Volume 2 • Issue 3

Winter 2007

Suggested Donation 5€ Social Europethe journal of the european left

www.social-europe.com

Contributions bySégolène RoyalJacques Reland

Michael SommerPoul Nyrup Rasmussen

Peter MandelsonJürgen HabermasStefan Collignon

David MilibandAna Gomes

The Royal Way

An initiative by the Party of European Socialists

Social Europe the journal of the european left � Volume 2 � Issue 3 � Winter 2007

Editorial BoardDetlev Albers Chief Editor

Giuliano Amato Italian Interior Minister, Former Prime Minister

Karl Duffek Director Renner Institute

Elisabeth Guigou French MP, Former French Europe and Justice Minister

Zita Gurmai President PES Women

Stephen Haseler Chief Editor

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen President of the PES

Angelica Schwall-Dueren Vice Chair SPD Bundestag Group

Giuseppe Vacca President Gramsci Foundation

Jan Marinus Wiersma Vice President Socialist Group European Parliament

Henning Meyer Managing Editor

Editorial team

Ben Eldridge & Ian Gardiner Design & Layout

Ruth Davis & Katerina Hadjimatheou Sub-editors

Friends

Jean-Marc Ayrault, Stefan Berger, Antony Beumer, Matt Browne,Proinsias De Rossa, Harlem Désir, Guglielmo Epifani, PatrickDiamond, Antonio Guterres, David Held, Andrea Manzzella, Jacques Reland, Donald Sassoon, Adrian Severin, Martin Schulz,Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Livia Turco, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul,Christoph Zöpel

Please make sure that there aremore issues of ‘Social Europe: thejournal of the european left’ by paying the suggested 5€ donationfor this issue or become a SponsorMember. Visit our website www.social-europe.com for moredetails and payment options.

Thank you very much!

‘Social Europe: the journal of the european left’ is published by theGlobal Policy Institute at LondonMetropolitan University.

In co-operation with:

Social Europe the journal of the european left � Volume 2 � Issue 3 � Winter 2007

Editorial

Henning Meyer Managing Editor

EUROPE IS CURRENTLYlooking to France withgreat interest. The result

of the upcoming presidentialelections will have a decisiveinfluence on the future develop-ment of Europe. This issue of‘Social Europe. the journal ofthe European left’ starts by look-ing in detail at the Europeanpolicies of the Parti Socialistecandidate Ségolène Royal beforeJacques Reland comments onthe general role of Europeanissues in the French electioncampaign.

Following the coverage of theFrench elections, codetermina-tion as active economic democ-racy is at the heart of the appealby German DGB chairmanMichael Sommer. Published infour languages, this contribu-tion by Germany’s trade unionleader marks the start of a cam-paign for the preservation ofdemocratic rights in politics butalso in the economy.

The balance between democ-racy and economic progress isalso at the very heart of PoulNyrup Rasmussen’s argumentdeveloping the framework for a‘New Social Europe’ that com-bines economic progress andsocial justice.

In our integrated ‘Video’ sec-tion our readers can follow thedebates that took place at therecent Policy Network confer-ence in London. The discus-sions focused on Britain’s rolein Europe and the continent’sfuture development. Watch theinterventions by Tony Blair,Helle Thorning-Schmidt, AndréSapir and Will Hutton amongstothers.

Two outstanding academiccontributions by JürgenHabermas and Stefan Collignonpresent refreshing ways of look-ing at Europe’s current situationbefore the articles by DavidMiliband and Ana Gomes con-clude this issue.

The continuous developmentof our journal has resulted inthe highest profile issue to date.However we will not stop atthis point but go on driving for-ward the European debate onthe democratic left. We inviteall of you to participate.

Social Europe the journal of the european left � Volume 2 � Issue 3 � Winter 2007

ContentsPutting Europe to the TestSégolène Royal

French Consensus on Europe’s Crisis, but not on the RemediesJacques Reland

A Social Europe Needs Workers’ Consultation and Participation Michael Sommer

Videos

Ten Principles for a New Social EuropePoul Nyrup Rasmussen

Europe and GlobalisationPeter Mandelson

Opening up Fortress Europe: Immigration as the Key to European UnityJürgen Habermas

Democratising EuropeStefan Collignon

Red-Green Renewal: The Future Of New Labour David Miliband

Women in International Politics: Glass CeilingsAna Gomes

Click on the flags for links to foreignlanguage versions

101106

109

113114118122

126133139

economic entity, which guaran-teed prosperity but without theinvolvement of ordinary citi-zens, who were deemed tooimmature to contribute positive-ly to the grand plan. ThatEurope, based on a lack oftransparency, that was moreintended than merely tolerated,has had its time and makes nosense today. It assumed broadagreement among a small num-ber of countries, particularlyFrance and Germany, on itsaims. Clearly the EuropeanUnion is far more diverse with25 member states than it waswith six or even 15.

So a fresh approach was calledfor, to start to build a politicalunion, firstly by reforming theinstitutions and mistakenly call-ing it a constitution, although itwas not. The objectives mayhave been worthy, for in anyevent the institutions of theEuropean Union need to bereviewed, but they were notunderstood. Ordinary citizensrealised that the European Unionhad been partly built up withoutthem or without involving themvery much at all or at least not inan appropriate way. They alsosaw that there was no consensusas regards what kind of Europethey wanted or dreamed of. Is itmerely a free-trade area wherecountries compete with eachother by lowering taxes and

Putting Europe to the Test

Ségolène Royal Member of the Socialist Party and candidate for the 2007 French presidential election

101 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

These seven proposals forEurope were put forward ata press conference at theFrench National Assembly

ANYONE CAN SEE thatEuropean integration isat a standstill and that

France is isolated. I want getEurope moving and France outof her isolation. Europe needsFrance and the world needsEurope. Yet with a few excep-tions the peoples of Europe areat best indifferent and at worstsceptical. The progress achievedby the European Union goesunrecognised or unnoticed.National governments useEurope as a scapegoat for poli-cies for which they do not wishto assume responsibility andnational interests are assertedmore strongly. Nobody seems tohave any political vision or will.And the no votes in France andthe Netherlands cap it all.

All this points to the necessi-ty of a new approach. For solong Europe was dominated bythe vision of Jean Monnet,which brought about peace andreconstruction through a small-steps approach, through recon-ciliation by the building of an

‘National governments use Europe as a scapegoat for policies for whichthey do not wish to assume responsi-bility and national interests areasserted more strongly’

• Iran: Europe must continue itsdiplomatic efforts to counter thedanger of Iran developing a mil-itary nuclear capability. Theexplicit threats and the verbalprovocations against Israel aretotally unacceptable but thediplomatic approach must bebased on the recognition ofIran’s role in the region.

• The fight against terrorismmust be a priority for theEuropean Union. Many thingshave been achieved particularlythrough Eurojust and Europol,which deserve to be betterresourced. I would like to seebetter co-ordination of legalresources through the setting ofa European panel of judges (par-quet européen).

Effective action through solidarityCompetition in European andglobal markets is not a socialproject. Ordinary Europeans donot want to see competitionamong member states throughtax or social-policy measures (orrather the absence of the latter).They do not want a free-for-allEurope which would lead not tothe domination of a few coun-tries but to the accumulation offortunes by a small number ofindividuals, thereby jeopardis-ing social solidarity and redistri-bution of wealth to the detri-ment of both social cohesionand the most vulnerable.

Our fellow citizens wantquality public services that willnot be undermined by dogmat-ic liberalism. Nor do they wanta European Union that showsitself to be powerless againstthe negative effects of globali-sation, accepting them asinevitable, but one that takesthe action required to be able

tive regime making dialogueeasier, but it is in the nature ofa solitary power without coun-terweight to take unilateraldecisions and to be tempted bythe use of force. The interna-tional order needs balance.Nothing would be worse thanto give the impression that therich western countries form asingle bloc which is united inits desire to protect itself fromthe rest of the world.

Europe is the only player thatis able to tilt the balance ofinternational relations towardspeace. We must not be resignedto impotence and to the currentdivisions even if they havetaken root through years ofdiplomatic activity. The MiddleEast, Africa and Russia are ourneighbours and European for-eign policy must take account ofthis. France must unrelentinglywork to tease out shared posi-tions among the 25 memberstates, and if possible, give her-self the means to act in linewith the greatest possible num-ber of countries that are deter-mined to defend the same val-ues and the same concern forpeace and stability.

Proposals:• I believe that EU aid to thePalestinians must be reinstatedimmediately. Despair may welllead to civil war. It is irresponsi-ble to bank on such a prospectto get rid of Hamas. In fact I amconvinced that both the Israeliand Palestinian peoples wantpeace.

• I want the EU to take the initiative of proposing an inter-national peace conference forthe Middle East in the samespirit as the Madrid conferencein 1991.

reducing social cover even if itmeans destroying social cohe-sion and allowing populistmovements to develop? Or is aunion based on solidarity, unitedby values and a common willwhereby the richer nations drawthe others upwards?

If the European Union affordsno protection, it is an area ofvulnerability.

Of course, the European proj-ect has to be revived by politicalmeans but ‘political’ impliesmore than institutions. Thisinvolves political choices whichmap out in broad terms the wayahead and set in train certainprojects. Yet today we have torekindle a desire for politicalunion among the citizens ofEurope and it can only happenif we know why we are togetherand for what purpose.

Foundational principles I therefore propose a completereworking of our objectives forthe European Union.

Firstly, peace People may say that this objec-tive no longer corresponds toreality, but that is wrong. Theremay no longer be any need forreconciliation between Franceand Germany, but in easternEurope, the prospect of joiningthe European Union played adecisive role in calming long-standing national antagonismswhich can be aroused veryquickly. The counter-exampleof Yugoslavia serves as areminder and we see it today inLebanon. The world needsEurope, the only peacefulpower capable of presenting analternative to the hyper-powerof America. Make no mistake,the Bush administration may besucceeded by a less conserva-

102 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

proposal is that the CAP shouldbe reoriented to ensure quality,the protection of water suppliesand land conservation. One wayforward would be to distributesubsidies at a regional level.

• Solidarity with developingcountries. The European Union and itsmember states are by far thelargest givers of developmentaid. The funds are, however,often misused, either for unsuit-able projects or useless expert-ise, or simply misappropriated.Co-ordination between memberstates and the Commission isstill inadequate and hamperedby the duplication of roles. Aidpolicy needs a new impetus,promoting innovative develop-ment projects through solidaritywith countries concerned. Myproposal is that at least 20% ofaid must be devoted to directdecentralised co-operative pro-grammes (e.g. through NGOs orregional administrations).

A strong social policyAn improved standard of living,better job security, entitlementto quality life-long training,scrupulous respect for the free-dom of trade unions are some ofthe essential elements of aEuropean social policy. Europemust draw upwards the totalityof the citizens of its memberstates and not the opposite. Noharmonisation of social policyshould be detrimental to the

synergies, are the cause of cur-rent weaknesses. We must pro-mote and strengthen, where pos-sible, research networks, andsignificantly increase theEuropean research budget in thenext round. My proposal is totake money from the Growthand Stability Pact to allocatepublic funds for research andinnovation.

• European transport policy. Energy costs, environmentalpollution caused by road traffic,in particular lorries and theconsiderable existing needs ofnew member states are all argu-ments in favour of a genuineEurope-wide transport policywith its own budget. It shouldalso co-ordinate different meansof transport. My proposal is toset aside a small proportion ofexisting tax revenue from fuel toa specific European budget tofinance a programme of Europe-wide transport networks(including piggy-backing, high-speed sea routes, the GalileoGlobal Position System).

• An environmentally responsi-ble agricultural policy. Today 70% of subsidies go to30% of farmers. While weacknowledge the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP)helped achieve independence offood supplies, currently it doesnot alleviate environmentaldamage but on the contrary con-tributes to desertification. My

to punch its weight in theworld economy.

This determined and power-ful Europe has to rediscoverhow to make common policies.

There are five priority areas : • To set up a common Europeanpolicy on renewable sources of energy, anticipating the post-oil era. Some major policy options, likethe role of nuclear energy havecaused divisions and will con-tinue to do so. Yet in the light ofrecent international events (oilprices going through the roof,clear evidence of the politicalpressures that certain oil-pro-ducing countries can exert, par-ticularly in eastern Europe), wecan be united concerning theurgent need to ensure and diver-sify sources of supply as well asthe importance of energy-basedeconomies and the necessity ofpunching our combined weightin negotiations with oil-produc-ing countries. Moreover, it is amatter of urgency to develop,debate and implement a massiveEurope-wide investment pro-gramme in renewables. I shallbe putting forward proposals tomy colleagues for a number oftax incentives for energy savingand the use of renewables.

• To stimulate research inEurope. Europe still lags behind theUnited States in research anddevelopment, although it is thekey factor in ensuring com-petiveness and sustainablegrowth in Europe as highlightedin the Lisbon strategy. The splin-tering of budgets and their lowlevel in many individual mem-ber states as well as the setting-up of rival teams, although itwould be more effective to seek

103 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘Europe must draw upwards thetotality of the citizens of its memberstates and not the opposite’

hang back in relation to com-mon policies.

The French presidency mustconduct an interim review in2008 and we must be ready forthat.

• Better co-ordinated and moreresponsive economic policiesThe only instrument for co-ordi-nating economic policy is theGrowth and Stability Pact. Weall know how slow and clumsyit is and we are all aware thatmajor countries readily resort tonon-compliance to the greatannoyance of smaller memberstates. That cannot be healthy.Nor can it be healthy that theEuropean Central Bank shouldhave as its sole aim the controlof inflation but not of growth.

We must rediscover the sensethat making political choices isnecessary to steer the Europeaneconomy. I propose to launch adebate on the reform of theGrowth and Stability Pact witha view to using the Eurogroupas a steering body. The aim ofcreating jobs and businessescould thus be set against budg-etary constraints.

•The reform of European institutions The Treaty of Rome is out ofdate. Institutional reformswhich enable a 27-member EUto function are badly needed.As everyone realises, neither theFrench nor the Dutch will holda second vote on the constitu-tional treaty. Others will alsofail to ratify it. I can understandthat countries which ratified thetreaty enthusiastically shouldfeel bitterness, but the rules ofthe game were made clear fromthe outset. A single no votewould bring the whole processto a halt. In this perspective

would have rightly been harshif we had turned away thosewho tore down the Iron Curtain,for to have done so would havethreatened the stability of thewhole continent. I would addthat our trade figures showsome benefits to ourselves aswell. It is however important tofocus on ways to make the EUwork.

