WHAT DO MEPS DO ?

Accounts of their parliamentary activities in the seventh European Parliament 2009-2014, written by 48 MEPs coming from seventeen different EU member states.

Collected & edited by Bill Newton Dunn

Published by Allendale Publishing 2014 [email protected]

Copyright © Bill Newton Dunn 2014

Bill Newton Dunn has asserted his right under Copyright law to be identified as the author of this work

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in a retrieval system, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from Allendale Publishing.

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British

Library.

Printed & bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

ISBN 0-9528277-5-1

Price 20 € or £ 15

2 JAN PHILIPP ALBRECHT

MEP 2009 -

Germany, Alliance 90/The Green party

Staying obstinate !

"In case I come back to the European Parliament, I will come back only as a Member of Parliament.” This is what I answered when my former employer asked me about my plans after having finished my studies. I just had finished an internship at the European Parliament for some months, and I was astonished that what was supposed to be the so-called "elite" were mainly bureaucrats, mainly men, wearing black suits and ties, who had qualified for well-paid jobs in the European institutions within a short time.

When talking about coming back as a Member of the European Parliament, I had just wanted to make a joke. For sure, I would not be able to keep up with those highly- qualified people. I had finished school with an average degree, I had finished my law studies in the German city of Bremen, and I had made some internships at local newspapers. But everything turned out differently.

Three years later, I campaigned for the German Greens for the European elections. My aim was fighting for civil rights in the digital era and for make politicians listen to the people. I wanted to make a difference and to help re-establish democratic rules. My interests always were what challenges our society today.

Finally, after I was elected as a MEP. I could not believe it. When I sat down for the first time in one of those clumsy chairs in the huge plenary hall in the European Parliament in

3 Strasbourg, it felt like in the Star Wars´ confederation council. I felt very proud and a bit excited, too. I made lots of speeches, I wrote masses of petitions, I talked to the press, built up a network of formal and informal contacts, and tried to convince people of what I felt was right.

After a while, I noticed that a lot of my colleagues and myself, too, we did lots of work and tried to do our very best, but still it was up to the big groups in the European Parliament, the governments, ministers and the European Commission to make the decisions. It seemed that, apart from this inner circle, there was nobody able to influence their decisions. And it seemed to be even worse : there did not seem to be anybody who cared about what they decided, even if these decisions influence everyday life of more than 500 millions of citizens within the European Union.

Things changed when the European Parliament had to decide about the international trade agreement ACTA. Together with many people, activists as well as politicians and scientists, I had argued against this unfair international trade agreement, and we had many good arguments to fight against this. But we always had the feeling that those who were supposed to decide, they did not show any interest in what we said. We organised discussions on ACTA, we did extensive networking, we published expert opinions, we published press releases, we talked to journalists on the record and off the record, we worked on resolutions, we tried to do everything to raise awareness of those responsible for this undemocratic and backdoor-negotiated agreement.

It was not before the very last vote in the European Parliament that apparently all of a sudden, the public in several European countries raised awareness on what was going on. Interest groups fighting against ACTA and other people concerned about ACTA limiting their citizens´ rights in the digital era,

4 protested in the streets. Suddenly, all those who had not listened to our concerns before, they now wanted to talk.

It was the European public protesting in the streets, first in Poland, many other European countries followed too. Tens of thousands of people raised against ACTA, fighting for freedom of the internet. Suddenly, those who formerly treated us as like some foolish nerds, became interested in our concerns. The public had put them under pressure, they could not keep ignoring us. They learned something new. They had to explain their decisions, and they had to explain why we need ACTA and why we should say "Yes" to this agreement. But they failed.

This was when I really understood how little politicians can influence decisions without the public. At the same time, it is decisive to never stop asking questions and demanding for your rights. It might take months and years, but it will be worth it. Those who are responsible have to explain why they make their decisions. And sometimes, they have to take back their decisions, as they had to when it came to ACTA. Rejecting ACTA was a huge success for both the European public and the European Parliament, and both of them should take this success as an opportunity to make themselves aware that they can make a difference.

Before the public protests started and before the European Parliament finally rejected ACTA, I had my moments when I just wanted to quit fighting against it. I felt tired about those who fought against ACTA being denounced as an unimportant minority of nerds. But then the protests started and we reached the turning point, staying obstinate was worth it !

5 CATHERINE BEARDER

MEP 2009 -

U.K., Liberal Democrat representing the South East (ALDE)

Arriving at the Parliament in June 2009 was really bewildering. For the first two weeks before the plenary session in Strasbourg we had no offices, no computers and knew not where to go. New MEPs were to be found wandering the corridors looking for seats or places to perch.

Most alarming were the numbers of people, a sea of unfamiliar faces. I felt bewildered in a land where everyone knew each other and I was the only one lost. The buildings are vast and numbered in an inscrutable way, but once I cracked the code it became easier until I was told to go to floor five and a half ! (Ed : True. The PHS block in Brussels may have been so-named to avoid its top floor being the 13th.)

I had just funded my three month election campaign myself, hotels, petrol, and food on the road and I had three credit cards at maximum and so just getting to Brussels and staying in a hotel was a trial, as at this time I was unaware what could be claimed for, or even how.

However, most alarming was the start of the time when complete strangers were starting to say "Hello Catherine". Just how did they know who I was, and who were they ? I then started to realise that a big clue was how old they were. The younger they were, the more likely they were to be assistants : the old ones were definitely MEPs. Eventually the confusion cleared and I got to find my way round and got physically fit by dashing from one meeting to the other.

6 PHIL BENNION

MEP 2012 - 2014

U.K., Liberal Democrat representing West Midlands (ALDE)

My political career might have ended in 2011. My enthusiasm for erecting a few wind turbines on my own farmland was seized upon by the local Tories and the single issue election for the local council saw my vote slump from 68% to 26%. I had already grown tired of populist antics in all political camps and taken on a combative and unapologetic approach to controversial issues. I was not sitting on any fences.

I was put on “red alert” by the West Midlands grapevine on a number of occasions because Liz Lynne, the incumbent MEP, was suffering with her health and it was rumoured that she might stand down. When Liz’s press officer, told me the day before our Regional Conference in Birmingham that he had seen her speech and that she was indeed standing down, he asked me to feign surprise at the news. Liz and I had been a team since the 1999 election and she saw the merit in giving me the chance to fight the next 2014 election on my own record. With my political energies devoted to editing the online “Eurofile” briefing, I was up to speed with the European Parliament across the spectrum, so did not need a settling in period.

My first foray to Brussels was to recruit assistants and I had a series of interviews lined up. At St Pancras station I arrived at passport control, but before my hand even reached my jacket pocket I had a sinking feeling. I knew that my passport lay in a particular spot on my dresser at home between the loose- change dish and the pocket turf-out zone. No point in searching for it whatsoever. The French Schengen officials

7 were perfectly happy for me to continue my journey to Belgium, but warned that I may have trouble getting back. They proved to be right.

In the interviews, Laurence was driven, ideological and emotionally charged. But I wanted her to work for me and knew that she would be a handful. I had already interviewed Rob, who already worked for Chris Davies. He seemed wise beyond his years, clear-thinking and had been given a great report by Chris. They became my Brussels team and gave my office the strong activist dimension that I wanted.

Returning home, I attempted to leave Belgium armed with a letter from the British Embassy, but the Belgian border police were unimpressed. That morning the British government had publically blamed these same officers for illegal immigration into the UK by allowing passengers to board the Eurostar with tickets only to Lille. I was detained until the last minute when they allowed me to present my letter to UK border control and all was well.

My first parliamentary meeting in February 2012 was a grilling of Commissioner Ciolos by the ALDE group about reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Having framed Lib Dem party policy, I waded in with four questions. Meeting the whole group together for the first time, I was surprised just how many I already knew.

My committees were to be Employment and Social Affairs, which I inherited from Liz, and Transport, which was my choice. I also continued Liz’s role on the South Asia Delegation.

Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL, was probably the most political and fractious committee in parliament. The Socialists, abetted by Communists and

8 Greens, seemed hell bent on destroying any flexibility in EU labour markets and institutionalising labour protection at French, Spanish and Italian levels across the entire EU. Pointing out the better performance in terms of employment of the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Denmark, since the 2008 crisis, saw me identified as a pantomime villain by the leftist half of the committee. I discovered from the socialist leader on the committee, Alejandro Cercas, that I was a “Neoliberal”, along with my friend Philippe de Backer from the Belgian VLD. Phil and I enjoyed this role and occasionally played up to it.

My relationships with Commissioner Laszlo Andor and committee chair Pervenche Beres were complex. Andor was intelligent and well-intentioned ; a thoughtful man and very good company. We had some enjoyable debates and battles. I believe that we became friends despite our numerous disagreements. My relationship with Beres improved over time. I was outraged by the way she used the powers of the chair, but there was mutual respect.

The biggest battle in EMPL was the Posting of Workers Enforcement Directive. Gangs of workers employed across state borders were being defrauded, particularly Polish workers on German building sites. Many were not paid when their recruiters disappeared with their wages and taxes. The Commission and the Socialist Group were intent on introducing “Joint and Several Liability” so that if fraudsters disappeared with the wages, the employees could go up the chain and claim from the developer. I opposed this as it would mean the innocent developer paying the same bill twice and the fraudster walking away. I developed a strong friendship with Danuta Jazlowieska, the Polish EPP Rapporteur, who opposed it on discrimination grounds, as it would only apply to cross border contracts and not inside one country.

9 We lost the vote in committee because several EPP members voted with the Socialists and Greens. However, the committee vote is only one battle in the war. We still had to agree a text with Council in the trialogue negotiations. I briefed Jo Swinson, the UK minister at the Council deliberations. Avoiding Joint and Several Liability was the top objective for the UK government.

Right to the last, the Socialists would not compromise. Pervenche finally broke the deadlock, by allowing me to express ALDE support for the Council, against the usual Trialogue protocol of all MEPs defending the parliament’s position. She feigned anger but gave me a friendly pat on the back when we assembled the next morning to seal the deal.

The Transport and Tourism Committee (TRAN) was much more fun. It was chaired by the all-round good bloke Brian Simpson, who shared my passion for cricket, real ale and trains. TRAN tried to do good things for the European economy and environment and there was a deal of cross party agreement. The main task was the 4th Railway Package where we sought to rationalise safety rules into a single set, to facilitate the movement of trains across the continent. When it came to opening the market to competition, the nationalised incumbents lobbied their home MEPs with success. Too many Belgians were rapporteurs and shadow- rapporteurs, and we nearly ended up with a franchising arrangement specifically designed to keep SNCB intact. But the proposal was withdrawn on the day before the vote.

My best achievement was getting a compromise through the parliament on lorry safety. This would allow trucks to be marginally larger but only to include road safety features, particularly cab design. Our lorries are currently shaped like bricks and cause maximum damage on impact. New designs could make them much safer and save hundreds of lives each

10 year. I worked with famous cycle safety campaigners to convince sceptical MEPs to support the proposal. The changes were win-win because current lorries are also the worst possible shape aerodynamically. The changes would save around 5% of their fuel usage. From an unpromising starting point of Socialists opposing cross border operation and Conservatives supporting the truck manufacturers, we finally engineered a compromise that gained over 600 votes in the plenary. Unfortunately the Council has thus far refused to move because they want an excessively long lead in time for the manufacturers to make the changes, but I remain proud of the achievement.

I did not expect the South Asia Delegation to be a huge commitment. How wrong I was. Every country had its issues. Pakistan had an election and attacks on health workers and then on Malala. Another great memory was acting as an EU official Election Observer in Lahore on the Election Day in Pakistan. A year before I had met with Imran Khan in Islamabad where the talk was entirely politics : no cricket. My view was that PTI were more a victim of First Past the Post than a stolen election. In Punjab they finished a good second in almost every seat, but won only eight.

I also raised the future of Kashmir with both the government and opposition in Pakistan and was assured that all major parties supported self-determination.

Bangladesh has been going through a difficult time and I was quickly drawn into the various issues facing the country. I was also co-author of the resolution in parliament calling on the government of Sri Lanka to institute an independent inquiry into the end of the civil war.

I miss the friends I made not only in our group, but also amongst my opponents. We knew the 2014 election was going

11 to be difficult for British Liberal Democrats, but the scale of the defeat was a shock. What I miss most is the ability to get real change. My commitment to European and international politics remains. Only time will tell if I will return as an MEP ; I have not ruled out another run. I worry that the UK may stumble out of the European Union, much against its interests. A strong Europe is necessary in a globalised world and a strong Europe needs Britain at the centre. Let’s hope that once the aftermath of the 2008 crash has worked its way through the system we can restore sanity and rationality. I worry that the populists are taking over, but I shall not be joining them.

12 PABLO ZALBA BIDEGAIN

MEP 2009 -

Spain, President of the Navarre Popular Party (EPP Group)

At the end of the VIIth legislature and beginning of the VIIIth it is mandatory to analyse the last five years in order to improve the next period. This last term has been very important for the European Parliament because it has enforced its position as one of the main institutions of the European Union and enhanced its role as its legislative organism thanks to the application of the Lisbon Treaty.

The greatest success of this last five years has been the steps taken to further integrate our Union, specially taking into account the challenges we have overcome.

Focusing on economy, we are working hard in creating a Banking Union that will allow us to prevent future crisis and to promote our capital flows, strengthening our Single Market. To guarantee our financial stability we have also worked to harmonise our legislation and coordinate our economic policies. MIF, the Two Pack or the Six Pack are good examples of the spirit of integration of Europe and of the efforts of Member States and citizens to tackle the crisis.

Back to the Single Market, a wide variety of policies and legislative initiatives have been taken to ensure that economic growth and job creation are here to stay, the main goals of the European Union. These two goals are the pillars to maintain welfare in our States and improve Europeans’ way of life in different aspects, from cultural to social realms. The Digital Single Market has been launched to facilitate commercial

13 flows among our Member States, Entrepreneurship 2020 fosters new ideas in the Union and the Youth Guarantee encourages mobility and job opportunities for our youth. All these policies comprehended in the European Strategy where reindustrialisation and environmental respect are main characters, as very important tools to achieve the most competitive, modern and egalitarian society.

Finally, the European Union has been working on a wide net of Agreements to deepen relations with our principal partners. The European Parliament is playing an important role on it, guaranteeing the needs and interests of European society and companies. The negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States and the signature of the Free Trade Agreement with South Korea are great examples of these efforts and the importance of internationalisation in our interdependent world.

Integration has been my main personal goal during the last term, and it will be in the next one. I am a believer of Europe and its benefits for every citizen of the Union. In this sense, State integration must be accompanied by people integration. To achieve this goal, European citizens have to feel part of the project and we have to engage them on it. But we cannot forget disabled people, they are the most important to reach real integration.

In 2012, my office and I, believing in the importance of participation to integrate, we decided to offer a one month internship for a disabled person. We wanted to learn directly about the value of working together and to prove the great capabilities of these persons. Sara came with us on April 2013, but we have continued working and having fun with her. In just one month, she became friend of all the delegation and of the secretariat of my committee. We created a special link and

14 she left in my office a spirit of self-improvement that I hope will be with us for the rest of our lives.

In guise of conclusion, the last five years have settled the base of a reinforced great project that is the European Union, which needs more efforts and a lot of work to achieve and integrated and prosperous society.

15 IZASKUN BILBAO BARANDICA

MEP 2009 -

Spain, Basque National Party (ALDE)

President of the Basque Parliament 2005-2009

Constructing Europe Based On The Truth

At the European Parliament on October 20th, 2011, I witnessed a historic event for Europe : on that date ETA declared an end to five decades of senseless violence, and we began to live differently, to feel different. Because no one else would suffer the unjustifiable murder of a loved one, and because without ETA Europe can get a clearer picture of what we Basques are really like.

I, and the immense majority of my compatriots, have never felt that ETA killed in our name. Their crimes brought nothing but immense, senseless pain. But they also warped the image of a society that has nothing to do with the intolerance or inhumanity which motivated ETA terrorists, or indeed with the tiny minority of people who, out of fear, convenience or, more rarely, conviction refused to condemn their actions.

Even before I entered the European Parliament I was well aware that one of the saddest contributions of ETA to the history of my country was to taint the image of everything Basque. I saw this for myself for many years as an ordinary citizen, and witnessed it closely during my time as Speaker of the Basque Parliament. And I found when I arrived in Brussels that for many people professing oneself to be Basque and trying to defend the rights of a stateless nation such as my

16 own here was tantamount to conniving with terrorists. Paradoxically, when I returned home every weekend I would find two bodyguards waiting for me at the airport, assigned to protect me from threats by ETA.

That is why I made it a goal from the moment when I arrived at the European Parliament to explain that we Basques have nothing to do with ETA. Beneath the headlines associating Euskadi with ETA there is a prosperous society resolved to seek its own destiny. That is why I began working on this task with my own group. I successfully requested that one of our annual meetings be held in the Basque Country. For three days almost 200 visitors strolled through our streets, got to know our institutions, met with economic, political and social actors of all kinds, and discovered the facts and figures that reveal how hard we have worked to move forward.

The venue for the meeting was the Euskalduna Convention Centre in Bilbao, which stands on a site formerly occupied by a shipyard. It is a true symbol of the transformation of our country. In 1981, when we recovered part of our self- government in the wake of the Franco era, unemployment stood at 30%, the steel industry was in shreds and the future looked as black as the streets of Bilbao, our financial capital, stained by a century of smoke and fumes from an industry whose structure had run its course.

There, the ALDE group saw for themselves that the Basque Country is now the most prosperous region in the Spanish state. The joint efforts of the whole of society, the recovery of a level of self-government with almost full powers in regard to taxation and the political leadership and public sector management provided by institutional Basque nationalism have enabled us to recover our fabric of industry, modernising and internationalising it, and to set up a model of economic and social development that is now studied as an example at

17 various universities in Europe and America. The strong role played by the social economy, diversification, innovation and investment in key sectors such as education mean that our country now has only half the level of unemployment of the Spanish state as a whole, and our fabric of industry is sound. Our political arena is also free from the continual corruption scandals that are splashed across the Spanish newspapers. Our financial sector is healthy, and so are our public accounts. This remarkable position has been achieved in spite of our carrying the millstone of ETA around our necks.

At the end of the visit, after the farewell dinner, I remember that two Euro MPs from my group came to my table to apologise : “Izaskun”, they said, “We were wrong. We thought we were coming to a different sort of country, to the one we had heard about on the news and in the propaganda issued by successive Spanish governments about the Basque Country, its people and its institutions. What we have found is something very different. We apologise. In the future we will tell others what we have seen.”

Since October 20, 2011, that task has been much easier. Our visiting card begins with facts and figures : with our industrial and social projects, our pioneering experiences, our cuisine, our cultural and sightseeing values. We have shifted from being thought of as a country only during the minutes of silence held in the wake of terrorist attacks to being mentioned as an example worth following by the Commissioners for industry, employment and innovation. It was also much easier to veto our institutional representatives on visits and international meetings, as successive Spanish governments repeatedly did, while ETA was killing people. The word “Basque” is no longer a synonym for ETA, for terrorism, for barbarity. It is now associated with regional development and industrial policy; with a model for economic development that stands out like a beacon in a state that opted

18 for construction, low-cost tourism and financial speculation as drivers for growth.

That is why Euskadi is earning itself an identity of its own in Europe. It is coming to be seen as a modern country with potential and with a future. On that basis, whenever we can contribute something to the construction of the federal Europe that we believe in, I feel that it is worthwhile being here. The first Lehendakari, or Basque Premier, José Antonio de Agirre y Lekube, was involved in the origin of the institutions of Europe : from his position in exile he took part in the New Internationals, from which European Christian Democracy emerged. While the Franco regime wielded power in Spain, the legitimate representatives of the democratic will of the Basques were working with De Gasperi and Schuman to design the Europe that we needed. That is why it is such a great satisfaction for me to continue working on the construction of that historic task in Brussels.

19 JÜRGEN CREUTZMANN

MEP 2009 – 2014

Germany, Free Democrat Party (ALDE)

Vice-President of the Rhineland-Palatinate Landtag in

Mainz, and leader of its Committee on European Affairs

The European Parliament is the only parliament where a member as an individual has a strong influence on legislation. This means you need competent and hardworking assistants and you must be present in your own committee to discuss the proposed regulation or directive with your colleagues. Later on you must be able to convince the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs in the negotiations with good arguments from your standpoint to reach a majority in the committee and later on in the plenary. After all that you must repeat the procedure in the trialogue with the commission and the council.

In the last five years I could reach a lot of improvements in different Regulations/Directives such as a maximum payment period of 60 days by to B2B in the Late Payment Directive, a better and more efficient confiscation of a product in the regulation of Customs Enforcement of IPR, more SME- friendly Regulations in the Public Procurement Directive, more effective and practical regulations in the Product Safety and Market Surveillance Regulation and a big progress in the cooperation of regulators to protect consumers in Online Gambling.

In all my work in the EP my focus was how I could reduce administrative burden for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) because SME are the backbone of our European

20 economy. As rapporteur for COSME (Competitiveness of Small and Medium Enterprises), the EU-program for 2014- 2020 to improve the access to market and to financial instruments, I reached a reduction of bureaucracy. For the future, a "Fitness-Check" was implemented to show the impacts of legislation for SME.

I was very often asked how great the lobbying efforts of third parties are during the legislative procedure. From my point of view it is important to discuss the different aspects of the legislation with all interested parties to find out which improvements of legislation are necessary and can be done. To table an amendment cannot only bring benefits for consumers or customers but it can also help to preserve or to generate new jobs. The decision whether a proposal of a third party is acceptable or not, whether it can improve legislation or not, whether it is only of interest of the lobbying company or organisation or in the interest of our society, lies in the hands of the MEP. He/She can table an amendment or not, but overall an amendment needs the majority not only in the committee, but also in the trialogue with the Commission and the Council and at the very end within the European Parliament. This procedure shows that the influence of a third party is limited and very often overvalued.

In the last 5 years I had the chance to travel in different areas of the world to explain how the EP is working (I had lectures at Delhi Universities and had speeches in Washington), to inform me how in other countries consumer protection is working (during a visit with the IMCO committee in China) and how competitive other countries are these days with their products (during a visit with the ITRE committee in South Korea). As a Rapporteur of Online Gambling I had to explain how Europe will solve the problems (gambling addiction, protection of vulnerable and young people) on

21 Online Gambling in Athens, Barcelona, Berlin, London and Vienna.

The most impressive travel in the last five years however was a visit to Krakow and Auschwitz. I was deeply ashamed of how people could kill humans (men, women, and children) only because they belonged to another race or faith. I couldn't help crying when I saw pictures of laughing young children shown in one of the exhibition rooms who were killed in the concentration camp. One of the main reasons that Europe must have a common future is to prevent that such a situation can ever happen again.

The EP is a place where different people from different nations, from different cultures, from different backgrounds, are working together to reach a better future for the people in Europe. To create the premises for more and better jobs, to reduce the workless rate for young people, to produce more growth and more welfare for all European citizens, this will be the assignment for the EP. Helping to get a step closer to this everlasting task was a wonderful experience I would never want to miss.

I want to thank all my colleagues who supported me in the EP. It was a great pleasure for me to work together for a better Europe. I wish you all the best for the future and I hope to see you again. Goodbye.

22 RYSZARD CZARNECKI

MEP 2004 -

Poland, Law & Justice party, Lower Silesia & Opole

Member of the Sejm 1991-1993 & 1997-2001

In this year of 2014 we had the elections, and democracy once more has reflected the constant motion in which the population uses each vote as a voice of its own. In this process I've seen many colleagues go, learned that many will stay and welcomed many that have arrived.

The past 5 years were remarkable in the story that we live day by day of our European history, but nonetheless these past years were also of great importance to some of our neighbours and allies. To be part of it has been an incredible journey. Individually, all of us have succeeded and failed in different areas and this reflects collectively any institution formed by human beings. But perhaps what is the best about all this humanity is the capacity to observe and learn from our mistakes and our successes equally.

We have received in these past years guests from Canada, United States, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, Brazil, China, Tibet, Bangladesh, Russia, many others and from all over Europe. Lectures were given, conferences held and legislation made. We have hosted and travelled to learn, and we have in our best capacity tried to serve. Compromises were made and now at the end of this journey we have started another chapter in the history of Europe, a part of history of our times. In many opportunities this institution has been proud of standing for human rights, democratic values and freedom of speech and it is my personal promise that it continues to do so.

23

In the heat of the stress of our daily busy schedules, the moments in which we can testify the change that our work bring to the lives of our people makes our work something to be proud of. My gratitude to all of the colleagues and citizens that walked side by side with us in this journey of 5 years, and all my enthusiasm for these next 5 years to come.

24 CHRIS DAVIES

MEP 1999 - 2014

U.K., Liberal Democrat representing the North West (ALDE)

House of Commons 1995-1997

Fish for the Future

There is no dress code for MEPs in the European Parliament. Some appear smart and besuited. Others bring with them a more relaxed, open-necked, Mediterranean approach. Greens may regard a casual style as de rigueur. But I am confident that I am the only MEP to have walked the corridors bent low and dressed as a pantomime fish.

My intent was to highlight the importance of reforming the EU's common fisheries policy (CFP), and to encourage MEPs to demonstrate their support by signing a parliamentary written declaration. Shortly before noon, the scheduled time for votes in Strasbourg, the Davies-fish would position himself where he was most likely to be seen by members making their way to the hemicycle. As the last of them passed he would cast aside the heavy costume and, dripping sweat and with aching back (such was the nature of the costume), throw on a respectable jacket and walk into the chamber to take his seat.

