EU news in May 2018

What happened in the European Union in May?

Facebook's big chief who started the company, Mark Zuckerberg, came to the European Parliament. But many people working at the Parliament complained he didn't answer the questions well (article).

The EU has many conflicts. The Parliament against the EU countries. The north against the south. Left-wing against right-wing. However, a new one is getting in the news: 'liberals' against 'nationalists'. Liberals typically want EU countries to work more together, nationalists the opposite and are against immigration. At the liberal side: the Commission, France, Germany, and others. Two nationalists are Hungary and Poland (article).

Fun fact: they both say they're defending democracy. For example, Nationalists say they defend the will of the people. Liberals say they protect the independence of the judges. How did this conflict come in the news? With the proposed budget, the Commission wants to give part of the money only to countries that have a democracy with a liberal style (article) (another interesting article here).


© European Union , 2018   /   Etienne Ansotte

Is this conflict hard in the EU? Yes and no. The leaders of the Commission and Hungary are in the same European political party (see the picture, the two on the left). But in Hungary, some organisations that don't work for profit (NGOs) are being bullied so they have to leave (article). One of the consequences of this conflict is that the European migration laws aren't going to change soon - even if everyone thinks they need to change (article).

Some countries will get less money anyway from the European budget (for 2021-2027). Because some parts are only given to poorer countries. And Hungary and Poland became richer. Italy, on the other hand, will get more (article) (article). The European Parliament also looked at the proposal for the budget (article). Getting everyone's okay for the budget is a very long process - so no quick okays can be expected.

The Commission, the EU's government, proposed two new interesting plans: one is to have 15000 European 18-year olds to travel for free for one month in the EU this summer (article). Another is to ban some plastics that are only used once to have less pollution (article).

Also feel free to ask questions about the EU!

Keep up with the EU news on my Facebook page.

Want this news in your inbox? Subscribe here.

Get 50% discounts or even less on the best Amazon books about international politics.

Avoiding taxes: Belgium or EU?

What happens in the European Union, stays in the EU. Quite too often national press ignores what comes from 'Europe', forgetting the measures in 'Brussels' are national news.

A curious case of Belgian press coverage was made by the Socialist party leader Mr Crombez, currently in the opposition. In a TV debate with his Liberal counterpart Ms Rutten, he questioned the liberal-supported government's position in the Council of the EU. Belgian Finance Minister Mr Van Overtveldt helped to delay the start of the so-called anti-tax avoidance directive. The directive aims to curb tax avoidance schemes, mainly used by multinationals. This way, big companies will still be able to continue their schemes a little while longer.

Belgium (right): still some taxes to avoid? © the European Union

While Mr Crombez exaggerated his plea (international press didn't focus on Belgium's leading role), it's a recurring issue. Ministers tend to defend more vigorously unpopular positions in Brussels, knowing the national press wouldn't follow their actions. Either because no one follows EU affairs, or because journalists feel issues are too technical to invest resources in.

On top of the lack of interest (or understanding) of the national press, the case uncovers a larger problem. The Council has, despite a modern website, a transparency issue. It's very difficult to understand which country adopts which position (for example, there's no way to know the Belgian position on the case above). This results in an alienation of EU citizens towards the European Union.

The EU's democratic model rests on many pillars to legitimise its actions: the European Parliament is chosen the citizens, the European Council consists of the EU's elected leaders, the Commission is composed of candidates of elected EU governments and the Council of Ministers of elected governments.

The sooner EU citizens understand their representatives shape EU policies, the better. So in the end, we need more politicians like Mr Crombez to put our governments' positions under scrutiny.

Referendums: a good idea?

Referendums, like the one in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016 about EU membership. Some see it as a miracle solution to connect (or reconnect) citizens with politics. By having more to say, they'll be motivated again for the political game. Or so goes the argument.

For the European Union, this may be a strong argument to hold referendums. The EU is sometimes seen as very distant from its citizens. So here's your miracle cure for saving democracy. Or not. In referendums, you get the wrong answers to the wrong questions.

Take the Dutch referendum on the association treaty with Ukraine. As some opinion leaders claimed, most of the Dutch didn't even know where Ukraine is on a world map. Let alone they read the over 300 pages of the document. Why ask the Dutch in a referendum about a trade treaty with a country thousands of miles away?

Referenda: a good idea? ©

A quick look on the comments on a website explaining the treaty shows that many persons didn't bother to inform further. One person commented to vote against as long as the government couldn't explain the treaty. Actually, he/she could have found a clear explanation on the government's website.

So instead of judging the treaty on its merits or its shortcomings, the 61% who voted against didn't vote against the treaty. They voted against the establishment, the EU, the government, or maybe just because they had a bad mood. They also voted against the incapacity of politicians to judge whether there should be a referendum or not.

However, that does not apply to the UK referendum: there's a clear question and clear answers. Still, people might just vote against, just because they don't like the UK's government. Or because they don't like politicians.

Switzerland took another approach: in addition to voting for the Federal Assembly (that's the parliament), about 4 times a year, referenda are held. In these referenda, they receive an explanation of the law, a choice (yes or no) and an advice of the government. This way, citizens inform themselves before voting. There's even a possibility to block new laws by collecting 50 000 signatures, and holding a referendum on the new law. Isn't that a better way?