- 1 -
Newropeans for European democracy - 2 -
Programme of Newropeans
18/12/2008
Summary
Page
A. The Newropeans core message 3
B. The Newropeans programme 6
I. Europeans in command 6
1. Proposal for a European Government 6 2. Evaluation of EU Programs 9
II. Europe for all Europeans 3. For a European policy in the field of education 10 4. Voting age 16 13
III. Europeans better protected 5. Newropeans position on socio-economic questions 13 6. Proposal on the European agricultural policy 17 7. Programme for Environment, Energy, Agriculture and Climate 19
IV. Europeans influencing the world 8. Programme on the international policy of the European Union 20 9. European Defence 29 10. Immigration policy 30 11. Israel /Palestine 32
C. The initial 16 propositions 35
D. Funding / Transparency / Ethics 40
A. Newropeans core message
National parties and politicians handed over power to European bureaucrats and non-elected politicians. They did little to enforce European democracy and made no serious effort to empower European citizens. This alone is reason enough not to vote for national parties in 2009. But there are - 3 - more reasons to vote for Newropeans. Newropeans is a truly European party and starts were national political parties stop: by devising European solutions to European problems.
Newropeans in the European Parliament will innovate and radically change European political cooperation. For Newropeans this is the key to European democracy and citizenship. Newropeans is the first trans-European political party. And is the first political party which will propose candidates for the 2009 European Parliamentary elections in different European countries. Our main goal is the democratisation of European politics. Only when Europeans have better control of their own society can European cooperation develop further in crucial areas including the environment, immigration, defence, social economics and international policy.
Our programme has 4 main themes:
. Europeans in command. Democratise, innovate and change institutions: restructure European Parliament, control of power of bureaucrats and politicians, transparency in agenda setting, control of power of lobbies. Newropeans will put you in command of Europe. We propose: . To include European parties in Parliament (see page 37) . To elect (not appoint) a European government (see pages 6 to 8) . To stop bureaucrats running the system . Annual evaluation of EU programmes by their beneficiaries (see page 9) . Right of initiative for the European Parliament . To abolish the life-long immunity of European civil servants(see page 35) . Trans-European referenda on enlargement of the EU and new treaties (see page 35)
. Europe for all Europeans. Enhance skills and tools to be able to participate in a European democracy: a comprehensive package for education, mobility, language teaching, telecommunications, media and transport which will allow a vast democratisation of access to Europe. Newropeans will make sure that you are able to participate in Europe. We propose: . A European mobility programme similar to Erasmus for 500,000 young citizens each year(see page 10) . To teach at least two additional European languages to all students at secondary school (see pages 10) . To give younger Europeans the right to vote(see p. 13) . To allow associations to develop on a trans-border basis in order to give citizens the same rights as companies . To bring Europe closer to its citizens and to decentralize European institutions (see page 35) - 4 -
. To ensure the lowest possible costs of trans-border communications and transportation within the EU
. Europeans better protected. Better protection against free-market excesses and stronger demand for consumer rights, sustainability and social security: trans- European regulation of the financial sphere, counter the negative consequences of uncoordinated harmonisation policies for consumers, workers, employers, and especially those running small- and medium-sized enterprises. Newropeans will make sure that Europe develops a social and sustainable dimension too. We propose to promote: The creation of political leadership for the Euro by Euro-zone countries Sustainable production of products and food (see pages 17 through 19) Respect for local and regional identity and for the internal structure of member states Consumer choice and protection (see page 17) Trans-European public services (see 39) A stop to the over-regulation caused by harmonisation An innovative European energy programme (see p. 19) European social solidarity (see pages 13 through 17)
. Europeans influencing the world. An international policy that makes the voices of Europeans heard on the global stage. Newropeans will make sure that Europe plays a role in world affairs. We propose: . To secure one seat on the UN Security Council (cf p.20) . A single European defence policy (see p.29) . To play a leading political role in resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (see p.32) . An immigration policy to pair with development policy (see pages 30 through 31) . European leadership to rebuild the international system of political cooperation (cf pages 20 through 29) . To ensure that international policy is guided by Europeans interests, independent of Washington or Moscow (cf pages 20 through 31)
Newropeans is different from any other political party. Newropeans will only participate in the European elections over the coming 20 years. Newropeans is only financed through membership fees and private donations. Newropeans has no local level – decisions are made through intranet discussions and ‘via’ e-voting. Candidates are chosen at the European level. Newropeans in the - 5 -
European Parliament will donate 50% of their fees to Newropeans. No family members will be employed as staff in Parliament.
Newropeans will play a role both inside and outside the European Parliament. Newropeans will connect with other organisations with the same ambitions through the creation of a European Democratic Front to protect our national democratic rights and extend these rights within our common European democracy.
The European Parliament was created to represent you. Use the 2009 European elections to make sure it does. Europe is too important to be ignored: vote Newropeans! - 6 -
B. 16 Propositions
Newropeans initial 16 Proposals for rendering the European Union more democratic and for meeting the challenges of the XXIst° Century
These first proposals are the result of a unique debate in Europe, which directly associated over 10000 citizens in 100 towns and 25 countries in the development of Newropeans programme for the 2009 elections. In the coming four years, Newropeans will continue the process of conversing with citizens in order to build a complete programme covering all the major questions which touch all 500 million Europeans, in a way that systematically associates citizens and the actors involved in the development, application and evaluation of EU policies that touch them.
A new beginning for the EU on a democratic foundation
I. Europeans in command
1. Create a genuine European Government (see page 6 of this programme)
- To make elected officials responsible, reign in the technocrats, and facilitate understanding of the decision-making system and its political efficiency - To avoid letting Europe’s « democratic black hole » stimulate a victory of all sorts of populism and extremism.
The European Government should become the executive responsibile for European policy, taking over the current executive functions of the Council and the Commission. The political level of the European Commission (Commissioneers) should therefore be abolished. The pooled administrative branch, the Joint European Administration (JEA, developed from the current administration of the Commission) will manage common policies. The European Parliament will constitute the legislative branch, based on the legislative functions of the current Parliament and Council. These two political institutions will together embody the common interest of the EU. The European Parliament must be given a complete right of initiative, shared with the European Government. In inter-governmental matters, the right of initiative belongs to national Governments and Parliaments.
2. Ensure that the principle of equality of all European citizens before the law is maintained by eliminating the legal immunity of European officials.
In order to respect the fundamental principle of democracy in Europe To avoid creating a caste of « untouchables » who run the EU
The life-long legal immunity of officials of the European institutions (cf. Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965, Art.12a) constitutes a flagrant example of inequality before the law for a category of European citizens. There is no reason for it given that the EU groups 25 democracies where the independence of the legal system is guaranteed. On the contrary, it should be abolished for maintaining a disconnect between the officials running the EU and other citizens.
Linking words and deeds, Newropeans will not accept any European officials among its active members as long as this immunity is not eliminated.
3. Ratify systematically the main changes of community treaties, and in particular enlargements by trans-European referenda.
To allow citizens to decide the main future orientations of the EU
to avoid having an elite, disconnected from the citizens and peoples, impose its choices. These trans-European referenda will use a double majority in order to ensure democratic respect of minorities: more than 50% of the votes cast across the whole of the EU and - 7 -
more than 50% of the Member States voting in favour would be necessary to secure passage of a proposal.
4. Bring the European institutions closer to the citizens geographically, by decentralising them
To move the EU closer to its citizens and ground the European project in the political and historical reality of our continent, as well as to make the community system more comprehensible To avoid a centralised Europe, incompatible with democracy
It is not possible to make 500 millions citizens feel closer to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. To reduce the growing gap between the European institutions and the people, and notably using the technologies of the XXIst Century (Internet, High-Speed trains, low-cost airlines, ...), over the next two decades it will be necessary to change radically the system of capitals that was inherited from the 1950s to help citizens take ownership of the project. Each country having chosen its “European town” (often the capital) the new European institutional network will gather a first “Euroring” of institutions in a circumference of 500km around Brussels, taking account of the specificity and advantages of each selected town : Parliament (Brussels), Court of Justice (The Hague), European Government (London), Joint European Administration (Paris), Central Bank (Frankfurt), Court of Accounts (Luxembourg). A second “Euroring” will gather together all the other institutions and community agencies in the town retained by each member State. This veritable decentralization will also offer the European institutions access to a wider source of qualified human resources than are available in their current locations.
5. Ensure that the European Parliament is 50% composed of representatives of national (or regional lists), and 50% from trans-European lists; Offer each citizen two votes in the European elections
To reinforce the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament and to allow the expression of the double identity of each European citizen: European and national/regional
To invert the trend of growing abstention in European elections, even though citizens seem ever more interested in Europe, as shown in the referenda.
In order to play an important political role, the European Parliament must manage to integrate within itself the many different components of Europeans citizens’ identity. Each citizen has a vote to elect 50% of the Parliament on a trans-European list, and another vote to elect 50% of the Parliament on a national (or regional) list.
6. Create a procedure for evaluating the political system and community administration every decade, independent of the executive, legislative and judicial institutions.
To ensure the regular adaptation of the EU’s institutions to an environment that is in constant evolution, and ensure that a democratic and transparent process
To avoid “ institutional sclerosis”,, which leads to crises like the one of 2005 As of the next European election, and every ten years, a “convention” should be organised of national and European elected representatives as well as of experts coming from all parts of the EU. This should include at least 30% of under-40s. It is intended that the convention evaluate the state of the European Union and propose to the institutions the necessary structural adaptations of the treaties and functioning of the EU.
II. Europe for all Europeans
7. Respect linguistic diversity of the EU, a fundamental condition for democracy in the EU, whilst ensuring the efficiency of its functioning by the creation of a clear linguistic regime - 8 -
To ensure that each person in the EU can speak their language, whilst at the same time preparing the European Union for multilingualism, so as to permit the EU to effectively.
To avoid monolingualism, an enemy of European diversity, and also linguistic chaos, an obstacle to the effective functioning of the EU.
