One of the major distinctions between the 2014 European Parliament elections and previous elections is that each political family will put forward formal candidates for President of the European Commission prior to the vote. In an interview with EUROPP’s Managing Editor Stuart Brown, Guy Verhofstadt, former Belgian Prime Minister and Commission candidate for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, discusses EU freedom of movement, the importance of this year’s elections, and what his priorities would be if his candidature for Commission President were successful.
European Parliament elections have traditionally been regarded as ‘second order’ elections with low voter turnout. Do the 2014 elections have the real potential to be different?
The 2014 European Parliament elections will be of unparalleled importance. With the greater powers given to the European Parliament under the Lisbon Treaty and the direct link between the outcome of the elections and the nomination of Commission President, this is a momentous opportunity for citizens to shape the future direction the EU will take. I also believe we are beginning to see the emergence of real Europe-wide political debates over international issues such as the debt crisis, migration and mass surveillance. Hopefully this should translate into greater public interest and a higher voter turnout.
Several commentators have predicted that Eurosceptic or populist parties might greatly increase their share of seats in the European Parliament. Is this a sign that European citizens are increasingly rejecting the integration process?
I don’t think that European citizens are rejecting the principle of European integration. Many are simply frustrated with the Europe of today and disillusioned with the political class in general. Eurosceptic and populist parties offer cheap, easy solutions that they claim will solve everyone’s problems and portray themselves as anti-politicians. But the reality is they don’t offer a viable alternative; European countries will inevitably have to work together to succeed and defend their interests in the 21st century. So as Liberals we have to put forward a compelling vision for the Europe of tomorrow, a radical reform of the EU that will make it more democratic and more relevant to its citizens.
You support the creation of a federal Europe. Does Europe have any alternative to pursuing closer integration?
I prefer the term a functional Europe, because what we have in place today clearly isn’t working. As we have seen with the handling of the Eurozone crisis, the intergovernmental method leads to policies that are always too little too late. To survive in the long-term, the Eurozone will need a proper banking union and a fiscal union. But I also believe in reforming the EU and scaling back its powers in some areas, for example where regulation is burdening businesses. I don’t believe in the EU that regulated olive oil on restaurant tables or the amount of water a toilet flushes. The key is that the EU must be empowered to act in areas where it adds value, but refrain from acting where it doesn’t.
What do you say to politicians such as Nigel Farage who have called for the freedom of movement of European citizens to be restricted?
Nigel Farage may talk the talk but he does not walk the walk. When the European Parliament recently voted on EU freedom of movement rules he wasn’t even there! However, the important point is that freedom of movement is a two-way street. The UK government has confirmed that there are now 2.2 million UK citizens living in other EU countries and 2.3 million EU citizens in the UK. Moreover, you can’t have the free circulation of goods, capital and services without the free movement of labour. British Conservatives who want to undermine freedom of movement would also be undermining the single market.
If you were to be successful in your candidature for the next President of the European Commission, how would your priorities differ from those of José Manuel Barroso?
My number one priority would be to put in place a proper banking and fiscal union in order to lower the crippling interest rates faced by many national governments and to get banks lending to businesses again. We simply cannot stand by and watch as a whole generation grows up without a good prospect of finding a job. I would also prioritise the completion of trade deals with countries such as the US, India and Japan to help get the European economy moving again. At the same time, I believe the EU must be much bolder in defending its liberal values both at home and abroad on issues such as LBGT rights, mass surveillance and freedom of expression.
Please read our comments policy before commenting.
Note: This article gives the views of the interviewee, and not the position of EUROPP – European Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.
Shortened URL for this post: http://bit.ly/1o1ho0m
_________________________________
Guy Verhofstadt – Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Guy Verhofstadt has held a number of high profile political roles in Belgium. In 1999 he became Belgian Prime Minister and headed three separate governments over the course of nearly ten years. In 2009 he became an MEP in the European Parliament and was elected leader of the ALDE group. In addition to his duties as a politician, Guy has written a number of books including, The New Age of Empires (2008) and Emerging from the Crisis: How Europe can Save the World (2009).
EU politics is become a complete farce.Honestly,I don’t expect anti-collectivist Europeans to enter into a dialogue with such uncompromising unilaterality.There are all these different pro-federalist-come-hell-or-high water operatic mouths singing from the same songsheet.Different words,different harmonies segueing smoothly into an all-encompassing whole,with counter-melodies to fool the beguiled and fearful both.It is evidently convincing to many.At least,I don’t think the EU commissars and their supporting cast have started rigging elections,yet.Though on the evidence of the propaganda being marshalled against those in Europe who are not fooled by the EU dictatorship,the day that elections will be rigged,falsified or deemed irrelevant cannot be far off.
