Please, please stop calling it a “Grexit“. The word (a portmanteau of “Greek” and “exit”) has been doing the rounds recently, as the possibility of Greece rejecting the conditions of its EU/IMF emergency loans, defaulting on its debts and leaving the Single Currency altogether start to grow worryingly real. Still, none of that is an excuse for the word “Grexit”.

Last week, Debating Europe attended a European Movement International briefing in Brussels with László Andor, European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. We took the opportunity to put one of your comments to Commisioner Andor for him to react. Joe had sent in the following, putting things quite starkly: “[Greece, France and other countries may] not agree with austerity, but if they have no money, they can’t spend it.“

Commissioner Andor, however, disagreed. He argued that the recent elections offered a chance for “fresh political debate” and that it was time for a change of direction:

Well, I think this is exactly the time to reconsider the fiscal consolidation policies as they have been implemented in the last two or three years… I believe if there is a new, fresh political debate about this, this will take into account the objectives of employment and social cohesion stronger than in the past period.

Elsewhere on the Commission, there also seems to be growing support for a shift in policy. We recently spoke to Commissioner Joaquín Almunia, European Commissioner for Competition and a Vice President of the Commission, to ask his opinion on the “growth versus austerity” debate. As Oliver put it, “Some political movements preferred pure austerity, others saw that reforms were necessary, but wanted to flank them with growth initiatives.” Which camp would Almunia fall into? He responded:

Growth should be produced through different engines. On the one hand, repairing the damages caused in the financial system by the crisis… on the other hand, through structural reforms that will be growth friendly… and, third, through some policy initiatives that will compensate the aggregate demand that is being lost because of the adjustments that are needed.

The promise of “policy initiatives” to compensate for the loss of aggregate demand will be particularly intriguing for those who argue that a focus purely on austerity has hit a brick wall. We asked Commissioner Almunia if he supported ECB President Mario Draghi’s call for a “growth compact” to complement the “fiscal compact” setting limits on national budgets:

We need now at the present moment, when some of our economies are suffering a recession, we need to coordinate actions conducive to growth. If you can call this a ‘growth compact’ to complement the fiscal compact, I agree with this.

What do YOU think? Are you optimistic about the idea of a “growth compact” to complement the “fiscal compact”? Or, with Greece risking default and an exit from the eurozone, do you think it’s a case of “too little, too late”? And what should these growth-oriented “policy initiatives” actually look like? Let us know your thoughts in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

László Andor is European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.

Joaquín Almunia is European Commissioner for Competition.

Yesterday was Europe Day, marking the 1950 speech by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman that launched the process of European integration. Symbolically, Europe Day also happens to fall just after (or, in most of the former Soviet Union, on the same day as) the anniversary of the end of the Second World War. Festivities have been somewhat muted, however, against a backdrop of rising unemployment, painful spending cuts, double-dip recession and (most recently) growing political uncertainty in the wake of last week’s Greek elections. The inability of what have traditionally been the two largest parties to secure a parliamentary majority now leaves open the possibility of a messy Greek default.

Just as worrying for many is the rise of extremist political parties. Earlier this week, Franck left a comment about the entry of the far-right “Golden Dawn” party into the Greek Parliament with almost 7% of the vote, saying: “neo-nazis have just entered the Greek parliament… For me, this is not trivial and could happen anywhere [that politicans] do not pay attention to the pain of the people.“

The Golden Dawn’s leader, Nikolaos Michaloliakos (pictured above with supporters), rejects the label “neo-nazi”, despite the Golden Dawn’s use of suspiciously Hitler-esque “Roman salutes” and a party flag that very closely resembles the Nazi swastika.

Before the elections, we spoke to Professor Frank Furedi about the importance of freedom of speech for democracy, and the difference between “tolerance” and “non-judgmentalism” when it comes to extremist viewpoints. Frank Furedi is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent’s School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, and was speaking at a lecture at the university’s Brussels campus. His most recent book is On Tolerance: In Defence of Moral Independence.

