LET’S DEBATE THE FUTURE OF EUROPE

Democracy is an ongoing process which can shift a facade or illiberal democracy, etc. to a real democracy and even to a liberal democracy. Democracy is a fair and free opportunity system. Anyone can transform to democracy. Democracy is a given in certain regions, while in others, it must be fought for and even earned. Democracy is the better way of life that when installed within a country contributes to fighting poverty, disease, the lack of education automatically. Democracy is not just having laws, but also knowing they will be there and they will work and they should be respected. Democracy is not just about casting a vote, it’s about choosing your future.

Many European countries facing shortage of unskilled labours. In Poland we are short of almost 175.000 by the end of next year. If such problem exist, then why EU government limit migrant workers coming in? Many factories may close soon giving opportunity for importers to import cheap quality products to meet the demand. When do they wants to change those policies?

Please help,I was work 12 years in Romania other 13 years in Spain now I have 4 years working in UK where I hope other registration number please make one universal valid in all EU country save there in one data base all work experience everything pleas make my life easy… regards thanks.

The question that arises is: What will happen if other powers decides to leave the EU in the future? What will happen to the European Community and what will happen to European citizens? It’s not easy for the country to get your citizens accustomed to living in a homonymous block that threatens to collapse … And then what should the Union do that states do not follow the British model? First of all, transparency should grow at the level of all institutions, but also of potential candidate countries. It should occupy the gap left by the UK leaving the attraction of Switzerland or Norway (two countries with a potential for growth in the years to come). Creating new trade alliances with extra-community states (Asian states such as China, Arab Emirates, etc.). States that could be markets for European products, etc. That would be the future of the EU to survive the challenges ahead.

We need the European Union which will at the first place work for people. Promoting social policies aimed at reducing unemployment in all member states and reducing the number of people at risk of poverty. A Union, which will regulate the market and fight right-wing neo-liberal policies. Because the EU must be here for its citizens, not for the multinational corporations, banks or billionaires. Globalization in Europe divides society into winners and losers, and we have to change it! Everyone must benefit from globalization. We need a system where people feel safe and have control over their lives. All European institutions are currently governed by right-wing politicians and I believe that is the conflict of interests. And Social democracy must stand for the interests of the people in Europe. We must represent them and protect their rights.

I think it would be better if we try to keep the wave of migration at an average level. Europe should encourage the regions with the highest migration wave to keep their populations in the country, to create conditions and to develop in their own environment. As we now see the emigration crisis in Syria, which never adapts to the culture and values of European countries. It is obvious that the European population is aging and the main solution of the leadership was to bring emigrants. Migrants who are socially inadequate and as much as we try to educate them in the European habitat will be wrong. The solution would be to offer them the possibility to emigrate in areas that are close to their values and traditions, and especially the mentality.

The future of all can keep on together, but we need to look after the issues concerning with the role of the EU in the life of people, especially on subjects such as education, healthcare, mobility, work opportunities, affordable housing, culture of lawfulness, freedom of speech, research and development, creativeness, integration of migrants.

Invest in institutions and policy – sustainable improvement in how a government delivers services is only possible if the people in these institutions endorse sensible rules and practices that allow for change while making the best use of tested traditions and legacies – imported models often do not work. Align anti-corruption measures with market, behavioral, and social forces. Adopting integrity standards is a smart business decision, especially for companies interested in doing business with the World Bank Group and other development partners Keep citizens engaged on corruption at local, national, international and global levels – in line with the scale and scope of corruption. Make use of the architecture that has been developed and the platforms that exist for engagement.

