Who would have thought that Europe would come this far, when Robert Schuman gave the Schuman Declaration.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
II Youth Convention on Volunteering
On 8 September, the II Youth Convention on Volunteering kicks off. More than 1500 registered participants are expected in the European Parliament in Brussels and on the Esplanade in front of it from 8 to 11 September. Many more young people from Brussels and its surroundings will visit workshops, events, discussions and free concerts on the Parliament Esplanade from Thursday afternoon to Saturday evening.
For those based in Brussels, the Convention offers a great opportunity to find information about volunteering and volunteers' rights, to join workshops, events, discussions and free concerts and to meet young people from all over Europe.
Those outside of Brussels may be interested in following the live blog of the event. Over three days, a young blogger team (disclaimer: I am one of them) will follow events, discussions, workshops and concerts for online readers.
Hope to see you online or offline - at the II Youth Convention on Volunteering.
For those based in Brussels, the Convention offers a great opportunity to find information about volunteering and volunteers' rights, to join workshops, events, discussions and free concerts and to meet young people from all over Europe.
Those outside of Brussels may be interested in following the live blog of the event. Over three days, a young blogger team (disclaimer: I am one of them) will follow events, discussions, workshops and concerts for online readers.
Hope to see you online or offline - at the II Youth Convention on Volunteering.
Monday, July 18, 2011
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
For those who haven't had a chance to read it over at PlaceLux.EU, here is the open letter that MEPs have sent to the new French secretary of State, Jean Leonetti (taken from MEP Raül Romeva i Rueda's blog).
CM. Jean Leonetti
Secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes
Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
France
Secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes
Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
France
Brussels, 14 July 2011
Dear Secretary of State,
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
Please accept our congratulations on your appointment as France's new Minister for Europe. We wish you success.
There is now an Absolute Majority in the European Parliament in favour of a Single Seat. Following the vote on June 8 on the Multiannual Financial Framework, enough MEPs have now adjusted their record to achieve an absolute majority (373-285) on the paragraph pointing to "the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a Single Seat". This Absolute Majority -as well as the 2012/2013 calendar vote in March- fundamentally shifts the debate.
As you know, the EU Treaty requires the European Parliament to hold 12 monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg. As a result, we meet in Strasbourg 48 days every year. From next year, this will be 45 days, following our vote to hold the two October plenary sessions during the same week to save money, time and the environment. This democratic decision of the Parliament is being contested by France before the European Court of Justice in closed proceedings.
All of the Parliament's other activities take place in Brussels (with the exception of a part of the administration, which is based in Luxembourg). Brussels is where committee and political group meetings are held. It is where most of our staff are based. It is where the other two institutions that form the EU decision-making triangle (the Council and the Commission) are located. Over the last 50 years, Brussels has evolved into the EU's democratic capital. It is where companies, NGOs, national, regional and local governments, industry associations and trade unions all have their offices. It is where the EU press corps has its hub, including technical facilities.
When the European Parliament started meeting in Strasbourg over 50 years ago, it was a consultative assembly with part-time Members who were not directly elected, it was purely advisory and had no powers. Today, it is on a par with the Council of Ministers when it comes to making laws and its Members are full-time legislators, directly elected by the peoples of Europe. Yet unlike national parliaments, it cannot decide when and where it wishes to meet.
Recent votes in the European Parliament as well as several surveys have shown that a majority of MEPs believe the European Parliament should have a Single Seat, in Brussels. The Dutch and UK governments have publicly backed this view. More than 1,25 million European citizens have signed an online petition to this effect.
Over time a number of parliaments have moved to reflect political reality: the US Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington; the French Parliament moved from Versailles to Paris; and more recently, the German Parliament moved from Bonn to Berlin. We believe that in a modern Europe, the European Parliament must be able to do the same. We call on the French government to stop the political and legal posturing on this issue, and to enter into a real debate.
