Mediaboss Marketing

Mizzima News

The European Union: Turning Crisis into Opportunity Mizzima News Every year on the 9th of May, the EU celebrates what is now the longest period of peace in European history, i.e. seven decades of security, stability, solidarity and prosperity for its people. On this occasion, and besides too widespread micro ... Will the European Union's centre hold?RFI From the idea of peace to the European Union European Western ...European Western Balkans (press release) European Union Marks Europe Day TodayFiji Sun Online all 25 news articles »

See the article here:
The European Union: Turning Crisis into Opportunity - Mizzima News

If the only way to create a United States of Europe is to avoid consulting the people, why should the goal even be pursued?

A public art piece in Dublins Grand Canal Square called: The European Union Is About To Explode. (Photo: William Murphy/Streets Of Dublin/CC)

A sigh of relief was heard across Europe on Sunday night, as far-right candidate Marine Le Pen was beaten soundly in the French presidential runoff election, losing to centrist Emmanuel Macron 66 percent to 34 percent.

Le Pen had come in a close second to Macron in the first round of voting two weeks earlier, less than three points back (24 percent to 21.3 percent) in a crowded field that also included conservative Francois Fillon (20 percent) and leftist Jean-Luc Mlenchon (19.6 percent) among the top vote-getters.

Le Pen capitalized on the anti-establishment fervor sweeping the Western world to challenge for the top spot with a strong critique of financial globalization and the European Union (E.U.), mixed in with her partys historical message of nationalism with racist overtones. Together with Mlenchon, the first round saw over 40 percent of the votes go to these extreme candidates, indicating the presence of widespread dissatisfaction with the political lites and their current economic and social policies.

The fear among European political institutions was that Le Pens anti-E.U. message would either carry her to the presidency or at least call into question Frances adherence to the institutions that have transferred large chunks of sovereignty from the single nations of Europe to a supranational bureaucracy.

Macron, on the other hand, defended the E.U. despite recognizing widespread disaffection regarding European institutions. He stressed the need to restore confidence in the Union, while adopting a peculiar argument about how Europe is actually the best instrument to defend the sovereignty of its member states.

His decisive victory in the runoff election, although somewhat tainted by record levels of abstention and blank or spoiled ballots, is causing optimism among pro-E.U. politicians, who are now able to counter the populist narrative with the democratic election of a pro-European president of France.

This argument merits considerable skepticism, as the assumption of majority support for the supranational E.U. institutions based on the election of a national leader is quite a leap. Indeed the issue of the democratic legitimacy of the E.U. itself is a thorny one, due to electoral failures and questionable tactics used to ensure the construction of unpopular international bodies that impose profound changes in economic and social policies among the Unions member states.

The French foreign ministry building is lit up to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome in Paris, France, Friday, March 24, 2017. March 25th 2017 marks the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome that effectively gave birth to the European Union. (AP/Michel Euler)

The origins of the E.U. go back to the 1950s. First there was the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement for regulation of industrial production among six countries: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Then came the Rome Treaties of 1957, which gave birth to the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

The stated goal, encouraged by the United States in the context of the Cold War, was to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, principally through economic cooperation based on the European common market. Over the subsequent decades the communities expanded to include 12 countries, an alliance of independent nation-states seeking increasing cooperation at the European level.

A phase shift began in the 1990s. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 transformed the communities into the European Union, and defined a path that would lead to the single currency, the Euro. Other countries were also invited to join, gradually bringing the total up to 28 Member States by 2013, although only 19 of them would participate in the monetary union. The new model of cooperation was that defined in 1992, with the goal of moving towards a single super-state based not only on economic union, but political union as well.

This goal immediately ran into a major obstacle: the popular will. Only three countries held referendums on the Maastricht Treaty: Ireland, France and Denmark. The first two were successful, but the population of Denmark voted against it. This would have been the death knell for the Treaty, so a decision was made to hold a second referendum, in which Maastricht was subsequently approved. The other participating countries merely had their Parliaments vote up the Treaty, so as to avoid the risk of a popular rejection.

