Europe goes to the polls. But once we have made Europe, we need to make Europeans.

When a few months ago, walking through the Paseo de la Castellana in Madrid, I saw a big poster in the nearby of the Permanent Representation of the European Commission, where it was written on: "European Year of Citizens 2013", I asked myself: did anybody notice it? Of course, almost none did. Even a watchful eye like me, who quite often pays attention to this kind of issues, did not notice the existence of such an initiative entirely dedicated by Europe to its citizens. On the contrary, the only thing we would probably be able to remember is how many taxes and quirky laws come from Brussels, while the European Year of Citizens is completely ignored by most of the  people. And why is that? The reason is simple: nobody ever thought about creating a European citizenship identity since Europe has been projected. But there's something else. If the word Europe is only able to bring to one's mind words like bureaucracy in a century in which people needs rules to be simplified, it is clear that there are some communications problem on the ground. If Europe can only remind you of an incomprehensible "eurocracy", in times when people demands more transparency, there is obviously something missing. One more example. Does anybody know that on May 9th each year, at least since 1964, we celebrate Europe Day? I bet almost none does. 

From last Thursday, all 28 EU countries were called upon to elect a new European Parliament, a House of Representatives from across the continent, which will have the task of electing the new Commission and approve the EU budget for the next five years. However, if we ask people on the street who were EU Commission Presidency candidates, I doubt that any of them knows the answer.

Few people really know that Europe impacts on national legislation is very high. Some figures suggest that about 70% of the rules passed by our national parliaments are European laws translated into local legislation.

Turnout at the European elections (1979-2009)

With such a scenario, with a growing presence of European issues in our daily lives, it is no longer possible to minimize EU polls to second level elections, thus fomenting the turnout. We cannot let those who constantly highlight how bad is Europe win these elections, while those that should tell us how beautiful is Schuman, Spinelli, Adenauer & Monnet's intuition remain silent, by focusing on minor issues.

We need to start again from how we educate new generations. Telling the younger what Europe is, and especially what was our continent before the EU was set up. I think this is the simplest thing to do if you want to avoid the collapse of one of the most interesting political projects in the history of our continent. 

AV

EUROPE ON STRIKE

AV

US Elections: what does it change for Europe?

 

What does it change for Europe whether Obama orRomney wins tonight's elections? Nothing! Sad but true, Europe does not matter to whoever becomes the 45th president of the United States of America. The only statement about Europe has been Mitt Romney's unpolite one on indebted countries like Greece, Italy or Spain. For the rest,transatlantic relations did not enter US presidential campaign debate. China, Iran, India and even Russia seemed to be more important to Washington than Brussels economic problems. 

On our European side, US elections really matter as well as whether Obama or Romney wins. Weird but true there should be some reciprocity on the issue. Europeans should not be so interested in who will be the next US president. So why are both right-wing and left-wing EU politicians in favour of Obama’s election? Usually, European right-wing politicians openly supported a Republican candidate. Why this time, are they silently opting for the Democratic Obama? The answer could be linked to communications. Maybe because Obama never mentioned Spain or Greece with such a negative connotation as Romney did. Perhaps, because he never criticized the continent’s welfare model, even if with $1,1 trillion public deficit (+151% from 2009) it would be hard doing that. Another point could be that Obama is part of a left-wing American bourgeoisie having close ties with Europe. On top of these irrelevant aspects, Obama’s approach to US/EU relationship management is not very different from his competitor's. It is the same US/EU foreign policy, with an hawkish approach in the case of Romney and a dovish approach in the case of Obama. What does this mean? This is the symptom of a more and more irrelevant Europe's role in a new world balanced on America/Asia relations. Europe seems to be relevant when it is time to talk about its economic problems. The same economic problems generated in the United States 5 years ago. 

Europeans would vote for Obama, but few things will change. A change was expected in 2008 and what Europe had in turn was the export of the worst economic crisis since 1929. Maybe, a weak Europe with a weakest currency is more to benefit US fragile economy. On this issue, both Romney and Obama agree. At least, for the sake of all those companies and banks that have been supporting the two candidates 6 billion dollars campaign! 

One more aspect. This election debate was entirely focused on domestic issues. Sooner or later the next US President will have to face world politics, including US/EU relations. As it happened to Roosevelt after years of isolation syndrome due to the crisis.    

AV

When will we have a European rating agency?

What caused Europe crisis derives from multiple factors. It is not only a matter of sovereign debt crisis. Behind the worst crisis since 1929 there is more than this. On the day when China and Russia launch their own rating agency - the Universal Credit Rating Group - my mind goes back to when the American ones used to downgrade our continent economy.
It all started with Greece in 2009, when rumors that Athens wasn't able to pay its debts led to default fears. Ireland, Portugal and Spain together with Greece soon became the so called PIGS. An acronym very useful when the three American rating agencies monopoly used to describe the reasons behind the downgrading of the above mentioned countries.

