Apr 5, 2014 - Since 2012 the FEPS-âlead initiative âRenaissance for Europeâ has ... jobs and fairness that remain
A PROGRESSIVE RENAISSANCE FOR EUROPE BRUSSELS, 3-‐5 APRIL 2014
REPORT BY
Coordinated by Lorenza Antonucci & Jesper Kelstrup The FEPS Young Academics Network (FEPS YAN) is organised with the support of the Renner Institut. More information on the FEPS YAN can be found on http://www.facebook.com/FEPSYAN.
2
INTRODUCTION
With the aim to encourage citizen’s participation in the European election debates and to promote political discussion, FEPS together with its close partners and members organised the Renaissance Forum in Brussels from the 3rd to the 5th of April. The Forum featured interactive debates and 11 workshops where leading scholars, politicians and representatives of the civil society shared their views on a range of the themes, which remain at the heart of building a more progressive Europe. This report summarises the Renaissance Forum and the presentations and discussions at each of the research workshop. Since 2012 the FEPS-‐lead initiative “Renaissance for Europe” has attempted to re-‐ engage progressive leaders and citizens in a political discussion about the state of the European Union and the desired directions of integration1. The design of the project reflects an idea that the European populations are still attached to the promise of peace and prosperity that the EU has been a symbol of. However they do not see the mainstream right will uphold this historical pledge. The mission is two-‐folded: on one hand to politicise the question of the EU and show that an alternative scenario is possible; and on the other to decisively anchor this debate in the context of national politics. In earlier events in Paris, Turin and Leipzig focused on using the momentum of the electoral campaigns in three of the founding states of the EU, namely France, Italy and Germany to generate debates. In 2014 the Renaissance Forum took place in Brussels in lead up to the Elections to the European Parliament in May. Although growth is slowly recovering in Europe there is still a range of challenges for Europe to address not least the need to create more jobs. The Renaissance forum in Brussels sought to re-‐engage progressive leaders and citizens in a political discussion about the state of the Union and the desired directions of integration. On the Thursday, 3rd of April, some main principles of progressive thinking were discussed under the heading ’Renaissance Spotlight -‐ Open, equitable, sustainable’, both from European activists and Progressive Leaders. On the morning of Friday 4th of April, eleven different workshops considered different points of views about a specific issue including: Democracy, Social Rights, Alternative Economy, Gender Equality and the recent developments in Ukraine. On Friday afternoon of progressive mayors and city councillors addressed the state of European Local Democracy. Finally, in the evening of the 4th of April, 1
Please see: http://www.renaissance-‐europe.eu/en/publications
3
Progressive Leaders including Massimo D’Alema, Elio Di Rupo and Martin Schulz discussed how to build a Progressive Renaissance for Europe and to succeed at the upcoming EP elections. FEPS YAN acted both as Chairs and Rapporteurs in all the workshops of the event. We present below the main points and areas emerged from the different moments of the event.
3rd April RENAISSANCE SPOTLIGHT
The interactive debate ‘Renaissance Spotlight’ has been modelled over the reality TV show ’The Dragons' Den’ in which entrepreneurs pitch their business ideas in order to attract investment finance from a panel of venture capitalist. In this case seven European activists presented 2 minutes interventions to European leaders with the visions for a progressive Renaissance. The audience was presented with a video presentation of the previous events that have been held to re-‐launch Europe through debates with citizens. The video was followed by five policy proposals that were presented by young activists at the floor. The policy suggestions included: 1. More support and funding of culture from the EU. 2. A more humane approach to in-‐migration. 3. A European minimum standard for student support. 4. A European minimum salary system. 5. A guarantee of a minimum expenditure on education in member states. Progressive leaders were invited to react to those proposals. The progressive leaders included: • Mercedes Bresso, Vice-‐President of the PES group in the Committee of the Regions. • Massimo D'Alema, President of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) and former Prime-‐Minister of Italy. • Georges Dassis, President of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) Workers' Group. • Zita Gurmai, President of PES Women and Vice-‐President of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS). • Kaisa Penny, President of Young European Socialist (YES). • Hannes Swoboda, President of the S&D Group at the European Parliament.
4
Philip Cordery, French Member of the European Parliament and former Secretary General of PES. The interventions from the progressive leaders in reaction to the different proposals pointed out several areas of work for the progressives. Zita Gurmai emphasised the need for progressives to work towards equality and to close the gap in the wages between men and women. Gurmai said that this was an important theme in the Hungarian elections that were held on Sunday April 7th 2014. Hannes Swoboda spoke of the need to take progressive policies beyond the national level and to focus the campaign for the upcoming EP elections on growth, jobs and fairness that remain at the core of the progressive project. Mercedes Bresso emphasised the need to promote a green, innovative economy and to improve the green supply chain. Furthermore, Massimo D’Alema spoke of the need of not only changing policies but also, in relation to the possibility of the electorate to in-‐directly chose the candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission at the upcoming elections, to develop politics and the political culture at the EU-‐level. Georges Dassi pointed out the importance of developing concrete policy ideas such as a European basic income financed by revenues from financial transaction taxes. Philip Covdery underlined the need to go beyond for or against Europe and to instead develop ’the right’ Europe among other things by fostering mobility and by creating a new sense of hope for European citizens. Kaisa Perry was interested in how welfare systems can be renewed through concrete policy proposals and reforms. Massimo D’Alema closed the event by emphasising the need to think beyond the domestic European affairs and also develop the external dimension of the EU both in the case of refugees in Syria and the crisis in Ukraine. •
5
4th April WORKSHOPS TACKLING POPULISM: THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT AND PUBLIC DISAFFECTION
Chair: Danilo Raponi Rapporteur: Nicola Genga The general topic of the panel is the link between democratic disaffection and populism as a product of the former. That has already been the focus of FEPS YAN presentations and of the FEPS book “The changing faces of populism”. The aim of the session is the need to go further in examining the dynamics that leads to the perception of a malaise in public life, in order to identify the problems and seek solutions. Following to a solicitation coming from the audience, the populism has been initially defined according to the pattern “lower classes vs elites”, which actually deals only with the social connotation of the word people intended as the working class. In general, speakers point out the right or far right nature of the populism as an outcome of the democratic malaise. Indeed, the frame of a democracy under the pressure of far right movements has been adopted, talking about the allegedly recent problem of the mobilization against EU represented by such actors as Nigel Farage and Marine Le Pen. Some factors for right wing populist growth have been outlined as it follows: (1) the media boosted emphasis on the difference between common people and élites, described as corrupted and detached (2) an increasing xenophobia, visible in the frequents attacks against immigrants in different parts of Europe; (3) the social decline of working classes, that lost their positions in society and whose marginalization creates the ground for a mobilization. In some way, we can say that the first and the second factors are overestimated. And about the crisis, besides and beyond the sovereign debts point, the role of the speculation led by the world financial establishment in deepening the social crisis has to be framed with more attention. Another considerable point is related to the declining appeal of the classical EU narrative, which after the Second World War used to describe this rising continental polity as a peace area and, still in 2004, held the promise for the new member states of entering a cohesive union characterized by democracy and welfare states. Since the crisis and the increasing divergence between states, the latter promise is even less true than it used to be before 2008. Basically,
6
