Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Barroso in his first State of Union address




Strasbourg, 7th September 2010
President,
Honourable Members,
It is a great privilege to deliver the first State of the Union address before this House.
From now on the State of the Union address will be the occasion when we will chart our work for the next 12 months. Many of the decisions we will take this year will have long-term implications. They will define the kind of Europe we want. They will define a Europe of opportunity where those that aspire are elevated and those in need are not neglected. A Europe that is open to the world and open to its people. A Europe that delivers economic, social and territorial cohesion.
Over the last year, the economic and financial crisis has put our Union before one of its greatest challenge ever. Our interdependence was highlighted and our solidarity was tested like never before.
As I look back at how we have reacted, I believe that we have withstood the test. We have provided many of the answers needed – on financial assistance to Member States facing exceptional circumstances, on economic governance, on financial regulation, on growth and jobs. And we have been able to build a base camp from which to modernise our economies. Europe has shown it will stand up and be counted. Those who predicted the demise of the European Union were proved wrong. The European institutions and the Member States have demonstrated leadership. My message to each and every European is that you can trust the European Union to do what it takes to secure your future.
The economic outlook in the European Union today is better than one year ago, not in the least as a result of our determined action. The recovery is gathering pace, albeit unevenly within the Union. Growth this year will be higher than initially forecast. The unemployment rate, whilst still much too high, has stopped increasing. Clearly, uncertainties and risks remain, not least outside the European Union.
We should be under no illusions. Our work is far from finished. There is no room for complacency. Budgetary expansion played its role to counter the decline in economic activity. But it is now time to exit. Without structural reforms, we will not create sustainable growth. We must use the next 12 months to accelerate our reform agenda. Now is the time to modernise our social market economy so that it can compete globally and respond to the challenge of demography. Now is the time to make the right investments for our future.
This is Europe’s moment of truth. Europe must show it is more than 27 different national solutions. We either swim together, or sink separately. We will only succeed if, whether acting nationally, regionally or locally we think European.
Today, I will set out what I see as the priorities for our work together over the coming year. I cannot now cover every issue of European policy or initiative we will take. I am sending you through President Buzek a more complete programme document.
Essentially, I see five major challenges for the Union over the next year:
  • dealing with the economic crisis and governance;
  • restoring growth for jobs by accelerating the Europe 2020 reform agenda;
  • building an area of freedom, justice and security;
  • launching negotiations for a modern EU budget, and
  • pulling our weight on the global stage.
Let me start with the economic crisis and governance. Earlier this year, we acted decisively when euro area members and the euro itself needed our help.
We have learned hard lessons. Now we are making important progress on economic governance. The Commission has put its ideas on the table in May and in June. They have been well received, in this Parliament, and in the Task Force chaired by President of the European Council. They are the basis around which a consensus is being developed. We will present the most urgent legislative proposals on 29 September, so as not to lose the momentum.
Unsustainable budgets make us vulnerable. Debt and deficit lead to boom and bust. And they unravel the social safety net. Money that's spent on servicing debt is money that cannot be spent on the social good. Nor to prepare ourselves for the costs of an ageing population. A debt generation makes an unsustainable nation. Our proposals will strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact through increased surveillance and enforcement.
And we need to tackle severe macro-economic imbalances, especially in the Euro area. That is why we have made proposals early on to detect asset bubbles, lack of competitiveness and other sources of imbalances.
I now see a willingness of governments to accept stronger monitoring, backed up by incentives for compliance and earlier sanctions. The Commission will strengthen its role as independent referee and enforcer of the new rules.
We will match monetary union with true economic union.
If implemented as we propose, these reforms will also guarantee the long-term stability of the euro. It is key to our economic success.
For the economy to grow, we also need a strong and sound financial sector. A sector that serves the real economy. A sector that prides itself on proper regulation and proper supervision.
