 thousand people of Irish descent living in Britain to this day, who left during those years. “We had an economy which actually provided cheap food for Britain,” he describes. 

Mr. Mitchell recalls when he became a member of the Dail (Irish House of Representatives) in 1981; there were very few descent roads in the country, no financial services sector and though Ireland had an agricultural industry, it lacked the food industry that it has now. 

Today Ireland has pharmaceutical and information technology industries which are very big. “We export to the EU more computers for business use than the USA does,” he says. 

Ireland has also a booming tourism industry and the EU enabled the country to diversify its economy. “We have one Commissioner plus one Minister at the table in the EU council, on the same basis as Germany and France,” he explains. 

Of course bigger countries have a bigger vote, but the European way is trying to find consensus and agreement. Still Ireland has a disproportionate vote regarding its size.

The Secretary General of the EU Commission is Irish (Mrs. Catherine Day), plus the one before her, as well as the Chief operating officer of the EU Foreign affairs (Mr. David O’Sullivan). Ireland has recently had the rotating presidency of the EU Council for 6 months. “When did we ever have that influence in any international organization,” Mr. Mitchell asks. 

He believes that EU membership has changed Irish society. But additionally it preserved its cultural elements. When Ireland joined the EU, people supported the view that their language is part of who they are and wanted to keep it. 

So the Irish language became one of the EU official languages, while all-Irish speaking schools were established in Dublin. “Europe gave us that” Mr Mitchell explains, when a lot of his generation have lost their Irish because of the way it was taught in schools.

“In my heart I do not believe that Ireland has seen its best days yet. The Celtic tiger years were phenomenal for our country, but our best days are ahead of us,” he states. 

Ireland has been in the EU since 1973, yet it is still not a net contributory to the budget and it won’t become for a number of years. The country receives a lot of money out of the Common Agricultural Policy. 

Each time the Irish ministers boast that they fought a great fight in Europe, to get this money for Ireland. When things go wrong they claim that they have to implement laws because “Brussels” requires it. 

The EU takes decisions through the Council of ministers, the European Parliament and under the proposals of the Commission, in all of which all EU member states are represented. 

When there are talks about the economic crisis people hear the words Troika, the EU, European Central Bank (ECB), and the EU Commission. But they do not hear how the ECB and the European Commission provided a lot of the support which member states got. 

“We got to stop doing that to ourselves and start explaining to people what the EU is about. It is not about us getting money and transfers. I look forward to the day when Ireland is actually a net contributor, because that will be our membership fee for a very good facility,” Mr Mitchell explains. 

“I spend a lot of time visiting schools, speaking with trade union groups, NGOs and business people, explaining to them how the EU works and what it does,” he adds.

In the economic area Europe has to solve the problem of Eurobonds. “And I think that euro-bonds will come about. If we are going to have a single banking supervisory mechanism which we will have, it is sensible to have EU bonds that we can all avail of,” he also says. 

The Germans will write the cheque and give the guarantees for this, so the rest of us we’ll have to get our house in order to qualify. It is important to make it possible for the Germans to sign the guarantee. It will save a lot of money and make a big difference. 

“I also think that any ESM funding directly from banks, has to be retrospect. It is only fair to do so, plus our macroeconomic discipline is measured on our debt being a percentage of our GDP. It is done in the same basis across the whole of the EU. If on the Greek or the Irish balance sheets for example, are things that are not on other balance sheets then that is an unfair comparison. That needs to be resolved,” he explains. 

But that is not the only problems that the EU faces at the moment. Under the crisis there has been a rise of nationalism and far-right political parties. One of the oldest members which always had a difficult relationship with the EU, Britain, is holding a referendum on its membership by the end of 2017.

“I understand Mr Cameron’s dilemma but in Britain it is difficult to debate the EU, just like it is difficult to debate neutrality in Ireland. I hope we never find out through some very bad circumstances, that we really haven’t spent the money that we should on our own defense forces to protect us,” Mr Mitchell says.

Likewise, Britain in the EU is in a very precarious situation. Mr Cameron has said that he favors Britain remaining in the single market, even if the people voted to leave the EU. The rules governing the single market will be decided by a Commission, a Council and a Parliament, in which Britain will have no input but whose rules it would be required to follow. That does not make any sense. 

Britain should be leading Europe. They have the political and the diplomatic skills to do it. And more Europe would actually suit them better, but they can’t see that. 

Another key issue for Europe is the rebirth of the social market economy. It is not a socialist or a liberal invention, but a Christian Democrat one. Its ethos is not based on a religious element, but on four principles: enterprise and social justice rights and responsibilities. 

“We just stopped talking about social justice. I am in politics because of that and the reason why I spend so much time in the development committee. Anybody can talk to you about it, as a great line to get elected on. But with every right comes a responsibility. We have a responsibility for ourselves and to each other, and if you want social justice you have to encourage enterprise,” Mr Mitchell says. 