European societies seem to be nervous because in the face of uncertainties about economic recovery and Troika blackmailing the governments, the old narrative is no longer enough as far as EU doesn’t provide social security, wealth, secure jobs. And if citizens don’t feel protected by states and EU it is more likely they seek simple solutions for complex problems. That is seen as by the speakers as the key reason for populist mobilization. The problem of redistribution seems then to be a crucial factor. In the last decades neoliberals produced wealth which is nowadays concentrated in the upper classes. Finance and trade came first, since after 2008 banks did not used the money they received from the states to invest in production, but in the financial market. The balance between capital and labour has become more and more uneven, leading to inequalities, particularly felt in Greece before and after the Troika intervention. And the industrialization is leaving room to financial economics. To invert the tendency, it could be useful having more state and less and better regulated market, in order to achieve the goal of a more social justice as the prime field of intervention. This requires actually an active bottom-‐up process, since the concept of État providence ignores the fact that policies for state school, National Health Service and welfare in general are not a consequence of a divine providence, but rather the outcome of long clashes carried out by parties and trade unions during the decades. At the same time, a major political change in the top-‐down approach of EU and state governments is required to foster solidarity and manage issues as salary regulations. Such initiatives could contain the disaffection of the social sectors left behind that are considered as targets of the populist proposal. Reindustrializing and making the social question a key question is the core of this path. Another point of view emerged in the debate concerns the right, radical right and extreme right connotations of some of these populist movements. While facing the French case the idea of a resurgent fascism is mentioned without any further specification, the UK case has been developed in a deeper way. Trying to challenge all conventional wisdoms about radical right, Nigel Farage’s UKIP is considered both a product of euro-‐skepticism and the reaction against Tories same-‐sex marriage and environmental stances. But this alleged revolt on right involves not just former conservative voters, since there is overlapping with the Left electoral geography, similarly to what happened in France, Denmark and Austria. Even though 95% of UKIP voters are euro-‐skeptic, this is not simply a
7
single-‐issue movement. Farage’s party gathers ballots of over 50 working class men, left behind in British societies, without skills and abilities. They embody a revolt against professional middle class people with university education and identify mass immigration as the main challenger to their way of life, despite statistics, which say foreigners contribute in a considerable way to the national GDP. The UKIP managed to bring this topic to the center of the public debate and, even if its immediate electoral outcome won’t be successful, this movement represents by any means the most considerable novelty in decades of British politics. A last issue covered in the panel is the crisis of political parties, and the way it undermines the traditional working of representative democracies, and discourages its extension at a larger scale. Literature on democracy provides a good variety of meanings for the concept of democracy. If we assume it to be, simply and generally, the pursuit of a better world through the action of people, and at the same time we remember that historically no democracy has been realized without (strong) political parties, it is inevitable to say that this question is at the heart of the debate on the European Union’s future, where a true party system does not still exist, and institutions seem to be far from citizens and inaccessible to them. As remarked in the debate, many contributions on political party organizations underline a changing balance between, on the one hand, the so called Party in Central Office, which has grown in importance due to a generous system of public financing, professionalization and a renewed role for leadership; and, on the other hand, the so called Party on the ground, weaker due the erosion of party membership and a general weakening of the ties between parties and the wider society. In a context of electoral decline, with the “volatility of 40% between the electorates in party vote-‐shares in European elections compared to national elections”, observed by Hix and Marsh in the aftermath of 2004 EP elections, 2009 European elections confirmed the continuous decreasing trend in turnout rate, establishing a new negative record at 43%. To invert this tendency, some solutions to increase public participation by using technology and boosting e-‐democracy could be adopted. But, despite input technicalities, outputs in terms of government policies have to be considered. According to the debate, the difficulty to deliver and guarantee a working accountability could be tackled at a European level by a presidentialization of institutions, to paraphrase the “Poguntke and Webb” formula. At present, EP vote
8
is a national vote, not a party one. This shift might be obtained giving more power to the main party, fostering a strong bipolarization through a reinforcement of the Commission president as a party leader and a reinforcement of the party provided by more direct elections. From the audience, some remarks came about the tendency of the political élites to stay, at a national level with the long careers of some politicians, at a European level with the commitology system. The supposed threat to the freedom of thinking by the democracy controllers are pointed out, as well as the risk represented by an intellectual debate oriented as an academic entertainment. The problem of social democrats is focused on as a matter of broken promises in terms progress that actually left behind working class people not fulfilling their ambition for social mobility and not defending their lifestyle. Furthermore, using some instruments of direct democracy and social media technologies in general can reinforce the credibility of political élites. To conclude, the point of understanding and clarifying the notion of populism needs to be linked to the comprehension of the way the word people itself is used, or misused, to acquire working and middle class citizens to authoritarian and anti-‐élite political platform. Sometimes, some parts of the civil society and of the media and economic establishment drive this interested in tackling traditional party organizations and trade unions. So, the Peter Mair’s balance between populist democracy vs party democracy needs to be addressed in order to assess the present role played by those organization in giving effectiveness to democracy.
SOCIAL RIGHTS -‐ ENSURING SOCIAL PROGRESS Chair: Isil Erdnic Rapporteur: Jeroen Horemans The aim of the workshop has been exploring whether social economy has to be recognized as an alternative economic model based on the values of co-‐operation, which supports the creation of sustainable inclusive and quality jobs. Crucial will be to tackle the following questions: • How to ensure the access to high quality social services?
9
• •
How to promote the fundamental provisions of the welfare state in times of crisis? How to strengthen alternative inclusive growth models -‐such as the social economy -‐ that ensures access to economic, social and cultural rights for all?
Broadly speaking, the problems all speakers pointed out where changing contingencies in which national welfare states operate. All speakers raised several relevant points of how to act within this different context. Initially all speakers ended with a bullet point approach to answering the main questions of the workshop. However, more questions were raised than actually answered. Many other topics were raised like concerns with gender equality and the effect of the crisis on public employment, the role of migrant workers, problems with homeless people and disabled. All these topics gave a complete picture of challenges facing European citizens. Yet the workshop failed to go deeper into some of element because of the richness of topics. One of the elements discussed by several speakers and dominating the debate were the benefits and problems associated with multi-‐level governance of different aspects of the welfare state and the role of social partners have in a highly internationally competitive context. As regard the potential solutions, important questions that were raised were: “what is an acceptable minimum level at the European level? How to support basic level?”. Linked to these questions the debate moved to a fierce discussion on the European service sector. On the level of principle all speakers seemed to agree, yet the concrete the strategies on how to achieve them differed. On the one hand, the opinion existed that we have a common market and we should seek ways to improve it. On the other hand, someone proposed a strategy where we first aim for convergence in minimum standard before fully supporting the idea of a common market without proper social protection.
