» Download EUD Political Platform in PDF format HERE.

Political programme of the EU Democrats

The EU Democrats (EUD) is an alliance of national parties, movements and parliamentarians across Europe that believe decisions must be made as close to the citizens as possible. Our members and allies are against further centralization of power in Brussels and work for the devolution of power from the EU to national and regional parliaments.

Transparency, subsidiarity, democracy and diversity are the four main principles of the EUD - values that we all share. Consequently, EUD takes a strong stand against all forms of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.
The development of the European Union is a matter of great concern to us.
The European Union erodes European democracy in two ways: first, the ever-increasing transfer of power to Brussels widens the gap between citizens and the elites. This transfer makes it more difficult for citizens to control their governments. Secondly, the treaties of the European Union are written to widen the power of Brussels and big corporations at the expense of decision making in democratically elected bodies.
The EUD believes that decisions regarding the balance of power between market and democratically elected institutions should be decided in national parliaments according to results from national elections, and not by treaties interpreted by a small number of judges in the European Court in Luxemburg. This is a fundamental, undemocratic flaw in the basic construction of the Union.

The EUD consists of members, movements and member parties from a broad political and regional spectrum, from Scandinavia to the Balkans and the Iberian Peninsula. Our members have the necessary integrity to say: Stop! The European Union is heading in the wrong direction with its ever-increasing centralisation of power in Brussels. The EUD strategy is to unite critical forces that embrace our ideological foundation in a political struggle against the federalization of Europe.

On the whole, the three big political families (Christian Democrats, Socialists and Liberals) share a federalist agenda that controls the European Parliament. They are silent, however, about their long term goal of creating a United States of Europe. They know that such a development has no support among the citizens of the European states.

The daily work of the EU Democrats involves the following activities:

• Arguing in favour of political independence for the member states and their nationally elected institutions.
• Monitoring the implementation of the EU Constitutional Treaty (the Lisbon Treaty) in the European Union and highlighting its problems in relation to the political independence of the member states.
• Working against new initiatives from the European institutions aiming at controlling more policy areas.
• Working against the development of a European Union Foreign Service that will undermine the member states foreign, security and defence policy.
• Working against the expansion of the euro zone. The EUD believes that a common currency for Europe is harmful, both from a democratic and an economic point of view. Viewed the economic development since the introduction of the euro, our position has proven to be correct.
• Working for transparency and reforms aimed at total openness in all EU institutions.

Our vision about future cooperation in Europe:
Our common goal is to diminish the power of EU institutions and to create a Europe with peaceful cooperation amongst sovereign States. Within this overall strategy, there are many alternative specific approaches:

1. For some members, the above described goal can only be achieved if their countries leave the European Union.
2. Other members would prefer to change the present European Union into something similar to the European Free Trade Association.
3. Yet others might have the opinion that the European Union is not only a common market but also an opportunity to cooperate in other fields such as environmental policy.
The EU Democrats find no contradictions between critical movements and "withdrawalists" since we all agree on a fundamental issue in present day politics: To stop the development of the United States of Europe! We must work together to stop the erosion of democracy, improve transparency, openness and national sovereignty.

Our future tasks

The EUD has a role to play in the politics of Europe:
We have developed information campaigns on the Lisbon Treaty in the first and second referendums and we will continue with our campaigns in the coming referendums on the EURO in Sweden and Denmark, as well as the Edinburgh agreement.
We also believe that Icelandic voters are in need of EU information in the event a referendum takes place. Providing information in Iceland is one our top priorities in 2010.
Furthermore, EU critical political forces around Europe need a contact in Brussels that can provide actual information on EU affairs.
The failure of the euro is an essential subject on which we can provide information, especially in countries such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland and Estonia.
The EUD must also fight for the rule of transparency within the EU institutions. Transparency, for example, in the disclosure of information must be the rule, not the exception, and it should also be applied to the EU budget.
The EU Democrats have the network and the necessary expertise to get the job done.

Is there any other alternative?

Let’s face it, even if the no-side won some battles (Nice, Constitution and Lisbon), the elites have managed to approve and ratify all treaties. We must join forces NOW in order to save democracy!