The next big step in economic policy was called the Stability and Growth Pact, implementing stricter budget rules based on specific deficit/GDP and debt/GDP parameters. For years the Pact was the key instrument for imposing continuous austerity on the Member States. Here there was no attempt at obtaining approval even of the Parliaments, as the Stability and Growth Pact was enacted simply as an E.U. Regulation in 1997.

Supporters of the communist-affiliated union PAME burn a EU flag during an anti-austerity rally in Athens, Wednesday, Mar. 1, 2017. (AP/Yorgos Karahalis)

As economic and monetary policy became increasingly centralized and rigid, the risk of a lack of political legitimacy was evident. The response was to attempt the construction of a strong European government, by drawing up an E.U. Constitution.

Given the direct effect on sovereignty, some countries held referenda on the text, starting with France and the Netherlands. In 2005, the French rejected the proposed constitution 55 percent to 45 percent, just a few days before the Dutch did the same, with an even higher margin of 62 percent to 38 percent.

The idea of creating a United States of Europe had been stopped in its tracks, rejected by the democratic vote of two important Member States. A normal response would have been to recognize that the peoples of Europe werent ready for full integration, but the institutions decided to go in a different direction.

Since a Constitution wouldnt pass, they began drawing up a new treaty with essentially the same goal; the advantage was that a treaty could simply be passed by the Parliaments, avoiding putting it before the voters.

The result was the Lisbon Treaty, another step forward in consolidating the supranational power of the structures of the European Union. The path to ratification met only one serious obstacle, the requirement established by the Irish Supreme Court of holding a referendum on any treaties that go beyond the essential scope or objectives of existing E.U. documents. In 2008 the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, throwing a wrench into this plan as well. Never fear, the Irish government called a second referendum a year later, and through a number of carrots and sticks the population was induced to pass it the second time.

The Lisbon Treaty entered in force in 2009, and remains the framework for the new form of the European Union, strengthening institutions, which from the 1990s on have been able to dictate economic policy to the member governments, thus keeping everyone in line with the policy orientation of the transatlantic lites.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen speaks during a press conference at the National Front party headquarters in Nanterre, outside Paris, Friday, June 24, 2016. (AP/Kamil Zihnioglu)

The case of Ireland shows the preferred method of European institutions for consolidating E.U. authority. First a goal is set, and then the method is chosen to meet it. If the most influential European politicians agree, the consent of the governed becomes merely an annoying detail to get around however possible.

In subsequent years additional treaties were passed with practically no public debate at all. One of the most important is the European Fiscal Compact (2012), an even stricter version of the Stability and Growth Pact, which obliges Member States to balance their budgets and reduce their debt.

To get a flavor for the ideology, consider the provision of the debt brake: any country that fails to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio to below 60 percent is required to cut the debt by 5 percent each year for 20 straight years; a level of austerity that in some countries would require massive cuts in essential services.

The preferred method for moving forward with European integration raises serious questions. If the only way to create a United States of Europe is to avoid consulting the people, why should the goal even be pursued? The response often heard is based on circular reasoning: Europe needs to be built in order to meet the needs of the people, then the people will understand why its so important.

In the elections held so far this year in European countries, the anti-E.U. candidates have increased their votes considerably, but have not made it into the halls of power. For most of the European political class this is a relief, as they feared an imitation effect after the anti-establishment Brexit vote in June 2016 and the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. last November.

It would be a mistake, however, to consider the rejection of far-right candidates an endorsement of greater integration of European nations through supranational institutions, that to date have proved not only unable to deal with the economic effects of globalization, but also impervious to the democratic opinions of European citizens.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

Go here to see the original:
The European Union's Democracy Dilemma - MintPress News - Mintpress News (blog)

BRUSSELS As French President-elect Emmanuel Macron strode to his victory rally to the tune of the European Unions anthem, E.U. advocates could scarcely believe their luck: The next French leader had scored an emphatic win embracing a partnership loathed by populist voters across the continent.

His opponent, Euroskeptic Marine Le Pen, could have shattered the European Union, already hit hard by Britains decision to file for divorce. Now, though, the E.U. has a new lease on life, as Macron and other pro-European leaders ready what could be a make-or-break reform effort for a bloc that has suffered repeated blows since the Great Recession in late 2007.