Here are the tools we shoulduse:

• Democratic debate There can be no hope of reform-ing Europe without involving itscitizens. Wide-ranging debatesneed to be held quickly. I sug-gest the German presidencyshould initiate a broad consulta-tion process which wouldinvolve elected representativesat national and local level,social partners and the volun-tary sector in every country. Atthe same time individual citi-zens could be consulted via theInternet. This consultationprocess would cover the goalsto be assigned to the EU, priori-ties in matters of policy andissues concerning frontiers.

• A realistic budget to achievethese ambitions The policy, currently supportedby France, of limiting theEuropean budget to 1% of GDP,fails to provide the resources toimplement the policies requiredto deal with current issues. TheEuropean budget must be signif-icantly increased with priorityto research and development.No subject can be off-limits,whether it is the CAP or the UKrebate. What must be madeclear is that the review and theneeded reform of long-standingpolicies must not be used as apretext to lower the budget or to

workers in any member state.Every harmonisation measureshould lead to an improvementfor all.

I am well aware that certaincountries, particularly in east-ern Europe, may attempt to gainadvantage from low taxationand low wages. That will onlywork for a limited time. In mostnew member states wage levelsare starting to rise and workingconditions to come into linewith those in long-establishedmember countries. Measures toimprove the quality of the workforce while offering themdecent working conditions nev-ertheless come at a cost. The EUmust be vigorous in its show ofsolidarity to those countries tohelp them raise their socialstandards.

My next proposal is to extendsocial minima to all memberstates. The opt-out clause to themaximum 48-hour workingweek should be annulled. Weshould set out convergence cri-teria for social-policy measuresto assess progress with regard topay, jobs, working conditions,gender equality, access to train-ing and health and safety atwork.

The tools for the jobThe objectives that I have justset out require a redesign of thetools that make the EuropeanUnion work. There will be noprogress if we fail to make moreeffective the instruments avail-able to the EU to put its policiesin place. It is time for an in-depth review. I am consciousthat enlargement of the unionhas often been opposed to acoming together at a deeperlevel. I am not one of those whoregret the reunification ofEurope. The verdict of history

104 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

3. Research and innovation inEurope• Take from the Growth and

Stability Pact the fundsrequired to increaseEuropean budgets forresearch and innovation

4. Environmentally consciousagriculture• Reorientation of the CAP• Management of CAP subsi-

dies at regional level

5. Transport for Europe withoutpollution• Set up designated resources

by means of a levy on exist-ing excise and tolls tofinance Europe-wide trans-port networks

6. A Europe that protects itsworkers• Delocalisations: abolish sub-

sidies to companies thatdelocalise from oneEuropean country to anoth-er; at national level clawback public subsidies fromcompanies delocalising out-side the EU; give voice tosocial and environmentalconcerns within the WorldTrade Organisation (WTO)

• To set up, with a time-scale,social minima for the wholeof Europe

7. Europe and young people:• Give every young person the

entitlement to training(apprenticeship, higher edu-cation) and to undertake aperiod of study within theEU but outside her/his homecountry

capacity to inspire respectthrough being open to dialogueas well as through her aptitudefor putting forward proposals.

To speak of Europe is in factto speak about France. I wouldlike all French people, whichev-er way they voted in the refer-endum on the constitutionaltreaty to rediscover this ‘desirefor Europe’ that I referred to ear-lier. What concerns me is thefuture and reconcilation of theparties of the Left. Let us notallow the Liberals to highjackthe idea of European integra-tion.

I also want my country tohave a voice and to enjoyrespect. We are weakened byhollow rhetoric, contradictoryviewpoints and cynicism, butstrengthened by modest affirma-tion of our values. I can feel theexpectancy with regard to theFrench presidency and howmuch we can do to reviveEuropean unity. I am alreadygetting ready.

7 Proposals for Europe to beput to the Test

1. Europe the peace maker• Reinstatement of aid to the

Palestinian authority • Proposal for an international

peace conference on theMiddle East

• Improvement of co-ordina-tion among judiciaries tocombat terrorism and thesetting-up of a Europeanpanel of judges (parquet)

2. Europe an innovator in useof renewable sources of energy• Introduction of tax incen-

tives for energy saving anduse of renewables

should, as some in Paris andLondon are suggesting, a ‘minitreaty’ be prepared quickly(with the risk of a botched job)to put to a vote in the Europeanparliament. I fear that this ideawill prove unacceptable to ourfellow citizens who have justvoted and that it will resolvenothing. It is therefore essentialto take the time to debate, con-sult and allow the arguments tosink in.

My ideal scenario would be toachieve reform of the EU byputting ideas to the test, bylaunching a debate on the aimsof the Union under the Germanpresidency. The 50th anniver-sary of the Treaty of Rome inMarch provides an exceptionalopportunity to ask the question:‘What do we want to achievetogether?’ The debate could becontinued under the Portugueseand Slovenian presidencies.The French presidency could setup a convention with the task ofdrafting the text for institutionalreform which would be present-ed to all countries on the sameday according to procedureschosen by individual memberstates.

That is the approach that Iam now trying to get across tothose who are listening to me. Iundertake to consult every oneof the 26 other member statesbefore the presidential elec-tions, going to as many coun-tries as possible to meet leadersof socialist and social-democrat-ic parties, whether they are inpower or opposition. A success-ful European presidency has tobe prepared well in advance. Itsobjectives must be clearly iden-tified by our partners andworked out in consultation withthem. That is how I work. Iwant France to rediscover her

105 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

EUROPE, AND FOREIGNpolicy for that matter,have not been at the fore-

front of the current French cam-paign for the Presidency, domi-nated as it is by the issues ofemployment, purchasing power,taxation, public spending andpersonality. The leading pro-European contenders seem tohave decided not to revive thisdivisive issue during the cam-paign, but they know that it willbe one of the first big challengesthe winner will have to face,soon after the election. Theresult will be important forEurope, as Sarkozy and Royaldo not share the same vision ofthe way forward for the Union.The inaugural speeches ofSégolène Royal, on the 11th ofFebruary and Nicolas Sarkozy,one month earlier, did not addmuch to their previous state-ments on Europe made lastautumn. Sarkozy made hismostly institutional Brusselsspeech advocating a mini-treatylast September and Royal’s arti-cle, published on these pages,dates back to October. In themeantime, most of the two lead-ing candidates’ interventions onEuropean issues have taken theform of criticisms of theEuropean Central Bank andEuropean competition policy.

The French campaign is not anexception to the rule that key

elections are decided on domes-tic matters, and there are plentyof them to keep the voters occu-pied. However, given the passionthat surrounded the Referendumcampaign on the EuropeanConstitution less than two yearsago, this deafening silence hassurprised and disappointed manyobservers at home and abroad,who expected the issue to have ahigher profile. They should,however, not be surprised by itslow profile, because it is not inthe interest of the candidates torevive the issue during the cam-paign, for two reasons.

Firstly, Europe is not aleft/right or PS/UMP issue inFrance. Both parties havealways been divided overEuropean issues, as was thecase with the Maastricht Treatybefore the Constitutional Treaty,although addmittedly the pro-portion of No voters in the lastreferendum was significantlyand surprisingly higher in thetraditionally more pro-EuropeanSocialist Party than in the UMP.

Secondly, both camps acceptthe No vote, are ready to justifyit, and agree that theConstitution as it stands cannotbe put back to a French vote.They share the same diagnosisfor the French rejection of 2005.They know that there are somecritical factors, such as callingthe document a Constitution, its

French Consensus onEurope’s Crisis, but not on the Remedies

Jacques Reland Head of European Research, The Global Policy Institute, LondonMetropolitan University www.global-policy.com

106 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

big challenges facing their coun-try can only be met through apowerful - and therefore politi-cal – Europe, able to speak withone voice in a globalised multi-lateral world, where as Barnierput it ‘Europe must be an actor,not a spectator’. While Royaltalks about Europe ‘par lapreuve’ and greater integrationand coordination in policy areaswhere Europe can prove itsvalue to its citizens, Sarkozytalks about projects whereEurope can act as a ‘multiplierof power’.

The same consensus emergesregarding the need for bettercoordination of economic policywithin the Eurozone through amore powerful Eurogroup actingas an economic government.However, Sarkozy, unlike Royal,does not suggest reform of theStability and Growth Pact andof the mandate of the EuropeanCentral Bank.

Both figures are aware thattheir desire for a more politicalEurope is not shared by allmembers of the Union and areready to envisage a multi-speedEurope. Sarkozy had alreadystated in September that hebelieved in ‘open vanguards’.Royal also pins her hopes onreinforced cooperationsbetween pioneer countries, witha possibility of others joining ata later stage.

But consensus on the reasonsfor the current European crisisand the need for a more politi-cal Europe has not led to a con-formity of views on some otherkey issues, such as Turkey, pub-lic services, social policies, taxa-tion, energy and transport,immigration, the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) andthe relationship between Europeand Africa.

ratify Europe’s perceived defi-ciencies rather than solve them,because Europe had not yetanswered the question asked byJoschka Fischer in 1999: QuoVadis Europa?

This is why French politi-cians think that the institutionalquestion is not the key issue.Ségolène Royal makes the pointat the beginning of her articlewhen she implies that in trying‘to build Europe by beginningwith the institutions’, we putthe cart before the horses. Thisview seems to be shared byMichel Barnier, Chirac’sEurophile ex-Foreign Ministerand Sarkozy’s potential topdiplomatic dog, who said at thismonth’s Forum de Paris confer-ence that Europe wanted to givea newer, better and biggerengine to a car whose driverand chosen route they did notknow. Both politicians agreethat only when Europe shows itis ready and able to tackle theproblems that concern themwill the French people endorse(in Royal’s case) a new institu-tional, not constitutional, treatyin a referendum or (in Sarkozy’scase) a mini-treaty voted on byParliament.

That is why both camps havebeen stressing the need torestore the people’s desire forEurope, to show them that fur-ther European integration is intheir interests. For many of the

length and illegibility, the inclu-sion of previous treaties in PartIII setting freemarket economicpolicies in stone, the BolkesteinDirective, dissatisfaction withChirac and Raffarin, fear aboutenlargement etc. But, behindthese various reasons, all thepro -Yes political leaders havecome to the conclusion that theNo vote was a symptom, ratherthan the cause of the currentEuropean crisis.

To many people, and not justin France, Europe appearsincreasingly impotent andunable or unwilling to protectits citizens in a fast-changingworld. Europe is divided anddoes not seem to know what itstands for, beyond its defence ofliberal democracy and the freemarket. It lacks a clear politicalvision of where it is going.Various groups of countrieshave diverging views about thepreferred future evolution ofEurope, ranging from a free-trade American protectorate to apolitical and diplomatic powerallied to but not aligned withthe USA. Being aware of this,the French decided that, whenin doubt, one should abstainfrom giving the trappings andtools of further sovereignty to aschizophrenic Union. TheConstitution was meant to helpovercome that problem, but,rightly or wrongly, the Frenchthought that it would merely

107 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘To many people, and not just inFrance, Europe appears increasinglyimpotent and unable or unwilling to protect its citizens in a fast-changing world’

able to the rest of Europe, andwill do his or her utmost toreach a settlement by the end ofthe next French presidency inDecember 2008.

However, institutions are justa toolbox at the service of poli-cies and those will vary greatlydepending on whether France isled by a man or a woman.While President Sarkozy wouldembrace a more ‘liberal’ Europewith gusto, using it as an excuseto impose unpopular changes(probably substantial welfarecuts) on a somewhat reluctantcountry, Madame la Présidentewould be a key proponent of amore social Europe.

Royal is more open on theTurkey issue than Sarkozy.Moreover, she would undoubt-edly show greater commitmentto sustainable development asan approach to environmentalproblems, and to fair trade andco-development as a way to helpregulate immigration than hercorporation-friendly and ‘selectimmigration’ champion rival.

Although both talk aboutEurope’s soft power as a forcefor world peace, and both stressthe need for a more ambitiousCommon Foreign and DefencePolicy (CFSP), Royal is clearlymore committed to an inde-pendent Europe than the natu-rally Atlanticist Sarkozy, eventhough he claims to have seenthe light and now maintainsthat Chirac’s opposition to theIraqi war was to France’s credit.

Their biggest differences concern social issues and taxa-tion. While Sarkozy seems to beconcerned only with imposingtariffs on imports into Europeand championing individualgain within it, Royal’s proposalsshow an undoubted commit-ment to fight tax and socialdumping within Europe and topromote a more socially equaland cohesive Union, as shownby her wish, unfortunately notshared by many member coun-tries, to add a social protocol tothe treaty.

Silence over Europe will bebroken soon after May the 6th,when the next President willmeet Angela Merkel to discussher proposals to overcome theinstitutional crisis. Whoever itis, the provisional outcome ofthe institutional imbroglio willnot be significantly different.The next French leader will signup to whichever solution isagreed upon and proves accept-

108 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

ASOCIAL EUROPE WORTHY ofthe name will need to be morethan a concept promoted by

governments. This blend of democraticand social participation must be exer-cised within society, and not leastwithin industry.

Like any other aspect of theEuropean Social Model (ESM), indus-trial democracy has taken shape invery different systems in the variouscountries of the European Union. Butthere is also a common thread: the ideathat working men and women shouldparticipate in company decision-mak-ing. Apart from shop-floor representa-tion through workplace trade unions oron works councils, the great majorityof European states also make provisionfor workers’ representatives to sit onthe highest-level committees of theirenterprises.

I would like here to formulate a fewtheses on workers’ participation – part-ly in response to the attacks on work-ers’ codetermination that we have wit-nessed in Germany, which centre onthe argument that it is out-of-date, andthat our Europeanised and globalisedeconomy and the new role of the capi-tal markets have rendered it non-viable.

I believe firmly, however, that code-termination reinforces a well-function-ing social democracy, that it is the keyto tomorrow’s economy, that it helps toprevent the division of society, that itis a vital component of the EuropeanSingle Market and that it is essential toprevent the unbridled influence of

financial investors on corporate man-agement.