For too long unsustainable fishing practices were allowed to destroy Europe's fish stocks. The boats got bigger and the catching technology more ruthless. Thousands of fishermen's jobs were lost as stocks declined but good money was still made by those who controlled the fishing rights. Blind to the consequences of their actions, fishermen themselves promoted bad practice, by each year lobbying national ministers to set

25 quotas at levels that exceeded the recommendations of scientists.

I brought to the Parliament a longstanding concern about what was taking place out of sight beneath the waves but the work of the environment committee, to which I devoted my time from 1999, rarely touched upon fisheries issues. Meanwhile the small Fisheries committee, which often gave the impression of being the voice of the fishing industry, had only an advisory role on CFP matters. Changes came with the Lisbon treaty from 2009 which gave the Parliament co- legislative powers over fishing. It seemed the right time to get involved.

Although still of very limited interest in most EU nations, concern about fish stocks had been growing in some member states, stimulated by influential writers and broadcasters. By 2009 nobody was arguing the case more strongly than the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring the CFP's implementation. It denounced the overcapacity of national fishing fleets, the fact that the majority of fisheries were being exploited unsustainably, the consequent fall in landings and increase in imports, the failure of member states to collect adequate scientific data of fishing practices, and, especially with the arrival of Maria Damanaki as Commissioner, the unacceptable but routine practice of fishermen discarding perfectly edible fish either because they were commercially less attractive or because to land them might be illegal under EU rules if quotas had been exceeded. Addressing these issues became central to the Commission's CFP reform proposals of June 2011.

By this time the cross-party 'Fish for the Future' group had been established in the Parliament. Our stated objective was to support and strengthen the Commission's proposed reforms, but we knew this would not be achieved without a political

26 fight. There still existed the belief amongst some MEPs that the best way of protecting the interests of the fishing industry was to resist change, carry on discarding to maximise profits, and avoid cuts in quotas even if short term pain could produce the long term gain of strengthened fish stocks.

The 'Fish for the Future' team took the view that the vast majority of MEPs regarded fishing as a dull issue of no interest to them and that Parliament's agenda was at risk of being shaped by a minority of members, led by those from France and Spain, who were active in their opposition to key elements of the reform package.

Our campaign group grew from a meeting in Strasbourg to which MEPs who had indicated support for more sustainable fishing practices were invited. We declared that our aim was to secure a better future both for fish and for fishermen. A 'bureau' was appointed of one MEP from the six main political groups, with myself as organising secretary.

We set about arranging and publicising seminars to discuss aspects of the reform. We encouraged environmental NGOs in their national campaigning and lobbying. We distributed literature to each MEP before key votes. We took every excuse to use the Parliament's internal email system with the aim of drawing attention to the issues and emphasising their importance. We ensured that the names of our six bureau members were repeated time and again to emphasise that this was not in any sense a left-right, PPE versus S&D, dispute. We organised some awareness-raising fishy stunts.

What lessons about the Parliament might be learnt from our campaign ? The vital importance of having, as we did, a rapporteur who shared our objectives. The great asset that stems from cross-party and transnational cooperation, although admittedly in the case of our bureau it had a rather

27 northern European flavour. The key role of parliamentary assistants, active and working as a team even when the MEPs are absent. The need to communicate simple messages effectively, never forgetting that while members may have knowledge of some issues within their brief they know very little about those outside it. The fact that the voting lists of political groups are often prepared at poorly attended and unrepresentative meetings, and the real danger that MEPs with no great interest in the subjects will then blindly follow what has been agreed in their absence.

Radical CFP reform proposals were approved by Parliament with a substantial majority, with 502 MEPs voting in favour, thereby strengthening the negotiating position of our rapporteur and encouraging reformers in the Council. The EU legislation later agreed gives priority to very significant rebuilding of fish stocks by 2020, a great curbing of discards, the preparation of long term sustainable management plans for every fishery, and a transfer of day to day decision-making to fishermen, scientists and others working in the region concerned. 'Fish for the Future' supporters regard this outcome as a success, and an achievement of which we are proud.

28 DENNIS DE JONG

MEP 2009 –

Netherlands, Socialist party (European United Left-Nordic

Green left)

Before your election as Member of the European Parliament, you have really no idea how it works. You may think you do, but you don’t. My case was a bit special, as in the 1990s I had worked both for the European Commission and for the Netherlands Permanent Representation and during that period I had also met MEPs and attended meetings of the Parliament. But even then, you scratch only the surface.

Although during the previous mandate, the number of MEPs varied, there were always more than 751 of them. Logically, one cannot spontaneously convene a meeting with all MEPs to organise their work. That would result in a cacophony. Thus, the European Parliament has adopted detailed rules about the division of responsibilities among MEPs. As a newcomer, you don’t know these rules, but you will soon find out that you cannot do as you like ; you have to follow the rules of procedure and their many annexes.

I guess that for most MEPs becoming ‘visible’ is the most serious challenge. Before my election in 2009, 0.5% of the Dutch citizens knew my name. In 2014, this number had increased to 10%. With a few exceptions, none of my Dutch colleagues was better known. For many journalists, this proved that MEPs simply are not well-known enough and some of them added that in the future, we should nominate candidates that had already become celebrities before their election, for example, former prime ministers.

29 It is doubtful whether celebrities will indeed enrich the European Parliament: they may be better known, but will they also engage in the nitty-gritty work of the EP ? In any case, former prime ministers are a small minority in the EP. Thus, the challenge remains: how do I get better known and yet fulfil all my parliamentary duties ?

A starting point may be one’s expertise. I had, for example, worked many years as civil servant in the fields of Justice and Home Affairs. I thought that my political group would be happy to use my expertise in this field and was surprised what steps you need to take to get there. Firstly, you have to fight your way into the relevant parliamentary committee, in this case the Civil Liberties Committee. That was quite a battle in itself, but I succeeded. Then, I heard that being an ordinary member of such a committee is not enough to become visible. It is much better to become the Co-ordinator for your political group. That proved impossible : a colleague had already been promised that position and no matter how much expertise I brought with me, nothing could change that. Although I was slightly disappointed, I thought that also as ‘regular’ member I should be able to contribute and perhaps even to become visible, if only I was able to become Rapporteur on important files. Second lesson : if a committee has more than 50 members and you do not belong to one of the largest groups, it is simply impossible to get an important report straightaway. I then learned that you can also become shadow rapporteur, i.e. you represent your group in the negotiations with the Rapporteur, normally based on amendments you submit on his/her draft report.

Of course, it is effectively possible to become visible as shadow rapporteur. Once journalists get to know you, it depends really on your analytical, political and communicative skills whether you will appear in the media. Also, being a Rapporteur is no guarantee for success:

30 although within the European Parliament many colleagues praised my report on criminal law, it received remarkable little attention in the Dutch media.

It is only after some time that you learn not to put too much energy in the internal procedures of the EP and instead to follow your own course. I learned how to get engaged in policy areas that did not have anything to do with my own parliamentary committees, but which were of interest to my party and myself, and which actually also made me much more visible than my work for the parliamentary committees.

One such theme was ‘transparency’. It is generally known that there are 15-25.000 lobbyists in Brussels. Through their informal contacts they are more powerful than individual MEPs. Of course, we all need information and lobbyists can bring with them a lot of useful expertise. However, the decision-making process itself has to be transparent. Otherwise, citizens automatically get the feeling – and probably rightly so – that not their vote during the European elections but the activities of lobbyists determine the course of the EU. Thus, I created a group of like-minded MEPs on this issue and both in relation to the European Commission and inside the EP itself we were able to make progress in making the decision-making more transparent and balanced.

My main lesson after five years in the EP is : don’t let yourself be blinded by all the internal rules and activities. Define your own priorities and develop initiatives in areas that are dear to you. The media are not really interested in the committees you are a member of. These memberships can help, but are no guarantee for visibility. However, once you have settled in, you will find that among these 750 colleagues, there are those with whom you share common interests. They may belong to your political group, but you

31 will often find like-minded MEPs throughout the EP. What may come across as a jungle consisting of endless rules of procedure, may develop into a place where you can actually meet allies and where you can learn from your colleagues’ experiences. In that sense, it is a place that becomes a lot more personal than it may look, when you first enter the buildings of the Parliament. The only remaining challenge is: how do I ever make this known to our citizens ?

32 PILAR DEL CASTILLO

MEP 2004 –

Spain, People’s Party (EPP)

Spanish Minister for Education, Culture and Sport 2000-2004

The rising star of the Digital Economy

The 7th term of the European Parliament will be remembered, amongst other things, because for the first time the Digital Economy played a leading role. From the very beginning Parliament debated Europe's 10 year strategy to get the most out of the Digital World. The outcome was a proposal of a Digital Agenda for Europe for 2020 which was taken on board by the European Commission.

Today, five years later, in the context of economic crisis and high rates of unemployment, especially dramatic in some Member States of the European Union, the full development of the Digital Single Market is, more than ever, a matter of urgency. The benefits are beyond any doubt, the figures are conclusive : the full implementation of the updated Digital Agenda would increase the European GDP by 5%, or €1500 per person, over the next eight years. In terms of jobs this would rise to 3.8 million new jobs throughout the economy by 2020. This shows, without saying, the crucial importance of a full Digital Single Market would have for Europe to play a leading role in the global economy.

For the past five years Parliament's attention on the digital economy concerned a huge range of areas : from further coordinating Spectrum policy to boosting e-skills, from fostering 4G and 5G broadband deployment to increasing ICT research, from fighting cybercrime to seizing the potential of

33 Cloud Computing, or from developing a new data protection regime adapted to the Internet to facilitating ecommerce. Lastly, we have the Telecom Single Market proposal - debate is on-going - which includes the end of roaming charges in the EU.

We can clearly say that the European Parliament got to the conclusion that the train towards the digital economy is a high speed one, with no stops, and that Europe must not lose any opportunity to be the locomotive.

The momentum that the 7th European Parliament gave to the digital economy was really intense and the debate spread to a number of European platforms. In that context the European Internet Foundation (EIF) played a key role, continuously organising debates responsive to the political, economic and social challenges of the worldwide digital transformation. The quality and impact of these debates would not have been possible without the role of many personalities, including my colleague Bill.

As Chair of the European Internet Foundation and coordinator of the EPP Group in the parliamentary committee in charge of the Digital Agenda, the 7th EP term represents 5 years of exciting debates, and hard work, with very interesting personalities, which will always deserve a privileged space in my memory.

34 DR LEONIDAS DONSKIS

MEP 2009-2014

Lithuania, Lietuvos Respublikos liberalų sąjūdis (ALDE)

Professor of Humanities, ISM University, Kaunas & Vilnius

A Unique Parliament

14 July 2009 appears to have been an historic date that indicated two hundred and twenty years from the beginning of the French Revolution. One would have expected a celebration of the date trying to embrace the new reality of Europe, first and foremost, its unique and historically unprecedented solidarity. One would have thought that that day marked the reconciliation of Europe, the Old and the New - to use Donald Rumsfeld’s parlance – especially in the light of the election of the Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek, the former prime minister of Poland and one of the heroes of the Solidarity movement, as President of the European Parliament. A unique chance opened up to put many things behind us, including frequent clashes of the moral and political sensibilities of “two Europes,” meaning the Old Europe’s liberal and tolerant attitudes to human diversity, and the New Europe’s old- fashioned infatuations and reactive conservatism.

The 2009-2014 European Parliament seems to have been at a crossroads of the EU. The Euro crisis, the slowdown of European economies, and drastic austerity policies accompanied by difficult and noisy national debates both in EU parliaments and in the European Parliament – all these were a significant part of the European Parliament members’ life and work. Everything began with the 2009 summer of the contractions of austerity, and everything culminated with the 2014 winter of our discontent as a failure to sign the

35 Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine resulted in the EuroMaidan Revolution in Kiev. This metaphor is a paraphrase of the title of a famous novel. As we know, The Winter of Our Discontent is the title of John Steinbeck’s last novel published in 1961. The title is a reference to the first two lines of William Shakespeare’s Richard III: “Now is the winter of our discontent / Made glorious summer by this son of York.”

In fact, we had the springtime of our discontent which followed the winter of our discontent, although the latter gave us hope that the world may have changed for the better. The EuroMaidan Revolution in Kiev appears to have been a genuine anti-criminal revolution which dealt a blow to the Kremlin and scared its Master. Criminalisation of politics and, conversely, politicization of the criminal world was and continues to be the sword and the shield of the political system created by Vladimir Putin and his regime. Wherever they go leaving a frozen conflict and an ethnic conflict that they manufacture we see criminal gangs in power. This was the case in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, and this is the case in Crimea now.

This is to say that the 2009-2014 European Parliament witnessed a major change in world politics and also in the entire system of international relations. The new world which we embraced and celebrated after the fall of the Berlin Wall is over now. The European security system is nearly finished after severe and cynical violations of international law and of the 1975 Helsinki Accords by Russia. The world we live in will never be the same. July 2009 promised us a difficult time of the Euro crisis and austerity, yet it appears now to have been just a beautiful overture to a dramatic and gloomy opera.

In addition, the 2009-2014 European Parliament bore family resemblance to all classical and deeply conventional European

36 and national institutions – with the Christian Democrats, Socialists, and Liberals in the lead, and with the radicals of all shades safely relegated to the margins. The 2014-2019 European Parliament is highly likely to become a different ball game, though. The 2014 elections to the European Parliament did make a difference. We cannot pretend any longer that far right voices and Eurosceptics are still a tiny minority that is easy to relegate to the margins of EU politics. The shocking victory of UKIP in the UK (27 % of votes) coupled with the triumph of Le Front National (FN) in France (one fourth of all votes). Coupled with genuine fascist parties, such as the Golden Dawn of Greece, and Jobbik of Hungary, the far right and anti-immigration parties, such as UKIP, FN, and Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom in the Netherlands will make up quite a noisy minority of around 140 voices in the newly elected European Parliament.

These forces are not only anti-EU – they are essentially anti- European and pro-Kremlin. Suffice it to recall their praise up to the skies for Vladimir Putin as a supposed defender of conservative, family-based, and traditional values, which allowed Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen to close ranks with Jobbik – a miserable and disgraceful alliance, to say the least. Even more so was the moment of truth and self-exposure when Farage in one of his recent interviews went so far as to suggest that two grave mistakes made by the EU were the adoption of Euro and the accession of Eastern European countries to the EU with all their social mobility and dignity they got (not to be embarrassed anymore by Western European immigration officers with their intrusive questions and poorly concealed disdain for Eastern Europe, I would add).

All the aforementioned details may throw more light on the 2009-2014 European Parliament where I have had a privilege to serve as an MEP on behalf of Lithuania. I acted as a member

37 of ALDE-Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, one of the most pro-European political families in the European Parliament whose members were such prominent legislators and European policy makers as Andrew Duff and Guy Verhofstadt, to name just a few. ALDE has also seen such celebrity figures of European culture and politics as the former Polish foreign minister Bronislaw Geremek, a hero of the Solidarity, and also a worldwide famous historian, and Gianni Vattimo, one of the most celebrated philosophers in Italy and Europe. I have been working with colleagues whose dedication to human rights, civil liberties, liberal values, and Europe, left me fascinated and inspired.

For all these, I can only thank them and my good fortune.

38 MARIYA GABRIEL

MEP 2009 -

Bulgaria, Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria party (EPP group)

If I have to make a summary of my memories of the 7th legislature, if I have to highlight three memories which reflect my causes and achievements, I would mention the following ones: my nomination by the High Representative/Vice- President Ashton to be Chief Observer of the EU electoral Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2011, the MEP Award in the Gender equality category that I received in 2013 and finally, the adoption of my report on visa requirement / exemption after three trilogues.

Indeed, my nomination as Chief Observer of the EU EOM to the DRC for the 2011 elections has been, in a way, an achievement and an acknowledgment of my work from the very beginning of the mandate. EU Electoral Observation Missions are one of the so called 'soft power tools' of the EU. But they actually give a very clear reflection of the delicate challenges faced in our external action: a united voice of the EU, significant and fruitful bilateral relations, and the importance of the political will of our partner countries to implement the EU EOM recommendations in order to move forward.

I dedicated a large part of my activities to EU foreign policy, and in particular to political dialogue and cooperation for development, including in the framework of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly ACP-EU which is an extremely enriching forum. I had the opportunity to participate in 9 electoral observation missions, including 4 as Head of the EP

39 delegation and 8 on the African continent. This path also explains the emotional ties I developed with Africa during this mandate. Looking back at that experience, it confirmed my inner conviction that democratisation is the right foundation for development and sustainable prosperity.

My second best memory during the 7th legislature is the MEP Award I received in 2013 in the category Gender Equality. It was a great honour for me to receive this Prize and an emotional moment as well. I consider this as an accomplishment which has inspired me to continue my every day work for gender equality and women's rights. It also showed me that my efforts in the fight against gender inequality, as well as my work as the EPP coordinator for the FEMM committee, have not been left unnoticed. But it was even more than that, it was a Prize for all women and it showed that we are right to defend this cause. Women deserve it not only because it is fair, but also because women's rights are human rights. Thus, it further reinforced my motivation for what I do, what we do in the European Parliament, constantly. I think it also confirms that the positive approach I put forward is a good one - defending women's rights through economic empowerment, their participation in political decision-making and female networking. Moreover, I think that the 7th legislature was successful in terms of gender equality, in the sense that we raised awareness. It is not a no-debate anymore. It is not a question that people can ignore. I hope in the 8th legislature we will confirm this idea with concrete steps and improvements.

Thirdly, my work on the amendment of the regulation 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement will stay in my memory. I believe that for a young or a new MEP,

40 dossiers like these are actual baptisms of fire. It was a complex dossier, technical at the first sight, but it rapidly became a very political one. I will always remember this path, every step of the procedure and especially the inter-institutional negotiations. It was a challenge to make the voice of the European Parliament heard and taken into account. I learnt a lot on this dossier. In the end, EU visa policy is not only about visa, it is also about promoting growth, economic ties with our country partners, and a concrete ground for political dialogue, including on human rights. The EU visa policy logically complements my work on foreign affairs.

I think that this last mandate was also characterised by the whole debate on freedom of movement for persons and especially of workers in the EU. Not only because of the populist rhetoric blaming the core principle of freedom of movement for all evils in the EU, but also because of the political blockage in the Council concerning the accession to the Schengen area for Bulgaria and Romania. Unfortunately, this situation has marked my first mandate as Member of the European Parliament, where the stigmatisation of the so called 'new' member states can have negative effects. Hopefully, in the next mandate, we'll see positive developments.

In conclusion, I would say that a mandate in this House is not something from which you come out unscratched or as you came in. It is a House from which you emerge with new skills, enriched by the different meetings you've made, the friendships you have created including those with colleagues from other political groups, strengthened by the obstacles you've overcome... I am highly grateful to my co-citizens, to the European citizens, to have given me this responsibility and this chance to represent them... once again.

41 LIDIA GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

MEP 2004 -

Poland, Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (S & D)

Quaestor 2009-2014

For the past decade since 2004, I have been a Member of the European Parliament. From Monday to Friday I work in Brussels or Strasbourg. Trying to get to Poland, my home country almost every weekend, I have the opportunity to participate in meetings, conferences and training courses, which include information about the opportunities offered by the EU, the way it operates and other backstage matters of key importance for all Europeans, including the Poles, my compatriots.

In most cases these opportunities seemed to be completely unknown to the citizens. Hence was born the idea of sharing information to which I have access with a wider range of customers - the blog.

After a few years of blogging - I decided to gather the most important, most interesting events that occurred over the past few years in the European Union - and make the collection of essays into a book. You will find there a little bit of Brussels and Strasbourg in retrospect and from a distance. The e-book version will soon be available on my website.

The only such Parliament

It represents half a billion citizens. Officially operates in three places : in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. It has 10,789 offices and 159 meeting rooms with the largest, the plenary,

42 providing approximately 1000 seats , occupying a total of 1,091,934 m2. It employs nearly 10 thousand personnel.

The Parliamentary system supports 15 thousand computer workstations and 1,200 laptops. More than 1 million emails pass through the 1389 parliamentary servers daily. It produces 20 million documents per year. It works in 24 languages (more than 500 combinations of translations). It employs 1,240 translators and interpreters who, in addition to live interpretation, translate more than 100,000 pages per month. Multilingualism in the PE costs about 250 million euros per year.

In addition to employees and official visitors, around 500 thousand visitors annually explore the EP.

More than 400,000 cups of coffee are served daily to meeting rooms, now multiply it by a 5 year term. That is a sea of coffee. Although for some reason it’s very tasteless coffee.

About 4,500 meetings are held annually.

Dozens of elevators in the buildings take the route up and down about 2,000 times daily. Needless to mention these elevators break down quite often and cause numerous delays to deputies.

The EP has its own web TV : EuroparlTV, TV studios, radio and special communications department. Broadcasts of the meetings of the EP can be followed online.

Plenary sessions begin at 8:30 am and end around midnight lasting approximately 460 hours per year.

The European Parliament also has external information offices, located in the capital of the Member State. Two

43 information offices can be found in larger countries. Poland is one such. One office is just outside Warsaw, and in July 2011 a regional office was opened in Wroclaw.

What can the European Parliament do? In its early days more than half a century ago, the EP did not have many competencies. Deputies used to meet once a month in Strasbourg to issue opinions, which were not binding on the Council (the Governments of the Member States). They had no offices or assistants ; during the meetings some smoked cigars, drank cognac, and the session ended with a good dinner. They were delegates from national parliaments until 1979 : afterwards MEPs were elected directly.

Today, the Parliament is an equal partner with the Council; it has budgetary authority and completes legislative work every day throughout the year. During the meetings, Members drink water, coffee or tea. Dinner is usually missed since MEPs have not enough time now, and smoking is not even allowed in cafes.

The European Parliament is a co-legislature on the EU’s annual budget; it holds hearings for designated Commissioners and approves the European Commission as a whole. It ratifies or rejects international agreements.

BRUSSELS is still guilty Practically every day the European press accuses Brussels of evil deeds taking the form of complicated procedures that tie up normal citizens. Everyday Brussels comes up with new regulations (on cow milk, fishing), and more regulation (are carrots a fruit?). In the eyes of the ordinary citizen Brussels is a maze of bureaucracy

44 and incomprehensible rules - at least that's how the media portrays it.

What is Brussels really ? What or who are behind it ? In everyday language, Brussels is first and foremost the European Commission, which acts as “a European super government, forcing regulation upon countries.”

The Governments of the Member States do little to put this opinion straight; in fact they like to play the role of the "poor victim". However, the truth is that while the Commission is the EU's executive body, alone it cannot do anything without having the consent of the Council and the European Parliament.

Thus, if the media does not like a directive, we usually know the position of the government concerning that particular directive. The Commission is also bound to the European Parliament, because the Treaties make the Parliament a guardian.

The hardest period in the relationship between the three institutions is the time for negotiations between the Parliament, the Council and the European Commission. These meetings usually see a disagreement over our parliament’s "avant-garde" opinions, followed by a call for rejecting most of our amendments. The Council negotiates as if we were the enemy.

While we should be on the same board, in practice our interests differ. The Council (especially the representatives of the richest countries) usually wants to cut the budget, arguing that it's too high, because we do not use it in its entirety, and besides, everyone would prefer to pay as low a premium as possible.

45 The Parliament cannot imagine getting more Europe for less money. For example the budget in 2008 was based on a net contribution of 0.99% of the GDP of each country budgets. In 2004 the net contribution was 1.27% of GDP. The difference can be seen with the naked eye.

Budget negotiations are usually the most difficult, and ultimately their final phases (in December of each year) continue into the early hours of the morning and are usually turbulent. But they always end with a compromise that is treated as a victory by all sides. It is not easy because the Union as an organisation is very complex.

46 MALCOLM HARBOUR

MEP 1999 - 2014

U.K., Conservative representing the West Midlands (ECR)

Reflections of a Committee Chairman

Becoming a Committee Chairman in the European Parliament is a mysterious process, especially if you are a member of a smaller political group. After my re-election in 2009 as a member of the newly formed European Conservatives and Reformists Group, I had resigned myself to a lower profile role. I had spent the last 5 years as Co-ordinator for the large EPP-ED Group on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO), leading on high profile dossiers like the Services Directive. I expected to co-ordinate a rather smaller group in this mandate.

But the leader of the Conservative MEPs, Timothy Kirkhope, asked to meet me to see if I was willing to take the IMCO Chair, if the poker game of negotiation between all the Groups fell in my direction. Of course, I readily agreed. But I was not a player around the table, and had to rely on others to fight my cause.

Then came an extraordinary phone call, on a sunny June morning when I was working in my office at home. A Socialist friend, speaking off the record, told me that the Socialist group would not be bidding for the IMCO chair. "It's yours for the taking. Just make sure your ECR leaders get if for you !"

So I was duly elected IMCO Chairman, the third British holder of the office, following the much missed Philip Whitehead and Arlene McCarthy. As I reflected on my new

47 responsibilities, I was determined to show how effective a Parliamentary Committee could be in setting the political agenda, taking initiatives, while ensuring that all Members were engaged and motivated.