Earlier this year, we had a comment sent in by Sam on the controversy surrounding the Hungarian constitutional changes. He supported the liberal ALDE group in the European Parliament because:

The ALDE group are one of the only groups to make a stand… against the Hungarian constitution for its lack of recognition of LGBT rights. Other europarties told them to mind their own sovereign business, but it needed to be explored.

Is Sam right? Or is there a contradiction between passing judgement over the internal workings of a country and preserving national sovereignty?

Also reacting to the controversy around the Hungarian constitution, we had a comment sent in from a user arguing that “non-democratic” parties should be banned, because democracies need mechanisms to protect themselves:

[In Hungary] the democracy has no mechanism to protect itself from non-democratic political organizations. The Romanian constitution prohibits explicitly any extremist political organization. We too have a far-right movement, but it is an NGO. They are not allowed to have a party. In this way, the non-democrats have no voice in a democratic country and cannot obtain political power.

On the other hand, Nikolai recently left a comment arguing that:

If a legal far right party manages to get members elected and are thus, via democracy, representative of enough people to do so, they have every right to raise the issues of those they represent even if the far more central MPs and constituents disagree (or even find what is said “shocking”).

Many modern far-right parties, of course, are not anti-democratic (like the fascist movements of the 20th Century) but populist. Is there, then, really a conflict between democracy and tolerance of extremist views? And which is a more fundamental right?

Finally, if we accept that freedom of speech is fundamental to democracy, does that mean there is an obligation to give equal exposure to all ideas? Or should extremist views be denied the “oxygen of publicity” of media attention?

What do YOU think? Should extremist views in Europe be banned? Should they be denied the ‘oxygen of publicity’? Or should they be brought out in public debate and confronted? Are we seeing the ‘radicalisation’ of politics in Europe, or were the Greek results merely protest votes against austerity policies, not representative of a long-term trend towards political extremism? Let us know your thoughts in the form below, and we’ll take them to politicians and experts for their reactions.

Frank Furedi is Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent’s School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research.

Last year, we asked you whether you thought Europe could still afford the ‘European social model’ in the face of biting austerity cuts. With the election of François Hollande as French President and the kick-back against austerity in the recent Greek elections, do you think things have changed? Is the European social model going to struggle through, or is it unlikely to survive without serious reform?

We spoke to Dr. Miklós Szócska, the Hungarian Minister of State for Healthcare, and put some of your comments to him. Firstly, we asked him to react to a comment from Paul, who argued: “We must not allow neo-liberalism to destroy the European social models. Over the years, there have been attempts to dismantle it always using costs, misuse/abuse or demographics as reasons.” How would you respond to Paul? Is the European social model sustainable?

I think it has to be sustainable, because it is an achievement in civilization. I agree with Paul that it is under threat and facing serious challenges, because on the world market we have to compete with countries that do not have such a social insurance cost-burden. But we have to be able to defend solidarity and the European social model in the coming years.

On the other hand, we had a comment from Fabian arguing that we need to start discussing serious healthcare reform in Europe: “I’m not suggesting that we directly eliminate all these services, but rather that we start a public debate on which services we want the healthcare system to cover and which services should be privately paid for. Fostering and moderating this discussion throughout Europe should be a top priority for European policy makers.“

Yes, I fully agree with him. And this is what we wanted to achieve during our EU Presidency. What we said is that, while the health services are in the national policy domain, there are serious questions that can only be answered at the European level. So, I fully agree: there has to be a European health policy debate, and it will end up with a European health policy in future.

Next, we had a comment from Eric warning that there are no magic technological solution to the problems Europe is facing. He argues that there is “a natural tendency for companies to focus on those technologies that can be marketed to those who can best pay for them. Do we think that personalised medicine will really benefit everyone? I don’t think so, because we need to provide uniform access to basic health care services to everyone first.“

Whatever we do, European societies are ageing and chronic diseases are increasing, and the burden of these diseases will only increase over the coming decades. Where technology comes in is that we have to make clever investment choices. We have to invest in primary care and prevention, so we have to forget the traditional hospital-based model. And technology can help us to make more efficient choices.