All we ask is that MEPs should be able to exercise their democratic rights and decide when and where to meet. In return, we are ready to help identify alternatives for the city of Strasbourg, both in institutional and in economic terms.
For Strasbourg, a better and brighter future lies ahead. The European Parliament has now far outgrown it. It would be better to find an alternative that matches its facilities and can be a more grateful guest.
Yours sincerely,
(MEPs)
MEPs should have the democratic right to decide where they meet
Please accept our congratulations on your appointment as France's new Minister for Europe. We wish you success.
There is now an Absolute Majority in the European Parliament in favour of a Single Seat. Following the vote on June 8 on the Multiannual Financial Framework, enough MEPs have now adjusted their record to achieve an absolute majority (373-285) on the paragraph pointing to "the significant savings that could be made if the European Parliament were to have a Single Seat". This Absolute Majority -as well as the 2012/2013 calendar vote in March- fundamentally shifts the debate.
As you know, the EU Treaty requires the European Parliament to hold 12 monthly plenary sessions in Strasbourg. As a result, we meet in Strasbourg 48 days every year. From next year, this will be 45 days, following our vote to hold the two October plenary sessions during the same week to save money, time and the environment. This democratic decision of the Parliament is being contested by France before the European Court of Justice in closed proceedings.
All of the Parliament's other activities take place in Brussels (with the exception of a part of the administration, which is based in Luxembourg). Brussels is where committee and political group meetings are held. It is where most of our staff are based. It is where the other two institutions that form the EU decision-making triangle (the Council and the Commission) are located. Over the last 50 years, Brussels has evolved into the EU's democratic capital. It is where companies, NGOs, national, regional and local governments, industry associations and trade unions all have their offices. It is where the EU press corps has its hub, including technical facilities.
When the European Parliament started meeting in Strasbourg over 50 years ago, it was a consultative assembly with part-time Members who were not directly elected, it was purely advisory and had no powers. Today, it is on a par with the Council of Ministers when it comes to making laws and its Members are full-time legislators, directly elected by the peoples of Europe. Yet unlike national parliaments, it cannot decide when and where it wishes to meet.
Recent votes in the European Parliament as well as several surveys have shown that a majority of MEPs believe the European Parliament should have a Single Seat, in Brussels. The Dutch and UK governments have publicly backed this view. More than 1,25 million European citizens have signed an online petition to this effect.
Over time a number of parliaments have moved to reflect political reality: the US Congress moved from Philadelphia to Washington; the French Parliament moved from Versailles to Paris; and more recently, the German Parliament moved from Bonn to Berlin. We believe that in a modern Europe, the European Parliament must be able to do the same. We call on the French government to stop the political and legal posturing on this issue, and to enter into a real debate.
All we ask is that MEPs should be able to exercise their democratic rights and decide when and where to meet. In return, we are ready to help identify alternatives for the city of Strasbourg, both in institutional and in economic terms.
For Strasbourg, a better and brighter future lies ahead. The European Parliament has now far outgrown it. It would be better to find an alternative that matches its facilities and can be a more grateful guest.
Yours sincerely,
(MEPs)
Monday, May 9, 2011
One year, little change. Happy Birthday Europe
Happy Birthday Europe. It's a sour birthday. There isn't really much to celebrate on Europe Day. The EU hasn't moved an inch closer to becoming a force to be reckoned with in the world, despite the establishment of the EEAS and the continuous decline of the US as a superpower.
The democratic uprisings in the MENA region left Europe, including Turkey, divided, driven, uninspired, even uninterested. While France pushed for a swift European response in Libya, Germany successfully embarrassed itself in front of the UN Security Council. They later subduedly committed more Awacs to Afghanistan to make up for it. In the end, the US took the baton from the squabbling Europeans and did the lion share of the job themselves. Even as the MENA uprisings touch home in form of North African migrants, the EU finds itself unable to pursue a common migration strategy. It prefers compromising the Schengen system and letting member states have it their own way.
