Archive for April, 2008

How can we reform of the European social model as part of reforming globalisation?

Henning Meyer, Head of European Programme for the Global Policy Institute, kicked off the New Social Europe debate of the PES Manifesto Consultation by warning that if certain issues aren’t currently reflected within the debate, such as economic globalisation, they become accepted as givens.

He then put to the floor what we mean when we talk about social Europe. There are different applications of the social model, but there seems to be a consensus on some key elements:

  • a responsive political economy
  • free and compulsory education
  • active protection of environment
  • robust welfare state
  • limitation of inequality

However, the economic layers of governance have been eroded by globalisation. There is an increased pressure on costs. If we debate the reform of the European social model, we need to debate the reform of globalisation. Economic globalisation increases within and between countries.

How can we develop a politics of international redistribution?

Henning proposed that we needed a politics of national and international redistribution - we need to explore a global social politics. This includes:

  • reforming how we measure the gross domestic product. We need to define indicators which better take into account well being rather than just consumption.
  • harmonising corporate taxation at a European level. If we don’t, countries ironically lose sovereignty, as when one country reduces corporate taxation, other countries have to follow.

See more of his proposals and his debate here:

Check out the different debates of the “Globalisation of the community, how can we build a more social Europe” here

5 comments | April 6th, 2008by Noel Hatch

How can we rebalance the great swing towards internal market reforms with better social policy reforms?

Ben Richards, UNITE International Officer, set the scene at the New Social Europe debate of the PES Manifesto Consultation on how Social Europe had benefited people so far. We wouldn’t have had parental leave or working time limits without the European social model. He advised that all the two million members of Unite are international in their outlook and pro-European. It is the benefits of the social model that galvanise members to vote in the next European elections.

However, there is an increasing unhappiness towards the European Union, which has stagnated in its social policy in the last few years. We are concerned about the reform of the services directive and the panacea of flexisecurity. Many people forget that in Denmark this includes high trade union rights and unemployment benefits. We are also concerned about the Viking and Laval court cases which call into question the social model. He proposed that we need to

  • rebalance the great swing towards internal market reforms with better social policy reforms
  • stop the UK’s “opt outs” of social Europe
  • greater protection of temporary and agency workers
  • sign up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights

See more of his proposals and his debate here:

Check out the different debates of the “Globalisation of the community, how can we build a more social Europe” here

4 comments | April 6th, 2008by Noel Hatch

How can we make social Europe a concern for everyone?

Deborah Littman, Chair of London Citizens Living Wage Network & UNISON National Officer for Bargaining, t the New Social Europe debate of the PES Manifesto Consultation admitted she wholly agreed with many of the proposals in the PES Manifesto, but was concerned on how we get there, how we make social Europe a concern for everyone.

Work has been made insecure, the social wage has been reduced and there was been a steep decline in bargaining power from workers. Communities have been dismantled, workers distanced from their employers or contractors. There has been a very deliberate policy to push back the gains of the workers, often by stealth.

Expectations have been constantly lowered to the extent that our goal becomes not how we can make it better, but how can we prevent it being that bad.

How can you organise when you don’t know who you’re actually working for? The trade unions struggle with bargaining, sometimes too conservative in their approach. The game has changed – we need to deal issue by issue.

How can we fight for this manifesto? How can we make it exist in real life? How can we turn it into something powerful?

There is an issue of language – we have now replaced a collectively provided social wage with individualised budgets – losing the economies of scale and the social benefits of the former.

We need to frame the language on the notion of accountability. The corporate forces need to be accountable to the community, we need to reassert this notion that you are responsible for what you do to your workers. There is something more than money, giving back to your community.

Deborah explaining that with London Citizens, they focus on developing leadership skills and organising a “listening campaign”, bringing together 2500 people from over 90 organisations across London. They developed a range of proposals and voted on the top four to submit to the Mayor of London, asking him not only to take this forward but to work with us.

Deborah proposed that we need to:

  • build a strong coalition within and beyond the labour movement
  • build a “listening campaign” for the manifesto and the next elections
  • frame the language on the notion of accountability to the corporate forces

See more of her proposals and her debate here:

How can we go in confidently and boldly about intervening and imposing a degree of accountability?

Michael Walsh, Research Director for Community at the New Social Europe debate of the PES Manifesto Consultation introduced the trade union Community as the only union in the UK that has spoken up for the European Union, but often the message doesn’t get across, such as when we talk about “social dialogue”.

The EU record doesn’t compare favourably with the British record. Free markets don’t work. We need to disentangle the European dimension from national politics; otherwise people will bash Europe in order to bash the government. Great social victories have been attributable to the European Union, especially on equality.

Michael proposed that we need to:

  • disentangle the European dimension from national politics, otherwise people will bash Europe in order to bash their national government
  • shouldn’t lose faith in our basic beliefs - we should prepared to intervene in favour of a more social Europe
  • go in confidently and boldly about intervening and imposing a degree of accountability
  • build coalitions across society and intensify European co-operation

See more of his proposals and his debate here:

Proposals from the floor on the New Social Europe debate

The proposals from the floor included:

  • Including business in living wage coalitions across Europe
  • Committment to temporary and agency workers EU directive
  • Harmonise corporate tax across the European Union
  • Translating social values into business language
  • Redistribute nationally and internationally
  • Regain the notion of accountability
  • EU trade power to expore social values

To see moreproposals and the debate please see the two videos below:

To read more:

The debate is far from over, so keep your submitting your ideas!

Check out the different debates of the “Globalisation of the community, how can we build a more social Europe” here

1 comment | April 6th, 2008by Noel Hatch

Next Posts