10
WHAT GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT STRATEGIES FOR EUROPE?
Chair: Laura Ballarin Rapporteur: Pim Paulusma This workshop focused on the independent Annual Growth Survey (iAGS). This report is published at the same time as the annual growth survey of the Commission and presents a dissenting view on the path of economic recovery in the EU. The first edition, published last year, didn’t share the enthusiasm of the EC at that time about economic recovery. This year’s report shows that the authors were right: it was too early to be happy about the small signs of recovery. The economic forecast in the iAGS is less optimistic than the EC forecast. It will take many years to get back to 2007 levels of GDP. It will probably take another 5-‐7 years. One of the major reasons for this slow recovery is the limited effectiveness and efficiency of the current economic governance in the EU. The reason for this is that the current economic governance has at least two fundamental issues, which limit the effectiveness. It underestimates the negative impact of austerity due to a wrong assumption about the fiscal multipliers. Secondly, the size of the spillover of weak demand is also underestimated. As a result, recovery takes longer. But what to do if the current approach doesn’t work? The report presents three solutions, which can be implemented right now. The first step is that we have to slow down austerity. Even within the current framework there is much more space for a gradual consolidation in the deficit countries and a fiscal expansion in the core countries. Secondly, the rising inequality in the EU needs to be addressed. The reason for this is that increasing inequality hinders strong growth because it compresses aggregate demand. It leads also to a more fragile economy after the crisis, which means that the next shock will hit even harder. In order to solve this, we need a EU minimum wage, which takes the differences in economic cycles into account based on the current account. Countries with a surplus should increase more than other countries. The third step is that we need a serious reconsideration of public investment. It has decreased significantly in order to reach the deficit targets, which has resulted in very low investment rates. To solve this, we can use an old proposal form Gordon Brown: take investments out of the
11
deficit rules, like a golden standard. Freeriding can be prevented if this is done in cooperation with the EC. There are also structural problems, which need to be addressed in the different EU economies, but the question, which has to be asked more often, is when and how? Structural reforms have short-‐term costs. Short-‐term costs create a burden on aggregate demand, which decreases the effect of structural reforms on the long run. While debating structural reforms, we should be very clear about what we mean. “Reforms” sound good, but it is ambiguous. At his moment it refers too often to a rehash of the Washington consensus. During the debate on the iAGS, several topics were covered. One of the major points of debate was why the current economic governance isn’t working and why alternatives are difficult to implement. A major reason for this is based on framing: how the crisis is framed determines which problems need to be addressed. The crisis has mainly been defined as a debt crisis. With interest rates going down, leaders are now saying that the crisis is over. In terms of sovereign debt, this might be the case, but the social and human tragedy, especially in the south is still not improving. And the perspective for these countries is getting better because as a result of the fiscal compact, austerity has been institutionalized at the EU level. The recipes for Spain show the failure of the discourse. It prescribes continued fiscal consolidation and “internal devaluation” to readjust the economy. It is a euphemism, it means cutting wages. It is a blunt instrument to restructure the labour markets, mainly by reducing the power of trade unions. Despite the clear failure of the current recipe, the white flag for other options has been raised. Public sector stimulus is out of the question. Private sector debts are also problematic, in Spain close to 300% of GDP. Joint deleveraging leads to a shrinking economy. So if the private sector is not a motor of growth and the public sector can’t invest, the only option is export. The EC recipe prescribes that in that case decreasing unit labour cost is the best strategy. But lower wages do not necessarily lead more export. Even if it would lead to more exports, it is not a sustainable strategy because of the fallacy of composition. It generalizes a case, which can only be generalized if we start trading with Mars. As a result, the best enemy of the fiscal compact is the fiscal compact itself, because it has unattainable goals.
12
This idea of export lead growth based on competitiveness through low wages is based on a misunderstanding of the causes of the German success. German competitiveness is often attributed to the Harz IV reforms, but this is mistaken. German competitiveness is mainly the result of a system of complex industrial relations, which leads to higher productivity. The ironic thing is thus that the Germans are pushing policies, which they do not implement themselves. But more importantly, this recipe demands from workers to take burden of the crisis and readjustment. Secondly, devaluation means that the labour share of the economy goes down, betting on a profit lead model, which gives less for labour, more for capital. To solve this, we should transfer wealth from non-‐constrained to constrained, from the wealthy to the poor to create a demand led growth recovery. To do this, we need to increase wages, although it remains uncertain what people will do with higher wages. They will also save money. And higher wages in Germany will lead to higher imports, but non-‐competitive countries will not benefit directly. A second topic, which was discussed, is how to create more jobs. There is in open and competitive economies as the EU a strong correlation between growth and job creation. Approximately 2% GDP growth is necessary for job growth, but not on the horizon. What is the impact of this on the labour market? Several possibilities were presented to solve this issue. The first is a better distribution of work between more people. This does, however, not increase aggregate demand. The social costs are lower. The second possibility is to create jobs in non-‐ competitive sectors, e.g. in social assistance to elderly people or regional policy for rural areas. To increase innovation and competiveness, long-‐term investment in infrastructure and education is very important. Competitiveness and innovation are social categories, not financial. If a society is not innovative enough, innovative initiatives will go to other countries. The main factor of competitiveness is the human factor. Investing in education is not only in a professional or formal setting. Behavior is also necessary: are people willing to learn new skills during their career. The problem is that these future oriented sectors have experienced serious cuts due to austerity. This might create a lost generation for the future. This creates a dilemma: invest in something while the pay-‐off might be in ten years. We don't know structure of labour market in ten years. But we should do something about the enormous youth unemployment, because at this moment the best people go abroad. But how can we finance job creation? The share of labour is dropping. It used to be 60%, now it is closer to
13
40%. It is not an only an income gap, but also a wealth gap. We should channel parts of this wealth into job creation. A possible way to increase growth is through the EU 2020 strategy for inclusive sustainable growth. The recent report on the progress of EU2020 shows that the strategy is at this moment a failure. Four years after the start, some indicators are even worse than at the beginning. Unemployment is rising. We’re witnessing dramatic changes in life quality and 124 million people live at the risk of poverty. As a result of the austerity measures, EU2020 has never been in a position to deliver. Priority has been on fiscal governance, not on the EU2020 targets. But there is chance to relaunch the strategy, after the 2015 midterm review. We should change the focus from price competition to output competition. Only if we make that shift we’ll be able to deliver beyond GDP goals, like social and environmental goals. Quality jobs should be at the center to fight the segmentation of labour markets and create wage lead growth. We should steer away from a deb deflation gap by a social investment package. Furthermore we need an investment program of 2%, financed by more sources of revenue like the FTT. We need a new green EU industrial policy in order to increase the industrial share of GDP to 20%. Essential to such an investment program is patient capital to get innovation going. Governments have a very important role in providing this patient capital, but austerity has changed that significantly. The role of governments in innovation is under pressure. The role of the ECB has also been discussed. The current mandate of the ECB couldn’t be less ambitious: maintaining price stability. And even that is not respected at the moment. It should be more ambitious and also address the job crisis. A possibility to do this is by becoming the official lender of last resort of the EU. This will restore the monetary sovereignty of member states and enable a full employment strategy.
