You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'European Identity' category.
As Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty nears, concesssions won by the Irish government coupled with a resurgent civil society ‘yes’ movement could see the ‘No to Lisbon’ camp face an uphill struggle in the coming weeks
Source: EurActive [edited]
As Ireland’s second vote on the Lisbon Treaty nears, concesssions won by the Irish government coupled with a resurgent civil society ‘yes’ movement could see the ‘No to Lisbon’ camp face an uphill struggle in the coming weeks, experts told EurActiv.
Background:
Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum in June 2008, effectively stalling the reforms contained in the treaty and causing widespread consternation among European politicians.
Following the result of the referendum, the Irish government conducted detailed research into why the public voted against the treaty and found concerns over military neutrality, the potential impact on Ireland’s corporate tax rates, workers’ rights and ethical issues related to the position of the family and abortion. Question marks over whether Ireland would lose its European commissioner were also said to be of concern.
Leaders meeting in Brussels in December 2008 agreed to find a legally-binding solution to clear up confusion over how the treaty would affect Ireland in the hope that this would allow a second referendum.
Following June’s European elections, where only one of Ireland’s 12 MEPs was elected on an anti-Lisbon platform, EU leaders reached a compromise in offering Ireland legally-binding guarantees on the Lisbon Treaty without requiring other countries to re-ratify the text.
The Irish government set Friday 2 October as the date for the second referendum.
There is a precedent for Ireland having a second vote on a European treaty, as two referenda were required to pass the Nice Treaty.
With the second referendum six weeks away, both pro and anti-Lisbon campaigns are grinding into gear.
While many of the 2008 arguments from both sides are being re-circulated this time around, experts told EurActiv that the political backdrop to this year’s referendum is profoundly different to that of last year.
According to the sources, who did not wish to be named given the politically sensitive nature of the current debates, many of the grounds for argument raised by the ‘no’ camp in 2008 are no longer in play, given that the guarantees and concessions granted to Ireland by EU leaders appear to have assuaged many of the fears expressed by Irish ‘no’ voters last June.
As a result, they indicated, the ‘no’ campaign could face an ‘uphill struggle’ to recreate its 2008 success.
Given the changed context, the ‘no’ camp will largely have to base its arguments on issues they feel have not been addressed by the EU guarantees, using, in particular, workers’ rights as a spearhead for its campaign.
Indeed, the combined ‘no’ campaign was launched earlier this week with a warning that the treaty would leave workers worse off and more exposed to spending cuts.
A profoundly undemocratic document, says ‘no’ camp
Speaking at the launch, Ireland’s sole anti-Lisbon MEP, Socialist Joe Higgins, argued that the Lisbon Treaty “is a profoundly undemocratic document, which seeks to turn right-wing economic policies into the only show in town”.
According to the MEP, if Lisbon is passed, “the EU Commission would uphold the right of big business to profit from public services, over and above the rights of workers to take action to defend these services”.
However, Andrew Byrne, Chief of Operations for pro-Lisbon advocacy group Ireland for Europe, dismissed the ‘no’ camp’s claims, arguing that its “scattergun approach” continues to falsely portray Lisbon as part of a “neoliberal economic agenda”.
According to Byrne, the ‘no side’ “will continue to misrepresent and distort the truth, playing on peoples’ fears and anxieties”.
Groundswell of groups adds legitimacy to ‘yes’ camp
But pro-Lisbon Byrne believes that despite what he sees as the fear-mongering on the ‘no’ side, the emergence of a plethora of civil society ‘yes’ bodies are giving a stronger legitimacy to the overall pro-Lisbon campaign.
“You only have to look at the number of groups out there to see that there is a groundswell of people who are not part of the normal political scene, who care about the future of the country and feel that Lisbon is a big part of that,” he said.
This “shows that there are people throughout Ireland who feel this issue is too important to leave to politicians and traditional groups”.
Byrne argued that the proliferation of civil society ‘yes’ groups “takes the wind out of the ‘no’ camp’s sails”, in that “it doesn’t allow the ‘no’ groups to paint Lisbon as merely an ambition of the political establishment”.