The question of language is central to ensure both the respect of European diversity, which is a precondition for democracy in the EU, and the effective functioning of the community’s institutions, a precondition for EU efficiency. This debate should be public, as it concerns the cultural heart of our collective future. Newropeans proposes a pragmatic solution integrating the two constraints of democracy and efficiency in the so-called « 2-5-25 » system: two internal working languages for the institutions (English and French), five languages for political debate which can also serve as relay languages for further translation, with at least one language per large linguistic family (e.g. English, French German, Polish and Spanish), and all EU languages for communications with the citizen.
Making the functioning of the EU more efficient and democratic
8. Develop profound and wide initiatives in the domain of education and life-long training (see pages 10 to 13)
- To reinforce the democratisation of the EU and the quality of its human resources - To prevent tomorrows Europe to be built by people who don’t know Europe and the Europeans
Access to education is essential for a democratic, fair and competitive society. Today’s and tomorrow’s challenges demand ambitious and wide ranging initiatives, such as: a) making the European dimension accessible to an increasing number of young people and students (15-25); b) decreasing the deficit of people with trans-european competences through a special training programme for all economic, political, social and cultural sectors, within an integrated European framework.
9. Promote internal mobility within the European Institutions
To provide the EU institutions with public servants who are just as mobile and open as the European society they have to serve.
To avoid the creation of closed “castes” which are unable to comprehend the society which surrounds them.
Careers in any single institution should be limited to a maximum of 10 years, and a vast programme to promote mobility between regional, national and European administrations should be organised, as well as encouraging exchange between the public and private sectors. It is important to give preference to recruitment of European officials having at least 5 years of prior professional experience, so as to ensure they can provide a maximum value added. Define the place of Europe in the world, and of common European projects
III. Europeans better protected
10. Elaborate an annual social report for the President of the EU, destined to evaluate the social status of the Union (health, education, employment, poverty), based on pre-defined and objective indicators
To promote the feeling of inclusiveness and belonging towards the EU by all citizens
To prevent an European construction with no social criteria - 9 -
The EU already has a number of convergence criteria in the economic, monetary, fiscal and juridical domains. In parallel, the Euro has an enormous effect in all areas of the social sphere; thus, it is of prime importance to integrate a social dimension to this attempt of continental convergence. Each year, the executive should present to the European Parliament a very objective study of the State of the Union in social matters, together with proposals directed to economic convergence and social progress.
11. Ground the European budget on real own resources for the EU, raised in a transparent manner and being subject to regular control
Increase the political efficiency, democratic control, and citizens buy-in of the community budget
To finish with the obsessive process of seeing how much money each and every nation paid in and received back from the budget, which renders impossible any legitimate and efficient decision on the contributions and expenditures, and which is in any case against the very spirit of the European project.
A European company and income tax should replace the system of national contributions to the European budget. Based on the democratic principle of “no taxation without representation”, European financial and budgetary perspectives will be voted on by each new European legislature, with the necessary agreement of the European Government. This implies the need to change the time frame of financial and budgetary perspectives from 7 to 5 years so as to synchronise it with European Parliament elections. The current redistributive objectives are maintained, with the addition of a new element destined to stimulate growth, notably in the areas of research, innovation and education. All budgetary and financial decisions must be taken with respect for the principles of democracy and transparency, notably by means of public debates in the European Parliament. The European Court of Accounts and the network of national Courts of Account have to be reinforced to ensure an efficient control of the use of European Funds.
IV Europeans influencing the world
12. Promote a Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union (Privileged Neighbour Status)
To strengthen political and economic partnerships with the concerned countries
To prevent widening social and economic inequalities within the EU and chaos on its borders Economic prosperity and social cohesion is one of the central tenets of the European project. The European Union has to be able to deliver them to its citizens to guarantee their well-being and prevent extremist and populist uprisings. Only through a Privileged Neighbour Status policy in the years to come, will the EU be able to promote a strong and healthy political and economic relationship with its neighbour countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Byelorussia, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.
13. Increasing the efficacy of the EU’s action in the world by reinforcing the role of the ministry of foreign affairs and structuring a clear and objective European foreign policy (see also pages 20 to 30 of this programme)
To increase the EU’s influence and efficacy in the world, while preserving the diversity and richness of its member states’ bilateral relations
To prevent an incoherent action and image of the EU in world system During the last decade, European citizens have clearly demonstrated they want a coherent, strong and - 10 -
influent Europe, capable of contributing to a more balanced and multilateral system, namely during the Iraqi crisis. The definition of the European role in the world should be structured around three key principles: a key role for a reformed United Nations system, adapted to the XXIst century reality; primacy of the international law over the national interests; refusal of the destabilising concept of «preventive war». For the sake of coherence and internal coordination, the roles of its Ministry of Common Foreign Affairs and of its President of the European Government should be clearly defined.
14. Develop a common immigration policy, pursued at national level and aiming at the immigrants’ full integration in the European society (see pages 30 to 31)
- To promote a social and economic integration of all immigrants and develop a common European responsibility towards it - To prevent a closed, xenophobic and non-dynamic European
For the European Union, immigration is an inevitable, useful and needed phenomenon. Nevertheless, it should be split and dealt with through two different levels: that of migratory fluxes, so that clandestine immigration can be prevented as much as possible; that of integration processes of immigrants, to make sure their integration is smooth and possible. At the same time, the EU should severely sanction all religious and/or racial discrimination.
15. Elaborate a common European policy against organised crime and trans-national criminality, namely a specialised European police and judicial network
To develop internal and external credibility of the EU through the promotion of transparency
To stop the spreading belief that directly relates increasing criminality with the new members of the European Union
A common market without frontiers in an enlarged Union, terrorism and new information and communication technologies, such as the internet, demand from the EU an ever more efficient strategy for fighting against an organised trans-national criminality, increasingly expert and professionalised. The EU needs to create specialised police and judicial forces, based on the wide national and already existing ones to face the associated growing risks and build internal and external confidence.
16. Mutual reinforcement of political integration, research and competitiveness: common dreams, decisions and entrepreneurship
To reinforce the economic and technological capabilities of the Union and preparing it to the 21st century challenges
To prevent the EU from becoming a non-influential and weak actor in the global system Political integration and prosperity in the long-term go hand in hand with the vision and ambition citizens have of their own society. Common projects are an essential part of that future. Europe needs a set of initiatives that mutually promote political integration, research and competitiveness at the Union’s level: a) common dreams and technology - launching an European space programme for a human permanent occupation of the moon, preferably in collaboration with other regions of the world; b) mobility, economic growth and technology - building wide-ranging transport networks (Fast-trains, cheap aerial routes, motorways); c) common democracy and technology - automatic translation programmes (to make accessible translation hardware/software) and European wide electronic vote and electronic access to public services (e-government); d) joint European entrepreneurship - put in - 11 - place a call for trans-european applications (minimum of three countries) for the joint organisation of Olympic Games, World Cups or International/Universal Exhibitions - 12 -
C. The Programme of Newropeans
Between 2006 and 2008 Newropeans developed the following policy field. All these programmes were e-voted by the members,
I. ) Europeans in command
1. ) Proposal for a European Government
The context
1. The institutional system of the European Union has evolved over decades. But courageous reforms to adapt the system to today’s challenges still need to be undertaken. For instance, the European Parliament gained more competences with recent Treaty revisions, but still cannot fully play its democratic role, as it lacks the power to control the political and the bureaucratic branches of the executive in the name of the citizens.
2. Core elements of the EU date back to times we have today left behind us. Just one example: the European Commission, a bureaucratic body without democratic legitimacy, still enjoys the far reaching powers it was granted at a time when it had to ensure the building of the European communities and the continuity of the integration process.
3. The time when the EU was “under construction”, however, is over. This can no longer serve as an excuse for not tackling the necessary democratisation of the European Union. The priority now is to invent a system which allows governing 500 million European citizens in all their diversity and this in a democratic, transparent and efficient manner. A democratically legitimised, trans-European executive, a European Government, is at the heart of this system.
4. In the current EU, legislative and executive functions are not clearly assigned. Bureaucracy and opacity reign over democratic and accountable political choice. The non-elected Commission not only acts as the executive and manages the EU budget, it also monopolises the right to initiate legislation. The Council, and most of all, the European Council, trade “national interests” against each other, and lack a trans- European perspective on trans-European policy challenges. Neither the EU citizens nor the elected Parliamentarians can exert democratic control over decision-making.
5. The big task now is to invent a European Government, the future executive of the EU system, which enjoys full democratic legitimacy among the European citizens and which is capable of efficient and transparent trans-European action, and which is fully accountable for all its activities. This European Government has its responsibilities to take in all matters which are common European goods, but has to respect and protect national, regional or local specificities.
6. The introduction of these new governance structures cannot occur in one major shake up. Newropeans sees this transition as a longer process. This present proposal has been developed to end the most urgent lack of democracy, but more steps remain to be taken to eventually give Europe a fully-fledged trans-European and democratic governmental model. This is why mechanisms to review the functioning of the EU regularly and democratically are needed.
Five guiding principles of the European Government
1. The European citizens are sovereign, and control EU decisions democratically. The link between the individual citizens and the European government should be as direct as possible to increase accountability. Citizens have to be able to sanction the government by votes.
2. The European Government is responsible to the European Parliament. - 13 -
3. The nomination, the action and control of the European government have to be as transparent as possible to enable the citizens to understand the EU and its decisionmaking.
4. The EU system respects the multiplicity of European, national and regional identities, but should encourage trans-European debate, action and political choice. It is based on a clear division of competencies between the European and other levels of decisionmaking.
5. The system has to be stable and efficient.
The procedure to nominate the European government
Step 1: Election of the European Parliament every 5 years Step 2: Election of the “Candidate Head of Government” by simple majority of all MEPs Step 3: The “Candidate Head of Government” constitutes a list of 20 to 30 members of the government 1 of at least 20 national backgrounds. 50 % have to be members of the EP. Step 4: This list has to be approved by simple majority of all members of the Congress. The Congress is made up of 50% members of the European Parliament and 50% members of national Parliaments or national governments, which means the Heads of State and Government can of course be part of the Congress.2 Step 5: If the simple majority is not attained, the process restarts in step 3. If it fails three times, it restarts in step 2.