WHAT HAPPENNED TO ENVIRONMENTAL SOLIDARITY? A PROGRESSIVE RENAISSANCE FOR EUROPE Chair: Ben Taylor Rapporteur: Pedro Miguel Cardoso The international community in general and the European Union in particular must give an answer to the growing environmental challenges that humanity is
14
facing. The current development model is unsustainable. Environmental degradation, climate change, social inequalities and the persistence of global poverty are signs that should make us meditate and act. The current economic and financial crisis removed from the media and political space environmental issues but, due the current perspectives, is essential to return and improve a sustainability agenda. This is an issue that should be included in all areas of governance. It is important to involve civil society in the transition to a new model of development, socially fair and environmentally sustainable. Not all economic sectors and not all the persons will gain in this process but agreements are necessary to protect common good and the resources of future generations. There are new opportunities and new jobs can be created in the transition to a green economy. Energy efficiency and renewable energy are two pillars of the new economy. Industrial development must be inclusive and sustainable. The Green Industry Platform (http://www.greenindustryplatform.org/) is an initiative that seeks to work towards these goals. International solidarity is also essential in the transition to a new model of development. There is a humanist reason and a pragmatic reason that explain the importance of international cooperation and solidarity. Without them these environmental challenges cannot be overcome and we will all suffer the consequences. Given the powerful short-‐term interests involved, a crucial issue nowadays is: How to make a sustainable future desirable? Economic growth continues to be a predator of the environment and natural resources especially in developing countries. It is necessary to overcome the contradictions between development and environmental and climate sustainability. There is a disagreement between a long-‐term economic growth (measured by Gross Domestic Product -‐ GDP) and sustainability. Several studies confirm that GDP growth does not guarantee by itself greater well-‐being nor reduced inequalities. One can pose a question: a progressive agenda should not be more focused on the distribution of existing wealth instead of being focused on economic growth? Climate change is one of the most important challenges that humanity is facing in the twenty-‐first century and the others that will follow. Extreme weather events such as droughts and significant changes in precipitation patterns globally, the average rising of sea level, the increase of average global temperature on Earth, the loss of biodiversity, migrations resulting from changes in the conditions of life in many parts of the world are challenges that will require an answer of the
15
international community. The principle of climate justice must be present in international negotiations and solutions. There is a historical responsibility of the developed countries in this problem. The North has a debt to the South. Is essential to help the most vulnerable people in developing countries that will be the most affected by climate change despite the fact that were the ones that least contribute to them, the so called “common but differentiated responsibility”. We seek solutions to ensure sustainable energy for all and combat existing energy poverty in the poorest countries. In these developing countries and countries with economies in transition it is necessary to implement capacity building frameworks, investing in women's education and change the reproductive culture. New financial resources are needed to climate change mitigation and adaptation. International agreements concluded so far have predicted this need but in practice different things happen from what it is in the agreement. Some ideas to consider: create a limitation to carbon imports by developed countries that have moved environmentally harmful activities to developing countries and invest in appropriate cost-‐effective solutions to the specificities of each region and countries. For example in Belgium investment in house insulation is more appropriate than investment in solar panels. Are the politicians and activists that defend greater investment and attention to the environment winning the debate? How have we allowed the frequent marginalization of this cause? Like in relation to Europe issue, we have to use the best arguments. Environmentalists have given little attention to local environmental issues. A speech close to the people is needed rather than a technocratic discourse and environmental and European policies connected with local communities are necessary. What are the benefits of these policies to local communities? It is a matter that should be present in the formulation and implementation of public policies. It is also necessary to condemn the powerful businesses that degrade the environment and win economic recovery through the distribution of wealth and investment in education. We need to bailout workers from wage repression and loss of social rights. Only through social and environmental solidarity we can build a better future for us and for future generations. The environmental challenges we face are global and require a global response. We share one planet and we are interdependent. The European Union as a peace and development project has an important role to play in overcoming these challenges.
16
WOMAN UP! FOR THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS
Chair: Aniko Gregor Rapporteur: Laura Caroli Thousands of women recently protested against the Spanish proposal on the restriction of the abortion law and expressed their political (in a broad sense) will and solidarity. Yet, when it comes to mobilization for the European elections, women still tend to vote in a smaller ratio than men. Therefore, the key issue discussed during the workshop has been how to reach and mobilize them, especially as we are on the eve of 2014 European elections. Indeed, the general turnout at EP elections is still a major problem, as it is still not recognized as an institution with real power. The next EP will see the presence of many right wing parties. This will also affect the future policies on gender issues. The European Parliament used to be the watchdog when it came to human rights and equality rights. With the rise of the far right, this is going to change. We already witness stagnation if not a deterioration of gender issues in the European Parliament. The economic crisis and the conservative approach to it have worsened the female condition all across the EU, under several points of view: apart from the striking and worrying issue of the abortion law in Spain, women’s rights are slowly decreasing in the labor market. The gender pay gap, which still exists in all 28 EU member states (despite the obvious country differences) has worsened, despite the efforts made by the European Commission, to the point that women work on average 59 days per years for free as compared to men. Typically “feminine” sectors as care jobs are sectors in which the working conditions and salaries are consistently deteriorating. Unemployment also badly affects women across the EU (in particular young women). In other terms, it is of course youth, as we often hear, that pay the price of the current crisis. But women are also paying a very high price. One of the crucial themes emerged is the importance of attracting female votes for progressives. If socialists gain a majority in the next European Parliament, things can change, as there will be greater focus on job creation, innovation, technology to give Europe a new direction and get over the crisis. It is a unique opportunity. What’s at stake is the future of Europe, of social rights and social security that we used to take for granted. Therefore, it is important not only to
17
vote, but to vote for social democrats, because improving working conditions and participation in the labor market for women is key in the progressive agenda. That is why progressive parties across the EU should campaign to mobilize as many voters as they can, in particular as we will face the worrying rise of far right parties across Europe, which risks to undermine the fundamental values of equality, solidarity, diversity. A further point made in the workshop is the challenge of mobilizing women. There is a lot at stake, and there is a lot at stake for women in particular. Yet, mobilizing them and drawing their attention on public affairs and politics in general is not simple at all. Indeed, women seem to be less interested in public affairs and in politics and more in family affairs. This is partially true: it is difficult to draw the interest of young women in political activism, as they seem to prefer other forms of active involvement (i.e. associations etc.). The stereotype that politics is a typical “male” thing is still powerful. One reason of the lack of female involvement could be the fact that they don’t feel any interest in the topics discussed, because they don’t feel directly affected by them, or they find too many men in the lists, so they don’t feel represented. Political parties share a responsibility for this, and they should reflect on the ways to change this lack of interest, also by entrusting women and especially young women with personal responsibilities. Women should go to vote and vote for parties that integrate their vision in the respective manifestos. The importance of mobilizing young women emerged as a crucial factor. As for electoral campaigns, in order to attract their vote it is vital to learn to speak to women by clearly showing political cleavages between progressives and conservatives and by incorporating sensible issues that affect them in party manifestos (i.e. abortion, maternal leave, an issue still not harmonized across the EU and a topic for political fight between progressives and conservatives; equal pay, still not accomplished in the EU; equal representation in politics and economy; violence against women, etc.). These issues will not attract 100% of the voters, but surely a 50% will be, that is why there is a lot of political space for gender issues. A key point in drawing women’s attention is also to speak to them in practical and concrete terms. Progressives must show that they are more focused on increasing real wages and social protection for workers than manager bonuses, and the impact this can have on everyday life will attract women. As for mobilizing young women, the way they have been affected in the labor market by
18