My first decision was to hold a three hour session with the IMCO committee Co-Ordinators, the key political leaders in an EP Committee. I wanted to get their ideas about how IMCO should be run. I also wanted their backing for a more ambitious approach. The IMCO Secretariat prepared a list of all the key dossiers that the Commission would be sending to us during our five year term. This was not speculation : the review and reform dates were written into the current legislation.

I proposed that every piece of major legislation should be preceded by an "Own Initiative" report, a political statement from the Committee on what it expected the Commission to do. The report would be informed by a public hearing, research from the Parliament services, and where appropriate, meetings with national MPs. There was a lot of discussion, but clear agreement. The first topic, Public Procurement, was quickly agreed. We would do a first report in 2010, ahead of a Commission proposal that would arrive in late 2012.

This decision paved the way for an activist committee, with many members involved in building up their specialist knowledge which they later used to improve the final Commission proposal. The Commission teams, who were preparing new dossiers, were very supportive and worked with us throughout. The "stakeholders" liked it because they had more chances to present their points in public forums.

In my five years as Chairman I had the good fortune to work closely with six Commissioners who were all engaged in the committee’s work. I had the unusual pleasure of having

48 Michel Barnier MEP as an active Member of IMCO, before his nomination as Commissioner. He was a regular participant in our discussions, and he was on my list of members wishing to speak in the committee the morning when the French government made the announcement. "I now call Michel Barnier" I said. " But let me first congratulate him on his nomination as Internal Market Commissioner". There was loud applause !

Michel Barnier was a great success as Commissioner, and we broke new ground by working together with him on many ambitious projects. None more so than the Single Market Act (SMA), a major political initiative to press forward with unfinished business that was sapping the potential of the European economy. The lead up to this initiative brought the Committee into close contact with former Commissioner Mario Monti, who became a good friend and a delight to work with.

In late 2009, we received the news that President Barroso was very concerned about the potential, in times of economic slow down, for protectionist pressures to unravel single market agreements. He commissioned Professor Mario Monti to do a personal report on the future of the Single Market and how it should be relaunched. I met my committee co-ordinators and asked them : "Do you want the Commission to make all the running on determining the future direction for the Single Market ?" We responded with our own report, "A Single Market for Consumers and Citizens", which ran in parallel with the Monti study. But the crucial recommendation of a political initiative, the Single Market Act, was IMCO's big idea.

Michel Barnier also strongly backed our idea, and persuaded his fellow Commissioners to support it. A group of twelve Commissioners worked together on the proposal. It was

49 launched by Michel Barnier at an IMCO Committee in an excited atmosphere under the banner "Together for New Growth". By coincidence, the UK Government had just issued a pamphlet with the title "Let's Choose Growth", supporting many of the SMA proposals. Michel waved the British pamphlet and credited the UK with the idea of the growth theme !

But Mario Monti produced the most memorable line in support of the SMA. At one of our SMA hearings, a questioner complained that this was "just another flagship project" that would be quickly forgotten. Mario replied : "It is not a flag or a ship - it is the sea and the wind !"

I have highlighted some of my recollections in the first half of my 3rd term, because this is when many of our new ways of working started to bear fruit. In the second half, the Committee was deeply occupied with the detailed scrutiny of the measures that we had advocated earlier. I would argue that we did a far better and more productive job in agreeing the legislation with the Council of Ministers, and that the results were more ambitious and better thought through. But it will take another five years before the effectiveness of the new rules can be measured and the achievements of IMCO from 1999 to 2014 can be fully assessed.

50 SATU HASSI

MEP 2004 -

Finland, Green League (Greens)

Member of Eduskunta in Helsinki 1991-2004 & Minister for

Environment & Development Cooperation 1999-2002

Climate, chemicals and smell of sulphur

There was a kind of "cold war", almost freezing EU climate policy in the 2009-2014 term.

After the Stern report in 2006 and the IPCC 4th report in 2007 it seemed there was a waking up, understanding that our future is in danger. EU Commission president Barroso started talking about the next industrial revolution as a necessity, and as the best competitiveness strategy. The EU climate and energy legislation package was adopted in 2008.

This spirit faded away. The lobbying by energy intensive businesses, fighting for the business as usual, never stopped. Unfortunately the big business organisations, like Business Europe, continue looking into the rear mirror, in spite of the fact that more and more companies see their best business opportunities in climate friendly options.

During 2009-2014 there was a lot of fighting, in the Parliament, in the Commission, in the governments. Many big business lobbyists and their friends in the Commission worked hard to push the climate legislation back, and to prevent any advancement. There was intensive lobbying on the other side, too, not just by environmental NGOs and progressive politicians, but also by an increasing number of

51 progressive businesses.

The net result was almost like a cold war. No going back, minor steps forward. We got new limits for extremely potent greenhouse gases called f-gases, used in refrigeration ; and new CO2 emission limits for passenger cars and vans. But the EU failed to strengthen our overall climate target for the year 2020, although the 20% reduction compared to 1990 had already been achieved soon after 2010, and failed to decide on next milestones for 2030 and 2040.

Internationally the EU continued to be the driving force. An important achievement, on which the media has been almost silent, was in the global climate conference in Durban in 2011. I was one of the EU Parliament representatives there.

The EP delegation had a meeting with the Chinese People´s Congress. A typical very boring formal meeting. Suddenly something was told to the Chinese side. They quickly whispered to each other. Then everybody else on the Chinese side ran away, except the guy lowest in hierarchy, who, confused, tried to continue the discussion.

It turned out that, in a joint press conference by the EU and the Least Developed Countries, the latter announced to support EU in demanding that ALL countries should have emission limits in the next global climate treaty, not just traditional industrialised countries. Exactly this had been the stumbling block in Copenhagen in 2009 : developing countries had demanded that there should still be limits only for traditional industrialised countries, whereas the latter demanded limits for all.

During the Durban conference more and more countries joined this demand, the host country South Africa with the whole of Africa, Brazil and many others. The USA would have

52 lost its face if it would have opposed, after for years having demanded limits for all major emitters. The last big countries hesitating were China and India. Finally China joined, and then also India.

This means there is now a UN principal decision that all countries must have greenhouse gas emission limits. But what kind of limits and how tight, that is still negotiated. According to the Durban timetable, it should be ready in Paris in 2015. Certainly there will be hard fights, inside and between governments, and zillions of lobbyists.

So, in climate politics a lot of work, meager results, which is quite sad, given the urgency, because the planet does not negotiate.

Chemicals in our bodies One of the biggest issues in my first term in EP, 2004 to 2009, was the new chemicals legislation REACH. I became the contact person of the Parliament to the EU Chemicals Agency, thus I followed how this ground breaking legislation was implemented in practice.

Also here I saw a lot fights, e.g. between the DG Industry and DG Environment in the Commission. There are many unsatisfactory issues in the implementation of REACH. I raise only one point, linked to consumer right to know. REACH gives any consumer the right to know if there are dangerous chemicals in any product he/she intends to buy, e.g. in a toy, piece of furniture, cloth, or an electronic gadget.

This right is linked to the so called candidate list, which refers to especially dangerous chemicals, which are carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic (CMR substances), or persistent, bio- accumulative and toxic (PBT substances). These "chemicals of very high concern" must not be used without permission.

53 Before a chemical is listed as a substance needing an authorisation, it is listed on the candidate list.

I assumed that all known CMR and PBT chemicals would be listed as candidates. The list would have been rather long, because there are over 800 known carcinogens and mutagens. To my amazement it was not done this way, Instead of more than 800, the first candidate list had only some tens of chemicals. Now the number is somewhere between 100 and 200. So, checking our exposure to harmful chemicals is still far from being finished.

Smell of Sulphur In Finland I am best known from the Sulphur Directive. According to numerous articles I have effectively killed the Finnish Industry via this piece of legislation. The Finnish Industry Confederation has cried really loudly that this is the last last nail in the coffin of our industry.

Yes, cleaning the emissions from ships raises shipping costs. But this also improves the quality of the air we breathe, by a lot.

In reality the Sulphur Directive is mainly implementing into EU law new emission limits decided by the International Maritime Organisation. The IMO decided long ago that ships of all flags must reduce their pollution in specific sea areas. The first such areas were in Europe, the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the English Channel. Later an emission control area has been established also along both coasts of USA and Canada. The first IMO shipping fuel sulphur limits for these areas, first 1,5% and then 1%, caused no noise, because they could be achieved with cheap bunker fuel. But for the newest IMO sulphur limit, 0,1% from 2015 onwards, ships need to either switch to distillate fuel or clean up their exhaust gases.

54 All other industries have done much more, long ago. Land based sulphur emissions in EU from factories, power stations and transport, have been reduced almost by 90% from the early 1980s. Without new limits, sulphur emissions from ships in EU sea areas would exceed all land based sulphur emissions from EU during this decade. It is estimated that close to half million people die prematurely in Europe due to air pollution, and that 50,000 of them die because of pollution by ships.

Therefore I am rather proud of having been the rapporteur of the Sulphur directive, despite the crying wolf by the industry.

55 EDIT HERCZOG

MEP 2004 – 2014

Hungary, Socialist party (S & D)

Europe at the Crossroads

Being one of the 24 Hungarian members of the European Parliament at a historical time, just after Enlargement happened on 1st May 2004, was a real present for me. Elected on 9th may, we arrived from all the Central Eastern European countries, and created a massive presence, as we were a group with more than two hundred members, and as such, a very important group to influence decisions. We had however a great unintended transformation, as we were all speaking English, rather than French or German. The Parliament, uniquely within the EU institutions, started suddenly to speak English as its main language.

It was all about the enthusiasm with Europe enlarged by half of its territory and a third by its population. The discussions around the Lisbon Agenda, being the most competitive best continent to live and love. We all knew what we wanted : however, coming from business, I found little about hos we would achieve this. I remember of the members, to my great surprise, targetted political rather than legislative committees, so I could end in IMCO, ITRE and CONT. Under the chairmanship of Philip Whitehead, we discussed for hours weeks and months the Services directive, but had little hope to pass it after Mr Bolkestein’s statement about the Polish Plombier. The British members were the most active in supporting it.. Arlene McCarthy, Bill Newton Dunn, Malcolm harbour, in coalition with the new MEPs, were successful in

56 achieving the directive, which still has to be implemented to deliver its great effect on the EU economy.

In ITRE otherwise, we were dealing with REACH, the 2.400 page legislation around chemicals and health. You could easily recognise those (including me) who were working on this : we were in a hurry, with large dossiers in our hands, and speaking a kind of strange language with abbreviations. And we passed it too, as we did with the Third Energy package and the Telecom legislation.

Definitely, my first term was about construction and about the future. And then on 8th August 2008 the Lehmann Brothers bank collapsed. As a consequence the economy struggled and collapsed, and some countries like mine accelerated towards collapse. Austerity cut all our ambitions, and enthusiasm changed to frustration. It was difficult to fight an economic crisis, and it is even more difficult to rebuild the constructive environment. We lost our compass, and therefore we neither knew what or how to do it. Everyone started on his own solution, especially at the periphery.

My second term was about finding our compass under the ruins which occurred in the crisis. It look a long time to elect the new Commissioners. One year was lost without changing direction, due to the adoption of the budget before their appointment. New mathematics in the EP (after the creation of the ECR) reduced room for manoeuvre. The Lisbon Treaty became, from one side, too large for member states and from the other side too tight to give a reply as it was necessary. We had a financial tsunami, where the waves were higher than our dam, the legislation. Finally=y, the compromise was achieved to use the single opportunity to go beyond a treaty and create the Banking Union. It meant that all other necessary work was put aside, to create the time for getting this done.

57 My favourite subjects, energy, the digital agenda, and all other legislation, were put aside or became captive. We could vote down things, as we did with ACTA or even a resolution on Fukushima, but we almost lost our capability for vote for something. Without a constructive approach, debates became more and more populist, and convergence changed to divergence. It was interesting that we could finalise the Six Pack (at the second attempt) which had great effect on MS sovereignty. In the past it was impossible to imagine that national ministers of finance would have to introduce their numbers to the Commission before to their own national parliaments.

The largest piece of work I worked on was the 7th Financial Framework. Bring rapporteur for Chapter One about competitiveness, entrepreneurship and innovation was exciting. To repeat all the time, as you can not lose weight by not eating so you can not win competitiveness with austerity only. You need to do some sport, just as you need to invest in innovation, creativity and youth. The loss, b y not using the generation which has state of the art knowledge and is native in the digital environment, will put Europe at the crossroads : whether to remain in front or fall behind the followers. We can be proud of saving money for these important targets : however we must remember that lack of the necessary investment to the European project will drive us towards further divergence and there fore it is high time to turn back.

“The past is prologue” wrote Shakespeare in his play “The Tempest”. It is up to us now to move forward toward a new era. In the last century we had two terrible World wars. We are remembering the Great War centenary and the Holocaust seventy years ago. They were both consequences of divergence. It is very clear we must push to rediscover our constructive talent, and face the global challenges, to remain in the race. There are so many opportunities to deliver.

58 Citizens moving with their work, and life still to be connected 24/7/365 days, independent of where they are. Mobility, interconnectivity, digital, is the biggest demand we have seen for a long time. Change to our past practices in the same way, gives more than a mandate to work on. You can not run digital without having secure and clean energy available and affordable. Breaking national barriers and exploiting the synergies is a moral obligation for leaders of the new century. Europe can and could so much for talent. We need not just the best talent, rather we must build on everybody’s best talent too. The younger generation, with state of art knowledge and digital skill, is the biggest value loss of our time. Finally, if I would stay, I would repeat each day the basic : the basic which we have forgotten : the basic that freedom is a thousand times better than war, even cold war. The value of the European Union is that, if no other benefits, that single on is an imperative for the political elite to save.

Before my decade at the EP, I worked for a company which belonged top Unilever and later ICI. I had a great British manager called Paul Teather. He used to say : “Having an idea is not a solution. Everything depends on execution. Putting them together is the only contribution.” And this was the best thing about the EP. Work with contributors and filter out the noise of destruction. In my limited ten years, to contribute, giving my best to the issues on which I worked. It was a great time to work with colleagues, like Bill, who above all has the energy and commitment to write this book. I hope that readers will follow us too and will contribute to the future in the interest of all.

59 DANUTA HÜBNER

MEP 2009 –

Poland, Civic Platform party (EPP)

European Commissioner for Trade 2004 & for Regional

Policy 2004-2009

The mandate which just ended constituted both a challenge as well as an opportunity for us Europeans. It confronted us with one of the most severe economic downturns in living memory and offered us the chance to fix the loopholes in the European project, making the Union more resilient for the future.

I can say that the last five years have been a time of severe “stress’-tests” for all of us in the European institutions. We had to decide fast on an essentially radical refurbishing of the institutional landscape. We also had to look for political coherence between often competing national interests. In the process, some countries had to redefine their own stakes to the EU's overall design in order to get out of the crisis. Thus I think that in these sometimes turgid procedures – often misunderstood outside Brussels – we actually achieved an important convergence on what should be done to protect the European Union against the vagaries of the post-crisis world economy.

My personal battle was avoiding the fragmentation of Europe as the reforms were for obvious reasons focused on the euro area.

We saw that the unity of the single market cannot and should not be taken for granted, that with an over closer eurozone

60 integration, the risks of a multi-tier Europe might materialise. Defending the single market as a level playing field for euro and non-euro member states alike was often not an easy task. We did our best however in this direction.

I have been very positively impressed by the commitment, dedication and passion that my colleagues at the Parliament have shown in the face of the crisis. Together, we had the drive and ambition to tackle the problems hands on and carve solutions which will eventually bring growth to Europe.

The crisis unfortunately also destabilised democratic legitimacy, putting immense pressure on us, as directly elected representative of the citizens of the Union, to act swiftly and get our electors on board. The May elections underlined this further. So starting a new mandate, we can certainly reflect on our achievements, our mistakes as well as our inactions during the previous term and be constructive and ambitious about the years to come.

One of the tasks before us is combating the democratic deficit. We have to find a compelling narrative for the EU at the time when such narratives are hard to come by. That is why we need to do everything in our powers to fully introduce, on all levels, the better understanding that it is the “citizen” and not the “state’ that is the main agent in the EU, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty. Not everybody is fully conscious of that preeminent development in EU law.

Now, when I am changing my seat in the Parliament from the Regional Policy Committee to the Constitutional Affairs Committee, I will ensure that this idea is understood as widely as possible.

On a personal note, I am very happy that, during the previous

61 term, I actively participated in working –out the schemas for post-crisis arrangements. One of them is certainly very future- oriented, namely the TTIP – a far reaching trade agreement that will bring many benefits to European citizens.

I also had a leading role in the preparation of the Multi Annual Financial Framework for 2014-2020. It was a very arduous undertaking, which at the same time provided me with the immense satisfaction of a good, pro-growth result. We owe this success to a large extent to a very fruitful inter-institutional cooperation.

As a chair of the Regional Development committee, a major challenge was chairing the negotiations of the new cohesion policy framework to give the EU for the post-crisis time a European investment policy that would enhance its growth capacity, new jobs and competitiveness.

During my time as Chair of the committee I met many fantastic people from all over Europe. Some of them came to Brussels during the Open Days – which I see as a celebration of what is the best in the EU: cooperation, knowledge exchange, best practices presentations and warm personal networking. Some other I met on-site all over the EU, where they are doing various projects, building connections, conversing about Europe’s future.

Now I look to other challenges, but I will remember you all, friends. I hope to see you again, and again. Because Europe is about its people, about people for whom the Union is more than just a name.

62 DANUTA JAZŁOWIECKA

MEP 2009 -

Poland, Civic Platform representing the Opole district (EPP)

Member of the Sejm 2005 – 2007

Despite a very difficult and challenging period for the European Union I believe I was lucky to become Member of the European Parliament in the years 2009-2014. Economic and social crisis in Europe and especially in monetary union countries, high level of unemployment, and lack of trust in the European project, were great challenges which gave us the possibility to work on many key legislative proposals and provide Europe with good solutions for the future.

This legislative period was a special time for me as a Pole also due to two main reasons. Jerzy Buzek, as the first MEP from Central and Eastern European countries, was elected President of the European Parliament. I will never forget how proud and touched I was when he was backed by a historic majority of the house. This was a special day for my country which confirmed that despite our difficult past we managed to become one of the strongest Member States of the EU. Another unforgettable time was Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU. I have never received so many congratulations and signs of sympathy then after the speech closing the Presidency given in the Plenary by our Prime Minister Donald Tusk. These 6 months were filled with hard work but also with plenty of interesting events in the EP presenting Polish culture, history, cuisine and a lot more. Personally I organized a big event promoting my home region - the Opolskie region.

63 As member of the Committees for Employment and Social Affairs, as well as Economic and Monetary Affairs, I was involved in working on many key legislative proposals. I believe that due to a strong negotiating position of the EP we managed to work out instruments that not only helped Europe to start coming out of the crisis but will prevent us from similar economic downturns in the future.

Personally I was specially involved in preparing recommendations on how to use social investments in the fight against economic crisis. Unfortunately many Member States concentrated their efforts only on financial austerity measures and overlooked negative social consequences. In my report, prepared for the EMPL Committee, the European Parliament called on MS to combine austerity measures with well targeted social investment policy that will help citizens to respond to changing economic and social conditions in the future. One of my priorities during this legislative term was also to help and support young persons as well as older workers on the labour market. These two groups experience the biggest problems and challenges and need special attention. But more than half of the legislative term I devoted to work on one of the most difficult files of this legislative term - the Posting of Workers Directive…

From the very beginning I was warned by many experienced colleagues and told that EU institutions will never reach a compromise on this Directive. As I like and attract challenges, I finally (but not being 100% sure whether I was doing the right thing) decided to become the rapporteur for this file. Work on this Directive, called by many a “Pandora box”, provided me with many stressful and terrifying moments but at the end it turned out to be my biggest success of the past legislative term.

64 Posting of workers gives the European businesses a right to provide services in another Member State to which it may send its workers for a limited period of time, pay them a minimum wage of the host state (unless it is lower than the minimum wage in the home state) as well as pay social security contributions in their home country. My main priority was to work out balanced solutions that will, on one side, enable companies to make the best use of the Internal Market and freedom to provide services and, on the other, protect posted workers. This was not an easy task. In the beginning I had to deal with more than 800 amendments tabled to my report, divergent positions by all political groups, different national interests as well as doubtful support from my own political group. In addition Poland was part of blocking minority in the Council which did not help me in my role. As a rapporteur I prepared a number of compromise solutions that unfortunately were voted down by the EMPL Committee. I only hoped that I would be able to work out good solutions during the trialogue that would follow. And then the Trialogues started. Unique experience to be shared ! We spent dozens of hours negotiating with the Council and the Commission. Many trialogue meetings lasted until late night hours and left us with no progress. We used to speak about the meaning of one word for 3 hours, starting at midnight. Some players even tried to win not only by using arguments but also by forcing their hungry opponents to step down - they used to order pizza only for their own at 1 o’clock at night and enjoyed seeing us hungry and desperate to finish the negotiations. I had a feeling that after making one step forward we were doing two steps back.

But finally, due to a great engagement by the Greek Presidency, the Parliament and the Commission as well as the support that I received from my political group, we eventually managed to come out with a compromise result that was backed by good majority of the EP and 25 out of 28 Member

65 States. I am sure that this Directive will improve working conditions for the one million of posted workers in Europe and provide companies with legal certainty.

These 5 years in the European Parliament provided me not only with great professional experience but also with many friendships that I hope I will be able to continue in the future. It also showed me that, despite divergent views, national interest as well as cultural background, and due to team work we are able to work out good solutions for our citizens.

I am happy that I was given the possibility to serve the next 5 years as Member of the European Parliament. I wonder what kind of “Pandora box” I will open this time….

66 OTHMAR KARAS

MEP 1999 -

Austria, People’s Party (EPP)

Member of the Nationalrat, 1983-90

The seventh legislature of the European Parliament was overcast by the largest financial and economic crisis Europe had seen in generations. As a first step in order to cluster our attention and to focus on the most urgent problems, the European Parliament established a Special Committee on the Financial, Social and Economic Crisis, on which I had the honour to serve as the EPP’s coordinator. Its aim was to analyse the roots and effects of the current state, to implement measures and to draw lessons for the future.

One of the most important conclusions was the mutual consent, that the elimination of regulation-gaps in the field of finance and financial services was clearly needed. Furthermore it was necessary to strengthen transparency and responsibility throughout the financial services sector, so the sector could continue to play a vital role for the European economy.

These joint conclusions also guided us during the negotiations on the establishment of the Banking Union. Our main goal was to prevent that any money from tax payers is used for bank rescue operations in the future. The basis was made with the agreement on the Capital Requirements Directive IV (CRD IV). The single rule book for all 8.300 European banks is the biggest step in banking regulation in European history. European banks will have to put aside more and better capital in order to be prepared for crisis situations. As for liquidity, tighter rules are to be applied as banks' reserves have to

67 become more flexible in order to react faster in crisis situations. As the European Parliament’s chief negotiator, the stabilisation of the European banking sector as well as its firm preparation for future difficulties was a matter of immense concern to me. The European real economy is financed on a credit-based ratio of 80%. The CRD IV package will ensure that banks will be able to fulfil their core task.

The next step was the establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM). The SSM, established at the European Central Bank, will ensure a consistent application of the single rulebook, as well as the financial stability of significant banks in the member states. For its success a close cooperation between the SSM and the national supervisory authorities will be crucial.

In addition, the final months of the legislature brought the conclusion of the last step for the European Banking Union – the decision to establish a Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) and a Single Resolution Fund (SRF). The SRM would assist troubled banks to undergo restructure mechanisms and also help to initiate a bank liquidation, if needed.

We see today that these measures were steps in the right direction. During this legislative period there was no collapse of the Eurozone or of the EU itself, as predicted by doomsday prophets. On the contrary, with Croatia there is a new member in the European family. The Euro gained two new member states and remains one of the most trusted currencies in the world.

Nevertheless, we must not slow down when it comes to necessary reforms and structuring measures. The European Parliament has shown its willingness and capability to contribute to this process. One example thereof was the evaluation of the structure and work of the “Troika” by the

68 Members of the Parliament, to find European and joint answers to all questions and critique. The conclusions and proposals I helped to craft as a rapporteur gained a significant majority. Inter alia we have asserted that, while the economic situation and recent developments have had negative impacts on the quantity and quality of employment, access to credit, income levels, social protection and health and safety standards, and as a result economic and social hardship is unmistakeable. These negative impacts could have been considerably worse without the EU-IMF financial assistance the action at European level which helped prevent the situation from deteriorating even further. The Troika must therefore not be made the scapegoat for the problems in various member states. Rather it prevented a disaster. However, for the future, its work must be made more transparent and more democratic. In the short-term, the Troika needs internal rules of procedure to increase the transparency of decision-making. In the long-term, the Troika's work should be carried out by a new European Monetary Fund on the basis of EU law. This ensures that European decisions on the reform and aid programs are democratically legitimised and subject to parliamentarian scrutiny at the European level as well. Only in this way will the citizens’ acceptance increase. The Troika was an outcome of the crisis and it revealed in which areas the EU lacked the capacity to act on common rules.

Over the course of the last years, there has been a state of tension between intergovernmentalism and European Community Law. It is a pity that it needed this major crisis in order to start a process that we wanted to initiate ten years ago. It is obvious now that a Europe which is based on unanimity in every decision, can't keep up with the fast changing challenges of our globalised world.