Talking about the US, did anybody say the US would drop in European esteem after the release of thousands of diplomatic cables last year? It appears the EU doesn't even know how many European bank account details the US accesses on a daily basis, a right the European institutions willingly granted them. And European politicians were fastest to congratulate Barack Obama for the killing of Osama bin Laden, but when people started criticizing their attitude, they quickly highlighted that they lacked reliable information about how Osama really died.
No, the EU has definitely not become a stronger voice in the world. Even in the area where we have been most progressive so far, green energy, the EU allows itself to be surpassed. Despite all studies calling for a 30% emission reduction target by 2020, the EU prefers business-as-usual. China and Indonesia are showing the way to clean energy in an impressive manner. Yet, on a more positive note it seems that Spain and Germany have understood the importance of renewable energy and are committing more investment to the sector.
While many things in external policy are far from perfect, there are also successes. The bright light in the obscure forest is Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, who has established the EU as a powerful donor of humanitarian aid in Haiti, Ivory Coast and Libya.
With regard to internal EU affairs, the picture looks a little brighter as well. The Belgian and Hungarian presidencies have been running ambitious agendas with a focus on sustainable development, Trans-European Networks and a stable European economy. It is to be hoped that the Polish presidency will follow in this line.
Yet, as we are heading into the new year, Euroscepticism is on the rise in Finland and France among others, European democracy hasn't improved much (where is the ECI?) and we are no step closer to a single-seat parliament than a year ago. Europe is entering into a year with a lot of things on the agenda. I hope it will be less disappointing than the last year has been.
Happy Birthday Europe, and a good start into the new year. You will need it
The democratic uprisings in the MENA region left Europe, including Turkey, divided, driven, uninspired, even uninterested. While France pushed for a swift European response in Libya, Germany successfully embarrassed itself in front of the UN Security Council. They later subduedly committed more Awacs to Afghanistan to make up for it. In the end, the US took the baton from the squabbling Europeans and did the lion share of the job themselves. Even as the MENA uprisings touch home in form of North African migrants, the EU finds itself unable to pursue a common migration strategy. It prefers compromising the Schengen system and letting member states have it their own way.
Talking about the US, did anybody say the US would drop in European esteem after the release of thousands of diplomatic cables last year? It appears the EU doesn't even know how many European bank account details the US accesses on a daily basis, a right the European institutions willingly granted them. And European politicians were fastest to congratulate Barack Obama for the killing of Osama bin Laden, but when people started criticizing their attitude, they quickly highlighted that they lacked reliable information about how Osama really died.
No, the EU has definitely not become a stronger voice in the world. Even in the area where we have been most progressive so far, green energy, the EU allows itself to be surpassed. Despite all studies calling for a 30% emission reduction target by 2020, the EU prefers business-as-usual. China and Indonesia are showing the way to clean energy in an impressive manner. Yet, on a more positive note it seems that Spain and Germany have understood the importance of renewable energy and are committing more investment to the sector.
While many things in external policy are far from perfect, there are also successes. The bright light in the obscure forest is Humanitarian Aid Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, who has established the EU as a powerful donor of humanitarian aid in Haiti, Ivory Coast and Libya.
With regard to internal EU affairs, the picture looks a little brighter as well. The Belgian and Hungarian presidencies have been running ambitious agendas with a focus on sustainable development, Trans-European Networks and a stable European economy. It is to be hoped that the Polish presidency will follow in this line.
Yet, as we are heading into the new year, Euroscepticism is on the rise in Finland and France among others, European democracy hasn't improved much (where is the ECI?) and we are no step closer to a single-seat parliament than a year ago. Europe is entering into a year with a lot of things on the agenda. I hope it will be less disappointing than the last year has been.
