Swish money to the EU-budget

Opinions about existence of ”EU-taxes” are not new but are still regarded as very controversial and undesirable. Partly this is due the lack of popular support among the citizens of the union. Partly because EU-level taxation is impossible to implement with the current institutional framework and would demand treaty changes. The European Commission does not have the right to exercise the same function as national taxation agencies. 

One of the arguments in favor of taxation at EU-level is relating to the current framework for the EU-budget. With the current system the EU-member states are being divided into “net givers” and “net takers”. The budget related negotiations can take up to 1 year despite the budget being based on only 1% of EU-28 GDP. This leads to two major issues, one at the national levels and one at the EU-level. 

 The current budget system affects the national level politics in the sense where many political actors, such as political parties and citizens, in wealthier member states as Germany or Sweden will demand reduction of the net contribution. The scenarios in the socioeconomically compared weaker member states as Bulgaria or Slovakia are usually the opposite ones in the sense of political actors demanding from the governments to maximize the usage of funding provided from the EU-level. 

Another major issue is the long time budget negotiation process between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The net giver and net taker national governments will perform their intergovernmental process meaning that long negotiation periods also mean higher administrative costs. Therefore the idea of EU-level taxation is about providing the Commission with the right to be able to collect the funding for the EU-budget on its own. 

Does it mean that Commission should have the right to impose taxation on individual citizens? One answer on the future scenario is no. The small size of the EU-budget , keeping in mind that 99% of the EU-28 GDP is spent by national governments, would mean that EU-level taxation can be imposed on other aspects. For example such as CO2 taxation for pollution or corporate taxation such as for large companies as Apple.

 The recent legislative scandal regarding Apple shows why EU instead of the policy of tax harmonization between the state governments could have its own tax policy. Another reason is that global and regional business actors which can afford competent lawyers can use loopholes based on coordination of 28 national legislations. Let us say that EU could have its own corporate tax at 5-10% regardless if the business actors is operating in Spain or Bulgaria. 

 However, I want to put a question if there is any alternative to taxation at the EU-level. My answers is yes and it would be based on voluntary taxation at the individual-citizen level. By using for example the Swish app one would be in the position to contribute with money to the EU-budget. By establishing such a digital platform individuals would be able to provide their own contributions. Those who are not wishing to contribute would not be forced to do that but those who wish to contribute would achieve the right to perform that. 

This approach could also lead to reduction of what is called “democratic deficit” and increased results regarding social trust and relations between the citizens and EU-institutions.  One possible reason could be that EU-institutions as Commission and its agencies would be forced to be more transparent and careful with how the money is being spent within the multi-level governance system. 

Today the EU is still a union based on a kind of social contract between the states/governments in the first place and not between the citizens and EU-institutions. By being able to make private contributions to the EU-budget a kind of voluntary social contract between the citizens and the institutions could be achieved. This could also make the union more democratic and legitimate as well as more fiscally stronger by providing additional funding for the budget. 

Liberal support for basic income policy

The idea of basic income has a long history. During the last decades it has transformed from a theoretical approach, being followed by an academic debate, to the practical implementation. In Switzerland a referendum recently took place where citizens voted about the issue concerning the government providing every citizen a guaranteed citizen salary. The proposal was later rejected by a large marginal, namely around 74% voted against. At the same time the referendum showed that more than 100 000 citizens in Switzerland declared themselves as positive towards the basic income issue. However, despite the relevant terms as basic income, citizen income or citizen salary there is a significant difference within the debate itself. 

The ongoing debate and the supporters of the basic income policy can be divided into three main categories: the economic-liberal, the welfare supporters and the economic-growth critics. In its original the idea of the basic income, such as argued by academic Phillipe van Parijs, should be provided to each individual and citizen within the society. In practice it means that a basic income should, by the state government, be given for example both a businessmen who earns several millions euros per year as well as to a low-income job seeker. One of the most prominent specifics of the basic income idea is that it has a broader support within the ideological sphere since political thinkers from left to right, from freedom to authoritarian side, have been supporting the idea. 