69 We therefore need to take the chance this new legislative period is providing us : we, as the European Parliament, need to start an open and public debate with the civil society and all its branches. We have to define and argue about the need for an expanded Community based playing field for the future. I want the result of these debates to be part of a European wide referendum. This referendum should be held together with the next European elections 2019 and help to find a common European answer for the European challenges of the future.

70 WOLF KLINZ

MEP 2004 – 2014

Germany, Free Democrat Party (ALDE)

Politics was not a career objective for me, since it would have limited me to working in Germany – the European Parliament did not exist yet - whereas I wanted to pursue an international business career instead. Working at the crossroads between business and politics in two instances in my professional career did change my mind. As executive board member of the Treuhandanstalt in Berlin, which had the task to privatise, restructure or resolve East German industry and, as President of the Frankfurt Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I learned how closely business and politics are interrelated and how interesting the political decision making process could be.

So in 2004, after almost thirty-eight years in business and just before the end of my term as CEO of a Frankfurt based international company, I volunteered to stand as a candidate for the German Liberal party FDP in the European elections. The FDP had not been present in the EP for the last 10 years, since it had not passed the 5% threshold which existed at the time in Germany. It was quite a challenge to reenter the EP, but we did rather well and the party´s score in Hesse was the highest in the country. Over the years the EP had not only gained in status and image, but also in real political influence. Joining the EP became a fascinating venture.

Given my business background, I chose to become a full member of the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee (ECON) where I acted as coordinator of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe (ALDE) and later became

71 the Chairman of the Parliament´s Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (CRIS).

I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been a member of the EP from 2004 to 2014. It has been a fascinating time and a very rewarding one. Fascinating, because Europe was undergoing fundamental change in many ways and rewarding, because I felt I could really make a – albeit small - contribution to society.

The EU underwent considerable changes over those ten years. The number of member states grew from 15 to 25 with almost all central-eastern European states joining in 2004 and then from 25 to 28 with Romania and Bulgaria coming onboard in 2007 and Croatia in 2013. In 2007/08 the worst financial crisis developed since the Great Depression and was followed by a severe sovereign debt crisis particularly in the Eurozone. The result was a major economic downturn leaving many citizens asking whether the European project was still on track.

To counter this development, the EU designed and implemented an extremely ambitious reform agenda for the financial sector. The objectives of this reform were simple : more transparency, better investor protection, no regulatory arbitrage and hence fair competition and more democratic accountability of the key decision makers. The supervision of large international banks was assigned to the European Central Bank and a European resolution mechanism was enacted, the financial means of which would be generated by the financial sector itself and not by the taxpayer. The EP – and particularly ECON - played a major role in this reform process, since its influence had been substantially increased by the Treaty of Lisbon which came into force in December 2009.

I had the chance to participate actively in more than twenty of these legislative files. This meant hard work : long working

72 hours, many discussions, and tough negotiations with Council and Commission. But it was highly rewarding, since all MEPs that participated got the feeling of writing economic history.

There are numerous aspects of the EP and its work worth commenting on. Looking back I want to limit my comments to four aspects : the decision making process, the work of the CRIS committee which I chaired, the power struggle between the EP and the Council, and my human experience.

First, I was used to fast decision making in business. “Time is money“ was the general belief and we acted accordingly. Pros and cons of every decision were determined, chances and risks evaluated. The decision was quickly taken and the implementation on its way. What a difference to the way the EP works ! It took me a while to fully understand why decision making takes so long in the EP and why this is justified. The interests of 28 member states differ in many ways and the basic political beliefs are not the same either. In addition, the EP does not have – as national parliaments do – MPs belonging to the governing party/ies and opposition.

Second, the CRIS committee was set up in October 2009. It was charged with analysing the extent and causes of the crisis, its impact on EU member states, and the state of world governance. In addition it should propose measures for the reconstruction of sound, stable financial markets to support sustainable growth, social cohesion and high level employment.

With the specificities of the EP in mind, I was not sure that the committee could deliver what its mandate called for. The members of CRIS represented countries from central and northern Europe that, although suffering from the crisis, still were relatively stable and those from the periphery in the South that found themselves in serious difficulties and were

73 threatening the survival of the Euro. The first group underlined the need to consolidate public finances, the second stressed the need to invest, preferably with EU money. Solidity versus solidarity. The various political groups participating in CRIS pursued a completely different agenda : a prominent role of the state on the one hand and much more engagement of the private sector on the other.

The consensus searching approach of the EP which at first glance looks to be an obstacle to successful problem solving, turned out to be very useful in the end. All members realised that the EP not only had a unique chance , but also an obligation to speak with one voice in this time of crisis to ensure that the EP would be heard. At the end of the day CRIS did deliver and came forward with recommendations that even now, years after its work, prove to be realistic and meaningful. In fact, some look like the blueprint of what the Council has done in the past or is seriously considering now.

Third, the Treaty of Lisbon had added considerably to the power and influence of the EP. It was now a real co-legislator and the MEPs made it quite clear in their trialogue negotiations with Council and Commission that they were willing to assume more responsibility and use their increased power. The Council on the other hand found it difficult to adjust to the new situation. Rather than accepting the community method as the one that represents more than anything else the democratic spirit of the EU, the Council started to use the intergovernmental approach. In doing so, it could easily sideline the EP. Thus many very important decisions were taken without direct involvement of the EP : i.e. the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism ESM, the Fiscal Compact, and parts of the Banking Union. This was a very disappointing experience for most MEPs working on economic files. If we want more citizens to

74 support the EU, the community method has to be the one and only decision making approach in the future.

Fourth, the human experience during my years in the EP has probably had the biggest lasting impact on me. Working with colleagues from 28 nations representing different political groups taught me to see the world through new glasses. I learned to look at topics from different angles, I developed a deep sense for other cultures and other ways of reasoning. The world was no longer black and white and positions were not right or wrong from the outset. Instead I learned to listen more carefully, I developed a deep sense of respect for others. So after ten years in the EP I feel enriched, changed and more balanced, all good reasons to be very grateful.

75 EDUARD KUKAN

MEP 2009 -

Slovakia, Slovenská demokratická a kresťanská únia -

Demokratická strana (EPP)

Minister of Foreign Affairs 1998-2006

Standing in the 2009 European elections came as a logical and rational continuation of my previous professional life. I spent 30 years in the diplomatic service, 9 years as the Slovak Minister of Foreign Affairs and 7 years in the National Council of Slovakia. I have been dealing with affairs connected to foreign policy and international relations all my life. Naturally, I wanted to use my experience and personal contacts in a broader context. The European Parliament seemed to me as an excellent opportunity.

Looking back at the 5 years in the EP, I want to say - without any hesitation - that I fully enjoyed them, mainly because I was engaged in Committees and the Delegation of my choice, which reflected my expertise. I could fully concentrate on my strongest skills. At the beginning I wanted to prove to my colleagues from Western Europe that I am as qualified and as good as they are.

I felt it was necessary, even thought not formally; this sentiment existed, and at times resurfaced. During the election of the President of Parliament - Jerzy Buzek being the candidate - certain groups of MEPs doubted whether he would make a good President because he was coming from a "new" Member State. I was extremely glad that Mr. Buzek clearly proved all those doubts absolutely unfounded. He chaired and managed the work and activities of the

76 Parliament in a very competent way. He proved his capability in many complex issues, in a charming manner, often using his great sense of humor, which is a valuable asset for any politician.

I devoted a lot of my time and energy to delegations and representatives from Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo. As head of the EP Delegation for these countries, I felt it was important for me to meet all of them, in order to get first hand information about the situation in their countries and their interest in the European integration process. I enjoyed working with them and established relations based on mutual respect and appreciation. I became a close and trusted partner (if not a personal friend) of theirs. Yet, it did not come automatically and it was not so easy to achieve.

This applies especially to Kosovo. My country, Slovakia, is one of the five Member States that do not recognise Kosovo’s independence. Naturally, there were concerns among MEPs, even from my political family, whether I could make a neutral, credible and unbiased Chair. It was clear for me that I had to show my personal integrity and be fair and objective in any situation. I always stayed faithful to that principle. The result was that both representatives, irrespective of their party affiliation, had confidence in me and fully respected my leadership of the Delegation. Given the very tense relations between the main political players practically in all the countries (Albania being the prime example), it required a lot of patience, diplomatic skills and perseverance to demonstrate my dedication as a European politician that genuinely wanted to help them, and especially the people of their countries.

On the other hand, the situation in the EP with regard to further enlargement of the EU was less than ideal. Some MEPs were sceptical about the necessity to continue with the

77 enlargement process, preferring a pause. The main task of the Delegation was to keep the enlargement process a credible future perspective for the Western Balkans and to persuade European institutions about the need to remain trustworthy partners based on their performance, requiring the fulfilment of all accession criteria without any discount or shortcuts for them. Thanks to the dedicated work of the MEP members of the Delegation and the understanding of the leading politicians in the region, we were able to fulfil this task. As a result, the European integration process in the Western Balkans marked some progress.

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee (AFET), I could fully use my experience. I liked Committee work tremendously. Members were highly competent (many former Ministers of Foreign Affairs of their countries and other high ranking specialists from this field), so the discussions were stimulating and interesting. Chairing AFET was fascinating. First, the Committee was chaired by Mr. Gabrielle Albertini, the former mayor of Milan. Despite little experience in foreign affairs, he was a good manager. AFET functioned effectively, was well-organised and disciplined.

In the second half of the term, Mr. Elmar Brok from Germany took over the chairmanship. He is one of the most experienced (if not the most) MEPs in international affairs, constantly engaged in solving complicated problems, competently and with good judgment, achieving very good results. Untypically for a German, he was not always punctual (for the reasons I explained above) but got out of any situation unscarred by using his personal intelligent humour. Elmar has a very complex personality: witty, friendly, charming, some times very tough, almost rude. However, everyone agrees that he is competent, experienced and efficient and was entrusted by representing the whole EP in many important negotiations.

78 I don’t have the same constructive experience from my membership in the Subcommittee for Human Rights (DROI). Despite the fact that we declare - time and again - that human rights issues should be on the forefront of any EP policy, the actual situation was different. It was visible also in the work of the Committee. The agenda was very wide and complex, requests for meetings came from all corners of the globe. Yet the attendance of the MEPs was miserable, many times with more guests present than MEPs. There were times when the Chair - M Barbara Lochbiler (by the way, she did a remarkably excellent job) - was the only EP representative in the room. Despite this phenomenon, DROI managed to adopt many important documents and its members made some important foreign visits. For the future I think, that the standing of the Committee within the EP structure should be upgraded to give it more leverage over human rights issues. Yet this must happen by fundamentally changing the attitude of the MEPs.

Throughout the 5 years, I constantly felt how important and gratifying it was to belong to the biggest and strongest political group, EPP. At times, however, I felt the approach to issues was extremely ideological. I understand and respect it, yet sometimes the proposals coming from other political groups - in my opinion pragmatic and acceptable – were rejected, simply because of the political allegiance of their authors.

I have also somewhat a different understanding of the term "political solidarity". First, we should define the circumstances under which our political solidarity is going to be expressed and then declare it. Not to resort to it in any situation blindly. Coming from Slovakia, it was difficult for me to ‘swallow’ all the admiration and almost love for the Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and his policies. On the other hand, I appreciated the fully democratic atmosphere in the group,

79 reflecting the different shades of opinions within the group.

About the work of the plenary, its organisation and management should be improved to make it more efficient. Serious attempts to improve effectiveness lacked implementation. These attempts should not be abandoned.

All in all, I look at my 5 years in EP with a sense of personal satisfaction. I enjoyed work to the fullest, and with all modesty, I believe that I left some positive personal impact in the EP. And, perhaps, even more in the countries I cooperated closely with.

80 JEAN LAMBERT

MEP 1999 -

UK, Green representing London (Greens,EFA)

From Green to Grey

At the time of the European elections in 2009, people were feeling the tremors of the financial crash. They feared for their jobs and the ensuing repercussions, in terms of housing costs, possible price rises, loss of public services and many other aspects: there was a real feeling of anxiety for the future.

We had seen a growing interest in changing direction - in using the economic crisis to invest in change for the future, providing new jobs and tackling the climate crisis along with the social and economic crises. In 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) had, together with the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), released the first comprehensive study on the emergence of a "green economy" and its impact on the world of work, as well as showing where new jobs might be created. The Trades Unions came forward with the proposal of "Just Transition", ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen Conference on climate change : it holds that a shift to a lower carbon economy is vital to avoid dangerous climate change and shows how the world of work can adapt and new jobs can be created within that concept.

A number of governments throughout the world had begun to put forward stimulus packages, varying in size and quality, but some estimates put the amount at half a trillion dollars for climate change related investment and up to 16% of total stimulus spending for "green" investment. China and the USA were the leaders in terms of actual amounts.

81 The EU 2020 Strategy was brought in by Commission President Barroso (the new European Parliament complained bitterly about not being consulted) and has "sustainable growth" as one of its three key areas - building a more competitive low-carbon economy that makes efficient, sustainable use of resources. The Strategy was supposed to be the basis of EU action for the 2009-2014 term and provides the framework through which the new Semester process (of which more later) should be seen. It was supposed to fit with the other elements of "smart" and "inclusive" growth - the latter committing the EU to reducing the number of people living in poverty.

However, during the last five years we have, in my view, seen that more visionary feeling of possible change withering away as governments and much of the Commission go back to old ideas and automatic responses - summed up in the minds of many EU citizens by the actions of the Troika.

Under "market" pressure, thinking turned away from investment to retrenchment. We saw an economic orthodoxy in operation that has been widely criticised by development organisations in the past when used in developing countries by bodies such as the IMF. It demands dramatic cuts in public spending - even in essential services such as health and education; privatisation of public assets - often at what turns out to be knock-down prices and a general weakening of social protections in favour of deregulation to remove barriers to business. In the EU, we also saw significant cuts in pensions and other welfare benefits. When asking why we were weakening social security payments - a key economic and social stabiliser which all the evidence shows helps a country to recover and to maintain local economies under stress - one reply offered was "Harvard business school does not teach about social security". So while it may not be a key feature for the IMF, it should be for any sensible economist operating in the

82 EU and certainly if they are employed by the Commission, the "guardian of the Treaties".

While many of us welcomed reforms to the banking and financial sectors in this last Parliament, and the growing interest in a Financial Transaction Tax (a fluctuating commitment from some), there was a growing concern at the social impacts of crisis measures. Yes, there's a need for stable finances, but a nation borrowing is not quite the same as an individual : indeed, the explosion in personal debt in some countries was a greater financial problem than the country's national borrowing.

While the Eurozone struggled with the implications of German prudence creating a financial bubble in Greece and other apparently perverse effects of setting up a currency without the necessary infrastructure, it is worth pointing out that non-Eurozone countries have also faced problems which have had profound effects. And, while on my soap-box, to stress that a "bail-out" is not charity but financial business and money that will have to be repaid with interest.

It was not only social security and public services that suffered, but also investment in renewable energies and energy efficiency : these are part of the solution to balance of payment deficits. Italy's oil import costs rose by 12 billion euros between 2009 and 2011 to reach 31 billion euros. A strategic investment in energy efficiency and renewables would help balance their books and provide jobs. Portugal recognised that it was heavily dependent on fuel imports and began a significant investment programme in renewables to provide local jobs and cut import bills - a programme that ran into trouble with the Troika because state spending was involved.

83 We saw a reduction in the ambition of action required to combat climate change. Attempts to make the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) work more effectively were rejected by the European Parliament, the larger partner in the UK's "greenest Government ever" providing the casting votes. The Tories also refused to back a call for a 30% emissions reduction by 2020 and more ambitious figures for the 2030 climate package. Business says it wants a clear direction of travel - the EU is still trying to get the satnav to work properly.

The discovery of shale gas has seemed to give a lifeline to the old energy companies and those who find comfort in the familiar fossil fuels. The European Parliament has seen a growing power struggle between the more fossil-friendly Industry Committee and the forward thinking Environment Committee. Recent foreign policy challenges have forced Member States to consider energy security more seriously and to look to their own resources. It amazes me that MEPs who are prepared to invest millions in big-business for shale gas extraction, find it so difficult to invest in energy-efficiency targets and programmes that would make people warm immediately, cut fuel costs and provide jobs. As for renewables, the EU chose to enter a damaging trade dispute with China over solar costs, resulting in lost jobs in the EU and further obstacles to meeting our emission targets.

At the start of the new Parliamentary term in 2014, the signals are not good. It would seem that President Juncker has failed to integrate the "sustainable" element of jobs, development and energy supply across his new Commission. No-one is leading a green transition. So Parliament will have to do it - but, given the number of climate sceptics elected, I'm not holding my breath. The EU risks losing its leadership on the biggest global challenge we face - climate change. That's a sobering thought and a call to action.

84 JO LEINEN MEP 1999 -

Germany, SPD party (S & D)

1985-1994 LandTag Saarland

President of the European Federalists 1997 - , & President of the European Movement 2011 -

Crisis management from the very beginning

Dominated by the financial crisis, from the beginning to the end of the legislature, the 2009-2014 term was the most difficult legislative period in the European Parliament in a long time.

Dedicated to make the EU more democratic and efficient, the Lisbon Treaty, ratified in 2009, raised expectations that the Union would be able to tackle the big challenges like climate change, illegal immigration or energy security. The Lisbon Treaty also aimed at enabling the EU to speak with a single voice in international affairs, in order to improve its external action, beginning with our neighbourhood policy in Eastern Europe and around the Mediterranean.

However, the near collapse of the international banking system and the debt crises in a number of EU-member states led to a situation of permanent crisis management, with little room for other policy areas. Around 25 EU summits were held to analyse the situation, to avoid the collapse of the Eurozone and to look for solutions to overcome the economic stagnation and growing mass unemployment.

85 Lacking the competences as well as the instruments to react quickly, the EU was not at all prepared for the external shock of the banking bubble bursting. Crisis management was dominated by national governments, especially Germany and France. EU institutions were side-lined, most of all the European Parliament. Intergovernmental agreements and international treaties replaced the community method, which reserves the right of initiatives for the European Commission and grants democratic control to the European Parliament. The result was a wave of new nationalism where economically stronger countries pointed their fingers at weaker member states, who in turn complained about the arrogance of the stronger countries. The EU was in danger of splitting into various alliances.

In response, some members of the European Parliament (among them Bill Newton Dunn) created the Spinelli-Group. Named after one of the founding fathers of the European Union, the Spinelli-Group met during plenary sessions in Strasbourg, in order to discuss a political campaign for the preservation of the community method. The Spinelli-Group was cross-party and international and helped to achieve a general consensus inside the European Parliament about the dangers of the intergovernmental approach to tackle the crisis. This enabled the Parliament to pressure the member states to include an article in the European Fiscal Compact, that the intergovernmental treaty must be introduced into the European Treaties five years after coming into operation. The Spinelli-Group also encouraged the European Commission to be much more proactive and not to always wait for orders from national capitals. Little by little the Commission President and some key commissioners got up to propose new European initiatives, whether it was the regulation of the financial markets, the youth guarantee against unemployment of young people or a European investment programme to overcome economic stagnation.

86 Of course the economic crises did not stop the many other activities of the EP and its members. Next to legislation and the control of the European executive the European Parliament has an outreach to parliaments around the world. Bill and I served in the India-Delegation of the EP. India and the EU are the two biggest democracies in the world and have a lot of common objectives. We urged both partners to conclude a free trade agreement that could boost economic exchange. Unfortunately it couldn't be finalised during the last legislature. Our concern was as well the vulnerable security situation in South Asia, especially for the unsolved Kashmir conflict. We cared about the Dalits and their non- discrimination in Indian society as well as the difficult situation of women in India.

I liked the working method of Bill. He was able to listen and to engage in quite a number of new issues. There is hardly a problem in Europe that is not presented to the parliament either by written documentation or by oral or visual presentations in the premises in Brussels and Strasbourg. The Liberal delegation from Great Britain have contributed a lot to profile and improve the work of the European Parliament, the only Citizens' Chamber with legislative power in the world on a transnational basis.

87 Eva Lichtenberger

MEP 2004 -

Austria, Green party (Greens/EFA)

Nationalrat 1999-2004

Blind Pirates in the Union ? The uphill battle to a copyright exemption for visually disabled persons

“Many millions of EU citizens, such as blind or dyslexic people, have a disability which prevents them from reading standard sized print. They can read the same books as the rest of the EU’s citizens, but require “accessible formats” of these books, such as large print, audio or braille. However, publishers rarely make such books, and so it is mostly left to charities to do so with scarce resources. As a result, only some five per cent of published works are ever made available in accessible formats. This is a “book famine”. (Briefing on WIPO Treaty for MEPs, European Blind Union, Oct 2010)

It was already before 2009 when I first had contact with the European Blind Union to discuss about the problem of the so- called “book famine”. It seemed absurd to me that the European Union – having signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - would hesitate to help this big group of people with visual disabilities to get a good solution of the copyright-problem for the translation of literature into either Braille or an audio-format. But the following years showed taught me a lot about the power of the copyright-lobby.

Of course everybody – including the most radical copyright lobbyists – stressed their dedication to supporting blind peoples’ access to written information. But when it came to the details the discussion about how to do it got tricky.

88 So together with the European Blind Union we decided to firstly inform the other MEPs. We choose the format of a conference where we also invited speakers from Africa and Asia, who made clear that on their continents the access to the written cultural heritage was lower than 5% of all works.

We knew that a solution to this problem was to be searched for on a global level to get better access of blind or dyslectic persons in the so-called Third World too. And there was already a debate in the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) conference on the topic. With the help of David Hammerstein from the Transatlantic Consumers’ Dialogue we managed to have a continuous flow of information between the WIPO-activities and the European Parliament. For a long time the USA had been the strongest opponent to the needs of visually disabled people, but under the Obama government the picture changed. The European lobbyists who had been hiding behind the broad shoulders of their US-colleagues now blocked any progress in favour of a better access.

This was the starting point for an intensification of our activities in the Parliament, now focussed on changing the position of the Commission who conducted the negotiations from the Union’s side. We used all parliamentarian tools like debates in the Plenary (Feb. 2012) and Written Questions, like resolutions prepared from the Legal Committee and Questions within the responsible committees to the Commissioners. The Legal Committee in the end supported almost unanimously all our activities and some of the MEPs got really angry when the Commission’s negotiator was reluctant to engage to find a sound solution. Commissioner Barnier himself confirmed in front of the plenary in June 2012 how important and legitimate a clear solution would be, but in the background the lobbyists for a copyright without exemptions were very active. They feared that a compromise for visually disabled would open the door for a general

89 weakening of copyright and made proposals which would not have improved the access. They even spoke of blind people opening the door for pirating works under copyright protection. In this phase the debate became really absurd.

The general excuse from the Commission’s negotiators was that Member States had given a rigid mandate to the Commission and therefore the Commission had no choice but to be strong on copyright protection.

This was the next hurdle to be overcome. Because parliamentarians – according to the Treaties - in the run of international negotiations must be kept fully informed, we needed to know what exactly was in the mandate of the Member States. It took an extensive mail-conversation over days till the Council allowed me, as rapporteur, to have a look on the mandate in a closed reading room with two grim observers in the background. And there it became clear for me that the mandate was, by far, not as rigid as we had been told and that there was room to move in the Commissions’ negotiation team in favour of an exemption under certain conditions from copyright.

Shortly after that, the European Blind Union presented a petition to the parliament’s Petitions Committee for our common goal. And we found even more supporters within the Parliament, when the Speaker of the Blind Union explained in very clear and explicit words what the whole campaign was about. Also a colleague from Italy, Mr Berlinguer from the Legal Committee, was very outspoken on the issue as well as representatives of other political groups of the Parliament.

In the meantime the final round of negotiations held in Marrakesh was coming closer. Commissioner Barnier promised us to go for a strong position in favour of the EBU

90 and our parliamentarian position, but still the lobbyists were very active. All of us were afraid that the whole thing would burn down to a weak compromise that would not grant a feasible solution. The chairman of the European Blind Union, a very distinct British gentleman, promised to present himself as Father Christmas with gifts for supportive members of parliament, if we managed to get a good solution. A really nice bet !

In June 2013 the conference of Marrakesh began and we had continuous contact with our friends who were present there. The last evening before the closure of the conference brought sad news – it seemed that the lobbyists would win and propose a very weak compromise. But then there was a sudden change. The Vatican delegation, which did not play an active role up to the last phase, changed its attitude completely and spoke very clearly in favour of the Parliament’s and the EBU position. And surprise, surprise, in the last night of the conference a decision was taken that in general took up our demands – and a good solution was agreed upon.

So, before the Christmas holiday in 2013, a blind gentleman dressed as Father Christmas delivered his thanks for the support of the Parliament by distributing sweets to the Members of Parliament who had engaged for a good solution to give visually impaired and dyslectic people a better access to our cultural heritage and written information. Now only one step more is needed : the Member States have to implement these new rules into their legislation and the announced copyright-reform of the Union has to do the same.

It was a long and intense confrontation, and it took years, but it was worth it !

91 BARBARA LOCHBIHLER

MEP 2009 -

Germany, Bundnis90/Green party (Greens/EFA)

Our single most important challenge : tackling double standards

When I decided to stand as a candidate of the German Green party in the 2009 European elections, after a decade as Secretary General of the German section of Amnesty International, I did so because I had come to understand that the European Parliament has more influence on human rights policy than might generally be perceived. For years, I had invested most of my time in raising awareness and influencing the so-called decision makers on topics such as torture, the death penalty or the global fight against impunity. In 2009, I felt it was time to change perspectives, and to become one of these decision makers myself.

