Being political has nothing to do with political parties. To be political is to have opinions. Political parties always begin as communities of like-minded individuals – people who share values, goals and opinions. But problems come when these communities become ideological establishments that are no longer communities of equals but classic and rather old-fashioned hierarchies.
My own political movement, the Pirate Party, has been struggling to define its place on the spectrum of traditional politics. We include people from across this spectrum, going beyond labels of Right and Left that do not apply to today’s world. In this regard the Pirate Party is like Iceland’s Women’s List party, which was founded in 1983 to advance women’s rights in legislation and pave the way for more women in parliament. Once the party had achieved its main objectives it merged with other parties, in 1999, to form the Social Democratic Alliance. Some Women’s List members left during the merger because they felt that their agenda was holistic rather than exclusively leftist.
Like the Women’s List we have a horizontal internal structure. The aim is to reach consensus on issues rather than rule by (often narrow) democratic majorities. There is no Left and Right, but right or wrong. We want to offer an alternative that puts the focus on human rights in the digital era, and how to maintain and structure these rights in a totally different world order.
“We want to offer an alternative that puts the focus on human rights in the digital era”
Young people are crucial to this alternative vision. Global voter turnout indicates that there are very few parties that appeal to young people, yet this is the age group that overwhelmingly supports us. We find that young people want to be engaged, but in a different way to older people. This work requires more direct engagement and empowerment – often defined as direct democracy.
But it still requires alliance-building and collaboration with others, whether formal or informal, around core issues. The big issues are those of progressive and evolutionary change, the change we must undertake to save our democracies and even humanity from a bleak future of the ‘corpocracy’ where human rights are never as important as the right to make profit by any means.
Our alternative future – perhaps the only way to save democracy – is based on the understanding that we are connected, not divided, and that when it comes to our communities and societies we cannot free ourselves from our responsibilities. Not long ago in Scandinavia, most people understood that the system was not a separate hostile entity but something of which they themselves were part. If you cheated the system, you were cheating yourself and your community. More positively, if you put effort into improving the system you were benefiting yourself and your community. This is perhaps less an ideology, more common sense.
It is clear that not everybody wants the same. We see divisions everywhere, between races, religions, nations, political persuasions and generations. But these divisions serve to keep us fighting among ourselves and prevent us organising ourselves to achieve the dignity and justice for which we yearn, and to hold powerful people to account.
“We need to realise when systems are becoming alien and outdated”
So how do we do this? Laws are the tools for this job, but we need to ensure that people believe the law has their interests at heart. We must invent ways to make laws more resilient and functional, using the current framework to do so. We must also reimagine our values in a fast-paced world but acknowledge when it is impossible to keep up with rapid change using the current framework. We need to be honest and understand what needs to change and how we see those changes and values in the future.
We need to cut through both the complexity and the seemingly easy solutions. We need an inclusive story that embraces the idea that democracy demands our care and attention, and that freedoms are never to be taken for granted. We need to realise when systems are becoming alien and outdated and have the courage to shed the old world and build something new – something that reflects our values, and to which we feel we can truly belong.
Individuals can and must change the world – but we need to connect to each other to do this. We need to spend less time analysing problems – we all know what’s wrong – and more time on solutions. This is a collective challenge: if individuals spend half an hour each day thinking of possible answers I believe that we can collectively fix problems – especially if this process is underpinned by a strong media, free access to information, the right to privacy, direct democracy, social engagement and accountability. Under these conditions, we can go beyond the old ideologies and create, together, a wise and compassionate blueprint for the future.
IMAGE CREDIT: Susan Montgomery/Bigstock
The post Using hope not fear, individuals can build a brighter collective future appeared first on Europe’s World.
To receive the Brussels Briefing in your inbox every morning, register for a free FT account here and then sign up here.
Zero. This is how many they have actually taken.
Read moreEU Finance Ministers of the eurozone are meeting on 15 June 2017 in Luxembourg to continue their discussion on the second review of Greece's economic adjustment programme. Ministers are also exchanging views on the results of the IMF Article IV consultation with the euro area and discussing ways to improve the quality of public finances.
EU Ministers for Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) meet on 15 and 16 June 2017 in Luxembourg to hold a policy debate on the 2017 European Semester. Over lunch, ministers are holding an informal debate on the European Pillar of social rights. The Council is called on to reach a general approach on a directive protecting workers against carcinogenic substances. It is taking note of a progress report on the posting of workers directive. It is also adopting conclusions on childhood obesity and on voluntary cooperation between health systems
Energy – its origin, cost, use and security – impacts on global sustainability, on citizens’ health and wellbeing and on industry’s competitiveness. The world is currently transitioning from a traditionally fossil fuel-based system to an increasingly diversified energy mix. The European Union, through its 2020 and 2030 energy and climate targets, its leading role in creating the Paris agreement, and the launch of a comprehensive Energy Union Strategy, is fully engaged in Europe’s energy transformation.