Codetermination reinforces a well-functioning social democracy The economy is not an autonomousuniverse which exerts no impact orinfluence on other systems. Economicpower always entails political power.Wherever consultation and participa-tion enable workers to monitor power,a key condition is created for a well-functioning political democracy. Thisbecomes even more relevant as thepolitical world is handing over its abil-ity to define societal processes to thecorporate world.

Democracy, then, must not stop atthe factory gate. Questions about thefuture of society can only be resolvedtogether with working men and womenand not by flying in the face of theirinterests. Hence, codeterminationbrings consensus rather than enduringconflict.

Those who expect people to takeresponsibility for themselves and for asuccessful economy must offer peoplea framework to do so. Codeterminationis such a framework. Its significance isborne out by the high rate of popularapproval it enjoys. Companies are notmerely the private affair of their own-ers, but social organisations and hencepart of ‘civil society’. A company is acommunity of men and women whodraw their income from the same eco-nomic project. Consequently, the equalparticipation of workers in corporatemanagement, on whose decisions they

A Social Europe NeedsWorkers’ Consultation and Participation

109 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Michael SommerChairman of theConfederation ofGerman Trade Unions(DGB)

so deeply depend, is a necessary com-ponent of the social rule of law and apiece of the culture of democracy thathas evolved organically in Europe.

Trade union representatives servingon the supervisory or administrativeboard of a company are vested with anunusually broad democratic legitimacy:they are elected by the workforce andalso represent their trade union as ademocratic and social organisation.Moreover, they contribute to sustain-able corporate management by defend-ing the general interests of the industri-al sector concerned, reining in anycompany egoism and contributingvaluable knowledge of the trade. Thatis why strong trade union participationis regarded as self-evident in manyEuropean countries.

Codetermination is the key to tomorrow’s economyA company is constituted by the fac-tors of production: information, labourand capital. In our modern-day econo-my, information and knowledge areincreasingly important. This appliesnot only to IT and other fields of high-tech, but also to the ‘mid-tech’ sectorssuch as car manufacturing andmechanical engineering. As the vesselsof knowledge, people are thus becom-ing the most significant production fac-tor. The growing importance of humancapital in a knowledge-based industrialsociety makes codetermination particu-larly desirable and justifiable in theforward-looking decision-makingprocesses of corporate management.

Kurt Biedenkopf, who chaired the

German Commission on Workers’Participation, is not exactly a tradeunionist or politically left-wing, but hesummed this up aptly by observing:‘Nowadays the financial markets domi-nate the way we think and act. Thisdominance of capital will fall into per-spective once people note that thework and knowledge invested by thestaff and their motivation are just asimportant to a company’s success asthe availability of capital on the finan-cial markets.’

When corporate management buildson the consultation and participationof company employees, it shifts thefocus towards its workers, their talentsand the role they can play in sharingresponsibility. This is a unique sellingproposition for our system as it com-petes with both the Anglo-Saxon andthe Asian economic philosophies. AndI would venture to predict that themodel rooted in continental Europewill turn out in the long run to be themost successful. It has been recognisedin academic research that corporatecodetermination makes a valuable con-tribution to the economic success ofcompanies that adopt it by cuttingtransaction costs, reducing informationasymmetries and promoting willinginvestment in the human capital spe-cific to the company.

Recent studies have concluded thatworkers’ consultation and participationenhance the productivity and innova-tiveness of a company. Many captainsof industry have explicitly praised itspositive effects. Germany, where com-panies with more than 2,000 employ-ees have parity representation of man-agement and labour on their superviso-ry boards, is demonstrably one of theworld’s favourite countries for invest-ment, especially around headquarteroperations.

Codetermination helps to prevent divisions in societyThe globalised economy has highlight-ed the significance of workers’ partici-

110 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘Recent studies have concludedthat workers’ consultation andparticipation enhance the productivity and innovativenessof a company’

pation, because the risks companiesface are borne increasingly by the menand women who work for them andnot by their shareholders. In times ofglobalisation, workers run a higher riskof losing their jobs, and hence theirlivelihoods. Unlike the executives ofcapital, they cannot contain this riskby spreading the portfolio. The resultis a growing divide in society – withdangerous social and economic conse-quences.

By contrast, workers’ participationon the supervisory board, where strate-gic management decisions are taken, isa vital instrument for redressing thebalance between capital and labourand protecting employees. This notonly applies to the workforce wherethe company is domiciled, but also tothose men and women employed by acorporate group in other countries. Toretain their democratic legitimacy, therepresentatives of both shareholdersand employees on this supervisoryboard must establish internationalstructures. This means enabling work-ers in other countries to participate inelections to supervisory and adminis-trative boards.

Codetermination is a vital componentof the European Single MarketWorkers’ consultation and participationhave been recognised as a principle ofEuropean law and they respond to alegitimate desire by workers to havetheir say in decision-making.Codetermination is part and parcel ofthe European Social Model and it hasbeen implemented in the great majorityof European countries.

Representatives of the workforce canbe found both in two-pillar manage-ment structures, i.e. in companieswhich have a supervisory board and anexecutive board, and in single-pillarstructures, which simply have oneadministrative board. Depending onthe country, there may be only oneworkers’ representative, or they maymake up a third or a half of the board.

In some places a company may needonly 20 workers before statutory con-sultation kicks in, whereas in otherplaces the threshold may be 2,000. Butwhatever the rules, they have onething in common: the participation ofworkers and trade unions is consideredto be necessary and self-evident.

To restrict national rules on workers’participation on the grounds that thereis no place for this in Europe would,therefore, run counter to European tra-ditions, to the objectives outlined inthe EC Treaty and to the very idea ofEuropean social policy. The harmonisa-tion of European law should aim,rather, to strengthen workers’ participa-tion at corporate and workplace levelwhile respecting the fact that the rulesgoverning industrial relations varyacross Europe.

The rules defined for the Europeanstock company (SE) and cross-bordermergers express the Community’s willto uphold existing standards of work-ers’ participation in the SingleEuropean Market. On this basis, it isright and proper, and also necessary, todevise solutions for cross-border devel-opments such as mergers and take-overs and to establish minimumEuropean standards for workers’ partic-ipation. There is no justification forrestricting workers’ involvement.

Codetermination limits the unbridledinfluence of financial investors on cor-porate management The role of the financial markets hasbeen changing fast, and consequentlyso has the shareholder structure ofmany European companies. More andmore we are seeing strategic investors,whose association with the companytends to be long-term, replaced byfinancial investors. Because the latter’scommitment is limited in time fromthe outset, their corporate strategyfocuses on maximising their returnsover a short span of a few years. In thiscontext, there is a particular onus onworkforce representatives on the super-

111 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

visory board to examine the long-termimpact on company development like-ly to be induced by any restructuringmeasures sought by financial investors.

The aim is to encourage forward-looking business ideas submitted bygenuine private equity companies andto resist any damaging policies thatwould subordinate the company to theself-seeking interests of investors.

Sustainable corporate managementmeans giving consideration to ethical,economic and social interests andseeks to balance the interests of allcompany stakeholders. A company

strategy of this kind will, therefore, notonly be orientated towards the long-term generation of wealth but also fos-ter relations of trust between employ-ers and their employees, encouragingthe social responsibility of both man-agement and labour. In this sense,company codetermination, as an essen-tial corrective mechanism to countershort-term profit-seeking, helps to com-bat mismanagement and contributessubstantially towards good corporategovernance.

Codetermination, then, is an essen-tial component of our social Europe,whose strength lies in bringing togeth-er long-term economic vigour, socialcohesion and democracy. If we wish topreserve that strength in the globalisedcapitalism of the 21st century, drivenas it is by the capital markets, there isa greater need than ever to secure andexpand workers’ rights of consultationand participation.

112 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘There is a greater need than everto secure and expand workers’rights of consultation and participation’

• Is the European Union a ‘global player’ ineconomic terms?

• Are there common European values? • What are the positions across Europe on

the issue of a Common Foreign andSecurity Policy (CFSP)?

• What is the role the EU is supposed to andcan assume as a ‘global political player’?

These and other questions about the future of the EU werethe key issues discussed at an international specialist con-ference under the heading, ‘The EU – A Global Player?’,which was held in the new Europasaal of the Vienna RennerInstitute in November 2005. The conference was attendedby 80 top-class academics and politicians from 15 EU coun-tries. The most interesting lectures presented at the confer-ence are documented in a book just off the press whichgives an intriguing account of the European debate.

The EU – A Global Player?René Cuperus, Karl A. Duffek, Erich Fröschl,Tobias Mörschel (eds.)LIT-Verlag, Münster 2006256 pages, €24,90ISBN 3-8258958-1-5Available from bookshops

Social Europe the journal of the european left � Volume 2 � Issue 3 � Winter 2007

Video

Above: Tony Blair

Below: Europe Panel

A New Social Europe

EUROPE IS UNIQUE in the way itcombines a market economywith high levels of social protec-

tion and social justice. No other regionin the world has gone so far in tryingto create a decent society for all, inpursuing social justice and economiccompetitiveness as mutually support-ive goals.

The European Union is a uniquegroup of welfare states built throughthe efforts of socialist and social demo-cratic parties over the last century andreinforced by a raft of progressiveEuropean laws and policies. This isSocial Europe.

But there are those who argue thatglobalisation and demographic changewill spell the end of Europe’s high lev-els of social protection. Neo liberalsargue that Europe can no longer affordits welfare states in a globally competi-tive economy, that our welfare statesmust be ‘downsized’ and the role ofgovernment limited to relieving onlythe most extreme poverty. Neo liberalswant states to compete to lower taxes,and see the role of the European Unionas primarily to promote free trade and

competitiveness. These argumentshave created a fear of globalisation,and a sense of insecurity among ordi-nary Europeans.

It is to be regretted that these liberalarguments have had such prominencein recent years. While there has beenextensive effort expended in creatingindexes of competitiveness, there hasbeen a corresponding lack of effort intomeasuring social cohesion.

But Social Democrats and Socialistsknow that social cohesion is an essen-tial element of competitiveness. Weknow, not only that there is an alterna-tive to the neo-liberal way, but that analternative to the neo-liberal way isessential if Europe really is going tobecome more competitive. It is a factthat that Europe’s most competitiveeconomies are those with the strongestwelfare states. It is a fact that Europeneeds more of its people to participatein its economy, it needs more of its cit-izens to contribute to our prosperity.This is not going to be achieved byallowing people to fall out of the jobmarket, or to fail at school or to sufferunnecessary disadvantages and obsta-cles. Here neo-liberals have noanswers.

We put the case for a New SocialEurope. Europe must not and will notbe reduced to a competition betweenstates, or a mere marketplace wheresocial dumping is the norm. Our task,instead, is to renew and strengthenEurope’s welfare states. It is to create anew deal between people and govern-ment, a new understanding of what

Ten Principles for a New Social Europe

‘Europe must not and will not be reduced to a competitionbetween states, or a mere market-place where social dumping isthe norm’

114 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Poul NyrupRasmussenPresident of the Partyof European Socialists

welfare states mean in the 21st centu-ry. Social democrats will not allowmodernisation to be defined as the dis-mantling of our welfare states, we mustmake the argument for progressivereforms to create a New Social Europewhere a competitive market economyand a decent society can developtogether throughout the 21st century,as it has in the 20th century.

Let us be clear – reforms alone arenot enough. Balanced, progressivereforms are absolutely essential, butthey need to be accompanied – simul-taneously – by new jobs and growth. Itis not possible to make the rightreforms without jobs and growth

Knowing that our welfare states needreform and growth to meet the chal-lenges of tomorrow, I have, withJacques Delors, been working withEurope’s Socialist, Social Democraticand Labour Parties for over a year on ablueprint for a New Social Europe. Thereport we co-authored, at the end ofthis process, sets out a roadmap for thefuture of European social democracywith a concrete set of policy proposals.

We have defined ten principles for aNew Social Europe, which are at thecore of the roadmap. These principlesare not simply ours – they are theproduct of a year-long process withmany leading centre-left politicians,and were adopted in a vote by over 600national party delegates at the PESCongress in Porto on December 8. So itis no exaggeration to describe theseprinciples as a truly common directionfor the regeneration of our welfarestates.

So what are these ten principles?

Principles for a New Social EuropeClearly articulated and clearly under-stood rights and duties must be at theheart of a rejuvenated relationshipbetween individual and welfare state.The individual should have a right tobenefit from social protection and toparticipate in society and the work-force, but also a duty to contribute to

society. Government should have aduty to provide equal access to publicservices and goods – such as educa-tion, social protection, civic and labourrights – and a right to expect the activeparticipation of individuals and organi-sations, including businesses. A clearlink between benefits, training andseeking work would be a good start.Rights and duties apply not only to theindividual and the welfare state, butalso to all those who we expect to bekey players in a New Social Europe –businesses, trade unions, NGOs.

Full employment is the road to moreprosperous and more inclusive soci-eties. Neo liberals do not like commit-ting to it, but it is a central goal ofsocialists and social democrats. Wemust end exclusion from the work-force. Well designed educational, train-ing and labour market policies areneeded to enable everyone of workingage to enter the workplace and to movefrom the old job to the new job in asshort a time as possible. Concretemeasures – active labour market poli-cies – are needed to reduce the num-bers of youth, women and migrantswithout paid employment and olderworkers taking official or unofficial‘early retirement’. The EU and memberstates must provide the conditions forfull employment through concerted,coordinated efforts to achieve higherand sustainable economic growth.

We need to put much more emphasison investing in people, and lessemphasis on protecting obsolete jobs.Nobody can be guaranteed a job forlife. Now, and in the future, peoplewill change jobs more frequently thanin the past. But we should be able toguarantee employment for life. Theemphasis must be on all people, notjust the highly skilled or the highlyeducated. Europe must support peoplethrough change – equipping people totake up new opportunities througheducation and training, providingdecent income protection in periodsbetween jobs and ‘active labour market

115 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

policies’ to encourage and assist peopleto enter the workplace. Lifelong learn-ing must stop being a slogan and startbecoming a reality.

