Category: Feature Article

The faltering Franco-German relationship

On the 7th of April was held the 18th Franco-German Cabinet Meeting in Metz, a city located in a territory at the heart of the Franco-German relationship, the Alsace-Moselle, a long disputed land today symbolising the reconciliation between these two countries.

The issues at stake were particularly key to the migrant crisis and the terrorisme risk in the background: two issues on which the two countries have divergent views. The advancing of their cooperation for growth, employment, cultural and linguistic exchange and youth mobility was also discussed.

A symbolic rather than an operational meeting

Despite the importance of the topics on the table, this Cabinet Meeting did not pave the way for significant progress to be made. On the migrant issue, no complementary solution to the EU-Turkey agreement was discussed, although the migrant influx in Europe is far from being hampered. A solution would be the establishment of a European Corps of Border and Coast Guards, to regulate the arrival of migrants in respect of the asylum right, a value that should be commonly shared by all EU Member States.

On the crucial question of terrorism, even though the recent adoption of the PNR directive, a somewhat lighter version to the one defended by the ALDE group, is a notable progress.   France and Germany, along with the other Member States, do not go in-depth to design a common and efficient response to the threat. The reinforcement and extension of Europol’s prerogatives was not put on the table, although weaknesses in intelligence and police cooperation bear a clear responsibility for the attacks of 2015 and 2016.

Even if France and Germany pledged for further cooperation in various domains and if a Franco-German Council for Integration will be set up to answer to the refugee integration challenge, no serious commitment were taken on youth cooperation, a crucial topic for the next European generations. A misunderstanding seems to remain after France’s negative signal sent to its neighbour with its decision to suppress bilingual classes, which enable pupils to study both English and German.

This is time for France and Germany to defend the common necessary responses

It would be a mistake to see in the stagnation of this bilateral relationship a problem only for France and Germany. Their demographics, economics, politics and their statutes of Founding Members make them the engine of a still largely – unfortunately – inter-governmental Europe. Their disagreement or, worst, their lack of reciprocal interest, are particularly detrimental to Europe at a moment where it faces existential crises. This is time for national governments, especially for France and Germany, to take responsibility and defend the common necessary responses. With national elections looming in both countries, that remains an unlikely move.

Tristan ATMANIA (@ATMANIATristan)

Photo: Présidence de la République

YDE
Feature Article

Keeping the United Kingdom in a stronger Europe

One can’t have the cake and eat it too

What happened?

Late January – early February 2016 was sealed a draft proposal on the renegotiation of UK’s membership terms in the European Union between Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, and David Cameron. This agreement, a basis for the discussions that will take place when the European Council will formally meet on the 18th of February, seeks to answer the following question: how to keep the United Kingdom in the EU? For us, the question should be: how to keep the United Kingdom in a stronger Europe?

Where do we come from?

First and foremost, one should bear in mind the actual position of the UK within the EU. Through his renegotiation, David Cameron essentially wishes to see its country particular way in Europe to be acknowledged and respected.

He should be reminded that the UK has already secured more opt-outs than any other country in Europe, a privilege that no one intends to take back.

Among them:

  • a refusal to adopt the Euro,
  • no participation to the Schengen system
  • and a very limited security and judicial cooperation.

Hence the explanation why the reforms Cameron pledged to obtain through the renegotiation will appear mainly symbolic to the British people: there is nothing more to negotiate!

What now?

Cameron’s demands fall into four categories: economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and social benefits and free movement. Not everything is negative or unacceptable. Regarding competitiveness, Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament have long argued for a simplification of EU legislation and a cut in red tape, policies already implemented through the Commission’s Better Regulation Agenda.

Fair enough.

The idea of a veto from a majority of national Parliaments on an EU legislation deemed not compliant with the subsidiarity principle is also interesting. National Parliaments should be more closely associated to the EU legislative work and have a real European dimension. But the effectiveness of such a mechanism remains doubtful.

