Navigation path

My Blog

Budget oversight gives Europe scrutiny but not sovereignty

March 7th, 2012
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 3.5/5 (8 votes cast)

One of the things I like most about my role as the Commissioner responsible (among other things) for relations with national parliaments is the opportunity this gives me to visit the Member States and get a real taste of what issues are of concern to parliamentarians – and the citizens they represent. 

The Lisbon Treaty gave a much more important role to national parliaments in the European legislative process, in particular with regard to the issue of subsidiarity – whether legislation should be European, national, regional or local, to give a rough definition. 

As you might expect, national parliaments do not take this issue lightly – after all, the perception is that if more and more legislation is agreed in ‘Europe’, the role of national parliaments is inevitably diminished. So, national parliaments are naturally quick to point out any potential breaches of the principle of subsidiarity in Commission proposals, and to defend their own right to sovereignty over national issues, as they have done many times – as this website shows. 

This is a particular concern for many national parliaments at the moment, with the wider discussions over economic and financial reforms, and in particular reforms relating to the budget procedure. 

This particular subject dominated the discussion during my recent visit to the COSAC meeting in Copenhagen of the chairs of the European affairs committees of the different national parliaments and MEPs. 

What, they wanted to know, was Europe doing sticking its nose into their national business? Was ‘Brussels’ intending now to have the power to endorse or reject their country’s budget proposals, all in the name of economic governance? 

I was, of course, happy to put the record straight. 

As I explained in my speech to COSAC members, Europe has had to react quickly and decisively to combat the effects of the financial and economic crisis. Putting it bluntly, the euro – the heart of the EU project – was under threat, and without drastic action, we faced nothing more or less than its collapse. 

Thankfully, of course, that hasn’t happened, and while the situation is far from ideal, we now have the structures in place, I believe, to tackle the problems head on. Chief among those measures is the so-called ’six pack’ of proposals, which give the EU a much stronger framework for preventing the economic mistakes of the past. 

One of the innovations brought in with the ’six pack’ is budgetary oversight – the Commission will be able to scrutinise Member States’ public finances, in particular the level of debt and expenditure, much more thoroughly than before and, crucially, at a far earlier stage in the budget development process. National budgets will also have to be designed and presented in compliance with minimum international quality standards, so that budget-making is more transparent both for citizens and for policy-makers. 

As I said in my speech to COSAC – and as I’ve repeated subsequently at meetings with representatives from the Irish, Latvian and Dutch Parliaments –  we have learned important lessons by looking at the root causes of the current sovereign debt crisis, and the spotlight will therefore be tightly focused on countries whose budget policies put their own and Europe’s stability, growth and employment levels at risk. 

Why is this important? Well, if there is one thing this crisis has shown, it’s this: if we want to share prosperity, we have to also share responsibility. One Member State’s economic difficulties have an inevitable knock-on effect on all the others. That’s why the EU leaders decided that we have to improve the rules on collective responsibility and collective vigilance over national financial matters. 

A budgetary imbalance has serious repercussions, of course. Countries with large public debts are obliged to issue bonds to raise cash; they pay interest on those bonds – money that could be better spent, in my opinion, on schools or hospitals, in investing in research and improving competitiveness, in creating jobs and developing training, where there is a tangible return on investment. 

A lack of investment in jobs can have a particularly devastating effect. We live in a Europe without barriers, where the job market has become increasingly cross-border, and where, therefore, fewer jobs in one country not only impact workers from that country but also, potentially, from many others as well. 

But to come back to the issue of budgetary oversight. The real innovation here is that Member States will have to follow the same norms when drawing up their budgets (making them more transparent) and to share their draft budgets not only with the Commission but with each other. It is envisaged that budgets would be submitted each October, studied by the Commission for their sustainability and whether they will help the Member State meet its targets for structural reforms and increasing competitiveness (as set out each spring in the National Reform Programme). 

The Commission’s findings will be sent to the European Parliament, while discussions with Member States will take place in Council, most likely among economic and finance ministers. However, responsibility for the final approbation and adoption of that budget remains firmly with national parliaments – Commission, Council and Parliament can help improve it, perhaps, but they cannot veto or block it. 

Making this process more transparent and keeping partners informed about national budget developments should lead to healthier public finances at both national and EU levels, without in any way infringing national sovereignty in this area. 