Who's behind the rating agencies is well-known. Rating agencies have been making false statements and analyses concerning banks on the edge of failure, as in the Lehman Brothers case. One of the greatest financial scandals ever. Rating agencies acted as if in a football match the referee was clearly a supporter of one of the two rival teams.

The problem is today's crisis is due to the increasing power of a wild market system where everything is allowed. The regulator is influenced by money more than realistic previsions when deciding. It is the abdication of politics and the rise of a disaster movie about finance.

China and Russia idea to create their own rating agency goes in the direction to stop a monopoly where almost 90% of the world market is rated by Moody's, Fitch and S&P. What about Europe? The only country to be really hit by the three sister misleading analyses doesn't seem to respond properly. The norms on the regulation of rating agencies activities and the Tobin Tax could be ok but what about the creation of a European rating agency? If rating agencies are necessary for the market to survive, a European one would certainly help the system to be more balanced. In time we'll see.

AV

"Six decades of peace and democracy in Europe"

"For over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"

With this motivation, last Friday the Oslo academy decided the Nobel Peace Prize for the European Union. Many have criticised the decision as happened in 2009 for Barack Obama's Nobel. At that time, I agreed on that criticism since Obama had not proven yet to deserve such a prize. His administration had really little time to cope with world peace. One year was not enough either for him or any other one. I believe that on that occasion political marketing prevailed over reality. A good intention does not exactly mean a good action. It is a plus, of course. Especially after a decade of US politics inspired to Bush JR's "hawky" wars. But that doesn't make of Obama a Nobel Peace Prize.

Now, many others criticise EU Nobel Peace Prize, as in 2009. Public opinion believes that the Oslo academy more than being a prestigious international body is turning into a political institution. But to be honest, more than once Oslo awarded Nobel Peace Prize to international organizations: from UNHCR and Red Cross to ILO. Surely, EU is not an international organization or anything comparable to Red Cross. But none can deny a fact, which is proven by history and well explained in the motivation. After the horrible massacres of WWII, Adenauer, De Gasperi, Spaak, Spinelli, Schuman and all EU founding fathers saw in the union of our continent the only way to peace. Even if nowadays democracy, human rights and prosperity are questioned somehow, we are not that far. We can do better, for sure, but we are on the right direction and people still need to be reminded about that. A Noble Peace Prize is a good choice!

AV

Fiscal compact, Tobin Tax and ESM: is this enough?

After decades of directives on weird and technical issues such as the percentage of cacao in chocolate production, EU institutions have been finally forced by unexpected events to debate on very different matters. Since the financial-bank-sovereign debt crisis, EU had to come at a very fast pace to a deep reform process. I add nothing new when I say that big crises lead to big reforms, if then such reforms are right or wrong it is hard to say. Most recently, financial measures seem to be "a la mode", as people in Brussels say. As a matter of fact, none would disagree about the necessity to deeply reform the European Union. From its sovereign debt, its bank and foremost its institutions. But are things like fiscal compact, the so called Tobin Tax on financial transactions or the new euro rescue fund efficient enough to cope with the EU crisis? Does the European Stability Mechanism launched on Monday in Luxembourg ahead of the Eurogroup meeting match with reform needs? To me it seems patching up and nothing more, with a big amount of public money disappearing out of those necessary cuts. Our healthy lifestyle was unbearable, I agree. Western countries should turn their life standards into more sustainable and responsible ones. But the way out of the crisis seems to be more based on figures than on facts. Numbers matter, but sadly they seem to be the only thing in Frankfurt and Brussels seem to be interested in. Hopefully, we need a different approach to solve the continent problems. 

People protesting on Athens streets a couple of days ago, while Angela Merkel was visiting what many call Athens "puppet government", shows that bailouts, tax cuts and measures like the ones imposed by Brussels and IMF give stability (perhaps) only to the starving beast, namely XXI century global market. Although, Greece is paying decades of public money waste and corruption at the hand of market speculation, is the game worth the candle? Is it worth it sowing the seeds of anti-Europeism feelings in a moment when unity is required? Of course, EU regulatory affairs on the financial crisis should provide the most efficient tools in order to keep the markets calm. But is Europe considering the effects of what is doing? Is Europe aware of decades of silence on the democratic shortcoming issues, on getting more cohesion and better integration? Is Brussels working to strengthen EU countries ties or does it care only of budget balance?

Big questions. Hard questions. Useless and rhetoric questions, some would say. Still necessary questions, I'd reply.

AV