conservative governments all across the EU provides the progressives with a very solid argument to convince them to vote to reverse this situation by voting for them and thus changing the majority in the European Parliament. Another powerful argument progressives can use is the importance of Europe in setting minimum standards in gender equality and a legal framework, especially when it came to new member states, where such standards didn’t exist and were imposed in order to access the EU. That proves why Europe is still important and why it is important to vote for the EU Parliament. As for the means to concretely empower and interest women in politics, role models and mentoring are crucial. As for the latter, it provides with support and sympathy from people knowing the process and in particular it means having access to networks, which is crucial for getting involved in politics. Women forums are also important because there a narrative and a language can be developed to discuss the issues to be then embodied and embraced by the party. As for empowerment, education in general and training of teachers is also important, i.e. to empower girls to speak in public (boys tend to do it more often). Sometimes women tend to perceive making a career in politics as difficult and requiring very high education levels. Nevertheless, sometimes the obstacle can come from themselves. In fact, there is increasing demand for women in politics and they have more and more political space, so it just takes personal involvement and ambition. Nowadays, young women are actually coming back to politics with a new enthusiasm, with a new kind of feminism. Women seemed to have it all already, that their mothers had conquered all the rights they enjoy today. It isn’t so anymore; women need to fight again to regain the rights they are losing. A new generation with a new vocabulary and a new approach with new tools is already out there and is campaigning. Therefore, it is up to progressives to open up to a new generation, to a new feminism that will have to fight to regain what was taken for granted. Finally, the event covered the need of making gender mainstreamed in the agenda. In fact, a key issue for progressives is how to fully incorporate women’s fight for more rights in their agenda. Until those issues become mainstream progressive policies, progressives will not be persuasive enough. Gender equality must not be seen as an appendix to the “equality” chapter in the PES manifesto. Progressives should make those fights their own fights (thus not only leaving them to women to campaign on). The fact that these topics are often discussed only
19
among women is a proof that they are not mainstream yet, and until they become so, it will be hard to get a lot of women involved in party life. In fact, there is still a lot to do, in several domains. As for political representation, the European Parliament is the only democratic institution of the EU, and yet only 1/3 of its members are women, and women are still underrepresented at the national level as well, despite some exceptions (mainly where socialists are in power) that stand as powerful symbols for women. Yet, democratically elected bodies in general should reflect reality and offer a true representation of the population. Equal representation should also stand when it comes to university chancellors (where they still are as low as 10%), to boards of directors for businesses, in sectors such as green economy, energy, ITC (a study of the DG Connect shows that if women were integrated in this sector, the EU GDP might grow by 9million euros). To sum up, there is a strong case for incorporating gender issues in every policy area and, when it comes to the future of the EU, in every chapter of the Europe2020 strategy, as every one of them is flawed on the issue. The potential for economic growth represented by women should be fully unleashed. The issue should therefore become mainstream and not treated as a separate matter. The progressives on working conditions, for which strong concentration structures and public dialogue are needed to ensure equal opportunities and treatment, could also make improvements. Education also plays a major role to promote gender equality and thus needs to be put at the heart of a progressive agenda. Indeed, despite European legal settings, stereotypes in this sector are still strong and they influence later careers and empowerment. A controversial issue to work on is the delicate one of reproductive rights and of abortion in particular, where progressives need to be courageous enough to stand against far right movements and conservatives. They should do so also on the sharing of parental leaves, an issue on which the conservatives tend to claim it is only a private matter and shouldn’t be imposed by law, or that it would cost too much for employers (a claim often heard when it comes to introducing new gender equality measures). Progressives should stand firmly in their fight, clearly showing that equality (and gender equality in particular) really matters for them, not only because it would ultimately have positive effects on the economy, but because it is a fundamental part of their very identity, of what they stand for. Indeed, progressives sometimes tend to forget in the current debate the historical connection that social movements had with the feminist movement, in the crucial fights going from the
20
women’s right to vote to the first steps towards equal pay. Yet, it is a legacy, which should be cherished and revived by the progressives as strength in their fight for equality and in their campaign for the upcoming European elections.
LABOUR RIGHTS – ENSURING DECENT WORK AND QUALITY EMPLOYMENT
Chair: Scott Lavery Rapporteur: Giacomo Bottos The topic of labour rights was discussed in connection with the macroeconomic contest and with the current economic crisis. Because of the recession and the dramatic rise in unemployment, the problem of labour policies comes to the fore. Almost all the speakers heavily criticized the current EU labour policy. It is not just about single policies; it is the whole approach to social policy that is to be countered. Labour rights have never been the first priority for the EU. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of The European Union “in defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion”. This mild formulation reflects the fact that social policy is not the key factor in the EU politics. With regard to other topics like environment the Treaty uses more binding statements (“Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities”). Nevertheless, greater attention was paid to social question in the past. In 1993, during the economic crisis Jacques Delors Commission released the “White Paper” on “Growth, competitiveness, employment” proposing measures to tackle unemployment. The actual Commission does not seem very concerned about this problem. 5000 billion euro was spent to save banks and financial institution, while the amount of money spent in social funding is comparatively ridiculous. In the last years the situation of unemployment and labour conditions has worsened due to the economic crisis and the policies of the Trojka (which were closely analyzed by Jan Cremers). In many countries, especially in the south of Europe, the economic measures imposed by the Trojka have radically changed the very structure of society. Those measures aim to achieve deregulation, flexibility
21
and to dismantle social protections: each progressive social legislation is currently under attack. The European social model is at stake. According to Mario Draghi this model should be considered as “already gone”. Also a lot of conservative European parties don't believe anymore in it. Social dialogue is under attack. Liberal and far-‐right parties would like to abolish the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). Market is seen as the first and unique form of regulation of the relationships between labour and capital. Unemployment and welfare state dismantlement make existence conditions for people more and more difficult. Without a radical change in the orientation of social policy, even the end of stagnation wouldn't be enough to recreate jobs and to achieve a decent level of employment. The risk now is a “Japanese-‐style growth” and jobless recovery scenario: a slow, vulnerable growth without significant job creation. The Commission seems getting accustomed with such scenario. An alternative point of view was proposed by prominent economists (such as Stiglitz) and was backed by the S&D group in the EU Parliament, as told by Anna Colombo. There's a way out of the crisis other than austerity, internal devaluation and shrinking of the labour cost but a change of paradigm is required. According to Patrick Itschert, competitiveness should be increased through investments. The tools for such policies are a stronger commitment by the European Investment Bank and project bonds. Enhancing competitiveness through investments and not through labour devaluation could stop the reduction of worker's rights. Also the possibility to decrease working time should take into account in order to reduce unemployment. The problem couldn't be solved only at the national level. A European labour right harmonisation should be carried out. The definition of social standard is necessary, overcoming the opposition of Business Europe. Also deregulation should come to an end. The Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (REFIT) of the European Commission should be rethought. Renaud Thillaye had a different point of view. According to him, labour rights are not the priority. It makes no sense to speak about labour rights if there's no work. Innovation economy has changed completely the framework and this should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. The progressives should replace a defensive attitude toward this new economy with a proactive one. The distinction between insiders and outsiders in the labour market is the main problem. Precarious employment is now widespread. People working all their life in the same corporation should not be taken as a paradigm. A growing share of workers
22
is without fix employment. Thus, welfare should be reformed according to the model of flexi-‐security, for example taking into account apprenticeship in calculating pensions. The minimum wage should be a living wage (a decent one). Also the question of worker's mobility was discussed. On the one side it was argued that mobility should be a free choice and not a necessity. Furthermore, the right to mobility is not effective for everyone because of the lack of adequate incomes. On the other side unregulated mobility itself could jeopardize labour rights. For example, since the wages in East Europe are extremely low compared to the ones in Western countries, mass workers mobility could be a threat for worker rights. Even if the worker's mobility should be granted, worker's export should not be allowed. The problem is, again, the lack of harmonisation of rights and labour legislation. A “free circulation of rights” was never realized within Europe. The conditions of mobility are often unacceptable. Training and apprenticeship are in most cases not paid. EU Programmes like Youth Guarantee or vouchers for mobility are a partial solution to the problem but they're still not sufficient because of low funding and because other measures are needed in order to foster job creation.