“We’re making the point to people that there is a new deal on the table and their concerns have been addressed. The loss of the Commissioner, for example, was a huge concern to people,” said Byrne.
The Ireland for Europe representative concluded that in his opinion, the ‘no’ camp is weaker this time around, but urged against “complacency,” among pro-Lisbon activists, arguing that all groups should remain active on the ground until the referendum.
The Pirate Party received 7.13% of the total Swedish votes in the 2009 European Parliament elections, which resulted in one seat in the European parliament.
By: Daniel Östlund, MEP, Pirate Party member, Sweden
I am a member of the Pirate Party and I am proud of it. I joined early this year and would consider myself a grass roots supporter. I have been following their development from day one. For a long time I have been unable to find a party that I feel represents my beliefs and me as a person.
On January 1, 2006, the founder of The Pirate Bay, Rickard Falkvinge, opened a website for people interested in forming a new political party. His goal was to receive as many names as possible in order to form a party that would focus on preserving the immaterial rights and privacies of the individual.
Within 48 hours the site had received 3 million hits. It quickly became clear that The Pirate Party was something many people had been waiting for. It was ready to ask the questions that people like me wanted to see on the agenda in the Swedish parliament as well as the EU. The Pirate Party is often portrayed as being a party of discontent or a ‘one question’ party. I disagree and I feel their campaign agenda and what they stand for is so much more than that.
I strongly feel they will be able to make a difference and will bring a more current and socially relevant view to politics in Europe. Laws such as the recently enacted IPRED-directive” (Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive) which makes it possible for copyright holders to obtain a court order demanding the release of personal information related to users and organisations suspected of copyright infringements as well as IP addresses. The copyright holders will then be able to use the information to bring cases for compensation against the suspected individuals.
I feel this has significantly impacted the basic freedoms of the Swedish people. I strongly believe that had The Pirate Party been present when this law was first being debated there would have been a greater understanding of its impact on individuals and on industry itself.
The internet is an integral part of Swedish society today. The majority of the youth including myself have been instrumental in its growth and its place in our personal and professional lives. This is something I have always been extremely proud of. We are one Europe’s most connected nations.
Swedish politicians have clearly proved to me and many others with their recent actions that they are completely out of touch with today’s society. The Pirate Party has grown immensely recently. Every time issues regarding subjects such as file sharing, personal integrity or when our legal security has been compromised by private interests, The Pirate Party has stood up where others have not, and have been the voice we have needed. I feel this trend is set to continue and I am certain The Pirate Party’s support will continue to grow. The Pirate Party recieved 7.1% of the votes in the election, and will get 1 seat in the European Parliament. If the lissabon treaty goes through, it is possible that they will get a second seat.
In recent weeks in the run up to the elections other parties have begun to take notice of the support The Pirate Party is gaining with their agenda and have started adopting similar policies of their own. However, I feel they lack the understanding and the conviction that The Pirate Party has shown to me and many others in Sweden and across Europe.
I share the beliefs of The Pirate Party. Their goals to preserve our integrity and our security are fundamental issues to me and I feel it is extremely important that they are addressed now. When the Swedish government enacted the IPRED law they gave private interests the right to information that was previously reserved for the police and security services. This information is supposed to protect our rights and our privacy.
Private companies are being handed warrants to search and seize information on anyone they deem to be infringing upon their corporate agendas, such as suspected file sharers who have recently been very publicly targeted by the entertainment industry here in Sweden. File sharing has been an integral part of internet growth in Sweden and has been widely accepted by all as being part of everyday life. I feel the government has been influenced strongly by the private sector in such matters and have neglected the wishes of everyone else. Many people including myself are extremely dissatisfied and we feel we are being marginalised by the politicians and the private sector.
It is time we stood up and stopped allowing the private sector to dictate our politics. I believe The Pirate Party will do everything in the power to achieve this. That is why I joined them. They represent me and they understand my concerns.
Daniel Östlund
Pirate Party member
Pirate party – http://www.piratpartiet.se/
UK Election Day : 4 June 2009
The European Parliament is the only directly-elected body of the European Union. The Members of the European Parliament are there to represent you, the citizen. The European Parliament channel offers you insights into the parliament´s work and show you which of our activities and decisions affect your daily life.