“If someone gets out of bed and goes to work every morning then they should be encouraged to do that, because that creates wealth. And if you can’t go to work part of that wealth should be used to help you,” he describes. 

But when you go to avail of the public services, in which we put a huge amount of the tax payer’s money, we have to have accountability. Because there are so many votes in the public service, there should be some kind of protected entity. 

Mr. Mitchell believes that that is the base of a new type of social market economy launch. We need a rebirth of the social market economy, because that is what happened at the end of the WW2. 

Konrad Adenauer, the first post-War Chancellor of Germany, said at the time that the European project is about people, not about money. Business people in Europe need to create an ethical environment in which to operate.

“I am pro business, because business creates wealth. But when we create wealth we got to distribute it well, have good public services and give people a fair opportunity. So all of us who are in the mainstream of politics, we need to think about this and start talking about social justice,” Mr. Mitchell explains.

Europe will have elections in May 2014.  Mr Mitchell believes that who we send to the EU Commission and to the EP, matters. “First thing citizens got to do is turn up and be committed. Also get on to the committees that are relevant to their country and express what their view of Europe is,” he says. 

He brings as example the Irish legal system. Everyday people see one or two judges reported in the papers for a number of serious offenses. They don’t hear about the other judges. But if they were not there, we would live in a jungle. The job they do is important. 

It is the same with MEPs and TDs. “It is not all about the ones who are in the media on a particular day. But about the guys who turn up and do their committee work, network and carry influence, who are measured, have a descent view of what is good for Ireland for Europe,” he continues. 

Whoever people are going to chose, they should chose the ones who are going to participate because they will have a real say for 5 years. 

Ireland is a country that has always been and still is in its majority, a pro-European nation. Yet in the last referendum on Lisbon Treaty, as well as many previous ones, the Irish citizens voted against them.

“I think De Gaul was right. He said that referendums are funny things, because when you ask people what they think, they do not answer the question you ask. In elections of that kind you can have people protesting, because they think they can,” Mr Mitchell notes.

Sometimes in a referendum people vote no, because they want to punish the government. Not all had to do with Europe during the referendum. Nevertheless there was a concern about Ireland losing its Commissioner.

The Oireachteas (The Irish National Parliament) committee collected evidence and they percolated all these issues, which later they identified. Then the Irish government went and renegotiated them. 

“I like the idea of Ireland and all the small states having a commissioner. The Germans, the Brits and the French gave up their second commissioner. But if we get to 35 commissioners, what portfolios will there be and will we end up having a commissioner for something obscure,” Mr Mitchell mentions.

Perhaps if the EU had only 20 substantial commission jobs, with every country having one by strict rotation, potentially that would be a better way. “People chose the former and for now it is probably right,” he notes. 

If there is ever a huge number of Commissioners, there may be a question of revisiting, yet this is not being pushed on Ireland by any party. The Irish people themselves might come to this stage later on, when this is no longer a concern. 

Gay Mitchell believes that his biggest impact in European politics was in the development of dealing with the 3rd world. He was recruited by the assistant secretary general of the UN, to advice her on disaster risk reduction.

Gay Mitchell is an Irish politician and was elected Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Dublin constituency, on 11 June 2004. 

He is a member of Fine Gael, part of the European People's Party, and a former Teachta Dála (TD) for the Dublin South–Central constituency from 1981–2007. 

He does not plan to run for this May’s European elections.You may find more information about his work on his website here.

The second part of the interview will be published on OneEurope

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Why a Greek citizen is not eligible to vote in Greece?

http://www.thenationalherald.com/36916/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TNHTopStories+%28The+National+Herald+top+stories%29
The list of the outrageous and peculiar political decisions that European leaders are taking is growing, as the European elections are approaching.

The Greek PM, Mr. Samaras and his government have revoked the voting rights of Greek citizens living abroad and the Greek citizens (in my opinion), which are second generation immigrants that were born in Greece, by legal migrant parents.

(Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ New Democracy-led government said it will not allow Greeks living abroad, nor second-generation immigrants living legally in Greece, to vote or stand as candidates, revoking a 2010 law without debate The National Herald).

It seems to me that the Greek government is afraid that the more voices and opinions will be heard during the European and local elections, the more the result will be out of their predictions.

The 2010 law that would allow these individuals to vote has been revoked without a debate. As a Greek of the diaspora, I feel that such decision is outrageous and shows the true colors of Mr. Samaras' government.

I understand that just like the British MP, Mr. David Cameron, that has to deal with the challenging popularity of the euro-skeptic party UKIP, Mr. Samaras has to deal with the rise of Golden Dawn. Both Prime Ministers are so forced to implement right-wing laws, in order to satisfy the rising nationalist sentiments among their country's populations and keep their party's votes.