HOW TO BREAK THE NEXUS BETWEEN FINANCE AND INEQUALITY? Chair: Jeremy Green Rapporteur: Alvaro Imbernon The euro crisis has been ongoing for five years and the European financial system has not returned to ‘normal’. Discussions about the Eurozone's disintegration had died down and for many the Eurozone’s financial crisis has been relegated to the history books. However, the underlying causes of the crisis have not been addressed and the truly worrying situation has not changed substantially: the current financial regulation increases inequality, encourages speculation, fosters instability and generates crises whose costs are disproportionally borne by the middle and lower classes. As a result, since the beginning of the financial crisis inequality indicators have skyrocketed creating unprecedented social alarm. A speculative financial system worsens social cohesion and increases inequality. Super-‐leveraged speculation enriches the 1% at the expense of increasing the
23
fragility of the financial institutions on which trade, industry and households depend. The rest of society pays the costs of financial failures disproportionately. Both companies and businesses have lost access to credit when they were in a more vulnerable situation while large sections of the European population are starting to see a fall in their standard of living due to the austerity measures. Gary Dimsky, Professor in economics at the University of Leeds, remarked that the large financial institutions control much of the academic research and public intellectual agenda influencing financial rule making. Thierry Philipponnat, Secretary General of Finance Watch, stressed that the bigger banks are less interested in the real economy because loans to companies represent only a small part of its balance sheet. Jérôme Hericourt, Professor in economics at the University of Lille, highlighted that some European banks are “too complex to resolve”. It seems beyond dispute that the reform of the European financial system must take into account these phenomena. The panelists agreed that the Eurozone is not an optimal currency area. The financial crisis imported from the United States became a sovereign debt crisis in the EU. The conservative response: austerity, internal devaluation (prices, wages and labor rights) and inflation control has proven inadequate. The crisis has shown the feebleness of the European integration process. Credit and leverage excesses, sluggish growth, financial deregulation, inefficient allocation of capital and asset price bubbles, especially in construction, are causes of the crisis but the main problem is the incomplete design of the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). As pointed out by Carmelo Cedrone, member of the Workers' Group at the European Economic and Social Committee, the institutional architecture of the Eurozone does not allow for central-‐bank liquidity provision for either the case of a meltdown in a national financial system or the case of budgetary deficits. This situation compromises market confidence and imposes borrowing-‐cost penalties on the periphery countries in case of a long recession. The ECB is neither structurally committed nor able to perform the role of lender of last resort under all circumstances. It is a highly improbable scenario with large homogeneous European banks operating across all European borders in the same way as banks operate in the US. Instead, the direction is to continue with a diverse ecosystem of European banks that would differ among countries and regions as they have always been historically, operating in scales in which the risks can be handled with the current adjustment mechanisms. In this context Europe needs to implement measures to stimulate growth and employment. Germany
24
and the economies with high surpluses must reduce their fiscal consolidation by increasing wages and public investment. A stronger contribution of their domestic demand to growth would help to correct the imbalances within the Eurozone. Speakers also warned of the lack of transparency in the negotiations of TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) regarding financial services. The panelists discussed a series of concrete policy proposals and institutional reforms. Regarding the reform of European banking and financial market regulation, the proposals included: 1. Eliminate excess financial risk-‐taking. 2. Rein in the activities and size of too-‐big-‐to-‐fail megabanks. 3. Gain regulatory control of shadow banking and of offshore financial-‐ centre tax-‐havens. 4. Reform the mandate of the European Central Bank (ECB) to include employment targets, and make the ECB democratically accountable. As for the structure and functioning of European banking and financial markets the proposals involved: 5. Encourage pluralistic banking systems to better meet local needs. 6. Create a set of national development banks that function as strategic allies of both the EIB and of member countries’ governments. 7. Reinvent the European Investment Bank (EIB) so that it functions more effectively as a tool for European economic and social development. The financial rights and financial security of everyday Europeans has been also indicated as an area to reform in the following points: 8. Set trans-‐European limits on predatory lending. 9. Establish the concept of financial citizenship for Europeans. 10. Create a timetable for standardizing unemployment compensation benefits, public pensions, and old-‐age care across Europe. Those policy proposals for more stable and equitable finance in Europe constitute a solid base for progressive policies in Europe seeking to achieve full employment, growth and redistribution. Undoubtedly, the implementation of these proposals would imply a crucial step to reduce the brutal level of income inequality ravaging the continent and to improve the quality of life of the populations on the
25
European periphery that are suffering from austerity measures and see no end in sight.