You are invited to be informed and also create awareness for the upcoming elections as well as to interact with others from all European countries.
Visit http://www.youtube.com/user/EuropeanParliament
Users can look up MEPs' individual voting records or access voting data according to nationality or political group affiliation.
Source: EurActiv [edited]
Citizens will be able to track the voting records of their MEPs ahead of next elections following the launch of a new website making such details easily accessible to the public. VoteWatch.eu was developed by political scientists from the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Free University of Brussels (ULB). Those involved include Sara Hagemann of the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think-tank, LSE professor Simon Hix, Doru Frantescu of the Qvorum Institute in Bucharest and Adbul G. Noury, associate professor of economics at ULB.
VoteWatch.eu is described as a “not-for-profit organisation” supported by the Open Society Institute, an NGO, Burson Marsteller, a consultancy, and Electionmall.com. The VoteWatch.eu project – which seeks to boost the transparency of EU decision-making and improve the quality of debate – collates publicly available attendance, voting and activity data on MEPs on a single, searchable portal.
The project “provides detailed information about parliamentarians’ voting records and formal political activities – from committee work to parliamentary reports – and includes easy-to-access information on the political coalitions that are formed around policy issues,” reads a statement on the website. “We’re not campaign-oriented, party-political, or receiving any money from the EU institutions or government organisations,” explained project leader Sara Hagemann of the European Policy Centre (EPC), a Brussels-based think-tank. “All the info is publicly available, but it’s difficult to find. We’ve collated it all,” she said.
Users can look up MEPs’ individual voting records or access voting data according to nationality or political group affiliation. The search tool allows users to identify whether an MEP voted with or against his or her government or political group’s line on a particular issue.
“Cohesion scores” displayed alongside the results allow for comparisons with members’ previous votes on similar issues or alignment with the party line, allowing users to track how the positions of their MEP or a political group have evolved over the years. “There are shifting coalitions in the European Parliament, just like the shifting coalitions in the US Congress,” said Simon Hix of the London School of Economics, another of the site’s developers.
‘No naming and shaming’
The information on VoteWatch.eu is purely objective. “This is not a naming-and-shaming site, and I think it’ll be difficult to use the site for this. It is not subject to any editorial manipulation. It means people can now use the information that the Parliament is providing. Before, this was not the case.” One drawback of the website is that it can only track roll-call votes, and not electronic or show-of-hands ones. “But all the most important votes, and all those that involve lobbying, are roll-call,” Hix said.
Site ‘must not hide’ EU institutions’ failings
But EU Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros warned that the initiative must not be allowed to hide the European Parliament’s own communication troubles, and especially not those of the Council. “Citizens will not be satisfied until all legislative deliberation is made public,” said Diamandouros, expressing his belief that with the upcoming Swedish EU Presidency committed to improving transparency, the issue is “likely to acquire even more importance in the years to come”. .
Hailing the launch of the tool, EU Ombudsman P. Nikiforos Diamandouros said the best way of increasing trust in the Union was to improve transparency of decision-making. “Lack of transparency in the legislative process, alongside difficulties in accessing documents, is by far the most common complaint I hear from citizens,” he said. “Transparency did not feature highly on the EU agenda until recently, but it’s at the forefront now. The Access to Documents Regulation was a key landmark, because it made openness the rule and secrecy the exception. But the situation is still far from perfect,” Diamandouros said.
Sarkozy proposed to create a large joint economic area, noting that a similar concept might work to bind Russia closer to the EU.
Source: EuroActiv [edited]
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has strongly rejected German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s idea of a “privileged partnership” between the EU and Turkey, saying his country would not accept any alternative to full membership of the European Union.
Speaking at a gathering of young conservatives on 10 May, Merkel said it does not make sense for the EU to continuously expand if it leaves the Union unable to operate. She added that she would prefer Turkey to receive a privileged partnership from the EU, rather than full membership, echoing recent comments made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the launch of his EU election campaign (EurActiv 8/05/09).