As we all know the Copenhagen Criteria defines whether a country is eligible to join the EU or not, based on political, economical and legislative aspects. The Criteria guided all aspiring Central and Eastern-European countries to successful application to the EU since 1993. Nowadays after 25 years of the birth of the Copenhagen Criteria we face problems regarding the application of it. As far as I am concerned one of the most critical problems is, that the EU and its institutions only monitor the externalities of the Criteria such as free elections with a secret ballot or freedom of personal opinion. Thus the lack of in depth monitoring and analysis of each member states political practice, misbehaving member states like Poland or Hungary can easily get away with acting purposely against the fundamental principles of the European Union based on our common values. Since these governments are in power because of formally free elections and operating in liberal democracies they can continue to hide their authoritarian actions and practices in the frame of democracy, thanks only to the lack of in depth monitoring and the lack of sanctioning. Without well outlined and strict sanctioning policies there isn’t anything which could hold back member states who decided to act against the European principles. Therefore without strict sanctioning we can’t guarantee that every single member state which joins the EU by promising to keep in practice the fundamentals of the Copenhagen Criteria will actually do so. The right-wing populists we sadly have to face in our own European community only respects strength in political discourse. Minding the fact, that we cannot descend to their level, we should make it clear, that if one member of our community would like to benefit from the goods of the community, then it has to follow the common principles of it. Stepping up together against those governments who pose a threat to our common values is necessity, however sanctioning can never replace only supplement conversation with our fellow members of the community. Understanding, listening to the people and acting in unity is the only social democratic, the only true way of solving the problem right-wing populists pose to the European Union.

Democracy is in our culture, in our air: We breathe democracy! We breathed democracy when we were young and while growing up as European citizens. We all wanted to enjoy the European values of freedom. We wanted to emerge and enjoy the richness of these values. They were the natural consequences of the end of a bloody WWII. However, we took for granted that these democratic values were there for us and our civilization, but today populism is once again challenging these democratic values. We invented our European democratic values as a consequence of widespread dictatorship across Europe. But, everything that is invented by human beings, it can also be destroyed. Today, we suffer, we are afraid, because we see the erosion of these democratic values. We are angry, because we see that a group of illiberal politicians are threatening our societal freedoms. We need to train our European thinking, to behave and to create a common democratic standard. Democracy, rule of law, and respect for human rights are customary principles in which we all believe in, and they are at the core of the Copenhagen criteria as much as the need to have a functioning market economy. Economic problems, inequality, unemployment, health… all these issues exacerbated frustration and unhappiness, that turned the electorate to populist leaders. What populism has given to some EU citizens is a hope for a future but at the cost of basic freedoms and democracy. A hope that people and voters has not seen in other political programmes. Populism has given an answer to existential fears of tomorrow. Why do some voters feel comfortable with populism ? Populism keeps people attached to the surface of things, populism does not leave time to people to think more in depth about their daily problems, does not leave time to people for more thoughtful thinking. Populism only creates fake enemies personified in our neighbours. Populism teaches citizens to hate the neighbours. If we want to reveal the symptom, the cause that brought populists to power, we need to determine the meaning of the general social unhappiness. We need to talk and understand and confront social unhappiness. Therefore, my doubt… are we more in love with the old European desire for democracy or with a clear tangible democratic life that has benefits for the people? Hence, are the Copenhagen criteria enough developed to represent the needs of European people? When democracy attains a supranatural meaning, based on a fantastic ideal, and not on a clear vision, this generates insecurity in the electorate. But when democracy represents the stability and the security of a European shared life, then democracy is the light in citizens life from birth to death. Citizens, then, think about their future and what will it be under a tangible democratic umbrella. Democracy cannot be imposed and cannot be taught. Democracy has to be chosen by citizens. People have to choose to be free, even if this requires suffering and many challenges. Socialists and Democrats have to act as a guide along the way of the democratic path. The guide has to show the steps in front of each citizen, but it has not to force citizens on the path. The Copenhagen Criteria should be strengthened in this direction, by making democracy more tangible and meaningful to each European citizen.

We should not view the Copenhagen Criteria as a small set of requirements needed at one time for accession to the Union; they should be upheld and adhered to by all member states as long as they are members of the EU. for this end; the EU should establish a body, similar to that of the Venice Commission under the Council of Europe regime, to monitor ongoing compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria. A body made up of independent, non-partisan experts which are empowered to make both non-binding recommendations and legally binding decisions concerning any EU member state, which could be subject to review by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such a body would help stop backtracks of the rule of law, democracy, and respect for human rights before they get to such serious breaches as we currently see in Poland and Hungary. This body would allow the EU to be more proactive and to take action long before the Commission or Parliment begin an Article 7 TFEU or having an Article 7.2 TFEU vetoed by a sympathetic rouge member state. I believe that such a body is greatly needed to combat the quasi-autocrats appearing within the Union and uphold the Copenhagen Criteria.

