Date: 24 April 2014 Speakers: George Dimitrakopoulos, Former Member (1994 to 2009) and Second Vice President of the , Greece; Francisco Torres, Santander Visiting Fellow, St. Antony’s College, Oxford, U.K.; Lousewies van der Laan, Vice-president, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), The Chair: Erik Jones, Director of European and Eurasian Studies and Professor of European Studies, SAIS Europe, Bologna, Italy

“Roundtable on the European Parliamentary Elections” Part of the European and Eurasian Studies Seminar Series

Why should people care about the forthcoming European Parliament elections? And what might happen on election day in May? These are among the questions addressed by three European politicians and practitioners at a roundtable discussion of the 2014 European elections.

Lousewies van der Laan opens the seminar by considering the impact of anti-European candidates on these elections. Van der Laan argues that, for the first time, the elections will be a debate about the kind of Europe that people want, rather than a referendum on national political issues. She suggests that anti-Europeans are responsible for this shift. Turning to the Netherlands, where many now question the benefits of EU membership, van der Laan argues that Europe needs a vision that goes beyond narrow economic interest. During visits to Central and Eastern Europe, she observed that Europe is viewed more and more like a cash machine. Instead, van der Laan argues, values should be at the heart of the European project. In addition to a narrow vision of Europe, the EU suffers from a lack of democratic legitimacy. This can be seen in the lack of popular consultation at the time of the euro’s introduction and the EU’s eastern expansion. Politicians did not trust the electorate and this lack of inclusion has left people behind. This explains the popularity of anti-European politicians. Van der Laan argues, however, that pro-Europeans can win this debate. This requires taking a strongly pro-European line, as well as finding real solutions to legitimate concerns about the EU. Constructive Eurosceptic parliamentarians could actually contribute to this debate. Unlike its response to the Crimean crisis, van der Laan concludes that Europe should embody common values above all else.

Francisco Torres explores the implications of the economic crisis. To begin, he argues that through more politicized policy-making, the crisis might be an opportunity to renew Europe’s legitimacy. Torres affirms that the original architecture of EMU was incomplete and a contributing factor to the crisis. Post-crisis efforts to complete EMU have led to democratic tensions and to a lack of trust in European institutions. However, he observes that national publics still wish to coordinate at the European level to solve common problems. Turning to the role of the European Parliament, Torres notes that the Parliament and the ECB have recently

coordinated on a number of new initiatives. In combination with a greater degree of contestation within the Parliament itself this cooperation could improve discussion of Europe-wide policy options. In addition to increasing legitimacy, enhanced discussion could also benefit certain policy initiatives. He uses the ECB’s forward guidance policy as an example. An increase in the number of anti-Europe parliamentarians may not lead to significant changes in the functioning of the European Parliament. Nonetheless, there will be changes in terms of increased polarization and contestation. As new European institutions are created, and with greater involvement of the Parliament, a more politicized process may lead to enhanced accountability and legitimacy. To conclude, Torres observes that the immediate problems of dysfunctional governance still present potential risks.

George Dimitrakopoulos explores what will matter in the May elections. Claiming that these elections will be of particular importance, Dimitrakopoulos mentions recent changes within the Parliament and his own motivations for becoming an MEP. These elections, Dimitrakopoulos suggests, will not only be contested over specific issues. Instead, the elections will address two overarching questions: ‘what kind of Europe do we want?’, and ‘what kind of Europe should we want?’ Nonetheless, specific issues will still be important. Many of these issues possess both an internal and an external dimension. Economic questions can be viewed both in terms of developing an economic model and in terms of interacting with external institutions such as the IMF. Turning to immigration, he argues that while there has been good progress addressing the external dimensions of this issue, Europe must do far more to make immigrant groups feel part of society. Dimitrakopoulos then addresses foreign policy. The Ukraine crisis, he argues, was an example of how foreign policy should not be conducted. However, the crisis should be used as the basis for a new approach to foreign policy which looks beyond economic criteria and engages with a wider range of actors. Building upon an examination of the Greek situation, Dimitrakopoulos concludes with a call for a vision of Europe based on values, human rights, and democracy.

2