The official launch of the Dutch translation of the book will take place on the 22nd of September in the presence of the author. The launch will be followed by a conference on the topic targeted to a more specialised audience.

More information about the book, as well as about the launching event can be found on Oikos' webpage.

Event details:

Date: 22 September 2010
Venue: Zuiderpershuis, Antwerp (Belgium)
Language: Dutch

Panel debate: "The financial and economic crisis from a gender perspective", Oxford, 29 July 2010

The panel debate was part of the 5th annual conference on Green economy of the UK based Green Economics Institute.

The debate benefitted from the inputs of Deborah Ruggieri - founder of the federal gender group of Attac Germany - and Maria de la Fuente - editor of the Nous Horitzons magazine and PhD student in feminist studies at the University of Barcelona. Deborah Ruggieri presented the gender aspects of both the causes and of proposed solutions to the financial and economic crisis, with an emphasis on the gender perspectives of austerity measures and stimulus packages. Maria de la Fuente highlighted the measures the Catalan Greens are taking in the local goverment in order to ensure that the authorities address the crisis in a gender sensitive way. All in all, the panel stirred a lot of debate with the highly interested audience and pointed to the need for further discussions and research on the topic.

"The Gender Aspects of the Financial and Economic Crisis" - an article by Deborah Ruggieri

At the request of the Green European Foundation, Deborah Ruggieri agreed to share her expertise on the gender perspectives of the crisis, by writing a background article on the topic. The article provides an overview of some of the main arguments which have emerged on the role of gender in the crisis both in the media and in gender research and it examines the countercyclical government responses to the crisis, especially the stimulus packages, from a gender perspective.

Download

The Gender Aspects of the Financial and Economic Crisis - Deborah Ruggieri

Further information

Global Young Greens website

Interview with Franza Drechsel - German Young Greens and Global Young Greens Congress Coordinator

The main topic that the summer academy addressed was the financial and economic crisis and its specific manifestations and implications for the CEE region. A great variety of panel discussions were organised around intensely debated questions such as: What are the potential alternatives to the neoliberal financial system? What can be done against the strengthening growing extreme-right wing movements in Europe? What is a non-violent street action and what is it good for? How can the very high energy dependence of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe be tackled? How do we define environmental justice and food sovereignty?

An extensive follow-up brochure of the summer academy will be published in autumn 2010.

Further information

http://okopolmuhely.hu/en/blog/

Dick Pels was one of the panelists in the initial GEF discussion on populism. In his article, he summarizes the main points of debate raised, and makes references to the Dutch particularities.

Dick Pels - Populism and National Identity: The Dutch Case

Rightwing populism came late to Holland, and it came in a peculiar shape and style: that of the playful, spectacular political dandyism of Pim Fortuyn. It therefore took on an unexpected quality, both in terms of ideological content (a ‘libertarian nationalism’) and communicative form (the breakthrough of media personalization and celebrity politics). Media are of course crucial in the populist equation. But due to the narcissism and bravura of Fortuyn, they were perhaps more crucial in the Netherlands than anywhere else (excepting the case of Berlusconi in Italy).

But there are advantages in being a latecomer: it sharpens our (hind)sight. The uniquely libertarian and media-spectacular Dutch case precisely underscores the newness of neo-populism, and may therefore shed some much-needed light on post-war European populism as a whole.

Download

Dick Pels - Populism and National Identity. The Dutch Case.

First tool of transnational direct democracy

During the event, which was attended by over sixty Greens and representatives of NGOs, expectations towards this new instrument of direct democracy at European level were high. The panelists agreed that the Citizens' Initiative is a ‘fantastic instrument’, or, according to the responsible Commissioner Maroš Šefcovic, the ‘very first tool of transnational direct democracy in world history,’ , which ‘will fundamentally change the way we do business in Brussels’.

High-level panel...

The public hearing united a high-level panel: next to Commissioner for Institutional Affairs Maroš Šefcovic, also Prof. Jürgen Meyer was present, a specialist in international penal law, long time advocate of direct democracy and member of the European Convention that drafted the legal text for the Initiative, which survived the French-Dutch rejection of the Constitution to end up in the Lisbon Treaty.

Originally Meyer had asked for a referendum at European level, he said, but when that proved incompatible with the legislation of too many Member States of the European Union, he had ‘pushed for an alternative that gives citizens at least the same right as the Parliament to influence the agenda of the European Commission’.

... to discuss the genesis and challenges of the instrument

Another renowned expert on the panel was Bruno Kaufmann, director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute Europe (IRI) that, ‘supported by activist networks from across Europe’, came up with the current initiative right - ‘the development of which is watched by the entire world’, according to Kaufmann.

Gerald Häfner, MEP, was also present on the panel, as a long-time fighter for direct democracy, which is, he believes, necessary to keep representative democracy alive and is all the more needed when borders are involved. ‘The fall of the Berlin Wall was the doing of the German citizens, who said "Wir sind ein Volk" – We are one People. Compare Belgium and Switzerland, two countries with several language groups. Across Belgium runs a deep gorge, across Switzerland there doesn’t. Because the Swiss have a referendum, which forces the groups to co-operate at least four times a year.’ Direct democracy isn’t the answer to all problems, he said, ‘and one can make many mistakes. The Weimar Republic had a Volksentscheid (a referendum). But the threshold was so high that it never was passed, so more and more people turned against democracy because ‘one didn’t have a say anyway’.