In Hungary we are using data in a very efficient way; we are using electronic care-mapping applications to help us redesign patient pathways. So, we can use IT for supporting decisions and to have more efficient health services.

There is still a problem of access, though, isn’t there? David, another commenter, argued: “Concentrating on that small part of the population with access to medical technology overlooks the real risk in the system that starts in the doctor’s office.“

Yes, there is a risk in terms of equal-access to high-tech services. We have care maps that show that in certain regions, when there are university hospitals, you can see that access to high-tech services is higher than in remote areas. Also, when you look at diagnosis, there is inequality in Hungary in terms of access to high-tech oncological diagnostic services. So, I agree that you have to be very careful and design those patient pathways in an equitible way.

Finally, Patrick had a suggestion for making public healthcare in Europe more accountable: “We could even elect managers and unelect them as soon as they step out of line, to carry out the simple task of managing the paperwork for us.“

There was a time in Hungary, back in 1993, when the hospital staff were able to elect their hospital director. I have to tell, it was not necessarily good for the sustainability of the system. Our experience was that electing the managers endangered the sustainability of the system because they only wanted to take actions in favour of their constituency. So, I fully agree that there is an issue around the accountability of managers in publicly funded systems, but we have to find other ways of supervising the sustainability and efficiency and transparency of these systems than just electing the managers.

What do YOU think? Can the “European Social Model” survive? Might technological innovation provide a solution? Or are we heading towards a future where only the rich can afford the best healthcare? And is the “European Social Model” an achievement of civilization worth protecting, or a clunky and inefficient holdover from a time when Europe didn’t need to compete on the world stage? Let us know your thoughts in the form below, and we’ll  take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Lori Greig

Dr. Miklós Szócska is the Hungarian Minister of State for Healthcare.

Yesterday, François Hollande was elected French President on an anti-austerity platform (making him only the second socialist president in the history of the Fifth Republic). The Greek mainstream political parties, meanwhile, received a battering in elections on Sunday to the Hellenic Parliament. The two main parties, the centre-right New Democracy party and centre-left PASOK, have seen their combined support collapse from  79 percent of the vote at the last elections to only about 32 percent yesterday. Of the 300 seats up for grabs, 151 have gone to parties that reject the Greek EU/IMF bail-out deal, making it impossible for the pro-bailout parties to form a government on their own.

Is the consensus for austerity being smashed by a resurgent European left? Or will Mr Hollande find his options limited once in office? And what does the political chaos in Greece mean for Europe? Before the elections, we spoke to Sylvie Goulard, a French MEP with the liberal Mouvement Démocrate party, and put some of your comments on the eurozone crisis to her.

First up, Alison sent in a comment arguing that: “There is no allowance for growth for Europe to get us out of this mess. We’ll be back to square one in a year to two years.” This was, essentially, François Hollande’s line during the French election campaign. Is Alison right?

Well, she’s right… but one has to understand perhaps why. The reason why some member-states have insisted so much on discipline is because the basic deal made when we created the euro explicitly stated there would be no emergency financial assistance for member states. Of course, I can personally understand the demand of Alison, and she’s right, but I can also understand why public opinion is traumatised by what happened, and why some people have been calling for tougher rules… To genuinely boost growth, you have to agree to structural reforms, labour market reforms and many other measures that politicians hate. You do not immediately see the results from these kinds of reforms and it’s painful.

Next, we had a comment from Andreas arguing that: “The only solution for Greece to see better days is to default and return back to drachmas.”

No, I belive it would be much worse for a country to leave the eurozone. If you leave the eurozone you will just increase your burden of debt whilst also removing the support from the other member-states… We should help Greece to rebuild a strong national economy, based on research, tourism, industry, shipping, etc. A Greek exit now might also provoke contagion effects to the rest of the eurozone. If Greece goes, what about Portugal? Or Ireland? Or Spain? Or other countries?