Happy Birthday Europe, and a good start into the new year. You will need it
Friday, July 16, 2010
The French ban of the burqa is a good thing
The French ban of the burqa has received a lot of attention and a lot of criticism. The European Citizen says that a ban is disproportional and paramount to a publicly imposed dresscode. And the Council of Europe sees an infringement of the right to personal identity and freedom of religion as they are stipulated in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR, articles 8 and 9) and threatens to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
But I think that it is a good thing that the sovereigns in several European countries forbid the full-body veil by law. I agree with the European Citizen that official programs to integrate Muslim women into Western societies are absolutely necessary. But I also believe that the European sovereign may give himself the right to ban a full-body veil from European streets by law.
Personally, I would feel awkward and nervous asking a completely veiled women for directions in the street, probably just as much as if she was completely nude. The burqa threatens the openness to look somebody in the face, to see their reactions, to allow them interactions with others on an equal level. As little as I would walk through the streets dressed as General Grievous, I want to be subjected to a person that speaks to me through a veil. I see the freedom of peaceful coexistence and interaction in a multicultural city threatened by the fact that I have to speak through a veil and interpret my interlocutor's words via their intonation.
Viewing the case from another perspective, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe believes that the prohibition of the burqa is "alien to European values". I completely agree that tolerance of religion has to be guaranteed and the ban of the burqa should in no way be interpreted as a discrimination of Islam. Instead, everything should be done to integrate Muslims into European society where this has not already been successfully achieved (let's not forget that most Muslims are perfectly integrated).
But on the other hand, a commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance must not turn into a European carte blanche for every conceivable bit of cultural influx. A lot of cultural influx into Europe is not harmful, and it would be ridiculous to ban Americanization by law. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Muslim and an passionate fighter for women's rights in Islam, asserts for example that the Dutch government closed its eyes to Muslim honor killings on its own soil for too long due to a commitment to a tolerant, multicultural society. European society cannot close its eyes before this; and I believe the European sovereign has a right and a duty to set clear borders to the tolerance that it extends to others and that it enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
As a last remark, in Iran it is absolutely inconceivable that a women dresses in shorts and a t-shirt. In Vatican City, shorts are forbidden because they dishonor the Holy See. I don't mean to say that the European sovereign should give himself the right to install a European dresscode. But in my view, it must be possible to forbid the fact that on certain streets in Paris or London, it is only possible to speak to a piece of cloth where you try to make a conversation.
Update: An interesting round up of different voices can be found here
But I think that it is a good thing that the sovereigns in several European countries forbid the full-body veil by law. I agree with the European Citizen that official programs to integrate Muslim women into Western societies are absolutely necessary. But I also believe that the European sovereign may give himself the right to ban a full-body veil from European streets by law.
Personally, I would feel awkward and nervous asking a completely veiled women for directions in the street, probably just as much as if she was completely nude. The burqa threatens the openness to look somebody in the face, to see their reactions, to allow them interactions with others on an equal level. As little as I would walk through the streets dressed as General Grievous, I want to be subjected to a person that speaks to me through a veil. I see the freedom of peaceful coexistence and interaction in a multicultural city threatened by the fact that I have to speak through a veil and interpret my interlocutor's words via their intonation.
Viewing the case from another perspective, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe believes that the prohibition of the burqa is "alien to European values". I completely agree that tolerance of religion has to be guaranteed and the ban of the burqa should in no way be interpreted as a discrimination of Islam. Instead, everything should be done to integrate Muslims into European society where this has not already been successfully achieved (let's not forget that most Muslims are perfectly integrated).