This transition requires appropriate tools, and one of the main tools for the decades to come will be the governance of the Energy Union.
The principal objective of the proposed Regulation on Governance of the Energy Union, proposed by the European Commission last November, is to ensure the collective achievement of the Energy Union goals of sustainability, energy security and competitiveness, and the targets defined in the framework of the 2030 energy and climate agreement.
Together with other Commission initiatives, the Governance proposal will also ensure that international climate commitments made under the Paris agreement are fully achieved in a timely manner. The proposal further establishes a coherent legal framework aimed at preserving and enhancing long-term regulatory stability and certainty for investors while reducing the administrative burden for member states.
To attain these aims the proposal includes several innovative elements. Foremost among them is the first ever obligation for member states to define their integrated national energy and climate plans. Covering an initial ten-year period whilst also including a long-term perspective, these plans will offer long-term certainty to investors on national policy priorities and will play a crucial role in ensuring the achievement of the Energy Union objectives.
“Positive momentum has to be maintained and increased if the integrated plans are to be ready by 2020”
A comprehensive template for the plans is proposed in the Regulation; this will provide investors with a clear picture of member states’ planned objectives, policies and measures across the five dimensions of the Energy Union.
In the areas of renewables and energy efficiency, national trajectories will offer full visibility on member states’ priorities in terms of technology and sector preferences. A strong analytical foundation, together with proposed requirements for regional cooperation, will further translate member states’ visions into credible, reliable and cost effective objectives.
National consultations on the plans will promote participation from citizens and stakeholders in defining national priorities, thereby enhancing local acceptance and ensuring an inclusive and informed debate in all member states.
The 2030 energy and climate framework has introduced a new and challenging approach by setting renewables and energy efficiency targets for the whole EU, replacing the previous system that was based also on national targets.
Member states are now free to define their level of ambition based on their national priorities, cost effectiveness and geographical constraints. This bottom-up approach leaves member states with a great deal of responsibility: through definition of their national plans, member states are expected to adequately contribute to the 2030 targets agreed by heads of state and government in October 2014.
But the national plans as such may not be enough. How can we ensure that we reach and maintain a sufficient collective level of ambition across the five dimensions of the Energy Union? How can we stop a fellow diner leaving the restaurant without paying their share of the bill?
To address this issue, the proposal introduces its second innovation: a set of articulated provisions aimed at guaranteeing both the initial agreement of a sufficient collective level of ambition and sufficient progress towards long-term goals at the EU and national levels.
The Commission will play a central role in ensuring that a sufficient collective level of ambition is reached, and in guaranteeing the timely delivery of the Energy Union objectives. For that, the Commission will have at its disposal several instruments, including recommendations to member states and the introduction of additional EU-level measures to ensure an adequate level of ambition across Europe.
“Member states are now free to define their level of ambition based on their national priorities, cost effectiveness and geographical constraints”
For instance, the proposal lists a number of possible specific instruments to ensure the deployment of renewables across the continent and strengthen energy efficiency policies. In the area of renewables, member states can be asked by the Commission to introduce additional national measures, with the introduction of a new financial platform rewarding early movers.
For the new governance system to work, it will be important for member states to be ambitious and not to abuse the trust, flexibility and responsibility the proposed Regulation grants them. While active and detailed discussions on the legislative text are currently ongoing in the Council and Parliament – discussions that will determine the law’s final details – we can already see that member states are delivering on their shared vision. By now more than half of member states have created national working groups and structures specifically dedicated to the preparation of their national plans. More than two-thirds have also started the political processes needed to define their plans’ priorities and objectives, and several EU countries are actively engaging in discussions with their neighbours on the subject.
Positive momentum has to be maintained and increased if the integrated plans are to be ready by 2020. The Commission stands ready to facilitate their swift development, notably by supporting forms of regional cooperation and assisting technically with the preparation.
But the commitment of the Commission alone will not be enough. If we want to maintain our goals in terms of both timelines and ambition, we need the commitment and engagement of all European institutions and the support of European citizens and stakeholders.
Ultimately, the pace of the energy transition is not determined by Brussels or by European capitals, but by the daily commitment of all citizens in Europe.
This article reflects only the personal opinions of the authors and does not reflect the official position of the European Commission.
IMAGE CREDIT: Carl Attard/Pexels
The post The role of integrated national plans in building an Energy Union appeared first on Europe’s World.