The economic-liberal side of the debate has different political ambition, based on two main arguments. The first one is to reduce the overall size and expenditure of the welfare state by cutting down the size of bureaucracy and it costs. The second is to make the welfare state gentler and less paternalistic towards the individual. For example it should reduce the infringement of individual’s personal integrity. The debate participants argue for giving individual more personal freedom to choose how to spend the basic income. The argument is that individual knows better how the basic income can be used for one’s own personal success, welfare and future perspectives. Therefore from the economic-liberal side of the debate the general idea is that basic income should be provided by a more limited distribution of welfare. For example by providing basic income only for those who are outside of the labor market or who lack other kind of sufficient income. Also there can be an age limit such as providing basic income only for individuals in the age span of 19 – 65 years. 

Historically seen the idea of basic income has had its supporters among liberal thinkers. One prominent thinker who supported the idea of such income was Friedrich Hayek. As a classical liberal he was against existence of the welfare state. However he argued that an individual should be guaranteed a basic income if for example being left out from the labor market. For Hayek the main assignment of the basic income was to deal with and correct the”imperfections” of the free market economy. According to Hayek the basic income could function as a protective floor to hinder the individual from falling down into poverty. For him this was a preferable method for making things right in the free market economy where the government could provide support for the individual in a difficult socio-economic situation.  A classical liberal argument can therefore be presented in short as the argument that every individual member of the society should be guaranteed a freedom from poverty.

Similar ideas as Hayek's are proposed by Matt Zwolinski, a bleeding-heart libertarian and philosophy professor in USA.  He argues that a basic income would be an effective way to reduce the spending and the size of the federal government's welfare, by cutting down the administration and giving money directly to individuals. Also he means that basic income is compatible with original thoughts of the classical liberalism, meaning that the tax-funded basic social protection can be provided. Zwolinski’s argument is that society's morals, rules and rights should be available to be exercised by everybody in the society as much as possible. A society based on free but complex social and economic interactions between individuals also leads to specific problems. By having citizens who are stressed and dissatisfied because of the issues as poverty, social exclusion and lack of confidence the free and democratic society gets challenged by having the members not being able  or willing to practice the morals, rules and rights of the society. The basic income can therefore ensure that a free and democratic society can function better since its imperfections can be corrected. 

Another support for the economic-liberal basic income policy are original ideas of liberal economist Milton Friedman regarding the negative income tax (NIT). The main idea is that a person without income or earning much less than the average salary would be able to receive payments in form of subsidies from the taxation agency based on the scale the person`s income gets under the tax threshold. In contrast to the progressive taxation, the NIT is also part of the method where overall taxation would be lower and managed with different percentage depending on the size of the taxpayer’s income. Friedman's vision was that this would be a kind of win-win situation where the welfare state and its spending are being reduced while individual is more stimulated to take a low-paid jobs as well as getting protected from poverty. 

Finally there are also more social-liberal arguments for basic income based on the positive rights. Civil rights activist Martin Luther King also advocated that a basic income should be given to every citizen, human and families in the USA. He argued that it was easier to erase poverty than to deal with its roots. Interesting fact is that president Richard Nixon was also in favor of basic income policy which was called the family assistance plan and inspired by Friedman's approach. For Martin Luther King the basic income was a way for empowering the civil rights movement and also of reshaping the society into becoming more civic. 

In Europe historically seen the idea of the welfare state was from the beginning a conservative idea which can be traced to Bismarck's Germany during the later period of 19-th century. By for example providing guaranteed pensions and free schooling for all citizens it was a method of maintaining the stability in the society. Many conservative politicians at the time were for example worried about the class-based struggle and protesting actions among the growing working class. Today the idea of having larger or smaller welfare states is widely spread across the union, including the different models being implemented such as the Nordic and the continental model. For most of the citizens welfare is not a question of having or not having but a question about what kind of the welfare policy should be exercised.