[Macron fields congratulations but has little time to bask in glory]

The dramatic turnabout serves as a rejoinder to President Trump, who has questioned the E.U.s value and embraced nationalists around the world. And it is likely to complicate Britains exit negotiations, providing a boost to the representatives of the 27 nations who will sit down later this year with Prime Minister Theresa May to hash out terms.

Macron bears the hopes of millions of French people, but also of many people in Germany and the whole of Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters Monday. He led a courageous, pro-European campaign. He stands for openness to the world.

Macron now faces June legislative elections that will determine his mandate for sweeping reforms in France; if he fails to garner support, his victory Sunday could also prove to be just a temporary reprieve for the E.U. The magnitude of his win 66percent of the vote is offset by many citizens appearing to have voted to keep Le Pen out, not because they embraced Macrons centrist vision.

Still, it marked a rare achievement for a candidate who had campaigned on the promise that France could flex its sovereign power through the European Union, rather than in tension with it. Even nominally pro-E.U. leaders such as center-right Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte have more typically vowed to protect their citizens from E.U. overreach hardly a message that would rejuvenate the beleaguered bloc.

[Emmanuel Macrons unlikely path to the French presidency]

Macrons win could lead to a restrengthening of the European Union as a capable actor, said Sabine von Oppeln, a professor of political science at the Free University of Berlin. The European Union got away with a black eye. ... Now it has to do something with the election result.

Macron has outlined an ambitious agenda that would knit together the countries that use the euro currency, through a common euro-zone budget and finance minister. He has pushed for a new European unemployment-insurance system, which would mean German taxpayers would underwrite out-of-work Greeks. But he also has expressed support for a buy-European-first rule for government purchasing, a protectionist measure that could cheer nationalists.

Any new effort will require quick action, given the challenges that abound. Greeces economy remains moribund. And the Italian populist Five Star Movement currently topping the polls ahead of elections that will take place by spring 2018 threatens to hold a referendum on Italys use of the euro, a move that could rekindle Europes financial crisis.

Most people realize that the euro zone, as it is, is not sustainable. A new crisis will come, said Stefan Lehne, a former Austrian diplomat who is a fellow at Carnegie Europe, a think tank.

Now the focus will shift to Berlin, whose cooperation is vital to any French effort to alter the way Europe works. To secure German flexibility, Macron will first need to prove he is serious about trying to push through the kind of free-market labor and business reforms that economists say are needed to jump-start the French economy and improve the investment climate there.

[Macron defeated Le Pen in Frances presidential election. Heres what happens next.]

The prospects of actually advancing, if France has stronger credibility in the eyes of the Berlin policy community, is pretty good, said Guntram Wolff, the director of Bruegel, a Brussels-based policy think tank.

Indeed, the next major test for Europe is Germanys September elections, in which the staunchly pro-E.U. Merkel is seeking a fourth term. Unlike the cliffhanger in France, however, the outcome is set to be a win-win for Macron, as well as for the bloc. Merkels closest rival, the Social Democrat Martin Schulz, served as president of the European Parliament until last year, and he is likely to be far more flexible than Merkel on demands from across the bloc to finally ease the German-backed policy of austerity that some blame for the regions economic stagnation.

In addition, analysts say, a weak showing by the far-right Alternative for Germany party, currently slipping in the polls, could embolden Merkel to cooperate more closely with Macron and other E.U. leaders who are pressing for an end to the age of austerity.

It would free Angela Merkel to be more forthcoming in proposing a more centrist agenda for Europe, said Cornelius Adebahr, an associate fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations. That could mean more investment and more integration in the euro zone.

Macrons victory also comes as a jolt to British leaders negotiating their departure from the E.U., who have counted on European disunity as their best path to winning a good deal. Macron has called Brexit a crime and vowed to be tough on London, even though his victory is probably better for Britain than Le Pens would have been. Had she won, the country could well have faced a chaotic rupture rather than an orderly exit.

The Daily Telegraph, a right-leaning British newspaper, on Monday ran a front-page headline saying that Frances new hope puts cloud over Brexit.