My first months in Parliament, however, had me realise that making decisions among representatives from many different countries, and even more political movements, was all but easy. It did not help that – as chair of the Delegation for relations with Iran – I had to deal with one of the toughest diplomatic challenges you could imagine. Nevertheless, it was not the expectedly complex communication channels between the European Union and Iran that struck me most, but the almost insurmountable discrepancy between political approaches defended by my parliament colleagues. Of course, we all agreed that Iran’s human rights record was unacceptable; but while some refused any form of diplomatic contact, not to speak of actual inter-parliamentary meetings or delegation visits to Iran, others – including myself – pleaded

92 in favour of a mix of unmistakable criticism on the one hand, but an open and self-critical dialogue with Iran on the other. How would we take any influence on the human rights situation in Iran, albeit on a few individual cases only, without talking to our counterparts and showing them that we had not come to force our views upon them, but to discuss – which naturally includes listening and acknowledging flaws in our own behaviour ?

When I was elected chair of the Subcommittee on Human Rights in 2011, I handed over the Iran Delegation to my Green colleague Tarja Cronberg from Finland. Despite a delegation visit that she managed to organise in the meantime, both political communication with the new Iranian leadership and inter-parliamentary discussions in Brussels continue to be complicated. At least to date, Tehran has primarily changed its rhetoric ; but long-overdue human rights reforms remain pending.

So does tackling the most important challenge the European Union is facing in the field of human rights : fighting double standards. Indeed, if there is one element weakening the European Union’s role on the international diplomatic scene and which compromises our capacity to positively influence our partners in third countries – it is the lack of cohesion between what we practise and what we preach.

On paper, of course, it looks clear what should guide us in all our political activities, namely the principles said to “have inspired the creation of the Union”. Human rights and the rule of law represent, according to article 21 of the Lisbon Treaty, the basis of all our external actions. The Treaty further states that these actions shall be consistent, and that other – including internal – policies shall contribute to general policy coherence. The Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy, adopted in 2012 after long and arduous

93 negotiations of which I was part, re-confirms and even concretises these and other precepts.

What if we leave the treaties aside, though, and have a look at our actual political behaviour ? There are a myriad of examples that could, and should, be commented upon ; but let us have a closer look at one particular area: business and human rights.

On 26 June 2014 – a few days before the end of the seventh term of the European Parliament – the UN Human Rights Council discussed the 2011 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Starting point of the discussion was the analysis that implementation had been slow, particularly in relation to ensuring access to justice. Ecuador and South Africa therefore suggested the development of binding rules for transnational companies, referring among others to the Rana Plaza catastrophe that had hit Bangladesh and the international textile sector in 2013. Their proposal : create a new and open-ended inter-governmental working group, mandated with elaborating a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of transnational corporations and other business institutions. Fortunately enough, the proposal went through – with 20 countries in favour, 14 against and 13 abstentions. Among the 14 countries voting against, however, were all nine EU Member States represented in the UN Human Rights Council at that time – including Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

Obviously, while the European Union is the first to criticise poor labour conditions in third countries – and rightly so – it reacts with silence or even active opposition as soon as its own economic interests are at stake. Under these circumstances, even the most legitimate human rights criticism voiced vis-à- vis our international partners will sound weak. Too weak to trigger change.

94

This is all the more devastating as our economic power is the most influential tool we possess. We only need to use it. We should fight for decent labour standards according to the ILO core conventions in the entire production chain of European (and other) products, including by targeting sub-contractors around the world. We should be in favour of Human Rights Impact Assessments and any instrument that helps increase accountability and access to justice. We should make use of human rights clauses in bilateral agreements, and apply human-rights instruments in the framework of the GSP/GSP+ programme. In other words, we should stick to human rights as being our top priority, even if trade issues are concerned – because we are convinced that prosperity is possible without exploitation or silence over well-documented human rights violations, and because we have the economic leverage to convince our partner countries.

Instead, when I asked Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht how in the world he could officially start exploring a Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam a few days after that country’s government had launched an unprecedented crackdown on journalists, he replied that free trade automatically led to prosperity, and that prosperity automatically led to human rights improvements. Economically speaking, this is taken straight from the 1980s and has long been refuted. In terms of human rights, it is nonsense.

It is not the only nonsense, I am afraid. I could comment on our arms and surveillance technology exports to countries such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar, for instance. On our silent acceptance of attacks against fundamental democratic principles in the midst of Europe, such as in Hungary. On our discriminatory language and policies towards minorities,

95 including Roma. Or on the way we treat and watch refugees die at our external borders.

The message, however, remains the same. In an era of increasing interconnectivity and new emerging powers, in times when our economic model is being called into question – for mostly good reasons, by the way – Europe’s standing in world affairs more than ever depends on being credible and true to our word. If we want to help promote the universal and inalienable human rights of every person on this planet – and we pleaded to do so in our treaties – we should at last start tackling the single most important challenge we are currently facing : double standards.

96 THOMAS MANN

MEP 1994 -

Germany, Christian Democrat Union representing Hesse

It’s been 25 years since the creation of the all-party Tibet Intergroup (TIG) in the European Parliament by MEP Michel Hervé in 1989. Twenty-five years of strong commitment to the Tibetan cause - its people, its culture, its religion, its identity – and continuous expression of concern and indignation about the human rights abuses in Tibet.

I had the honour of chairing the Tibet Intergroup in the 7th parliamentary term from 2009 to 2014, as well as in the 6th and 5th term, always supported by five Vice-Presidents, representing almost all political groups. Bill was since the beginning part of this movement - thank you for your strong support !

On a regular basis, the TIG meets once a month in the parliament in Brussels, inviting high-ranking experts in order to inform MEPs about the alarming situation in Tibet : monks and nuns, released prisoners, politicians, scientists, artists, athletes, journalists.

On 19th February 2014 we celebrated our 100th Tibet Intergroup Meeting. Our key-note speakers were Kelsang Gyaltsen, Special Representative of the Dalai Lama in Europe, and Matteo Mecacci, President of the International Campaign for Tibet. We met for one day in one of the biggest rooms of the EP with more than 400 guests from all over the world : parliamentarians, national Tibet support groups, Tibetans in exile, officials of the Council and of the Commission, diplomats and NGOs, all took part - surrounded by hundreds

97 of Tibetan Flags. This was my very special moment in the 7th term.

I am delighted to be again a Member of the EP for the next five years. The TIG will never be silent.

Long live the Dalai Lama ! Tashi Delek ! (a Tibetan greeting which means “blessings and good luck”)

98 MARIAN-JEAN MARINESCU

MEP 2007 -

Romania, Democratic Liberal party (EPP)

Chamber of Deputies 2004 - 2008

My passion for aviation : a Single European Sky

After two years as an observer in the European Parliament, I took my member’s seat when Romania joined the European Union in 2007. Ever since, I have served as a member of the Transport Committee for three mandates in a row. Without blinking an eye I would sign up, at the beginning of every new mandate, for a seat in TRAN. In an interview before the May 2014 elections, someone asked me if I would be willing to give up the committee. I would not. I waited almost six months to join TRAN in 2007.

Why, one would ask ? Because TRAN is where I smell burnt kerosene on the runway every time there is a new dossier on aviation.

My passion for aviation runs in my family. It is my father’s legacy. A World War II pilot, as I grew up I remember listening to him telling stories about his time at pilot school, about warbird battles and about being shot down by anti- aircraft guns. These were life stories, real stories. When I told my mother that I wanted to become a pilot she said it was out of the question. “It is enough that your father risked his life being one”, she told me. So I became an aviation engineer. I worked twenty years in aviation design and manufacturing. Somebody once told me that anyone who smells burnt kerosene on the runway will always have a passion for aviation. It is true, I am the living proof of this.

99

So the son who dreamt of following in his father’s footsteps to practise aviation engineering for twenty years instead is now working with aviation and space legislation : Galileo - the European GPS, the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) and the Single European Sky. Who would have thought, years ago, that all these would have been possible ? My father would have been proud of today’s Europe, I have no doubt.

Entering my third mandate at the European Parliament, I can still see similarities between aviation engineering and my work at the European Parliament. As an engineer, you had a great deal of responsibility on your shoulders in making sure that nothing went wrong on the runway and in the sky. As a member of the European Parliament, you have to do your best to improve the lives of half a billion citizens, to whom you become accountable. As an engineer, it was not easy doing hours of tests on the runway. As a rapporteur, it was not easy trying to find a balanced text for key dossiers such as the Single European Sky either.

The reason I keep coming back to Single European Sky is that I think of it as an important part of my legacy, just like the passion for aviation was passed on by my father to me. I have been rapporteur for several files during the seventh legislature of the European Parliament and for several others before that. But the one that first comes to my mind every time when I am asked about my work is SES. The reasons are straightforward : its complex and technical nature is perfect match to an engineer’s mindset ; it is, at the same time, a challenging enough and very political in nature piece of legislation that appeals to somebody who has done politics for the last 20 years ; then, it looks to challenge and change the organisation of the European airspace for the better, thus shaping a sector that I hold very dear.

100 The twenty years that I spent working in engineering were very rewarding. I had the chance to learn alongside our national industry, ‘stealing’ as much know-how as we could from the countries well ahead of the curve. I was lucky enough to work on a project from the very beginning to its very end — from the first lines on the drawing board to the actual prototype. As innovation and development take their course, that prototype is now history. Similarly, in European policy you spend a couple of months to a couple of years working on a piece of legislation. You see it approved and adopted, but then the policy-making cycle starts again. It is being revisited, amended, enhanced, updated.

My report on the Single European Sky was adopted in 2014. It is the third piece of pan-European legislation on the management of our community’s airspace. And for sure it won’t be the last one. As our world evolves, our work needs to advance too. Policies are dynamic in nature. Just like with an aircraft, it takes a while to design them and test them before they are ready to really take off. And after they do you monitor them and fine-tune them so that they remain relevant. SES is no exception to the rule : it’s work in progress.

Nevertheless, as a genuine supporter and believer in what the Single European Sky can do for Europe’s travel by air, I like to think that, if you are reading these lines in ten years’ time you don’t feel the borders on our sky anymore. That you, the reader, are fully enjoying the benefits of the Single European Sky. That your flights are safer and faster, that you rarely face delays and if you do they are short, that congestions are almost history. And if so, think about the fact that the European Parliament and its seventh legislature had a contribution to this, as well as the undersigned.

101 DR JIŘÍ MAŠTÁLKA

MEP 2004-

Czech Republic, Communist Party of Bohemia & Moravia

(UEL)

In July 2009 together with other four colleagues I was elected to be a Quaestor of the European Parliament. To be honest, I knew only a little bit what to expect from this function. As it came up later I was not the only one.

One day in July I received an email from my colleague Bill Newton Dunn proposing a meeting. I remember it as if it was today that we met in the café in the parliament in Brussels called the Mickey Mouse. Behind the table there was sitting a tall elegant man of my age in a suit, in one word an English gentleman. The topic of our conversation was clear : "We have become Quaestors, do you have an idea what it means?" "Not fully", I replied, "but I know that we will be members of the Parliament's governing body, that we are supposed to distribute our powers and some of our powers will overlap the powers of vice chairmen".

I can have no idea if the gentle reader is a euro-sceptic or a euro-optimist. In any case when an ordinary citizen stands in front of the building of the European Parliament, there is a steel-glass temple in front of him, which reminds him of an anthill. The citizen is, in the best case, interested in which directives and regulations the European Parliament adopts, how the European Commission has helped or harmed him, how MEPs from his country have protected his interests, or in the worst case the citizen is not interested at all.

102 In order to make this anthill function, its background must be functioning. I do not have in mind the bureaucracy, but everything else, starting from officials in charge of legislation, through technicians of elevators, register of lobbyists, etc. It is a complicated, but after 10 years I can say, a well-functioning system. The task of Quaestors is to supervise the whole background for work of the MEPs and their assistants in order for it to function well. Unlike national parliaments the European Parliament has an advantage, which is however a handicap at the same time - that all its texts are translated into official languages of all member states. This puts high demands on its good organisation. I mention this example because a voter can have an impression created by the media, that the work of the Parliament is a simple process and that it is only about disputes about small words.

Based on my own experience when I was a rapporteur of one of report concerning safety and health protection at work, together with experts and my assistants we spent tens and tens of hours at work, not only studying but also discussing over the final text, which we do not have to be ashamed of. In this process also lobbyists become involved and that is the reason why the whole process takes so long. If the Parliament and the Council do not reach a common position there comes martyrdom - so called Trialogue - where the Commission, the Parliament and the Council negotiate and these negotiations are usually very very long. The positive fact is that after the Lisbon Treaty the Parliament applies its powers delegated directly by voters more significantly.

The whole legislative process is of course followed by lobbyists - those legal but also those who are not registered in the official list of the European Parliament. In my home country - Czech Republic this word and the profession is of negative perception. In the European Parliament it is an official "decent" job. In order to avoid any kind of suspicion, I

103 decided not to take part in any business meetings or business lunches or any other initiatives organised by lobbyists.

However, I did not manage to protect my "innocence". I remember one short meeting organised by one producer of candies. It was at that time when there were negotiations on provisions on obligations to provide consumers with information about the content of a product on its wrapping. After the introduction of that man when I found out what he was lobbying for, our conversation finished fast due to more reasons. Firstly, because I have an allergy to chocolate since my childhood and secondly I was became allergic to his genteel style of behaviour. The conversation finished also because I proposed that instead of putting information on the content of chocolate on its wrap it would be more useful to put there a sign stating " Chocolate is not your enemy, Obesity is". I think that it was a lesson learnt for both of us.

It is not only politics the European Parliament lives from. Every MEP has a right to organise twice a year an event, exhibition or a concert for example. Who has ever tried to organise even a small exhibition or a performance of a small band, will understand. Four years ago during my attack of diligence and culture I decided to invite little musicians from the Czech Republic to the European Parliament. Those were young musicians whom I have been cooperating with for 8 years already. Eine Kleine NachtMusik by Mozart was of course not missing on their repertoire. While agreeing with the program I have not realised at all that this composition cannot be performed without a cembalo and a double-bass. There was a big problem after the concert. The musicians were rewarded by huge applause and it was around 11 pm when I accompanied them with relief to the exit of the European Parliament. Being a Quaestor I have not realised that at this late hour all exits have been closed, apart from one, that has a swivel door. It was absolutely impossible to get through that

104 door with a cembalo and a double-bass. Therefore the concert finished by a discussion with staff of security who after several phone calls were authorised to open a main entrance and we managed to get the musical instruments out of the building. After such an experience I was not able to listen to Eine Kleine NachtMusik even from a distance.

There are perpetual complaints from members and from citizens that they are not informed about the European Parliament sufficiently. This problem can be faced variously. For example every MEP has a right to invite once a year 110 visitors from his/her country of origin to the European Parliament, or invite some stagier into his/her office. I have always tried to use all these possibilities. I have to say that even if the organisation of such a visit or the presence of a stagier mean a load of work for my team, these initiatives bring also pleasant surprises. My experience from these initiatives is that those who were coming as convinced euro sceptics were leaving home with a reason to reconsider their conviction at least or even with an opinion that they can perceive the European Parliament better than as it is presented by media. Concerning the stagiers, also their teachers at schools after their return concluded that they matured somehow. Many of them have used services of our excellent library in order to defend their final thesis. I mention it because in this young generation I see a positive future of joint Europe.

The stay in the European Parliament is a good lesson also for members themselves. In fact it is not possible to apply the same method of work in such a multinational collective as in national parliaments. It is more necessary to reach compromises, to find agreements, which in reality means hours and hours of informal negotiations while formulating the final text. Even though it also happens that the rapporteur gave up his/her official position as a rapporteur after adoption

105 of amendments that were fully different from his/her original ideas.

Almost in every member state mainly before elections there is a huge debate on the topic of the place of plenary sessions whether it should be Brussels only or whether the sessions should take place in Brussels and in Strasbourg. In the Czech Republic the debate occupies at least 50% of debates, even if all the participants know that such a debate is totally pointless, since such a decision must be adopted unanimously by 28 member states, which is unreachable. I know many people who enjoy travelling to Strasbourg, since it is a beautiful town, but I do not know a single colleague who would be looking forward to plenary sessions, because the time schedule is really tight, every minute counts, so some colleagues have nicknamed Strasbourg as "Stressbourg". Meetings of Quaestors took place in Strasbourg regularly and I must say that apart from some exceptions there has always been a calm and constructive atmosphere.

There is the third town - Luxembourg - that stays aside from media interest and citizens. Only a minority of people knows that that it is a real core of the European Parliament, because it is a work place of translators and other administrators, which the European Parliament could not function without. I do not mention this reality in order to point out useless bureaucracy of the European Parliament ; on the contrary, staff in those departments deserve our thanks and honour, because without their everyday work it would be hardly possible to carry out the mandate of a deputy. From the position of a Quaestor I would like to express my thanks and admiration also to staff of representation of the European Parliament located in every Member state. Their main task is to provide information on functioning of European structures, mainly the European Parliament. As a Quaestor I had a great opportunity to visit 14 out of these 28 offices. Those visits were not only official, but

106 some of these offices I visited just as an ordinary citizen. I am glad to conclude that everywhere I met staff with high level of professionalism working very well.

Nobody from us, the Quaestors, of course omitted their work in committees, but the work of a Quaestor is also "full-time" work. Even if you cooperate with many DGs it is not easy to become familiar with and adopt decisions covering agendas from HR, liability, security of visitors, exhibitions, everyday agenda of IT department, medical facilities...etc. Each Quaestor was in charge of some of these items, being subject of many questions form MEPs while solving their own problems. Such a workload requires a high level of patience and ability to work in a team.

That is why I appreciated to work with Bill. I have never seen him in a bad mood. I never noticed that he would solve even complicated problems with emotions. He has always been to me an example of a right European deputy with a British seal. Even if he does not continue as a MEP I believe that we will always have an occasion to meet and discuss. Our experience based on his traditional long term parliamentary democracy and my experience of "only 25 years" after ground-breaking changes in Czechoslovakia can be a good contribution to creation of a new concept of modern EU, which would be serving in interest of citizens.

I live in hope that young people who went through a stage not only in my office, will bring to this joint European idea new impulses. At the end of day, prospering Europe in the wider context is our common goal.

107 PROF. DR. HANS-PETER MAYER

MEP 1999-2014

Germany, Christian-Democratic Union party representing

Lower Saxony (EPP)

When I started working as a Member of the European Parliament in 1999, the European Union consisted of 15 member states. The European Parliament was - compared to today - a much smaller building with a lot less staff. Offices had to deal with only a few mails daily, letters instead of emails, and the phone rang a lot less than it did in the past five years.

The European Union developed a lot within the last 15 years. Not only the fact that we work digitally nowadays or that everyone seems to be aware what the European Parliament does. No, it is more or less the fact that the media took note of the Parliament and that the citizens know now whom to contact in case they have questions or are in trouble. This development is fantastic. It is good to see that the European Parliament and its members are appreciated, even if not every single contact is a compliment for the work we do.

For the citizens in our home countries the EP needs to stay visible and comprehensible. That is why I mostly told visitors and citizens from my constituency the following story:

One of the most interesting projects in my carrier as an MEP was the work as a rapporteur on the European Small Claims Procedure in 2005/2006. At the time, no one really knew what such a procedure would mean for the EU and how it could work. The UK has such a procedure, with a relatively high value of claim, since a long time. To make it comprehensible,

108 the UK presidency invited the MEPs to visit such a court procedure in London. After a meeting with Baroness Catherine Ashton - at that time minister of Justice in the UK - we had that chance to follow a few small claims court procedures. What was unclear until then was afterwards easy to understand: telephone conferences, video-conferences and other technical equipment gave a perfect example how everything could work in practice. As a result, I went back to Bruxelles, completely convinced of the European Small Claims Procedure.

What I want to say with this example: if things are well and/or visibly explained, they are comprehensible. Even things unknown to us right now will look much easier and better to understand if someone explains them with examples.

109 EDWARD MCMILLAN-SCOTT

MEP 1984 - 2014

U.K., Liberal Democrat, representing Yorkshire & the

Humber

The 2009–2014 European Parliament was the most fulfilling for me since I was first elected in 1984. It started with my stand of principle against the increasingly Euro-sceptic Conservative Party’s new EU alliance ; then being elected as the parliament’s first-ever independent vice-president ; then joining the Liberal Democrats and discovering what a democratic party it is ; then continuing my award-winning work on Democracy & Human Rights worldwide, especially in a transforming Arab World ; then receiving the ‘Outstanding Contribution’ award in 2012 from the Brussels Parliament magazine for my campaign to scrap the parliament’s monthly trek to Strasbourg ; and last but not least launching a major initiative – EU Food Sense – to achieve sustainability and a better diet through reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

But let us begin with what my wonderful Brussels assistants called ‘Tory Troubles’. As Leader of the then 36 Conservative MEPs between 1997-2001, I had renegotiated our relationship with our partners in the mainstream Conservative-Christian Democrat European Peoples’ Party group (EPP) in 1999 to give us greater political freedom. But this was not enough for the Tory Euro-sceptics.

During his campaign to be Conservative leaders in 2005, David Cameron had pledged to a delegation of ‘Better off Out’ national parliamentarians that he would withdraw his MEPs from the EPP, which they argued was too ‘federalist’, and form a new alliance.

110

After the 2009 Euro-election I found myself at the heart of a bitter political dispute about the nature of the new group Cameron had unveiled. Conservative MEPs had been reassured that the backgrounds of all our new partners would be checked.

At the first meeting of the European Conservative & Reformists (ECR) group, later described by the Economist as a ‘shoddy and shaming alliance’, or more pithily by Nick Clegg as a ‘bunch of homophobes, anti-Semites and climate-change deniers’, I protested.

A few minutes’ research on the web showed that some of the new group’s MEPs were far from mainstream. Later, I heard that the ECR had agreed, without election, a Polish MEP would be its candidate for vice-president. Michal Kaminski – a member of the nationalist Law and Justice Party - had an easily-discovered recent extremist past, including his refusal to join a 2001 national apology for the burning in a barn of 400 Jews by their Polish neighbours during World War II. He had been the local MP.

I was encouraged by human rights organisations and others with whom I had worked as a vice-president since 2004, to stand against Kaminski. I did so, becoming the first-ever independent vice-president of parliament, the Tory whip having been withdrawn from me.

After a farcical ‘appeal’ process lasting about eight months, my lawyers advised me in March 2010 that I would get no redress or justice from the Conservatives under David Cameron. Indeed, its Central Office at one time had six Press officers under Andy Coulson attacking me and defending Kaminski and the ECR group. The reputational damage at home and abroad to Cameron was huge – and enduring.

111

I decided to join a party which wants Britain to lead in Europe, not to leave Europe – the Liberal Democrats. I had often worked with Liberals over the years, especially on democracy and human rights – issues which they understand. I joined in March 2010.

Vice-President for democracy and human rights. A vice- president of the European Parliament has no particular powers but the position confers some prestige and independence. My portfolio included democracy and human rights, which Eurobarometer polls showed to be the fields of activity most demanded of the Parliament by its citizens.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall I had founded the EU’s €150 million Democracy & Human Rights Instrument, still the world’s largest. It helped the transformation of the Soviet bloc into a group of democracies ready for EU membership, and then increasingly focussed on reforms elsewhere.

As a relation of T E Lawrence (‘of Arabia’) through his father, I had long taken an interest in reform in the Arab world. Even as a Tory I had backed Egypt’s struggling liberal, secular El Ghad (The Future) party, securing the release of its leader, Dr Ayman Nour from Mubarak’s political prison in 2005. It was natural for me to be the first outside politician to get to Egypt’s revolution in early 2011.

Then began an intense period of organisation and travel as the ‘Arab Spring’ unfolded across the region, supported by the Liberal group in the European Parliament, ALDE. I was in the region seven times in 2011, usually with Guy Verhofstadt, ALDE’s leader. We set up a pan-Arab alliance of reformists and maintained an office in Cairo staffed by Guy’s former adviser.

112 In the European Parliament I worked with MEPs and staff to reorganise comprehensively our response to a new wave of democratic change. Sadly, the momentum diminished as US interest in international affairs waned. But I continued to work with individual US congressmen and NGOs on human rights.

In March 2013, jointly with the blind Chinese reformist Chen Guancheng and backed by Amnesty, we launched at meetings in Brussels and Washington a transatlantic campaign against Beijing’s continued oppression of its people, with hearings and parliamentary activity in support.

The medal of honour which I received in 2013 from the 41- university European Inter University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation ‘in recognition of his lasting efforts in the promotion and protection of human rights’ was for all those with whom I have collaborated in these fields.

Then there was the Single Seat campaign to scrap Strasbourg. I had belonged to every initiative to end the European Parliament’s monthly trek to Strasbourg from its Brussels HQ, often wrongly assumed to be a symbol of Franco-German reconciliation (that’s the Council of Europe). So in 2010, I canvassed the other members of parliament’s Bureau and discovered a significant majority in favour of abandoning our costly and pointless monthly trek for four days in Strasbourg. Although this was an element of the UK Coalition government’s policy, until then it was a no-go area for many continentals.