Since 1993 the Copenhagen criteria establish the conditions for membership in the European Union. These countries need to have: – stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for protection of minorities – a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces in the EU – the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership including adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union. These criteria reflect the values of the European Union that every new country should comply with. Values like democracy, equality, freedom, solidarity and diversity form the core of the European Union and they shouldn’t be negotiable. Unfortunately, in recent years we have been seeing that some EU countries aren’t complying with some of the values they swore to defend. In Poland and Hungary right-wing governments with authoritarian and populist characteristics are undermining the democratic institutions there including, the judicial system. In Turkey, a country that wants to join the EU, a similar authoritarian streak is happening with political opponents behind jail and freedoms suppressed. Anti-democratic forces are also arising in other regions of the globe like in Brazil. In addition to this, several European countries are choosing the ignore the millions of migrants that try to reach the Mediterranean shores. Europe faces now unprecedented challenges like the large influx of migrants, the economic difficulties in certain countries (that include a rise in inequality and in poverty), the emergence of populism and extremism inside our own borders and climate and environmental changes that put our ecosystems and even our own lives at risk. European Union should be able to address and face these challenges while presenting a united front that is able to give all European citizens a decent living standard while maintain intact the European values that gave Europe its biggest period of prosperity and peace in history. In order to do this, it’s of paramount importance to be tougher with the member states or potential candidates whose policies go against the European values and to listen more to what the European citizens have to say including the ones that are critical of the EU. Better integration is required to regain the trust of these people in the European institutions. Because most of these challenges that Europe faces are global, It is also important for EU to use its privileged position in the international stage to build bridges with other countries in order to find common solutions for those problems, defend democracy and to help their social and economic development.

Living in a democratic regime give us the opportunity of expressing ourselves without fearing persecution for doing it. Democracies should also have separation of powers, respect human rights and promote the active civic and political participation of all its citizens. In my country (Portugal), the memory of the Estado Novo dictatorship that lasted from 1933 until 1974 and the political arrests, poverty and war in Africa, that it brought still lives in many people’s minds. When in 1986, Portugal entered in European union the country entered a new era of development and progress and that is why here, democratic institutions are widely respected just like the European Union itself. Nowadays, democracy is consolidated in Portugal and the country is recovering well from the crisis and a hard Austerity program supported by the former right-wing government, however unfortunately that is not the case in other parts of Europe in which democracy is under threat, with anti-democratic and far-right forces rising up not just in Poland and Hungary, were they hold the government, but also in Germany, Austria, Italy or France. These forces are a threat to progress and European values because they don’t respect the rights of minorities and political opponents promoting a divided society in which people start distrusting or even hating each other for differences like gender, race or religion. This strategy may be pure demagogy but it is effective because their anti-establishment and anti-EU speech is shifting many working class people from left wing parties (socialists or social democrats) towards those right-wing populists or even far-right parties. That is why it is of paramount importance for S&D parties to regain the support of the working class in those countries because they are the key to keep the far-right out of the power and to ultimately save democracy in the EU.

Earlier this year; Jean Claude Juncker promoted his former Chief of Staff, Martin Selmayr, to the position of Secretary-General of the Commission in extraordinary circumstances to wide condemnation from many within the European Parliament and media. It was painted as a palace coup within Berlaymont. This exposed the European Union’s very own institutions susceptibility to infringing certain aspects of the rule of law and the Copenhagen Criteria and principles in Art 2 TEU. We should interpret these principles and criteria in a wider manner; beyond the nation-state. It is imperative that the EU institutions themselves must respect the foundational principles of the Union and the Copenhagen Criteria. How can the Commission possibly lecture member states about the rule of law when they themselves are flexible when it comes to respecting that very foundational principle? The institutions should be practising what they preach, not making foolish political blunders which damage the Union’s reputation and credibility. The Union’s institutions should be a model of these principles for member states, so perfect that is cannot invite criticism from even Eurosceptics.