But revoking the right of citizens to vote is down right undemocratic. I will not be able to vote for a Greek MEP to represent me in the European Parliament for the next 5 years, because my country won't allow me to.

And by European law I won't be able to vote for an Irish or any other European candidate that I chose. Because there is no legislation to allow such thing, or it is as complicated as one could imagine to do so for and Irish MEP. So my voting rights as a European citizen are limited.

The Greek government is obviously afraid of the voting power of the Greek diaspora, that are informed about the economic crisis that troubles the country from another point of view. They follow the developments in Greece through European media, while living in various other political systems and so their judgement is not blurred by the Greek media.

The Greek citizens that still live in Greece, have been subjected to years of misinformation, propaganda and lies from the Greek political elite, in order to maintain or change the current balance of power in the country.

So if the Greek state gave power to its diaspora, the outcome of the elections would potentially be unpredictable for them and obviously that is something they can not risk.

The other infuriating issue is that the children of Greece's legal immigrants, won't yet again be able to vote in the Greek elections and practice their democratic rights. Being born in Greece by non-nationals that legally migrated in the country, should logically make them Greek citizens, eligible to vote. Not in Greece.

And before I continue I would like to make a distinction between the meaning of a Greek national and Greek citizen. Many Greeks and if fact many Europeans are confused about these two and I do not blame them.

Their governments have never bothered to explained the difference to them, so they can always have a card to play their divide and rule game. Poor against rich, public against private sector, native against immigrant, in order to divide public opinion and manipulate it.

A Greek national is somebody that is "of Greek blood", an ethnic Greek whose one or two of his parents is of Greek origin. A Greek citizen on the other hand, is somebody who stayed in Greece for a significant amount of time or was born in it, paid taxes, contributed to the community and was of course a legal immigrant into the country.

As long as these individuals are legally residing in the state for a period of time that the Greek law defines, that makes them Greek citizens and they are entitled to their voting and other full rights, that any Greek citizen must have. I do not understand why certain people think that by allowing a foreigner that has been living in Greece for a decade or so to vote, makes them less Greek and it erodes their "Greekness."

Of course that is an issue that does not exist just in Greece but in many European countries and it must be explained to the people. People who live legally in a country for so long, should be entitled to citizenship and equal rights like every Greek citizen or national.

Both the Greek state and the EU in general must create a pan-European common and clear immigration policy, that will protect the rights of both EU nationals and EU citizens. It will allow only the number of immigrants and with the qualifications we need in Europe, but it will grant them with rights and protect them as citizens, workers and of course human beings.

So far we had irresponsible immigration policies that served nobody but the capitalist elites and their need for a cheap working force with no rights. Illegal immigrants, or seasonal migrants in Europe play this role and these policies should be tightened or revisited. Combined with an economic crisis, they are becoming a dangerous mix that pushes Europeans to the arms of the far-right and euro-skeptic parties. 

What is happening right now in Greece is disgraceful. The Greek government is fearing the change in the well predictable Greek public opinion, that new voters would bring.  If the new Greek citizens have a different opinion or political affiliations than the ordinary Greek national, they can have an impact in the elections.

I personally welcome new voices in the Greek political life to be heard, as Greece needs it desperately. The Greeks, as most other Europeans are voting along family traditions, political ideologies, or personal interests and acquaintances to help them achieve personal and petty financial or material ambitions.

New voters means new ideas and voices that could break this vicious circle and alter the political scene of a country, for the better. If of course these new votes are not linked to naturalization promises, in order to vote for a certain political party.

Rumors have emerged in the past in Greece, of bribed Greek naturalization processes in exchange for loyalty to a certain political party that represented the establishment. These practices alter the result of the election and of course undermine the democratic process, that exists in Greece only by name as it seems. 

Either Mr. Samaras and his government, are fearing the rise of Golden Dawn in the upcoming elections or the influence of new voters, the outcome of their decisions are down right unacceptable and wrong. No government or politician that respects the very word "democracy" and the people who they are supposed to serve, should proceed with the implementation of such laws.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

How "European" of you!

http://thinkingpolitics.org/2013/12/02/euroscepticism-causes-and-the-need-for-a-solution/
The past week I have been reading some very infuriating news stories from across Europe. It proves that sadly nationalism and euro-skepticism are here to stay.

If the European leaders want seriously to maintain the European institutions and project, they will have to show leadership and skillful decision making at last.

The first story comes from a non-EU state, Switzerland. We are very used to the Swiss conservatism and xenophobia, but this time the decisions that this country made, will have an impact in the free movement of people policies in Europe.

In a referendum today, the Swiss decided to put a cap on the number of people entering their country, in an effort to stop "mass immigration." The proposal for the referendum was proposed by the right-wing Swiss People's Party.