I don’t see much that’s objectionable in what Verhofstadt has said here. He’s standing in an election – if you don’t like it you’re entitled to vote for someone else who matches your views. Where we end up with lines about an “EU dictatorship” is beyond me. I know some of us permanently live inside conspiracy theories, but most of us (I hope) are still in the real world.
Guy Verhofstadt’s number one priority would be a banking and fiscal union.He stands for greater integration of the EU countries.His claim that the majority in the EU are or may be in favour of further integration is irrelevant.Such claim is to negate the democratic rights of citizens in the sovereign nation-states in the EU.At every turn,the pro-federalists/pro-integrationists are assuming and implying that the national tax/ratepayers and consumers can be made to pay for the collectivist schemes and scams which keep on sluicing funds on an ever increasing basis to people and nation-states who borrow too much,consume too much,cannot even pay the interest,let alone repay the principal,pro-federalists who assume that others,without recourse,objection and just return can be made to pay for the extortionate rake-offs and creaming off that the banking system,the international high finance system and the corporate managing class perpetrate upon the productive and thrifty and lowly paid,even as the same is enabled by a class of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats who know no better than to waste other people’s and peoples’ money on scams which are no better than throwing money in a bottomless pit and pay themselves extravagantly from national revenues at the expense of productive people,etc.So I find objection in Mr Verhofstadt’s opinions,yes,you are correct in that regard.Also,it is a matter of context.Obviously,if a publicly stated opinion is of no practical consequence in effect it is more likely to not be,or less,objectionable.
As to EU dictatorship.Have you a better description for what they are?
Now,whence the reference to conspiracy theory?If one refers to cooperation amongst groups of people who seek to achieve political and economic goals which may be to the economic and sociopolitical detriment of other people,peoples and certain social and socio-economic groups,the organisation of which is partially or to a large degree hidden from public view,it is often referred to by deniers as conspiracy theory when mentioned by detractors or public commentators.Truly,how can you suggest that people who have their democratic,civil and legal rights undermined in such a fashion as in the EU federalisation stitch-up,should not object or critically comment when pro-federalists announce their support for these scams?As ever,those eager to share in some common resource are they especially that contribute less than others or none at all.In this case,those who seek to rope in more and more of people’s wages assets,savings and national revenues for the EU profligacy common honey pot are obviously reckoning to do well out of the scheme.People who have economic sense and historical perspective,not to mention common sense and knowledge of human greed know that what is happening here in the EU context and corporate globalisation is unsustainable.May be you ought to read Bernard Connolly’s The Rotten Heart of Europe,though the title should be enough for people who know what is going on.
i stand for more europe too and a normal single currency cannot be sustainable without a normal central bank and normal single fiscal rules.. and normal single surveillance organisation..
as for EU -dictatorship. let get real.. grece would not be bankrupt if a real EU budgetary control would have been in place.. everything there is 100% the fault of national gvt’s ..so.. yes.. we do need more europe..
Interest rates should be flexible & each states rates should reflect their circumstances otherwise we will have a building bonanza again in countries that cannot sustain it simply because of German style interest rates. He says the UK has 2.2 Million citizens living abroad, this may be true but the vast majority have liquidated their assets & taken them with them to “Fund” their retirement & are in no way whatsoever a burden on local social services. The Economic asylum seekers that come to the UK are taking low end jobs keeping students out of part time jobs that they used to part fund their education with, they add to the cost of employment by their lack of linguistic skills which many UK citizens dont need because they arent entering the work place as they are RETIRED!
i doubt you are an european citizen.. because even the most uneducated EU citizen know that there is no such thing as asylum-seekers or immigration between EU countries. only migration.. biggg difference..
As your obviously a bit dim I will explain. Someone seeking Asylum is trying to get away from something & seeking shelter in a safe harbour. The UK is that safe harbour & it is being overrun by Europeans seeking asylum from their own broken economies. Are you even English Dana? This is an English website, a clue is in the name. I have been around the world many times, I was talking about others attitudes to Europe, they have no interest in the EU as far as they are concerned it is an imposition.
@Jacob “As to EU dictatorship.Have you a better description for what they are?”
How about “the European Union”?