Everybody counts in inclusive soci-eties. We will not abandon those at thebottom of society – the poorest, themost deprived. Market forces will mar-ginalise millions unless balanced bygood social policies and high qualitypublic services. Social policy must bethe trampoline or springboard to helppeople into an active life, to contributesocially and economically. Our aimmust be better policies, not less poli-cies.

Equal rights for men and women isthe great challenge of the comingdecade – and is a moral, social andeconomic necessity. If there are thosewho find it hard to accept the princi-pled reasons for supporting equalrights then the pragmatic reasons aloneprovide an overwhelming argument:we cannot afford to exclude womenfrom the workforce and we need toreverse falling birth rates. The fact isthat in Europe countries with the high-est birth rates are those with the high-est rates of participation by women inthe workplace. Work is fast becoming aprecondition for having children. Howcan women be expected to work andhave children when they are consis-tently paid less than men and bearmost domestic responsibilities in thefamily? W need to create fasterprogress towards equality between menand women in working, family andpolitical life.

Countries in the EU should moveprogressively towards child care for all

who want it. Access to affordable, highquality pre-school child care is a basicrequirement for families in 21st centu-ry Europe. Child care is a sound invest-ment: it gives children the best start totheir education and entry into a widersociety, it frees parents to enter theworkplace, it lays the foundations forstronger communities and it createsjobs, including in deprived communi-ties. In short, it benefits the whole fam-ily and society in many different andvaluable ways, and must become aduty for Governments and a right forfamilies.

Social dialogue is an importantingredient in the success of the Nordiceconomies and is key for a more activeand participative economy throughoutEurope. The organisation and condi-tions of working life are of utmostimportance and cannot simply beimposed on people without discussion.Education, training and social protec-tion must be complementary to theneeds of workers and employers.Governments must involve tradeunions and employers when takingdecisions that are vital for the coun-try’s future prosperity. Employers andtrade unions need to work together tomaximize effectiveness and competi-tiveness while achieving a good bal-ance between work and life for work-ers, and be encouraged to do so byGovernment. Social dialogue, sounfashionable among neo-liberals, hasto be strengthened at all levels – inworkplaces; in national and sectoralcollective bargaining; in national andEuropean policy making.

Social Democrats must fully addressthe challenges of Europe’s diversity. Wereject intolerance and hatred and mustassert our absolute and fundamentalrespect for diversity – whether nation-al, religious, ethnic or sexual. Withoutstrong respect for diversity, and astrong respect for shared values, it willbe impossible to resolve the genuinechallenges of integration. We mustunderstand people’s fears and uncer-

116 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘An active Europe is an essentialpart of the New Social Europe –enabling countries and regions toachieve more together than theycan alone’

tainties in the context of high unem-ployment and social exclusion oftenconcentrated in urban or suburban‘ghetto’ areas. Positive integration poli-cies must go hand in hand with activeeconomic policies for more and betterjobs. Integration policies, based onclear rights and duties for all, need tobe developed focusing on employment,anti-discrimination, public services,dialogue and cohesion. The EuropeanUnion has a responsibility to tackle theroot causes of illegal immigration, andsupport a fair and responsible manage-ment of economic migration.

It is no longer possible to discuss thefuture of our society – and our prosper-ity – without considering environmen-tal sustainability. Perhaps the greatestthreat is climate change and the urgentrequirement to forge a post-fossil fuelsociety: raising energy efficiency andswitching to cleaner and renewableforms of energy. But the environmentalsustainability challenge does not endthere – we cannot continue consumingthe earth’s natural resources at a ratevastly exceeding its ability to regener-ate. But environmental sustainability isnot just about threats, green technolo-gies offer enormous potential for inno-vation and growth.

An active Europe is an essential partof the New Social Europe – enablingcountries and regions to achieve moretogether than they can alone. We mustpursue increased cooperation to tacklecommon challenges, more competitionbetween enterprises under fair andtransparent conditions, and greater sol-idarity within Europe and with devel-oping countries. We must avoid aEurope of competition between states.Europe can add value to people’s livesin many ways and it has a role to playin helping to achieve every one of theprinciples for a New Social Europe.

These ten principles are the founda-tions for the renewal of our welfarestates and for our Social Europe. Theyare our common future. By pursuingthem we can give new confidence to

the marriage of market economy andsocial justice. We can give hope for thefuture to our own citizens – and toworkers all over the world who look toEurope to show that globalisation anda decent society are not incompatible.

Read the New Social Europe report byPES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussenand Jacques Delors athttp://www.pes.org/downloads/New_Social_Europe_Report_printfinal.pdf

Read the PES New Social Europe: TenPrinciples for our Common Future athttp://www.pes.org/downloads/10principles_FINAL_EN.pdf

117 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

HERE ARE SOME num-bers from a new world.Everyday, 10,000 new

cars appear on the streets ofBeijing; every week, the Chinesegovernment builds a new powerstation. In 2004, Infosys in Indiaadvertised 9000 software engi-neer jobs: they got 1 million

applicants. 1 in every 2 cranesstanding in the world today isstanding on a building site inChina. The population of Egyptincreases by a million peopleevery nine months.

We all know we live in aworld of rapid change – it hasbecome a cliché to say it. We allknow that a global economicand political order that hasshaped the world since the mid-dle of the nineteenth century isending.

But sometimes it takes theimage of those cranes andpower stations – or the fact thatin the time that I will be speak-ing to you today 400 new carswill roll onto Beijing streets andimmediately get stuck in Beijingtraffic – it takes those images toreally bring home the world justover the horizon and how fast itis changing.

And although I will chieflytalk about the economics ofglobalisation today, it is vital toremember that however centraleconomic change is to what ishappening around us, globalisa-tion is a deeply political phe-nomenon – the politics of glob-alisation are the politics of theenvironment, climate change,migration, energy security andpoverty alleviation.

The global age is intercon-nected in a deep and often sub-tle way. So that President Bush

Europe and Globalisation

118 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Peter Mandelsonspeaking at the launch ofthe Global Policy Institute,London MetropolitanUniversity, London, 2nd February 2007

your population every ninemonths, you have to grow thatfast just to create the jobs theyneed. So those jobs are also partof a wider picture of securityand stability.

Nevertheless, a hundred mil-lion new jobs in the develop-ing world means painful com-petition and restructuring forour economy. And a lot of oldcertainties have been erodedand some industries havealready changed beyond recog-nition. And, by the way, if youthink that the textile industry’schallenges are not your chal-lenges, then I would refer youto the 1 million Indian soft-ware engineers I mentioned.That might bring it closer tohome.

Addressing that change is agenuine social justice issue inEurope. The dislocations canmean human tragedies – painfuland traumatic – and all themacroeconomics in the worlddo not change that.Governments have to be readyto help with adjustment and toequip people for change. And ifwe don’t want a politics ofretreat, and national chauvin-ism and protectionism inEurope, we will have to build acredible – and practical – poli-tics of openness.

Choosing the right Europe for a global ageSo our challenge in Europe –your challenge at the GlobalPolicy Institute – is to take backglobalisation from the pes-simists.

In doing so, we need toacknowledge that globalisationis not, automatically, a benefitfor all. We need to recogniseand address the adjustmentcosts involved while making the

the last 5 years of their lifewould have been spent in politi-cal activity defending barriers totrade in textiles. Because Chinaand other parts of the develop-ing world are putting thoseparts of our textile industry thatcompete on labour costs out ofbusiness.

But China is not stealing ourjobs. In fact, for every job thatEurope has lost to economicchange in the last two decadesit has created a new one inmore competitive parts of theeconomy. Thanks to growinginternal and external trade.

In Europe we are still theworld’s biggest exporter, theworld’s biggest investor and theworld’s biggest market for for-eign investment. We still domi-nate global markets for high-value goods. They wear Italianshoes in Japan. They don’t wearJapanese shoes in Italy.

So the economic cake has gotbigger, as economists havealways argued that it can anddoes. A hundred million newjobs in the developing worldhave not cost Europe jobs orhurt Europe economically onaggregate. In fact the opposite istrue – they’ve made us morecompetitive, they’ve loweredour input costs and they’vereduced prices for consumers.They’ve depressed interest ratesand lowered inflation. And weare better off.

And a hundred million jobsin the developing world – thebiggest ever shift of a portion ofhumanity out of poverty – ishard to argue against. Not leastbecause, as the Egyptian trademinister once put it to me: it’sfine to congratulate the develop-ing world for growing at 8 or9% a year, but when you areadding a million new people to

can announce a US push togrow more biofuels last Tuesdayin Washington and the rise inthe price of corn can have poorpeople in the streets in MexicoCity yesterday protesting therise in the cost of tortilla flour –their basic food.

Making sense of such aworld, and Europe’s place in it,has never been more important.I am a politician, so I’m going togive you a politician’s perspec-tive on the challenges of globali-sation. Then I’ll leave the realexperts to get on with it.

Enlarging the cakeThere is a tendency – andbecause there are plenty ofeconomists in the audience, Ishould say that it is chiefly apolitical and journalistic ten-dency – to see the economics ofglobalisation as a zero sumgame. Our jobs shipped off totheir countries. Our livelihoodsundermined by their cheaplabour costs. Our prosperitytraded for theirs.

The political problem in a lib-eralizing economy can besummed up very simply: thebeneficial effects of economicchange are generalized; thecosts are localized.

The dismantling of the Multi-Fibre Agreement at the start of2005 will save every person inthis room hundreds, if not thou-sands of euros over their life-time in the cost of clothes. I feelstrangely confident in bettingthat not one person in this roomlobbied a politician to end theMFA.

But if you have a friend or arelative in the textile industry –which if this was a Spanish orItalian or North or SouthCarolinian audience would be acertainty – the likelihood is that

119 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

income every ten years – whichhas no historical precedent.

And while all of these coun-tries continue to face massivechallenges of poverty reduction,and while new prosperity existsalongside old deprivation, eachof them has taken an undeni-able and irreversible step out ofthe developing world.

But here’s another set of facts:despite having almost completeduty and quota free access toEU markets, Sub Saharan Africaactually trades less with the EUthan it did 10 years ago. Over50% of Sub Saharan Africa’sexports to the EU are now justtwo products – oil and dia-monds. Africa exports its capitalrather than investing in itself.

The twin challenges of theWTO and the global trading sys-tem are to manage these two –unfortunately divergent –trends. China and the otherlarge emerging economies needto be fully integrated into theglobal trading system, and theircontribution to the system inthe form of reciprocal opennessneeds to reflect their growingstrength.

For poorer countries we needto recognize that open marketsare not a magic wand. In partbecause a lot of agriculturaltrade in least developed coun-tries is actually protected frommore competitive agriculturalexporters like Brazil only bypreferential tariff rates – whichis why anyone who thinks thatjust liberalizing farm trade is apanacea for development does-n’t get it. Liberalisation in theseareas must be gradual and care-fully assisted. That is the lessonof Europe’s sugar and bananareforms and their impact in theCaribbean.

In part it is simply because

European member states indealing with powerful partnerslike the US, or Russia or Chinais diminished influence, or noinfluence at all.

By enlarging the EuropeanUnion we can help secure theeconomies of scale and thehuman resources that will con-tinue to make us internationallycompetitive. The EU is how weproject Europe’s collective inter-ests in a globalised world, andhow we equip Europeans for theeconomic and social challengesthat it brings.

So one of the biggest politicalchallenges for Britain – its polit-ical and intellectual leaders,and for this new Institute in themonths and years ahead – is toexplain how the EuropeanUnion must continue to adaptto be an effective part of theanswer to globalisation.

Making and winning thatcase is critical both to Britain’sengagement in Europe, and inshaping the sort of Europe inwhich Britain feels at home.While some European coun-tries have failed to make thecase for globalisation, BritishGovernments have not workedsufficiently to make the casefor the European Union’s essen-tial role.

Trade’s role in harnessing globalisationNow a word on trade. The waywe channel the dynamic powerof trade is arguably the singlemost important impact we willhave in shaping economicdevelopment in the global age.

By progressively investing inexport growth and opening theirborders, Brazil, China, Indiaand the other emergingeconomies have grown fastenough to double per capita

strongest possible case for theoverall benefits of openness.

We should champion eco-nomic reform and greaterdynamism because those thingsare the means of creatingstronger and more prosperoussocieties. But we should arguethat the benefits have to be sus-tainable and the benefits haveto be shared by all.

The debate on the future ofthe European Union and itsinstitutions presents us withcompeting visions of how theEuropean Union can respond tothese challenges in a global age.

Some in Europe would like tosee the Europe Union act as abulwark against globalisation: awall and a gate we can pullclosed in the face of change.

This position makes a power-ful appeal to our anxiety aboutchange and our sense of socialsolidarity. But its picture of astatic European society shouldworry us because everythingwe know about the global agesuggests that nothing is stand-ing still – and we do not wantto be left behind. It risksbecoming a political fantasyabout resisting change, holdingback the tide, when we shouldbe seeking ways to shapechange and distribute its bene-fits more equally.

A much more compellingcase for the European Union asit begins its second half centurysees the EU not as Europe’sfortress against globalisation butas something that gives us thepower to shape globalisation.For example, the EU is the onlyway that European memberstates will have sufficient col-lective weight to shape the glob-al debate on climate change orenergy security or developmentor trade. The alternative for

120 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

ConclusionCompleting Doha would send asignal – a vital signal – that wecan act collectively, throughglobal institutions to shapeglobalisation and global eco-nomic change. That we can har-ness the huge potential benefitswhile acting to limit the costs.

And, as I said at the begin-ning, this economic agenda isonly part of a much wider polit-ical challenge. Doha must haveits equivalents across the rest ofthe global governance agenda.Our management of climatechange; our collective responseto global energy security; ourcollective response to migrationand global demographic change– a world in which moreEgyptians are being born thanever before, and Europe faces asteep population decline. Onlythe EU gives us in Europe thecapacity to act in all of them.

Finding the right solutions tothe challenges of globalisationfirst means asking the rightquestions and understandingthe right problems. That is whatthis institute will help us do.That’s why I’m pleased to beassociated with its launchtoday.

these countries still lack thecapacity to take advantage ofopen markets. They need theaid for trade and developmentassistance that will build theinfrastructure and the capacityto get goods to market. It is nec-essary to tackle the complexand sometimes corrupt manage-ment of Africa’s borders. It takestwenty days to get a containerthrough a port in Eritrea. Ittakes two hours in Liverpool.