The high level of interdependence among the European economies means that a higher level of European scrutiny of budget decisions is necessary, since a bad decision taken by one legislator will have repercussions throughout the union. 

There is nothing wrong, of course, with greater transparency: budgets are not commercially sensitive information, like the accounts of a company. Member States are not competing with each other to see which can spend (or save) the most. So making the process in each country clearer and more obvious to the others makes sense, as it allows the 27 Member States (who after all share the vast majority of the goals to be funded by their annual budget) to better synchronise their priorities and complement each other’s work. 

At no point in this process are the rights and privileges of national parliaments undermined or called into question. In fact, the process ultimately gives them greater oversight the entire budget process, as it is more transparent and open. 

There is  often talk of the need for ‘more Europe’ to help us out of the crisis, to boost competitiveness, to create jobs – but it is just as often not clear what ‘more Europe’ actually means. For me, this new form of European-level democracy – where ‘all national parliaments have become, in a way, European institutions’, as European Council President Herman Van Rompuy put it recently, is precisely what ‘more Europe’ is all about. 

Thankfully, I’m not alone in thinking this. As the conclusions of the recent Spring European Council clearly show, there is a real desire among national governments to use European policies and priorities to get out of the crisis; some Heads of State and Government even called on their peers to take them to task for failing to complete the Single Market! 

It is a pity that we have had to suffer the impact of the crisis to bring us to this point – a crisis that, it could be argued, has been aggravated by countries acting in isolation rather than together – but with this new approach to joined-up policy making now in place, I’m hopeful that we’ll continue to benefit from ‘more Europe’.

Number of views: 628

Read the full entry | 1 Comment | Add a new comment

European Citizens’ Initiative: epic fail or real tool for change?

February 2nd, 2012
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 2.8/5 (12 votes cast)

The thing that struck me the most at last week’s conference on the European Citizens’ Initiative that I hosted in Brussels was the sheer enthusiasm shared by so many of the speakers and delegates about the democratic possibilities that the ECI will bring. 

For those of you who don’t know, the ECI was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and for the very first time offers a new form of participatory democracy for Europe. Citizens from seven different member states who collect one million signatures in support of their particular cause will have the right to have their initiative examined by the European Commission and potentially turned into EU law. 

I was truly thrilled to open the conference and address the audience, not only the 400 or so participants in the room but also the many others following proceedings via Facebook, Twitter and the live webstreaming. It seemed to me that this could be the start of a new democratic era for Europe: an era where citizens will be able to speak directly to the executive; an era where a new form of dynamic interaction will change the shape and style of democratic debate. 

The conference brought together representatives from the European Commission, the European Parliament, social media and organisations with a wealth of experience in running national citizens’ initiatives to discuss the final preparations for the launch of the ECI, which will officially start on 1 April. 

What was clear from all of the speakers, and many of the delegates as well, was that the ECI has real potential to change the way in which the EU is run, to help overcome the so-called ‘democratic deficit’ where ‘Brussels’ is seen as some far-distant land with no understanding of the reality of day-to-day life, and where ‘ordinary’ citizens of Europe have no chance of being heard. 

As was said several times during the conference, a million people’s voices cannot be ignored and demand some form of political response, and even if not every initiative that wins a million supporters will be accepted, this does not mean that nothing will happen. 

National governments may choose to take up a cause, or the European Parliament’s petitions committee, or it may lead to similar initiatives that are eventually accepted – and in any case, it will bring millions of people from across the EU together to discuss a shared issue for the first time in the history of Europe. 

Social media will undoubtedly play a central role in this process – it would be almost impossible to mobilise interest across the continent behind a particular initiative without such platforms. Interest in the ECI is high among many social media users, and there was even more discussion about it via the live blog (which can be replayed here for a while) and Twitter chatter (hashtag #ECI) than there was in the conference room. 

While we tried to answer some of the questions posted via social media networks, there were many more that remained unanswered on the day, and I’d like to use this blog to address some of those questions – in particular to focus on those that were not so enthusiastic about the ECI, who remained sceptical about its organisation and likely impact. 