Finally, Michael from Greece sent in a comment calling for much closer economic and political integration as a solution to the crisis: “If Europe has common problems then Europe has to have common solutions. A common Eurobond is one of them and many others should follow.“

You cannot say right now, in the current situation, that we will create a eurobond. On the other hand, we should not exclude it in the medium-to-long term. The first step is to boost trust and growth. After some years, it might make sense to have common issuance of bonds. But it’s not a decision we can take now. The key reason for putting our debt together is not the eurocrisis, it’s the reason we adopted the euro in the first place. It’s to have a global reserve currency, with a deep and liquid bond market.

What do YOU think? Do you agree that austerity and structural reforms, whilst painful, are still the best way to return to growth for Europe? Or have the French and Greek elections changed everything? Is there still a consensus for austerity in Europe? How will the Greek election results affect things, especially if a political deadlock develops with a government unable to form. Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll put them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Sylvie Goulard is a French MEP. She is the liberal ALDE group coordinator on the Committee for Economic and Monetary Affairs.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Parti socialiste

The upcoming Euro 2012 football championship, due to be held in Poland and Ukraine in June and July, has been causing political controversy recently. Relations between the EU and Ukraine have deteriorated since the Ukrainian opposition leader and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, currently held in prison on charges of abuse of power during her time in office, claimed she had been beaten by prison guards in her cell and began a hunger strike on 20 April. Tymoshenko, one of the leaders of the pro-Western “Orange Revolution” in 2004, lost the presidential elections in 2010 to the pro-Russian candidate Viktor Yanukovych. She argues the election was marred by voting irregularities, though international observers declared it honest and transparent. In late 2011, following what her supporters decry as a manipulated show trial, a Ukrainian court sentenced Tymoshenko to 7 years imprisonment (a sentence some consider to be politically motivated revenge from President Yanukovych).

Several European leaders have already cancelled their visits to Ukraine. Ministers from Germany, Austria and Belgium, along with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding, have said they will not be attending the European football championships in Ukraine next month. In addition, Germany is putting mounting pressure on Kiev over the issue by threatening to wreck an upcoming EU-Ukraine trade deal.

Is this a case of political repression or is the EU interferring in the legal system of another country? Commenting in November of last year on Debating Europe, Nikolai argued that:

The EU seems to care more about the fate of Ms Tymoshenko than the Ukrainian public. But then, the Ukrainian public know she is far from being a saint (like all Ukrainian politicians).  In fact, few regard her as the champion of democracy she claims to be.

What do YOU think? Do you think a political boycott is a good idea? Would it help ensure transparency and protect human rights in Ukraine? Or is it a misguided attempt to interfere in another country’s affairs? Might it even encourage Ukraine to turn away from the EU and develop stronger relations with neighbouring Russia? Let us know your thoughts in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

During the Pakistan debate, we had a comment sent in from Christos arguing: “Education is a much better weapon to use than military strength… If we continue to pursue violence and support military action against the Taliban activities, then I am afraid that we just make some people martyrs… It only empowers their determination as they see that the ‘West’ is helping or supporting military activities on their soil.” We took this comment to Paul Smith, British Council Country Director in Afghanistan, to see how he would respond. Have Western powers struck the right balance in Afghanistan, or has the emphasis been too strongly on security and beating the Taliban militarily?

Next up was a comment from Nikolai, arguing that: “Pakistan may well be a case where the EU should engage as something other than the EU. It may well be an occasion where bi-lateral national engagement will produce the best results given the recognised EU support for many US objectives and methods so unpopular in Pakistan.” Whilst Nikolai was originally talking about the situation in Pakistan, does the same also apply in Afghanistan?

Finally, what will happen when troops leave in 2014? Are we going to see continuing support for Afghanistan, or will any progress that has been made (particularly in terms of things like rights for women) be lost?

We also spoke to Nasrine Gross, founder of the Roqia Center for Women’s Rights, Studies and Education in Afghanistan. First, we asked her to respond to Christos’s point on the balance between education, development and security.