And we need to work toimprove the conditions inAfrica that will encourage peo-ple to invest there.

The importance of DohaThat is why we must completethe Doha Round of WTO talks.Unlike the Uruguay Round,which had too much smoke andtoo many mirrors, Doha willimpose serious tariff cuts for allfarm goods, and restructurefarm support for good. And itwill make big inroads into pro-tection in other areas – in thedeveloped world but also in theemerging economies. If we let itslip away the economic costs,and the lasting damage to themultilateral trading system, willbe severe.

Doha is conceptually a differ-ent kind of trade deal – one thatself-consciously accepts theimperatives of development andin which the voice of the devel-oping world has been and willbe decisive. One that will beaccompanied by huge new pack-ages of capacity-building aid andspecial and differential treat-ment for developing countries.

Doha can mark a pivot pointin the history of the WTO inwhich it turns away from simplemercantilism towards an agendathat sees trade as a means to anequitable globalisation.

121 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

AS A STUDENT, I often lookedfrom the other side of theRhine over here to the seat of

the four high commissioners. Today Ienter the Petersberg for the first time.The historic surroundings recall thedeep roots that the old Bundesrepubliksank into the Rhine and Ruhr land-scapes. I was always proud of a home-land characterised by a civil spirit, acertain Rhine-Prussian distance fromBerlin, an openness to the West andthe liberal influence of republicanFrance. From here, the Bundesrepublikachieved its goal of sovereignty only inconjunction with the political unifica-tion of Europe; we only achievednational unity within the Europeanframework. The genius loci invites usto consider the irritating fact that thisbenedictory European dynamic is flag-ging today.

In many countries, the return of thenation state has caused an introvertedmood; the theme of Europe has beendevalued, the national agenda hastaken priority. In our talk-shows,grandfathers and grandchildren hugeach other, swelling with feel-goodpatriotism. The security of undamagednational roots should make a popula-tion that has been pampered by thewelfare state ‘compatible with thefuture’ in the competive global envi-ronment. This rhetoric fits with thecurrent state of global politics whichhave lost all their inhibitions in socialdarwinistic terms.

Now we Europe alarmists are beinginstructed that an intensification of

European institutions is neither neces-sary nor possible. It is being claimedthat the drive behind European unifi-cation has vanished and for good rea-son, since the objectives of peacebetween the European peoples and thecreation of a common market havebeen met. In addition, the ongoingrivalries between nation states are saidto demonstrate the impossibility of apolitical collectivisation that extendsbeyond national boundaries. I holdboth objections for wrong. Allow me toname the most urgent and potentiallyrisky problems that will remainunsolved if we stay stuck along theway to a Europe that is politicallycapable of action and bound in a dem-ocratic constitutional framework.

The first problem, which has longsince been identified, is a result of thishalf-heartedness: the European mem-ber states have lost democratic sub-stance as a result of European unifica-tion. Decisions, ever greater in numberand importance, are being made inBrussels and simply ‘applied’ at homethrough national law. The entireprocess takes place beyond the politi-cal public of the member states, eventhough European citizens can onlyplace their votes here – there is noEuropean public space. This democrat-ic deficit can be explained by Europe’slack of an internal political constitu-tion. The next problem is European’sinability to present themselves to theworld as one.

Since the government in Washingtonhas gambled away its own moral

Opening up Fortress Europe:Immigration as the Key toEuropean Unity

122 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Jürgen Habermas Born in 1929, one ofGermany’s foremostintellectual figures. Aphilosopher and soci-ologist, he is profes-sor emeritus at theJohann WolfgangGoethe University inFrankfurt.

This is an abbrevi-ated version of aspeech given byHabermas on beingawarded the stateprize of North-Rhine Westphalia.

authority, the international communityis turning to the European Union withexpectations that it cannot fill unless ithas a united foreign policy. While inthe Near East, diplomacy can, for thefirst time since 1948, count on a thirdparty with a robust UN mandate, theEuropean governments, envious ofeach other, prefer to press ahead ontheir own rather than strengthen theirchief diplomat Solana with a sharedagenda. Sixty years after theNuremberg trials, torn Europe’s largestfailure is the long overdue reform ofthe UN. If anyone, it will be theEuropeans that will prevent theirAmerican allies from continuing todamage the only legitimate conceptionof world order that they themselvesinitiated: namely, the further develop-ment of classic international law to apolitically defined world community.

Likewise the third problem, the pro-gressive undermining of acceptablesocial standards, can no longer besolved by national governments alone.The justified criticism of the inconsis-tencies of neo-liberal orthodoxy cannothide the fact that the obscene combina-tion of rising share prices and masslayoffs rests on a compelling economiclogic. Little can be done about thiswithin the national context alone,because the relationship of politics tothe market has gotten out of balance ona global scale. It would take aEuropean Union with a cogent foreignpolicy to influence the course of theworld economy. It could drive globalenvironmental policy forward whiletaking first steps towards a global

domestic policy. In so doing, it couldprovide an example to other continentsof how nation states can be fused intosupranational powers. Without newglobal players of this kind, there can beno equilibrium between subjects of anequitable world economic order.

The fourth pressing problem is thefundamentalist challenge to culturalpluralism in our societies. We haveapproached this problem from the per-spective of immigration policy for fartoo long. In times of terrorism, there isa threat that it will only be dealt withunder the heading of domestic security.Yet the burning cars in the banlieues ofParis, the local terror of inconspicuousyouths in English immigrant neigh-bourhoods and the violence at theRütli School in Berlin have taught usthat simply policing the Fortress ofEurope is no real answer to these prob-lems. The children of former immi-grants, and their children’s children,have long been part of our society. Butsince they are simultaneously not apart of it, they pose a challenge to civilsociety, not the Minister of the Interior.And the challenge we face is to respectthe different nature of foreign culturesand religious communities whileincluding them in national civil soli-darity.

At first glance the integration prob-lem has nothing to do with the futureof the European Union, since everynational society must deal with it in itsown way. And yet it could also holdthe solution to a further difficulty. Thesecond objection of Euro-sceptics isthat there could never be a UnitedStates of Europe, because the necessaryunderpinnings are lacking. In truth thekey question is whether it is possibleto expand civil solidarity trans-nation-ally, across Europe. At the same time, acommon European identity will devel-op all the quicker, the better the densefabric of national culture in the respec-tive states can integrate citizens ofother ethnic or religious origins.Integration is not a one-way street.

123 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘Integration is not a one-waystreet. When it is successful, it caninspire strong national culturesto become more porous, moresensitive and more receptive both domestically and abroad’

When it is successful, it can inspirestrong national cultures to becomemore porous, more sensitive and morereceptive both domestically andabroad. In Germany, for example, themore a harmonious coexistence withcitizens of Turkish origin becomes amatter of course, the better we will beable to understand other European citi-zens – from the Portuguese winegrowerto the Polish plumber. In opening updomestically, self-contained culturescan also open up to each other.

The integration problem hits a rawnerve in European nation states. Thesedeveloped into democratic constitu-tional states through the forced cre-ation of a romantically inspired nation-al consciousness that absorbed otherloyalties. Without the moving force ofnationalism, the Bavarians and theRhinelanders, the Bretons andOccitanians, the Scots and the Welsh,the Sicilians and the Calabrians, theCatalans and the Andalusians wouldnever have merged to become citizensof democratic nations. Because of thistightly-knit and easily combustiblesocial fabric, the oldest national statesreact far more sensitively to the inte-gration problem than immigration soci-eties like the USA or Australia, fromwhom we can learn a great deal.

Whether we are dealing with theintegration of gastarbeiter families orcitizens from the former colonies, thelesson is the same. There can be nointegration without a broadening of ourown horizons, and without a readinessto tolerate a broader spectrum ofodours, thoughts and what can bepainful cognitive dissonances. In addi-tion, Western and Northern Europeansecular societies are faced with thevitality of foreign religions, which inturn lend local confession new signifi-cance. Immigrants of other faiths are asmuch a stimulus for believers as fornon-believers.

The Muslim across the way, if I cantake the current situation as an exam-ple, confronts Christian citizens with

competing religious truths. And hemakes secular citizens conscious of thephenomenon of public religion.Provided they react sensibly, believerswill be reminded of the ideas, practicesand attitudes in their Church that fellafoul of democracy and human rightswell into the 20th century. Secular citi-zens, for their part, will recognise thatthey have taken matters too lightly byseeing their religious counterparts asan endangered species, and by viewingthe freedom of religious practice as akind of conservation principle.

Successful integration is a reciprocallearning process. Here in Germany,Muslims are under great time andadaptation pressure. The liberal statedemands of all religious communitieswithout exception that they recognisereligious pluralism, the competence ofinstitutionalised sciences in questionsof secular knowledge and the universalprinciples of modern law. And it guar-antees basic rights within the family. Itavenges violence, including the coer-cion of the consciences of its ownmembers. But the transformation ofconsciousness that will enable thesenorms to be internalised requires aself-reflexive opening of our nationalways of living.

Those who denounce this assertionas ‘the capitulation of the West’ aretaken in by the silly war cry of liberalhawks. ‘Islamofascism’ is no more apalpable opponent than the war on ter-rorism is a ‘war’. Here in Europe, theassertion of constitutional norms issuch an uncontested premise of cohab-itation that the hysterical cry for theprotection of our ‘values’ comes acrosslike semantic armament against anunspecified domestic enemy. Punishingviolence and combating hatred requirecalm self-consciousness, not rabble-rousing. People who proclaim againsttheir better knowledge that the awardof the Nobel Prize in Literature toOrhan Pamuk is proof of an unavoid-able clash of civilizations are them-selves propagating such a clash. We

124 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

should not follow in the footsteps ofGeorge W. Bush in militarising theWestern spirit as well.

In Germany, the tensions betweenChristianity and Islam that have beenmounting since 2001 recently set off anexciting, high-level competition amongconfessions. The subject at issue is thecompatibility of faith and knowledge.For Pope Benedict XVI, the reasonable-ness of belief results from theHellenisation of Christianity, while forBishop Huber it results from the post-Reformation meeting of the Gospelwith the post-metaphysical thinking of

Kant and Kierkegaard. Both sides how-ever betrayed a bit too much intellectu-al pride. The liberal state, for its part,must demand that the compatibility offaith and reason be imposed on all reli-gious confessions. This quality mustnot be claimed as the exclusive domainof a specifically Western religious tra-dition.

This article originally appeared inEnglish in the online magazine sig-nandsight.com on 16th November 2006.signandsight.com translates outstand-ing articles by non-English languageauthors bringing them to a worldwideaudience. signandsight.com gathersvoices from across Europe on a varietyof topics, aiming to foster trans-European debates and the creation of a European public space. www.signandsight.com

125 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘The liberal state, for its part,must demand that the com-patibility of faith and reasonbe imposed on all religiousconfessions’

Politics is not the art of the possi-ble. It consists of choosingbetween the disastrous and theunpalatable.

John Kenneth Galbraith (1909-2006)

EUROPE IS IN a profoundcrisis. Revealed by theFrance and Dutch vote

against the ConstitutionalTreaty, it pervades all memberstates of the European Union.The German EU presidency in2007 will try to find a way out.If this opportunity is missed,the EU may well disappear in a

multitude of multilateral coop-eration agreements betweenEuropean nation states.

European integration is aunique experiment in history.Never before have autonomousnation states shared their powervoluntarily and freely. After twoworld wars, fifty millions deadand indescribable miseries,European citizens have replacedreactionary conservative ideolo-gies like nationalism and xeno-

phobia by ideas of peace, recon-ciliation, cooperation and toler-ance. For Jean Monnet, the basicidea of European integrationwas: ‘We do not create coalitionamong states, we unite men.’But despite enormous progress,the question arises again: whatis it that unites people inEurope. What causes the newEuropean disenchantment?Which strategy can be found forEuropean unification in the 21stcentury?

The European ‘malaise’ alsomanifests in right-wing pop-ulism. After the Second WorldWar nationalism had been dis-credited, while individual free-dom and political equalitybecame generally accepted dem-ocratic norms. Reactionary con-servatives, who traditionallylooked critically at these valuesof political liberalism, had toaccept the role of a junior part-ner – often in close collabora-tion with Christian Democrats –if they did not want to be con-demned to irrelevance likeItaly’s MSI. A combination ofeconomic liberalism with classi-cal nationalism, what Germanscall Social Market Economy,was the economic foundationfor this centre-right alliance.

Not by coincidence didGermany’s rigid market econo-mists look at European integra-tion with critical eyes. By con-

Democratising Europe

Stefan CollignonProfessor of Political Economy at theLondon School of Economics (LSE)and Harvard University

‘European integration is a uniqueexperiment in history. Never beforehave autonomous nation statesshared their power voluntarily and freely’

126 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Optimal policy thereforerequires that public goods,which citizens use at differentlevels, will also need to be effi-ciently administered at thesevarious levels. Nationalism pre-vents institutions capable ofpromoting citizens welfare.

If European integration is toadvance, we must understandwhy nationalism has becomepopular again. Two factors canexplain the re-emergence ofbackward oriented conservatismthat emphasises identity, tradi-tion and fatherland on the rightand left: the new geo-strategicenvironment after the Cold Warand the economic challenges ofglobalisation.

The Soviet threat having dis-appeared, Europe’s geo-strategicposition has been fundamental-ly altered with far reaching con-sequences for political ideolo-gies. During the Cold War, thedefence of national interestsand economic and political free-dom seemed only possible inclose cooperation with othercountries. Internationalism wasa guarantee of existence, evenfor nationalists. This explainsthe permissive consensus thathas dominated European inte-gration for decades and tran-scended most party lines.

After communism, the pre-conditions for this fundamentalconsensus have vanished.Reactionary conservatives candeploy again the supposedsuperiority of their own identi-ties and manifest their intoler-ance without restriction. Thus,the binding force derived fromthe common threat has disap-peared. Paradoxically, todaydemocratic forces have to justifytheir political ideals and deploytheir integrative power morethan ever.

nationalism. This ideology givespriority to the belonging to acommunity over individualinterests. While classical nation-alism was identified with thestate, the new decentralisednationalism emphasises culturalidentification. Whether BritishEuroscepticism, Corsican libera-tion movements, Bask orCatalonian autonomy, LegaNord, Flemish independence, orBavarian we-feeling, they allidealise identity and a romantic‘self ’, while rejecting whatappears as different and alien.These are manifestation of pre-democratic, anti-enlightenmentideologies.