About 50.3% of the population voted in favor for the proposed legislation, which will mean that the country will have to abandon its free movement of people treaty with the EU, potentially putting at risk other deals with the organization on trade.

The issue here is if the EU do the same for the Swiss. If EU citizens are not able anymore to move freely in Switzerland, why should after all the Swiss be able to move freely to other European countries? Hopefully the EU will not allow this discriminatory policy towards some of its citizens to be implemented, without applying the same rules on Swiss citizens.

The Swiss are happy to allow capita and money from other nations flowing freely in their country, but when it comes to people, they become a bit choosy! I wonder if they will proceed with free movement limitations for the rich tax evaders that want to settle in their country, or such limitations exist only for the poor EU nationals.

If they were not a tax haven, they wouldn't be as rich and so migrants from poorer countries would not want to go to Switzerland. Now that the visa limitations have expired for Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, we are witnessing Britain having a difficulty dealing with it and Switzerland treating us with their good old xenophobic self, by wanting to limit the free movement of EU citizens.

The problem here is that while they are priding themselves about their democracy, sometimes when the decisions they are making are based on populism and their worse self, then their democracy become a "mobocracy". And that is a deviant form of democracy.

The real problem here is migration from the newest EU states, or the crisis hit nations of the euro-zone. And that aspect makes this development even more infuriating, as it is simply racist. When it suits some countries to implement certain laws and legislation they are happy to do so, until populism sets in. Such attitudes are of course not only a Swiss phenomenon.

Most EU nations battle with immigration and populist, right-wing or left-wing parties are mushrooming across Europe. Their growing power is fueled by the economic crisis. Even the country that is considered to be the "heart of Europe," has this week been the ground of a similar story.

Belgium decided to send "burden" EU citizens mainly from Romania, Bulgaria,Italy and Spain, a letter asking them to leave the country. The reason being that they are an "unreasonable burden in the country's welfare system".

The issue that I find peculiar here, is the fact that Belgium has some of the most generous welfare systems in Europe. While in Greece and other countries welfare payments are not being given to job seekers indefinitely, in Belgium they enjoy the benefit of long term social security.

This generosity of the Belgian social welfare system, is what attracts people from other EU and non-EU countries. The real solution to their immigration problem would be to reform their social security policies, making less attractive to "burden" migrants.

But this would also mean that the Belgian "burden" citizens would not enjoy the very generous pay-outs and which Belgian would support such reforms? Where would the Belgian social welfare recipients go, to avail of the very generous support, especially now that Switzerland is closing its doors too? Alternatively Belgium will have to break EU law and apply different legislation for Belgians and another for other EU nationals.

The problem here is that Belgium is what the capital regions are in every country. The capital cities are always enjoying  more affluent social services and infrastructure, than the peripheral regions of a country. Belgium does not produce as much as it did in the past and in fact it is one of the net recipients from the EU budget, because it hosts the majority of the EU institutions and the European "capital," Brussels.

In other words, the wealth of the country is not just "Belgian" to keep it just for the Belgian citizens. And let's not even talk about the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from their ex colonies, during the era of the country's colonial expansion.

I do not disapprove the right that every country has to protect its interests, democratically decide on its laws and practice what it thinks it is best for its citizens. But either it is Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, France, Greece, Germany or many other European nations, we observe a lack of real solidarity between them.

Each nation pursues only its interests and they succumb to the rising populism and pressure of extremist political parties. Instead of helping the countries of origin of these immigrants, or reforming their own social security policies to make them less attractive, they decided to go for the easiest option to deport-even if they ask politely- the migrants.

If Europe actually helped countries such Romania, Bulgaria or even Greece, Italy and Spain by encouraging job creating and investing in them, then their citizens would not be forced to migrate. The example of Italy itself is something that Europe must avoid at all costs.

During the unification process of Italy, the northern part of the continent invited the rest of the country to unite with them. But instead of practicing solidarity, they have exploited them politically and economically, forcing them eventually to migrate to the northern part of the country and all over the world. And while it was Northern Italy that predominantly wanted to unite the country, they are now the ones who want to secede from the South.

That is exactly what is happening in Europe too. Even though the Belgians claim that what they are doing is within the laws of the EU and they are right of course, they are missing the point. People will stop coming to Belgium and become a "burden," only if they have jobs in their countries.

Of course I could not leave out from the list of recent euro-skeptic incidents, the developments in perhaps the most euro-skeptic countries of all: Britain.

British Conservative MEPs have cried foul over a proposal to create a permanent European Parliament sub-committee to deal with the single currency, saying it would have “major implications for the UK to regulate its financial services sector” and represented an attempt to “curtail” the influence of British MEPs.