Next, we asked her to respond to Nikolai’s comment on the perception of Western powers in the region. Again, though Nikolai was originally talking about Pakistan, would it help in Afghanistan if development were seen to come more from ‘neutral’ countries like Sweden or Germany?

Finally, we also asked her what her predictions were for post-2014. What will happen when Western forces leave Afghanistan?

What do YOU think? Is the EU failing to support Afghanistan? Is the country ready for the pull-out of Western forces in 2014? Has the right balance been struck between combatting the Taliban militarily and investing in education and development in the country? And is the EU ‘tainted’ by association with the US, or is it a myth to suppose that ordinary Afghanis resent American forces. Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Paul Smith is British Council Country Director in Afghanistan.

Nasrine Gross is the founder of the Roqia Center for Women’s Rights, Studies and Education in Afghanistan.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – codepinkhq

Earlier, we had a video comment sent in from Protesilaos asking whether the fiscal compact was improperly balanced, with too much emphasis on austerity measures:

Recently, we had the chance to take this comment to Hannes Swoboda, leader of the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, to hear his reaction. This is one of the big issues dividing the main parties in the Parliament, so how would the leader of the largest centre-left party react?

Well, first of all, I agree with his criticism on the fiscal treaty. It’s wrong for two reasons. First, because it’s outside the normal EU procedures, with oversight from the Council and the Parliament; second, because of the very austere elements. I’ve nothing against savings. We have to save money in the public sphere. But the extreme austerity in this treaty is bad… We need deficit spending, in the long run, to reach a balanced budget.

Austerity measures won’t bring people out of the crisis. It’s like giving poison to a man or woman who is sick. If you give people lower incomes, salaries, pensions, minimum wages, etc. then they have less money to spend and less income from consumption activities. This leads to a higher deficit and higher taxes. That’s the situation in Greece right now.

Until now, all the countries who gave money to Greece have been earning money. The general impression of the public, because of politicians being dishonest, is that the bail-out money is being given to the Greek government. The truth, however, is that the bail-outs are going straight back out of the country and into the pockets of investors. The poor are paying to the rich.

Other MEPs were more guarded in their support for growth policies. We had a comment from Brutus arguing that European economic policies should focus above all on reducing unemployment, and that the “first thing to do to make Europe more competitive is to put everyone to work.” Emilie Turunen, a Green MEP from Denmark, had this to say in response:

Yes and no. I agree to the point that what we’re doing right now is not sufficient, and we’re behind the economic curve; too little, too late. That was the case with Greece, and now with growth in Europe generally. This means that we have to get the wheels going again. He’s right when he says we need to reduce unemployment and focus on growth.

On the other hand, there was a need for stricter economic governance. It was not a regime that anyone respected; Germany and France were the first to disrespect the Growth and Stability Pact. We were not really prepared for a crisis.

What about the idea of eurobonds or other such measures to tackle the crisis at the EU level? We had a comment from Michael arguing that: “If Europe has common problems then Europe has to have common solutions. A common Eurobond is one of them and many others should follow.” How would Emilie Turunen react?

More integration is highly, highly controversial and doesn’t have a lot of popular support from people right now. So the measures being implemented must be followed by a more democratic union. Elect the Commission. If we hand over powers to the EU, we need real democratic control over what happens. What we have now is undemocratic integration.

Next, we had a comment from Craig arguing the current approach is clearly not working: “The policy of half-hearted ECB/Council bailouts has thus far led to recession and concurrently lower revenue/worse debt-to-GDP ratios.” We took this comment to Nicolas Schmit, Luxembourg’s Minister of Labour and Employment, to see how he would respond.

I share Craig’s critical attitude. Indeed, the policy which has been chosen now to solve the debt crisis will not give us the expected solutions. The Spanish case is a good example: even the conservative Spanish government has not been able to go as far as recommended. The more cuts are made, the bigger the problem the debt burden becomes. We have really to develop a policy of investment, a policy of growth, taking seriously into account the problem of unemployment, especially among young people.