May, who is fighting her own election battle, was quick to congratulate Macron on Sunday night. But in a campaign rally Monday, she warned that the French leaders victory means that she too needs a decisive mandate in the June 8 vote to bargain with Europe.

Yesterday a new French president was elected, May said at a campaign speech in London. He was elected with a strong mandate, which he can take as a strong position in the negotiations. The U.K., we need to ensure weve got an equally strong mandate and equally strong negotiating position.

Faiola reported from Berlin. Stephanie Kirchner in Berlin and Karla Adam in London contributed to this report.

Read more:

Marine Le Pen lost. But her poweris growing.

With Le Pen defeat, Europes far-right surge stalls

Todays coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Continued here:
Macron's victory buoys the European Union after a string of setbacks - Washington Post

The UK jobs market is already beginning to feel the negative impact of Brexit, with shortages of European Union migrant labour in growing evidence in sectors ranging from nursing, to cleaning, to IT and accountancy.

The latestMarkit/REC Report on Jobs, a survey of recruiters, shows the availability of permanent and temporary candidates fell at the fastest pace in 16 months in April.

This was as vacancies continued to rise "markedly" and recruiters flagged a shortage of suitable applicants for more than 60 different roles.

Kevin Green, the chief executive of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) suggested that this growing tightness in the labour market reflected, in part, a growing unwillingness of EU citizens to come to work in the UK.

We have the lowest unemployment rate since 2005, and people already in work are becoming more hesitant about moving jobs amid Brexit uncertainty. Meanwhile, the weakening pound and lack of clarity about future immigration rules is putting off some EU nationals from taking up roles in the UK," he said.

According to the survey of 400 recruitment and employment consultancies 38 per cent reported lower permanent candidate numbers available in the month against 8 per cent who saw an increase.

All regions saw drops in candidate availability, with the most rapid in the South of England.

The number of temporary staff available fell at its fastest rate since the end of 2015.

This study makes very clear the serious impact Brexit-related uncertainty is having on our economy, and the fears employers have that it could lead to skills shortages," said Jame McGrory of the Open Britain group.

"Workers are unwilling to move to new jobs because they fear the damage a job-destroying, chaotic Brexit would have on our economy. Companies worry that draconian new immigration rules will make it harder for them to get the skilled labour they need, damaging both our economy and our public services".

TheMarkit/RECsurvey fits with other data suggesting a peak in EU migration levels to the UK since last June's Brexit vote.

New National Insurance registrations by workers from the Continent have plateaued since the vote to leave the EU, which was marked by anti-European immigrant sentiment.

And the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey has also indicated a peak in active EU workers.

Finally, provisional net immigration figures released in February from the ONS also point to a slower rate of EU immigration to the UK in the third quarter of last year, directly after the referendum.

Given that all three sources point to falling or plateauing migration flows, or indeed actually falling migrant worker numbers, we can be fairly confident that a shift is underway, said Stephen Clarke, an analyst at the Resolution think tank said in a March report.

Theresa May confirmed on Mondaythat the Conservativeswill retain their pledgeto reduce immigration down to the "tens of thousands" in their manifesto for June's general election, despite warnings from labour market specialists that achieving this reduction in inflows would harm the overall economy and damage average living standards.

The future post-Brexit rights and status of the roughly three million EU workers currently residing in the UK also remains unresolved - and is expected to be a key battleground between the UK and EU in the coming divorce talks.

Continued here:
Brexit latest: Slowing immigration from European Union already hurting labour market say recruiters - The Independent

France has a new president. In a runoff between a centrist (or center-left) pro-trade, pro-social freedom candidate and a far-right authoritarian nationalist, French voters opted for moderation. Whats surprising is that so many libertarians were disappointed with this result.

One would think that libertarians would hold their noses and support Emmanuel Macron; a centrist who at least values some economic freedoms and is an obvious defender of social liberties. Yet for many, the ultra-nationalist, protectionist Marine Le Pen was seen as the better option. What could make libertarians, arch-defenders of individual liberty, back a candidate who has spent decades skirting the edges of out-and-out fascism?

There is a simple answer to that vexing question: The European Union.