Syed Kamall, the leading British Tory MEP in the European Parliament, said such a development would be divisive and dangerous. "To create a separate committee that only euro-zone MEPs may belong to sets a dangerous precedent. It is a case of divide and rule,” he said. (EurActiv.com)

I guess the British understand better the practice of diving and rule, since it is a policy that they have been applying for a long time. The funniest thing in this story is that the conservative MEPs, who would be excluded from the proposed sub-group, fear that important decisions could be taken behind their back.

Then why Britain is having a referendum to leave the EU, since if they do, that is what exactly going to happen. The British wish to stay in the single market, without being a full member of the union. But if they want to stay in the free trade zone, they will have to comply with policies that will be decided by the EU Commission, Parliament and Council in which they will not have any delegates, as they will have left the union!

In other words the rest of Europe will decide policies that the UK will have no say on, but it will have to comply with. It is laughable and ridiculous! One would start to believe that the British leadership does not know what it wants anymore. Here he have the British PM Mr. David Cameron pleading the Scottish people not to leave the UK, because together they are stronger (or because England has access to the Northern Sea oil reserves).

But they reject the exact same argument for the case of themselves leaving the EU altogether.The union is stronger if all states stay together and cooperate. The British conservatives not only do not want the EU to proceed with further integration, they threaten to leave the club unless they get what they want, yet they still wish to have a say on what the EU should do or not, with or without them. I guess De Gaul was right after all!

Friday, February 7, 2014

A excellent example of US foreign policy towards Europe!

http://www.salzburg.com/nachrichten/welt/politik/sn/artikel/aufreger-um-us-diplomatin-fuck-the-eu-93511/
The latest development in the Ukrainian crisis, offers us a glimpse of what is really going on behind closed doors on a diplomatic and geopolitical level, while people in the streets of Kiev are fighting for their country's future.

In an alleged "leaked" telephone conversation of the new American top diplomat for Europe, Mrs. Victoria Nuland with the US Ambassador in Kiev Mr. Geoff Pyatt, Mrs Nuland suggested that it must be the UN who should "glue" the developments in Ukraine and "F*ck the EU!"

This incident throws a light in many issues that are taking place in Europe and the world. It is clear that no development, being in Ukraine, Syria, Brazil, Greece or elsewhere, is meddling free from the great powers of the globe.

Either it is the USA, Russia or Europe, all are trying to serve their interests in the region by pushing an agenda, while opportunistically grabbing any chance or social upheaval in key nations like Ukraine to achieve their goals. The Americans want to push the country into the arms of the West, while the Russians understandably oppose the expansion of American and European influence into what they believe it is their sphere.

In other words the protests now are not just about what the Ukrainian people want, but also about what the big powers and players in the region are after. This will mean that whatever the initial protests back in November were about or wanted to achieve, it will be now much more difficult to accomplish since America and Russia are actively engaging.

The Ukrainian people are not fighting just to overthrow their leaders, but from now on-if not from the beginning- they will be fighting to help establish a new status quo in the region. This can have potentially very dangerous or disastrous consequences for the country and the EU-Russia relations.

Sadly for the Ukraine, it lies in a very strategic location and is a country with vast resources, both natural and human. Those important assets are the main reason of the country's suffering and why the Russians, Europeans and the Americans are so engaged in the protests and developments in the country.

The most obvious threat is of course that Ukraine might split up, or even worse that this split won't be a peaceful one. Secondly if Europe takes the side of America, though it will be stupid to do so after what was said by Mrs Nuland and the recent NSA scandal, it risks a serious blow with its already strained relations with Russia.

We must not forget that Europe still relies heavily on Russia for its gas and besides, the more the EU expands the more shared borders it has with Russia. It is not wise to be always on each others' throats. If Europe starts speaking with one united voice in the global political  scene, it can be a serious contestant and player in the world.

The Russians will respect Europe only if we show unity and solidarity among us and do not be afraid to stand up for our interests, either we do so towards Russia, USA, China or any other global power that may arise in the future. The EU and Russia ought to come closer and in the same time Europe should distance itself from America a bit.

Our continent should start actively pursue its own interests, while having its voice heard in the world and its region. It is clear from this new scandal and from the Snowden revelations on the NSA activities in Europe, that America is not always in the same boat with EU, nor that our interests are always best served by being so closely attached to them.

America has its own agenda that is not always in-sync with Europe's. In other words it is time for the EU to affirm itself both as global player, but also against Russia and America and stop them from imposing their will over our territories.

The Americans obviously wanted Europeans to impose sanctions against Ukraine and because of Europe's slow response, the US diplomats get frustrated. They do not understand that the EU has 28 member states, each with a different view and it is hard to come to a decision quickly.

Besides any sanctions against Ukraine could push the country further away from the EU. If these proposed sanctions are targeting Ukraine as a country or the Ukrainian people, in a time that they need our help the most, they could have the opposite result than the desired.

If we target the country's political and diplomatic leadership and place sanctions against them, this could also cement their ties with Russia. Since Europe is punishing them for something they did not really have a choice over, since Russia has still a great economic and political influence over the country, then we give them no choice but to run to "mother" Russia for protection.