Explanatory remark: This is a transitional model which will develop in the future as the trans-European dimension gains weight. In the current situation, there is a need to anchor the national dimension in the EU governance structures, while trans-European democratic policy decisions should not be obstructructed. This is done through the way the Parliament is elected (one national, one trans- European list) and the 50% representation of national politicians (members of Parliament or Government) in the Congress. In the future, the Congress may no longer be necessary and its role can fully be taken on by the European Parliament. This is in line with our own basic assumption that Europeans are willing and able to act together democratically on a trans-European level.
The role of the European government in the EU system3
1. The European Government is the executive responsible for European policy making. It takes over the current executive functions of the Council and the Commission.
2. The European Parliament represents all European citizens. It is the legislative branch and incorporates the legislative functions of both the current Parliament und the Council.
3. The Head of the European government provides orientation for the general policy directions and represents the European Union externally.
4. The European Government sets up the European budget, which the EP votes.
5. Newropeans will make detailed suggestions for the responsibilities of the European Government in the major policy fields when developing our political programme up to 2009.4
1 There should be 20 to 30 senior and junior ministers (in the sense of secretaries of State) – not 20 to 30 portfolios. No artificial need to invent competencies and posts should be created.
2 The Congress does not have the role of a “second chamber”. It does not have legislative functions. It is an assembly which meets on special occasions (such as the nomination of a government, a constructive vote of no confidence, treaty revisions, competence disputes etc.)
3 Points 1. to 3. are taken from Newropeans’ 16 propositions.
4 A first example is the “European policy in the field of Education” where it is the task of the European Government to dress up and publish the report on the member states’ performance (see point 3 of our programme) - 14 -
6. There is a clear division of competencies between the national and the European level. The European government cannot enlarge its own competencies vis-à-vis other national or regional levels. In only executes the tasks of a trans-European interest assigned to it. As it is impossible to assign the competencies once and for good, a democratic review process independent of the European executive and legislative evaluates the institutional set-up on a regular basis. The Congress is the authority of last resort in matters of competence disputes.
Procedure in times of crisis
1. There is a constructive vote of no confidence. The European government can only be removed from office if a simple majority of the Members of Congress elect a new list.
2. This process is started on initiative of the EP. 50 % of the member states (double majority in terms of weighted votes and number of states) can ask the PE to consider this procedure.
2.) Proposal to improve the efficiency of EU Programs and democratize the EU policymaking process
Every two years, EU programs are evaluated, using a short questionnaire sent to the participants. The results are communicated to all concerned by the program.
Each year about 15 Billions Euros are spent on EU programs linking, via a myriad of trans- European networks, at least one millions of NGOs, research centers, universities, companies, medias,…
The hundreds of thousands of stakeholders of this emerging trans-European civil society are still treated as mere ’beneficiaries’ of EU funds and not as ’partners’ of the European construction.
In order to boost both the efficiency of the EU programs and the active involvement of their partners, Newropeans proposes to establish every two years for each EU program an evaluation process based upon a 10 items questionnaire, sent via Internet to each and every EU program ’beneficiary’ (not only to networks leaders but also to each network participating organization), in order to assess on an annual basis the relevance of the program objectives, the efficiency of the program tools and the reliability of the program feedback processes.
Evaluating the programs ability to create a European public, thus help building Europe, should be at the core of this questionnaire.
The results, which should be easily and clearly formulated and include statistical representations of the answers, of this evaluation will be simultaneously made accessible to the European Parliament, the European Commission, European Council and to all the concerned program partners. - 15 -
II.) Europe for all Europeans
3.) For a European policy in the field of education
Newropeans supports a pro-active ’European Policy in the field of Education’, but opposes anything which could resemble a ’European Education Policy’.
1. The EU is facing a crisis today, because its citizens are not trained to control the European dimension of our society and because its national-minded elites do not know how to run the European continent efficiently. The democratic recasting of the European Union starts with education, through the same way that a million European students already took, since the launch of Erasmus, the Community student mobility programme, in 1987.
2. It is today an absolute need to enable the largest possible number of citizens in Europe to become competent European citizens. They have to be able to understand, propose and act on the European level - alone or together with other European citizens. Otherwise our hope for democratizing the EU will stay a dream ... and power in the EU will stay in the hands of small elites, who can speak foreign languages, travel easily, build networks throughout the continent, and understand issues before they are decided upon.
3. The aims of the “European Policy in the field of Education” that Newropeans proposes are as follows:
to allow the maximum number of young people discover other Europeans and what is required to interact with them, to enable a growing number of our students to become trained in a trans-European way in order to enlarge and diversify socially the European elites who can manage networks, organizations or projects operating at a trans-European level, so that we generate the collective expertise we need to have the EU run in a democratic way with the ’European know- how’ spread throughout society and not only in a handful of bureaucratic structures and consulting firms, to encourage organizations which employ people (companies, public institutions, associations) and the operators providing lifelong learning services to make “European opportunities” similar to those offered to the younger generation accessible to all Europeans during their lifetime.
4. Newropeans does not support any ’European Education Policy’ through which the European level would control or influence the content and process of education in Europe. These are national, regional or local competencies. It would be a threat to democracy and diversity to have a single power running, or having a major influence on the content and methods of education for 500 million people coming from very different cultures.
5. Newropeans, however, is convinced that a “European policy in the field of education”, a series of future oriented and flexible programmes and projects, is vital for the democratic future of the EU. 20 years after the launch of the Erasmus programme, the key issue is to transform this breakthrough into a series of routes, which are adapted to people and objectives that are as varied as the EU is complex. It is nowadays about widening the Erasmus programme, diversifying it, and adapting it to new political, economic, social and cultural challenges for the European Union in the two next decades.
6. From our experience, which includes helping to launch Erasmus, we know that national or regional bureaucracies may have incentives to fight against trans-European programmes in the field of education – just like ministries of Education fought against the Erasmus programme in 1985 – 1987 because they did not want a European openness in their sector to prevent comparison, evolution and the breaking up of old structures. The same is likely to be true for some actors today. This is why the - 16 - proposals of Newropeans contain sticks and carrots in order to reduce the ability of certain actors to block new policy initiatives.
7. This is why Newropeans suggests that the future European Government should assess the member states’ performance with regard to their European policies in the field of education. Every two years, a report should present quantitative results on how the member states are participating and enacting the currently run European programmes in the field of education (for suggestions see below). This report should be discussed in the European Parliament and made public so that citizens know which governments and countries are serious about providing their citizens with the best European opportunities; and those who are not.
Specific proposals: to give the European Union, citizens and leading staff able to manage it democratically and effectively
Six ideas for six simple programs to be proposed by Newropeans in the field of education:
The European Educational Central Criterion, E2C2
From 2010, each Member State should confront each year at least 10% of each of its new generation to other Europeans. Every two years, the European government will have to submit a report to the European Parliament, with a view to evaluate the results for each Member State benchmarked with this objective of 10%. This should be a public debate and the Parliament will establish a hall of fame for the most active countries that help their citizens to benefit from the European dimension. Two key trans-European tools: One tool, to reach the masses, should serve the democratisation of the EU by a better education to Europe for its citizens; the other, focused on the elite, should serve the democratisation of the EU by educating executives to the European dimension.
Future Euro-citizens by Education (FEE) Programme
Target: youth from 10 to 25 (secondary schools and above)
Objective: to train tomorrow’s Euro-citizens, by familiarizing them with other Europeans’ cultures, rendering Europe and its diversity natural to them, thereby offering the youth the fundamentals of the democratic intra-European dialogue (knowledge of each other, languages, etc...).
Methods: short journeys, exchanges, meetings (3 days minimum/1 week maximum)
Annual number: 500,000 young people Budget: 500 millions euros over 5 years
European Executives Training (EXTRA) Programme
Target: Students
Objective: To train the future European executives so that they could manage companies, administrations, universities, media, NGO, research centres at the European level.
Methods: Integrated courses that could encompass at least 3 semesters in 3 different Member States.
Annual number: 50,000 students Budget: 200 millions euros over 5 years
LIfe Long European (LILE) : - 17 -
This program intends to provide a European dimension to the whole of Member States’ life-long learning policies; it will be based on education and employment operators, such as public companies, associations and institutions. The objective is to enable year 50,000 citizens per year over 40 years to get their training in another country of the EU.
To encourage bilingual education and to generalize the teaching of a foreign language as of 4 year-old children by mobilising Member States and their regions
Target: children aged of 4 years and over.
Objective: to allow as soon as possible pupils to get an opening to Europe by teaching them another language and bringing them to another culture.
Methods:
1. encourage bilingual early child-hood care and school education, because young children do not have to “study” a language, but find a natural way to acquire this language and understand its culture – if they are exposed to it and need to use it, 2. use of foreign language assistants coming from the country of the language which is taught, 3. set up of a “exchanges service” of language assistants (Internet portal) in order to facilitate offers and meet demand, 4. encourage mutual recognition of diplomas for school and early childhood educators as well as education for "bilingual educators" 5. set- up of a ‘Hit parade’ of language teaching in primary schools (by region and by Member state).
To support the introduction in national handbooks of history in secondary schools of “compared visions” for large European historical events
Target: schoolchildren from 11 to 15.
Objective: sensitize European schoolchildren with the differences in national perceptions in Europe.
Methods: put into perspective various national visions reflected by current history books by comparing their interpretations of great historical events. E.g. Napoleonic wars, or how the invasion of various European countries is reported in French, German, English textbooks, etc…
4.) Voting age at European elections should be 16 instead of 18 years.
Newropeans will support lowering age for right to vote at European election from current 18 to 16 years, to give politically interested young people a voice in politics and therefore increase their democratic participation, as well as to balance the effects of an aging population.
III.) Europeans better protected
5.) Newropeans’ position on socio-economic questions
Introduction
1. The economy has been used successfully as the driver of integration by the EU governments. But today, many citizens feel that economic processes are out of reach, that the political has vanished in the face of a technocratic and intransparent management on the EU level, often pushing ideological choices in the name of European common interest. Meanwhile, also companies, especially smaller ones which form a crucial part of our economic tissue, complain that Brussels regulatory activities are inaccessible to them and create disadvantageous conditions for them.
2. Newropeans’ proposals in the field of socio-economic policies seek to reinstall the possibilities for democratic economic decision-making where they have been lost on the national level. This concerns - 18 - all countries which are today part of the single market, but most notably those countries which share the Euro.
