European Economic and Social Committee

How does the future of Europe affect me?

Friday 19May 2017, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Haus der Europäischen Union, Wipplingerstraße 35, 1010 Vienna

A summary of the points of view expressed in the debate in response to the EESC’s questions

  1. From your perspective, which of the five scenarios set out by the White Paper best meets the internal and external challenges facing the EU, and why?
  • The debate about the White Paper isn’t about more or less Europe, but rather which Europe.
  • Differing viewpoints – hybrid forms in between scenarios3, 4 and 5

Additions for individual policy areas:

Foreign and defence policy:

  • Border controls at EU internal borders are implemented as a result of inadequate security at the external borders and massively disrupt the internal market. Has effects on tourism and on craft industries which operate across borders.
  • Securing the external border is important, then we can guarantee social affairs internally.
  • The asylum question has thrown up problems. Measures to encourage people to stay in their country of origin rather than to move towards the EU are important.
  • A single-minded focus on defence and internal security must not be misused as a distraction tactic.

More Europe:

Divergent viewpoints:

  • Some consider Europeanisation in the budget or Eurobonds to be fundamentally worth supporting.
  • Others ask where the money will come from and who will profit.
  • The emergency lending institution is already a kind of European monetary fund.
  • The position of the Chamber of Agriculture has always been that other policy areas should follow the example of the CAP and be made communal.

Research and development

  • In research, joint development projects are possible (e.g. the Eurofighter). We are, however, far from communal research.

Investment

  • The EFSI (European Fund for Strategic Investment) has had a successful start.
  • Public investment is necessary but must also be paid back. The Member States have to keep their debt in mind as a result of the Maastricht criteria, which some see as too restrictive.

National competition

  • There is too much attention given to export and competition in the debate.
  • The displacement of industry is a problem.
  • One problem is that multinationals such as Amazon derive a competitive advantage from low wages in their logistics centres.
  • In agriculture there is strong competition owing to lower wages in neighbouring countries.
  • The EU has no competency over wages.

Agricultural policy:

  • Cultivators also care for the land and therefore make a significant contribution to, amongst others, the quality of food and tourism.
  • We have to move away from subsidy policies in agriculture.
  1. Would another scenario, not mentioned, be possible and preferable? If so why? How do you see trust and confidence being fostered within the Union?

Democracy:

  • Democracy is neglected in the White Paper, but the Member States have reservations about more democracy, as this would make decision-making in the Council more difficult.
  • The EU has never been more democratic, which can be seen in the example of social dialogue.
  1. Is more visibility of, and better communication on, the European Union required, and how?
  • Communicating with citizens about Europe is important, because people are disillusioned and don’t expect anything from Europe.
  • It is necessary to hold events across the Member States in order to discuss the EU with the populace and to combat prejudices.
  1. Are the policy areas referred to sufficiently comprehensive and illustrative? How would you rank them in a scale of importance? Is there a major policy area not mentioned or insufficiently highlighted? If so, which one and which of the five scenarios would best suit its development?

Economic orientation: (trade union viewpoint)

  • From the perspective of workers, this is too neoliberal, as has been shown during the crisis in the form of attacks on pensions and on the rights of unions. Moreover, at the moment, internal market freedoms are facing social questions (social dumping).
  • We need both supply-side and demand-side measures to stimulate the economy.

Social policy:

  • There is little in the White Paper about the social dimension, and still not enough in the reflection paper which has already been published.
  • From the perspective of workers, an imbalance between social rights and the free market dominates the EU.
  • In the economy, social policy must always be seen in context. Incomes generate demand and cannot just be seen as a cost.
  • Unemployment must be combated and the welfare state must be developed. The demographic transition poses a particular challenge to these needs.
  • Employers point to the high social benefits which need financing in the EU: the EU has 7 per cent of the world’s population and generates 20-25% of the global GDP, but pays out 50 per cent of the world’s welfare.
  • From an employer’s point of view, some of the Court of Justice’s judgements are unacceptable. For example, employers object to the principle of ‘the same pay for the same job at the same place’.

Tax policy:

  • EU tax law is an ‘enormous work in progress’ – tax competition is a massive problem, because the Member States use tax policy to strengthen their national interests.
  • Workers see unanimous decision-making in taxation as the main obstacle.
  • Many businesses (especially SMEs) complain about the low effective tax burden on transnationals (Amazon, etc.).
  • There is little motion in business taxes, but the BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Sharing) initiative is welcome.
  • Increasingly, those who are not mobile are carrying the tax burden. Rich top athletes, for example, face a low rate of taxation because they are mobile.

Institutional:

  • The EU lacks mechanisms for applying sanctions. Money is an effective mechanism for sanctions.
  • When European principles are violated, European grants should be removed.
  • Some participants took the view that the Commission should be reduced in size.
  • A lack of transparency prevails in the Council.