The Ukrainian leadership rejected the EU-Ukraine free trade deal, because it had no choice. The Russians basically have blackmailed them to achieve their goal. The Ukrainian people are right to protest and their dedication is admirable and inspiring for the rest of Europe. But if things happen too hastily, the result could be a greater violence escalation.

What Europe could do perhaps, is not trying offer a "carrot" to the Ukrainian leadership in order to lure it into its sphere of influence, rather offer this carrot to the Russians so that they let Ukraine go, or at least ease on them. In other words, good EU-Russia relations are key in solving the conflict and America is not helping by being hasty and acting like a bully.

Finally Europe must stand for human rights, either it is within the EU or in its neighboring countries like Ukraine. If the EU stands for its own citizens, it will always remain a beacon that will attract the citizens of all European nations, including Ukraine. In other words Europe is right to wait before it intervenes, but it should engage with the Ukrainian and the Russian leadership immediately as a mediator though not as America's envoy.

Rather as a friend, neighbor and collaborator of both sides and with the best interests of the Ukrainian people in mind.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

Ireland and the EU.



http://www.universityobserver.ie/2012/10/05/lh-debate-is-the-eu-bad-for-ireland/
The economic crisis has had an impact on how European voters, including the Irish, view the EU right now. 

In an interview with Neale Richmond, the policy and projects manager of the European Movement of Ireland (EMI),we discussed about the various misconceptions that the Irish or the European voters in general have about the EU. 

We also talked about the various mistakes that took place on national and European level, that had an impact in shaping the European and Irish public opinion. Neale immediately spotted a problem when we are referring to the EU. A mistake that a lot of people make, is that they see the organization as something foreign and distant based in Brussels. 

“Ireland is the EU; it is an equal member of the group of 28 countries. So when we are questioning if the EU treated Ireland right during the crisis for example, it is a two way thing. Ireland got into a difficulty and they got bailed out by a Troika of the EU Commission, the IMF and the ECB. We would not get this assistance if we were not in the EU,” Neale explains.

“The measures that were implemented by the Troika through the program were extremely tough, but ultimately they have worked. We are the first country to leave the program in the EU and we are doing so in a fairly buoyant climate. Growth is expected to go up next year, consumer confidence is back, the property prices are rising and there are job announcements,” he continues. 

The crash was partly caused by international factors, but there were also huge domestic issues which the EU raised with the then government. The EU is not responsible for the crash although they are not blame free. “Equally so the EU is not solely responsible for our bail-out program: we are an equal partner, we agreed to that program and we got one of the best terms there were available to us,” Neale says.

The EU is an easy punching bag according to him, when people are facing tough decisions and start paying property tax, water rates, they are seeing services cut and a huge amount of money going out of the public sector pay. “We have to take personal responsibility. The EU did not force people in 2004 to buy a second apartment, or five apartments in Bulgaria as an investment opportunity,” he explains. 

“It is understandable there is animosity towards the EU because they are the face of the bail-out. But ultimately they did not decide the recovery program for Ireland, our government did in partnership with them,” he continues.

Ireland often comes under criticism from other European leaders, over its tax regime. One of the challenges of Europe as an entity and as a place to do business and trade, is that there are 28 different tax regimes. Ireland’s corporate tax rate is 12.5 % while in France the effective corporate rate for certain departments is 4%. 

So Neale believes that it is a bit unfair for these leaders to pick on Ireland. It is very much the Irish government’s consistent policy, supported by all parties across the political spectrum that Ireland's taxation system is not to be changed. The EU has absolutely no power to change the country's corporate tax rate and no intention to do so.

"Certain people can talk about this issue because they are losing business to Ireland. We are a very attractive place to do business, but not just because of our corporate tax rate. Ireland has an English speaking and well educated population, it is a member of the EU and it has established links with the USA, Canada and Australia already. It is a number of collective points that give us an advantage,” explains Neale. 

Ireland’s income tax rate is much higher than a lot of mainland European countries. The Baltic States have a flat tax and the Nordic countries a much higher income tax rate, so it is not accurate to say that Ireland is a completely low tax entity. 

Ireland may be one of the smallest countries in the EU, but that does not mean it is not equal. “We would very much like to see our role as it traditionally has been, showing leadership at times when an honest broker is needed in the continent. But also to keep developing Ireland’s role within Europe, to make sure that Ireland is proactive in the EU," states Neale.

The country's international reputation got absolutely destroyed in 2008, due to the economic crisis. It is slowly being rectified and the key to the Irish recovery is through its role in the EU, but also by embracing the opportunities that the EU presents. 