For nearly two centuries con-vinced pro-Europeans havetried to overcome the conflict-laden and aggressive ideology of nationalism. Never hasprogress been greater thantoday. Nevertheless, the argu-ment whereby ‘we do not needEurope any longer becausepeace is now assured’ is mistak-en. For peace requires respectfor the individuality of thosewho are different. It is only sus-tainable if supported by institu-tions that protect the dignity ofindividuals rather than those ofgroups, cultures and nations.Peace has to be conqueredeveryday anew.

Why is nationalism becomingpopular again?The promoters of new national-ism do not understand thattoday the welfare of Europe’scitizens is dependant on local,regional, national and Europeaninterests, which cannot be trad-ed off against each other butmust be added up. Welfaregains are not national or localbut result from the totality ofindividual interests of citizens.

trast, social democrats alwaysunderstood that in a marketeconomy the social protectionof individual freedom and theclaim of political equality couldonly be realised with a stableframework of internationalcooperation. Their alternative tothe Social Market Economy wasinternationalist Keynesianism.The state served as an instru-ment to balance personal free-dom and social equality athome and to preserve peace inthe world. This is why modernsocial democracy is liberal,social and international. TheGerman Social Democratic Party (SPD) had been callingalready in its 1925 Heidelbergprogram for the United States of Europe, and it is no coinci-dence that Helmut Schmidt wasan eminent founding father ofthe Euro.

Since the fall of the wall inBerlin, modern political philos-ophy seems to be loosening itsintegrative force. Reactionaryconservative thinking is advanc-ing again in many differentforms. Classical nationalism ispromoted by governmentsemphasising ‘national valuesand interests’. For exampleFrench Prime MinisterDominique de Villepin pro-claims economic patriotism andboycotts German-French corpo-rate mergers. The Polish PrimeMinister Lech Kaczynskibelieves the nation state will bestrengthened by EU member-ship. In Germany, the earlierEuro-enthusiasm has beenreplaced by a mentality of siegeand a narrow Wilhelminiannationalism of ‘we also have ourinterests’.

Less spectacular but probablymore influential is the re-emer-gence of a new decentralized

127 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

dynamic sectors of the economyprofit margins come under pres-sure. Companies with large pro-ductivity increases are accumu-lating innovation rents and aresimultaneously pushing thereturn of capital in the more tra-ditional sectors below average.This development creates eco-nomic pressure for small andmedium sized companies,which operate mostly in localmarkets. It is one of the maincauses of populism. Right-wingpopulists are calling for lowerwages and taxes and for protec-tion against foreign competition.Left-wing populists resist thelowering of wages for whichthey blame immigrant labourand often request a loosening ofmonetary policy and trade pro-tectionism. Both articulations ofpopulism have xenophobia incommon and the nationalisticemphasis on identity. They aretherefore a hinderance forEuropean integration. However,the real problem is not globali-sation or the opening of mar-kets. Rather, what is missing isa fair and just income policy,which would compensate thelosers of market integration byredistributing the gains.

However such policy cannotbe realised within a nationalframework. In the MonetaryUnion, it is the EuropeanCentral Bank that sets the eco-nomic conditions. The domi-

barriers to avoid economic stag-nation. The European Unionhas recognised this logic by cre-ating the Single EuropeanMarket and the Euro. Thereduction of non-tariff trade bar-riers has strengthened Europe’sinternational competitivenessand thereby protected millionsof jobs. However, although eco-nomically justified, economicliberalisation has unintendedpolitical consequences. Whilethere is little dispute that neo-liberal policies are causinggrowing social inequalities, it isoften little understood that neo-liberal policies are a threat todemocracy.

Neo-liberalism narrows theclaim of freedom to its purelyeconomic aspects and therebyweakens the claim of equality,which is one of the basic normsof a modern society. Reactionaryconservatism re-emerges,because the neo-liberal reduc-tionism creates a politicalimbalance, which underminesthe trust in the fairness and jus-tice of modern democracies.

This development is support-ed by an important economicalmechanism: economic liberali-sation produces productivitygains and increases profitabilityin the tradable goods sector.Although this is desirable inorder to insure the competitive-ness of Europe’s economy, thereis a reverse side: in the less

Another important reason forthe re-emergence of nationalismis the neo-liberal turn inaugu-rated by Ronald Reagan andMargaret Thatcher. Neo-liberal-ism was the answer to economicstagnation after theInternational Monetary Systemof Bretton Woods failed.Economic freedom was nowseen as the engine of growth,while political and social equal-ity were demoted and the pub-lic sector was shrunk. The anti-Keynesian revolution liftednationalist monetarism to a newdogma.

This new ideology opened thepath for rapid and uncontrolledglobalisation. Globalisationmeans the opening of marketsas a result of technologicalprogress and the reduction inthe cost of information, trans-port and trade transactions.However, globalisation does notaffect all markets in the sameway. Information, communica-tions and finances are in thefront line. Easily transportablegoods, like textiles, are directlyaffected while non-tradablegoods, in particular the publicservice sector, are only indirect-ly affected by globalisation.This rather unequal process ofglobalisation creates winnersand losers.

The unintended consequencesof liberalisationOne may interpret globalisationas the work of neo-liberal ideol-ogists who do not care about thefate of the weak and the poor.This view is not entirely cor-rect. The logic of globalisationderives from the advantages ofeconomies of scale, which onlymake it profitable to invest ifmarkets are large. It thereforerequires the reduction of trade

128 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘While there is little dispute that neo-liberal policies are causing growingsocial inequalities, it is often littleunderstood that neo-liberal policiesare a threat to democracy’

national as well as Europeanpublic goods. These govern-ments negotiate in Brusselscompromises serving their par-tial interests but they do notnecessarily maximise the com-mon interest of all European cit-izens. Europe’s intergovernmen-tal system thereby creates nei-ther political legitimacy nor effi-ciency. This is why Europeneeds to be democratised.European public goods must beadministered by a governmentthat is elected by all Europeancitizens. Political decisions inthe European context mustbecome more politicised.

Democracy is the institutionalarticulation of the politicalclaim of equality. This is whydemocracy has always been acore demand of the politicalleft. But when political deci-sions are privatised by neo-lib-eral policies, democratic controldisappears. Not all citizens havean equal vote and equal rights.However, as many decisionshave unintended consequencesfor other citizens not associatedwith the private or decen-tralised decision-makingprocesses, these externalitiesrequire mechanisms of regula-tion. Traditionally, the state hasfilled this function, but this nolonger works. The essence of ademocratic state consists in thefact that each citizen has equalinfluence on policy-makingthrough universal suffrage.Thus, citizens are the sovereignand the state is their agent. Tothe extent that neo-liberals areshrinking the state, they alsoattack the democratic rights ofcitizens – the foundation ofrepublican sovereignty. If theyare taking the claim of equalityseriously, the democratic leftmust use democracy at the

together. In the Eurozone, sta-bilisation policy, i.e. the interac-tion of monetary and fiscal poli-cy, also has become a publicgood. Thus, every citizen of theEurozone is subject to the sameconditions of interest orexchange rates when she is tak-ing-up a credit or travelsabroad. In all these areas policydecisions by national authori-ties have consequences outsidetheir own jurisdiction andtherefore national interests easi-ly become a source of distur-bance for the collectiveEuropean interest. If for exam-ple one country increases itsbudget deficit, this may increaseinterest rates in the capital mar-ket and thereby lower economicgrowth for all.

Economists have insisted fora long time that certain publicgoods can only be efficientlyadministrated at the level of thecentralised state. This is espe-cially true for macroeconomicpolicy but also for combatingborder-transcending criminalityor foreign and security policy.For these policy areas a singlepolitical authority at theEuropean level is necessary.

Democracy must be savedAt this point, we encounter theproblem of democracy: it is nolonger possible to delegate morepolitical competences to theEuropean level without firstsolving the issue of legitimacy.In a democracy citizens appointgovernments to make laws,which are subsequently appliedto themselves. In the EuropeanUnion this is not the case.Citizens are segregated intonation states and that is wherethey elect their governments,which are responsible for anundifferentiated amalgam of

nant intergovernmental gover-nance – voluntary cooperationamongst governments – is alsonot capable of moderatingbetween winners and losers ofglobalisation because nationalgovernments do not respond toa European constituency. Thepredominance of nation stateinterests prevents the realisationof European citizens’ collectiveinterests. Political economistscall this the collective actionproblem. There is a simple wayout of the dilemma: whilenational governments are elect-ed to implement national poli-cies, a European governmenthas to be put in charge ofEuropean policy-making.

A government for EuropeThe idea of a European govern-ment is in the air. Some havediscussed it openly, for examplethe Belgium Prime Minister GuyVerhofstadt. For others it resultsfrom the necessity to reform theEuropean Commission. It hasbecome unavoidable becausethe environment of Europeanpolicy-making has dramaticallychanged since the signing of theTreaty of Rome, while politicalinstitutions have largelyremained the same.

Europe is a daily reality forall its citizens. Consumers areprofiting from the SingleMarket; in their pocket they are carrying the Euro. Manypolicy areas have becomeEuropeanised because decisionsby individual governments haveconsequences for citizens in allother countries. For example,regulations in the Single Marketsuch as consumer’s protectionor social minimum standards,but also competition policy, for-eign trade and agricultural poli-cy, affect all European citizens

129 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

European Council of memberstate governments does notemerge from general elections.The Council resembles an eter-nal parliament that is onlyrecruited through by-elections.Its role is the defence of nationstates’ interests especially in thecase of shared political compe-tencies, and not the representa-tion of European citizens.

The natural instrument forpeople’s representation is theEuropean Parliament. However,this parliament does not havethe power to elect a Europeangovernment. Thus, the national-istic argument of an inexistentEuropean demos prevents notonly the efficient administrationof European public goods butalso the democratic realisationof European citizen interests.This fatal mix of nationalisticideology and pre-modern politi-cal institutions has deployed itsdestructive and explosive forceduring the European referendaon the Constitutional Treaty inFrance and the Netherlands.Without a modern democraticalternative, the European Unionis not likely to survive. Was ittherefore a mistake to concludethe Constitutional Treaty?

The Treaty is a step in theright direction. Opinion pollsshow clearly that the majorityof ‘No’ voters did not rejectEurope, but this specific Treaty(Eurobarometer 65, July 2006).Only 36% of EU citizens findthat their vote counts inEurope, while 61% desire aConstitution to make Europemore efficient. The Treaty pro-poses more democracy. But thefact that it can only be changedunanimously was one of themain arguments why it wasrejected by left-wing opponents.In particular Part III, which

the Christian fundamentalism ofthe Republican party, in Europeto the decentralised nationalismof Eurosceptics.

All democrats should recog-nise one thing: public goodsconcerning all European citi-zens jointly must be adminis-tered by a common Europeangovernment that is not onlyaccountable to its citizens butcan also be revoked by them ifvoters so wish. Europe’s citizensdo not only require a voice, theyalso need an election ballot.

Has the Constitutional Treatybeen a mistake?Nationalists object that therecan be no democracy without aEuropean demos. Furthermorethey argue that European policycompromises are negotiated bydemocratically elected govern-ments and are therefore suffi-ciently legitimised. However,the conservative notion of acommunity of identity has noth-ing to do with democratic repre-sentation of interests. IfEuropeans are affected by politi-cal decisions taken at theEuropean level, then they musthave a democratic right for self-determination. The argument ofpolitical representation alsodoes not stand up: the forma-tion of democratic will takesplace through public debates,which are particularly intensein the period prior to generalelections. However, the

European level as the instru-ment to correct the neo-liberaldisequilibrium.

By contrast, conservative neo-liberals propose different solu-tions to the problem of deci-sion-making externalities. Thefirst solution concerns the dele-gation of decision-making com-petencies to independentauthorities. This may improvethe technocratic efficiency but italso shields policy-making fromdemocratic control. Over thelast two decades, the EuropeanUnion has increasingly beenmisused for these purposes bythe system of intergovernmentalcooperation. Many citizensoften only see the absurdity ofintense regulation, such as EUdirectives about the size ofapples or the technical specification of tractor seats.The technocratic exclusion ofdemocratic control by citizensfeeds the political frustration,which expresses itself in pop-ulism, Euroscepticism and newnationalism.

The other conservative solu-tion for the problem of external-ities is the return to morality,custom and reactionary valuesof a dominant culture. Insteadof realising their collective pref-erences freely through controlof the democratic state, citizensare exhorted to surrender andsubmit to the traditional valuesof an imagined cultural commu-nity. In America this leads to

130 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘The Treaty is a step in the rightdirection. Opinion polls show clearly that the majority of “No” voters did not reject Europe, but this specific Treaty’

from the Constitutional Treaty.In order to preserve its sub-stance, one will need to renego-tiate parts of this Treaty. In thiscontext it is important that anew Treaty opens Europe morewidely for democracy and co-decision by its citizens. Thiswill not be an easy task. Thedemocratic left should mobilisepressure for more democracy inEurope through the EuropeanSocialist Party (PES).

Democratising Europe meansto politicise it. If citizens aresupposed to have a right fordecisions, then they must havea choice between different poli-cy options. Parties are suppliersof political programs and politi-cal personnel and they are com-peting for the votes of citizens.However, party competition isonly possible if there is a far-reaching constitutional consen-sus amongst all large democrat-ic parties. Not by coincidencehas the theory of justice empha-sised that a good constitutionneeds to be value-neutral withrespect to the content of con-crete policies, while the policy-making rules must reflect prin-ciples of fairness and justice.

‘It belongs to all of us, this Europe’A democratic constitution needsa founding coalition, whichshares the general principles ofa modern democracy, namelyfreedom, equality and solidarity.A large European-wide social-liberal coalition, including alarge part of ChristianDemocracy, has to become thehistoric bloc, the foundingmovement of European democ-racy. It must assign nationalismto a subordinate position. Onthe basis of such a constitution,citizens will then elect the

government should be responsi-ble for the domains of securityand justice, technology policy,economic and social policy,diplomacy and army. Over themedium-term this may be rea-sonable. However, in the short-run it may be sufficient to givefull democratic legitimacy to theinstitutional competenciesenvisaged by the ConstitutionalTreaty.