There were several Tweets along the line of these from @foeeurope: 

@sefcovic: not “intrinsically wrong” that lobbyists use #Citizen’s Initiat. for their “causes”! But #corporates don’t stand for citizens  

and @corporateeurrope:

@MarosSefcovic new EU citizens’ initiative could be abused by big busi­ness lobbies, how will you avoid this?  

This is clearly one area where many people – not just NGOs – remain unconvinced that the ECI will truly be a tool for citizens and not lobbyists. To expand on what I said briefly at the conference, I do not agree that the ECI will be hijacked by lobbyists or PR companies working for ‘corporates’. Garnering a million signatures is not an easy task, and European citizens will not simply sign up for anything that is put in front of them – the cause will have to be right, as it would have to be were it proposed by an individual, an NGO or anyone else. 

Lobbyists and single interest groups trying to pull the wool over the eyes of citizens (by pretending their cause is other than it is) or the EU institutions (by for example using an ECI to circumvent regulations on lobbying) are unlikely, in my opinion, to get very far. The scrutiny of any initiative is such that it would be extremely unlikely that any attempt to distort the rules would be spotted easily and dismissed – assuming it was even capable of garnering enough support from outside its own narrow interest group. As one Twitter reply (from @daveoleary) said: 

Greenpeace set to be 1st #ECI – surely their ‘clients’ are concerned citizens? Maybe I’m being naive…  

As for the issue of social media, there were some criticisms of the Commission’s new software for setting up ECIs and collecting signatures, like this one from @eucampaign: 

@MarosSefcovic: If social media are important for #ECI, why has the #EC provided software not integrating with them? #FAIL 

This is also related to the question of whether the Commission endorses some social media over others (for example, those who were invited to participate in the conference). The Commission does not, as you might imagine, endorse any particular platform – and ECI users are free to use whatever means they wish to collect the signatures of support that they need. The new software we have created is open source, and open to modification and adaptation by any user – and we positively welcome all comments and input on how to make this the most cost-effective and user-friendly tool (comments can be made via the same page for downloading the software). 

As I mentioned in my remarks during the conference, I also hope to see the system become even simpler and easier to use with time, and for it to be expanded to different platforms as well. For example, it would be great to see the first smart phone application that would allow citizens to sign up for initiatives. 

Another theme running through the various Tweets and posts was that of public awareness of the ECI. With just two months to go until the first ECIs can be registered, there are still a number of issues to overcome, including the fact that many Member States are not yet ready, as I pointed out in my speech. Publicising the ECI is certainly one of those issues and I was particularly pleased to hear Nicolai Wammen, representing the EU Presidency, underline that Denmark would do all it could to ensure that Member States were ready for the start of the ECI on 1 April and that they had strategies in place to promote it properly. 

Realistically, we know that it will take time for word to spread on ECIs – and that they may not become an intrinsic part of EU democratic life for many years. We also know that for them to be seen as a real tool for citizens to make a difference, they have to be credible and seen to work – which means making sure that citizens understand what they can and cannot expect. 

I think it’s clear that we will have to get through a difficult period at first, where many of the initiatives put forward are based on single issues with too narrow a focus or against the general European interest – support from a million citizens might seem like sufficient endorsement for an initiative, but not if it is ultimately against the interests of the other 499 million Europeans! 

Let’s not forget that the generation now leading the democratic debate is the ‘digital generation’ for whom social media and online communication is a natural as watching TV was for mine. I am glad that we have already taken our first step towards engaging more effectively with this new generation through the ECI. 

Last week’s conference was just the start – there will be more buzz, I hope, about the ECI in the run up to the 1 April launch, and around the first registrations soon afterwards. But the real test, I know, will be how quickly and effectively the ECI can become a tool to help Europe develop for the good of all its citizens, complementing and – why not – improving the work of the European Commission. That may take some time, but I am convinced that we will get there in the end. 

Reactions and comments on the ECI are welcome, via Twitter (@MarosSefcovic, using #ECI) or on my Facebook page.

Number of views: 604

Read the full entry | 2 Comments | Add a new comment

Modern Europe = eEurope!

November 28th, 2011
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 3.3/5 (6 votes cast)

In my numerous meetings with politicians and citizens, I am often faced with the question of how we can overcome the crisis and boost growth in times of cuts in public finances and state expenditure.