We took action to increase bank transparency. Today we are better than one year ago. With the publication of the stress test results, banks should now be able to lend to each other, so that credit can flow to Europe's citizens and companies.
We have proposed to protect people's savings up to €100,000. We will propose to ban abusive naked short selling. We will tackle credit default swaps. The days of betting on someone else’s house burning down are over. We continue to insist that banks, not taxpayers, must pay up front to cover the costs of their own risks of failure. We are legislating to outlaw bonuses for quick-wins today that become big losses tomorrow. As part of this approach, I am also defending taxes on financial activities and we will come with proposals this autumn.
The political deal on the financial supervision package just concluded is very good news. The Commission proposals based on the de Larosière report will give us an effective European supervision system. I want to thank the Parliament for the constructive role it has played and I hope it will give its final agreement this month.
We will also go further on regulation. Initiatives on derivatives, further measures on credit rating agencies and a framework for bank resolution and crisis management will soon be before you. Our goal is to have a reformed financial sector in place by the end of 2011.
Sound government finances and responsible financial markets give us the confidence and economic strength for sustainable growth. We need to move beyond the debate between fiscal consolidation and growth. We can have both.
Honourable Members,
Sound public finances are a means to an end: growth for jobs. Our goal is growth, sustainable growth, inclusive growth. This is our overarching priority. This is where we need to invest.
Europe 2020 starts now. We must frontload and accelerate the most growth-promoting reforms of our agenda. This could raise growth levels by over a third by 2020.
This means concentrating on three priorities: getting more people in jobs, boosting our companies' competitiveness and deepening the single market.
Let me start with people and jobs.
Over 6.3 million people have lost their jobs since 2008. Each one of them should have the chance to get back into employment. Europe's employment rates are at 69% on average for those aged between 20 and 64. We have agreed these should rise to 75% by 2020, bringing in particular more women and older workers into the work force.
Most of the competences for employment policy remain with Member States. But we won't stand on the sidelines. I want a European Union that helps its people to seize new opportunities; and I want a Union that is social and inclusive. This is the Europe we will build if Member States, the European institutions and the social partners move ahead on our common reform agenda.
It should be centred on skills and jobs and investment in life-long learning.
And it should focus on unlocking the growth potential of the single market, to build a stronger single market for jobs.
The opportunities exist. We have very high levels of unemployment but Europe has now 4 million job vacancies. The Commission will propose later this year a "European Vacancy Monitor". It will show people where the jobs are in Europe and which skills are needed. We will also come forward with plans for a European skills passport.
We must also tackle problems of poverty and exclusion. We must make sure that the most vulnerable are not left behind. This is the focus of our "Platform Against Poverty". It will bring together European action for vulnerable groups such as children and old people.
As more and more people travel, study or work abroad, we will also strengthen citizens' rights as they move across borders. The Commission will address persisting obstacles as early as this autumn.
Honourable Members,
Growth must be based on our companies' competitiveness.
We should continue to make life easier for our Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. They provide two out of every three private sector jobs. Among their main concerns are innovation and red tape. We are working on both.
Just before the summer, the Commission has announced the biggest ever package from the Seventh Research Framework Programme, worth €6.4 billion. This money will go to SMEs as well as to scientists.
Investing in innovation also means promoting world class universities in Europe. I want to see them attracting the brightest and the best, from Europe and the rest of the world. We will take an initiative on the modernisation of European universities. I want to see a Europe that is strong in science, education and culture.
We need to improve Europe's innovation performance not only in universities. Along the whole chain, from research to retail, notably through innovation partnerships. We need an Innovation Union. Next month, the Commission will set out how to achieve this.
Another key test will be whether Member States are ready to make a breakthrough on a patent valid across the whole European Union. Our innovators are often paying ten times the price faced by their competitors in the United States or in Japan. Our proposal is on the table. It would reduce the cost fundamentally and double the coverage. After decades of discussion, it is time to decide.