Open questions

The scene thus having been set, most participants proved to be quite critical towards the Commissions’ proposal on the implenation of the Citizens' Initiative of 31 March.

Subjects

Many participants objected especially to the large number of restrictions to what a Citizens' Initiative can be about. If the Commission has its way, proposals that are ‘abusive’ or ‘devoid of seriousness’ won’t be registered, nor those that are ‘manifestly against the values of the Union’. ‘But who decides what is silly and what abusive means?’ asked Häfner. Those notions should at least be specified, most agreed. And the decision should not be taken by a civil servant behind closed doors, but through an open, transparent procedure with a right to appeal.

Limits in the Treaties?

The Commission also excludes proposals that require a change of a treaty. ‘That leaves us stuck with the risk that 80 % of the proposals will be rejected’, said Häfner, ‘because most citizens don’t know the details of European law’. Meyer was more optimistic. ‘When one analyses what the legislator meant with the text’, he said, ‘a very broad interpretation is possible. Although one cannot ask to change a treaty, one can ask to ’further develop’ it. Which means there is no thematic limit.’ The only difference with proposals that leave existing treaties untouched, he added, is ‘that decisions addressing calls for further development have to be ratified by the Member States’.

As to the issues that should be admitted, the members of the Green Group don’t always agree. Advocates of direct democracy like Häfner or the Finnish Green MEP and Co-President of the Green European Foundation Heidi Hautala want as little limits as possible, but others such as Ulrike Lunacek, Green MEP from Austria, would like to make sure the instrument is not used to keep or push minority groups out of the European Union, especially when it comes to enlargement. ‘If the admission of Turkey will be addressed’ said Lunacek, ‘it will almost certainly be in a negative sense. And who knows what happens if someone launches an initiative about whether the Czechs or another small nation should remain inside the Union?’ For Hautala on the other hand, ‘much of the resistance sprouts from fear.’

A tool only for big NGOs?

Other concerns proved less controversial. Like that of the threshold being put so high that most citizens’ won’t even start gathering the needed signatures. Putting the number of Member States in which the signatures have to be collected in at one third, like the Commission proposes, might have that effect, most feared. The participants in the hearing would rather opt for one fourth or one fifth of the Member States, because, as Belgian Green MEP Isabelle Durant mentioned, ‘if the threshold is put higher, the Citizens’ Initiative will be colonised by the big NGO’s’.

The same might happen, Bruno Kaufman fears, if citizens don’t get enough support from the EU. ‘Too little support can even kill the process’, he warned. ‘And in this respect, the current proposal looks like a desert; no more than two EU officials are redeployed to deal with the procedure, there is not a word about services or advice. Just imagine having a European Parliament with no paid office space, no assistants and no travel reimbursements.’

Unnecessary hurdles

The Commission has built in quite a few unnecessary hurdles in its proposal towards the Citizens' Initiative, many felt. Among others:

• The threshold for having the right to sign. Whereas the Commission proposes to limit the right to sign to people having the right to vote for the EU elections, the Green Group prefers a minimum age of 16. And quite a few participants argued to include also all non-EU citizens living in the EU.
• The kind of data required from signatories. The Commission would like to ask for passport or social security number. Asking this data would frighten people off, many of the participants in the hearing feared.
• A double check. The commission proposes a first check to exclude from registration all proposals that are silly, abusive or against the values of the Union, and a second, ‘legal’ check after 300.000 signatures have been collected that would exclude proposals that require a change of treaty, or propose something that falls under the competences of the Council, not of the Commission. Just one check would be better, most think, after 10.000 to 50.000 signatures collected at most, so European Citizens' won’t be collecting too many signatures in vain.
• The maximum time span for collecting the million signatures. The Commission has proposed to set that to one year. Most felt that 18 months or even longer should be the minimum, because ‘you don’t know beforehand in which member states you will succeed’, as a representative of an NGO stated, ‘and you might have to start from zero several times’.

Successful initiatives

Crucial, many stressed, is what happens to the initiatives that pass. As comprehensive as the Commission is about the requirements for citizens, as concise it is about its own part in the play.  The Commission proposes to publish the initiatives on its official website, and to transmit its conclusions to initiators, Parliament and public within four months. These conclusions would also include the actions the Commission intends to take – if any.

‘The Commission isn’t obliged to accept a proposal’, Meyer said. ‘But if it rejects it, citizens should have the possibility to appeal.’ ‘The commission should at least be obliged to organise a public hearing about the proposal’, said Häfner. ‘And in that hearing the Parliamentary commission on petitions should participate, so in case the Commission doesn’t take action, the European Parliament has its turn.’