My usual answer is that we have to look at new ways to increase the competitiveness of our economy, the efficiency and quality of services, and work towards a better use of the single market. From the European perspective, it will be these barriers that we focus on next year, as they have hindered our potential in the past. Our citizens, entrepreneurs and investors face ongoing visible and invisible barriers that prevent real free movement of goods, services and labour. The single market remains fragmented and in some areas still resembles 27 different ‘mini markets’, rather than a common space for 500 million citizens. With the aim of overcoming these limitations, the EC is looking for effective solutions from ‘Digital Europe’ and the introduction of modern electronic technologies, which often have a multiplying effect in terms of increasing economic competitiveness and modernising public and private service provision. 

We are talking about a trend which may have a major modernising influence on individual European countries, improving both the business environment and the provision of state services to the public. However, the basis for this must be the introduction of electronic public services, such as eGovernment . What does that mean? Put simply, that citizens should have the option to ask for any official documentation, such as a tax acknowledgement, in an electronic format, and to handle them via the internet. This means that citizens are not limited to office hours, entrepreneurs don’t have to waste countless hours standing in queues for tax forms and that everything can be done with maximum effectiveness and transparency. Officials can use modern software to issue approvals or detect tax evasion. In return, citizens and businesses can save a lot of time by receiving confirmations electronically by e-mail or, if related to ID cards or driving licences, by post. 

Within the European Commission, I am also responsible for the Directorate General for informatics (DG DIGIT), which besides taking care of information and communication technologies (ICT) within the European Commission is also working on a Europe-wide platform for the interoperability of European public administrations. In December last year, the European Commission approved a communication entitled ‘Towards an interoperability of European public administration’, which also involved a corresponding European Interoperability Strategy and European Interoperability Framework. The stated initiatives represent a set of measures such as a guide on how to harmonise ICT policies concerning public administrations throughout Europe. Take this practical example: if an Estonian entrepreneur needs documents from Portugal, within this structure he or she will be able to do so, and in their own language, thanks to such a platform and the existing  system of electronic public services. The European interoperability strategy is counting on the fact that by 2015, the provision of public services in the EU framework will be significantly strengthened and supported precisely through the means of effective eGovernment. 

The European Commission considers the implementation of eGovernment as one of the key steps towards the achievement of higher efficiency and transparency within public administrations. In the last few weeks with fellow European Commission Vice-President Neelie Kroes I have attended numerous events in EU member states which support this trend in order to further reinforce the Digital Agenda for Europe. Technologies and financial support are widely available from the European institutions, business and civil society. It is therefore necessary to intensify the entire process and as soon as possible wrap up the completion of existing EU-wide systems. 

Let me put forward some examples, including those heard in the recent meeting of ministers of eGovernment in Poznan, Poland, as well as some from a symposium on public administration and the provision of electronic services in Vienna, Austria. 

A direct example, on how to increase the quality of tax collection, comes from Belgium. In Belgium, tax declaration forms can be sent electronically, via the internet. Relevant software checks whether the forms are filled in correctly and an alert is sent if it is considered necessary to also hold on to the original paper documents as a means of proof. Anyone from Slovakia who has stood in the queue at the tax office and held long discussions with their employers about which forms need to be submitted and when would no doubt appreciate a similar system. Information obtained in this way allows for electronic processing, a faster identification of anomalies and the necessary controls. Moreover, it is not necessary to store tons of paper documents. 

A second example, confirming the efficiency of a single approach to electronic services, is Austria which has a system of electronic signatures that can be sent via a mobile phone. The European Commission’s DG DIGIT provided financial and technical assistance to this project. Access to European databases, used daily by more than 200,000 people, or the realization of operations requiring an electronic signature can now be achieved with just a single SMS.  In practice, you ask an authorisation centre for a code which you receive by SMS for example, and which is then validated using the electronic ID. 

Or take the example of Estonia. Electronic public services in this European country allow citizens to use a unified electronic ID card, which simultaneously serves the function of an ordinary ID card and a driver’s licence, but is also used to communicate with electricity, gas and telecommunication providers. Furthermore, the ID card is also used as a bank card and can also be used on public transport.  