We will also act further on red tape. SMEs are being strangled in regulatory knots. 71% of CEOs say that the biggest barrier to their success is bureaucracy. The Commission has put proposals on the table to generate annual savings of €38 billion for European companies.
Stimulating innovation, cutting red tape and developing a highly-skilled workforce: these are ways to ensure that European manufacturing continues to be world class. A thriving industrial base in Europe is of paramount importance for our future. Next month, the Commission will present a new industrial policy for the globalisation era.
We have the people, we have the companies. What they both need is an open and modern single market.
The internal market is Europe's greatest asset, and we are not using it enough. We need to deepen it urgently.
Only 8% of Europe's 20 million SMEs engage in cross-border trade, still fewer in cross-border investment. And even with the internet, over a third of consumers lack the confidence to make cross-border purchases.
At my request, Mario Monti presented an expert report and has identified 150 missing links and bottlenecks in the internal market.
Next month we will set out how to deepen the Single Market in a comprehensive and ambitious Single Market Act.
Energy is a key driver for growth and a central priority for action: we need to complete the internal market of energy, build and interconnect energy grids, and ensure energy security and solidarity. We need to do for energy what we have done for mobile phones: real choice for consumers in one European marketplace.
This will give us a real energy community in Europe.
We need to make frontiers irrelevant for pipelines or power cables.
To have the infrastructure for solar and wind energy.
To ensure that across the whole of Europe, we have a common standard so that charging electric car batteries becomes as natural as filling up the tank.
Over the next year, we will bring forward an energy action plan, an infrastructure package and an energy efficiency action plan to put this vision in place. I myself will travel to the Caspian region later this year to promote the Southern Corridor as a means of enhancing our security of supply.
To build a resource-efficient Europe, we need to look beyond energy. In the 20th century the world enjoyed phenomenal resource-intensive growth. We saw in the 20th century globally a four-fold growth in population accompanied by a 40-fold growth in economic output. But in the same period we also increased our use of fossil fuels 16 times, our fishing catches 35 times, our water use 9 times. And our carbon emissions increased 17 times.
That means we have to deliver on our climate and energy package, as a core driver for change. This means integrating the different strands of policy on climate change, energy, transport and environment into a coherent approach on resource efficiency and a low carbon future.
A forward-looking agricultural sector will play a major role in European measures to address some of the biggest challenges ahead, such as global food security, biodiversity loss and the sustainable management of natural resources. So will our maritime policy.
All of this will not only strengthen our economy tomorrow: it will provide new openings today. Jobs in the eco-industry have been increasing by 7% a year since 2000. I want to see 3 million "green jobs" by 2020, 3 million green collar workers that complement our blue and white collar workers.
We need sustainable growth, and we need smart growth. Half of European productivity growth over the last 15 years was driven by information and communication technologies. This trend is set to intensify. Our European Digital Agenda will deliver a single digital market worth 4% of EU GDP by 2020.
Honourable Members,
Everything we do is for the citizens of Europe. A fundamental dimension of our European project is precisely building an area of freedom, security and justice.
We are working hard to implement the Stockholm action plan. We will make a real push on asylum and migration.
Legal migrants will find in Europe a place where human values are respected and enforced. At the same time, we will crack down on the exploitation of illegal immigrants within Europe and at our borders. The Commission will make new proposals on policing our external borders.
And we will bring forward an internal security strategy to tackle threats of organised crime and terrorism.
Europeans will find that their fundamental rights and obligations exist wherever they go. Everyone in Europe must respect the law, and the governments must respect human rights, including those of minorities. Racism and xenophobia have no place in Europe. On such sensitive issues, when a problem arises, we must all act with responsibility. I make a strong appeal not to re-awaken the ghosts of Europe's past.
An area of freedom, liberty and security, will create a place where Europeans can prosper.
Honourable Members,
Another challenge is sorting out the future budget of the European Union.
Next month, we will come forward with the Commission's first ideas for the budget review. It shall launch an open debate without taboos to prepare our legislative proposals that will be presented in the second quarter of next year.