On the other hand, we strongly oppose some of the proposals contained in this settlement. The UK obtained a permanent opt-out on the euro when the Maastricht Treaty was adopted in 1992 but now want to have a say on Eurozone policies. This cannot be.

Cameron wants to limit claims for social benefits from EU citizens working in Britain: this is revolting. While UK is at full employment rate and enjoys net revenues from the flow of migrant workers, it is a clear breach into the non-discrimination.

We do not promote nor discuss discrimination. We actually work on the exact opposite.

Through these negotiations, David Cameron finally seeks to impose its own reinterpretation of the Treaties. According to him, references in the Treaties to the “ever closer Union” should be merely understood as a simple commitment to “promote trust and understanding among people living in open and democratic societies (…) they are not an equivalent to the objective of political integration”. This hopeless trial to limit the EU competences would be a major blow to the very essence of the EU and should be firmly opposed.

This is equivalent to pyromaniac firemen who keeps on reproaching to EU its lack of action, but make sure it can’t act.

What should be done?

We believe that it would be a huge mistake if Britain leaves the EU: for economic, political but most importantly geopolitical reason. Nevertheless, Member States should not agree on any settlement that would reduce the current European Union, diminish its competences, hamper its functioning and consequently slow down the integration process. David Cameron knows perfectly that Britain has already secured its singular path in Europe and that other Member States have no intention of reversing that position.

The purpose of this agreement should be to engrave the existence of different paths of integration for the different States, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, whilst respecting the rights of those which do not want to take such a course. For the EU it is a matter of survival and that should be enough for Mister Cameron to make a positive case for UK’s EU membership. A real European integration remains more than ever desirable, no matter how long and tortuous the road promises to be. But to make it simpler, let it be with those who really want to be a part of it. Such important decisions should be taken by Europeans and not only a single country!

 Vincent Delhomme (@VincentDelhomme)

YDE
Feature Article

Brexit or not Brexit: that’s the European future!

After his victory with a surprising majority at the last British General elections, David Cameron now gets a strong mandate to carry through with one of his key campaign issues: renegotiate United Kingdom’s term of adhesion to the European Union and hold a referendum on its membership before 2017. Shortly after his victory, David Cameron toured European capitals to convince his counterparts to let Britain secure more opt-outs, and of the necessity of EU treaties changes.

Ten years after the trauma of the French and Dutch “No” votes to the European Constitution, the issue of institutional changes comes back on the agenda. The EU architecture still lacks clarification. As Democrats and Federalists, we think that Member States should not fear this democratic debate and that this is the occasion to discuss what Europe we want, by putting forward our propositions for more integration.

As a starting point, it should be clearly said to David Cameron and the British people that the European Union is based on certain core values and this is impossible to compromise on them. These values are the heart of the European project. Suggestions to reduce intra-European immigration or deprive migrants of their welfare rights in Britain are not acceptable. Freedom of movement and non-discrimination between EU citizens are basic principles on which the EU is built. Removing these rights in order only to secure British membership would be a terrible mistake. It would give the illusion of strengthening the Union by actually weakening its foundations.

Moreover, David Cameron’s partners should respect British demands and work as much as possible to keep Britain inside the Europe Union. Indeed, the democratic mandate given by the British people for this renegotiation suffers no contestation. The United Kingdom is a major EU country and its departure would be a terrible precedent that would weaken the entire Union. Furthermore, some of Cameron’s demands are positive, such as his pledge to cut red tape and simplify EU rules, or his commitment to strengthen the common market for services.

Most important of all, negotiating in good intelligence with David Cameron would be a good way of obtaining more integration for the countries that desire it. Time has come to reinvent Europe’s architecture. The Euro zone should be the EU core, with more economic and political integration, while an outer circle of countries would merely be focused only on the common market. Those who want to truly build an “ever closer Union” should be able to do so.