Another in the series of examples, which was discussed in detail at the informal ministerial meeting in Poznan, is public procurement. The European Commission in cooperation with 11 European countries (Germany, France, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Greece and Austria) has implemented a pilot programme called PEPPOL (Pan-European Public Procurement on-line) in this area, with the aim of full electronic implementation of public procurement, i.e. eProcurement in Europe. Simplicity, transparency, and the guaranteed credibility of users of eProcurement will, for example, allow a small producer of microscopes in Denmark to compete for a large order for a hospital in the Netherlands. This could be done without the need to travel, inquire about legal procedures or look for trade partners. And for the successful company, all the financial transactions related to the procurement will also be made electronically. If we were to use such a system across the entire EU, it is expected that European countries would save about 50 billion euro per year in the procurement of goods. Small and medium enterprises would make an additional saving of approximately 40 billion euro in transaction costs. 

This is why eGovernment should be an automatic part of the legislative proposals in EU Member States. Countries that do not follow this trend will face problems with the quality of the public services they provide or with the lack of transparency of their public administrations. Citizens of these countries will be electronically limited and therefore cut off from a number of European opportunities. 

Countries where eGovernment is fully developed are also among those that have been the least affected by the negative effects of the crisis. The building of e-space has a modernizing effect for the entire society and serves as an opportunity for an increased use of European economic, cultural and educational opportunities. It is therefore necessary to fast-track this trend before it becomes too late. 

Number of views: 545

Read the full entry | No Comments | Add a new comment

A roller-coaster ride towards a new EU

November 11th, 2011
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)

The impact of the economic crisis on EU economies has resembled something of a roller-coaster ride over the last few months. No sooner had we got to grips with the mortgage and banking crisis that came to us from across the Atlantic than we were faced with an escalation of the crisis in Greece. A couple of weeks later, Europe and the rest of the world were facing a full-blown debt crisis. Our initial hopes that the crisis in the financial markets would not spill over into the ‘real’ economy were well and truly dashed.

It was therefore natural that the economic crisis was the main topic of the September seminar of the College of Commissioners in the Solvay library. We all agreed that partial measures would not get the EU out of the economic crisis. In the words of one Commissioner: “This approach has reached the end of the road.” The subsequent weeks, unfortunately, confirmed this negative conclusion. The Commission therefore came with a proposal for a roadmap which offered a complex but comprehensive solution to help Europe overcome the crisis. It was clear that the solution to the most pressing immediate problems would be found by focusing on the balance between the trio of Greece, the banks and the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF). But making sure that we can avoid similar situations in the future means that it is also necessary to improve the management the Eurozone as a whole and to introduce measures that will re-launch economic growth.   

The most recent summit of the Eurozone leaders, after fractious negotiations, nonetheless came up with key answers to all the important questions. After tough negotiations, the financial sector agreed to write-off a large share of the Greek debt, while Member States put forward an increased aid package, which would lower Greek debt to 120% of GDP by 2020 – a proposal that was accepted by international financial institutions.

As regards the health of the banking sector, new recapitalisation requirements were set that must be fulfilled by the summer of 2012. The way in which these requirements must be met was also agreed: banks must use the financial markets to raise the necessary capital, with governments allowed to help if this is insufficient and the EFSF used as the last resort in case of systemic failure. Finally, Eurozone leaders also came to an agreement on boosting its fire power and flexibility.

In order to set the foundations for this strengthening of the Eurozone management, a package put forward by my colleague Olli Rehn will come into force in the first half of December. As far as economic growth is concerned, the Commission plans to draw up and speedily adopt measures to improve the use of the single market.

The reaction of the public, the financial markets and our international partners to the conclusions of the summit was overwhelmingly positive. Markets reacted with an unexpected rise, and there was a sense that Europe had finally found the solution to overcoming its problems. The council conclusions would also send a clear message ahead of the G20 summit, which was expected to focus on more global problems such as improving the balance of monetary relations, strengthening the International Monetary Fund, opening up of markets, and a unified approach to the management of financial regulations within the G20, where the EU advocated the introduction of tax on financial transactions.

The reality was somewhat different. The whole world was shocked by the announcement of the Greek referendum on the eve of the G20, which immediately cast doubt over whether any of the measures agreed at the Euro summit would in fact be implemented. The markets fell sharply and the Eurozone immediately became the central point of world leaders’ negotiations. The positive mood from the previous week evaporated, and was and replaced by drama. Widespread negative reactions underlined that Europe and the rest of the world was rapidly losing patience. The world economy, and with it the majority of European citizens, is suffering directly as a result of the political instability. And while the issue of the referendum was quickly sidelined, the economic and political consequences of the delay will be significant.