We need to spend our money where we get most value for it. And we should invest it where it leverages growth and delivers on our European agenda. The quality of spending should be the yardstick for us all.
So it is not only important to discuss the quantity, but also the quality of spending and investment.
I believe Europe offers real added value. That is why I will be pushing for an ambitious post-2013 budget for Europe.
I believe we should pool our means to back our policy priorities.
The issue is not about spending more or less, but spending more intelligently, by looking at European and national budgets together. The EU budget is not for Brussels – it is for the people that you represent: for the unemployed workers being retrained by the Social Fund; for the students that participate in the Erasmus programme; for the regions that benefit from the Cohesion Fund.
Energy interconnections, research, and development aid are obvious examples where a Euro spent at European level gets you more than a Euro spent at national level. Some Member States are seeing this logic even in areas of core national competence, like defence. They recognize that huge savings could be made if they pool some of their means and activities. Pooling money at the European level allows Member States to cut their costs, avoid overlaps and get a better return on their investment.
That's why we should also explore new sources of financing for major European infrastructure projects. For instance, I will propose the establishment of EU project bonds, together with the European Investment Bank. We will also further develop Public Private Partnerships.
As this Parliament has made clear, we must also address the issue of own resources. The present system is stretched to its limits – propped up by a byzantine set of corrections. Our citizens deserve a fairer and more efficient and transparent system. Some will not agree with all the ideas we will raise; I find it extraordinary that some are already rejecting them, even before knowing what they will be.
I know that one issue of interest to this Parliament is the duration of the next budget. Various options exist. I would like to look at a 10-year framework, with a mid-term review of the financial dimension after five years – a "five plus five" option. This will give us longer term planning and a clearer link with the mandates of both our institutions.
Of course, part of a credible European budget is the rigorous pursuit of savings. I am looking at the administrative costs within the Commission and other Community bodies like Agencies. We need to eliminate all pockets of inefficiency. We will build on recommendations from the Court of Auditors to improve financial management.
Honourable Members,
The final challenge I want to address today is how we pull our weight on the global stage.
When we deal with our every day problems, we sometimes lose perspective and forget our achievements. A peaceful and successful transition to a European Union that has doubled in size and is negotiating further accessions. A sound currency, the euro, that is a major currency of the world. A strong partnership with our neighbourhood that strengthens us all. If we act decisively, then we have nothing to fear from the 21st century.
As the strategic partnerships of the 21st century emerge, Europe should seize the chance to define its future. I am impatient to see the Union play the role in global affairs that matches its economic weight. Our partners are watching and are expecting us to engage as Europe, not just as 27 individual countries. If we don't act together, Europe will not be a force in the world, and they will move on without us: without the European Union but also without its Member States. This is why, in my political guidelines, I called for Europe to be a global player, a global leader – a key task and test for our generation.
Together with High Representative and Vice-President Ashton, I will present our vision of how we can maximise Europe's role in the world. With the European External Action Service, we have the means to match our aspirations.
In our globalized world, the relationships we build with strategic partners determine our prosperity. To be effective on the international stage, we need the weight of the European Union. Size matters, now more than ever.
A good example is the fight against climate change. Copenhagen showed that, while others did not match our ambition, we did not help ourselves by not speaking with one voice. Negotiations may have stalled but climate change has not. I want us to intensify our engagement with international partners to turn their press releases into credible commitments to cut emissions and push forward with fast-start funding.
The next two months will see crucial Summits with strategic partners. The more we are able to establish a common agenda with a clearly defined European interest, the more we will achieve. For example, I see huge potential in developing a transatlantic agenda for growth and jobs.
Where we are already punching our weight is the G20, the forum where the key economic global players address common challenges. When President Van Rompuy and I go to Seoul in November and represent the European Union, we want to see concrete results:
Further progress in global economic coordination.
More stable and responsible financial markets and agreement on reform of international financial institutions.
More effective global financial safety nets.
More progress on a G20 development agenda.
We will continue to show leadership in this forum and work closely with the French G8/G20 Presidency next year.
We also want to see support for the Doha Round. Trade boosts growth and prosperity. We will also pursue bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements. In October, the Commission will present a renewed trade policy to drive new benefits for Europe.
Being open to the world also means standing side by side with developing countries, especially with Africa. When I go to the Millennium Development Goals High-Level Event in New York in 2 weeks' time, I intend to commit, with your support and on behalf of the European Union, an extra €1 billion to the Millennium Development Goals.
Being a global player also means standing up for our values. Human rights are not negotiable. I am shocked about how the rights of women are being infringed in many countries. I am appalled when I hear that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani is sentenced to death by stoning. This is barbaric beyond words. In Europe we condemn such acts which have no justification under any moral or religious code.
Our values also mean that we must come to the aid of those facing a crisis situation, anywhere around the world.
Our humanitarian aid to Pakistan is the latest example of Europe's solidarity in action. It is a striking example of the need to present the different contributions of the Commission and the Member States as a truly European aid package. The Member States have the helicopters; they have the civil protection teams. We now need to pool them to create a real European crisis response capacity. This is what the Commission will propose in October. And I urge the Member States to show they are serious about the Union punching its weight in this area.
We are making progress on a common foreign policy. But let's be under no illusions: we will not have the weight we need in the world without a common defence policy. I believe now is the moment to address this challenge.
Honourable Members,
We are still bedding down the new institutional set-up of Europe created by the Lisbon Treaty.
What really matters is what the institutions deliver to the people. What matters is the difference Europe makes in their daily lives.
The secret of Europe's success is its unique Community model. More than ever, the Commission must drive the political agenda with its vision and proposals.
I have called for a special relationship between the Commission and Parliament, the two Community institutions par excellence. I am intensifying my political cooperation with you.
Europe is not only Brussels or Strasbourg. It is our regions. It is the cities, towns and villages you come from. When you walk round your constituencies, you can point to the European projects that are so important for their prosperity.
At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat, the European institutions, the Member states, the regions. The Union will not achieve its objectives in Europe without the Member States. And the Member States will not achieve their objectives in the world without the European Union.
Honourable Members,
The citizens of Europe expect us to take the action needed to get out of this crisis.
We must show them that the common efforts we are making today will lead to new jobs, new investments, and a Europe fit for the future.
I am confident that Europe has what it takes. We will get the results we are reaching for.
One thing is certain, it is not with pessimism that we will win this battle. It is with confidence, with a strong common will.
Today, I have outlined how I see the European Union doing that.
I have committed to deliver the proposals to build our economic union.
I have made the case to fast-track our reform agenda.
I have set out how to modernise our social market economy to deliver growth and jobs in a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy through our Europe 2020 flagship initiatives.
I have set out how to achieve a common energy policy in Europe.
I have defended the need for an area of freedom, security and justice, where Europeans will find that their fundamental rights and obligations exist wherever they go.
I have made clear that the Commission will strive for an ambitious budget.
I have proposed to develop EU project bonds to finance major European projects.
I have announced our reinforced commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.
I have made the case clear of why we need a common crisis response capacity and a also a common foreign and a common defence policy.
And I have urged European leaders to act together if they want Europe to be a global player and defend the European interest.
It is indeed a transformational, an ambitious and challenging agenda.
For Europe to succeed, the Commission needs your support for a stronger, a fairer Europe for the benefits of our citizens
Thank you.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