I then set up and chaired an informal cross-party Single Seat steering group of senior MEPs whose campaign was to lead over the months to what the Germans call a ‘super-majority’ of over 75 per cent of MEPs voting to end the Strasbourg shuttle. Single Seat deliberately kept the campaign pro- European and pro-democracy, excluding extremists. Our

113 objective was to use the parliament’s new powers under the Lisbon Treaty to propose the treaty change necessary to allow MEPs to choose when and where they meet, not the governments. This was supported by 483-141 MEPs in a vote in 2013 and my Single Seat successors assured me that it would be on the table at the next intergovernmental conference.

An initiative which found support among many MEPs was a campaign to reform the EU’s indefensible Common Agricultural Policy by encouraging greater sustainability, a better diet and reduced production of climate change gases through excessive meat production. Having stopped eating meat in 2008 I welcomed, the week before the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Sir Paul McCartney to address my ‘Less Meat = Less Heat’ hearing in the European Parliament, Brussels – his first political speech – to urge a “Meat-Free Monday”. Later my team organised in Brussels the continental launch of super-chef Hugh Fearnley- Whittingstall’s Fish Fight against the discard of edible sea fish under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

As the EU Commission prepared to publish a Communication on reform of its food policy towards sustainability, ending food waste, improving diet and addressing biodiversity, we held a major conference in Brussels on the eve of the Euro- elections, addressed by the UN’s food rapporteur, to put pressure on the incoming parliament. As I write, they are taking up the mantle of my EU Food Sense campaign.

Throughout my time as an MEP I enjoyed the support – and the forbearance – of my wife Henrietta, a child rights lawyer. Indeed, she inspired my work on securing a Europe-wide hotline in child abduction cases, a cause taken up by Kate and Gerry McCann after Madeleine’s disappearance, and now becoming a reality thanks to pressure from the European Parliament.

114 LOUIS MICHEL MEP 2009 -

Belgium, Mouvement Réformateur (ALDE)

Minister of Foreign Affairs 1999-2004

Commissioner for Development & Humanitarian Aid 2004-

2009

I identify myself as a convinced European, a humanist and universalist.

In the legislature 2009-2014, I was a full member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and a substitute member of the Committee on Development.

Within the LIBE Committee, I was Rapporteur on the situation of fundamental Rights in the European Union. I wanted a report that dared to highlight the fact that even in Europe there is still some way to go before the European Union becomes a real area of respect for humanity and universal values - that the history of European integration is not yet completed - we must always go further towards compliance with European values - everyone must find a place with the EU : the Disabled, the Migrants, the Roma. Fundamental rights also involve the guarantee for Trade Union rights, the right to strike, the freedoms of assembly and association.

I vigorously defended the requirement for Members States to continue “to respect Copenhagen criteria” even after their accession to the EU through the so-called" the New Copenhagen mechanism. Such a mechanism will ensure the respect, protection and promotion of fundamental rights and European values as it will enable continuous monitoring of all EU Member States’ compliance with EU accession criteria,

115

In the LIBE Committee, I also highly invested in the matter of Consular protection for EU citizens abroad. I consider that consular protection must be effective, efficient and well- coordinated to allow all European citizens to fully enjoy the rights linked to it. I think, by the way, that EU delegations should have been given a more important role, including Consular jurisdiction. It would be a way to achieve more European diplomacy, to improve the visibility of the Union and to strengthen European citizenship. Finally, I did not hesitate to repeatedly condemn human rights abuses and violations following the constitutional reforms adopted by the Hungarian authorities.

During my mandate, I also served as Co-President of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. This chair was in direct line with my mandate as Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. In addition to plenary meetings, held twice a year - once in the country holding the presidency of the EU, once in a developing country determined by the ACP Secretariat in Brussels - we organised more than eight regional meetings with the aim of addressing specific challenges related to these areas, such as small islands issue, climate change, regional integration, etc.

I was strongly involved in Election observation missions. I have been three times Chief of Mission for the EU - in Chad, for Parliamentary elections, in Mali for the presidential and legislative elections, and once as a Member of the Election observation mission in Togo. These missions are extremely rewarding, they earn great credit and are internationally recognised.

Finally, I participated in several Fact-Finding and information missions. Thus, I went to Italy (Research Center of Ispra), Liberia, Timor Leste and Mali. In this context, we meet with

116 Government officials (at the highest level), representatives of political parties, civil society, parliamentarians, economic and social actors, representatives of regional organisations and accredited diplomatic representations.

The ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly is a unique forum where you can discuss all issues, all topical matters, including tough questions. We have had fulsome discussions - sometimes heated exchanges - on the Rights of LGBT people, violence against women, governance issues, the traceability of natural resources, triangular cooperation etc. These discussions are frank and direct; such regular meetings are extremely beneficial to all ACP-EU parliamentarians. It is a really win-win approach.

I am strongly committed to African economic development and the search for a lasting peace in Africa. I am deeply convinced that Africa is the continent of the future. The current state of African development reflects neither its potential nor resources. Its economic lift-off will happen provided that a good combination of its great potential with the benefits of the market economy and the virtues of impartial institutions is made.

Along with my duties as a Member of European Parliament, I have been a Member of the UN Group of Eminent Persons for the least developed countries, under the supervision of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Member of the Advisory Committee for the Development Report 2011 under the supervision of Mr. Robert Zoellick.

117 BILL NEWTON DUNN

MEP 1979-1994 & 1999-2014

U.K., Liberal Democrat representing East Midlands (ALDE)

The Democratic Deficit continues

From the beginning of the 2009-2014 term it was clear that it would be difficult for me to win again in 2014 – because of the continuing rise of negative ignorance about the EU in my country and the continuing failure of the House of Commons to speak positively about it. My choice was either to focus on trying to win again in 2014, or to enjoy a final five years and worry less about the voters. Every elected representative thinks obsessively about how to survive – without a seat, you are not in the game – so I chose the hard option.

Back in 1986, I wrote a political pamphlet in which I coined the phrase “the Democratic Deficit”. It criticised the wide gulf between the political elite at Westminster and the public, and the failure of the Thatcher government to explain decisions which they made committing British voters to European-wide laws. I believed, and still do, that the UK’s membership of the EU and the project to lock our historically war-torn continent into a virtuous circle of peace and prosperity is hugely beneficial, but that the public should understand it. Thatcher failed to explain, probably due to the traditional Conservative paternalist attitude of “We Tories know what’s best for you.”

I proposed a new spending line for the European parliament’s annual budget – to finance, as the US Congress did, a free newspaper to be mailed four times each year from each Congressman to every one of their constituents. But the amendment failed to gain majority support from other MEPs, and so the idea never happened.

118 So, my self-imposed challenge was how to reach over three million voters in my East Midlands region - in a new age when the internet offers the voter countless distractions, all of them more interesting than thinking about difficult political decisions. The parliamentary allowance for running my offices, after other expenses, left too little to buy postage stamps to mail even one paper report to each voter over the five years. Instead, I built a database of constituent’s emails because emailing is free. Individual email addresses in Europe are not published, and lists sold by data-miners in the USA are full of errors. So my database had to be built, one by one, from individual messages and from mass email campaigns.

The database grew slowly. Each month I emailed a report back to everybody in it. Some voters replied abusively, others with serious questions, which gave extra work but it was a way to reach out to them. By 2014 I had harvested fourteen thousand separate individual email addresses – but that was still less than 0.5% of all voters in the East Midlands.

I spent the rest of my office allowance and the EP Information Campaign funds to send standard paper letters to the voters – using the Royal Mail’s cheapest option of delivering (like fliers to advertise pizzas) a thousand standard letters without addresses for fifty pounds. After five years, my letter had been delivered to one million households : disappointingly, the response to it was far below 1%. I was making contact with the voters, but only the 2014 election result would show whether this huge longterm effort was worthwhile.

In 2009, I had opted to join the parliament’s Development and Environment committees, both of which promised interesting work. In committees, one gets to know other MEPs very well. And I continued to take Italian lessons.

119 The ALDE group was entitled to nominate a Quaestor : without any open debate, the leadership decided it would not. I threw my hat into the ring and ran as an Independent – and was elected by the full parliament along with two Christian- Democrats, a Socialist and a Communist. That gave me an extra assistant and I was lucky to find highly-efficient and multi-lingual Ágnes Kontar who had assisted a Hungarian Quaestor in the previous five years. My primary responsibility was providing political back-up for the parliament’s security services. There were three separate robberies, all inside-jobs, one with the connivance of the outside security staff in the control-centre where the parliament’s 500 cctv cameras were monitored. Belgian police were unwilling to be involved. The EP is the only parliament in the world without a police force.

We Quaestors struggled to stop smoking in the parliament, a public place although it was unclear whether national laws applied there. Heavy-smoking MEPs refused to give up their habits and bar staff threatened to strike at having to work under such conditions. I introduced a yellow-card/red-card system : a red card empowered the parliament’s president to impose a fine on an offending MEP. Smoking has stopped in the bars but is believed to continue in member’s offices.

The five Quaestors have to be re-elected at half term. Ágnes and I wrote personal letters to every single MEP in their native tongue to ask for support. But two Polish socialists competed furiously for their group’s single nomination and, alas, they had no group chair to enforce the rules about only having one socialist candidate - because Schulz had resigned in order to run for the parliament presidency. Both Poles ran, both were elected, and I came sixth. Eva Lichtenberger, an Austrian MEP, sent me a consolatory email : "Shit happens !"

In the Environment committee, I became rapporteur for an EU law that would remove phosphates from washing-machine

120 detergents in order to reduce eutrophication and green algae in water. To clean up Europe’s waters even faster, the committee decided by majority, that we should include dish- washers in the change. But most national governments in the Council of Ministers did not agree, some fearing job losses brought by rapid change. It became a problem of persuading the Council to back my report. Luckily, the Polish government was chairing the Council for six months and they needed achievements to parade at the end. They helped to persuade some governments who did not have jobs at stake, but the big blockage was…my own government. I asked to see the Conservative environment minister in London. It was refused. Instead, a civil-servant told me, off the record, that he agreed with our position but that the government’s line was unchangeable and would take months to change : London feared being seen to be outvoted by other governments and by MEPs. I insisted on seeing the minister and eventually was given a short appointment. In his beautiful office on Millbank, formerly the library of the chairman of ICI, he was most pleasant and sat encircled by about six civil servants. He explained that the British government’s position was correct and unchangeable. After twenty minutes, I took my leave and, as I left, politely dropped an atom bomb on him : “Don’t be surprised to see a press release from the Labour opposition saying that your government is blocking measures to clean up Britain’s waterways !” Ten days later in Brussels, my Polish government contact told me that, mysteriously, the British had suddenly withdrawn their opposition to dishwashers. London did not have the courtesy to inform me. The blockage in the Council was thus cleared, and soon after, the new EU law was approved in a formal Trialogue, and then by the Parliament plenary and by the Council of Ministers.

An apocryphal story next. A committee of the parliament was said to be debating a harmonisation law – so that goods need not be stopped when passing internal European frontiers. The

121 topic was : “How many condoms should there be in a standard European packet ?” A Greek MEP proposed : “Six – you all know our popular song ‘Never On A Sunday’." An Italian proposed : “Seven. In Italy one for each day of the week.” A Frenchman countered : “Eight. In my country it is twice on a Sunday.” Finally, a Brit called triumphantly for “Twelve”. Asked to justify this claim, he explained : "January, February, March..."

There were many other highlights during these five years. Visiting India, watching a raucous debate in the Lok Sabha in Delhi, seeing EU aid in action in villages near Hyderabad where children, who had worked as slaves in the fields to pay off their family’s debts instead of going to school, told a crowd of other children that “School is good”, and in Bihar, India’s poorest state, meeting poor mothers minded to marry off their daughters at age 13 but persuaded that if their daughters remained in education until they were 16 they would receive a free bicycle financed by EU aid – and the idea was working.

And representing the Development committee at a conference in Ouagadougou, capital of Burkina Faso, where a West African MP explained to me that when their government changes hand, the winners take all privilege and power, the losers lose everything, and corruption is the inevitable result. And then visiting a prison to see an unglamorous EU-financed system for recycling toilet waste into fertiliser for the prison vegetable garden. And, in the parliament in Brussels, listening to Nobel prize-winner Professor Higgs about the discovery of his eponymous Boson who explained modestly : “I only pointed it out.” And listening to Buzz Aldrin describe “flying to the Moon was like being cooped up with two other fellers in a small Volkswagen car for a week”. And, over lunch, meeting Tim Berners Lee, founder of the world wide web. And meeting and hearing the brave sixteen year old orator Malala. And the shameful reply by the British Conservative

122 minister, when asked why nothing was done despite the published Coalition Agreement promise that they would press for a single seat for the European Parliament in Brussels, replied feebly to me “Because we don’t want to upset the French.” And the chairman of Google telling me that Europeans must stop being ashamed of going bankrupt, and instead must consider that going broke is a useful lesson learned, and must try again.

I gave up my seat on Environment because, in 2012, a special parliament committee was created to examine the state of Organised Crime. The problem being that open frontiers inside the EU make it easy for cross-border gangs across the world to plunder us while all Europe’s police forces are national or local so none may cross an internal frontier. The gangs import fakes and drugs and immigrants which destroy legitimate jobs and deprive governments of needed taxes. Under d’Hondt, ALDE would nominate the committee chair. I asked to chair it, the creation of a cross-frontier European FBI being one of my long-term campaigns. But the British Liberals already held the ECON chair so the nod went to a Sicilian Liberal, Sonia Alfano, whose father had been murdered by the Mafia. Ably helped by my assistant Sophie Bowler, I was the only MEP to be present at every meeting of the committee and sometimes I was the only MEP present. The committee’s final report was weak because, despite many excellent briefings from outside experts, too few MEPs attended to fully comprehend this ever-growing threat to Europe and the West.

So, the 2014 election arrived. It was my tenth national electoral campaign. I was the only candidate in the whole of Europe who had been elected in the first parliament in 1979. In the UK there is no comfortable position on a party list, and seniority and experience cut no ice. Nick Clegg, Lib Dem leader, made a brave attempt to counter the emotional populism of UKIP. Many large businesses said publicly that EU membership is

123 vital for jobs. But Labour campaigned about the National Health Service, the Conservatives were paralysed by fear of UKIP, and the UKIP member running again in my region put out lies and visited a massage parlour. Voters were confused or did not see the relevance to their every-day lives. Media reporters knew nothing, so could not correct lies, and anyway their primary job was to entertain voters and get high audience ratings, not to check facts. Elderly disillusioned voters protested against foreigners. Two-thirds of voters did not bother to vote at all. Turnout in my region was shameful, a mere 33.2%. Despite the one million people to whom I sent letters, my party only received only sixty thousand votes.

The Democratic Deficit continues. Giving voters information and replying to them does not mean they will vote : nevertheless, as an improvement, a way must be found for elected representatives to be able to e-communicate with all their voters. A future danger will be giving decision-making power through referendums to short-term populist views when complicated controversial decisions require strong informed governance. In the new e-world, reform will be vital - and I fear for my country whose governance at Westminster is over-centralised, whose head-of-state and upper chamber are unelected (as in North Korea and Beijing), and where incumbents elected under a distorted voting system resist modernisation and enjoy entrenched privileges and expenses concealed behind ceremony and tradition. It is extraordinary that, after forty years of UK membership, the EU is still not part of the teaching curriculum for children. Major changes erupt from major crises : if Westminster does not reform, external events will force unwanted changes upon it.

I leave the parliament with regret, because it is a superb (but not perfect), modern, democratic, and stimulating forum. I shall miss some remarkable people – central Europeans who fought communism, the Spaniard who never wears a tie

124 because of torture he suffered from Franco’s secret police, the Slovenian journalist with a café named after her in Albania although she has never been there, the French language which is the best for oratory, the Italian interpreter with the musical opera voice, the Spinelli idealists who work to build a United States of Europe, and many other (but not all) good colleagues - and the diverse ongoing fascinating political discussions.

One unfulfilled ambition : to help create the first identical federal law which would apply in both the EU and the USA. Why ? It would help to bind the world’s two great democratic free-trading areas together. It would to begin simplifying rules for everybody and reduce the need for lawyers. Once the first law had been passed, other shared laws should be easier to agree. The difficulty would be to find a simple subject, so that amendments were not required by one side or the other. (Possibly something to improve safety for travellers ?) And what would be the joint parliamentary mechanism for the EP and the Congress to decide it, and where would they meet ?

There comes a moment – because we are mortal – when everything stops. At one school I visited, the children were too shy to ask questions. So I asked them : "If you have only one hour left to live, how will you spend your final hour ?" One boy put up his hand : "I would visit the Queen at Buckingham Palace." Another volunteered : "I would watch the European Champions Football Final." A small girl at the back said : "I would spend my last hour listening to you talk." Flattered, I asked her to explain why. "Well”, she answered, “every minute you speak feels like another hour." It was, clearly, the moment for me to stop.

And for me it is now.

125 NICCOLÒ RINALDI

MEP 2009 -

Italy, Italia dei Valori party (ALDE)

Unexpected lecture at Nairobi University

What a misunderstanding. I was expecting to have a session of questions with a selected and restricted number of students, a sort of informal chat to discuss issues such as European integration and international trade.

It was supposed to be an opportunity to meet a few students at the University of Nairobi, a short break during the visit of the International Trade Committee in Kenya. It was arranged by Margaret Komar, Minister of Education, a nice lady and fellow Liberal-Democrat with whom I had the chance to work in previous conferences.

Something “relaxed”, and a way to respect my habit taken at the beginning of my mandate as an MEP: at every single first day of each season – on 21/3, 21/6, 21/9 and 21/12 – I used to organise or to attend a cultural event, in a bookstore, in a public library, in a museum or in an university. Being on March 21 in Nairobi, Ursa Pondelek, ALDE policy adviser in INTA, asked Margaret to organise something for me – to respect the tradition. And from what I had understood it was a visit to the local university including a meeting with some students.

But that was only the beginning of the whole exercise. First a short lunch with Margaret in her office with some simple food in a couple of lunch boxes – fast food actually prepared, packed and imported from an Asian country, and we talked

126 on what was missing in Kenya, if anything, to produce and commercialise its own lunch box meals.

Then Margaret left me for another commitment and I had a short meeting with a couple of very kind “professors”. They invited me to a small tour of the university compound. And what about the students ? I wondered.

It did not take long before we entered the Aula Magna, an impressive and modern auditorium, with a spectacular climbing parquet. There was no time for explanations. I was requested to sit, and then the vice-Dean made a presentation of the honourable member of the European Parliament, Niccolò Rinaldi, who was there for this special session, to lecture on international trade. He added that roughly one thousand students were present. Formal written invitations and programmes of the morning were distributed.

I had not prepared any speech, I was totally mistaken about the kind of event, I thought – poor me – to be there just for a chat with a few students. In the new circumstances, I could not disappoint my hosts, the Minister, all that cheering crowd of students – and the good name of the European Parliament.

But nothing had been prepared and although I was used to speaking about international trade – in Parliament, at WTO in Geneva, in Italy, once also at the London School of Economics – in Nairobi I had prepared nothing and I could not rely on the usual stuff. How stupid I was !

Stupid, yes – and just before I was given the floor, a small book about human stupidity, “Allegro ma non troppo”, by professor Cipolla (of the European University Institute in my hometown Florence) came to my mind. He divides humankind in four categories : the brave, able to increase his

127 own fortune and for others too ; the bandits, able to increase their own fortune spoiling those of others ; the unwary, who acts in a way which makes himself poorer and the others richer, and eventually the stupid, who spoils both himself and the others.

Cipolla elaborates a number of fundamental laws and draws a few diagrams to explain his provocative theory. One of them is the following:

It is composed of two crossing axes – the x indicating collective wealth and the y individual wealth – divided into four squares : - Upper left: actions providing more general but less personal wealth (the unwary); - Upper right: actions providing both more individual and collective wealth (the wise); - Lower right: actions providing increase of personal wealth detrimental to others – typical for thefts; - Lower left: everybody loses.

This scheme was simple and clear to me, and suddenly I decided to use it in order to describe four possible scenarios in international trade. After some opening remarks, I asked to get a scoreboard, which was not available on the podium, and the request by itself provided some scientific ground to an improvised lecture.

It was not difficult to adapt Cipolla’s theory to a number of real cases – excessive red tape as the result of a stupid politics with no one’s gain, a well-negotiated free trade agreement for mutual convenience, a predatory trade by former colonies and new actors as bandits, and so on. And it was not difficult to continue the reflexion with the example of a new well- balanced trade between the EU and African countries with a win-win situation.

128 At the end, the one thousand students audience in the impressive Aula Magna of Nairobi enjoyed the improvised presentation, as I did. They thanked me and asked many questions. Certainly if I had prepared myself, the whole exercise would have been more boring and more expected. And I had my own lesson : good reading always turns out to be very useful even when one does not expect it. Improvisation obliges one to be creative. Once again in Africa I met a land of welcome and good luck.

But I never dared to say that the core of my “innovative” lecture and diagrams were actually not mine but were taken from Cipolla’s work. That’s why I take the opportunity of this article as a way to eventually pay my public tribute to him.

129 ULRIKE RODUST

MEP 2008 -

Germany, Social Democrat, Schleswig-Holstein (S & D)

Reforming the Common Fisheries Policy

Before being elected, I had been a member of Schleswig Holstein's regional parliament. With this experience in mind, I did not think twice when I was asked to be a full member in both the Agriculture and the Fisheries committees. The two policies had been dealt with jointly in my region's parliament - so why would it be different at EU level ?

It did not take me long to realise what I had gotten myself into! As S&D coordinator for the fisheries committee (PECH) the legislative work came with other responsibilities. How to best manage a diverse group of MEPs with different views on the future of fisheries ? How to ensure that rapporteurships are distributed so that no one feels left out ? How to use the little time we had for meetings to forge a common political line for the group ? And my membership in the Agricultural committee - a committee with an impressive wealth of legislative dossiers and in which a major reform was looming - meant more work and more topics I needed to get acquainted with.

Things started to get even more interesting, when I took over the role as rapporteur for the basic regulation of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) - without a doubt the most important piece of legislation the PECH committee would deal with between 2009 and 2014.

As the European Parliament had only been made co-legislator in matters related to the CFP with the entry into force of the

130 Lisbon Treaty, I was entering new territory - not only for myself, but also for the whole institution. Up until then the cornerstone of the CFP were closed meetings of the Member States' Fisheries Ministers, in which annual fishing quotas were decided. These quotas reflected the different fishing interests of their fishing sectors and were always set too high to allow the size of European fish stocks to become healthy.

From the beginning I did not make it a secret : I believed this system needed to end, and fishing and a healthy marine environment could only be secured for future generations, if we allowed fish stocks to recover. Therefore, I defended and reinforced that the guiding principle for European fisheries should be MSY (the Maximum Sustainable Yield). This means that the amount of fish that could be caught of a given species should be limited in a way that the stock could recover in size.

Multi-annual plans should help to coordinate and enable long-term planning - for the fishery sector as well as for the conservation of fish stocks. With a more regionalised approach, the implementation of the CFP should take greater note of local circumstances and differences.

Moreover, along with the Commission proposal, my report insisted on ending the practice of throwing by-catches overboard and thus wasting valuable food and feed resources. This landing obligation is also intended as an incentive for fishermen to fish more selectively.

For me personally, it was also important to have a CFP reform with clear provisions for the activities of the European fishing industry in third countries. The same rules need to apply in non-European waters - not only to have a global approach on the conservation of fishery resources, but also to allow small scale local fishers in third countries to earn a living. This could only be achieved with stricter rules for the Fisheries

131 Partnership Agreements which the EU is negotiating with numerous third countries. Thus, trawlers flying an EU-flag face serious sanctions (e.g. loss of fishing rights for up to two years), if they do not fish in accordance with EU legislation.

The political debate within committee and plenary was all but easy. But with a willingness to talk to all interested parties, inside the EP and beyond, I managed to secure compromises that meant a real change towards more sustainable fisheries without neglecting the interests of the European fisheries sector. Once this hard fought position was adopted by the Parliament, the trilogues with the Irish Council Presidency were the next challenge. The Council needed to adapt itself to the new role of the European Parliament and had some difficulties to remind itself that it was no longer the Member States by themselves that were forging the deal. Despite immense time pressure to finalise a new basic regulation of the CFP so that it could take effect in 2014, we finalised the trilogues in the early morning hours of the 28th May 2013. Anxious to present a result to his colleagues in the Council, even the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Simon Coveney came from Ireland to follow the last trilogue just days before the Irish presidency ended.

All the way I relied on the incredible support of my assistant Eckehard Reußner, who needed to get acquainted with fisheries and turned into a real expert by the time the CFP reform was wrapped up. I could not have done what I did without him, the advisors of our political group, the support and input of colleagues across political parties and Member States as well as the valuable ideas of stakeholders from NGOs, the fisheries sector and scientific institutes. Despite the many days (and nights) of hard work which myself and those working with me had to endure, the CFP reform was a great achievement for a more self-confident post-Lisbon EP.

132 I believe this large reform effort struck the necessary three- fold balance between economic, social and environmental considerations. The end result is a more sustainable and future oriented European fisheries sector - at home and overseas.

133 ZUZANA ROITHOVA

MEP 2004 - 2014

Czech Republic, Christian Democratic Union party (EPP)

Senator 1998 - 2004

The five years of the 7th parliamentary term have been from my point of view very important for the emancipation of the European Parliament following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty.

It has been remarkable especially during all levels of the trialogue negotiations of legislative reports. These negotiations have been very hard from all sides of the three main European Institutions, and both the Council and the Commission had to learn that the European Parliament be a strong body representing a democratic decision making process on common matters for the benefit European Citizens.