Our understanding of the EU’s socio-economic model
3. We think that the vast majority of European citizens today wishes to live in a social-market economy, in which efficient systems ensure both social security within in the member states, but also cohesion among the member states. Only sufficient cohesion within the EU’s borders provides sound economic and social basis for joint trans-European decision-making and action. We are convinced that European citizens today request policies that ensure economic, social and environmental sustainability for the future generations. This has to be a guiding principle for all economic policy choices to ensure that the decisions serve the long-term interests of European citizens and respect their rights as European citizens.
4. The EU should solely become active in social and economic policy-making when European public goods are at stake. The member states and the regions should retain a large degree of independence regarding for instance their choices on their social welfare systems, but certain minimum standards within the EU borders should be democratically agreed upon to prevent that harmful competition endangers social and political stability.
5. When, however, European decision-making is necessary to complement the market and currency integration already achieved, it should be fully democratically legitimised. Policy choices should be the result of trans-European debates and democratic decision-making by the democratised EU institutions representing the citizens of all member countries. The EU thus has to seize the chance to modernise its own future socio-economic model which should ensure diversity, long-term sustainability and the guarantee of the humanistic values on which the EU was built. That way, the EU may serve as a model for other economic areas in the world, and with which the EU should engage on a global level to fight for sustainable economic world order.
Citizens in Europe’s single market
6. European citizens should not only be treated as “consumers” when the EU single market’s future is decided. As citizens, they also have interests, expectations or worries which are economically or commercially legitimate and constructive. This citizens’ view on socioeconomic issues has to be taken into account to build a prosperous and democratic European society in the coming decades.
7. The reduction of mobile phone roaming cost and the possibility to have low-cost airlines operate in the EU are examples of a good though small start. Further steps have to be taken to reduce the cost for the average citizens to form and manage active trans-European civil society organisations which is a pre-requisite for any successful EU democratisation. Public transport, energy, food safety and health are other issues which should be looked at through the citizens’ perspective.
8. In order to ensure labour mobility within the single market, a European social security system should be set up for those citizens who wish to opt for it (and out of their national system). It should be a matter of democratic debate and decision-making whether this system should be organised by a public or private entity and whether it should contain redistributive elements. A European social security system would lower pressure on the member states to harmonise their national systems, while providing those citizens who wish to go for it with a truly European and completely mobile alternative.
A European Single Market with a Common European Solidarity
9. Newropeans is convinced that networks are the most efficient organisations to operate at the European level. They combine diversity of components and unity of action, a requirement for any successful trans-European project or organisation. In the past 20 years, however, networks where only used and developed in two fields somehow marginal to the key dimension of the EU Single Market (European research and high-tech (Ariane, CERN, Thalys, Eurostar, ...) and in the field of European internal programmes (networks of universities, NGOs, local authorities, ... ). - 19 -
10. But for the core policy fields of the Single Market, classical competition between pyramidal organisations and their very uniformised management processes has been chosen as the only organisational structure, without any public debate and decision. Newropeans is going to push for alternative solutions in particular in sectors where public interest is directly at stake, such as energy networks, train networks, public health, food security, ... . Trans- European networks, whether public or private, should be further explored as answers to the combination of preserving European diversity and specificities while improving efficiency and competitiveness.
11. There are several compatible ways to manage a 500 millions people strong market. Newropeans intend not to prevent any efficient option to be put on the table. And in any democratically chosen option, it will consistently put the emphasis that competition in the EU has to be pushed forward in parallel to economic and social cohesion and solidarity. Not only are these joint principles at the core of modern Europe’s successes, but it must be clear to all Europeans that our social security systems have been, as much as the EU project itself, key instruments preventing the return of large scale wars and extremism on our continent. This new dimension of solidarity, expressed from the very beginning of the EU project, through the structural funds has to be modernized and nurtured in order to ensure that no part of the EU could concretely feel that it is losing from the integration process.
Governing the single market
12. The European Union faces a crucial choice: either it ensures that the single market is governed and regulated in a democratically legitimate way. This is, in our view, the only way to maintain the single market and single currency in the EU.
13. If the EU is not complemented by a European political union based on democratic decision-making, the single market will and should be less integrated. We assume it would slowly but surely disintegrate, because a falling number of national politicians is willing and able to defend the common market project vis-à-vis their citizens. If there is no fully democratic decision-making on the EU level, for reasons of legitimacy, the EU has to regulate less and the principle of mutual recognition (based on the Cassis de Dijon ruling of the European Court of Justice5) has to be questioned as it imposes an automatic overruling of national legislation and hence violates democracy on the national level. If these far reaching legal principles of the EU (such as mutual recognition) are to be maintained, European citizens have to get their say and their choices in the definition of the key elements of the system.
14. If Europe opts for integrated markets governed by a European government, market regulation and competition policy on the EU level should be complemented by a common tax policy and a common industrial policy. Both should take into account the specific needs of small- and medium-sized companies, especially family-owned business, who do not usually have a global access to capital, markets and labour force.
The European Monetary Union – a particular challenge
15. With the arrival of the Euro, the member states surrendered a large part of their capacity to make economic policy to the EU level. It is becoming clearer with every year of the single currency’s existence that it is time regain economic policy making competencies – together and on the European level.
16. Today, economic policy-making for the Eurozone countries is largely non-democratic. Not only are institutions and decision-making processes opaque given the high degree of informality and so-called soft coordination which seeks to impose certain principles and logics of economic policy making. More importantly, there is no democratic scrutiny of economic policy making, because the main actors are out of reach of the electorate.
5 20 february1979, case 120/78, Rewe-Zentral-AG ./. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ - 20 -
17. This concerns most notably the set-up for fiscal policy. Budgetary policy is not only a question of allocating money to certain programmes and redistributing money within a society. This is what the member states continue to do in their national contexts and according to their preference. But in any Western democracy, fiscal policy also has the function to stabilise the economy over the business cycle. The European Monetary Union is built in a way that this macro-economic stabilisation also has to be done by the member states. Yet, they fail to do this efficiently under the current conditions. The result are suboptimal macroeconomic conditions which can harm productivity and labour market performance.
18. The European Monetary Union, as any other currency union in the world, hence needs an automatic fiscal stabilisation mechanism on the EU level. This would insure the public good in the EMU: a stabilisation of growth and employment across the business cycle and across the member countries. One first measure is to generate income to the European budget through a European tax which is highly sensitive to cyclical stabilisation. The best choice is a European corporate tax which should constitute a kind a basic European tax, to which member states can add the national taxes along their preferences, without increasing the overall tax burden in the EU. A second measure is the creation of a European Unemployment Scheme.
A European Unemployment Scheme – a quantum leap for the citizens
19. This European unemployment scheme would provide a six-months unemployment insurance for all citizens who have worked anywhere in the EU for at least twelve months, no matter where they worked or where they move to within the EU’s borders. The benefit level should amount to 50% of the last income and should be capped at 50% of the average income of the country where the job was held.
20. The European Unemployment Scheme would replace part of the national unemployment schemes, without increasing the overall burden of social contributions for employees and exployers. Its introduction would not influence the national choice of social systems. What is added to this European basic insurance on the national level remains the choice for each country according to its preferences and traditions.
21. The benefit for the citizens is first of all a minimum of social security irrespective of their location and the degree of mobility they opt for within the EU’s borders. The European Unemplyoment Scheme is moreover a modern way to organise cross-border solidarity – not between member states, but between citizens, who all pay into and benefit from the same unemployment scheme.
22. Economically, the European Unemployment Scheme would play a particularly important role in the European Monetary Union, which is totally underequipped with reasonable fiscal stabilisation mechanisms at the European level – which it yet urgently needs. A European Unemployment Scheme would play an important macro-economic stabilisation role. It would take money out of the economy where it booms, and transfer it to regions where a fiscal impulse is needed. All this would not happen through lengthy horse-trading negotiations between governments, but through a transparently defined scheme, in which the citizens are the stakeholders. The European Unemployment Scheme would contribute to macro-economic stability and hence growth and employment, by stabilising business cycles across the regions, which tend to drift apart under the current conditions in the EMU.
Small and medium-sized companies
23. Democratisation of the EU is particularly relevant for one category of economical entities: the small and medium-sized companies. They are by far the largest number of companies in the EU. They are by far the first employer in the EU. They are by far the biggest tax payer in the EU. They are of particular importance for a sane economic tissue of the EU. Small and medium-sized companies also constitute an important part of regional and local traditions and cultural habits, for instance local food producers, crafts work etc. who should remain able to provide consumers with their particular offers. Their survival should be ensured as it is part of Europe’s cultural heritage and ensures Europe’s internal diversity. - 21 -
24. But the influence of SMEs on EU business-related policies is almost non-existent. In many ways, regarding EU decision making processes, SMEs are like citizens ... they do not have a voice on most of it, though much is done in their names by organisations or lobbies who represent mostly the big multinational companies. For Newropeans, democratizing the EU business-related policies to allow a more direct input and control by SME’s throughout the EU is a priority.
6.) Proposal on the European agricultural policy
Orientation along 6 principles: sufficient production, food quality, environmental protection, rural culture, international consequences, farmers’ standard of living
The European agricultural policy is not only relevant fort he economic stability of farmers in 27 states, it is also of primary importance regarding the part of the EU budget it requires. Latest developments such as the drastic rise in food prices on world markets and resulting political instability shows the social and political importance of this policy. According to Newropeans, agricultural policy has to follow these six principles:
I. Ensuring food security for the 500 millions European citizens
Of course, Agricultural policy has to ensure that there is enough food to feed all Europeans. This could be done by importations, but this would result in the EU depending in every aspect on other world regions, namely North and South America.
II. Ensuring food safety for the 500 millions European citizens
In the light of hormone, BSE and bird flu-scandals, it is of primary importance to control food safety and to avoid any danger to consumers – this is a common European problem, as scandals often rapidly spread across borders.
III. Allowing the best environmental protection possible in Europe and on a global scale
Agriculture has a huge influence on the environment. The damages resulting from agricultural activities have to be reduced to a minimum by the use of production methods adapted to the local environment.
IV. Allowing the best environmental and rural culture preservation possible.
By having ever bigger and more efficient industrial farmers, small villages lose their traditional source of income. This changes village societies. Keeping small farms alive is therefore a goal of agricultural policy.