The current basic income experiments in Finland at the national level and in Netherlands at the local level were mostly initiated by parties belonging to Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. One influential condition that this was made possible is that both Finland and Netherlands have a long history of welfare redistribution polices as well as enough resources. The basic income idea has therefore a lot of potential to become a modern welfare approach in future within the EU in order to have a more human centric welfare policy rather than older versions of paternalistic and integrity infringing welfare states.

BIEN. Phillipe van Parijs, ”Basic Income and Social Democracy”. Published: 2016-05-03. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: http://www.basicincome.org/news/2016/05/philippe-van-parijs-basic-income-and-social-democracy/

BBC. Switzerland’s voters reject basic income plan. Published: 2016-06-05. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36454060

Boundless.com. History of the Welfare State. Published: Unknown. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/social-policy-17/the-welfare-state-105/history-of-the-welfare-state-558-6935/

Cato Unbound. The Pragmatic Libertarian Case for a Basic Income Guarantee. Published: 2014-08-04. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee

Investopedia. Negative Income Tax – NIT. Published: Unknown. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negativeincometax.asp

Libertarianism.org . Why Did Hayek Support a Basic Income? Published: 2013-12-23. Downloaded: 2016-07-12. Website: http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income

The Atlantic. Martin Luther King’s Economic Dream: A Guaranteed Income for All Americans. Published: 2013-08-23. Downloaded: 2016-07-12.  Website: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/08/martin-luther-kings-economic-dream-a-guaranteed-income-for-all-americans/279147/

The blog has moved , visit the new blogsite

This blog has been reshaped. In order to follow it please click on the following link to the EurActive website. 

"November, Dayton and Europe"

"Never before in Europe have so many people been linked together by so many ties and interdependencies. And yet, the more European countries become similar to one another in economic and technical terms, the more it's inhabitants feel endangered as far as their cultural identity is concerned, and want to be different from others."

The above text was written by academic Urs Altermatt and published in the EuroDialogue magazine in the beginning of 1997. Altermatt based much of his opinions and scientific proofs about nationalism, identity and intolerance on what happened during the wars in Ex-Yugoslavia. He presented the destruction and siege of Sarajevo as a case that was not isolated or new in Europe's history filled with tensions and hatred based on extreme nationalism.

While the European Community politicians were preparing for the implementation of the internal market and further integration of Europe many politicians in Yugoslavia did the opposite. Instead of integration they openly or closely propagated for disintegration. During the time of economic and political hardships they promoted myths,intolerance and fear. Also many expressed their anti-European stands. Croatian nationalist leader Franjo Tudjman considered European Union, just as Yugoslavia, to be a "liberal experiment" doomed to fail and something Croatia should not be a part of. In Serbia during the regime of Slobodan Milosevic being labeled as "European" was equally to be labeled as traitor or spy. Such politicians promised to their voters that better future and quality of life only could be found behind the national boarders.

Altermatts words can be regarded as much up-to-date for today's situation in the EU. The economic, social and institutional crisis since the 2008 have contributed to rise of nationalism, racism, anti-democratic and other intolerant attitudes which grew fast in combination with unemployment, social dissatisfaction and uncertainty for the future. This has also resulted in lower support for further integration and union-building. Many responses towards the crisis have often been based on promoting national ideas and pride. “Orbanism” in Hungary and right- or left-wing populism as in Greece or United Kingdom are clear examples.

The situation within the union is not easy at the moment being challenged by the unemployment, lack of growth, Russia's aggression against Ukraine, migration crisis, Brexit, etc. Integration of Western Balkans is another issue where the European institutions are struggling. Among the biggest challenges is Bosnia and Herzegovina, a state which for many functions as "three states in one".

It has been 20 years since Dayton agreement was signed and today many would say that Dayton stopped the war in the trenches but the war is still going on, in politics and without blood. For many citizens in Bosnia the membership in the union is seen as a possibility and potential to improve things within the the society, everything from economy and finances to institutional framework, regional peace and education.