Some of our commenters were fiercely critical of the approach outlined by Mr Schmit. We had a comment from Marcel arguing: “My country, the Netherlands, has pension fund assets totaling 130% of GDP. For the rest of the Eurozone on average this is 20-25%. Can you see why fiscal union would be a catastrophe for us? I don’t think you’ll find more than 1% [of people would] be willing to ‘share’ around, and those are the ones who can afford it.[Amongst] the lower middle class and lower incomes, who did not profit from the Euro at all, you will find no such ‘European’ solidarity. It simply does not exist.” How would Mr Schmit respond?

The Netherlands is a good example. It shows that a country which has adopted a relatively strict budgetary policy is now heading for a deficit largely above 3% because they are really hurt by the overall economic situation. It shows clearly we live in one Europe, and solidarity is the only way to get out of the present economic mess. I fully understand that it may be difficult for people to accept that we have to finance countries that haven’t had very strict fiscal policies. It’s also clear we must have stronger rules over budgetary policies. On the other hand, if these countries really get into trouble then even those who have adopted the right policies will also be in big trouble. We have to play the solidarity card.

Many MEPs, however, are much more cautious. Olle Schmidt, a Swedish Liberal MEP, also answered Protesilaos’ question on whether the fiscal compact would be sufficient to address the crisis:

It is a part of the remedy, I would say. All the decisions we’ve been making over the last year and a half will prevent Europe from ending up in another mess like the one we’ve had for the last three years. It’s also an essential part of the solution to the current crisis, because the fiscal compact is also sending a message that money is used in a proper and responsible way. In my experience, from my own country in the Nineties, we had also a very severe crisis and we also introduced these kind of measures that would help politicians to not keep spending money, and actually building the fiscal discipline that is needed in this global world. So, I see this as a part of the remedy.

Finally, we took some questions to Anna Kinberg Batra, Parliamentary Group leader of the Swedish Moderate Party in the Swedish Parliament. Her party is a member of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), which counts as members many of the ruling parties in Europe right now. We gave her a comment from Andreas, who asked: “Are the bail-outs helping in any way Greece? No. Of course not. What they actually do is to merely extend the death of their economy for some more time, until they finally fall into bankruptcy… The only solution for Greece to see better days is to default and return back to drachmas.”

The long-term solution for Greece lies in the hands of the Greek public. The root of the problem is that Greek politicians had promised more than the country could deliver. In the long-term, Greece must grow and build its competitiveness. And that has to be done by the Greeks themselves. Their future inside or outside the eurozone is up to them.

What about the comment from Craig, arguing that austerity is merely leading to “recession and concurrently lower revenue/worse debt-to-GDP ratios”?

The long-term sustainable solution is competitiveness and building real worth. Greece couldn’t afford to continue building its debts forever. In the long-run, Greece has to grow through competitiveness. If you look around Europe in the world, I’m worried we’re not putting enough of an emphasis on achieving sustainable growth through competitiveness. China is rising, India is rising; Europe cannot take its position for granted. We have to compete.

What do YOU think? Is austerity leading to a vicious cycle of recession and lower economic growth, making it harder to balance the budget? Or does austerity increase confidence and so encourage economic activity? Can we spend our way out of the crisis, or have we reached the limits of what we can borrow? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – 401k

Last month, we asked you if you thought the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) was doing more harm than good. Are fish stocks best protected in a coordinated fashion through the EU, or is the red-tape and bureaucracy of the CFP precipitating an environmental catastrophe? The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) recently updated its review of the state of world marine fishery resources. Globally, the situation is continuing to deteriorate, with 87 percent of fish stocks estimated to be fully exploited or overexploited in 2009, compared to 85 percent in the previous year.

We had a range of comments responding to our earlier post, some strongly critical and others more optimistic (and you can get an idea of some of the basic arguments for and against a Common Fisheries Policy in our InfoBox here). Most people, though, seemed to accept that the status quo was unsustainable and that mistakes had been made in the past.