When I look ahead to when the dust has finally settled on this financial crisis, I think that one of the most important results will be the speeding up of the discussions on the architecture of the Eurozone and the EU as a whole. For the first time, leaders admitted the possibility that a Eurozone member could go bankrupt and the need for tighter rules on how to deal with ‘problematic’ members. I am convinced that some EU countries, in particular those in the Eurozone, will move towards faster and deeper integration, and on a scale that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. The aim of this integration will be to develop a truly economic union in tandem with the monetary one. This would indeed be possible under Article 136 of the Lisbon Treaty, which covers the individual provisions for those Member States whose currency is the Euro.

It is clear that obligatory integration will not be possible for everyone – not least the slower and less decisive members of the Eurozone.

At the same time, however, I can also imagine that some EU Member States will look to form a different group, focused on strengthening the single market rather than Eurozone integration.  This was indeed already hinted at during the pre-summit General Affairs Council, where the relationship between the 17 Eurogroup members and the remaining 10 Member States was widely discussed. It is my role to represent the Commission in this Council, and in a rather tense atmosphere I had to react to many questions about this EU 17/10 relationship and high expectations of the Commission from Member States with regards to the oversight of strict macroeconomic discipline and the need for further regulations requiring a change in the Lisbon Treaty.

Given the intensity of this debate, which will continue to rumble on in the next two summits, we can safely predict that there will be yet more substantial change ahead for the EU. Impatience in terms of deepening integration within the Eurozone will be very high. But if consensus on this issue proves impossible, the 27 EU Member States may be interested to consider the Eurozone as the politico-economic vanguard, moving at a faster pace towards the goal of closer integration but nonetheless remaining open to new members who are willing to accept the pace and extent of the changes.

Recent economic developments show that that the world needs a strong, united EU in order to maintain a fair global balance. But the EU can fill these expectations only if it becomes more strongly interconnected and deeply integrated. I believe that the current internal and external pressure on the EU will be a key to the creation of a significantly stronger Union.

I am deeply convinced that Slovakia is part of the vanguard, because we are part of the Eurozone, because Slovak citizens have a positive relationship with the EU and because it is vital for the benefit of our national economy. But any new European negotiations will require us to work in partnership with our fellow Europeans, to be fully committed and to have a clear and creative approach that is without prejudices.

The forthcoming election campaign will no doubt provide a platform for the debate about Slovakia’s place in Europe. I hope that it will show that there is a desire for a strong pro-European government which will guide Slovakia through this complicated period. Whether this happens will depend on what kind of Europe our country will belong to, and its role within that European framework.

Number of views: 529

Read the full entry | No Comments | Add a new comment

Bureaucrats don’t rule Europe, we’re all in this together

September 29th, 2011
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 2.5/5 (13 votes cast)

 ’Brussels’ is often blamed for making unnecessary regulation, or for making life more complicated for citizens and businesses. Yet Member States themselves are sometimes guilty of ‘goldplating’ EU legislation – adding clauses and provisions as a means of getting unpopular legislation onto the statute book with the added convenience of being able to blame ‘Europe’ for it.

In reality, of course, the creation and implementation of European legislation is rarely so black and white – it is a collaborative process involving the Commission and Member States, but also many other stakeholders, a process that we call ‘Smart Regulation’.

I was glad therefore to have had the opportunity at the European Parliament Plenary Session in Strasbourg to discuss Smart Regulation with MEPs, many of whom were rightly critical of the way EU legislation has sometimes been adopted and adapted by Member States in the past.

Smart Regulation has improved the way legislation is made:  now, each legislative proposal is submitted for public consultation for 12 weeks (up from eight weeks before) and both the concrete legislative proposals and  the results of the public consultations are then subjected to a strict impact assessment study that looks at the financial, social and environmental impact of the proposals and makes sure that they are line with the principle of subsidiarity – that legislation should be introduced by the level of government most appropriately placed to do so.

But these processes are not just for show, to give the impression that we are listening – more than 30% of proposals are sent back for revision following the public consultation and impact assessment stages.