» INTRODUCTION

Since the inception of European unification shortly after WWII, political action has been taken from the top downward without the people's full awareness of the extent of power transfer that has occurred in the process. In parallel, rather than allowing for a clear debate over European integration, a new political lexicon has been developed that has distorted the reality behind the unification process. This state of affairs has prevented the people's debate from distinguishing between:

• several interstate and confederal alternatives of cooperation that are governed only by treaties, and on the other hand,
• a supranational federation that develops into a centralised unitary state with a governing central authority over which the citizens have no control

Thus, treaty after treaty, starting with the economic federalisation of the internal market and the Euro zone, European unification is passing through a process of supranational federalisation in the direction of a centralised unitary State.

In the foreground of this distorted debate on the future of the European Union, the politics of the right and the left interacting at a European level are drowning out the democratic voices of the citizens' parliaments and assemblies within the European Union - voices that should truly reflect the localised realities of the peoples' lives.

We want to stop this erosion of democracy in Europe. We want a new agenda to be set: a Citizens' Agenda. We want to establish a genuinely democratic form of cooperation within Europe - a cooperation where it is the citizens' agendas that matter.

We will work towards these aims to achieve the highest degree of Democracy at all levels, keeping in mind that every decision should be taken as close as possible to the citizens it would affect.

» OUR BELIEFS

In today's politicised European Union there is a tendency to centralise decision-making. This is a harmful tendency because it means that we as individuals are losing the capacity to control our own lives.

With more governing powers moving towards the centre, the diverse communities in the Union are gradually losing their say over matters that affect citizens' lives. The current development of European unification has now become a serious threat not only to democracy, but also to flexibility, efficiency and social creativity as the system is evolving into a bureaucratic colossus.

Corrupt and inefficient institutions can only lead to an erosion of democracy and a decline in the political legitimacy of the EU. Corruption also has a tendency to cause bureaucracies to centralise all forms of political life.

We believe that the peoples of the European Union must be safeguarded in the face of this undemocratic process. This is primarily done by not allowing the Union's central authority the power to govern the member states and regions, collectively or individually. The member countries should be governed by their elected representatives, while the governments they form are already bound by the EU treaties. There is, therefore, no need for supranational political governance.

We believe that decisions are best taken close to the citizens. We enter the political struggle for the 'future of Europe' with the intention of preventing the continual displacement of power from our parliamentary democracies to the central authority of the Union.

» OUR VISION

Our vision of European cooperation is based on the principles of real subsidiarity and flexible integration within an interstate and intergovernmental framework.

By real subsidiarity we understand that political decisions should always be taken at the lowest possible level at which effective decision-making can occur. This might seem like an obvious expression of common sense, and almost all political groups express their commitment to this principle.

However, in reality subsidiarity works differently in the EU. New areas of competence are continually added to the EU agenda, transferring more power to the central authority in Brussels, without asking the peoples in member states and regions.

Flexible integration means that countries with shared interests in a given area can agree to organise themselves for a particular purpose. This means that for such specific forms of cooperation to materialise, there is no need to implement them on the whole EU framework.

The EU can act as an essential instrument, a means towards cooperation between all its member states, but this should only be when a particular form of cooperation is relevant to all members. There is no need to make the EU the locus of all intra-European cooperation. If an issue is already handled in a different forum, such as the Council of Europe, or if it only affects some of the member countries, then it does not need to become a collective EU issue.

» THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY

The so-called 'Principle of Subsidiarity' has never worked properly in the EU.

The true meaning of subsidiarity - decision-making occurring at the lowest possible level - is not even clearly captured in the definition found in EU Treaties.

The reality has in fact been the complete opposite of subsidiarity - a process of centralisation. Today it is largely the EU system, and in particular the EU Commission, that decides what should be left to the individual countries to decide. From the perspective of the Union's central authorities, the Union does it better than the member states all the time.

The rejected EU Constitution, which further distorted the meaning of subsidiarity, had indeed proposed that the member states' parliaments needed only to be informed of the legislative proposals of the Commission, and although member countries would have had six weeks to make objections, the Commission would not have been under any obligation to recognise these objections.

This is neither subsidiarity nor democracy.

Today, more and more decisions are being taken by EU officials far away from the citizens. The limited influence of a few politicians in the European Parliament is not enough to make this process democratic.

The momentum of this centralising process seems to be unstoppable and self-propelling, even after the rejection of the proposed EU Constitution by the people of France and the Netherlands. Indeed, the Union today already possesses enough elements of power to enable it to self-empower - most notably by means of the principle of primacy of EU law, as well as the European Court of Justice, which has regularly transferred power to the Union even when unanimous consent is required by member states.