V. Ensuring the compatibility of European agriculture’s development with global requirements of food security and safety of other regions of the world
European agricultural production should neither be so weak, that world market prices reach levels that are unaffordable for inhabitants of poor countries, nor should exports be so strong that national agriculture is destroyed. A balance between European and global interests has to be found.
VI. Ensuring a minimum living standard for farmers.
This is the current top priority of CAP and cannot be completely neglected for social reasons.
These goals cannot be perfectly achieved all at once. The EU has to try therefore to find solutions that combine them as much as possible. Therefore, consumption habits cannot be completely neglected. The consumption of large amounts of meat or exotic fruit endanger the achievement of these goals, of - 22 - which citizens have to be informed. Agricultural policies have always to be checked to see if they pursue the goals mentioned above or damage them.
In this evaluation process, the results of the questionnaire sent to participants in agricultural policy programs (see proposal to improve the efficiency of EU Programs and democratize the EU policymaking process, page 9 of this document) have to be taken into account.
The statement of an European agricultural council, consisting of farmers of the different production methods and other experts, has to be sought.
The final decision regarding the priorities in agricultural policy and the balancing between the six objectives is to be taken by European Parliament. - 23 -
7.) Programme for Environment, Energy, Agriculture and Climate
We have the courage to propose policies which would have a major impact on the lives of Europeans and change our habits and ways in certain areas substantially. We do this, of course, in the firm belief that these changes are necessary and will on the long run improve our living quality in Europe.
But, in our honest opinion, it is not the role of a political movement in a democratic system to which we want to form the European Union to impose its view solely based on the fact that it has been elected and that all its program is in consequence legitimised by a democratic election.
Just as for the other parts of our political program, we will demand that our proposals be debated in the European Parliament and voted upon, in order to present our policies goals to the broadest audience of Europeans possible, to give the public the chance to intervene, and to establish a direct link between implemented policies and politicians responsible for these choices. If public demand should exist, the basic principles would be presented to a Europeanwide referendum:
Our future policies must be based on the principle of sustainability. Each generation should, in the long term, only utilise as much natural resources as can be regenerated in the time-span of that generation. An environmentally sustainable policy does not have “growth” as all-over-riding goal. A conscientious policy is one of "better", not "more".
A political program that seeks to protect the environment can not recognise the right to pollute and even less the trade in such rights. The principle of the culprit must gain currency: Environment polluters are responsible for all measures necessary to repair any damage they have caused and, where appropriate, should not be immune from legal proceedings.
Our need for energy will have to be satisfied gradually out of the one renewable source there is, the sun, and its different components (solar energy for electricity and heat, wind energy, water energy, Biomass, Wood). Biodiesel or Ethanol is not a long term solution because it’s cultivation directly affects food production and would have a detrimental effect on an already serious problem – World hunger. The cultivation of Ethanol and Biodiesel in huge agro-industrial conglomerates would also have a significant negative effect on soil quality. Energy efficiency of all energy consuming items (houses, manufacturing, transport etc.) will have to be substantially improved. Nuclear energy will only have a future if the technology of transmutation and of nuclear fusion can be mastered, in order to not squander remaining stocks in uranium and to not generate long-lasting radioactive waste.
European agriculture has to provide sufficient and safe food for all Europeans. Agricultural produce should be grown as close as possible to consumer in order to avoid energy intensive transports. Food exports into developing countries must not endanger survival of local agriculture. Food imports must not endanger European capacity of food autonomy
It is not of the competence of the European Union to determine whether food should be grown on small, family-size farms or on huge agro-industrial enterprises. Subsidies must not privilege the ones over the others. But European agriculture has to respect and promote certain principles and aspects of food production, i.e.:
1. Agriculture has to produce safe and healthy food, respecting soil and water quality, animal rights and bio-diversity 2. The cultivation of gene-manipulated plants / crops must be suspended until there is sufficient proof that their cultivation does not endanger the health of human beings, ruin the soil and endanger bio- and crop- diversity.
If these policies are successfully implemented, they will add up to policy mix that renders a particular climate policy superfluous – at least Europeans will live a life style the Earth climate will be able to accommodate with. In the framework of European international policies, as stated in our program concerning that issue, the EU will foster the respect of these principles and policies also in the other world regions. - 24 -
IV.) Europeans influencing the world
8.) Programme on the International Policy of the European Union (EU)
I. Together with the Newropeans the citizens of Europe are defining the role of the EU internationally for the next two decades: After 6 months of brisk discussion the Newropeans members have put together and accepted the following text which defines the main features of the international policy. This text will be presented to the electorate at the next European election in June 2009. The text’s orientation is the basis for all decisions and voting of Newropean candidates for the European parliament (EP). With this programme the Newropeans are the first political strength of the EU, which has democratically defined a concrete vision for the future European international policy and will present this vision to all 27 member states. Of course this future vision, just like the Newropeans project itself, should be understood in the context of the next 20 years. As in a world which is constantly changing it is an illusion to think that any developments and resulting decisions made will suffice for future generations. We have come to the conclusion that a growing amount of Europeans would like to see a clear defined role of the EU within the global community. In spite of this the leading politicians of the EU as well as the national political parties are incapable of offering clear answers. The Newropeans, on the other hand, have capably shown that the only possible way forward to define the future role of the EU is through European wide democratic discussion.
II. The five main features of European international policy: 1. The international policy of the EU – a completely new approach: To become internationally the most influential player without wanting to become the most powerful. The success of the European integration project, which began after the second world war is due to, first and foremost, a historical and future orientated decision of the „founding fathers“. They decided to limit the vigour of the progression of the Europeans who carried out two suicidal wars within a short period of time and to create a new European order based on dialog, compromise and rights and the shared responsibility for wealth and problems. It is the limitation of the power, especially that of the large member states, which allowed the European project to develop itself. Newropeans think that a comparable approach, with which the European experience can share with the rest of the world, can be used to carry out the international policy of the EU in the coming decades. The way forward “is to become the most influential player worldwide without claiming to be themost powerful“. We have to limit our power internationally to legitimating our influence where necessary and to motivate our partners to follow the same path as ourselves.. This approach is neither political utopia (in any case no more so than 50 years ago creating a common market) or purely theoretical. Everybody knows the dangers and consequences of the misuse of power in the ever more complicated world of the 21 century. This global, networked, densely populated world with its realistic and growing dangers (climate, health….) can not be governed in the same way as the world was governed in the last century without future generations having to pay the terrible price for this. On the contrary, the Newropeans think we need the courage to create a whole new approach to be able to support international relationships to create a new world politics and to ask the Europeans if they want to realize this approach: In the whole of world history the only power which lasted was the power which exemplified.. This is also the case in international relationships and can be seen in the European integration project and other continents which have followed suite. Newropeans calls this kind of politics “international policy” and not „foreign policy“ because the ideas of „foreign policies“ are in the world of the 21 century antiquated. It gives the European citizens and politicians the false impression that we can take care of the problems of the rest of the world without relating them to what is going on within the EU. The EU is a political entity with 500 million citizens, which consists of peoples with more than 25 different languages and who belong to different cultural and religious groups worldwide. The EU is the central economic and trading place of the earth. In this respect any issues cannot be understood as „external“. This however results in the necessity to get involved on an international level either working directly together with different regions and states or indirectly via multilateral institutions or projects. 2. Joint European values toward serving a better world: Because the EU is anchored within the world it is normal for the citizens to wish for politics which go toward creating a better world. It - 25 - is necessary to promote European values and aims which are at the centre of the European integration project and promoted by the Newropean: Peace, Freedom, Solidarity, shared prosperity, sustainable development, international constitutional state, human rights, democratising of the institutions.. 3. International politics of the EU under democratic control: Newropeans believes that the international politics of the EU can only be effective and legitimate when they are based on the pillars of democratic processes, this means: - Transparent decision making in regard to the stipulations of international politics of the European Union, including international trading politics, and especially the EU positions regarding the decision making bodies of the large multi-lateral institutions (UNO, WTO, International Monetary Funds, World bank,…); - An annual debate in the EP regarding practices of European Foreign Policy of the coming years and subsequent ballot with qualified majority. These practices would be initially submitted to the EP by the present highest authority for joint foreign and defence politics at a later stage by the minister of international affairs in the European Parliament; - Voting of the EP on every Mission of European troops. This measure can only be adapted once a joint defence policy has been agreed upon, which defines the military structures of European politics. Newropeans will open the debate on this in the II quarter of 2007. In the meantime Newropeans recommends a voting of the European council with a simple majority concerning military missions within a multilateral framework (EU or NATO); - A trans-European referendum with a double majority (majority of European citizens and majority of the member states) to decide upon any future EU enlargement. This process shall ensure that the European citizens can directly and indirectly influence the complete practices of European international politics - and not short sighted national interest groups, private lobbies or external European influences, which all stand in contradiction to the aims of democratising the central points of the political project of the Newropeans. 4. Efficient enforcement of common European interests: In most domains (law, trade, development, currency, safety, defence) the EU has become an institution that represents the common interests of all its members. It is in the interest of all the 500 million citizens within the EU to make sure that the international political aims be clearly defined and simultaneously implemented so that they can profit from the EU's diplomatic weight. This kind of control by EU citizens is possible mainly through annual votes and debates on the EU's international politics and through the European elections, where the candidating parties present options concerning Europe's global role. The advancement of common European interests requires each member-state to adhere to common targets in the key domains (law, trade, development, currency, safety, defence). Irrespective of the procedures within the EUinstitutions, the national and European elections are the best means for European citizens to ensure that politicians do not favour short term national interests or submit to external- European interests. 5. An International policy which respects vital national interests: It must be in Europe's common interest to respect and integrate the vital interests of its member states. This is essential for the balance between uniformity and diversity as without this balance the process of European integration would not be possible. The present lack of long-term international visions is one reason why many European citizens are afraid that their vital national interests will be ignored in an EU incapable of replacing these by common aims. Newropeans is convinced that, firstly, confidence has to be restored in the EU's ability to promote common interests. At the same time the protection of vital national interests of all member states must be secured before a truly common international policy (based on qualified Majority voting) can be implemented. Within the domain of International Policy it is the EU's task in the coming decade (2009 -2019) to analyze precisely what the vital interests of each member state are and to grant them veto rights in decisions on International EU Policies. In accordance with the guidelines of International Policy, Newropeans propose the transition from veto rights to qualified majority voting from 2019 onwards (or indeed earlier, if the citizens' confidence has grown.) The interests of all Europeans in the realm of international relations are increasingly converging, thus reducing the likelihood of dissent. Consequently, in order to prevent a decision-making blockage ( particularly if a government decides to play the national card to win popularity)-which would be damaging for all Europeans- each state has to lay down a maximum of two vital national interests for the period from now until 2019. These national interests have to be confirmed by a parliamentary vote in order to be accepted by the EU. Decisions in the domain of International Policy, other than those vital national interests laid down in advance, will be decided by a double simple majority (majority of European - 26 -
Parliament and majority of member-states). By implementing this procedure, which systematically renders citizen control over basic decisions in EU International Policy, including those decisions made on a national basis, Newropeans strive to promote the democratisation of the EU.