DEVELOPMENT: PROMOTING ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
Chair: Denis Preshova Rapporteur: Davide Ragone The issues addressed during the workshop concerned the relation between human rights and development, and the socio-‐economic implications of growth and development in a multi-‐polar world. The first speaker was Beatrice Ouin, from the European Economic and Social Committee (worker’s group), who treated the topic of fight against hard labor. Even if there are some international conventions, today this phenomenon occurs not only in the poor countries, but also in Europe, with immigrants. It is extremely important to show immigrants how labor unions work, in order to promote labor and human rights in their countries and to spread a democratic culture. Moreover, Beatrice Ouin argued that women’s rights play a decisive role in the socio-‐economic development. Europe is the continent which has worked better in this field, but it must export women’s rights in other countries, where those rights are not respected and where education is insufficient: development and women’s rights are related. In a moment of difficult changes, political disinterest and distrust in the State (which sometimes leads towards populism), the role played by labor unions is extremely important. Consumers play a relevant role since they may ask for the right price and, as far as the origin of products is concerned, demand transparency; in this manner, knowing if labor rights are respected in the multinational corporations, it is possible to fight against hard labor. Irene Bernal, from Spain, has spoken on behalf of Solidar, a solidarity network established in 1948. Solidar, which is now a network of 60 affiliate organizations representing 10 million people, is focused on three missions: capacity building of civil society, both inside and outside Europe; policy campaigning at European and national level; policy monitoring. The aim of the network is fostering advance in social justice, and, since its 2010 assembly, to protect two basic rights: freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Its work in the last three years has primarily focused on bridging the civil society in different regions of the world with Europe,
26
and bringing the dialogue together in order to come up with useful recommendations emerging from the civil society. Recently, it has been involved with civil society organizations from Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, and has worked to bring specific policy recommendations to policy-‐makers in Brussels. In Irene’s words, Solidar’s objective today is giving the voice to the actors of change, in an open dialogue process between civil society and institutions. Finally, a remark on freedom of association, which in Irene’s view is under threat in her home-‐country Spain: in her opinion, a recent law restricting demonstrations on the street is making it difficult for civil society to freely express itself. Javier Moreno Sánchez presented the Global Progressive Forum (GPF), explaining that it is composed especially by socialist forces, but it is open to other progressive subjects and to social-‐democratic members. Then he talked about the Program of the GPF, dividing it into three parts and explaining that industry can be also a good place for social and political progress. In the first part, the speaker treated the topic of regulation of financial markets, arguing that it influences positively all the crises (economic, political, democratic, social and psychological). It is important to introduce a tax on financial transactions and fight against tax havens: these two elements will legitimate profit from an ethical point of view. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is no social justice without fiscal justice. In the second part, Javier requested a stronger cooperation between the socialist and democratic forces of the countries of the Arab Spring (among which Tunisia could be the driving force), shedding light on the fight for women’s rights (especially in Egypt). The European experience must be exported not in a colonial manner, but also by virtue of the capacity of self-‐criticism. The third part concerned Latin America (especially Peru and Colombia) and the idea of “fair trade”: it is important to draw a “road map” of human rights in order to protect workers from exploitation. Also in this case, cooperation South-‐South (among countries of the third and fourth world) is desirable. Finally, the speaker talked about aids to women in Latin America, environmental protection and legal immigration (not clandestine), which should be a sort of professional emigration and should create social integration. In Europe, it is important to explain to citizens the value of citizenship and that politics is a moment of integration. In her opening remarks, Sidonie Wetzig (Friedrich Ebert Foundation) explained the international activities of the Foundation and its members’ background vision of both development cooperation and democracy promotion. One of the aims of the
27
Foundation is to make globalization more equitable from a social point of view; at a European level, its goal is promoting integration. The projects of the Foundation focus on several aspects of development cooperation. On a global scale, due to globalization, the world is now more integrated and intertwined: people want to be more involved in the decision-‐making processes, but there are still no proper global and governmental structures; on a national scale, there are several issues, such as the fact that emerging economies’ growth is not accompanied by equality. In general, it has been underlined how it is important to provide political solutions to the current social changes and challenges. In order to deal with these challenges, it is necessary to adopt proper policies, demanding more accountability and transparency. Christophe Yvetot, as a UN representative, has dealt with the issue of industrial cooperation. He has talked about Europe’s role in development and underlined how economic and social rights have to be shared worldwide. For 300 years, the charity model has prevailed in economic history thinking: this has been successful in the past, but at present, he explained, the necessity is to move towards a 2015 model in order to foster a long-‐lasting development. Europe's renaissance passes necessarily through a rediscovery of the real economy, which best expresses itself in industry and farms. Industrialization is vital to reduce poverty: exporting raw materials is not enough, as developing countries have to give shape to development and labour ‘in loco’, as it happens, for instance, in the chocolate industry. The speaker in his conclusion has focused on the new industrial governance, which has to be a global one: a lasting and sustainable development has to be inclusive and grow together with society. Europe’s role today is representing a pole of prosperity: it has to invest in developing countries in order to bring technology and pave for them the way to the global stage. Development has been the main topic of the discussion prompted by the questions. Three ideas marked the discussion: firstly, charity should be replaced with investment; then, Europe is a good example as far as social rights and environmental policies are concerned; finally, a strong development in Africa would boost the middle class. Gender issues were also treated – especially the role women play in the decision-‐making processes – as well as the relationship between economic development and human rights. In conclusion, it was argued that Europe has a responsibility to fight corruption, stimulate transparency and promote development.
28
YOUTH GUARANTEE: IMPLEMENTING AND COMPLEMENTING Chair: Iulian Stanescu Rapporteur: Dragan Tevdovski
Rising youth unemployment and increasing number of young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs) are currently serious challenges for the EU. In this context, the European Commission is urging Member States to put in place the Youth Guarantee adopted by the Council in April 2013. The aim of the workshop was to answer the following overarching questions: § Which concrete measures are need to implement and complement the Youth Guarantee? § What is needed to promote youth employment, to subsidize the creation of jobs for young people, strengthening education? § Which kind of labour market activation policies are needed to address NEETs and the most excluded groups in society? § Which measures are needed to prevent unemployment and social exclusion? Both interventions from speakers and questions from participants revolved around some crucial points. YES started a campaign on European Youth guarantee in 2009, just over a year after the beginning of the Global financial crisis, when the youth unemployment started to rise. In that time many people considered the crisis purely financial and thought that fixing the economy will solve the unemployment problems. However, it was not the case. The youth unemployment increase significantly in EU from 2009 and overall, in the most of the countries, it reaches the levels that are double or triple than the general unemployment rates. It grows dramatically even in the countries which were not significantly influenced by the crisis, as for example Finland, where youth unemployment reached 20%. At the moment, more than 11.5 million of the young people (bellow 30 years of age) in Europe are outside employment, education or training. Furthermore, many studies documented the long-‐term effects of being NEET on young age. The experience of unemployment at young age has a long-‐lasting negative impact on both future income levels and future risk of unemployment.