A referendum will be held in the United Kingdom. In two years, the European Union could be paralysed, or become more democratic, pluralistic and integrated than ever. All European Democrats and Federalists should make their voices heard so only the latter occurs.

 Vincent Delhomme (@VincentDelhomme)

(Photo: European Commission)

YDE
Feature Article

Google and Gazprom cases: important steps for Europe

These have been busy weeks for the Directorate General for Competition, the almighty European market regulator. Spurred by its iron fisted Commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, on the 15th and 22nd of April, the European Commission decided to take action against Google and Gazprom, over allegations of having abused their dominant position on the market. These decisions are without prejudice of the outcome of the investigation, but the two firms may face fines up to 10 % of their turnover, amounting to billions of euros.

DG COMP: the world’s most powerful competition authority

Competition policy is one of the few competences exclusively exercised by the Commission – the Member States keeping their own competition authorities for issues relevant to their own national market – making the DG COMP the world’s most powerful competition authority. European competition law does not condemn the dominant position one can acquire through fair competition, innovation and the better quality of your products. It aims at protecting the consumer by keeping big firms from using their power to strengthen their position and eliminate competition, in order to favour their products or services and charge higher prices on the market.

After having conducted a 5-year investigation, the Commission believes Google has exploited its dominance in the online search engine market- it currently holds 90 % of this market in Europe – to prioritise its own comparison shopping product over the ones of its competitors. Basically, a consumer searching for a comparison between products on Google would be more likely to be redirected to Google’s own comparison system than to the ones of its competitors, regardless of how appropriate Google’s service is to the request of the user. Google would be using its strength on the search engine market to gain power on other markets, stifling competition and ultimately harming consumers. Having been a key actor for innovation in the last decades, Google is now suspected to unlawfully protect itself from potential competitors.

In the Gazprom case, the potentially illegal behaviour is more obvious. The Commission is investigating anti-competitive practices in Central and Eastern Europe. Given that Gazprom is a vital supplier of gas for many EU Member States, it enjoys a huge bargaining power that he may have used to limit cross-border competition and impose higher prices to consumers.

The United States and Russia quickly denounced the Commission decisions as politically motivated. Commentators have also pointed that the Commission might have acted to cover its own weaknesses on the digital and the energy market, two markets that happen to be the priorities of the Juncker mandate. There is some truth lying in these criticisms. As long as a foreign actor is capable of offering better or cheaper products to European consumers, it should be welcomed. Google, a company that has been fostering innovation in many markets ought not to be punished for its success. Competition regulation should remain primarily a legal tool and should not be twisted to serve any protectionist agenda.

Nonetheless, together with the law goes the way to enforce it. The Commission has a political role in setting up priorities and approaches in the way it implements its rules. To that extent, the Commission steadiness is important, for it has often been argued that Europe was unable to protect itself. The Union should use this opportunity to show that it is working for the sake of its citizens and is ready to use its strength to protect them. As the world’s strongest consumer market, the EU has the capacity to face the world’s biggest companies, a capacity that none of its member states enjoys alone.

It goes with the essence of the European project and its credibility

The final outcome of the investigations is not known yet and the Commission will have the possibility to settle an agreement with the parties. But the European Union has just shown that it was ready to act according to its rules when the interest of its citizens was threatened, no matter how big the adversary was. It is consistent with the vision the European Democrats have always defended, of a strong and protective Europe in globalization. It is crucial, because it goes with the essence of the European project and its credibility.

These developments are a vital reminder of how Europe can stand in a globalized world. United, it has the capacity to make its voice heard, divided it is bound to be an addition of small entities, struggling in front of tomorrow’s giants.

 Vincent Delhomme (@VincentDelhomme)

(Photo: European Commission)

YDE
Feature Article

Towards a common immigration policy

According to Amnesty International, 2014 has been the worst year for refugees since 1945. More than 50 million people have been thrown out of their home due to the increase in armed conflicts. In its annual report the NGO denounces the lack of reaction of the international community regarding this humanitarian emergency.