Once the legislative proposal has been adopted by the College of Commissioners, it is sent at the same time to the EP, the Council – i.e. to the Governments of all EU Member States – and to all national parliaments for further consultation. That is when the real legislative work of EU experts, Ambassadors, MEPs, Ministers and Heads of States and Governments begins. And national parliaments are also actively involved in this process.

National parliaments have been particularly active in identifying potential subsidiarity issues – so far, there have been 60 cases where they have questioned the need for European legislation in a particular area, and I have responded to each and every one with relevant expert arguments in favour of European action. Also, the involvement of national parliaments in the pre-legislative process includes a political dialogue on the substance of Commission proposals, where we have received over 1400 opinions until now – here again, I have responded  to all.

The process does not end there, however. New EU legislative proposals are often followed with enormous interest by the media and public alike. For example, during the discussions surrounding the regulation on the European Citizens Initiative – that will give citizens a direct line to EU legislators on any issue supported by a million signatures – I took part in a number of seminars, hearings and discussions in addition to my regular participation in the relevant EP and Council committees.

So why am I speaking about this? As European leaders are increasingly criticised in the press and elsewhere for dithering over the economic crisis, and Member States seem to be at odds with each other and with the Commission over how to act, it is more important than ever, I believe, that we understand EU laws are drawn up through collaboration and cooperation, not imposed from on high.

All stakeholders – be they European citizens, associations, MEPs or government representatives – can and do actively participate in this process, and I’d like to point out that their chances of influencing the final legislation are pretty high, since the EU is probably the most consensual institution in the world – always trying to find a compromise solution acceptable for all.

European legislation is the result of this collaborative process, and yet it is rarely perceived in this way. Why?

This was a question I discussed recently with Andreas Vosskuhle, the President of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. We tried to find a reasonable answer, and agreed that very often European citizens are simply not aware just how many opportunities there are for them to get directly involved in the legislative process. The image of Europe’s so-called ‘democratic deficit’, where decisions are taken in the ivory towers of Brussels with scant regard for the needs of European citizens, is hard to shake off.

But there are ways that we can at least try. For example, schools could teach not only the history of the EU but also the way it works; professional university courses such as engineering or medical studies could include classes on how European technical norms are adopted or the process of granting licences for EU medicines.

Mr. Vosskuhle is very interested in the involvement of national parliaments in the EU legislative process and in the prospect of the European Citizens Initiative (ECI). I agreed with him that measures to involve more EU citizens more directly, in particular the younger generation, are welcome. Even if citizens’ initiatives were rejected in the end, for instance, because they were not in the broad EU interest, or considered too regional, they would ideally engage closer the European public in a wider debate . If managed in a responsible manner by all actors involved, an instrument like the ECI would help closing the gap between the EU and its citizens.

We agreed that real political discussions must not be just national but European, at least for the key issues that affect all of us in the EU. If Europe is not seen as an integral part of the solution, then it will continue to be viewed as part of the problem, viewed as making life more complicated and bureaucratic for citizens rather than doing what it really does, which is promote European values and principles around the world.

So, back to my discussions in the EP last week. The vast majority of MEPs were very supportive of the Commission’s approach to Smart Regulation. There were however a few critical voices. The Czech MEP Edvard Kožušník was critical of the Commission’s approach to cutting red tape, arguing that it was too little too late. I was glad to be able to respond that the European Commission will definitely meet its target of reducing the administrative burden on businesses by 25 % in 2012 (saving them 30.8 billion euros). And yet we can go even further – we have tabled proposals which would allow for a 31% cut – but that will also depend on the EP and Member States. And as long as some of the administrative burden comes from goldplating, European efforts to cut red tape will continue to be undermined at the national level. 

Also during last week’s debate, British MEP Sajjad Karim suggested that part of the problem is that when we update EU rules we still keep the old ones in place as well. I agree, but I think we should also not limit ourselves to saying, as Mr Karim suggested, that “once a new legislative proposal is adopted the old one must be abolished”. I think we need to go much further – our ultimate goal should be to replace 27 old national norms by one high-quality, more efficient European one. That’s the real purpose of European legislation – and working together to make it a reality should be our ultimate goal!