Citizens as authors of lawsThe exclusive competencies ofthe Union should be the core ofthe future European govern-ment. This government must beaccountable to European votersand responsible for the imple-mentation of the general politi-cal orientation. It must be elect-ed and should be revocable bythe European Parliament. TheEuropean Commission could betransformed into such govern-ment. European citizens wouldthen have the power to influ-ence European policy-making.

This idea is easily rejected bynational governments and theircivil servants, who consider thatthey are the sovereign owners ofthe powers of their state.However, this is a pre-democrat-ic conception of the state. Forsocial democrats and theEuropean left, as well as theenlightened representatives ofthe centre-right, it should beobvious that European citizensare the true owners of Europe’spublic goods and therefore theymust have a right to decision-making. Of course, this does notexclude that member statesretain the right to express theirinterest in the domains ofshared competencies.

The German presidency ofthe European Union must nowsave whatever may be saved

contains specific policies ratherthan rules for policy-making,was seen as casting the neo-lib-eral model in iron. The realproblem of the Treaty is there-fore less its insufficient socialcontent but rather the unsolvedissue of democracy. Europeandemocracy requires thatEuropean citizens can decidethe political orientation forpublic goods that are of con-cern to all of them. All otherpolitical decisions remain at thenational or local level in accor-dance with the principal of sub-sidiarity. This view reflects themodern idea that individual cit-izens are the sovereign ownersboth of private and of publicgoods and that they are charg-ing different institutions toadminister these goods inaccordance to the incidencethese goods have on their lives.

What exactly are Europeanpublic goods? The ConstitutionalTreaty has established a clearassignment of policy competen-cies. It has defined exclusiveEuropean responsibilities forthe following areas: customsunion, competition policy in theSingle Market, monetary policyfor the Eurozone, conservationof marine biological resources,common commercial policy,certain international treaties. Inaddition to these areas, memberstates share a number of compe-tencies with the EuropeanUnion. It also defines domains,which are exclusively under thecompetencies of member states,although they are untitled tocooperate in their own and thecommunal interest.

One may disagree about thecontent of this list of competen-cies. For example the BelgianPrime Minister Guy Verhofstadthas proposed that the European

131 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

European government and par-ties will compete for office andpropose policies amidst dailypolitical controversy. The policystruggle will be over ideology:do we need more economicfreedom or more social justice?

In a modern and democraticEurope, citizens must be able todetermine their fate by them-selves and realise their politicalpreferences through generalelections. Europe would thenbecome close to its citizens, aEuropean Republic. The notionmay appear grand, but its basicidea is simple. Willy Brandtonce has formulated it like this:‘It belongs to all of us, thisEurope.’

132 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘In a modern and democratic Europe,citizens must be able to determinetheir fate by themselves and realisetheir political preferences throughgeneral elections’

TONIGHT I WILL addresswhy the environment,and specifically the fight

against global warming, needsan energised, free-thinking andambitious Labour Party; and Iwill also set out why the renew-al of Labour needs the chal-lenge, energy and idealism ofthe environmental movement.The modern challenge of cli-mate change needs a re-mod-ernised Labour Party. It isentirely appropriate, I think,that the lecture today is hostedby the Fabian Society.

The last century has shownthat in Britain it has always fall-en to progressive forces torespond to the injustices andinequities which free marketsthrow up, and use the power ofcollective action to harness mar-kets for positive effects. That isour task in respect of climatechange: to apply in new waysour insights about economicand social life. And over thatcentury Labour has only everprospered when it has drawnstrength from the most dynamiccurrents in civil society – fromthe trade unions who foundedthe party in the 19th century,from so-called Social or ‘New’Liberals after the first worldwar, from Keynesians in the1930s, from movements forequal rights in the 1960s and1970s.

The Fabian Society, through-out its history, has provided animportant source of ideas butalso a vital bridge between theparty and civil society. That isnever more necessary thantoday, as for the first time wedebate not how to haul our-selves back from regular defeat,but how to renew ourselvesafter successive victories.

For Labour to justify its re-election as a party of govern-ment in 2009 or 2010, we neednew ideas for Britain in 2015and 2025, not Britain in 1997.We cannot rely on the rear-viewmirror. As a matter of politicalsubstance and as a matter ofpolitical tactics, we need to bethe change at the next election.

The Conservatives will try toconvince people that they willnot upend the changes madesince 1997; it is up to us toshow how we will build onthem. We need to be more radi-cal in our goals, and more radi-cal in the means to achievethem. That is why I say 2007needs to be the year of idealismand the year of ideas.

The battle against globalwarming is a vital test case.

Climate Change is Clear and PresentThere are four points that forma critical foundation for myargument. I will not dwell on

Red-Green Renewal: TheFuture Of New Labour

David MilibandUnited Kingdom Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs

133 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

The text is based on aspeech held by Miliband atthe Fabian Society inLondon, 14th December2006.

movement, environmentalistsbecame associated with chal-lenging our interest in economicgrowth and material progress,and advocating a return to sim-pler living, personal sacrifice,and spiritual rather than materi-al progress. This gave themovement a deep but narrowappeal. By exaggerating thetrade off between economicdynamism and environmentalprotection, between human wel-fare and nature, the politics ofthe environment failed to gainthe legitimacy needed to makeit a governing idea for a majorparty.

Arguing for zero growth, par-ticularly to rapidly industrialis-ing developing countries playsto the worst fears of India andChina – that climate change isan excuse to cement the existing

disparities in wealth and power.If we are to gain a consensushere and abroad that climatechange is soluble, it has to bean ally of aspiration, progressand economic growth. Zerogrowth is impractical andimmoral. That is why climatechange must enter mainstreampolitical parties rather thanremain within a separate greenculture. The Stern Report showsit is pro growth to be pro green;but equally unless we are progrowth, especially for develop-ing countries, we will not endup being pro green.

• it is a challenge to the Leftbecause although there is a red-green tradition, climate changerequires us to rethink how weapproach questions of produc-tion and distribution.

• and it is a challenge to theway we do politics because itcalls for real rather than rhetori-cal solidarity with peoplearound the world and peoplenot yet born, real rather thanrhetorical acceptance that gov-ernments and markets haveboth failed to get the answers tothis problem, and real ratherthan rhetorical engagement withthe need to mobilise people tohelp tackle the problem.

Today, I want to talk abouthow we overcome this politicallogjam.

The limits of deep greenAlthough the roots of the greenmovement stretch back cen-turies, it was in the 1960s and70s that modern environmental-ism took off. The publication ofRachel Carson’s Silent Spring in1962 warning of the impact ofpesticides on the bird popula-tion, and the Club of Rome’sLimits of Growth a decade later,along with James Lovelock’sGaia thesis in 1979 catapultedenvironmental concerns into themainstream of political debate.

While there is huge diversityand debate within the green

them but they are the basis forwhat follows.

First, that the science of cli-mate change is clear: we are ina dangerous place now when itcomes to global warming, weknow the proximate cause is theemission of greenhouse gases,and without correction we willbe in a very dangerous placequite soon. We have fifteen totwenty years for global carbonemissions to peak and thirty toforty years to reduce them by 25to 50 per cent.

Second, that the economics isnow also clear: action againstglobal warming has costs, butthey are lower than the costs ofinaction. The technology existsor is in the pipeline. It will costbetween five and twenty timesless to invest in reducing green-house gas emissions than facethe consequences.

Third, the challenge is there-fore primarily a political one:how to secure collective actionon a global and a local scale.Countries will only take onboard commitments if theyknow others will reciprocate;the same applies to individuals.

There is a fourth point. Thepolitical challenge is domesticand ideological as well as inter-national and technological. Thepolitical leaders in this countrynow agree climate change is abig issue – but if we are honestit is a massive challenge to thepolicies and practices of everypolitical party.

• it is a challenge to the Rightbecause although there is a conservationist tradition at theheart of any party that callsitself ‘Conservative’, it is incompatible with a belief infree markets, a minimal stateand Euro-scepticism.

134 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘Zero growth is impractical andimmoral. That is why climate changemust enter mainstream political par-ties rather than remain within a sep-arate green culture’

mental, but the causes go to theheart of economic policy, socialpolicy, foreign policy, and evenour vision of democracy itself.

First, climate changesrequires a different vision ofpolitical economy. As GordonBrown has set out, in 1997 wemade economic stability andhigh employment our top priori-ties, but in 2007, we need athird ambition, to redress theimbalance between the naturalresources we consume, and thenatural capital we reinvest. Akind of ‘golden rule’ to ensurewe do not mortgage the futuresof our children in an unsustain-able ecological debt. That is thesignificance of the ClimateChange Bill – a reform thatensures the UK is the world’sfirst country with a legislativetimetable for becoming a low-carbon economy.

As many businesses, includ-ing the Confederation of BritishIndustry (CBI) have said, weneed to give certainty not justabout public finances and lowinflation, but also the carbon-priced environment in whichwe want business to operate.This means leading the econo-my not just managing it.

In 1997, we said we wantedto extend the power of choiceand voice that exist in the pri-vate sector to public services.Today, we need to extend mar-ket mechanisms to publicgoods. We need to put a priceon carbon dioxide and use thepower of the market to find thelowest cost emissions.

In 1997, we said we wantedto raise labour productivity. In2007, we must focus as muchon today’s scarcity issue – natural resources – and committo raising natural resource pro-ductivity.

social responsibility cannotdeliver the substance of nation-al action – it is simply notenough to implore greaterresponsibility from individualsfor a problem that needs organ-ised collective action.

Red-greenI believe, therefore, it is plausi-ble to argue that unless partiesof the centre-left address cli-mate change, it will not beaddressed.

• It is a progressive project touse government to shape mar-kets – and that is vital in thebattle against climate change.

• It is a progressive project toput social justice at the heart ofpolitics – and an equitable bal-ance of rights and responsibili-ties as the defining test of acivilised society.

• And it is a progressive projectto recognise the importance ofinternationalism in an age ofinterdependence.

However, Red-Green must bemore than a marriage of conven-ience. We need to show that redand green traditions can chal-lenge but enhance each other.

The vision of New Labour in1997 got a lot right. It hashelped rehabilitate collectiveaction and re-frame debatesabout the economy, public serv-ices, national culture. But thevision of 1997 is not sufficientfor 2007 – when the science hasmoved on, when popular con-cerns have moved on, when weas a party have moved on.

I believe there are four areaswhere we need especially to upour game. The symptoms ofglobal warming are environ-

The limits of Blue-greenIf deep green is no answer, whatof conservatism? The truth isthat there is a tradition onwhich Conservatives can call,but it is a commitment to con-servation of the status quo – ora return to the status quo ante –not radical change to meet anew threat. Zac Goldsmith says‘I consider myself a conserva-tive as opposed to a radical’.The problem is that climatechange is about managing radi-cal change – a transition thatwill challenge established rou-tines and institutions.

In reality climate changechallenges the very basis of con-servative thinking:

• It challenges the idea ofnational sovereignty over deci-sion-making. Climate change isthe defining example of interde-pendence and the need to poolpowers in international institu-tions.

• It challenges conservatives’attachment to free markets.Markets work when the price ofgoods reflect their value. Butclimate change is the definingexample of market failure –where the price does not reflectthe cost to the environment.The need to account for theinterests of future generationstrips up even thoughtful freemarketeers.

• It challenges conservatives’dogmatic distrust of the state.Climate change cannot beaddressed by purely voluntaryaction alone. It requires thepower of the state – to regulateand tax, to subsidise if neces-sary, and to define and enforceproperty rights. This is whyDavid Cameron’s language of

135 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

point ‘common but differentiat-ed responsibilities’. In essence,this means recognising thatdeveloped countries need toshow leadership, help bridgethe gap between high carbonand low carbon paths of devel-opment, and support the adap-tation to the climate changealready in train due to industri-alised countries’ emissions. Inreturn it means developingcountries must recognise theneed to play their part in devel-oping low-carbon economies.

But climate change will alsochallenge our notion of socialjustice domestically. The appli-cation of a ‘polluter pays’ prin-ciple involves distributingresources based not just onneed but desert; a recognitionthat resources should be linkedto fulfilling citizenship respon-sibilities.

So while in 1997, our concep-tion of citizenship was social,economic and political, today itmust also be environmental.Just as in 1997, we developed aNew Deal for the unemployed –and provided more help, train-ing and financial rewards condi-tional on people taking up workopportunities – today we mustlook at providing more help andincentives for people to saveenergy and recycle in return forcitizens sharing responsibilitywith the state for maintainingthe environment.

Just as in 1997, we intro-duced political citizenship edu-cation into schools, today wemust think how our educationsystem can nurture environ-mental citizenship, and how ourschools can become exemplarsof energy efficiency and micro-generation.

Third, New Labour was rightto challenge the Euro-scepticism

all to accelerate change. It willrequire a stronger role for gov-ernment as leaders of change –helping the complex system ofpublic and private organisationsthat affect our travel, our hous-ing and waste – adapt to a neweconomy. And it will require anew confidence – not to pickwinners but to transform mar-kets so that they price out thehigh-polluting losers.

The second area where cli-mate changes tests our capacityfor new thinking is in respect ofsocial justice.

This will test us philosophi-cally and politically. Theoriesof social justice have oftenstruggled to grapple with inter-generational injustice. JohnRawls famous ‘veil of ignorance’asked us to consider what posi-tion we would take if we didnot know which of the currentliving generations we were borninto. Climate change requires usto thicken the veil and considerhow we should act if faced withthe possibility of being born farinto the future.

Without a clear theory of howenvironmental burdens andrewards can be shared fairlybetween nations and genera-tions, we will not secure a glob-al deal between developing anddeveloped countries, and wewill not sustain the moralauthority to drive change athome. We take as our starting

In 1997, we introduced theidea of best value to improvethe efficiency, equity and effec-tiveness of local services. Today,we must always build in theneed to tackle climate changewhen we commission and pro-vide services.

In 1997, we regulated to pro-tect labour standards – signingthe social chapter and the mini-mum wage. In 2007, regulationmust focus on environmentalstandards, from zero carbonhomes to phasing out energyinefficient light bulbs and appli-ances, with the UK acting as thechampion of reformed EU regu-lation.