Despite being a democratic society the system in BiH is still mainly based and functioning across the ethnic lines. The country is affected by problems such as corruption in politics, lack of federal power structure and lack of civic society. For BiH there is much to learn from Europe when it comes to organizing democratic society based on individuals rights and freedoms, rule of law and interdependent institutions. At the same time I want to argue that for Europe there are some things to learn from BiH and Ex-Yugoslavia.

November is also a month when the last Yugoslav prime minister Ante Markovic died in 2011. In the time of crisis Markovic was ambitious into transforming Yugoslavia into a democratic society and market economy. During his reform period he was supported by the Bush administration and Delores commission. However his actions was sabotaged by nationalistic elites in the republics, especially in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia who did not wanted reforms for having a more open, inclusive and free society.

Markovics conclusion was that improving economy was not enough to reform and preserve Yugoslavia. He realized that democratic transformation was about shaping democracy based on multi-level governance from the federal- to local level. The political movement started by him , the liberal reform alliance , aimed for gathering support based on civic and not nationalistic rhetoric. Despite the electoral defeat and also the collapse of the state he managed to prove that it was possible to influence politics by gaining support from individuals who in the first place did not cared about their ethnic or national identities but about the civic based ideology.

Many reforms are needed if our union is going to be able to function and get improved in the future. However it is not only about the further integration of the single market and the "renatioanlziation" as David Cameron is advocating. There is a need for more developed European democracy when it comes to demos, citizenship and identity. Instead of a union where people are influencing power as Swedes, Latvians or Greeks, especially when it comes to decision-making within Council of ministers, there is a need an union where individuals can influence power as citizens.

BiH is a clear example of how fear, myths and hat can create divisions and distrust between people who often have more in common that is usually thought. That is why the European Union needs to transform into a union of citizens, for citizens and by the citizens. Also it is important to make it easier for individual to understand, legitimize and influence political power. And as Altermatt wrote in 1997 "in the sphere of economy and consumption, Europeans are adaptable in regard to one another, whereas in the area of culture there exists a peculiar type of rebellion against globalism.Citizens of different countries, afraid of losing their identity, isolate themselves from each other".

Improving the economy in the union is not going to be enough for the future. The real issues is about giving EU-citizens a sense of community and belonging in world's only supranational democracy. After 20 years of globalization and europeanization many challenges are supranational for the whole union and need to be addressed at the EU-level. As long the EU-citizens are limited to influence and legitimize political power at the union level it is going to make things harder for the union to function in the globalized world that we are living in.

In order to solve the migration crisis there is a need for a more democratic, responsible and inclusive Union

Within the Union there is much political resistance at the national level when it comes to accepting asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons for humanitarian reasons. Much of the resistance is based on fear that outcome will be improved support for the nationalistic, populist and even racist parties. Among the other main reasons is the lack of political and institutional experience in several member states. Regarding the ”United in Diversity” principle, when it comes to values, experiences and mentality, there are differences. Sweden and Germany have a several decade long history of dealing with humanitarian migration while Poland or Estonia have little or almost none experience at all.

Since “the migration challenge” is global, there is a need for a future more effective and influential decision-making process at the EU-level. The Union must be able to stand for and act in accordance with the required values such as basic human rights, in order to function in a global world. Within the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe we have for a long time advocated a common and central migration system which could replace the current Dublin system. A reform is necessary as Mediterranean is after all the Union’s southern border as well as the need to act in the spirit of the UN. The UN migration experts have after all requested from the EU to help to solve the migration crisis by accepting about 1 million refugees during the years to come.

Today the majority of the EU-citizens are primarily claiming responsibility among the national politicians and institutions regarding migration. In order to really be able to solve the crisis there is a need for the more voices to reach Brussels. For that reason ALDE has worked out the following proposals:

1.    Replacement of the Dublin system with a common EU-system by establishing The European Asylum Support Office. Economic resources should be distributed from EU-level to national level regarding the administration processes for integration. This would also lead to the creation of legal ways to the Union for those who are justified to search asylum or refugee status.

2.    More effective implementation of a “EU-blue card” similar to USA`s green card. Primarily for highly educated migrants and qualified workers who will shortly after arrival be able to join the labour market.

