07 January 2014

欧州委員会委員長の選定に影響する欧州議会選挙

Ian Traynor writes for the Guardian that Commission chiefs have always been appointed as a result of horse-trading between national leaders who jealously guard that prerogative and view the key post as too important to be left to the vagaries of Europe's voters. But the EU's Lisbon Treaty shifted the balance of power towards the European parliament, declaring that national leaders consult the parliament on their nomination, that the choice had to reflect the outcome of parliament elections and that the chamber had to endorse the appointment by simple majority.

This system is being tested for the first time this year. The parliament has seized the opportunity to broaden its powers by naming leading candidates in the May election. The demand is that the winning group's contender be hoisted into the commission job, meaning that the parliament and not national leaders has the final say.

Supporters of this system argue that democracy is the winner, that the EU's notorious "democratic deficit" will be reduced, that the European voter will have a direct say in who eventually leads the commission. In a recent study, however, Heather Grabbe and Stefan Lehne, from two prominent Brussels thinktanks, denounced the parliament's campaign as "a pretend democratic choice which could also alienate the public further". The risk is that voters believe they are supporting a candidate who in the end does not get the job, making the exercise of democratic choices look futile. Turnout at European elections are infamously low, having fallen at every turn since starting in 1979. If the winning contender does not get the job, there will be more questions about why people should bother voting. On the other hand, supporters of the scheme hope it will boost turnout by making the ballot more meaningful and concrete.

Opponents see a vote for a commission president via the parliament as illusory, misleading and irrelevant.

Full article © Guardian 

Elizabeth Linder comments in the EUObserver on how the EU's political debate is brought to social media. She writes that the year 2014 will be a decisive one for European politics. Yet despite the EU’s significant impact on people’s lives, voter turnout in the European elections is foreseen to be at its lowest level yet – some estimate below 40 per cent. In recent years, the traditional barriers between voters and politicians evolve rapidly, thanks to social media. Many politicians in Europe are aware of this reality but remain unclear about what to do online.

Europe’s citizens are ready to connect and willing to participate in political discussion online. What is more, we are no longer relying on speculation to understand these social patterns. Research from the European Union Institute for Security Studies shows that in the next few decades people will increasingly expect to participate in political decision-making.

A Pew Research Centre study shows that someone who uses Facebook multiple times per day was an additional two and a half times more likely to attend a political rally or meeting, 57 per cent more likely to persuade someone about their vote, and 43 per cent more likely to have said they would vote.

In an era when people share and debate their political views online, and especially in the European Union where democratic values underpin political decision-making, political leaders must join conversations and take a step closer to citizens.

Some leading European politicians are doing it right: The European Parliament responds to zeitgeist with content directly relevant to people’s lives, posting real-time photos and hosting chats with MEPs. Reached more than 1 million fans on its Facebook page alone.

Full article © EUobserver.com

Vice-President of the European Commission and EU Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, also spoke on the upcoming EP elections and stressed that democracy had to catch up with reform. She called for true political union in the form of a United States of Europe.

"The brutal crisis we are starting to overcome has pushed integration in economic and financial policy to a level that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago. Reforms like these are indispensable if we are to make the European Union more stable and prevent future turbulences. But they are not enough. The crisis showed us very clearly that no country is an island. That is why we have started to coordinate economic and fiscal policy much more at European level. The European Commission now even gets to analyse and comment on Member States' draft budgetary plans before national Parliaments have their say. Just a few weeks ago our plans for constructing a Banking Union got a big boost when Finance Ministers agreed to set up a common system for resolving failing banks.

These reforms are essential. They prevent difficulties from spreading across our Member States. And they will help us spot and solve problems early, before they escalate into a full-blown crisis. Indeed, further reforms will be needed. Bold reforms. But we must not limit ourselves to constructing a new architecture in the economic and financial sphere. We need more: we have to ensure that democracy catches up with this new construction we are building. More and more decisions that affect the daily lives of citizens directly are taken at European level. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this: our institutions and decision-making processes have to become more democratic and transparent.

We need a true political union. To me this means that we need to build a United States of Europe with the Commission as government and two chambers – the European Parliament and a "Senate" of Member States. But there are of course other opinions out there for the future of Europe. You might have other ideas as well. And that is how it should be. We need to have a broad debate before we start to make the big changes required. ...

All of us need to get the message across: European Parliament elections are more important than national elections. Because they decide on the direction a whole continent will take. We have to be clear: These elections are not about more Europe or less Europe. They are about how we make best use of the Europe we have today.

Full speech © European Commission