“If you give people more opportunities to move, then you decrease the pressure on irregular migration”.
Yves Pascouau is Director of Migration and Mobility Policies at the European Policy Centre. He holds a PhD in Law from the University of Pau in France and he worked extensively on migration management. Beside his current position at EPC, he is the editor of the online legal website European Migration Law www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu.
Since TTIP negotiations between the EU and the US began in February 2013, the treaty has become a subtle ideological indicator of the European Parliament, where criticism towards the ‘great coalition’ on all crucial EU-related issues – formed by the European People’s Party, the social democrats of the S&D and the liberals – has been a constant among left-wing parties, especially the European United Left and the Greens. This situation has left social democrats between a rock and a hard place: if they align themselves with the European People’s Party they will be reproached for being part of the so-called ‘coalition’; if they decide to approach the leftists, they will be labelled by the right, with whom they often ally, as nothing less than ‘irresponsible’ or ‘populist’. Seemingly, it’s all black and white when it comes to this issue.
The EU central institutions seem to be stuck to what 19th Century Europe identified as “mission civilisatrice”, fuelled by an underlying sense of self-righteousness and superiority vis-à-vis others, while individual member states continue to pursue their narrow but concrete geopolitical and economic interests, which go in different directions. It should come as no surprise that EU members are steadily losing ground on the charts of state power and influence in the world, overtaken by more dynamic, emerging powers. Of course, with its ambition, innovation and flexibility the US remains steadily at the top, as would the EU as a whole, should it become really united.
In this first “letter from America” I make a series of critical comparisons between New York and Brussels in an attempt to distil the best of both worlds, and hopefully infuse what is missing from one to the other. For Europe, which is the focus of this publication, this would mean less parochialism and more ambition for the future at individual and collective levels; more client orientation and more flexibility in employment conditions, while keeping an overall guaranteed social safety net that is the jewel of the “European model”; more openness to other cultures and influences, notably those from other EU countries but also beyond; much more openness towards and investment in new ideas, innovation and creativity; and an overall more optimistic attitude and can-do spirit…
So far the responses have been divided. France, the country most exposed to Greece’s debt due to its heavy bank and private lending, welcomed Syriza’s win. François Hollande vowed cooperation with the newly-formed Greek government, recalling “the friendship that unites” the two countries. But Germany’s Angela Merkel was more straightforward. Her spokesman said that Greece should continue to economic recovery and stick “to its previous commitments”. The European Popular Party leader, Manfred Weber, followed the same course, calling Tsipras electoral promises “empty”.
Radical parties across Europe widely welcome Greece’s electoral results. Left wing radical parties in the European Union congratulated Syriza’s Tsipras, with Spain’s Podemos welcoming the “real Greek president, not a delegate of Angela Merkel”.
Chaos has always been a scenario for Greece, ever since the bailout. The mix was there: a bankrupt country, crippling unemployment, violent riots, weekly strikes, neo-Nazis in parliament, a rapid decline in living standards that turned into a humanitarian emergency. Outside Greece, in public analysis and private conversations, the possibility of the destabilisation of democracy came up every now and then, some kind of coup that would send the country to the extreme left or right. For those who indulged in these cassandric predictions the rise of leftist Syriza was a vindication: surely this is a rogue party, self-positioned on the Radical Left, with communist roots, and a populist rhetoric? Discussion of the Greek problem has always involved a degree of fear-mongering, which is useful in the manipulation of public opinion, but rather redundant in adding any nuance to our understanding of a foreign context. A useful key-phrase, if one truly wishes to understand Greece in crisis, is “structural reforms”.
Mario Draghi has fulfilled his promise and put into action the words “whatever it takes” – which he declared at the height of the debt crisis in July 2012 – to save the euro. After the first ECB Governing Council meeting of the year, its president announced the implementation of the much-anticipated Quantitative Easing (QE), a statement that has not only fulfilled but exceeded the markets’ expectations. The Italian banker has led the ECB into unknown territory with a massive sovereign bond-buying plan that will be added to the existing private sector asset purchase program, amounting to a total of €1.14 trillion. The goal is to quell the threat of deflation, and to reactivate economic growth, which remains stagnant in the euro area.
Hitherto, the European Central Bank (ECB) always held its meetings on monetary policy on the first Thursday of every month, followed by a press conference with its president, Mario Draghi. Starting this year, this decision-making frequency will be reduced, and the communications will be more transparent. The Governing Council’s first meeting of 2015 – which could result in the largest stimulus for the euro area of all time– will be held on 22 January, and not on 8 January, which was the custom. 2015 is also a year of enlargement: with Lithuania joining the euro area as its 19th member state.
The author of this article is a Muslim woman in her mid 40s, of Algerian nationality but resident in France since her youth, who prefers her identity not to be disclosed.
La radicalisation religieuse est un refuge idéologique pour les terroristes qui ne fait que masquer le déséquilibre psychologique de ces personnes et l’échec de leur intégration sociale. Voilà ce que ces terroristes combattent réellement, un ordre social où ils n’ont pas pu trouver leur place. C’est un problème social et non un problème religieux.
I voted in the last presidential election just a few weeks ago. Yet still, when I gave my identity card to the embassy staff in Brussels I was somehow reminded of Romania’s communist legacy. “You are only half a Clujeanca, your birth place is actually Comanesti,” said the official. Indeed, I was born in the eastern part of Romania because my mother had been assigned a job there, as part of the Romanian Communist Party’s economic policies. Young professionals like her were uprooted upon finishing university, and spread around the country so that all regions would develop equally, no matter their local specificities.