EU as a Scapegoat

Since the first signs of crisis emerged in 2008, public opinion inside the European Union started to shift steadily, and the last report which has been recently revealed by EUROBAROMETER shows that people tend to become more and more ungrateful towards the benefits of the EU membership of their countries. 

"The latest results show that support for EU membership has fallen to 49% (-4 points since autumn 2009), which is close to the lowest levels recorded in the last decade. The proportion of Europeans who consider their country’s membership a bad thing now stands at 18% up from 15% in autumn 2009." It’s ironic, but despite the 750 billions of bailout, the most significant decline occurred in Greece (-17%) and apparently Icelanders are also reluctant to accede to the European Union (only 19 percent of respondents think that EU membership will be a good thing).

But what does this data imply to? Not much! As even if public support declines to its roughly the lowest level, it cannot have much influence on the EU functioning as such. Basically only time when public opinion really matters is the EP election and even that time, we experience ignorance or maybe distrust to the only elected EU institution. Then why should we draw attention to the 6% decline? First of all it already dropped bellow middle line and in a long run we might experience more profound changes if the crisis persists. But thing is not merely the EP elections and explicitly growing anti-EU approach among the EU citizens might end up in pushing governments to more nationalistic policies, which is going to have catastrophic consequences to the overall stance of the European Union.

As time passes by, people fail to remember the pre EU Europe and majority of the EU citizens do not indeed remember the post World War Europe. They’ve got Welfare System granted as well as many other pros, which has become everyday life for each and every EU citizen. Unlike national governments, when people can easily re-elect, in EU’s case circumstances are different and it’s always the EU ends up being a scapegoat. It’s always the EU to blame when something goes wrong and it is always national government to praise if something works out.

"I admit that we should do more together in order to give confidence to citizens and consumers. But I also want to tell the truth: We won't solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own," – said Barroso and he is certainly right. If the EU is merely deemed as a benefit like late Polish president once put quite bluntly, it will never manage to compete with the USA or emerging powers. 

For the full data follow the link.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The European Union and the Crisis