Thus, the Union already has a political life of its own, and the direction it is taking depends very little on what the citizens say. Subsidiarity has become a remnant of the past, and it is not being given a chance for the future.

The Principle of Subsidiarity must be taken seriously. Instead of today's political 'black hole' we want to see a form of European cooperation that only deals with truly cross-border issues - problems that the member countries agree democratically they cannot handle efficiently on their own. They should also not be problems of such a universal character that they are best dealt with at a global level, such as by the United Nations and other global bodies. It should be up to the individual countries to decide at which level decisions should be made. Problems that are best solved at the member state or regional level should never be dictated by the Union's central authorities through EU laws.

We want to take the Principle of Subsidiarity literally. This means that we seek a European cooperation framework that limits itself to administering and safeguarding the internal market - the four freedoms of movement - as well as the environment of the member states; we do not want government of the member countries and regions by the central institutions of the Union.

We therefore accept agreed levels of harmonised legislation on cross-border issues, in particular with regard to issues of trade and the environment. But we are clear in our demand that, to the extent of harmonisation agreed upon, the responsibility for legislation lies with the peoples' parliaments and assemblies in member states.

» A EUROPE OF DIVERSITY AND FLEXIBILITY

Diversity is, in itself, a source of political, cultural and material wealth within the EU, yet without flexibility, it cannot survive. The one-size-fits-all principle is the nemesis of diversity and leads to a deadening homogeneity and uniformity.

In this context, we believe the main objective of the EU should be to ensure an efficient internal market where the "four freedoms of movement" allow for social cohesion to evolve organically, while at the same time allowing for flexibility and differences to sustain each state and region. In other words, the "four freedoms" would be governed by the individual member states to the extent agreed upon through treaties- the internal market should not be governed by the EU central authorities.

The EU should not try to force through policy areas that are not suitable at the European level. These areas principally include military cooperation outside the sphere of the UN or similar organisations, the single currency, the criminal justice system, as well as the harmonisation of education, health and cultural policies.

If countries wish to cooperate in these areas they should be allowed to do so, but this would by no means imply that others should be forced to participate against their will. Moreover, the cooperating countries should never be permitted to utilise the EU's name and institutions for such purposes without the consent of all member states. The EU's name and institutions belong to all the member states and any usurpation would result in nothing but the "hijacking" of the centre, which is what "enhanced cooperation" and "structured cooperation" effectively cause. A two-tier EU with a central core that dominates the outer zone is not cooperation, but domination and coercion.

A flexible form of European cooperation, where it is possible for a country to participate in selected areas of cooperation while not participating in others, would also help us to distance ourselves from the formation of a unitary EU State, which is only the next step from a supranational federation.

This type of flexible, interstate and intergovernmental European Union would shift the focus of EU development towards a more open and democratic form of European cooperation among free states.

» CRIMINAL JUSTICE

The voluntary harmonisation of national criminal justice systems in the EU is one thing; the creation of a single EU criminal justice system is quite a different matter.

Harmonisation and standardisation, to the extent necessary, are essential in the pursuit of cross-border criminality. But we believe that policing and criminal justice affairs are best handled by the national and local authorities, just as terrorist-bombing investigations are best tackled by the enforcement agencies that best know their own localities.

Europol should never become a federal police force, but strictly a coordinating centre. Likewise, a European prosecution authority is not required once warrants of arrest are coordinated among various enforcement agencies, with standardised legal procedures and channels established for cross-border crimes.

In the pursuit of security and the prevention of cross-border crime, such as terrorism and organised trans-national crime, the EU central authority should act as a harmonising element and a liaison agency that facilitates cooperation between various police forces acting under similar laws and harmonised legal and intelligence-sharing procedures.

Given that European standards of civil liberties and human rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, the enactment and enforcement of criminal legislation, together with civil codes, should remain under the democratic control of the parliaments and assemblies in each individual member state and region.

It is when the people lose their democratic control over their criminal and civil codes, that they lose the safeguards for their civil liberties and social well being. Supranational police and prosecution forces are a serious threat to the civil liberties of the citizens of member states and regions.