But on the other hand, a commitment to multiculturalism and tolerance must not turn into a European carte blanche for every conceivable bit of cultural influx. A lot of cultural influx into Europe is not harmful, and it would be ridiculous to ban Americanization by law. But Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Muslim and an passionate fighter for women's rights in Islam, asserts for example that the Dutch government closed its eyes to Muslim honor killings on its own soil for too long due to a commitment to a tolerant, multicultural society. European society cannot close its eyes before this; and I believe the European sovereign has a right and a duty to set clear borders to the tolerance that it extends to others and that it enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
As a last remark, in Iran it is absolutely inconceivable that a women dresses in shorts and a t-shirt. In Vatican City, shorts are forbidden because they dishonor the Holy See. I don't mean to say that the European sovereign should give himself the right to install a European dresscode. But in my view, it must be possible to forbid the fact that on certain streets in Paris or London, it is only possible to speak to a piece of cloth where you try to make a conversation.
Update: An interesting round up of different voices can be found here
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Maastricht, NL: An example of cultural integration gone wrong
On the verge of leaving beautiful Maastricht after three years of study, it is interesting to look back at life in this mini-Europe on the border between the Netherlands, Germany, Flanders and Wallonia, because it shows interesting implications for European togetherness in general.
In my first year in Maastricht, 12,080 students were enrolled here, 37% of which were non-Dutch (most of them were actually German). In the English-language programs, the share of international students already exceeded 50% in 2007. In 2008, 39% of all UM students were non-Dutch; the share of foreigners in the English language tracks crept further upwards. The current figures are not out yet but I'm sure they show another surge as the university continues its publicity campaigns to get more of the esteemed German Abiturienten.
In my understanding, cultural integration runs along simple lines. You come to a country, learn the language, meet locals and curiously let them introduce you into the culture. Meanwhile, the locals play the host, are happy to share some of their culture with you and help you a bit in your language efforts.
And now imagine you're a 17-year-old Dutch high school graduate in a group of 100 fellow countrymen (and women), and 250 19-year-old Germans parachute into your city, speaking German all over the place. Kind of turns my understanding of cultural integration upside down, doesn't it?
In practice, many Dutch students fled into the Maastricht student fraternities and sororities which are a defining factor for college life in the Netherlands. From what I've been told, Maastricht has the highest enrollment figures in the Netherlands.
Those Dutch students brave enough to make German friends soon find themselves in a need to make a step towards their new friends, rather than drawing German curiosity for Dutch culture. One of my best friends (a Dutchman) learned to speak German without accent - by living in Maastricht for three years.
We even conducted a survey among our fellow students once and proved that "cultural integration happens not from the side of the guest culture, but from the side of the host culture". For example, 50 % of the Dutch and 66 % of the Belgians we questioned had signed up in the German community StudiVZ; not a single German participant had decided to enter the Dutch community Hyves, even though it is also offered in English while StudiVZ is completely in German.
Criticism on all sides has risen as the student community drifted farther apart over the years. My program European Studies is rather progressive, at least from what our research said. There are many intercultural friendships and non-Dutch students also read the Dutch-language University Newspaper Observant (10 pages in Dutch, 2 in English). But in the programs "International Business" and "International Economic Studies" with a German share of - apparently - close to 80%, integration has been difficult to bring about.
As many Germans turn their back on Maastricht and spend their summer vacation at home, the Observant this week published an edition written by the chairs of the four Maastricht fraternities. The four "pillars" of Dutch student life enjoy broad coverage while the dialogue between Dutch and non-Dutch student groups is limited to an English language interview about the clichés of Dutch fraternities that echoes the old confrontational lines: "German students have a different mind-set. They only come here to study, whereas Dutch students also want to enjoy life as a student. They need to be more open. Why don’t they try it just once?"
Leaving mini-Europe after three years of study, it is clear that much remains to be done to bring these groups closer together. Of course, Maastricht student life is far from the cultural clashes of Belgium/Belgium, Slovakia/Hungary, Estonia/Russia (getting better), Croatia/Slovenia (also getting better), Northern-Ireland and Bosnia, but it clashes nonetheless.
Finally, after a lot of criticism from student representatives and critical coverage in the media, the university established a project group for the improvement of student relations. I really hope that this will help to create closer bonds between the students at the university. The beautiful educated city between the Netherlands, Germany, Flanders and Wallonia does not deserve to be the place where cultural integration fails.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Football and politics - an analogy?