3.    To provide more resources for Frontex in order to conduct more effective search and rescue operations and actions against the human smugglers.

This kind of system would make the EU as a political union more effective in the area of migration policy since allocation would mean a more fair distribution between the member states regarding responsibility, sovereignty and humanitarian solidarity. However, in order for the system to work there is a bigger need for achieving democratic legitimacy. The EU-citizens should have the possibilities to be more politically aware and also have a greater influence on migration politics at EU-level. 

At times of political and socioeconomic crisis across the Union it is obvious that national institutions are not performing effective when it comes to resolving the migration challenges. A common system would lead to interplay between national and EU-institutions. The integration of new-coming individuals to the Union should be based on values that newcomers are able to establish themselves. The risk is otherwise that EU-citizens would be isolated from the supranational challenges. A clear and absurd example is the decision made by the government of Hungary regarding the establishment of the border fence and public billboards written on Hungarian that migrants should not take ”jobs from Hungarians”.

With a more common policy the Union could be a contributor to a better world regarding supranational challenges and among the best actors regarding humanitarian migration. The way to achieve that is making migration polices less national and more about interplay with the EU-level of decision-making. This would be vital for the future changes for the Union such as the ageing population and in order to enhance the values for the EU-citizenship by creating more including, open and tolerant societies. Those who today flee from violent, tragic and horrible circumstances seeking shelter in Europe should be able to become full citizens of the Union with the rights, freedoms and responsibilities shared by the other EU-citizens, so they can contribute to a better and common future of the Union. 

Liberal Fight for LGBT Rights - Personal Views

The fight for a more equal and fair society is not over until the homophobia has ended up at the dustbin of history. It is sadly but true that in today’s world individuals are still being prosecuted, murdered and jailed for being what they are since the birth. Being a LGBT person is still not considered as a fact and a common sense even within the modern societies. Even if it should be widely known that not being heterosexual does not mean that one is sick or has some type of damage. In many parts of the world many people are still relaying on myths Instead of relying on science and reason.

Somebody said that homophobia is a choice but homosexuality is not. For many individuals the myths about LGBT persons being sick, perverted or crazy can be satisfying. It can give someone more simplified and easier way to understand the world around oneself. Or better said the myths can provide one with the chance (risk) to not understand the world around oneself and to make mistakes. For other individuals the myths can be devastating. One can end up being harmed, killed or behind bars because somebody else has an unrealistic, unscientific and irrational understanding of the human reality.

The roots of homophobic myths are not only found in rreligious books or on the Internet. Or in what is being said at the dinner table between parents and children or among the football hooligans on stadiums. The roots of today’s homophobia have much to do with the politics. The answer for making the society less homophobic and more useful for the individual is by changing the political rhetoric.

Globally seen the good news is that since a couple of years ago even the UN has started to promote a message on equal rights for LGBT and non-LGBT population. But in many states around the world such as Uganda and Russian Federation the homophobic rhetoric from the political stage is sending wrong and in many cases dreadful signals to the public. Political values are after all affecting the hearts and minds of the citizens. It is iimportant to aspire for wiping out the homophobic rhetoric that is being used by politicians.

Within the EU there are still political parties, even in governments, that either are openly homophobic or do not completely recognize the needs for more LGBT-related human rights. Developments like these are not benefiting the individual. Also EU is not being as tolerant, modern and open as many of its citizens would like it to be. Despite that today being LGBT in the EU is easier than 20 or 30 years ago the fight is still continuing.

Thankfully in many member states around the EU there are laws which are guaranteeing strong rights for the LGBT population and there are societies where the tolerant, modern and humanist values are well represented. And despite achievements it still important to organize manifestations such as the pride parades and to campaign for the rights of the LGBT population. Even if one can hear comments such as ”why do they need to be special” or ”why do they need to make the parades”. The answer should not be simple, it rather should be more developed. For me both the parades and legislation regarding LGBT population is going to be needed until their function is not needed anymore. The ideal should be that is worth fighting for a society where the pride parades are would not be necessary since the full equality would be ensured.