The EU monetary crisis - all what Eurosceptics or Euroholics are constantly talking about. An interesting piece, which has been published on the webzine of Young European Federalists is definitely worth reading to understand roots and consequences of the EU policy ever since it has been established. 
Room for social policies
In order to understand the current situation, it is appropriate to analyse the social policies in Europe in a historical perspective. Since the end of the Second World War, Western Europe has developed a welfare system completely different from that of the United States, especially from the one put forward by the republican governments. Actually, the US themselves contributed to establishing the European social model through the Marshall Plan.
Post-WWII Europe needed to meet the citizens’ social needs
Post-WWII Europe needed to meet the citizens’ social needs which were already present prior to the conflict such as: large-scale public education, certainty of a home and work and a health care accessible to all. In each European national state the peculiar pattern of divergence between governments and social groups caused the emergence of different models of social state. Since then, the European institutions have had an inadequate and uneven approach in this area. In its early years the ‘ECSC’ developed its own model which was about trying to find a harmony between employers and workers and eventually turned out to be successful. Moreover, this model allowed the matching of the monetary, fiscal and political needs with those of the historical contrasting conditions of the Cold War.
In particular the ECSC model managed to align the necessity of a relation with the US with the approach of the trade unions that were far too close to the national communist parties. In practice the social policy realised by ECSC addressed the social problems caused by ECSC itself: the reorganisation of the coal-mining and steel industry. The means used were the most common ones: funds to protect workers and the industries themselves. The European communities that came later did not commit themselves in the same way in the social field. Actually the only country among the six founding members that pushed for a European common approach on the topic was Italy (because of her strong regional imbalances). This lack of European commitment in the social area meant a strong boost to the free movement of labour, to the protection of workers’ rights in destination countries, anti-unemployment measures, training plans and professional preparation. Hence, a long work was done to include these issues in the treaties of Rome.
At the end of the 1960s the European Community had to again address problems such as unemployment, immigration and education. The European Economic and Social Committee was an important but often forgotten innovation introduced by the treaties of Rome and progressively deprived of its real potential. When employers and their associations found out more suitable channels to lobby their interests, they quit this institution and left it to trade unions. Moreover, the very functioning of the EESC has made it eclipsing and caused its main problems such as opinions remained unheeded and recommendations sent too late. EESC represents the emblem of what the European institutions have not been able to do for years: use their position to be heard. Few years later, during the 1970s, the European structure changed radically and also in its approach to social issues. The turning point was the movement of 1968. Up to that time the Common Agricultural Policy and the free movement were the only common policy areas of the EEC with repercussions to the social field. Eventually, social policies were included among the competences of the EEC as one of the result of the Council of Paris in 1974. The ambitions in the social field were great and to achieve them a Community action was fundamental.
The 1970s witnessed severe crisis, especially for young people looking for their first job. Of primary importance became reducing unemployment and therefore vocational training was funded. In this context the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training was established. This European agency started to draw attention, but it was evident that adequate social policies needed more money, yet there was a lack of political willingness to fund such programmes. For this reason the main measures adopted were legislative acts, as in the cases of equal opportunities, disabled people and the European Social Dialogue (within which the European Trade Union Confederation was established). These actions did not represent any cost for the European Institutions, gave leeway to national states and allowed the European Community to avoid facing its social responsibilities. Only after 1985 social issues went on the agenda again. This is the case of the White Book of the Delors Commission “Completing the internal market” which seemed to be based on notions of neoliberalism but came from people who were not really neoliberals (such as Mitterand, Kohl, Delors). Rather than proposing a common European social model however, the European Union since then sends recommendations to national states. The only area where the European intervention appears to be relevant is the employment but also in this case is limited to the financing of unilateral programmes undertaken by singular European states.
At this point an important question is: why in this context the EU did not start from the bottom by establishing an authentic European society to which it would be easier to apply a unified European policy? We should properly estimate however, the real achievements of the Union.
Welfare is costly!
These achievements are few, but should be considered in a historical perspective: the European project started in a continent destroyed by the most devastating war ever. Nowadays it would be senseless to find excuses and to not see the reality: welfare is costly! Welfare states were established in a historical moment that made it possible. The not so easy task of reallocating the resources for social purposes was lightened by a great economic growth, in a moment of relatively weak global competition. In the light of what is happening today the main objective is therefore to save what is still left of these welfare systems: namely to save what we still can.
Consequently, the German proposal should be considered in relation to the current global situation. In a globalised economic system competition is strong. Economies such as the Indian and Chinese ones have a better position in the global competition due to their less developed welfare system and lower labour cost. The rapid decreasing of resources’ availability is a matter of concern not only for Italy but for the entire Europe. In the European Union what has been the role of the Commission and what of the national states? They normally propose solutions for the short term but the question is constantly the same: who has to pay for the crisis? Can we afford to keep spending relatively more just because we are protected by our euro ‘shield’? If the holder of the shield is weak, how can we bear this situation in the long run? Hence, when the last breaking point is reached a domino effect for Europe and then for the whole world will become a possible scenario.
The functions of Euro
Is the only function of Euro is to protect us? Or do we need something else for our development? Here we should not underestimate the power of a strong currency. Americans can take advantage of the dollar as there is somebody ruling over it. The European integration reached thanks to the Euro should remind us of the power of currencies for specific purposes. Nevertheless, we should learn how to make use of currencies. In order to do so there is only one way: equalising the value of the currency with the real value of the economy. Today, the problems are the substantial economies and the governments that control them. This does not mean that the Euro has been poorly managed. Actually the contrary is true, the good management of the Euro is due to the fact that the European Central Bank has been based on the principle of responsibility. Therefore, the ECB has properly addressed the crisis but keeps tottering because of the lack of a unified government supporting its action.
United or we will perish
In this moment of crisis who looks after the European Economy? And who will look after it in the future? Is the option proposed by Zingales of a pull-out of Greece from the Euro feasible? This solution would not we just create further gaps? Once again there is only one way out: a common European fiscal and economic policy ruled by a European government which is properly empowered and thus able to provide an appropriate guidance. We also need a common European budget in support of the economy and of the people. The solution for the crisis should not necessarily be at citizens’ expense. Either we become united or we will perish, for the umpteenth time.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Blind Love of the EU