At the same meeting, Sarkozy told German newspaper Bild am Sonntag: “We need a well-organised Europe [...] That means we cannot expand without borders. We shouldn’t make any empty promises to Turkey.” As an alternative, Sarkozy proposed to create a large joint economic area, noting that a similar concept might work to bind Russia closer to the EU.
The Turkish press expressed widespread dismay at the statements, made by the two EU leaders during a young CDU (Christian-Democrats) activists’ event. The daily Milliyet wrote that “Merkel has officially shocked Turkey”. Before being elected president in May 2007, Sarkozy frequently spoke out against Turkey’s EU accession, but softened his stance after his election (EurActiv 28/08/07). In the case of Germany, Merkel’s unfavourable view of Ankara’s accession is tempered by the more positive attitude of her foreign minister and Social Democratic coalition partner Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
The French press, for its part, interpreted Merkel’s statements as a veiled attack on the UK Conservative party. “Those who refuse the Lisbon Treaty – which would allow us to work better and to take aboard new members – but who still talk about enlargement, we refuse to shake their hand,” the AFP agency quoted Merkel as saying.
The agency quotes an unidentified member of the French government as saying that Merkel was referring to the Conservative party led by David Cameron. The Eurosceptic tone adopted by the British Conservatives, who decided to leave the centre-right European People’s Party, is “worrying” Paris and Berlin, the source added.
Official vs.unofficial partnership with the EU institutions
Source : EurActiv [edited]
Please see the EuroElections add here : http://www.europarltv.europa.eu/YourVoice.aspx?action=view&PackageId=3aa717a9-86c7-48b6-af0d-3046a364b605
Online broadcaster YouTube and TV channel Euronews launched a new broadcasting service to “connect voters and candidates” ahead of next month’s European elections. ‘Questions for Europe’ is not the first time YouTube has hosted political messages. The White House, Queen Elizabeth II and 10 Downing Street all have official channels on the site, while YouTube has worked in partnership with local broadcasters for elections in Spain, Poland, Israel and New Zealand.
The ‘Questions for Europe’ projectexternal seeks to encourage candidates, constituents and experts “to engage in a dialogue through online video”. The project, which becomes active for the public later this week, primarily relies on user-generated content, inviting citizens to submit questions to candidate MEPs by uploading videos to a dedicated channel on YouTube, a popular online video community owned by US giant Google.
Euronews will broadcast a selection of the questions – and MEPs, think-tank representatives and other Brussels commentators’ answers to them – at the end of its half-hourly news bulletins, which reach 256 million households in 144 countries.
Echoes of MyBarackObama.com
The European Parliament and the EU executive already have their own YouTube channels, but Questions for Europe’s backers stressed that the new initiative was completely independent from the EU institutions’ preparations for the elections. “There is no official partnership with the EU institutions,” said Echikson, and “there is no official partnership with the candidates or political parties either,” added Euronews managing director and board member Michael Peters.
Asked what the motivation behind the project was, Echikson said “we remembered the Obama ‘Yes we can’ phenomenon, and thought, ‘Can we do this in Europe?’” “It’s too early to say whether this will take off like ‘Yes we can’. It’s an experiment. It’s something new,” he added. “The glossiest veneer isn’t always the most authentic in politics,” added Aaron Ferstman, director of political communications at YouTube. “Raw can be better sometimes, which is where YouTube comes in.”
‘Not a marketing exercise’
Refuting suggestions that the whole enterprise was simply a marketing exercise for all concerned, Peters said the project was “about giving concrete, professional answers to individual questions”. “It’s a question of educating people. We are trying to be a bit of a Wikipedia on the EU elections,” Peters said. “It’s about putting intelligent user-generated content on air.” “It’s also about having the right questions available at the right time when we’re interviewing MEPs. It’s not a question of using our partnership with YouTube in a marketing way,” he insisted.
Some observers present at yesterday’s launch suggested that the channel could become a Eurosceptic hub, as most public contributions to such initiatives tended to be anti-EU. “We’re not afraid of it becoming a Eurosceptic channel. We know that it will be mainly Eurosceptic, and we’re waiting for that. We need all points of view for it to be credible,” insisted Euronews’ Peters. “Please Eurosceptics, come to us,” he urged.