Recently, we had the opportunity to interview Maria Damanaki, EU Commissioner for Fisheries, to put some of your questions and comments to her. Commissioner Damanaki is responsible for reforming the CFP, so would she agree that it had been a failure in the past? Van Patten sent in a highly critical comment arguing that: “the CFP has contributed to arguably one of the greatest environmental catastrophes on record… it has been an unmitigated disaster, on economic and environmental grounds.” How would the Commissioner respond?

The next comment we received on this topic came from Tim Worstall, who suggested: “We could in fact do what has saved, as an example, the Alaskan halibut fishery: Tradeable Individual Quotas. Not dissimilar from what Norway, Iceland and the Faroes (all safely outside [the] absurd CFP) do.“

Next, Ron Patz (who has written about CFP on his blog) gave us a question on Twitter:

@debatingeurope ask her which of her two proposals is more likely to fail in EP/Council:Discard ban or the transferable fishing concessions?

27 March, 2012 3:25 pm via NambuReplyRetweetFavorite

@ronpatz

R P

Next, we had a question sent in from Christos arguing: “If one region is over-fished then the EU should impose stricter quotas or even a ban on fishing in those waters until the stocks are back to a healthy population. Only local fishermen can continue fishing in those waters, but following a strict quota… [In that way] the local fishermen are also protected against the larger fleets and the fish are being given a chance to replenish their numbers.“

Finally, when we interviewed Isabella Lövin, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for the Swedish Green Party, she stressed the importance of long-term planning for fisheries management: “I think having multi-annual fishing management plans – which has been proposed by the Commission – is key. You should not have management on a year-to-year basis. They realised this in the US and in New Zealand and Australia, and they did something about it.” Would the commissioner agree that longer-term planning is key, and is she optimistic that it will make it into the reforms?

What do YOU think? If we accept that mistakes have been made in the past, can the Common Fisheries Policy still be reformed? Could transferable fishing quotas help prevent waste? Or a full discard ban that forces fishermen to land everything they catch? And do you think that both the European Parliament and EU member-states can be made to agree on these reforms so they might eventually see the light of day? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Maria Damanaki is European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. Formerly, she was president of the Greek Synaspismos party of the radical left.

Image Credits: CC / Flickr – Tim Pearce

WANT THE QUICK FACTS ABOUT THE CFP?

CLICK HERE

It’s been another tough week for Spain. The southern European country, struggling with recession and an unemployment rate of 24 percent, has been inching closer to joining Greece, Ireland and Portugal in requesting an emergency EU / IMF loan. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, who took office just four months ago when the crisis looked set to completely overwhelm the eurozone, warned that if the country doesn’t keep cutting its deficit then it won’t be able to meet its commitments to the EU. Yet investors are getting worried by Madrid’s slow progress, and economists believe that Spanish banks will soon be forced to turn to the eurozone’s bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

The European Commission flatly denies any plans are afoot for a Spanish bailout or for a recapitalization of Spanish banks (whilst also stressing that the fund would – hypothetically - nonetheless have the legal and financial capacity to provide assistance should it ever became necessary). Could we about to see another EU member-state receiving bail-out money?

We had a comment sent in by Marcel that was highly critical of the idea of stronger European economies supporting their struggling neighbours. He left a comment saying: “My country, [the Netherlands], has pension fund assets totalling 130% of GDP. For the rest of the Eurozone on average this is 20-25%. Can you see why fiscal union would be a catastrophe for us? I don’t think you’ll find more than 1% [would] be willing to ‘share’ around, and those are the ones who can afford it. [Among] the lower middle class and lower incomes, who did not profit from the euro at all, you will find no such ‘European’ solidarity. It simply does not exist.“

Debating Europe recently spoke to Portuguese Socialist MEP Ana Maria Gomes about the situation in Spain, her own country and the wider eurozone. We took Marcel’s comment to her and asked her how she would respond.