I've recently glimpsed the data of the research, conducted by the Caucasus Research Resource Centers back in 2007, which in a broad extent reveals an attitude of the people of South Caucasus countries towards the EU. Expectedly majority of the population in all three countries are keen on further integration with the European Union and despite the fact that research was carried out 3 years ago, I doubt any significant changes have occurred in the meantime.
Should  country cooperate  with the EU? (%) 2007 
You may ask what is so special in this report. Quite normal that people support tighter cooperation/integration with the organisation which has been deemed as a relative success at least before the ongoing financial crisis. Hence the result summed in all three countries is 78%. In the data, the figures are given separately for economic and political integration, but I won’t distinct it as the difference teeters between 1-2 percents. In any case, the number is indeed very high. Some of the recently joined countries had much less figures when it comes to popular support. In the survey which has been published in 2008 by the EUROBAROMETER, overall figure in the member and membership aspiring countries slightly exceeds 50 percent. More than half of Europeans consider that their country’s membership of the European Union is a good thing (52%), while three out of ten (29%) think that it is neither good nor bad and 14% think that it is a bad thing. Comparing to this data, people of South Caucasus have rather positive attitude towards the EU. But this data gets meaningless with the next figure, which shows that for instance 48% of people in Armenia think that their country is already a member of the European Union.

Is your country a member
of the European Union? 2009
On comparatively the similar question, EUROBAROMETER gives us vague numbers, taking into account the age, sex, social status etc. of respondents which of course differ from this particular data revealed by the CRRC. However the figures are still very low. Not only in the South Caucasus, but even within the European Union people lack knowledge and information about the EU. We can certainly blame the knotty structure of the EU or the indifference of citizens, but in any case it is EU’s ineffectiveness to be blamed on the first place.
 EU’s supranationalism has already far prevailed national governments with a significant degree, but people tend to be more informed on their domestic issues, which has a logical consequence on EP elections afterwards. As an outcome, the EU should probably address the issue on country to country bases, as the situation differs in every member/membership aspiring countries. More formal and non formal educational programmes and maybe less funds on Erasmus type projects, which is clearly ineffective for various reasons. As for the Neighbourhood countries, I presume European Neighbourhood Policy gravely lacks efficiency in this particular aspect. Thanks to the EYP I have examined this issue even further and what I assume is that the rift in awareness of the EU matters between the youngsters from the EU 27 and peers from candidate/neighbourhood countries is huge.

You can find the full data of the research on CRRC website

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Coming Fiscal Bankruptcy of the West

Not idealizing as some of my friends might blame me, but Jose Pinera was one of the best speakers I’ve listened so far. Academic and practitioner (won’t use the word ”Politician”)  who has been in the front of Chilean economic reforms in the end of 70th. Simply to put - the architect of the private pension reform, which was based on the personal retirement account.

Mr. Pinera indeed has a lot to say and he does it in a manner that will definitely tie you up during the lecture. I won’t prolong further as his biography says more, just will present the recording of the lecture he has delivered in the Neuwaldegg Institute Summer Seminar 2010 (August 9th - 15th) in Castle Neuwaldegg, Vienna, Austria. Unfortunately, it covers the lecture on European monetary crisis only. Due to some circumstances I was unable to record entire lecture on Chilean Pension Reform itself. But taking into account the fact that European crisis is an ongoing matter, from my standpoint it should be more interesting. 

Especially in the meantime of the crisis of the EU welfare system, which is going to have a serious consequences as Mr. Pinera assumes. Hence, an assessment of the man who has transformed and revolutionized Chilean pension system is undoubtedly interesting to listen. As the existing Bismarkian system is about to collapse in Europe, it is indeed very timely to use an example of already long tested system, which has played a significant role in entire of process of  soaring Chilean economy. Then why don't we consider it as a possible outcome for many European countries. It can be considered by Georgian government as well, as the country hasn’t yet reformed the existing system (if one can call it that way at all). Just to note, Kazakhstan is the first and so far the last post Soviet country which has chosen Chilean way of pension reforms.

I'll stop here and let you enjoy Professor Pinera. For further information about him/his viewpoints you can visit the web page www.josepinera.com and also feel free to follow him on twitter on English language account http://twitter.com/pinerajose.

Here is the recording of the lecture and the PPT he used during the lecture. Thanks to Youtube restrictions I had to upload couple of parts of it. But I strongly recommend to everyone to watch/listen them till the end.



Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V and Part VI.