Macron is for it. Le Pen is against. That was enough for many libertarians to overlook Le Pens otherwise utterly un-libertarian platform.

But why do libertarians hate the EU?

The standard answer is that the EU steals sovereignty from the citizens of nation-states and gives power to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Follow-on arguments usually rest on descriptions of the byzantine regulatory frameworks the Eurocrats have foisted on the people of Europe.

Yet any serious scrutiny of this anti-EU argument will show that this line of argument is of little merit.

It is crucially important to recognize that the power in the EU still rests with the national governments that make up the union. These governments are still sovereign and have the power to engage in their own foreign policies and economic agendas.

The EUs supranational institutions are more geared toward harmonizing markets across the bloc.

Libertarians should see that as a good thing, because it allows businesses from across Europe to compete and trade with other members with onerous tariffs. It also removes many of the headaches that plague commerce between countries with very different regulatory regimes.

In general, the EU has done quite a good job of balancing national control of some regulatory issues while removing much of the friction of cross-border trade within the EU.

The EU common market is now actually more harmonized than Canadas own internal cross-provincial market. That is a testament to the benefits of centralized inter-state commerce rules. Perhaps it should be no surprise then that the framers of the US Constitution were so in favor of such commerce rules, even when they were generally skeptical of central government.

There is a certain red herring in the euro, the shared currency of much of the EU. Whether the euro is a good economic idea or not has little impact on the value of the EU as an organization. The union could survive without the common currency, even now, not all members have adopted it.

The UK, until last years vote for Brexit, was a central player in the EU even though it had retained the pound sterling. In the wake of the financial crisis and the continued financial challenges of some members like Greece, there might be a case for the euro being phased out.

Yet, despite all its faults, the euro has also benefited the members of the union. It has eliminated the problems of interest rate risk and government capture of central banks.

Surely libertarians who are so often skeptical of central banking can see the advantage of an institution like the ECB, which is both tightly controlled by a fixed mandate and subject to the consensus of the member states while staying independent of the venal aims of any one state.

The major stumbling block for libertarians seems to be a psychological distrust of unelected agencies and supranational organizations of any kind. Yet, such organizations do not necessarily undermine liberty.

It is a mistake to equate liberty with national sovereignty. There are certainly benefits to having most of the functions of government localized, so that voters can control who makes the rules.

But there are also cases when a more local control can undermine the rights of individuals, or discriminate against certain classes of people.

Jim Crow laws is the US are a classic example of this. The black citizens who were being systematically undermined by state governments were not freer because the central government in Washington was taking a back seat.

Fundamentally, freedom is about individuals, not tribes of people.

National sovereignty is a powerful psychological anchor that carries many boons from the perspective of law and orderly government. Yet fetishizing it is a grave mistake that libertarians too often make. If we genuinely believe in individual liberty, then we should embrace institutions that protect and expand those liberties.

For all its faults (and they are many) the EU is a force for good. It has helped secure democratic institutions across its member states and been a beacon of liberal democracy equal to the United States.

The peace the EU has secured on the continent should also be recognized.

Before the movement toward greater political union, Europe was in a state of nigh constant warfare. Political and economic integration have helped to banish the specter of war, and ensured that small countries are treated with the same respect as the mighty.

The EU has made trade between member states more open and the rule of law more firm. France has certainly been prodded by the EU to open its industries and enact labor reforms. Admittedly, those reforms have been punishingly slow and frequently grind to a complete halt. Yet, the alternative is no reform at all. That is the real alternative people like Marine Le Pen offer.

It is far better to take the slow prodding toward progress than to slip backward into a far worse past.

This post was written by John Engle.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

John Engle is a merchant banker and author living in the Chicago area. His company, Almington Capital, invests in both early-stage venture capital and in public equities. His writing has been featured in a number of academic journals, as well as the blogs of the Heartland Institute, Grassroot Institute, and Tenth Amendment Center. A graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland and the University of Oxford, Johns first book, Trinity Student Pranks: A History of Mischief and Mayhem, was published in September 2013.

Like Loading...

Here is the original post:
The Case for the European Union The Right Engle - Being Libertarian