The EU falls short of its obligations

The European Union especially falls short of its obligations. From the 4 million Syrians said to have fled their country since the outbreak of its bloody war, the EU has only welcomed a handful (barely 4 %), while 95 % of them found refuge in their neighbouring countries. This hostility towards refugees has also lead to a surge in illegal immigration (274.000 illegal migrants in 2014 for only 100.000 in 2013). The Mediterranean Sea, by far the deadliest route of all, took the lives of 3,400 migrants in 2014.

But the burden of taking in refugees is far from being equally shared across the EU Member States. Sweden accounts for more than 20 % of all asylum granted in 2013 (26.000), despite the fact that it only represents 2 % of EU population. The same year, asylum was automatically granted by Sweden to all Syrian refugees joining the country. Germany also performs well, and has pledged to welcome 20.000 asylum seekers for the years 2014 and 2015. On the opposite, certain countries are reluctant to welcome refugees, such as Denmark, whose immigration policy has drastically toughened in the recent years. France is also criticized by Amnesty International for having only welcomed 2.500 Syrian refugees in 2014.

 A common policy has to be conducted

During a visit to Stockholm last February, Antonio Guterres, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), highlighted the weaknesses of EU policy regarding immigration, and called for a more equal distribution of refugees among Member States, be it under the form of quotas. The EU, as a continent of 500 million inhabitants and one of the richest regions of the globe, has the means to take a greater share of refugees than it actually does. Moreover, Europe needs immigration to balance its flickering demography. For most of the migration experts, the EU is capable of handling the surge in illegal immigration if it adopts the adequate policies. But this cannot be done by Member States alone, and a common policy has to be conducted.

Member States still retain much of their powers on immigration, and admission rules are very different throughout the continent. A common policy is needed to set an ambitious common target of migrants admitted per year and to ensure that countries contribute on an equal basis. The EU must also try to stop the humanitarian disaster happening in the Mediterranean Sea. States such as Italy or Greece, the gateways to Europe, must be helped to secure their borders and to patrol the Sea. It is unfair to let them suffer the burden and the costs of these missions, because they are not the countries ultimately sought by migrants. Previous attempts, such as the Mare Nostrum operation, have failed in this regard.

Towards a fairer distribution of migrants between countries

The European Commission has started to reflect upon a common immigration policy. It revealed a  few days ago a scheme by which EU offices and embassies in third “countries of origin” would process applications for asylum and refugee status before the migrants reach Europe. The aim would be to reduce the numbers of migrants illegally landing on EU shores. Strongly supported by Italy, France or Germany, this idea is fiercely fought by countries such as United Kingdom or Hungary, who consider it as a pull factor for illegal immigration. The Commission is also said to want to move towards a fairer distribution of migrants between countries.

This debate is probably one of the most important and one of the trickiest of the Juncker Commission mandate. Immigration touches the core of Member States sovereignty and is a highly sensitive electoral issue. Convincing some countries to welcome more migrants, in the midst of an economic quagmire and a rise of far-right populism, will not be an easy task. The EU will have to prove all its endowment in consensus building. But along practical considerations, there is something bigger at stake in showing that Europe’s voice cannot be reduced to the anti-immigration stance used by some of its politicians to satisfy disgruntled voters.

Vincent Delhomme (@VincentDelhomme)

Photo: Noborder Network

YDE
Feature Article

Young Democrats for Europe (YDE)
Jeunes Democrates Europeens (JDE)
YDE is the youth wing of the European Party.We embrace the key role of democratic principles, underlined in the Lisbon Treaty and shrined in our political belief: democracy, freedom, equality, participation, sustainability and solidarity.

Contact us

    OUR PARTNERS

     

    Young Democrats for Europe - All Rights Reserved © With the financial support of the European Parliament and the european Democratic Party