Finally, in 1997, we focusedon macro-economic stabilityand active labour market policy.Old style industrial policy, sec-tor by sector was condemned asmicro-management. But likeEastern Europe after the coldwar, we are now a ‘transitioneconomy’. The lessons are clear.Too much government and youstifle the power of the market.Too little and you have a free-for-all.

A low-carbon economy willhave a new market at its heart: amarket in carbon, with the vastmajority of the economy cov-ered by carbon trading. Gettingthere will require a mix ofmeasures: regulation, tax, sub-sidy, planning, procurement,the transformation of markets,

136 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘While in 1997, our conception ofcitizenship was social, economic and political, today it must also beenvironmental’

makes any difference, but mostof all, worry that their actionswill not be reciprocated by otherseither here or abroad, and there-fore will not make a difference.

We can only tackle this senseof powerlessness by creating aunique combination of collec-tive action through the state,and individual action throughmarkets. Government must cre-ate the framework – establishingthrough legislation the pathwayto a 60 per cent reduction inCarbon emissions by 2050.Government must show we aredoing our bit directly in achiev-ing this, whether this is ensur-ing all new homes are carbonzero, making the governmentestate carbon neutral, or factor-ing in sustainability into publicprocurement. But Governmentmust also create the tools forothers to take action.

The implications are most far-reaching in the idea of personal,tradeable carbon allowances,about which the Department forEnvironment Food and RuralAffairs (Defra) published anissues paper on Monday.

44 per cent of all emissionsare by individual households,most of which comes from fourtransactions: electricity and gasin our homes and car and airtravel. Under a PCA systemthe government defines theoverall carbon budget and allo-cates carbon allowances to eachindividual or household in afair way. Individuals throughtheir own actions and throughtrading find ways of living with-in these limits: those who areenvironmentally thrifty arefinancially rewarded; those whodo not pay.

PCAs combine the evidencefrom science, governmentembodiment of collective will,

tions in energy and transport,and transferring innovations todeveloping countries.

It would use the power ofnegotiating as a single block toforge an ambitious post-2012international framework.

If we do so, the prize is biggerthan many imagine. Reducingthe dependence of the worldeconomy on oil is at the heart ofMiddle East Peace challenge.Preventing Climate Changewould avoid the disastrousmigrations and conflicts overnatural resources. Creating arobust Global Carbon Marketwould see more transfers fromNorth to South than the devel-opment policies of all of Europeput together. Climate Change isa security issue, a migrationissue and a development issue.

New PoliticsFinally, climate change willchallenge our way of thinkingabout politics. Our conceptionof politics has too often beenWhitehall and Westminsterbased. It has allowed manage-ment to have a greater role thanmobilisation, governing notcampaigning. It has been basedon active government but notactive enough citizens.

Climate change shows howout-dated this is as a model.People want to do their bit totackle climate change. Theydon’t want the dilute andremote influence of lobbyingtheir representatives throughthe occasional tick in the ballotbox. They want to be playersnot just spectators.

However, they lack the infor-mation on what changes in theirlives would make a difference,get confused by the welter ofcontradictory messages on whatcar to buy or whether offsetting

that had dogged both the majorparties. But today the Europeanproject has stalled: the constitu-tion rejected, its raison d’etre inquestion. Now is the time torecognise that in an interde-pendent world we need aEurope that works, based on anew mission for the EU – takingthe carbon out of the SingleMarket. We must be preparedto make the case for a powerfulEU in return for institutionsthat are more transparent andmore accountable.

So what would a new EU – an Environmental Union – focus on?

It would agree to a 30 percent cut in greenhouse gasemissions by 2020.

It would extend the EuropeanUnion Emissions TradingScheme to aviation, and poten-tially surface transport; link thescheme to emerging carbonmarkets to form the basis ofglobal trading scheme, andsecure its long term future asthe biggest delivery vehicle ofour 2020 and 2050 targets.

It would use the size of theSingle Market and intra-European trade to ensure higherenvironmental standards with-out competitive disadvantage,whether through mandatorytradeable emissions standardsfor car manufacturers, tougherenergy ratings for products, orregulating out of existence highpolluting electrical equipmentand household appliances.

It would reform the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) andrefocus the programme on environmental public goodsrather than subsidising foodproduction.

It would develop a majortechnology and R&D programmeaimed to supporting innova-

137 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

succeeds will be the naturalparty of government. At the nextelection, environmental credibil-ity will be a threshold issue,alongside national security, eco-nomic policy and public serviceinvestment. Flunk on any ofthese and you are unelectable.

But to win the argument weneed more than policies. Wemust make it a defining missionfor the party – something thatrecruits and inspires the nextgeneration of Fabians and Labourmembers. We must never fail toremember that climate change isabout people not just nature, asocial issue not just an environ-mental one. Al Gore’s moviewarned us of a ‘planetary emer-gency’; in fact, it is also a warn-ing of a humanitarian crisis.

Sidney Webb did not geteverything right. But he did saythe following:

‘The community must neces-sarily aim, consciously or not,at its continuance as a commu-nity. Its life transcends that ofany of its members.

That is why this issue is soimportant – not just for thefuture of the planet but for thefuture of our government.

and individual initiative. Thatis what New Labour – or newNew Labour – needs to be about.

If we are to engage citizens intackling climate change, wemust be the party prepared toshow that radical problemsneed radical solutions; we mustbe the party that creates a linkbetween everyday politics andWestminster politics.

Conclusion Let me conclude where I started– with the needs of our party aswell as the needs of the planet.We should be proud of ourrecord. But elections are notabout thanks; they are aboutvision and change; and we needto show that we have the desireand the ideas to be the change.To take forward a progressivevision of political economy, aprogressive vision of social jus-tice, a progressive vision ofinternational action, and a pro-gressive view of politics.

It’s not enough to say wehave the right values. Now wehave to show they can be re-applied.

History gives us a warning.100 years ago we had a dynamicsocial movement, led by tradeunions, struggling to find apolitical home. Many within thelabour movement, includingKeir Hardie, began their life asLiberals. But the failure of theLiberal Party to open itself up tonew ideas, to a new movementresulted in the creation of theLabour Party, the end of the lib-erals as a party of government,and a fatal division betweenprogressives.

Today, there are parallels withthe environmental movement. Itis a growing force in civil socie-ty, searching for a home in main-stream politics. The party that

138 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘At the next election, environmentalcredibility will be a threshold issue,alongside national security, economicpolicy and public service investment.Flunk on any of these and you areunelectable’

ON THE SAME day that FrenchSocialist Party members choseSégolène Royal as their presi-

dential candidate, the EuropeanParliament approved a report on‘Women in International Politics’. Thisreport gives an overview of the partici-pation of women in international deci-sion-making centres. It also makes rec-ommendations to tackle the clear par-ticipation deficit.

There is, indeed, some progress:recently, several women were electedheads of State in Finland, Liberia andChile and heads of Government inGermany, Jamaica and South Korea.The European Union Presidency is cur-rently headed, for the second consecu-tive time, by a woman, ChancellorAngela Merkel. Nancy Pelosi is the firstwoman elected as Speaker of theHouse of Representatives in the US.Several women are today in charge ofministries of foreign affairs, defenceand finances. And the EuropeanInstitute for Gender Equality wasrecently approved.

But the visibility of these advancesdoes not outshine the figures, whichshow a global reality that still lagsbehind what is desirable. Despite theBeijing Declaration and the MDGs,only 15 women are heads of State andGovernment in 191 Members of theUnited Nations. And only 16 per centof all Parliamentarians worldwide arewomen. Despite the 1325 Resolution ofthe UN Security Council (UNSC),which since 2000 calls for the incorpo-ration of women at all levels of interna-

tional negotiations, conflict resolutionand peacekeeping missions, only 9 outof 91 Representatives or Envoys of theSecretary-General are women. Andwomen are still under-represented inconflict prevention and resolutionteams, especially in top positions.

In Europe, the picture is hardly bet-ter. Despite Resolution 2025 of theEuropean Parliament, also approved in2000, and despite the EU Commission's‘Roadmap for Equality between Womenand Men’, the Commission composi-tion still hasn't reached parity. Andthere is only 1 woman among 14 posi-tions of Special and PersonalRepresentatives, Envoys or SpecialCoordinators of the HighRepresentative for CFSP. And among107 heads of Delegations of theEuropean Commission around theworld, only 7 are women.

Notwithstanding, there are plenty ofqualified and competent women withsolid experience in the fields of inter-national relations, human rights, secu-rity and defence, justice, public admin-istration, election processes, media andcommunications, who have skills thatare essential in diplomatic negotia-tions, peace keeping missions and con-flict prevention or resolution. They arepresent at all levels of the EuropeanInstitutions, public administrations,enterprises, universities and NGOsthroughout Europe. At all levels,except for the top. At the political andeconomic decision-making bodies inEurope, women are still outrageouslyunder-represented. Despite the fact that

Women in InternationalPolitics: Glass Ceilings

139 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Ana GomesMember of theEuropean Parliamentfor the PortugueseSocialist Party

there are more women than men withhigher education diplomas, the genderpay gap is approximately 15 per cent,when equivalent jobs are compared, inclear violation of various communityand national laws against gender dis-crimination.

As recognised by CommissionerFrattini, during the debate held by theEuropean Parliament on this report:‘Those taking most decisions are men.Stereotypes and discrimination stillexist and the recruitment and promo-tion systems are generally biased’. Infact, these systems tend to perpetuatethe establishment of the 'old boys net-work', excluding women from theinformal networks that actually selectwho is next in promotion lines. Thesenetworks are especially importantinside political parties, economic andpolitical decision-making centres andtheir national and international hierar-chies. More than a balanced division offamily responsibilities - women contin-ue to bear the biggest load at home -this is the main obstacle for women toreach the top positions of national andinternational decision-making bodiesand to participate in UN, EU, OSCEand NATO missions.

Even if the data is in itself signifi-cant, in this case it is important to gobeyond the numbers: women's politicalparticipation must be ensured not onlyas a matter of equity and justice butalso because numbers count to makethe difference. Women make a substan-

tial difference in the definition of polit-ical agendas - and, especially, in thedefinition of what really matters: infavour of human rights - and womenrights - peace and reconciliation, jus-tice, good governance, transparency,accountability, democracy and the ruleof law.

The qualitative difference made bywomen's participation in peacekeepingmissions or international peace negoti-ations is recognised by the UNSC, inits 1325 Resolution, as crucial for theimprovement of the performance andeffectiveness of such missions. Womenconstitute the large majority of conflictvictims, displaced persons andrefugees. Yet, in general, they were notthe ones taking the decisions that leadto war and conflict or allowed its pro-longation. Without giving voice towomen in these societies and withoutinvolving them in the peace buildingprocesses, there can be no true recon-ciliation or lasting solution. The pres-ence of women in conflict mediation isessential to build trust and foster theparticipation of other local women.The recent all-women UN police unitsent to Liberia, composed entirely byIndian women, is a result of this veryrecognition of the contribution womenbring to the effectiveness of these mis-sions. This is also what the report’Women in International Politics’ rec-ommends to the Secretary General andthe Security Council of the UnitedNations and to those responsible forthe EU's Common Foreign and SecurityPolicy (CFSP). These should not onlypreach this doctrine, but actually startimplementing it, towards a more gener-al inclusion of women in all peacekeeping, peace enforcing and conflictresolution missions.

This report also contains other rec-ommendations to the most relevantactors in the international scene,including the UN, the EU and its mem-ber states, local and regional authori-ties as well as national parliaments andpolitical parties.

140 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

‘Women constitute the largemajority of conflict victims, displaced persons and refugees.Yet, in general, they were not the ones taking the decisionsthat lead to war and conflict or allowed its prolongation’

The EU governments and theEuropean Commission should assumetheir responsibilities and recommendwomen to high level positions, toimprove the efficiency of its CFSP andESDP. But it is not enough to appointwomen to such positions. It is alsoessential to put into practice the neces-sary measures to ensure that womenand men can strike a balance betweenprivate life and professional life. Andthat requires changes, namely regard-ing working hours and working prac-tices.

It is crucial to engage Europeanpolitical parties in a serious promotionof a balanced participation of men andwomen on their lists. Political partiesmust contribute to eliminate all obsta-cles that directly or indirectly preventwomen from participating. Women'sparticipation at all levels of decision-making processes, in all political bod-ies and all lists of nominees or candi-dates must be ensured, in the samemeasure as men. This report also callsfor further training opportunities, aim-ing at providing the necessary skillsthat can open doors to engagement in apolitical career and to reach high levelpositions.

The report further suggests educa-tional programmes to raise citizenawareness on women's rights. If genderawareness is considerable in northernEuropean countries, in other regions,stereotypes are widespread - sometimesto a shocking extent - in the media,commercials, every-day language, etc.,with political leaders not actually pay-ing sufficient attention to this problem.

The report also calls on theCommission to use community exter-nal relations and development coopera-tion instruments as engines to fosterthe promotion of gender equality inthird countries, since gender discrimi-nation is a violation of human rights.Without the contributions of women,these countries will not be able toreach the Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) or make real progress in

terms of good governance.A balanced representation of men

and women in political and economicdecision-making centres is crucial inthe EU and around the world. Withoutsuch balance, there is no real represen-tative democracy. The lack of reason-able numbers of women contributingto political agendas means that there isa democracy deficit. Political will isrequired to fight this deficit. Asdemonstrated by the parity governmentof José Luis Zapatero. Or the currentParliament of Rwanda, which, led byUN efforts, changed the electoral sys-tem in order to guarantee parity:Rwanda today has the highest percent-age of women in Parliament in theworld: 48,8 per cent. These examplesdemonstrate that changes in thisdomain could take place at a muchfaster pace: but only if there is politicalleadership, with real political will tobreak the glass ceilings.

141 Social Europe the journal of the european left Winter 2007

Social Europe the journal of the european left � Volume 2 � Issue 3 � Winter 2007

Endnotes

We would like to express our special gratitude to Chloé Aublin andJeannette Ladzik who helped a great deal in the development ofthis issue.

All the views expressed in the articles of this issue are those of theauthors and do not necessarily represent the views of SocialEurope Forum.

All rights reservedSocial Europe Forum© 2007