I don't often go to watch football games, but today I did. Inter Milan - Rubin Kazan. Champions League. Interesting game. Inter won 2:0.
What I found just as interesting as the victory was the observations I made about the fans. The fans were the perfect barometer to show when the game was going well and when it was not going well. A Milan player lies on the ground, tries to defend the ball against two attackers, manages and plays it further. Applause, standing ovations. Another player has the ball, shortly before the penalty box, he could shoot it!! but he misses - a Kazan player takes the ball. Resounding whistles in the entire stadium.
Within a split second, the fans see the situation, understand it and react upon it. They become active and state their opinion. Why does this not happen in politics? You see that a minister screws up (my favorite at the moment is German education minister Annette Schavan, refusing to understand why German students would protest against the run-down university system), and within minutes of the press conference, thousands of protest emails block her mailbox, thousands of comments are posted on her homepage. It's not reality, is it? Instead, people leave it to the media to give opinions and directions.
But why leave it to the media? I'm not waiting for the media report to judge if the Inter guy really got fouled or not. I curse the referee if he doesn't call it. Instantaneously. And I'm pretty sure it really was a foul - if that gives my team a nice free kick.
If it is possible to form a wave of protest for a penalty or a free kick that wasn't given, why is it not possible for a more equal society? For fair immigration procedures without discrimination? For better pay of interns?
Sometimes football is described as politics on the grass. But maybe it's farther away from politics than it would seem...
What I found just as interesting as the victory was the observations I made about the fans. The fans were the perfect barometer to show when the game was going well and when it was not going well. A Milan player lies on the ground, tries to defend the ball against two attackers, manages and plays it further. Applause, standing ovations. Another player has the ball, shortly before the penalty box, he could shoot it!! but he misses - a Kazan player takes the ball. Resounding whistles in the entire stadium.
Within a split second, the fans see the situation, understand it and react upon it. They become active and state their opinion. Why does this not happen in politics? You see that a minister screws up (my favorite at the moment is German education minister Annette Schavan, refusing to understand why German students would protest against the run-down university system), and within minutes of the press conference, thousands of protest emails block her mailbox, thousands of comments are posted on her homepage. It's not reality, is it? Instead, people leave it to the media to give opinions and directions.
But why leave it to the media? I'm not waiting for the media report to judge if the Inter guy really got fouled or not. I curse the referee if he doesn't call it. Instantaneously. And I'm pretty sure it really was a foul - if that gives my team a nice free kick.
If it is possible to form a wave of protest for a penalty or a free kick that wasn't given, why is it not possible for a more equal society? For fair immigration procedures without discrimination? For better pay of interns?
Sometimes football is described as politics on the grass. But maybe it's farther away from politics than it would seem...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Blogging for Th!nk2 about it
For the next three months, I will be blogging for the European blogging competition thinkaboutit.eu, which is organized by the European Journalism Centre (EJC) in Maastricht. The competition brings together 91 bloggers from the European Union, Brazil, India, China, the US, Kazhakstan and South Africa and will discuss topics relating to the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in the middle of December. Heads of government will meet in Copenhagen in December to work on a agreement which replaces the Kyoto agreement and aims at reducing carbon emissions and counter global warming.
From January to June 2009, there has already been another blogging competition on thinkaboutit.eu on the topic of the European parliamentary elections in June. The blogging competition is held in English and tries to pool national discussions on the European elections or climate change. Bloggers with a background in journalism or politics will share their views and portray the discussions in their countries, so that a veritable European debate can take place.
Until now, it has been difficult to create a common European debate on pan-European topics. National media often report about European topics when they hit the nation-state, and pan-European media like Euractiv.com and EUObserver.com are limited to an English-speaking elite. Thinkaboutit.eu therefore uses young people as multipliers in order to break down European topics onto the nation-state level and to bring the national discussions onto the European level.