The Committee for Internal Market and Consumer Protection has played a significant role in this period of accomplishing the Internal Market, especially what concerns services, rules for cross-border Internet trade, mutual acceptance of working qualifications, and what concerns standardisation requirements for placing of goods on the European market.

I will be always happy to remember the committee work where all members seemed to play for one team of the European citizens. I'm very proud that I could have been there.

134 OLLE SCHMIDT

MEP 1999-2004, 2006-2014

Swedish Liberal People’s Party (ALDE)

The thrilling years of being an MEP are over ! They are unforgettable and will always be a large part of my life.

What do I remember the most ? Of course as a member of the Econ committee and of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crises, we were all very focused on mitigating the consequences of the crisis and prepare a robust legislation for the next crisis.

I was dealing with a lot of legislation in the financial sector. The very competent Commissioner, Mr Barnier, had promised to regulate everything, and so he did.

It was like a tsunami of proposals. Sometimes I think it was too much and the pendulum was swinging from light regulation to the opposite. I do think that parts of the regulation went too far and was actually counter-productive, hampering the real economy. Now the legislation has to be implemented and here we will meet some problems.

The special committee on organised crime sent a strong message stating that EU needs more cross border cooperation. Europol has to be a more forceful body against the crooks.

It is always difficult to ask yourself; what did you really achieve? From the very beginning I noticed that the EU was very male dominated. You could see it in all the institutions, including the EP. I was especially astonished that the European Central Bank (ECB) did not have any women in the leadership. Therefore I started to bring this up among

135 colleagues. I criticised the gender-biased process from the European leaders of nominating only male candidates, and I pushed for more gender balance in decision-making positions in all European institutions. Initially I was not met with great enthusiasm, but eventually I got a huge response.

Now, however, the gender issue in monetary policy is also an important question to address. I am not in favour of quotas, but it was ridiculous to say that Europe does not have competent women in this field. For me gender is about getting the right focus! We are all equal, and should be measured out of our merits.

In these days of Euro scepticism and anti EU motions I have always been a strong advocate for the EU in my country, also for Sweden to join the common currency.

What I will cherish the most from my time as an MEP are all the nice colleagues I met, and the friendships that this has given me.

My mother used to tell me; if you are willing to listen you will learn something new every day. This, I believe, is the essence of the European Parliament!

For me coming from a small country up in the north of Europe the possibility to meet colleagues from all over our continent has been amazing.

The most memorable moment was in May 2004 when Europe was reunited. Particularly since my first political memory was the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and now I was sitting next to a colleague from Budapest !

Peace, Prosperity and Democracy, that is what EU is all about!

136 ELISABETH SCHROEDTER

MEP 1994 - 2014

Germany, German Alliance90/The Greens party

The Informal Women Network

It is no secret that there are secret networks in the European Parliament; developing great political powers through connections between members across boundaries of political groups. Everybody thinks of the lobby nets, like the tobacco lobby or the car lobby representing the interests of few large companies in Europe. I would like to write about another network.

For me, it's the politically most important network in the European Parliament. Not only because it represents women and therefore 51% of the European population. But in the 7th European Parliament only 35 percent of members were women. Gender equality remained a niche topic, although it is a key objective of the European Union and an important focal point of a democratic society. But Gender equality was not discussion point in every single Committee, as it was foreseen in the EP’s gender strategy and as citizens expect it. It appeared in official minutes.

The network I want to talk here about was based by active women and few active men advocate gender equality. This network works without any sponsors. It lived solely by the force, time and the commitment of approximately 40-50 MEPs. Discrimination on grounds of sex is a daily experience at work, in society and in politics which also women as politician still must make. In most committees necessary discussions about structural discrimination on grounds of sex live a

137 shadowy existence, except the Women's Committee and the Committee for Social Affairs. When I as Ombudsman (woman) for Gender Mainstreaming of the Committee on Regional policy delivered my report about gender equality issues, the room emptied itself. Amendments taking into account the special situation of women in regional development or in the rules for European structural funds rarely got a majority. Other colleagues, Ombuds’women’ of other Committees reported similar situations. Our engagement for mainstreaming equal opportunity for women and men in the committees did not seem to be fruitful.

These experiences made us unbelievably furious. But we learned from our failures. Both led to growing solidarity between women independent of their political color and a strong informal network of women across the borders of political groups. The network got tighter day by day. This was in November 2012: one lunch break between sessions, that was quite enough time for collecting 50 first signatories which launched the campaign“50/50 Campaign for Democracy“, for equal representation of women and men in all European institutions".

We now know that the campaign was not strong enough to reach our goals : 50% of seats for women in the EP and in the new European Commission. But we were coming closer together. Also Commissioner Reding (Commissioner for Equal Opportunity) had been aware of the power of the informal network of women. She believed that this women's network would manage to vote her proposal of the ‘directive on gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges' through the Parliament. And she was not disappointed. Far more members than the 473 needed for a legislative vote, voted finally for this directive. The directive requires a mandatory percentage of 40 percent of women being non-executive directors of companies

138 listed on stock exchanges'. This vote has shown that the informal women's network in the EP was strong and successful. Our network was also successful in the new core business of MEPs since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force : the negotiations with the Council. So was the negotiating team of the Cypriot Presidency, led by an experienced EU diplomats, received in the negotiations on the text of the regulation of the European Social Fund (ESF) by a battle- hardened team of women on the side of the European Parliament, led by the Chairman of the Committee for Employment and Social Affairs Pervenche Berès (S & D) and the rapporteur, Elisabeth Morin-Charter (EPP) and supported by Nadja Hirsch (ALDE), Gabi Zimmer (GUE) and me for the Greens/EFA Group. In the beginning the Cypriot chief diplomat had tried all his negotiating skills to mitigate the progressive text of the EP on Gender related issues. He knew that the Council did not want to follow them. But he had no chance to win this battle. The women in the EP-team were fighting side by side and moved back not one step defending the EP-decisions. Also the Irish Presidency failed due to the strong women-team, although it gained man power directly from Dublin. At least the Lithuanian Presidency realised that the team of women had prevailed. This team of women has enforced many paragraphs for the new ESF regulation, to achieve an equal contribution of ESF for women and men and to improve the situation of women. For example : each selected focus must include specific actions on equality of women. But also the ESF should use to fight against discrimination of women in all areas of the labor market, to remove gender stereotypes and eliminate indirect discrimination, to achieve reconciliation of work and family life, to reduce female poverty. All indicators of ESF have to base on a gender-related statistic. EU wide, women will profit from this success of the EP-women's negotiating team.

139 The secret network of women in EP could also connect the struggle for the equality with the cheerful sides of life, like on Valentine's Day, using for the worldwide campaign against violence against women under the title "One billion rising". The secret network of women organised a spontaneous protest dancing in the corridors of the EP during the lunch break. Documents, files, bags and blazers were flying to the side. The music was turned up loud. Young and old MEPs danced the dance of protest with increasing enthusiasm. A secret source of energy flowed out from the dancing group, developed a suction effect and took also the hurrying past colleagues, mostly men, who were on the way to their appointments. They seemed to forget their meeting and started dancing. The otherwise so busy working floor is turned into a large dancing floor.

These hours in February in the EP have shown that the secret network of women needed not papers or mobile phones to strengthen their power and influence. I thank my colleagues in the secret woman network of the EP for this wonderful life experience.

140 STRUAN STEVENSON

MEP 1999 - 2014

U.K., Conservative MEP for Scotland (ECR)

Seventh Heaven !

The end of the seventh parliament also marked the end of my own term of office in the European Parliament after fifteen years. A week is a long time in politics, and 15 years seems like a lifetime. When I was first elected as a Conservative Euro MP representing Scotland, back in 1999, there were only 15 EU Member States, each using their own currencies. I recall the hassle of having to change pounds into Belgian Francs every time I went to Brussels and into French Francs for the monthly trip to Strasbourg. Euro coins and notes were not introduced until 1st January 2002 with the UK, Denmark and Sweden opting out.

Despite the convenience of the Euro, some of my earliest interventions in the European Parliament involved dire warnings about the foolishness of having a single currency stretching from Germany to Greece, embracing widely divergent economies. I argued that the Euro would face certain collapse unless it was underpinned by a federal system of taxation like the US dollar, but warning that such a system would never be accepted by the vast majority of EU citizens, who would refuse to have their taxes set in Brussels. My predictions almost came to pass in 2008, when the Eurozone went into free-fall. The seventh parliament spent much of its time dealing with this economic crisis in the Eurozone and massive bailouts, happily avoided by the UK, are now propping up the faltering single currency.

141 1999 also marked the opening of new enormous buildings to house the European Parliament in both Brussels and Strasbourg. In Strasbourg, the edifice, designed by a French architectural cooperative, ironically was almost an exact replica of Pieter Bruegel's famous painting of the Tower of Babel ! It was certainly a masterpiece of French architecture, being entirely encased in glass and yet managing to achieve an atmosphere of almost total darkness inside, with towering black-painted walls and black tiles. I attended a meeting with the young, left-wing architects, where we listed hundreds of snags that had come to light and complained about the mystifying layout which left MEPs and staff wandering around in dazed circles. They told us that this had been their intention. They had sought to design a building that represented the European citizens' views of their elected politicians – all glitter on the outside, but dark and impenetrable on the inside.

Despite these problems, excitement grew in Strasbourg when French President Jacques Chirac arrived to open the new parliament. As it happened to coincide with a large group of Scottish visitors whom I had invited to Strasbourg, I arranged for them to be seated in the public gallery to watch the spectacle of the grand opening. It was only after the ceremony that they informed me how they had been bundled out of the chamber by French officials, who commandeered all 1,000 visitors' seats for French schoolchildren.

This was certainly a rude awakening to the delights of Strasbourg, where MEPs are still forced to meet twelve times a year, costing £180 million annually to pay for a building that lies empty, but fully staffed, for over 310 out of 365 days. This travelling circus, which forces 751 MEPs and over 5,000 staff to pack large trunks with all their files, laptops and working documents, so that an army of porters can load them onto a convoy of trucks and trundle them across Europe from

142 Brussels to Strasbourg and back again four days' later, twelve times a year, is a farce. But because the founding Treaty of the European Union - The Treaty of Rome - requires the parliament to meet in Strasbourg as a symbol of peace between the historic warring nations of Germany and France - it can only be amended by a unanimous vote of all of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the 28 EU Member States. Three times in the past, the vote has been stalled by a single veto – France! And so the farce continues, despite three quarters of MEPs voting to centralise all of our activities in Brussels.

My fifteen years as an MEP also witnessed some other momentous changes in the EU. In 2004, ten new accession states joined the club, most of them former East European countries who had languished for more than 50 years behind the Iron Curtain. It was an odd experience suddenly to hear Russian being spoken in the corridors of the European Parliament. In 2007, another three countries joined the EU club and in July last year Croatia became the 28th Member State. There are another five or six countries, including Turkey, waiting in the wings to join, as the EU relentlessly expands its borders beyond the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. This expansionist policy has not been without its problems, as the current crisis in Ukraine and the Crimea has shown.

Europe is now home to more than 500 million people. It has its own parliament, its own currency, its own central bank, its own flag and anthem and no fewer than three presidents – Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker - President of the European Commission, and Martin Schulz – President of the European Parliament. Henry Kissinger's famous question "Whom do you phone when you want to talk to Europe ?" was actually made worse by the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty, which created more presidents than the average EU citizen could shake a stick at. I

143 was present on the front benches of the plenary chamber in Strasbourg when Silvio Berlusconi, then Prime Minister of Italy, famously said that Martin Schulz, at that time Leader of the Socialist Group, reminded him of "a concentration camp guard." None of us could believe our ears. Schulz tore off his headphones, through which MEPs get instant interpretation, and leapt to his feet, demanding an apology. Berlusconi simply laughed it off. Now that he has been barred from politics in Italy and told to undertake four hours community service a week in an Italian old folks' home, the former 'Bunga Bunga King' may have time to reflect on past blunders!

Just as Europe has grown, so inexorably has the book of rules. Despite repeated pledges by former Commission President Jose-Manuel Barroso and others to slash burgeoning red tape, the Acquis Communautaire, the rule-book which every Member State has to sign up onto its own statutes, has rocketed from 86,000 pages when I first became an MEP in 1999, to 156,000 pages today. This represents several tonnes of red tape and regulation which is a burden to business and industry and a barrier to job creation. Over my fifteen years in parliament and during the past five years in particular, I have seen the enthusiasm with which the Socialists and the Greens compete with each other to add to this growing burden. It has to stop and the red tape has to be cut.

One way of achieving cuts in red tape would be to cut the European Commission down to size. They are the ones who churn out the draft legislation on a daily basis. Right now there are 28 Commissioners. A new commissioner has to be appointed each time a new Member State joins the EU Club. Within the next four or five years we could conceivably have more than 35 European Commissioners, each commanding a huge bureaucratic staff and each churning out new legislation and new red tape every day of the week. Reduce them to a manageable size. 12 Commissioners would be quite enough.

144 It is also unsustainable that the EU institutions are forced to work in 24 different languages. Battalions of interpreters and translators are required to ensure that every MEP can speak in his or her own language. NATO currently also has 28 Member States, similar to the EU, but it manages to work in only two languages, English and French. Surely a reduction in the number of working languages would be another necessary saving and a worthwhile reform ?

On a personal basis, I was proud to have led a 9-year campaign to secure an EU-wide law banning the import, export and trade in cat and dog fur. It is reckoned that this has saved around 2 million cats and dogs from being killed and skinned every year in China alone. I was also proud to raise public awareness of the plight of the one and a half million villagers in the remote Polygon of East Kazakhstan, who were used as human guinea pigs during soviet times, for the top- secret testing of more than 600 nuclear weapons. Following 14 visits to this remote part of the Central Asian steppe, I have written two books and managed to raise over $120,000 which has all been donated to children's hospices, orphanages, village clinics and schools, to help people suffering from exposure to radiation, the real victims of the Cold War. It was particularly satisfying to have a street formerly named 'LENIN STREET', renamed 'STRUAN STEVENSON STREET' in the village of Znamenka, in recognition of this work. I am sure Lenin will be turning in his grave to think that his revered name has been replaced by that of a Scottish Tory !

My main activity as an MEP has, of course, been fisheries. I have spent the entire fifteen years as a Member of the Fisheries Committee, serving variously as Chairman and during the past five years as Senior Vice Chairman of the Committee and in that time, travelling around Europe, visiting all of the leading fishing nations. I have been involved in two major reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy, the

145 most recent being completed only in the past few weeks, with a ground-breaking agreement to wrest control away from the micro-managers in Brussels and pass day-to-day management back to the Member States and the fishermen themselves. We have also implemented a phased ban on the appalling practice of discarding healthy fish, dead, back into the sea. I hope these reforms will lead to a sustainable industry, which will provide a good future for generations of fishermen to come.

It has been a fascinating and exciting fifteen years and the past five years have been very rewarding politically, being so closely involved in the CFP and CAP reforms. But can the activities of a Euro MP ever register with the general public? I learned the answer to this question during the last European election campaign. I had arranged to meet my Campaign Team in Fort William on a Monday morning and I had arrived half an hour early, so I went into McTavish's self-service tea room and took a large mug of steaming coffee to the checkout. The young girl at the counter stared at my blue Tory rosette and the big bundle of blue leaflets under my arm and announced : "For you there is a 25% discount on the coffee." I thought to myself jubilantly that at long last I had been recognised as an MEP and was about to receive a handsome discount from a grateful citizen. "Why is that ?" I enquired, giving her an expectant look. "Are you not a tourist coach driver ?" she said !

146 CATHERINE STIHLER

MEP 1999 -

U.K., Labour party, representing Scotland

Five years gone. My third Parliament as a Labour MEP for Scotland and my initial reaction was that I survived the 2009 election.

Each European Election has a certain twist, which in the UK means that European Elections have little to do with Europe. In 2009 it was all to do with the Westminster MP expenses scandal, most famously remembered by moat cleaning and duck houses paid by the taxpayer.

With the backdrop of the financial crisis and economic uncertainty, the UK Labour delegation returned just 13 MEPs. I was pleased to still be part of Labour’s European bakers' dozen.

Some of my lasting memories of the past five years revolve around a subtle change in the chamber – babies. In 2011, after a difficult pregnancy, my second son Andrew was born. As no-one replaces you for votes and there is no official recognition until recently of pregnancy as reason for absence, I returned to the chamber in the January to vote for the new President of the Parliament.

Anyone who has had to deal with an 11-week-old baby knows that there are many demands, especially feeding. As Andrew was very happy in his baby Bjorn, asleep no less, I took him with me to vote. However as I took my seat and the session started, the nomination of tellers began. In 12 years I had never been chosen. Of course, that was about to change. My

147 name came out of the box. Immediately I had to indicate that with a baby I could not accept this role. What was interesting was the chamber’s reaction.

The President congratulated me on the birth of Andrew and the chamber applauded. There was no “who does she think she is bringing a baby into the chamber”, it was a unifying moment in a fractious vote.

In other parliaments, the culture would have prevented women from having this choice. Certainly at Westminster it wouldn’t happen, and sadly, even in the Scottish Parliament I doubt that bringing a baby into the chamber would be tolerated. If I had done the same thing with my first son, Alex, in 2006 who also started travelling with me at 11 weeks, I am convinced that there would have been a different reaction. In five years there has been positive change.

My third term saw Labour lose the 2010 General Election and the SNP gain an overall majority in the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections. It was the outcome of the 2011 Scottish elections and the rhetoric which was claimed by many of those victorious in those elections which led me to write a now widely publicised letter.

Before, during and after the 2011 elections, many from the SNP claimed that Scotland would automatically join the EU if the Scottish people decided to leave the UK. If you mentioned that it is the UK which is the member state mentioned in the treaties, it is the Union flag and not the saltire flying outside the EP, that there would be a process and not “automatic membership”, you were told you were wrong. The fact that we only benefit from EU membership because the UK is a member state, did not seem to matter.

148 I decided that we needed to know that truth behind their claims so I wrote a simple letter to the Scottish Government asking whether legal advice existed or not on this matter and called on the Scottish Government to publish its legal advice in order that we could have an informed debate on the subject in the lead up to any referendum.

The answer came back that it was not in the public interest to provide me with the information. I believed it was so I appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner who ruled in my favour on the point of whether the advice existed or not. The Scottish Government did not agree with this ruling and took the Information Commissioner to court to prevent me from being provided with a simple yes or no answer.

A month later, on page 9 of the Scottish Government’s statement on the Edinburgh Agreement (the joint communication between the UK Government and the Scottish Government over the Scottish referendum on independence) a curious thing happened – the Scottish Government stated it was only now seeking legal advice on the question of an independent Scotland and EU membership. Therefore, my case in the Court of Session was all about the Scottish Government defending a blank sheet of paper.

Yet it became more interesting. The First Minister had claimed on a BBC programme earlier that year that they had legal advice. I wrote another letter this time concerning whether the First Minister had broken the ministerial code as you can’t have one person claiming they were only now seeking legal advice when the First Minister had said the advice existed.

The First Minister appointed the principal of Reading University, Sir David Bell, to investigate whether he had broken the code. I found myself corresponding on this question and being the person having to justify where the

149 First Minister had broken the code. It was no surprise that the First Minister was then cleared over this question. To date, the Scottish Government has still to publish its legal advice and the question of EU membership has come to dominate the Scottish referendum debate.

Finally, there is technology. The past five years have transformed the way we work. With Wi-Fi now available across the Parliament, we don’t need to be at a desk but use our computers, tablets and phones anywhere, reducing costs.

We are becoming a paperless organisation and our committees are streamed live on the web. Social media is transforming how we communicate in ways that are good and bad. The world is changing, immediacy is everything.

How the next five years will develop will be challenging, but MEPs will be at the forefront of technological changes and embracing them as first movers will be important for the future of the EP itself.

150 REBECCA TAYLOR

MEP 2012 – 2014

U.K., Liberal Democrat representing Yorkshire & the Humber (ALDE)

I arrived in the European Parliament almost exactly in the middle of the 7th parliamentary term, following a sudden and unforeseen resignation. Even though I was quite familiar with the parliament, having worked in Brussels previously, becoming an MEP quickly and unexpectedly felt like being catapulted onto another planet.

The first time I attended an ALDE group meeting, the leader Guy Verhofstadt welcomed me as the newest MEP. It felt very surreal because I couldn’t help thinking that “When I lived in Belgium, you were the Prime Minister !” He was PM from 1999 to 2008.

Although I knew reasonably well what MEPs did before I entered parliament, I underestimated the sheer volume of work, the variety of subjects one had to grapple with, and the travelling involved. For the first six months, I felt like I was running to catch up.

During my time in parliament, I served on two committees : Legal Affairs and Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. This meant that I worked on a huge variety of legislation and non-legislative initiatives – from public procurement, non-financial reporting, cloud computing, and data protection, through to medical devices, clinical trials, cross-border health threats and tobacco products. My professional background is in the health sector, so I got to work on some issues I already knew about, but also many that

151 I have never encountered before. In such circumstances, having excellent staff who can brief you well is essential (and I did).

In January 2013, I started receiving emails from constituents about the regulation of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigs”) in the EU Tobacco Products directive. Having worked and studied in the public health sector I was, unsurprisingly, a strong supporter of tobacco control but knew little about e-cigs.

The emails were all different, but they told essentially the same story of a long term smoker who wanted to quit tobacco, but had failed many times to do so until they had discovered e-cigs. They had found that they liked “vaping” and now it was months or years since they had smoked a cigarette, about which they were very glad. They worried that the proposed Tobacco directive would take their e-cig away and drive them back to tobacco. People who use e-cigs call their habit “vaping” and their devices “PVS” (personal; vaporisers). Almost all long term vapers use refillable 2nd or 3rd generation devices, not the cig-a-likes sold almost exclusively by subsidiaries of tobacco com[anise.

I was asked my position on e-cigs and I did not have one. So one of my assistants put together some reading (media coverage, peer reviewed journal articles, position statements, etc) on the topic. My gut reaction was that regulating e-cigs as medicines (similar to nicotine gum and patches) was not the way to go.

From a Liberal perspective, one seeks not to over regulate and, from a public health perspective, I was concerned that over regulation could lead to e-cigs being more difficult to buy than tobacco, which seemed rather perverse given the health gain of switching from smoking to vaping. While it is not p[possible to say that e-cigs are 100% safe, studies estimate

152 they are 95-99% safer than smoking tobacco. It is the tar in cigarettes that kills smokers, not the nicotine.

At that time, many in the health sector were backing medicines regulation often due to concerns that e-cigs would “re-normalise” smoking and incite more people, especially youngsters, to smoke not vape. Many MEPs were supportive of this line too. While I could understand this concern, I was not totally convinced by it, and in fact data now shows that where e-cig sales increase, tobacco sales fall, indicating that smokers switch to vaping, but vaping dopes not encourage people to take up smoking.

Without knowing it, I had taken sides in a long battle to ensure e-cigs remain a viable option for smokers who want to quit tobacco. They are not a silver bullet, as they do not work for everyone, but a third of smokers who try them then quit tobacco for good, so they do have a role to play in reducing smoking related ill health and death.

As the Tobacco directive worked its way through the parliament, I followed it closely, particularly in relation to e- cigs and the key tobacco control measures. Despite being aware of the lobbying power and deep pockets of the tobacco industry, I was still surprised how many MEPs were willing to back their line.

I was accused of being “illiberal” for my views on tobacco control, but my response was that I did not extend my liberalism to an industry selling products that kill people (literally one in two smokers die as a direct result of their smoking).

I met many ordinary people turned vaping activists, many of whom had never contacted an MEP before in their life. I made numerous media appearances, wrote many articles and blog

153 pieces and was very active on Twitter. I publicly criticised the World Health Organisation for their highly restrictive position on e-cigs and had to agree to disagree with some friends and former colleagues in the health sector.

I spent a lot of time trying to persuade fellow MEPs to back a Liberal group amendment drafted by Belgian Liberal MEP Frédérique Ries (ALDE leader on tobacco), myself and Chris Davies, which proposed consumer regulation for e-cigs. I also spoke to Liberal Democrat colleagues in the government to try to influence (soften) the coalition government’s position (but unfortunately the minister was not a Liberal Democrat). We failed to get the amendment passed in he Environment committee, but succeeded in reversing that defeat in the final plenary vote.

While the final outcome of the Tobacco directive for e-cigs was far from ideal (too many loopholes that could lead to over regulation), it is a significant improvement compared to what we had to start with, and the tone of the debate has changed for the better. I would like to think that I played at least a small part in that, and, in doing so, some people saw that MEPs have a valuable role to play in listening to and standing up for citizens.

In the UK, and also in France (I am less familiar with other countries), there are now a good number of well reputed academics and clinicians who see e-cigs as part of the solution when it comes to reducing tobacco related ill health and death. Tobacco kills 700.000 Europeans a year, so preventing these unnecessary deaths needs action on many fronts.

I am no longer an MEP, but I am continuing the fight for sensible regulation of e-cigs within the liberal Democrat party and in the wider debate.

154 IVO VAJGL

MEP 2009 -

Slovenia, Social Liberal party (ALDE)

Minister of Foreign Affairs, July-December 2004

When I came to Brussels as a newly elected member of the European parliament towards the end of my career, which I had started as a journalist and continued as a diplomat, a minister of foreign affairs, an ambassador and a member of the national parliament, I was fascinated by small details.

