Interview
In an interview with Open Citizenship, the Head of European Affairs of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB), Mrs. Gabriele Bischoff spoke about the lack of a strong European communication (and the rights of non-discrimination).
Mrs. Bischoff, as Head of European Affairs of the German Confederation of Trade Unions (DGB), what do you see as the most urgent issues on the European level?
For quite some time we have seen a Europe in crisis. In addition to the recent economic and financial crises, we also face a social crisis. If Europe wants to prove that it adds value, it has to make a contribute in order to ensure that such an economic and financial crisis does not happen again. Additionally, Europe has to strengthen its own social foundation. Against the backdrop of austerity policy that continues to undermine the social welfare state on the national level, we are very worried about the future of the European social model, which is not only central for us as trade unions but also essential for citizens’ identification with the European project as a whole. Another important issue for us is the relationship between the single market and fundamental social rights in Europe, where we’ve also seen problematic development.
Do you have the impression, in your work, that it has become easier and more important to get engaged at the European level than the national level to effect policies regarding working conditions and social rights?
The social welfare state is one of our most important achievements and its core elements were developed at the national level. During the ’90s – since the Treaty of Maastricht – we saw a flurry of regulations on the European level that introduced important minimum social standards across Europe, which benefited citizens.
However, we have long faced the problem that some nation-states are less and less willing to introduce plausible European-wide regulation in the sphere of social policies. They either block certain decisions or substantially undermine the very essence of the Commission’s proposals. The United Kingdom is in that respect the biggest offender, as well as Germany. This was the case concerning the directive on temporary agency work. With the economic and financial crises we’ve see strong national reactions that have pushed European social welfare policy further into the background. That’s bad for Europe.
How do you evaluate the chances of the coming European Citizens Initiative (ECI) to boost citizens’ participation on the European level? Is it a promising instrument?
Right from the beginning we pushed strongly for this instrument, as we see it as highly valuable. We understand the ECI more concretely as an instrument to discuss European topics at the national level and to mobilise citizens for European issues. So we submitted an opinion in the consultation process and also discussed this instrument in various settings, for example with the European Movement. At present, however, we are very disappointed about how restrictive the Council wants the regulation to be developed. It is absurd, for example, that one has to reveal his identity card number. This development demonstrates the Council’s apparent mistrust of citizens: why else would it push for such restrictions and introduce such high obstacles? It is now up to the European Parliament to enact improvements.
Through the development of nation-states in western Europe, the concepts of citizenship and national identity have become inextricably linked. This has led those discussing EU citizenship to wonder about a missing but indispensable European identity. Do you also see identity as an indispensable prerequisite for EU citizenship or do we need a new approach?
I believe this topic is much too abstract for citizens. One of the fundamental problems is the lack of a European public. Information on the value added by the European project only reaches citizens through a filter. When something runs well, the national governments take the credit, but as soon as something goes badly, it’s because of the EU. This phenomenon is similar in all Member States. It is important to use simple language to make it clear how political processes work, how decisions are made and who is involved. A major shortcoming of this process is that there are hardly any public debates on such matters. It has to be made much more explicit how European policies are influencing the everyday life of citizens, to what extent and especially if and how it improves their lives and working situations. This may then lead to a much stronger identification with the European project. As a consequence, this could strengthen a European identity in addition to the national and regional identities.
National citizenship, is linked with, among other things, political participation rights. This includes the right to vote. However, EU citizens living outside their own Member State are excluded from regional and national elections in their host country. Do you believe a new concept of EU citizenship has to be introduced to overcome these exclusions or can this be resolved at the national level?
A very important element of the development of the European citizenship is the introduction of electoral rights for the European Parliament. However, one can read from the decreasing voter turnout that it is time to act, for example, with respect to European political parties. The attractiveness of these election must be increased by making them truly European elections with top European candidates.
The latest demographic data, which we just discussed in the European Economic and Social Committee, makes clear that 5.8 million citizens live in a Member State of which they are not a national. This is already more than the entire population of small Member States. Many of them, 1.4 million, live in Germany. We need to ensure that these citizens are not discriminated against but enjoy the full spectrum of civil rights. This is for us a core element of the European project. It is part of the European promise.
You mentioned that a transnational lifestyle for citizens in the EU has become a more common practise. What kind of implications does this have for the national concepts of citizenship in the future?
The number of citizens who are mobile across national borders is still small in comparison with the mobility of people coming to Europe from non-Member countries. However, I believe that intra-European mobility will increase, even though the language problem still creates some barriers to it. Though the identification with Europe is increasing among young people, and especially among students enjoying mobility with programmes such as ERASMUS, cross-border mobility needs time. I am sure I won’t experience the United States of Europe in my lifetime. It is time to put the European project on a new footing and to reignite enthusiasm for Europe. An improved EU citizenship with additional rights can surely contribute to this.
What do you think of an inclusive and transnational citizenship for the European Union? Which exclusion rules should be adopted and which rights and duties should such a citizenship confer?
EU citizenship, guaranteed for all people who are citizens of an EU Member State, entails certain rights, such as the rights of non-discrimination and free movement. One example: the Roma – migrating as EU citizens from an EU country – who settle in France must not be deported, whether people want to or not. The rights to non-discrimination and free movement have to be guaranteed in everyday life; they are not just ‘abstractly anchored’ somewhere. That’s why the EU Commission has to become active on this issue. It has to be clear that EU citizens are not foreigners. This also includes the urgent necessity to extend electoral rights for EU citizens residing on a long-term basis in a Member State of which they are not a national.
At present, EU citizenship only exists in addition to national citizenship. If one were to redefine this relationship, which obstacles would have to be overcome? Do you think the biggest obstacles lie with the national governments, the broader population or the absent European public?
Citizens define themselves primarily by their national citizenship, but at the same time see themselves as Europeans. This is not going to change in the near future. In order to allow for a stronger identification with Europe, the advantages of an EU citizenship have to be much more tangible in everyday life. That’s why I do not believe that the in near future people will be ready to say ‘I exchange my national citizenship for a European citizenship’.
With both the strong economic integration in Europe and the failure to adopt a constitutional treaty, some have begun to ask what purpose the EU should have and how integration should continue in the future. What is your vision of a Europe of citizens and a just Europe?
Europe needs social progress and equitable mobility. The single market has no broad acceptance without strong social measures and elements. It does not conform with our own conception of the European project that the single market becomes superior to everything else – as an end in itself. In the long run, Europe will not fail because national governments are not able to reach consensus on certain issues, but because of a drastic drop in public support. This is why it is very important to foster citizens’ participation and at the same time broaden communication on Europe. Such communication has to be comprehensible and needs to be linked to citizens’ everyday experiences. Debates about Europe must not only be held among the elite but also be extended more broadly on the national level. All organisations have to contribute to this development, even trade unions like us. At the same time the institutional set-up has to be changed. The European parliament has to become a ‘real’ parliament with rights and duties. Although we achieved some progress with the Treaty of Lisbon, this is not enough. In the upcoming years the European Parliament has to fulfill its role with self-awareness and needs to be further strengthened.
Tags: Interview