Positions:
“The upcoming European election will captivate European citizens and generate discussions from Portugal to Poland. Our news, online content, and soon YouTube videos in Euronews broadcasts all fuel impassioned political conversations,” said Michael Peters, managing director and a member of the board at Euronews.
“The Euronews-YouTube channel enables a global audience to delve into politics in a way that simply was not possible during the last [European] Parliamentary election,” said YouTube’s director of political communications, Aaron Ferstman. “In conjunction with Euronews, a leader in both television broadcasting and editorial programming, we are for the first time enabling voters from around the European Union to ask their potential future member of parliament a question in video form and hear the answer,” Ferstman continued. “One of the things that works most successfully for politicians is to upload frequently and be engaged,” he said. “YouTube can raise awareness of the EU elections. Many people don’t even know when the elections are, but everyone recognises the YouTube logo.”
Petition for the Prime Minister to inform all citizens and residents to vote in the European Elections on 4 June 09.
Source: Nath Henry
It is the Government’s duty to communicate the importance of these fast-approaching, and largely invisible, elections to all voters. The European Parliament is responsible with the Council of Ministers for passing legislation that affects us all. The Government is represented in the Council of Ministers. It is its job to inform us what it does and how important the European elections are for making the EU accountable to its citizens.
Thank you for adding your name online if you would like to support the petition.
Nath Henry
SIGN IT HERE: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Date4Europe/
European Health Insurance Card
Protection Of Cultural Heritage
Human rights throughout the world
To what extent and in which areas can the Europarties’ campaigns be similar or different to national campaign styles?
By: Centre for European Studies
Academics should not only concentrate on analyzing and explaining the elections post-factum – that is, writing books and articles some time after the elections – but also to offer reliable accounts of valid political events as they are taking place. Contrary to most other blogs devoted to the European Parliament elections, my analytical perspective will usually include the historical reflections and comparisons to six previous direct EP elections, taking place since 1979, and will also offer a background and comparisons to the wider literature on the elections and political parties in general. In this sense, it will be both informative and polemic. I am convinced that there is a large number of Internet users who look for such type of analysis and by providing them with it I can contribute my small part to stimulate the debate on the EP elections in an EU-wide perspective. Furthermore, I do hope that some readers will take a little while to enrich this blog by commenting and discussing some of my thoughts, thereby writing it together with me.
The first group of entries will be devoted to the role of the political parties at the European level, also known as the Euro-parties. The Euro-parties should not be confused with the political groups in the European Parliament. Whereas the latter concentrate on the parliamentary activities, the former focus on coordinating the partisan activities within a much larger perspective, mainly but not exclusively, between national political parties. Among the largest and most well known Euro-parties are the European People’s Party (EPP), uniting Christian democrats and conservatives, the Party of European Socialists (PES) and the European Liberals Democrats and Reformers Party (ELDR). Altogether there are 10 Euro-parties. Political scientists agree that the notion of the ‘political party’ found in the names of the above mentioned organizations to a large extent differs from that of national political parties, mostly because they do not run for power and do not have direct membership. For many years the Europarties focused on developing the coordination mechanisms, building a space for communication and exchange of views, and developing a sense of commonality and shared goals. In other words, they used to be typical coordination forums or umbrella organizations for national political parties. Over time, the major Euro-parties also began to organize the summits of their leaders on the eve of the subsequent European Councils, thus entering much more visibly into the EU political system. What they are facing now – i.e. campaigning in the European Parliament elections – is an even more important change, as they been given a chance to contribute to the electoral success of their member parties, and thus, become relevant to all of them. However, how they can achieve this given the national-based, rather than European, focus of these elections? How can they fulfill their electoral role given that hardly any EU citizens know about their existence? To what extent and in which areas can the Europarties’ campaigns be similar or different to national campaign styles? These are just some topics that I will discuss in subsequent blogs, and I warmly invite you to read and comment on them.
Recent Comments