III. EU's International Policy Goals: 1. Protect common vital interests: developing of strategical partnerships- USA/Russia/Turkey/Japan, China/India In the coming decades some states (USA/Russia/Turkey/Japan/China/India) will have considerable influence on factors directly concerning the EU. It is in the EU's interest to develop “Strategical partnerships” with these states, rather than have its individual member states develop special relations by numerous bilateral agreements. Strategic Partnerships will mean a new direction in European Policy, combining the co-operation in many sectors and covering many questions.: security, human resources, energy, technology and development, and trade. Other areas (culture, national law) would remain the pursuit of the member states. In the case of the USA and Turkey these strategic partnerships may require a fundamentally new definition of the relations that have evolved over several decades. The EU for example has to work towards a new definition of NATO as an organization of cooperation between North America and the EU that rests (in all its structures) on two pillars: a Northern American and European. Because this would mean a sole European representation, direct participation of individual EU member-states in Nato's decision-making would thus be unnecessary. If we take the analogy of an airplane, the strategic partnerships of the EU require a cockpit, a hull, engines and wings. 1. Cockpit: a political leadership which involves the executive, the EP and the government of the partner state; 2. Hull: an infrastructure composed of public and institutional representatives particularly the Foreign Ministries of the member-states and the EU; 1. Engine: a (specific) drive resulting from economic, financial, military and scientific exchange; 2. The wings: medium - and long term exchange programmes between universities and cooperation between NGOs and communities as aerofoils. This component must be able to survive possible political turbulence. Turkey: To end the political and democratic stalemate of Turkey's bid for membership an alternative form of cooperation is needed immediately, recognizing Turkey's importance to the EU. The EU has to develop a strategical partnership with Turkey, based on the model that is being developed with the USA, China, Japan and India. This would send a clear signal to Turkey. The development of these Strategic Partnerships must become one of the central points of the annual debate and votes in the EP concerning EU's International Policy. For the other states in question the process has to be instigated asap, possibly following the model of special relations, which is evolving with Russia.
Strategic partnerships are a central part of EU international policy as we see it. They allow defining the way EU interacts and cooperates with the other important nations (or supranational entities still to come). As many crucial problems cannot be solved any more on a European (even less on a national) level, this kind of international cooperation is inevitable. Still, for reasons of democratic control and transparency, but also to show our partners what they can expect from a partnership, these relations have to be defined further, not excluding of course the possibility to adapt those partnerships to each of our partners.
To define strategic partnerships, we can follow a triple approach: a. set procedures of cooperation with our partners, that is determine “how to cooperate” b. fix a list of domains not to cooperate in, “what to do alone” c. and/or fix a list of domains we could cooperate in, “where to cooperate” - 27 - a. Principles and procedures of cooperation
So far, it has been decided that the executives of EU and its Partner as well as the EP will play the decisive role. While negotiations would be lead by the EU executive, all important steps would have to be under EP control, be it beforehand or afterwards. This would of course require close cooperation between EP representatives and EU executive during and before negotiations, to avoid problems arising after a common decision with our partner has been taken. EU decision-making in WTO could be taken as a model. Of course, most of our partners (all except for China) being democracies, we do by no means intend to exclude their parliament, but how they integrate it into the decision-making process cannot be decided upon by EU.
It will be necessary to create European Embassies for our stronger strategic partnerships (probably inside the European houses recommended in IV.1) to maintain regular contact between EU- Institutions and the partner.
It is important to note that cooperation should not be limited on this institutional level. To the contrary, it should be tried to reach a high level of partnership between NGO’s, Universities and Communities inside EU with the respective partners. This would help to stabilize and strengthen the partnership.
An important question is whether to give the partner a right of co-decision regarding these questions, which would, to avoid conflicting decisions from different partnerships, only work if strategic partners were to be integrated in internal EU decision mechanism. This should only be the case if decisions are to be taken by a majority (to avoid a partner stopping internal EU decision-making processes) Some examples on how this might work: a) Another kind of double majority might be introduced: a decision would have to be adopted by the majority of EU member states and by the majority of states represented in the decision making organ, that means including strategic partners. b) Alternatively, Partners might get the same voting powers as member states for questions where close cooperation has been agreed upon, but only if this is reciprocally the case in this member states internal decision-making process as well. c) Easiest solution would be to just give partners a visitor status in parliament, EP committees and executive decision-making organs when such questions are to be decided. This would also avoid a limitation of EP and EU-member states power, such a limitation being problematic from a democratic point of view.
A gradual progress from visitor status via integration up to full voting rights of very closely related partners with mutual trust is possible. For the moment, only the third, least intensive, integration in the form of visitor status seems possible, regarding all partners. It will therefore be up to the negotiators and EP who controls them to avoid contradicting decisions in different partnerships.
An important principle of strategic partnerships is that bilateral negotiations between EU member states and our partner are reduced to a minimum, being replaced by cooperation on a European level whenever EU has internal competence on this matter.
2. Areas kept to classic international negotiation (“sanctuaries”) Which areas should be kept outside of close partnerships, meaning that first there will be a decision on a common EU position, then we represent this position in eventual outside negotiations with our partner? These areas include: modifying EU treaties European Election mechanism European citizenship Creation of a common European defence Social protection (common minimum standards apart) Culture (remains on national level/in bilateral cooperation) National law (remains on national level/in bilateral cooperation) European monetary policy - 28 -
European international policy regarding other nations than our partner
3. Areas of close cooperation Where could and should we cooperate already in the decision-making process, which means negotiating without deciding upon a fixed EU position beforehand? This would give our partner the possibility to influence (or participate in, look above) internal EU decisions. This includes a broad array of areas, such as: security (Exchange of information, military and police cooperation, joint operations, common border controls,…)
energy (Pipelines, common research programs, market stabilization…) environment (common protection standards - sea trade -, reciprocal and common industry regulation,…) human resources (education and exchange programs, common labour protection standards,…) technology and development (common projects – space-station –, exchange program) trade (common product standards, free trade zones, reciprocal subvention restrictions) Visa requirements and entry limitations.
2. Ensuring that EU's immediate neighbours participate in its wealth: implementing a policy of privileged neighbourhood (Belarus-Ukraine-Caucasus-Middle East_Northern Africa) The EU can demonstrate its capability of developing a novel international policy-(exerting influence without the use of force) -in relation to its direct neighbours, beyond the strategic partners Russia and Turkey. The EU needs to create equal relationships between states of extremely different sizes and power. In relation to its direct neighbours the EU can prove that it is indeed pursuing a new policy; one not directed towards annexation or control, but willing to share its wealth, democracy and peace. And it is this policy that will enable the EU to break the vicious circle of endless expansion. The EU as a political entity cannot claim to embody European Identity. In order to establish this kind of relationship with its neighbours, it has to be based upon the Council of Europe, which is the only institution embodying European identity and values. This neighbourhood policy cannot succeed before the EU has established positive collaboration in economy, trade, social and strategic matters with its neighbours. Simultaneously the EU has to strengthen the Council of Europe by granting it substantial financial means so that it can open itself to all neighbour states and to promote its activities in the field of education, law, and politics. First and foremost, it is namely with the help of the Council of Europe, an open area of cooperation, that the protection of human rights and democracy will spread efficiently around the EU. At the same time the EU has to actively link these countries with the common market and the Euro, of which they are becoming ever more dependent on. This process however has to be combined with the process of leading these other countries closer to the European Council and its democratic and legal standards. 3. Organising the foundations for a global sustainable government for the 21st century: developing structured partnerships (Africa-AU, Latin America-Mercosur, Asia-Asean) Beyond its closest neighbourhood, the EU must contribute actively to the success of the attempts of regional integration which are developing on many continents like Africa (African Union), Latin America (Mercosur) and Asia (Asean). The European Union is the oldest and most advanced integration as yet. Therefore, the EU has a moral duty to offer technical and political assistance towards the efforts of integration of other regions of the world in order to allow them to overcome the national divides and to gain a larger internal prosperity and a wider external influence. It is of direct political interest for the EU as well to witness the development of other entities sharing the same double constraint of unity and diversity. Within this lies the greatest global challenge of the 21st century. Finally, the European Union has to contribute to the struggle against the fragmentation of the basis of the United Nations system and establish a new legitimacy of the international action, by facilitating the rising of a new base composed of wide regions and integrated continents. This regionalisation process characterises the 21st century. The integration of the Arab World in this process constitutes a major challenge. The EU must be ready to contribute actively to face this challenge since it is today the only one able to bring moral, political and technical - 29 - support to the dream of Arab unity. This dream of Arab unity was interrupted in the fifties at the very moment when the Europeans engaged in their own common adventure. The dream of Arab unity is yet the only one able to oppose efficiently the dream of Muslim unity which is claimed by the extremists of the region of the world. This question, Arab unity or Muslim unity, will be one of the core questions of the next decade of international relations; and it has a direct impact in the EU itself. The Europeans must therefore make it a priority and offer the Arabs help to revive the common Arab dream, concentrating on the logic of democracy and peace. It is a long-drawn-out task, but not more ambitious than that of the Americans accomplished after 1945 in order to try and solve, once and for all, the issue of the intra-European wars which poisoned the first half of the 20th century. By acknowledging the complexity of a task and its difficulty, and by accepting to face the challenge, a political project gives an insight of its value, and get stronger. It is a matter of ambition commensurate with the common political project and its 500 millions citizens.