The first competition has had a remarkable quality of posts, says Anne Autio from the European Journalism Centre. In the second competition, journalistic competence will be put together with scientific knowledge in order to inform, educate and entertain a European audience. To enhance the blog posts, all bloggers received a High Definition Flip Video Camera and are supposed to use them to give insights into public opinion in their home countries.
From January to June 2009, there has already been another blogging competition on thinkaboutit.eu on the topic of the European parliamentary elections in June. The blogging competition is held in English and tries to pool national discussions on the European elections or climate change. Bloggers with a background in journalism or politics will share their views and portray the discussions in their countries, so that a veritable European debate can take place.
Until now, it has been difficult to create a common European debate on pan-European topics. National media often report about European topics when they hit the nation-state, and pan-European media like Euractiv.com and EUObserver.com are limited to an English-speaking elite. Thinkaboutit.eu therefore uses young people as multipliers in order to break down European topics onto the nation-state level and to bring the national discussions onto the European level.
The first competition has had a remarkable quality of posts, says Anne Autio from the European Journalism Centre. In the second competition, journalistic competence will be put together with scientific knowledge in order to inform, educate and entertain a European audience. To enhance the blog posts, all bloggers received a High Definition Flip Video Camera and are supposed to use them to give insights into public opinion in their home countries.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
New axes in political spectrum?
In a very interesting interview with Le Monde, the secretary general of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy, talks about the global problems of social democracy. He says that social democracy has to renew its criticism of the capitalist market in order to reach the citizens again.
Over an entire page in the French daily, the former director of the European Commission lays down his visions for a new social democracy in Europe. It could start with a reinforced Party of European Socialists (PES) which allows direct membership, says Lamy.
What I found particularly interesting is his assumption that the old political spectrum left-right (i.e. equalitarian vs. libertarian) has been joined by two new political axes. The first one is the axis expensive-free. The discussion about free access to newspaper articles, books and entertainment facilities play exactly into this axis. They have led to severe discussions on the restriction of the internet in France, Germany, Sweden and other countries and led to the emergence of the pirate party at the European elections.
The second axis that Pascal Lamy sees is consumerism-anthropology (he says "economy-anthropology"), namely the question if money is really the ultimate donor of happiness.
I'm not sure if I'm following him in this analysis. But yet, I tried to graph it. And you will notice that I added two other axes that I find important: pro-European/anti-European and pro-immigrant/anti-immgrant. I would invite you to copy and modify this graph and to imagine further axes which are important to citizens today. Maybe, in a joint effort, we can find out how citizens "function" today, and what aspects are important to them in an election.
Simple bitmap-file. The font is Georgia, 8 pt.
Over an entire page in the French daily, the former director of the European Commission lays down his visions for a new social democracy in Europe. It could start with a reinforced Party of European Socialists (PES) which allows direct membership, says Lamy.
What I found particularly interesting is his assumption that the old political spectrum left-right (i.e. equalitarian vs. libertarian) has been joined by two new political axes. The first one is the axis expensive-free. The discussion about free access to newspaper articles, books and entertainment facilities play exactly into this axis. They have led to severe discussions on the restriction of the internet in France, Germany, Sweden and other countries and led to the emergence of the pirate party at the European elections.
The second axis that Pascal Lamy sees is consumerism-anthropology (he says "economy-anthropology"), namely the question if money is really the ultimate donor of happiness.
I'm not sure if I'm following him in this analysis. But yet, I tried to graph it. And you will notice that I added two other axes that I find important: pro-European/anti-European and pro-immigrant/anti-immgrant. I would invite you to copy and modify this graph and to imagine further axes which are important to citizens today. Maybe, in a joint effort, we can find out how citizens "function" today, and what aspects are important to them in an election.
Simple bitmap-file. The font is Georgia, 8 pt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)