If Ireland is to keep its influence in Europe it must be proactive. “Our ministers need to remain attentive and vocal in the EU Council meetings and be positive. Our MEPs need to continue working hard in the EP to show Ireland in a good light. We can’t go back to auction politics and be negative towards the EU or ignore its directorates. We need to continue being on a sensible path to recovery with whichever government is in charge, we can not risk tarnishing our reputation again,” says Neale. 

The year of 2013 has been really busy for the EMI and they are doing a lot of reflection at the moment. Not just because Ireland had the Presidency for the first half of the year, but because as organization they sought to spread their work load and to develop. "The EMI is linked to Ireland’s role in the EU. When Ireland is really engaging with the EU, we are quite big and active organization. When both Ireland and the EU are more distant we do shrink as an organization as people are not as interested," explains Neale.

"We look forward to 2014. It is the European Year of the Citizens again and also there are the European elections, so we will be doing a lot of work on increasing people’s knowledge and interest in the European Parliament, its role in Ireland and the importance of these elections," he continues. 

Voting turnout is not too bad in the elections in Ireland, but the challenge is to make sure that people take the European and local elections as seriously as the general elections. It is understandable that people aren’t taking them as seriously, because they do not see the impact and they do not get much coverage. 

The challenge to the politicians is to keep the narrative European and to show people how important this is. There isn’t a distinction between local and European issues during the elections. "When it comes to European elections, far too many candidates will make it about local issues, or about an issue that there isn’t a European line to play. I am sure we are going to have campaigners who are against the water and property charges running in the European elections, when really they are not European issues," says Neale.

The Irish constitution requires a referendum and approval by the citizens, each time there must be changes to it. Both Nice and Lisbon Treaties were subjects to referendum and in both cases the referendum was run for a second time, after there have been changes to the Treaties. 

"The government that run the first Lisbon Treaty was ridiculously unpopular at the time and that followed through in the elections that came after it. There is always a kick against the government and as all the established parties were in favor, it was a bit of an anti-establishment thing to vote No," explains Neale.

During the Lisbon and with Nice referendums, a number of issues were raised. In Lisbon there were definitely concerns over loosing the Permanent Commissioner, so that was rectified and changed. There were also misplaced concerns about abortion, conscription, about defense and various other things. However there were amends made to the Treaty, to make sure that Ireland was exempt from all that. "That is what happens in treaties," Neale adds. 

The biggest shortcoming that the EU has is lack of communication. Communications skills in the EU don’t necessary translate out and beyond Brussels. "We need to see the EU being far clearer and working with organizations like ourselves," states Neale.

"The Commission representation offices in Ireland and across the EU do a lot of very good work, but there is still more that can be done. We must make sure that people are educated and aware about the EU, because then they are going to be more positive about it," he explains. 

Ireland as a member of the EU does very well for its size that needs to be acknowledged. "One shortcoming that we still have is that we are heavily relying on the UK and that is going to be a massive challenge, if in 2017 the UK opts to leave the EU. That’s when Ireland is going to be faced with real difficulty and it is a huge concern. We should try and maintain the British interest in the EU," Neale concludes. 

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Building bridges between the citizens and the EU.



For the past years we have experienced the lack of communication between the EU institutions and the citizens, leading to a lot of misunderstandings, misinformation and an overall confusion that leads to negative and often mistaken perceptions of how the EU works.

And while it is undeniable that the block of 28 countries has many shortcomings, the citizens’ anger is often mistakenly pointed towards it. During the European Year of Citizens 2013, one of the main discussions in the numerous conferences that took place focusing on citizen participation, was the failure of the EU institutions to reach out and engaging the European voters. 

Most European states have already a number of NGOs that are doing the job which the governments of the EU member states should be doing: explaining the EU to its citizens. In Ireland this role is filled by the European Movement of Ireland (EMI), a remarkable organization that for decades now is working to fill the gaps in the knowledge of Irish citizens about the EU. 

The EMI is an independent, not-for-profit, membership-based organization working to develop the connection between Ireland and Europe. Founded in 1954 it is the oldest Irish organization dealing with the EU, pre-dating Ireland’s membership of the Union in 1973 by almost twenty years.

In an interview with Neale Richmond, the policy and projects manager of the organization, we looked at the work that the EMI is doing in Ireland, how the Irish people view the EU, the mistakes and failures of the Irish government and that of the EU itself.  

Neale emphasized that the main goal of the EMI is seeking to build a connection between Ireland and the EU at every level, mainly by working with young people, business leaders, students and the general population. “Making sure they are aware of Ireland’s role in the EU and are able to access information about it,” he explains.

The European Movement is not a federalist organization. “We do not believe in a federal Europe, though it is hard to put a label on such idea. A lot of people would say that Europe is a federal entity already,” Neale adds. 

At this stage the EU is changing rapidly. What has started off in the ‘50s as the European Coal and Steal Commission has now been integrated massively. 