The EUDemocrats will oppose the construction of a "Fortress Europe" with a supranationally controlled border under a supranational criminal justice system. Such a monolith does nothing for the people to live in peace, liberty and prosperity, especially when the perceived benefits of such EU supranationalism are obtainable through a cooperative framework of free states sharing a single market.

» FOREIGN, SECURITY AND DEFENCE POLICY

We reject the creation of a European army. This is an example of an issue to which the principle of flexible integration can be applied.

It is not proper to force a military cooperation framework across the whole of the EU, especially since countries have joined the EU for totally different reasons. This leads to tension and conflict between the member states. Moreover, EU legitimacy and support are bound to decline in those countries where the people are opposed to certain military expeditions. In addition to possibly acting in defence of member states, a European military force and a common European voice could also wage wars and bring devastation on the peoples' lives.

A voluntary alliance of member states that wish to cooperate in building up a defence system is a different matter. If some EU countries want to cooperate militarily in organisations such as NATO, they should do so outside the institutions of the EU. This would allow the possibility for each member state to pursue its own role in order to strive for peace with neighbouring or faraway countries for the benefit of themselves and the whole Union. It would allow for neutral countries to contribute towards EU-World relations.

» TRANSPARENCY AND FINANCIAL CONTROL

By right, the EU belongs to the citizens and not to the functionaries in the EU institutions. In order to ensure that the democratic will of the citizens is safeguarded, the workings of the central authorities need to be under continuous scrutiny.

We will work for an improved right-of-access principle to be applied to all EU institutions, thereby creating the transparency that is clearly needed in order to sustain democratic control over the system.

The massive number of fraud cases across the Union indicates a serious flaw in the present EU system. The numerous systems of subsidies encourage fraud and embezzlement. By limiting the areas under EU control, there would not only be more subsidiarity, but also fewer opportunities for fraud.

» SPECIFIC CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR A BETTER, MORE DEMOCRATIC AND MORE FLEXIBLE EU

In the immediate political context, we support the following seven proposals in the European Parliament for a better European cooperation framework:

1. A Cooperation agreement instead of a constitution: The proposed EU Constitution is dead. Instead of a complicated constitution or the Nice Treaty with specific primacy over the member states' constitutions, we want a cooperation agreement (of around 50 articles comprising more than 20 pages). Countries that do not wish to join the cooperation agreement should be able to choose a free trade agreement instead. The European Council should establish a working group consisting of equal numbers of supporters and opponents of the Constitution in order to propose a set of rules flexible enough to unite Europe and not divide it, as has happened with the proposed constitution.
2. Openness and transparency should be the main rule: Openness and full access to documents should be the general rule. Any exceptions should require 75 % support to permit them. The Ombudsman, the Court of Auditors and the EU Parliament should be able to control all EU expenditures.
3. Commissioners should be elected and be subject to dismissal: The commissioners should be elected by and accountable to the citizens in every country. Every member state should elect its own commissioner and hold him/her responsible for the way they vote in the Commission. The administration of the European portfolio should be controlled by the EU Parliament, the Council of Ministers, the Ombudsman, the Court of Auditors and the EU Court.
4. Seventy five percent majority in the Council with the right to veto: EU laws should be adopted either unanimously or by a 75% majority of the member states, representing 50% of the EU's population and an ordinary majority in the EU Parliament. There should be the opportunity to veto when a national Parliament votes against a proposal for an EU law and requests the head of state or government to bring up the matter at the next summit meeting.
5. Subsidiarity principle must be controlled from the bottom upwards: The subsidiarity principle should be controlled by the national parliaments and regional assemblies. The existing 100,000 pages of EU legislation should be critically revised. Much of this legislation should be eliminated or returned to the jurisdiction of the member states.
6. Greater flexibility and minimum conditions: EU laws should be approved as a common set of minimum standards giving the member states more flexibility and opening the possibility of having a higher level of protection of security, health, environment, working conditions, social conditions and consumer protection at national or regional level.
7. Enhanced cooperation instead of compulsory union: Foreign and security policy, the euro cooperation and the rules of law should not be an obligatory part of the supranational cooperation but should be open to transfer to an enhanced cooperation that is desired by the individual countries. Defence should be completely separated from the Union. Any enhanced cooperation should not usurp the name or the institutions of the European Union unless all 25 member states consent to such a development.

Adopted by the Founding Members in Brussels on 8 November 2005.

 

Amended and approved by the First Congress on 24 February 2006.