In short, the battle is far from won. ‘The citizens’ initiative is a difficult area’, Häfner concluded, ‘on a soil on which many things still have to be anchored. But I can guarantee that, if Citizens’ Initiatives are treated behind closed doors, they will only add to peoples’ concerns and fears. And I can guarantee that we can feed the Union to the dogs.’

Lynn Tabak, 30 May 2010

---

The EGP Supporters’ Network is the grassroots’ initiative of the European Green Party (EGP). Launched and run by grassroots’ Greens since 2002, it aims to offers all who support the parties’ European project a participation perspective.

The Network aims to

• contributes to a green EU of citizens who participate in European politics on a daily basis, and are a soundboard and democratic basis for the members of the European Parliament.
• stimulate cross border action wherever appropriate – because present day challenges don’t stop at borders.
• promote and facilitate a European wide exchange of practices and views.

More information on the European Greens' Individual Supporters Network (authors of the report) can be found at www.greenyourope.eu

Daniela Graf, Board Member of GEF, welcomed the participants and highlighted the importance of regional co-operation , especially in a time where problems such as climate change do not stop at national borders. In the actual debate, the former President of the European Commission Jacques Santer, Confédération Syndicale Indépendante du Luxembourg (OGBL) President Jean-Claude Reding, the minster of Saarland for Environment, Infrastructure and Energy, Simone Peter (Bündnis/90 Die Grünen), the manager of “1,2,3 go” for the Greater Region Fréderique Gueth and the journalist Christophe Langenbrink  of the “Luxemburger Wort”, shared their visions under the moderation of Robert Garcia, the President of the Gréng Steftung.

On the basis of the strategy paper “Vision 2020”, which has been initiated during the Santer Commission and aimed to foster the economic, political, cultural and social cohesion within the region, views among the speakers were exchanged.  Especially a cross border energy policy, a possible political perspective for the Great Region in terms of governance, infrastructure and the question of how to promote a common, regional and as such trans-border identity were issues in the debate. Although positive factors were illustrated such as the growing mobility among people within the region, the points remaining to be achieved guided the discussion.  What is clearly missing is networking among the people. Problems of language barrier, bureaucratic burdens and the different legal situations within the Greater Region, contribute to the lack of a common identity.

The Euro-region Luxembourg and the Greater Region is supported by the Interreg IV a Greater Region programme (2007-2013), which aims to enforce the cooperation between partners within the Region. Nevertheless, citizens, companies, politicians as well as cultural institutions have yet to fully embrace the idea of a working Greater Region. Questions from the audience also strongly focused on the very practical difficulties that stand in the way: to travel from different parts of the region to the other using the train is more an adventure then a connecting element, for example.

The topic of how to develop an effective working Greater Region will stay with GEF for the rest of the year.

Registration is now open and can be done here

Event details:

Date: 2-3 July 2010
Venue: Representation of the State of Hamburg - Jägerstraße 1-3, Berlin
Language: German
Welcome: Reinhard Bütikhofer, Member of the European Parliament (Greens/EFA) and Member of the General Assembly of the Green European Foundation
Speakers:

• Prof. Mario Monti, former Commissioner DG Internal Market and Services and President of the Bocconi University, Milano
• Ulrike Guerot, European Council on Foreign Relations
• Sven Giegold, Member of the European Parliament (Greens/EFA)
• Annalena Baerbock, Working group on European Affairs, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and Committee Member of the European Green Party
• Rebecca Harms, Member of the European Parliament and Co-President Greens/EFA Group

Hungary - Central and Eastern European Green Summer University

Date: 21-25 July
Venue: Horány, Hungary
Organizers: Ökopolitikai Mühely Alapitvány, Védegylet, GEF
More information: CEE Green Summer University

UK - Green Economics Institute Annual Green Economy Conference

Date: 29-31 July
Venue: Oxford, UK
Organizer: Green Economics Institute with the support of GEF
More information: Green Economy Annual Conference

Spain - Spanish Green Summer University

Date: 29 July - 1 August
Venue: Navarra, Spain
Organizer: Los Verdes with the support of GEF
More information: Spanish Green Summer University

Global Young Greens - Congress

Date: 8-14 August
Venue: Berlin, Germany
Organizer: Global Young Greens with the support of GEF
More information: Global Young Greens Congress

France - Les journées d'été des Verts et d'Europe Ecologie

Date: 19-21 August
Venue: Nantes, France
Organizer: Les Verts, Europe Ecologie
More information: Journées d'été Les Verts - Europe Ecologie

Belgium (Wallonia) - Rencontres ecologique d'été

Date: 25-29 August
Venue: Borzée, La Roche, Belgium
Organizer: Etopia
More information: Rencontres ecologiques d'été

Belgium - Groen! European summer weekend in Nieuwpoort, Belgium

Date: 27-29 August
Venue: Floréal Club, Albert Laan 74, Nieuwpoort, Belgium
Organizer: Groen!
More information: European summer weekend in Nieuwpoort

Austria - Green Summer Academy "Beyond borders - Europeanization bottom-up"

Date: 2-5 Spetember
Venue: Bregenz, Austria
Organizer: Grüne Bildungswerkstatt
More information: Austrian Green Summer Academy