Trade:

  • From a worker’s perspective, trade agreements of the type there has been up until now pose a threat to social standards, especially investment protection clauses.
  1. Regarding ‘the way ahead’, how should debates on the future of Europe across national Parliaments, cities and regions be structured? What role should organised civil society play in the ‘way ahead’ and how?
  • Alliances between civil organisations are needed, and the EESC has an important role to play in that regard.
  1. What are your particular expectations as regards the outcome of the consultation?

This question was not answered.

  1. How can the role of citizens be more empowered in shaping the future of Europe?
  • The EU is a work in progress – its relationship to its citizens must be restored.
  • The complex legislative process has to be brought closer to citizens so that they understand where they can get involved.
  • In debates, we often find ourselves in a bubble, reproducing our own reality.

Institutional:

  • The European Parliament lacks a right of initiative.
  • The European Parliament is highly transparent; the Council, considerably less so.

Role of stakeholder organisations:

  • Business representatives and works councils must be taken to Brussels to see where they can get involved.
  • To become active regarding lobbying in Brussels.

Role of civil society:

  • We owe it to civil society to collect information.
  • The EU is present in many areas which people use. (e.g. Erasmus, euro). This should be communicated more clearly.

______

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Title / First name / Surname / Institution/Note
Mr / Franz / Bauer
Ms / Sarah / Bruckner / M.A.; Vienna Chamber of Labour, labour market and integration
Ms / Ye / Chen
Mr / Peter / Degischer
Mr / Karl G. / Doutlik
Ms / Vedrana / Dramac
Ms / Anna-Sophie / Ecker / M.A.I.S., M.Sc., B.Sc.; Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, Enterprise Europe Network
Mr / Marc / Fähndrich
Ms / Veronika / Gallé
Mr / Claes / Gernandt / Dkfm.
Ms / Claudia / Golser / BA, Makk., M.A.I.S., LL.M.; Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, economic policy unit
Mr / Maximilian / Gorke / M.A.; BMEIA, office of international law, European law division
Mr / Wolfgang / Greif
Mr / DIV / Grimm
Ms / Ulrike / Hassmann-Vorbach / Austrian Federal Economic Chamber
Ms / Margit Maria / Havlik / Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, EU coordination division
Mr / Alfred / Heidler / M.Eng.; KONE AG
Ms / Karin / Hoitsch
Mr / Herbert / Knauthe / Dr
Mr / Heinz / Kogler
Mr / Bernhard / Kühr
Mr / Jürgen / Lang / Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, legal policy department
Ms / Marika / Levena
Mr / Christian / Lovrinovic / M.A., Raiffeisen Zeitung, economy and Europe division
Mr / Nikolaus / Morawitz
Mr / Franz / Neunteufl
Ms / Gertrude / Oelmack / M.A.
Mr / Michael / Palfinger
Mr / Dušan / Pšeničnik / M.A.; Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia, Head of the economic department
Mr / Wolfgang / Riemer
Mr / Carlo / Ritzerow
Ms / Paule / Ritzerow
Mr / Oliver / Röpke
Mr / Clemens / Rosenmayr / M.Sc., M.Sc., B.Sc.; Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, department for the environment and energy policy
Ms / Jennifer / Saßmann
Mr / Helmut / Schramke
Ms / Yasmin / Soetopo / M.A., MES; Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, EU coordination unit
Ms / Katalin / Tóth / European Journalist Association
Ms / Celebic / Vukadinovic / Embassy of Montenegro, First Embassy Counsellor
Mr / Damir / Vusic
Mr / Karl-Heinz / Wanker / M.B.A., M.Sc.; Austrian Federal Economic Chamber, EU coordination unit
Mr / Valentin / Wedl
Mr / Peter / Weichselbaum
Mr / Benedikt / Weingartner
Ms / Dagmar / Weingärtner
Ms / Eveline / Wilfert / M.A.; Austrian Trade Union Federation, EU projects and project control
Mr / Manfred / Winkler / Dr
Mr / Jörg / Wojahn

PROGRAMME: ‘How does the future of Europe affect me?’

Date:Friday 19May 2017, 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.
(Entry and registration from 9.30)

Location: Haus der Europäischen Union, Wipplingerstraße 35, 1010 Vienna

Introduction by Oliver Röpke,Member of the EESC, and Jörg Wojahn, Representative of the European Commission in Austria.

Discussion of the future of Europe with experts at the podium:

  • Heinz Kogler (Head of division at the Enterprise Europe Network, Austrian Federal Economic Chamber)
  • Valentin Wedl (Head of the EU and international department, Vienna Works Council)
  • Nikolaus Morawitz (Head of the EU and international relations department, Austrian Agricultural Council)

Moderation: Marc Fähndrich, advisor for economic policy coordination and the European Semester at the European Commission

EESC-2017-02806-00-00-TCD-TRA (DE) translated and revised externally