4. Reorganising the international institutions (UN, WTO, …)/ Reinforcing the efficiency of the multilateral fight against the trans-national threats: improving the trans-national decision making and action modes (fight against organised crime, poverty, epidemics, pollution, …) The global government of the 21st century must at any cost avoid returning to the “international law of the jungle”. The Europeans must contribute in a decisive way to found the international law on a global society able to have it enforced. The European Union must contribute to reorganise the United Nations system whose base is increasingly fragmenting with 4 times more member States in 50 years. The EU itself must aim to speak with a single voice, and set an example of the regionalisation of the fundamental UN actors. Only by progressively bringing closer the size of the political actors on the basis of the UN functioning, will the global system be able to aim towards a more democratic functioning. The EU member States are getting increasingly conscious of the lack of efficiency of the international institutions at the hands of the great planetary challenges. The EU must therefore contribute to improve the transparency, the quality and the legitimacy of the decisions made in the multilateral frame, while reinforcing the efficiency of the enforced policies. Newropeans thinks that one of the first steps is to condense the approx. thirty agencies of the Bretton Woods system (UN, IMF, World Bank, UNICEF, UNDP, WTO, FAO, etc…) into about ten organisations. This small number of international organisations should be placed under direct control of an Operational Council, composed of about twenty members (permanent members of the enlarged Security Council for instance). Besides, the EU should gradually substitute its national presence in the international financial and economic organisms by a representation of the Eurogroup which will by 2014 contain almost all the EU member States. Concerning The Security Council, Newropeans recommends a development in two phases mirroring the complex process of the fusion of common and national interests within the EU: from 2009 to 2019, the two member States which currently possess a permanent seat at the UN Security Council must join together to allow a third one enter it: Germany. Likewise, each continent should be represented by two to four permanent members (according to its population). At the same time, within the EU, the implementation of the common international policy leads naturally to the decisions of the permanent European members of the Security Council which should be discussed beforehand within the common European entreaties (Europeans Executive and Parliament). The objective is to define, when possible, a common position which every European member (permanent or not) will be able to stand for. From 2019, the European Government, recommended by Newropeans, and the European Parliament should delineate the positions of the European members (permanent or not) at the Security Council, would the Europeans have only one permanent seat at the UN or three. The EU must also clearly state that the fight against terrorism is not a global priority. The fight against terrorism is not only inefficient in the absence of dealing with the causes, among them poverty, but it is also counter-productive because it reinforces distrust, fear and hatred on the whole planet. The growing human and financial resources which are allocated to it would be of better use in fighting against organised crime, poverty, epidemics, pollution, landmines, etc… Newropeans will develop a series of concrete proposals by the end of 2008 on these various policies
IV. Instruments for an EU international policy: 1. Putting together diplomatic resources: For Newropeans, it is obvious that putting together part of our member states’ diplomatic - 30 - resources is a necessity. - On the one hand, even the richest of our countries no longer have sufficient financial resources to finance their entire diplomatic system; an economy of scales is required; - On the other hand, the implementation of a common EU international policy requests the set up of common tools and human resources. For Newropeans, it is time to restrict intra-EU diplomatic services to institutions with cultural, scientific or consular missions solely. The era of having embassies throughout member states is over and Newropeans will strive to further this trend in the years to come. In the same way, it is important to take a large part of EU policies away from member states’ foreign ministries toward ad hoc administrations placed under the direct responsibility of heads of government. Such a move will enable diplomats to concentrate more on the international policies of the EU as much as of their country, instead of dealing with EU affairs as much as with international affairs. Thus, the suppression of the 26 intra-EU embassies of each of the 27 member states (702 in total), will unblock significant human and financial means in order to run a proactive and ambitious common diplomacy. Newropeans suggests that half of the money saved here is used to finance the common EU diplomatic body and its instruments. According to Newropeans, these key instruments are the following: - creation of a fixed-term status of European diplomat (10 years maximum), requiring the command of at least three EU languages plus one non-EU language. The limited duration of the position will result in more staff rotation and greater exchange among national diplomats and sectors of activity. - creation of a strong training network of diplomacy schools, enabling future diplomats to train in three different EU countries and two non-EU countries. - EU support to the development of « European houses » gathering embassies or consular services in third countries. Such « European houses » could gather only part of EU member states along regional or linguistic affinities (Scandinavia, Latin, Slavish…) or along more political affinities. This in fact is already happening in some third countries with Scandinavian, Franco-German or Franco-British regroupings. 2. Strengthening the role of non-institutional European networks: For Newropeans, the players who best illustrate the EU’s ambition « to become the most influential while refusing to become the most powerful global player » are those noninstitutional European networks, made up of associations, universities, local authorities, research centres, medias, etc. Non-institutional European networks have already knitted a very dense web all over the planet thanks to their multiform action. They are the natural and spontaneous vehicles of the EU’s general international political message. Their strength is tangible and based on exemplification, because they gather people living with those whom we want to build lasting international relations with. However, Newropeans is aware that the activity and utility of these non-institutional networks depend on the reality of their being non-institutional and of their remaining a reflection of the European society’s diversity. Therefore they should not become “auxiliaries” of the diplomacy or the institutions. For this reason, Newropeans proposes three very tangible key-measures aimed at supporting and developing the momentum provided by these non-institutional networks, while positively balancing the relation between financial backers and non-institutional players: - to increase EU and national budgets available for these actions. Part of the money saved from the suppression of intra-EU embassies could be used to that purpose. - to consult via Internet on a yearly basis all non-institutional partners funded through EU international programmes, in the framework of general evaluations of these programmes. The result of these yearly evaluations will be directly sent to both the common executive and the European Parliament, without any interference on the part of the institutions in charge of the programmes. - to develop within the European diplomatic body and the national diplomatic services, common teams in charge of assessing the quality of the action conducted by non-institutional players. 3. An independent common defence: Besides direct defence of the EU and the security of its citizens, the common EU defence should serve the action of the United Nation in favour of peace, stability and the implementation of international law. Newropeans’ position regarding the European defence policy will be discussed in a specific debate once the proposition on a common international policy has been adopted. - 31 -
9.) Proposal on European Defence
For Newropeans, the European defense aims at building up around a group of pionneer countries the bulk of the EU’s ability to defend itself (EuroDefense) as well as to provide humanitarian forces able to intervene around the globe to help countries affected by disasters. The European defense must become an independent process, democratically controlled, with strategic partnerships, such as NATO, being co-managed on an equal footing by the Europeans and their partners.
1. Regarding defence capabilities, the objective would be to include all EU members, but the process, to be called Eurodefense , could be started by a smaller group of countries within the EU institutional framework. A powerful structure for strategic analysis and anticipation (with the aim of advising EU decision-makers and citizens) and a regular process of political debate on these issues should be implemented, allowing the EU to have a democratic, informed and independent foreign and defence policy debate and a regularly updated security strategy. This would allow EU members to have a shared understanding of existing and evolving threats from state and non-state players.
2. There should be an annual parliamentary debate on the Strategic and Security Situation in the European Union and globally. The European Parliament and national Parliaments should be involved in this debate. Any development of a new or updated European Security Strategy should involve parliamentary debate.
3. The EU should develop independent, increased military capabilities (for defence and peacekeeping purposes), as well as the underlying necessary capacities for threat analysis, intelligence and strategy development. While the aim of these developments is to give Europe stronger security and defence capacities, their development may take place within NATO and in a cooperative relationship with the US, as long as it preserves European common interests as defined in European Common International Policy, and as long as it respects European democratic control of European armed forces.
4. Fifty percent of Europe’s armed forces should be devoted to civilian aid (humanitarian emergencies, police , etc.). The armed forces should be structured and equipped accordingly with, for example, hospital ships, medical supplies, sufficient resources to carry out fast response massive air transportation, etc.
5. There should be an integrated training programme for army officers. Two options should be made available: Option 1: A national training programme with an ‘Erasmus’ component of one year in an EU country other than the officer’s own and six months in another country. Option 2: A European-wide training programme involving missions to different EU countries. For both options: In addition to English, competence in which should be obligatory, all officers should learn one other EU language.
6. The EU should seek a strategic partnership with the US within a radically transformed NATO. NATO would be based on an equal partnership between the US and Europe. Member States would no longer be allowed to negotiate any part of European Common Defence Policy with the US on a bilateral basis.
7. The presence of US military staff based in the EU should be reviewed in a US-EU dialogue which will discuss their numbers and their cooperation with EU military forces in joint missions. In order to restore equilibrium in NATO, European bases should be opened in the US comparable to those US military bases located in the EU. These EU forces in the US will, for instance, be used to assist US operations against international drug trafficking in America and to support US relief agencies in the case of a major disaster. A similar system of joint action should be developed for US military forces based in Europe.
8. There should be additional strategic defence partnerships with China and Russia in order to ensure peace and stability in Asia. Cooperation with African states should be sought in order to pave the way for efficient future combined action in conflict zones on the continent.
9. French nuclear weapons should be put under the control of a European Integrated Nuclear Command (Commandement Intégré Nucléaire Européen, CINE). This body would be composed of the Member States who agree to take part. Its key terms would be defined by the French government in collaboration with interested partners, and its foundation could proceed along the same lines as the - 32 -
Euro creation , with only a core group of Member States. Eurodefense should commit itself to not using the first nuclear strike.
10.There should be an EU defence budget which will mainly be spent on EU joint military equipment purchases (notably from European defence industry poles). Fifty percent of this defence budget should come from the general EU budget, and the other 50% from national contributions.
10.) For an open EU, which proactively manages its migratory flows and effectively integrates its immigrants
Europeans have emigrated over the whole planet during the last few centuries. Europe has received external contributions from countless cultures and people during its history. Therefore, migratory processes are part of Europe’s common history. They do not constitute a historical exception but a natural phenomenon of interchanges and relations between human communities.
In the upcoming decades, it is key for the European Union to manage migratory flows while respecting its own fundamental values, by making sure that immigrants hosted on its territory could be fully integrated in each Member State. What is at stake is to ensure that immigrants’ children could become European citizens like native ones, having respect for the very same fundamental European values. It is also necessary to anticipate undesired flows through a proactive development policy which should be implemented together with the countries of origin.