The Netherlands might have this level of pension funds that Marcel mentioned, but the Netherlands also has one of the lowest systems of corporate taxation in Europe. Did you know that out of the twenty companies that are listed in the Portuguese stock exchange, nineteen don’t have their headquarers in Portugal? Of these twenty, sixteen have their headquarters in the Netherlands? This is a system for legal tax evasion. These companies don’t have to declare, by having their holding companies based in the Netherlands, the income they make internationally, from China to Angola. So, you have institutionalised a system of tax havens which leads to fiscal competition in the most unfair way. A tax jungle.

This is one of the things preventing countries like mine from reducing our deficits; the tax evasion amounts to 78% of the money that we need to balance our budget. This is benefiting other member-states, namely the Netherlands, and not being used for investment in the Portuguese economy, so the system is quite perverse as it is now. Fiscal harmonisation is an essential element to get us out of the crisis.

Of course, we also need solidarity. We will not survive if we allow the continued divergenece between the German economy and the Portuguese economy to go on. This requires real solidarity between the members. So, without moving in that direction we are not going to sustain the EU, and the countries that are benefiting most from the single market will also be affected. Some, like Portugal, may already be paying a very tough price. Others, including the Netherlands, sooner or later if they don’t defend the solidarity that is inehrent to the EU, they will also be hit, and we will all be in the same situation.

We also had a comment sent in from Renata that was highly critical of the European Central Bank (ECB). She argued that: “The ECB cannot [continue to] give funds to banks and private financial institutions without fixing disbursement conditions to be applied to sub-lenders, such as maximum [interest rates].” How would you respond to Renata?

Isn’t it outrageous that we have this system that Renata describes? The ECB can finance banks at 1% and then the banks go and take that money and finance governments at 5 or 6%, and if the banks even go and finance SMEs at all then they do it at a much higher rate. And that same ECB is not allowed to finance governments that are trying to balance their budgets at a reasonable rate? This system is perverse.

Let me tell you, I was on the radio recently and I told them that the situation is getting so desperate that I would pray for a bail-out for Spain. Not because I have anything against Spain. Not because I don’t know that what happens in Spain will have tremendous implications for my country as well. But because I fear this is the only way for the neo-liberals to understand how the crisis is affecting the whole economy. Perhaps, by having a big economy like Spain under speculative attack, they will finally recognise that this recipe of bail-outs and austerity measures served in Portugal, Greece and Ireland is not working.

What do YOU think? Would a Spanish bail-out finally convince “neo-liberals” that austerity isn’t working? Or would the contagion spread to Italy and other countries, threatening the stability of the eurozone? Do we need fiscal harmonisation in Europe to help close “institutionalised tax havens”? Or is tax competition between member-states a healthy way to ensure a sustainable economy? Let us know your comments and thoughts in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

Ana Maria Gomes is a Portuguese MEP for the centre-left Socialist Party.

Images Credits: CC / Flickr – bagelmouse

This Sunday, the first round of the French Presidential election will take place. The result, if frontrunner French Socialist candidate François Hollande wins (as widely predicted), could be a shift to the left for one of the most powerful countries in Europe. This would mark a change in the fortunes of Europe’s centre-left, which have endured a losing-streak since the 2008 financial crisis broke, so that now a majority of EU member-states are currently run by centre-right governments.

Mr Hollande is reported to have a decisive lead of around 10 percentage points and is likely to win the second round of votes, due to be held on 6 May, if none of the candidates get more than half the votes in the first round on Sunday. Last week, both Hollande and Sarkozy gathered their supporters in two big rallies in Paris. Whilst Hollande called Sarkozy’s term in office “five years of injustice and austerity”, the incumbent French President conceded that the European Central Bank should do more to revive economic growth. Not, of course, a narrative that will enormously please German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has consistently supported ECB independence. Whoever wins, could we be about to witness a shift away from an austerity-based approach to economic recovery?

How do YOU think French elections will affect the EU? Will France have a socialist government soon? How would this influence the negotiations over the new “rule book” for the Eurozone, currently being led by centre-right leaders? And if Sarkozy is re-elected instead, will the French relationship with Germany be forever altered? What happens to “Merkozy”? Let us know your comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – radiowood2000