At first, my attention was caught by the fact that, instead of having to deal with the high political tensions and the constant desire for confrontation that are so characteristic of the first steps of countries in transition, from more or less totalitarian regimes to incomplete democracies, I was surrounded by kindness, courtesy and tolerance. Brussels seemed to me as a reward for being so persistent in politics and public life throughout a time, which had been for my generation of Yugoslavs – born during World War II and who grew up in the experimental decades of "socialism with a human face" – full of pathetic highlights and deep declines. The war in former Yugoslavia had marked us, emotionally and rationally. We had become cautious, in fear of new disappointments and ugly discoveries. Only those who uncritically accepted whatever was offered by the new circumstances, those who ruthlessly rejected all of what they had believed in and had previously done, were able to live as people with a new identity, even though borrowed.

I was quickly brought back to earth by my encounter with the D'Hondt method of allocating seats in the parliament, a method that, without any possibility of opposing, regulates

155 the relations of political influence and participation in the decision-making process of individual members in the European Parliament. MEPs from smaller parties and countries are marginalised, regardless of their experience, knowledge, communication skills and other attributes that normally apply in national politics. MEPs from Lithuania, Slovenia, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia or any other smaller state of the European Union will never have managerial functions in any working body of the EP, even if they are elected on party lists, which would ideally for them be voted in all cities belonging to one country. Between them and the recognition of their individual abilities and eligibility stands D'Hondt.

With regard to my personal experience and affinities, but also on the basis of my assessment of the fields in which I could have most impact, I focused from the very beginning on several critical issues, which, because of their complexity, did not interest my colleagues. In the first place, and over the course of the years, stood the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I tried to act as a friend of both parties - Israel and Palestine. I acted as someone who, in this complex case from which originates almost all acute problems of the Middle East, or is used as an excuse and motivation on all sides, mainly pursues a desire for peace and justice. I soon realised that these two categories were of little interest to anyone - not even to those directly involved. The Israeli lobby in the European Parliament is much stronger and louder than the Palestinian one. References to international law and international humanitarian law are more or less irrelevant. Israel (justifiably) underestimates the impact of the EP and the effectiveness of the EU when it comes to its potential role in finding a solution to this territorial dispute and cultural conflict.

On several occasions I visited Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza. I was also in the Negev Desert and took note of the

156 unjust attitude of the Israeli authorities towards the native inhabitants of the desert – the Bedouins, who, in the name of progress, the expansion for the development of Israel as well as its security interests, are pushed out of their traditional living spaces.

I experienced the Gaza Strip between two tragic wars, in which the lives of Palestinian civilians were worth several times less than those on the other side. Apart from the fact that the European Parliament, despite many debates on the Israeli-Palestinian problem, in no way contributed to its dismissal, and that it was not able nor willing to use the tools at its disposal to bring Israel to a more flexible position and compliance with contractual obligations, I was in the years of my first term especially marked by meetings with Israeli dissidents. These are the people who have turned their backs on official policies of Israel and are in contact with the Palestinians, prepared to seek the path to mutual understanding and recognition. While the ideal solution, in which very few people still believe - two independent neighbouring states - became a mirage, Israel, through its occupation of Palestinian territories and its illegal growing of new Jewish settlements, became a dangerous illusion. The EU can barely or not at all contribute to the solution of the problem.

The second topic to which I dedicated myself for a few years, with similarly modest results, was the problem of Western Sahara. The illegal occupation of the territory of Western Sahara, which was after the withdrawal of the Spanish colonisers appropriated by Morocco, is a never-ending problem. A problem, which has been dragged trough the corridors of the United Nations and the UN Security Council. Dragged also on the pages of the many reports on human rights violations of the Sahrawi people, reports on torture in Moroccan prisons, and on the negation of the rights of those

157 whom Morocco was unable to expel to refugee camps in neighbouring countries. All these are issues with which we, Idealists, have dealt in the European Parliament, but for which the majority showed no interest. They did not motivate the European Commission nor the UN Security Council to implement the request and the formal decision of the United Nations on the decolonisation of Western Sahara. Neither did they push for the implementation of an adequate referendum on self-determination of the people of this country.

The European Union continues to tolerate the unscrupulous exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara. It subsidises fishing in the sea off its coast taken by Morocco, while this country shamelessly enjoys the support of France, which, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, opposes any solution that would take into account the rights of the Sahrawi people. The Moroccan lobby in the European Parliament, which is visibly and aggressively present each time the problem of Western Sahara is discussed, manages to force on solutions that go hand with Morocco's mockery of justice, international law, and our obligation to respect human rights and integrity.

I was a member of the EP delegation, which visited the refugee camps in Tindouf, on the border between Algeria and Western Sahara. I was fascinated by the dignity of the displaced people who for decades have lived in the desert, in the absence of everything that makes human life worthy. Children who never saw the sea or running water, without exception, are able to read and write. In Morocco, more than half of the population is illiterate.

I organised several conferences on the situation in Darfur, where the Sudanese authorities stir up violence against the civilian population in their long war for living space and water. I hosted two events related to the dispute in Kashmir,

158 or the situation of the Uyghurs in China. I visited Upper- Karabakh, where Armenia, with the support of its strong patron Russia, occupies one fifth of the territory of Azerbaijan. Diplomatic efforts to solve this problem are blocked by the existence of the so-called Minsk group, which primarily serves to maintain the status quo and the potential apparition of new conflict zones in the region.

I tried, in vain, to highlight the unique complexities of Ukraine as a multinational and multi-confessional state, which, by nature and with respect to its geopolitical position, can live only if it realises its interests in accordance with neighbours on both sides. On various occasions, I spoke, on the basis of my experience of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, that the language of hatred and intolerance could lead to a new Cold War – to a war that is only one step away from going cold to hot...

The topic of Ukraine continued as I entered my second term and is still relevant today... Otherwise, the composition of the new mandate of the European Parliament is quite different than it was in years 2009-2014. And I am still here.

159 PETER VAN DALEN

MEP 2009 -

Netherlands, Christian Union Reformed party (ECR)

Take me to India !

This was the motto of the 13th EU-India inter-parliamentary meeting in New Delhi and Hyderabad, April 2010. Together with colleagues such as Bill Newton Dunn I participated in that meeting. In 2009 I became member of the EP delegation for relations with India. Why? Well, in the campaign for the European Parliament elections in 2009 I had an inspiring meeting with Reverend Joseph D'Souza. He leads the International Dalit Freedom Network, aiming to improve the situation of the Dalits, the 'outcasts'. India is an important EU trade partner and its influence on the world stage is increasing. At the same time hundreds of millions of people live in dire poverty and there is severe discrimination of especially the Dalits. They live in separate clusters in the villages, have to drink from separate cups and can only do work labelled unclean by Hindus, such as cleaning latrines.

After my initial meeting with Rev. D'Souza and after being elected in 2009, I decided to become a member of the India- delegation of the European Parliament. This delegation aims at improving the relationship between the EP and the Indian Parliament lower house, the Lok Sabha, and of course India as a whole. So the delegation visited India in April 2010. The profile of the delegation has become more important since there is the Lisbon Treaty: the EP has now the competences to decide on trade agreements, and the negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and India had started a few years before.

160 Objectives of the April 2010 visit An important objective of the visit was to improve the EP profile in the Lok Sabha. The official programme of the delegation visit however was not entirely to my liking. In my opinion the choice of themes was too 'safe', politically. Climate change, security, energy, agriculture; I think this was rather one-sided. My objectives for this visit reached further than politically safe talks. I wanted to learn more about, and speak up for child labour, Dalit rights and bonded labour slavery. Therefore I organised separate meetings and invited my colleagues to take part in them. The first meeting was with Mr. Coen Kompier, senior expert of the International Labour Organisation; the second with Ms. Karin Hulshof, director UNICEF India; and third a visit to the projects of Rev. Joseph D'Souza.

ILO and labour conditions When we met Mr. Kompier we saw a man with a mission: he wanted to improve labour circumstances and eradicate child labour. The critical issue is: the wide gap between theory and practice. In India many rights are well defined on paper, but are never really applied. For example: India passed an impressive 'Right to education Act', which grants every child from the age of 6 to 14, free and compulsory education. In the area of child labour there are still some contradictory laws, but much has improved on paper in the past few years. Still, an estimated 12 million children work under dangerous circumstances and between 50 and 70 million don't attend school. Reality, especially on the countryside, can be raw. Things are changing, but the road is very long.

We also met with Ms. Karin Hulshof, director of UNICEF India. India is home to the largest UNICEF-organisation in the world. She informed us about two big issues in Indian society: sanitation and the caste system. UNICEF is involved in massive programmes to improve sanitation across the

161 country, which is often in a shockingly bad state. The caste system is more complicated. UNICEF cannot change it. Nevertheless the fact that it leads to the structural exclusion of large parts of society, makes it hard to improve human development indicators of these parts.

The most impressive part of my stay in India was the meeting with Reverend Dr. Joseph D'Souza. He explained to us the position of the Dalits. The caste system recognises four main social groups, at the top of which are the priests (Brahmins); then the warriors (Kshatryas); followed by the traders and landowners (Vaysias) and the fourth caste: peasants and labourers (Sudras). But there are millions of people for whom this system has no place. These 'outcasts', or 'Dalits' are generally treated with less respect than animals and are condemned to discrimination. D'Souza founded a campus in Hyderabad on which many activities are bundled to aid the Dalits. We visited a school, a university, a church, a distribution centre for Christian literature and a clinic.

We spoke with D'Souza and a professor of sociology from the University of Hyderabad, Dr. Kancha Ilaiah, about what has to be done from the outside to improve the situation of the Dalits. Key issue: increase visibility of the issue internationally through lobbying in Europe and North America.

This visit was my first visit to India - and not my last ! To sum up a few thoughts : • India is an amazing country with many contrasts and what seem to be contradictions. Its economy is growing, but its wealth unequally shared; its people are resourceful and industrious, but many find themselves in impossible positions; it is rightly proud of its rich history and culture, but this has also brought oppression and discrimination.

162 • the discrimination of the Dalits is not merely a domestic Indian issue. The suffering and structural discrimination of hundreds of millions of Indians should indeed receive international attention. • the current negotiations for the EU-India FTA are a good platform to put pressure on the Indian government to improve the situation of the Dalits and to work on other issues such as child labour and religious freedom. The key issue for the EU-India FTA is that it should include human rights and other clauses. However, it is much less certain how far MEPs are willing to go for this, or whether they will in the end bow for economic interests. It is my intention to do all in my power to make sure this does not happen.

163 RENATA WEBER

MEP 2007 -

Romania, National Liberal Party (ALDE)

Working in the European Parliament is probably one of the most exciting jobs. If you are really committed to do something you certainly can. I have worked a lot on legislation related to civil liberties, justice and home affairs. I have a human rights advocate background therefore I am pretty tough on these issues, and more and more I am wondering why many people and colleagues in the EP are so ready to give up our old good human rights? A little bit here and there, every day, and one day we will realise how poor and helpless we have become.

But it is not about this activity, my daily job, that I wanted to write. Rather I prefer to share my other wonderful experiences in the European Parliament: election observation missions and...theatre. I was the Chief Observer (the big boss!!!) of several EU election observation missions, in Bolivia, Ecuador, Burundi, and Paraguay. I am talking about missions with 100 to 150 observers, with specialised expert teams, missions that last for some three months each. I absolutely loved them, although for the chief they are pretty exhausting. While the rest of the team stayed in the country for the entire period, I had to switch between those places and the EP too each second or third week. Exhausting. Moreover, when flights are cancelled and all your in- country meetings with the president of the country, with Supreme Court judges, or Electoral Court judges must be rescheduled...it is not always easy (in my 8

164 travels to Burundi, Brussels Airline did this 6 times, invoking technical problems - ya, right!!!). Generally, one way to Latin America takes between 21-26 hours!! Once in the country, everybody thinks you're fresh so...you work, regardless of the 4,000 meters altitude in La Paz or 3,000m in Quito, which may cause tough headaches. But I met so many interesting and good people during those missions that every effort is worthy. However, I must admit that the Bolivian president, Evo Morales, was the only president who scheduled meetings at 6 o'clock in the morning every time I saw him!! I met politicians, incumbent presidents and future presidents, many journalists, political analysts, people from the business sector and from the civil society. By the end of such a mission I felt I knew a lot about that country and its environment. I really love these missions!

The other activity which I loved was theatre. At the initiative of a good friend, a Swedish Liberal colleague, Cecilia Wikstrom, during the last mandate I performed in three plays. "Seven" was the name of the first one and it was played by female members of the European Parliament. It evokes seven stories of seven women from all over the world who were victims of terrible human rights abuses and who found in themselves the incredible strength to overcome their past and become human rights fighters and advocates. We played it twice, in the Brussels cultural center and in the EP, and it was great to see that people were moved to tears while listening to us. It was also very moving to have with us one of these seven wonderful and great women, Mu Sochua.

The second play was "Vagina's monologues" with Eve Ensler, the author, present in the EP to see us. I could

165 not believe the atmosphere!! Women and men alike were praising and cheering!! I have known Eve Ensler for some years before, when I invited her and Doctor Mugweke to a seminar which I organised in the European Parliament on "Rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of Congo". Eve's foundation supports the women and children victims and after our performance, she headed to East Congo, taking with her the recording of our performance!

This play was again "women only", but after that we received from our male colleagues, together with big congrats, requests to do a male and female play. And we did it. "Speak Truth to Power" was the third one, a powerful play about how average people, abused, humiliated, tortured, have turned their own horrible experiences into the fight for the rights of others. Great human beings, real heroes who walk among us.

This time we had with us the President of the European Parliament, the President of the Liberal Group (ALDE) in the parliament, as well as some great professional actors such as Lena Olin, Dylan Bruno and Dennis Haysbert. We had a great audience which by the end of the performance thought we, the members of the European Parliament, did it as good as the professionals (if not better!!!!!).

166 ANGELIKA WERTHMANN

MEP 2009 - 2014

Austria, 2009-11 Hans-Peter Martin’s List (Independent),

2011-2014 ALDE

The Truth behind the Candidacy – Kin Liability still exists in

Politics

I promised in 2009 not to leave the European Parliament after one term, but to run for a second term. There were several good and realistic ways to do this. The one, I considered to be the fairest since “primaries” were involved, turned out to be a completely antidemocratic one due to manipulation in their ‘system’. I published it in a short posting on my homepage and decided to follow up with two other options.

When I was contacted by the “Alliance for the Future of Austria” to be one of their leading candidates in 2014 I did not expect another very undemocratic development to come my way.

Gerald, head of that party, and I had several good and very promising discussions ; the other lead candidate, Ulrike Haider-Quercia, daughter of the deceased founder of the party, Jörg Haider, and I quickly understood that this was a “perfect match” : two women with almost the same ideas and ideals, we were a strong team that would run for the election on an independent list as independent candidates. It was decided by the party that Ulrike should be the number one and I would serve as her better half. Her candidacy was announced in an extraordinary party meeting at the Hofburg in Vienna. The discussions for the EU election program ran quite smoothly, with her and me compromising over few

167 issues. We discussed already when and how to go public with the program.

Before that we had to present the second candidate, who was me – at the Sky bar in Vienna, just opposite the famous Cathedral, an Austrian landmark. The press conference went very well, we were all happy with the media reaction. I soon left Vienna with my assistant to go to Salzburg. On our way, I got a phone call from Gerald, informing me that “the Neos- party ‘called Brussels’ and ordered for me to be expelled from the ALDE group”, (only later I should find out that that party did not want to be number 2 within the ALDE group, even though it contained two parties from several countries). The connection in the train was quite bad, so one could not understand very much. We decided to call back upon arrival in Salzburg. I hung up and a colleague called to inform me that I “did not know what the hell was going on in the group because I had announced my candidacy for the ‘Alliance for the Future of Austria’”. He also made it very clear to me that he was “standing behind me” and would definitely give me “full support, since that procedure was completely undemocratic and against any human rights” in his view. Other than how far Guy Verhofstadt, the head of the ALDE political group, wanted to go, I did not have any idea of what was to come in the following days.

Many were astonished that the independent candidacy for an independent list could actually cause such a hurricane.

The following Monday, I had a meeting with a high-ranking official of ALDE, who insisted that this was an unofficial one, it was his private decision to talk to me, since we always had such a good working-relation which he would not like to be ruined now. The meeting lasted for four (!) hours and he repeatedly asked me the same questions: ‘Why did I want to be a candidate for “such a right-wing” party ?’ ‘What did I

168 think of all this ?’ and so forth. I repeatedly told him that this party was a centre party, and whether he would consider myself being a right-wing politician or Ulrike, who sees herself as part of the Renzi-generation, and most importantly that it was my democratic right to run for re-election, and there would be no problem especially since the ‘Alliance for the Future of Austria’ was very similar to the German FDP. After he had posed the questions for the fifth time, I asked him that we stopped there, because we had gone through all of this several times by now. I thanked him for his interest, though, and for actually talking to me.

What I experienced in those days to come, nobody would really dream of: that such actions similar to those of the Nazi era could be possible in nowadays’ politics – my colleagues, with whom I had lunch together, met for a coffee, had a good talk over some latest developments in politics, did not talk to me anymore. Some ‘dared’ to talk to me, and behind the others’ back I heard things like “I have to think of my career, I am sorry.” “You should have known what it actually meant to Guy that you are a candidate for this party”. Well, here we were at the origin of the problem : Guy was Belgium’s former Prime Minister at the time of the sanctions against Austria in 2000 – he and Louis Michel, his colleague at that time Foreign Minister, obviously had an open bill with the founder Jörg Haider, and I should obviously pay for it. This is kin liability - history is never easy to understand but looking at the facts, it is easy to explain …

So, the ALDE group meeting in the parliament in Brussels approached, and it was understood that my candidacy was the number one topic that evening. A German colleague took the floor and made it very clear what he thought of such weak, mean and inhuman actions as Guy had initiated and most of the members, at least officially, had followed his orders. It should be another week until I was to be excluded

169 from the group. The “earthquake” to come was something that I would not have expected possible : Tuesday, April 8, at 5 pm the group meeting started : everyone was checked on entering the room, I was given the floor for another couple of minutes : I pointed again to the independent candidacy, the party’s development of the past decade, kin liability of Ulrike and reflected on the serious consequences for the Liberal group. But some colleagues and I could not change the result which was basically secured by so-called “proxy votes” (three colleagues voted in my favour, some others simply did not appear at the vote – they went “home for an event” and should return Wednesday morning (they had told me that they could not vote against me because they knew my political attitude and that I was certainly not the character as Guy had pointed it, few also admitted that they could not vote against Guy since they did not want to risk their career). My assistants and I returned to our office, still unable to speak, the three of us in thoughts of Guy’s last words: “Jörg Haider will never be part of the ALDE (…), Angelika.” Jörg Haider is dead since 2008 ; the party has undergone a major development in the past decade and moved to the center of the political spectrum.

I called the head of the party, informing him of the “result”, emailed him a short note summarising the events of the past two days for the press release he wanted to send, still not knowing that 15 minutes later, Ulrike would call me to say that she “just withdrew” her candidacy. She was sorry for the developments that I had to go through, just because of her name, and the political group not even knowing the program or not even willing to speak to her, she felt extremely bad. To make a long story short following that : I became the top candidate, independent candidate …

My exclusion from the ALDE political group had horrible consequences in the form of Ulrike’s withdrawal of the

170 candidacy which was basically like a deathblow to the party … thus, the party did not make the necessary percentage for reelection in 2014... The whole history of those horrible developments can be found in detail on my website.

At the very end of the mandate I met with some colleagues from the Liberal group - Germans, Italians and British – who all voiced their concern that me having been excluded from the group cost their parties their percentage … but this was only said “off the record”…

It was definitely one of the most horrible developments in my political life ; to not only understand but also experience it myself that so-called leaders have not learned from history : kin liability and someone’s “personal agenda” are more important than the politician’s political work and commitment for Europe. Is this the Europe we want ? Is this the European Union we want ?

171 MARINA YANNAKOUDAKIS

MEP 2009 - 2014

U.K., Conservative party representing London

The last 10 days of May 2014, after the European election, were a time a frantic emailing, clearing of offices and preparation for post Bubble Brussels life. As I received the stream of emails from colleagues who had not been re-elected or where not returning to the parliament, the same theme could be seen. All stated it had been a privilege to serve in the parliament. All spoke of the friends they made and the hope to stay in touch.

Once again I felt the world I had lived in over the past 5 years was a bubble similar to a university campus, self contained, often inward looking, intensive and all too often caught up in its own self importance. But, unlike a university campus, the consequences of this world affected millions of lives, sometimes in a positive way, sometimes in a negative way.

I leave my term of office with an increased belief that there is a need to work together, but the method of this work needs to be refined to show a greater flexibility and respect for individual cultures and nations to succeed.

The highlight of my five years ? There was no one day : everyday was full of promise. Did I change the world ? Maybe in a small way I achieved things by being at the right place at the right time. For example I found myself in a meeting in Northern Cyprus, which is under occupation, with the leader of the community when there had been an arrest for a man on grounds of homosexuality which was illegal in this part of Cyprus. I took advantage of the meeting to raise the issue of human rights and requested the repeal of this old colonial

172 law. Yes it took three years but the law was changed, and it was my constant pressure that played a role.

Again, I worked on areas of women's rights, and led the debate on Female Genital Mutilation in the EU, highlighting the need for member states to work together to stop this practice that affects 500,000 girls in Europe.

The low points being the politics. When all political parties, all member states worked together and compromised, we achieved what might have been weaker legislation, but at the same time it was stronger in its diversity.

So I too wrote, in my leaving email, that it was a privilege to work with so many different people, and I hoped that in some way I made things work better for the people I represented, my constituents in London.

173 ZBIGNIEW ZALESKI

MEP 2004-09, 2013-14

Poland, Civic Platform party, representing Lublin province

(EPP)

The European Parliament as the world`s Unique Place

Joining the EU was an import step for me as a Pole, who using auto-stop had crossed Europe many times from Oslo to Athens and from Berlin to Madrid. Having won the mandate for EP I went for the first meeting of EPP group in Budapest, where I could observe those who smoothly were passing the halls and corridors, or debating in the big room. The first talk with Robert Sturdy (UK Conservative) left on me a good impression and then we cooperated within the INTA commission. Then Brussels and Strasbourg – variety of people, languages and political orientations. For me, who could communicate in English, French, German and Spanish (Italian came later on with the best teacher Angelo Angioni) this was a real platform for exchanging values, opinions, views and forming present and future Europe.

German members caught my attention with their academic degrees included in the members` bulletin : dr, Dozent, Professor. Also my degree (in psychology) was later recognised by them and true to say they were the best partners in parliamentary work.

Within the EPP group I found and experienced mutual respect and support. As new members from the post-communist states we were rather critically observed and evaluated. Some of our MEPs from other political parties in the post- communist states were against the EU and played rather a

174 destructive role in the house. They caused the generalised image of us as rather poor quality contributors to European welfare. It took me about 3 years to show that we are not like them but real Europeans. At the end of the term this image changed into far more positive.

Due to my relatively fluent English, the INTA committee coordinator (Robert Sturdy) proposed me to be the vice- president of the EPP’s working group A (foreign affairs, international trade, energy), which gave me the opportunity to see and to use the instrument of power, limited, yet power.

The INTA committee study visits to Istanbul, Hong Kong, Florence, EU borders (Poland, Byelorussia, and UK) provided useful information regarding international trade and border security. The PE delegation to Israel helped to realise how deep and complicated the “eternal” conflict between Arabs and Israeli is. Two other elements stick to my memory from other trips. In the Congo the poverty and kindness of people, their engagement in the election of president Joseph Kabila. The opponent General Bemba was asked one question whether he would accept the elections if he lost and the answer was Yes. Otherwise civil war was very probable.

During a similar observation mission to Colombia I had a personal tragic-comic experience. In the afternoon pause I left the hotel unnoticed to see how the people live, what they do in the Saturday afternoon. My Spanish facilitated the contact. When after about 2 hours I returned my eyes were struck by policemen, motorcycles and other agents. Quietly entering the hotel I learned what the issue was. Since that moment I had a bodyguard who summarised the fact like this “Senor Zaleski, had you been kidnapped by FRNAC people they would have demanded 10 million dollars from EP for your release. It was our failure to let you go free on your own as you did”. Now he had an order to watch me all the time and protect me. However he

175 was worried about the consequences for letting this happen. I promised to call the Interior Minister, blaming myself and asked him not to punish the subordinate agents. It coincided that, the day before, we had a longer talk with the minister and this allowed to build a somewhat closer relationship. So I did call him on the matter. When back home I could only joke how priceful, 10 million dollars, I was in Colombia.

I tried to compare my impressions of the European Parliament with some other places I knew : UCLA, other universities, Opera houses etc. and I came with the conclusion that the parliament is a unique place in the world. Therefore I recommended other Polish MEPs to enable the young people and students to spend a month or so as stagiers or assistants in the Brussels and Strasbourg complex. They meet others, learn, identify themselves with future roles, and become richer in their world view. Having such a wonderful teacher, I learned Italian in the meantime when in the parliament. The parliament gives a chance for the young to plan their future, for the more matured to reflect on their life and activity, and for the politicians an opportunity to feel humble and modest in front of all the problems the parliament has to deal with. I have no doubt that the European Parliament is a unique place.

176