The EU-Indonesia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement entered into force in May 2014 and provides for wide-ranging cooperation in the areas of political dialogue and security, trade, investments and economic cooperation as well as in the strengthening of people-to-people ties through mobility, educational and cultural exchange programmes.
In calling the election, Theresa May rejected Alice’s belief in politics as a game in which all should have prizes. She saw the election and Brexit negotiations as processes in which she would win and others would lose. Her opponents foresaw an outcome in which all would be losers: the Brexiteers because the prize they claimed was not a unicorn but a turkey, and the Remainers because the effect of a hard Brexit would be far worse than they predicted.
The election result creates the prospect of an Alice-in-Wonderland outcome in which all may have prizes. People wanting to leave the European Union have seen the return to Downing Street of a prime minister committed to Brexit. More than four-fifths of the popular vote went to MPs elected on manifestos pledged to respect the referendum result, the position of Labour as well as the Tories.
They make up more than nine-tenths of the new House of Commons. Half of all voters would like Brexit to happen as soon as possible and another quarter, after voting to remain last year, now give their resigned consent. According to an election day poll of actual voters, only 28 per cent would like to see Brexit abandoned if at all possible.
Having given the EU notification of the decision to withdraw from the EU by 30 March 2019, it is now virtually impossible for the UK to withdraw its withdrawal. Nor is there a desire in Brussels to see its most awkward and unstable member remain. Postponing the date of withdrawal would require the unanimous consent of 27 member states. It would also require a majority vote of the British Parliament to reject the referendum result.
The failure of Theresa May to secure a parliamentary majority is a major victory for opponents of a hard Brexit. UKIP, the only party that campaigned with an unambiguous commitment to a hard Brexit, won just 1.8 per cent of the vote and no seats.
More than 53 per cent of the UK vote went to parties favouring some form of soft Brexit, that is, an agreement offering the prize of keeping a significant number of benefits of EU association in exchange for contributing to the EU’s budget and accepting absence from deliberations in which decisions are made affecting the UK. Having endorsed remaining in the EU less than a year ago, Theresa May can hardly assert that there are no features of EU membership worth retaining.
The terms of Brexit, whatever they are, will require endorsement by a majority in the House of Commons and a majority in the House of Lords, where the swing vote is in the hands of cross-bench peers. In a House of Commons of 650 members, there are a total of 315 Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs elected on manifestos that endorsed some form of soft Brexit. Collectively, these parties won a larger share of the total vote, 53 per cent, than was cast for leaving the EU in last year’s referendum.
Instead of being assured of parliamentary support for whatever she decides Brexit means, Theresa May will have to negotiate with MPs, including dozens of Tories who voted remain in the EU referendum. Tory voters are also divided in their views about the EU. Lord Ashcroft’s election day poll found that two-thirds favoured Brexit and one-third favoured remain. Those favouring the EU contributed twice as many votes to the party’s narrow lead over Labour as did former UKIP voters.
If upwards of a dozen of Tory MPs reject hard Brexit conditions there will be no majority in the Commons. While the Lords lacks the authority of election, its members can collectively claim more knowledge of relations with Europe than any team of frontbench spokespersons.
The election outcome has created new opportunities for a soft Brexit. Theresa May’s red line conditions set out in indelible ink have been replaced by question marks in pink water colour. The mad game of political croquet that is about to commence could produce a win-win settlement. Brexiters would gain a prize denied to Enoch Powell and Tony Benn, namely the UK Parliament no longer being bound to accept the authority of Brussels. Those who want an association agreement with the EU can use their newly gained parliamentary strength to win substantive prizes too.
To bring about a settlement will require British politicians to stop playing winner-take-all games and prepare for compromise as soon as discussions start with the EU later this month. The EU has re-affirmed the three issues that must be settled before talks about access to the single market can commence.
They are the post-Brexit status of EU citizens in the UK and of British citizens living in the single market; the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; and the size of the divorce bill that Britain should pay to cover existing commitments to the EU budget.
Ironically, the election has achieved a prize goal of Brexiters – returning control of British government to Parliament–but not in a way that was expected, weakening the authority of Downing Street. A new Prime Minister would not change the arithmetic of Parliament. Its assent to any Brexit measure is subject to approval by MPs who were not elected to support a Tory government.
Key players in parliament are no longer hardline Brexiters but people who can craft soft Brexit measures that can attract cross-party support. Step forward Labour spokesperson Keir Starmer and Liberal Democrat Vince Cable–and don’t turn your back on members of the House of Lords such as Peter Mandelson.
The post Voters endorse an Alice-in-wonderland Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.