Number of views: 842

Read the full entry | 2 Comments | Add a new comment

Let’s be fair (and more optimistic) on Europe!

September 15th, 2011
VN:F [1.7.5_995]
Rating: 3.2/5 (16 votes cast)

Part of the daily routine of a Commissioner is to explain how the European Union functions, what value added it brings to European citizens and, increasingly, to fight off unfair criticism or even outright lies. Last week, in the country I  know best,  the EU was described as socialism building COMECON…

In my frequent discussions with members of national parliaments, NGOs, students  or  journalists I realized that we take the biggest EU achievements – peace (after centuries of wars),  freedom to travel, work, reside or study in other EU Member States (after decades trapped behind the Iron curtain), the Single Market (transforming Europe into the biggest trading bloc in the world) and, of course, many others  – for granted.

We have got so used to seeing our kids studying abroad or crossing borders that we don’t even realise what an unusual benefit it is!

We tend to mistakenly believe that things have always been like this, and that there is no need for any … let’s call it maintenance and further development.

(As you can see from the high number of competition or EU law infringement cases, keeping things like this is hard work for the Commission on a daily basis.)

But the legitimate concerns of citizens aggravated by these difficult years of crisis are very often dramatized by something we can call a fashion for ‘intellectual negativism’.  Often I cannot resist the impression that in the debate on Europe there is a race to the bottom to see who can be the most negative or predict the darkest doom!

My personal experience is that to have a good discussion on Europe it is important to look at the situation in a balanced way. That means from the other, optimistic side as well – taking into account Europe’s potential  and overall perspectives. This was the way we discussed sustainable innovation with  the US-based European Institute on Thursday evening. We have all heard lots of impressive statistics concerning innovation developments in China and other BRIC countries. So I just reminded our audience that China’s GDP, even when added to the GDP of Brazil, Russia and India (around 8 trillion euros in total), is still smaller than the GDP of the USA (10.7 trillion), let alone the EU’s GDP of around 12 trillion euros! I also mentioned some impressive figures on EU – US trade. The transatlantic economy is the largest and wealthiest market in the world, generating around 3.5 trillion euros in commercial sales. The US investment position in India and China combined is less than the US investment stake in…Belgium! (There are plenty more fascinating facts where they came from – Joseph P. Quinlan and Daniel S. Hamilton’s excellent ‘The Transatlantic Economy 2011′.)

So trends are one thing, but let’s not lose sight of our overall perspective. Europe’s potential is huge, and the right policies to develop it even further are being put in place as you read this.

I was very pleased to see that  arguments I frequently use were much more eloquently developed in the article of  P. Khanna and M. Leonard , ‘Why China wants a G-3 world’ published in the International Herald Tribune last week. G -3 of course stands for the EU, USA and China. The authors presented rock solid  argumentation on the role of Europe  in ‘driving policy innovation’,  ‘addressing gaps in the governance issues ranging from intervention to climate change’ or  global trade, reminding all of us that the EU is not only the largest trading bloc but also the biggest exporter of capital , source of funds and leadership for multilateral organisations. The G-3 represent together 60% of the world economy. We often forget the enormous EU–US economic relationship  while being impressed by the ‘growing importance of Chinamerican economy ‘. And we tend to overlook that the ‘EU–China relationship is in many ways as dense.’

The authors mentioned several other facts to drive home the key message – Europe is a global economic and political player with huge potential whose input into the stability of the 21st century is absolutely crucial.

I agree with the authors when they say that for Europe to play its role better, we all need to speak with one voice more consistently and speed up our actions – not an easy task in our complex system.

Finally, last week brought important good news – the German constitutional court ruling on a conformity of the proposal on financial assistance to indebted countries with the Constitution, French Parliament’s ratification of a new package of financial assistance to Greece and a breakthrough in finalisation of the important economic governance six-pack. But lots of work still lies ahead to finally overcome the crisis and transform the European economy, of course. To progress we should also see the upsides, pluses and impressive EU achievements to boost our confidence in these difficult times. Well informed positivism is the best way to take on frequently oversimplified negativism or outright populism.

PS: Coming back to my country – to compare COMECON with the EU is possible  only if you forget barbed wires on borders, and empty shelves in shops and political prisoners, and… Should I really continue?

Number of views: 732

Read the full entry | No Comments | Add a new comment