“In EMI we do not take sides in referendums, we are not the European Federalists. We solely provide information, though we are supportive of deeper integration to the extent that it can benefit not just Ireland but the European Union as a whole” explains Neale.

But if further integration requires another treaty, the EMI thinks that now is not the time to do it. “We’ve had a huge amount of treaty changing in the last decade and that’s affected the EU. The organization needs time to catch up with itself, to implement the reforms agreed before looking to reform again,” Neale says. 

Besides further integration is already happening according to Neale, as we have a multi-speed Europe. Many countries are opting out from the euro-zone, the Schengen Agreement and many other EU policies, yet some European nations want to go a bit deeper. 

“In the EMI we would like to see Ireland being part of the Schengen and probably have a directly elected EU Commission. This is the kind of deeper integration that we would support,” mentions Neale.

As the EMI is a membership based organization, dealing with their members and running events or briefings that are of interest to them, is their first priority. It is an independent body, so they are in the position to offer constructive criticism of EU.

The organization is also the national implementation body for the Blue Star Program, which is a primary school initiative. It runs in over 100 schools, teaching children about Ireland’s role in the EU, but also covering geographical, institutional, historic and cultural subjects about it.

In addition they do a number of talks and training for secondary school and third level students, depending whether they are simply looking career information or something to do with their course. 

EMI furthermore runs the College of Europe Scholarship program for Ireland, that is reaching out to people who graduate from the University. Finally they run a number of in house training events for businesses and government departments about the EU. 

Neale strongly believes that Ireland’s EU membership was “definitely” beneficial. Even though its membership has not been 100% positive, it has made a really huge difference in the economic and social development of the country. 

And that belief is shared by the EMI supporters. According to a poll conducted by the organization last January, they found that 86% of the Irish people are still in favor of their country’s membership in the EU.
Of course there are certain sections of society that have issues with the EU. 

“There will always going to be people that oppose it, because of their political views. They just do not approve the block’s general approach,” Neale says. “Our job is not only communicating the EU with people who support it,” he continues. 

Despite the support of the Irish people for the EU, it does not necessarily mean that they are blindly going to accept a treaty, or they are always going to be positive towards it. There is a huge problem with narrative when it comes to Irish-EU relations at the moment, whereby Brussels is always blamed for everything.

But when something positive is coming out of the EU, it is the domestic government that takes the credit. “Our work in the EMI is to show the positive, the non institutional and the non governmental aspects of the EU,” states Neale.

“We do it with great difficulty sometimes. The easiest audience to talk about the EU is our primary schools’ program. Because we can keep the basics and the simple entities so they really appreciate it,” he says. Across Europe, when people want to talk about the EU now, they do so about the bail-out, the common fisheries and common agricultural policies.

They do not think that the reason why we have the EU is because of the two world wars that ruined Europe. There hasn’t been a war in our continent since its creation and that is its greatest achievement that is often forgotten. 

“There is definitely skepticism towards the EU in Ireland, but not like in the UK. People here do not want to leave the EU, there are just a bit uneasy about certain things, there is a bit of confusion and it is our job to try and clear that up” explains Neale. 

People who are most positive towards the EU in Ireland are those of older age. Probably because they remember Ireland before it joined the EU and motorways were built, or the infrastructural enhances that the country got through the regional funding from the EU. 

It is also positive among the younger people too, who see the EU as an opportunity to do Erasmus, travel and work anywhere in Europe. The group that has the biggest problem with the EU is the age group between 35 and 50.

“Everyone refers to them as the squeeze middle," Neale describes. They are the people who bought at the time of the boom, and who are suffering the consequences. “They have one or multiple mortgages, they are probably in arrears and negative equity, struggling to pay child care, health insurance and they don’t see the benefits to the same extent of the EU,” he continues.

It is understandable that this generation is probably sceptical towards a lot of things and just the EU happens to be one of them. 

Another sector that is a bit sceptical about Ireland’s EU membership is the fisheries sector. It probably hasn’t benefited as much from EU legislation as the agriculture industry, but Neale believes that the deals are still relatively good, and most importantly they protect fishing as a viable industry first. 

“There are still fishing jobs and if it wasn’t for the EU, the Irish fishermen would probably not be able to compete at all on an international level. We do have our waters protected and have access to other waters, but most importantly the safety levels of Irish fishing now compared to over 40 years ago much better,” Neale explains. 

“That is something that isn’t appreciated and sometimes people probably give out that there’s too much bureaucracy, but it is there in their best interests. Plus you have to make sacrifices when it comes to sovereignty and other issues as an EU member state” he continues. 

Neale Richmond has been with EMI for just under two years and prior to that, he was an adviser in the Irish Parliament for four years and the European Parliament for another two. His role in EMI mainly involves running advocacy campaigns, doing policy research and anything to do with legislative work.

The second part of the interview will be published soon.