I’ll be honest, I’m somewhat bored of having to read people droning on and on about “EU dictatorships” without proposing any tangible concrete reform that would lead to an improvement. The fact that most of the criticisms are hopelessly exaggerated nonsense does make it a borderline conspiracy theory in my view, but if you don’t like that term there are many other appropriate ones…
Let’s take just one argument: “His claim that the majority in the EU are or may be in favour of further integration is irrelevant.Such claim is to negate the democratic rights of citizens in the sovereign nation-states in the EU”
Making a claim that you support further integration and believe the majority are in favour of it doesn’t violate citizens’ rights unless you act on it without consulting them. Verhofstadt, who I don’t support incidentally, is well known for advocating a new federal agreement which would be ratified in every EU state by a referendum. He states that any country which didn’t ratify the new agreement would be entitled to withdraw from it, or propose some other ad-hoc arrangement that’s in their interest. Read his book “For Europe” and this is made extremely clear. At what point that becomes undemocratic is beyond me – 28 elected governments negotiating a treaty and ratifying it (or rejecting it) by referendum. It might be overly ambitious, misguided, naive and a hundred other things, but the last thing it could be accused of is ignoring the will of citizens.
Yet rather than responding to his specific ideas on their own merits, we have to hear another rant about why the entirety of the EU is run by corrupt bureaucrats promoting “collectivist schemes and scams which keep on sluicing funds” and a bunch of other stuff that 1) doesn’t really exist and 2) has literally nothing to do with anything Verhofstadt has said or stands for. That’s not engaging with the subject, it’s ranting blindly at anything with an EU label on it.
There is no potential Presidential candidate worthy of my cross on any ballot paper, they dont represent me or my views, most come from places people would struggle to place on a map. Why is there no candidate for those who wish to see the EU as only a trading block?
“…most come from places people would struggle to place on a map”
Weird magical places like “Belgium”, “Germany”, and “Greece”.
In all seriousness, the fault here is really with Europe of Freedom and Democracy (the group UKIP belong to) who decided not to put a candidate forward. Farage could have been a candidate if they wanted, but they chose not to do that for their own reasons.
I didnt say country I said place, as in towns, villages etc. If you asked most people they wouldnt be able to tell you where Paris of Berlin was on a map. They would manage Malaga or Palmanova 🙂
if you cannot place an european country on the map.. then.. for sure you have a huge education gap.. and.. this is your big problem not theirs..
It is a matter of one’s individual perspective,experience in life,accrued information,combined knowledge,intuition,spiritual awareness and,dare I mention it,ethics.Eventually,all boils down to a moral imperative related to basic natural laws which govern the extent to which human foibles may run riot.
It also depends on the kind of books one reads,and the perspective one brings to bear upon the information thus gathered.May I recommend The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy?(If the LSE moderator agrees).
As to the rest of your reply,democracy is not just a matter of a majority voting once in a while.If,say,the EU autocrats were to agree with the Washington DC autocrats and the Peking autocrats that a global election to vote for a world government would be a good thing and after many promises made a tiny majority,say,51 percent,would vote in favour,even if people were to be mis-informed due to propaganda rather than factual information being offered by the would-be global executive,would that,in your view,constitute a good basis to form a world government?Some people and peoples might object.You would counter that Vehofstadt has intimated that each member country in the EU would get an opportunity to vote,in or out.This is where we disagree.I do not for a moment,on past experience and cogitation upon the matter,believe that people will get a true picture of the facts before they get to vote in a referendum.Then there is the wording of the referendum,and the interpretation of the result.The pro-EU-federalisation crowd have long lost my trust.Verhofstadt seems oblivious to the fact that many people in the EU have no faith in the crowd now in control of EU federalisation,whoever is speaking on their,the controllers,behalf.To be oblivious of such facts,as a politician with his agenda,is a pointer like writing on the wall.His assurances do not ring true to me.Verhofstadt,as a politician,cannot expect his philosophies as stated to be taken outside of the political context in which they have been put.Again,trust is something which takes decades to build and which can be lost forever in a very short time.
You wish for EU detractors to put forward ideas to alternatively reform the EU.You have not been reading these “rants” properly.The only way to reform the EU now is to dismantle this project and start again.So the dismantling is now the priority.It may take a few decades,or longer,time is of no consequence.If detractors do nothing,the EU will still collapse.Without our easing the dying agonies of this utterly corrupted project it may or may not take longer.Without the talk,talk,”rant,rant”,there may be more violent and prolonged war,war,..who knows.Again,it is of little consequence in the long run.To understand why,you ought to study human nature and history a bit more.
That was actually a reply to Gordon Jackson,further up.
Every bodies knows Guy Verhofstadt rubber stamp decision against legally elected government in POLAND.
In my opinion Guy Verhofstadt is someone who want to become first InterEuropen Emperor !
Nowadays he is a Civil Platform (political regime in Poland in the years 2007-2015 ) puppet on the EP assembly , no more.
Is this European democracy ?