The fight for a more fair society is even important not only for the individuals but also for the families. Today many family across the EU are finding it difficult to be accepted as the members of the society since the family is consisting of two fathers or two mothers. There is much talk about the right or wrong sexual orientation. But is it an orientation at all? Is even the word orientation the right term in this context? In my opinion it is not. Being heterosexual, homosexual, transsexual and intersexual is not the orientation. It is not even about the choice. It is just about being natural and human.

On other side homophobia is a choice. Some individuals are not able to control hate or anger due psychological or biological reasons. But most of us are able to make a choice. To hate or fear somebody and basing it on ignorance, myths or lies instead of knowledge, rationality and inclusiveness is after all a choice. For that reason in order to fight against homophobia from a liberal perspective, the message should be provided what is choice and what is not a choice in a fight for a society that includes more equality, tolerance and individualism.  

From Dayton to Brussel – Only the post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina can be an European member state

The EU: s decision to approve Bosnia and Herzegovina to sign the pact for Stability and Association is a step in the right direction. However, without changes in the Bosnian state administration the future membership in the EU is completely unrealistic. In order to join the EU there is need for Bosnia and Herzegovina to first achieve the stability and association within its own borders.

Already during the begging of 2000's there was a lot of political rhetoric regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina becoming member of EU by the half of 2010. This includes the periods after the war and before the latest crisis within the EU. The current Commission has stated that there would be no enlargement before 2020. This means that BiH has a new opportunity to really aspire for the future membership.

But the main challenges for BiH towards the membership are not in Brussel. The main obstacles are internal and BiH needs to leave Dayton behind  step by step. The main purpose of the Dayton agreement was to stop the war and establish the peace. Dayton was not supposed to be practised today and to be a part of obstacles which are preventing BiH from becoming a more functional state.

Today’s Bosnia and Herzegovina is a state with a weak central power which in many cases is not to be accountable for its citizens. As state and society BiH is facing many challenges which could be solved by making reforms for joining the EU as by being the part of the Internal Market, future Energy Union and Schengen Area. And also by sharing European values as democracy, rule of law and civil rights.

Catholique church, ortodox church and mosque in the same area in the city of Bosanska Krupa. Religion in Bosnia is used by many politicians in order to make divergence between people based on ideas of ethno-nationalism. 

Except the strong lack of a civic-society, human rights and the rule of law in BiH, the country is also facing challenges regarding the inter-ethnic hate and the nationalistic rhetoric. For these reasons BiH would benefit in many ways by implementing European values and principles instead of being trapped in nationalistic myths from the 90’s.  Bosnia and Herzegovina needs to be able to exercise an authentic foreign, social or economic policy and to have stronger central governance.

For becoming a European member state Bosnia and Herzegovina needs its citizens, democratic and open society instead of constitutent peoples which reminds of the sectarian situation in Lebanon. The Dayton Bosnia is after all not a model or inspiration to other states or societies. Regrettable, BiH represents an anti-modern statehood by being based on war-crimes as genocide, ethnic cleansing and systematic rapes. Regarding important society aspects as the freedom of media, human rights and business atmosphere BiH is often being presented at the bottom of the lists.

Citizens are being promised the new border-line drawings by nationalist politicians instead of focusing on improvement on the quality of life. This rhetoric is totally against EU: s enlargement but also against the peace and the security in Europe.  By changing the administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example on the basis of the Swiss canton-model or the Belgian federal order, would send a strong signal to Brussel that BiH is able to proceed with the reforms.

Being a member of EU today is not only important for having a stronger economy. In the time of globalization, the importance also lays in area regarding energy, environment and education. In a more and more globalized world membership in the EU is something that BiH highly needs in order to develop as a state and society.  Also the shared values such as democracy, rule of law and civil rights would be preferable for Bosnia and Herzegovina as a young state with the tragic past.  That would offer a chance for Bosnia and Herzegovina and its citizens for really aspiring for a better future instead of empty promises of a better past.