In parallel to the implementation of these common objectives, the EU must define its implementation methods, in particular in the distribution of responsibilities and tasks between Community level and Member States. On that matter, Newropeans’ basic principle is: there are only 25 manners to become a European citizen, or more precisely, one can become a European citizen only by cultural integration in one of EU’s 25 Member States. There are no other possibilities which do not risk creating stateless communities on the Community territory. Therefore, the EU should make sure that each Member State ensures this integration and does not set up policies that would generate ghettos or zones of ‘non-integration’. This will only raise problems later as one can already see today. Nevertheless, we believe that it is up to each Member State to choose the appropriate methods for this integration without EU interference..
Likewise, the EU should leave to each Member State the control of its external borders in order to fight illegal immigration. However, in the event of major difficulties that the most concerned Member States would encounter, the Community solidarity should help these Member States to tackle such problems with the support of the other Member States. The EU’s external borders are the concern of all EU citizens.
All EU interventions at Community level in the field of immigration should be done, of course, under the strict democratic control of the European Parliament, as well as for the coordination of legal immigration policies as for the fight against illegal immigration. On this issue, the European Parliament should closely control any extension of Europol’s competences or any set up of a common border monitoring system.
I. Legal immigration
Any integration and immigration policy must aim at making immigrants from the second generation at the latest, true Europeans. Consequently, any legal immigration comes to its limit in numbers, with the integration capacity of the host society.. This capacity depends above all on immigrants’ will to be integrated (will to adopt the language of the host country, acceptance of the social, political and religious standards of the host country). Nevertheless, it is also the result of the integration policy applied by each Member State (teaching of the host country language, non discrimination, etc…).
As a European social security system do not exist to date and as this is not on the political agenda, the legal competence to set numbers and criteria for legal immigration remains under the sole authority of - 33 - the Member States. It is not up to the European institutions to lay down a policy which will impact nationals from the host country only. Nevertheless, the Community should support the European dimension of national integration policies, with due respect for the essential principle that European integration depends from national and regional integration. There is no European integration without preliminary national integration. Any immigrant takes a national identity that incorporates a European dimension.
II. Fight against illegal immigration
If the obligation of international protection for persecuted people does exist, similarly, there is also no fundamental immigration right among international conventions. This does not imply any moral judgement about people who try to come in Europe and to stay without a residence permit; in the large majority of cases, they are people who flee their home country’s misery.
Consequently, the only effective fight against illegal immigration consists in fighting misery in the countries of origin. Therefore, the receiving of immigrants by Europe’s richest countries does not constitute a realistic alternative to a policy that fights the causes of illegal immigration. Cases of happy illegal immigration are very rare. The first generation of illegal immigrants is often exposed to precariousness, poverty and exploitation by non-scrupulous employers.
Therefore, in order to fight illegal immigration effectively, Europe should carry out foreign, commercial and development policies which promote on-the-spot economic growth rather than seeking immediate benefits for the European economy at the economic and social expenses of countries from which illegal immigration originates.
Given its economic weight, it is essential for the EU to reinforce considerably the effectiveness of its co-operation and development policies with source countries, in order to anticipate the growth of unwanted migratory flows. The EU obviously has a much greater collective capacity of action in this field than any of its Member States. It is therefore also necessary to give the EU competencies for negotiating re-admission agreements with countries of origin. These agreements often comprise accompanying measures of economic co-operation or financial assistance.
For the repression of illegal immigration, the EU should provide a co-operation and coordination platform to national administrations. This co-ordination platform should be subject to close democratic control and be clear of any legal immunity application. Further in this direction, Newropeans will consider reforming Europol in order to reinforce its effectiveness and democratic legitimacy.
According to the same logic, the creation of a European police force for border controls should be avoided at present, given the EU’s weak institutional development and lack of democratic legitimacy. A police authority with strong regalian rights however needs close control by administrative and judicial authorities, supported by an irreproachable democratic legitimacy. Unfortunately these conditions are not met by the current institutional framework.
In addition, the EU should set up a system able to provide material and financial assistance, and manpower in the event of a massive immigration movement in one or more Member States.
11.) EU Neighbourhood Policy - "European Strategy for the Stabilization of Israel-Palestine" (2009-2024)
Strategy over a period of 20 years to support peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians.
The past years have shown that the United States won’t solve the Israelo-Palestinian conflict. It is obvious that a stable and peaceful middle east, as a region bordering the EU, is in the common European interest. For this reason, Newropeans proposes a strategy to en dopen conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, the European Strategy for the Stabilization (ESS) of Israel-Palestine. - 34 -
As the project of Newropeans itself, this process targets a period of 15 to 20 years. Especially regarding this conflict, it is unrealistic to expect large progress in little time. To break the vicious circle of violence, it is necessary to change the mentality of both sides, which requires at least a generation, while continuously and coherently influencing both sides. It is only like this, that Israelis and Palestinians can themselves be the driving force behind the process of peace, which is a necessity for enduring peace and stability.
Eleven principles of the European Strategy for the Stabilization
To determine objectives and limits of the strategy proposed by Newropeans, and therefore contribute to its success, it is necessary to transparently present its 11 principles.
1. Peace is no objective in itself, but the result of a process aiming at peaceful coexistence of all parts of population. 2. A process of coexistence can, other than a peace process, include many groups and therefore increase the critical mass of those abandoning violence. 3. The EU does not want to replace local inhabitants. It is only them who can uphold peace. To create peace between peoples, it is beforehand necessary for them to have internal peace. 4. The EU wants to support the creation of an educational, scientific, cultural, economical, technological and political environment permitting peaceful coexistence. 5. The EU wants to propose a realistic schedule to achieve peaceful coexistence within a generation (20 years). 6. At the heart of this strategy are the coming generations in Israel and Palestine, as it is them who will be architects of their nations future. 7. The EU will, while respecting sovereignty, support initiatives of civil society who are in accordance with the objectives of the ESS. 8. The EU has via several aid payments become the biggest supporter and most important trade partner of Israel and Palestine and wants to use this for the sake of ESS. Every destruction of goods financed by the EU will be charged to the responsible parties. 9. The peaceful stabilization of the relations between Israel and Palestine does not necessarily require direct agreement between both peoples, but learning how to coexist with other peoples, cultures, languages and religions. 10. The democratically organized peaceful relocation of parts of population has to be a possibility, if it allows to calm hot spots and to draw commonly accepted borders. 11. The regions bordering Israel and Palestine will be embedded in the process, to allow long-term stabilization of the whole region.
On these eleven pillars, the EU will create a coherent policy for stabilization of the Isrealo- Palestine relations.
As every long term strategy, it is necessary to focus on the final objectives, the main points, and the general way of proceeding. The rest are tactical considerations to be taken adapted to the particular situation
Seven important operational goals of the ESS Israel-Palestine
The following seven goals determine according to Newropeans the European strategy in the region for the next 20 years:
A. Erasmus + Israel-Palestine: Palestinian and Israeli universities are independently included into the Erasmus program via an ad hoc enlargement. The aim is to have at least 50.000 students of both countries study for at least a semester at EU universities, and at the same time, have at least 50.000 EU students study in Israel or Palestine.
B. Bilingual Education: The EU should support bilingual education, that means creation of classes in both Hebrew in Palestine and Arab in Israel. - 35 -
C. Jerusalem as capital of no state for 20 years: At least for a duration of 20 years, Jerusalem should be capital of neither one state, nor the other. The development of two distinct capitals, Tel Aviv and Ramallah, will be financially supported.
D. Territorial reorganization: Active support of territorial reorganization of both states, to allow the creation of homogenic and viable regions. EU will financially and technically support a territory exchange program aiming at a termination of the Gaza strips enclave situation and a return of Palestinian refugees on Palestinian territory. Participation in this relocation program will be supported by strong economical incentives.
E. Support of mobility: EU supports feasibility studies and realization of a fast train network linking Beirut via Amman and Tel Aviv with Cairo, as well as Baghdad and Damascus
F. Support of regional freedom of movement: Technical support in creating a zone of free circulation of goods and persons including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Egypt and Iraq.
G. Support of mobility between EU and Israel-Palestine: Along with progresses made in ESS, EU will step by step introduce special regulations allowing Israeli and Palestinian citizens to more easily travel in the EU.
To fulfill these goals, EU will choose a long-term strategy, while searching to cooperate with local partners. These partners can be public organizations or NGO, groups or individuals. The cooperation would nonetheless be limited on concrete projects. Different than former, failed initiatives, there will be no demands to those partners beforehand to pursue politically correct goals or to issue particular statements. EU wants to negotiate with responsible parties aware of their interests, without degrading them beforehand or forcing them into submission.
Outside of the region, EU cooperates with all parties sharing the goals of ESS.
On the other hand, EU systematically uses the legal means available to sanction those who try to stop ESS from succeeding.
As first political movement on a European level, Newropeans will start the ESS process upon entry into European Parliament.
.
D. Funding-Transparency-Ethics
Newropeans is an independant movement which receives NO local, national or european subsidy. Its functioning is secured by volunteers. Its budget originates from memberships and donations of its members and supporters.
The following financial, ethical and transparency rules have been developed and voted by the Agora of the Newropeans members. - 36 -
No public money for Newropeans 2009 Campaign
Besides funding granted by each state to all political parties for the preparation of the campaign, Newropeans will not accept any public money for his campaign for the June 2009 European elections, neither from European, national or regional institutions.
Transparency regarding private money donations to Newropeans
All funds received by Newropeans, at European ,national and regional levels, will be clearly identified. The donors identity and the amounts will be put online.
Financial contribution of Newropeans elected EuroMPs to Newropeans finances
When elected to the European Parliament, all Newropeans EuroMPs will give back 50% of their EuroMP salary to Newropeans. Each Newropeans candidate will have to accept this principle before being confirmed as a Newropeans candidate.
Anti-nepotism policy for Newropeans at the European Parliament
Newropeans will forbid the recruitment of any relatives of any of its elected members at the European Parliament, for any position within the Newropeans group staff, or for any staff position of any individual Newropeans EuroMP.