29
The six months of unemployment at age 22 leads to an 8% lower wage at 23 and 2-‐3% lower wage at ages 30 and 31. Beyond this, there are health and social consequences. The duration of the unemployment have negative impact on young people health status and well being. Also, the young people are forced to accept bad jobs, as for example zero contract jobs, with no job security and social protection. In addition, due to low incomes there is a delay of funding of family among young peoples, which directly worsening demographic trends. Moreover, it was pointed out that the problem started in 2009 but the solution came several years later. It is not acceptable that saving banks was prioratised while the situation of young people was marginalised. It creates the lost generation in Europe. And even in 2014, political elites provide proposition with not enough funding. There are estimations that the proper launch of the Youth guarantee will cost 21 billion euro per year. However, the European Commission with the Youth Employment Initiative allocated only 6 billion euro for the Youth guarantee. However, Youth guarantee is a battle that should be win , hence there is a need to continue to fight for it. Social movements must talk for Social Europe in a long term. It must have vision of what want to be achieved in 30-‐40 years. Last year, the European Council recommended to Member States to implement youth guarantee. But, what it lacks is the resources to implement it. There is a need for greater commitment at the European level, because on national level, different countries have different budget resources for implementation. The countries like Austria and Finland have satisfactory allocation of resources in youth guarantee, while the South European countries where the situation of the youth unemployment is worst, do not have enough resources. Therefore, on European level is urgently need capability to invest in youth employment projects in the places which do not have national recourses to do so. There is estimation that 10 billion euro investment will create 2.5 million sustainable jobs in Europe. What could be the source of this money? For example, the European Social Fund currently has more than 30 billion euros not used funds. The part of the reason that these funds have not being used is the rules of the self-‐financing of the receiving countries. The countries which are mostly needed these funds are not in financial condition to provide 50% participation. For example, Romania used only 17% of targeted money from European Social Fund last year, while Finland used 98% of targeted money. The solution for this
30
problem should be the relaxation of the rules for usage of the European Social Fund in order to have better allocation in the countries where youth unemployment is highest. The Southern European countries are frequently adviced to implement good practices from Western Countries, as for example vocational training from Germany and Austria. But, what works in the North, not necessary works in South. The differences between the regions in Europe must be taken in consideration. It was also pointed out that the youth guarantee must be put in proper macroeconomic framework. It could not be successful if the European Commission force austerity policies and try to improve the competitiveness with devaluation of the labour. Social partners, civil societies and national youth partners must take part of proper implementation and assessment of the Youth guarantee. Governments should not implement the Youth guarantee as ticking some box. Putting someone that already has skills (for example, Master degree) on training is not solution. The focus of the implementation of the Youth guarantee should not be training. Much more important is to provide job offers. But, also the youth unemployment should not be solved with putting the people in under-‐ employment, which have low wages, no job security and where the working time is long. There are already 40 millions part-‐time workers in European Union. The security does not come from 3 months or 6 months employment contracts. Fragmentation of the contracts should be fixed by stronger social state. Today there is problem of transition from education to employment. Many years ago, when someone was graduating from school and entering in the job market would had process of learning at the work. Now, both employers and educational institutions do not want to commit themselves in this task. The possible solution could be improving the quality of internships and traineeships. The attention should be given to their quality, because many employers use them as the source of cheap labor force, without paying attention of the young people skills development. Youth guarantee is a commitment from government that every young people should have a place in the society. It could not change the things over night. It is a good beginning, but it will not solve all the problems. There is need of investments in job creation and educational system. The attention should
31
also be given on the development of the social skills, not only labour market skills of the young people. Europe does not need educational system where only the children of the rich families go to the university, where the children of the poor families go to vocational training. In addition, the people who go in vocational training should not be devaluated from the society. The studies show that from one side the people who go in a vocational training are less valued by the society, but from other it is easier for them to find the well paid job. Therefore, this perception in the society should be changed in order to allow young people to be free to choose it. There is a need to encourage young people to be part of the society. Young people are blamed that they are without skills. It means that blame is put from the system to the young people. It influences the level of participation of the young people in the society. Young people are in general disengaged from the political live, because they think that are betrayed. They are betrayed from the construction of the current system. They were put in education, where they were told that they had to have good grades, because this would determine their success in the job market. The young people did their homework, but on exit from education they could not find a job. Schuman put forward an inspiring idead for Europe, but it is not the Europe that we live today. The police crash the young people when they take political actions, while they should also have their say about their future. Hence, the society should reflect on the necessity and level of police action. Also, the young people with police dossiers should be rehabilitated in order to have equal chances to find a job. The society must try to include the young people in the political life.
32
4th APRIL LEADERS DEBATE
At this event seven European leaders presented their vision for a Progressive Europe. The leaders included: • Kathleen Van Brempt, top candidate of MEPs, Socialistische Partij Anders (sp.a). • Marie Arena, top candidate of MEPs, Parti Socialiste (PS). • Bruno Tobback, President of the Socialistische Partij Anders (sp.a). • Massimo D’Alema, President of the Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) and former Prime Minister of Italy. • Elio Di Rupo, Prime Minister of Belgium. • Martin Schulz, Candidate for the President of the European Commission. The debate was introduced and moderated by: Ernst Stetter, FEPS Secretary General. In her speech Kathleen Van Brempt said that Europe is a thought that needs to become a feeling that appeals to citizens. Brempt said that through austerity the conservative majority in the EU is attacking the European progressive dream of social justice. She outlined a clear message for the European project, namely that the European Union should be a union of social justice. Marie Arena used her speaking time to focus on the battle against austerity. She emphasized that the fight against austerity is a battle for a better Europe and to overturn the cuts to social rights that the political right has introduced during the financial and economic crisis in Europe. In particular she focused on the challenges that social dumping poses to social welfare systems. She pledged that Social Democrats are not going to punish the European people because banks have failed and started a crisis. In his speech Bruno Tobback said that a social European Union will be needed or that there will be no European Union at all. Tobback said that what others call the American Dream has been a reality in Europe and that he will not allow austerity to kill that reality. He reiterated that progressives have always support the European project based in human rights and social protection.
33
Massimo D’Alema said that the opportunity of European citizens to in-‐directly choose the President of the Commission offers an opportunity to strengthen the social dimension of the EU. D’Alema said that we need a more united Europe to reinforce its role in the world, if not we are destined to exclusion. He also shared his enthusiasm for Martin Schulz as the candidate for the Presidency of the Commission and his admiration of Schulz’ commitment to Europe. Elio Di Rupo recognized that today Europe is disappointing to its citizens. He suggested that Europe’s citizens must choose between three models at the upcoming EP elections: a destruction of Europe as championed by nationalists and rejects of the EU, a de-‐regulated Europe as advocated by liberals and a humane Europe as advocated by progressives. Finally, Martin Schulz said that people need to know that progressives take them seriously and work for them on a daily basis. He emphasized that progressives can only change the course of Europe if people believe that they listen and act. He pledged to do so if he is elected as the President of the Commission. Schultz suggested that the power of the EU resides in its regulation and social justice and not in its adoption to neo-‐liberalism and global financial capital. The EU has to live up to what is at the core of our ideology: the ones that protect the rights of people. Following this argument he suggested that taxes, including corporate taxes, should be paid where they are earned and that tax evasion must come to an end. Whoever wants to be a part of the European economy, Schulz said, has to respect its social rules.
34
