Latest news with #MaastrichtTreaty
Local France
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Local France
A French history of the referendum
Over the border in Switzerland, referendums are a regular occurrence with the country's tradition of 'direct democracy' meaning that residents are constantly being asked to vote on single topics, ranging from big changes like equal marriage or assisted dying to smaller and more local matters. In France, however, national referendums are rare - although the city of Paris has been experimenting with this format, with locals being asked for their opinion on a ban on electronic scooters, plans to extend pedestrianised streets and an increase in parking prices for SUVs. It's still unclear what this year's referendum will be about - Macron said only that it will be a series of questions, with the votes taking place on the same day, on "important social and economic reforms". He said only that the votes would be "in the coming months", although autumn is thought to be a likely time frame. Referendums in France don't always turn out well for the government that calls them, which perhaps explains their comparative rarity. Here's a look at some of the key votes from the Fifth Republic, the period from 1958 to the present day; May 2005 - EU Constitution changes France's last major referendum was 20 years ago, and resulted in a bruising defeat for president Jacques Chirac. The subject was somewhat technical - changes to the governing mechanisms for the EU - but in what was widely interpreted as a rejection of the EU, rather than the specifics of the treaty change, the French people voted 'no' by 54 percent to 46 percent. Advertisement The result was humiliating for Chirac, who was in favour of the changes but who had opted not to put them before parliament, and instead to ask the French people directly. April 1972 and September 1992 - more EU The 2005 referendum marked the third time the French people had been asked about in the EU - in 1972 they voted 68 percent in favour of expanding the European Economic Community, creating the body that became the European Union. In 1992 they voted on ratifying the Maastricht Treaty, which created the framework of the modern EU with broader economic and security cooperation. After what was described as a "lively" campaign, France eventually voted yes by just 51 percent. September 2000 - shorter presidential terms Until 2000, French presidents were elected for a seven-year mandate. This was dropped down to five years after the French people agreed with the idea - 73 percent, albeit with a very low turnout, just thirty percent of the population felt strongly enough to vote. Advertisement The change was proposed by Jacques Chirac who also became the first beneficiary of it - in 2002 he was re-elected, for a five-year term. Any changes to the role of president requires a change of the Constitution, which can only be done in a very narrow set of circumstances , one of which is that a clear majority of the population has voted for it in a referendum. The current system in which the president is directly elected via universal suffrage also came about after a referendum in 1962, called by Charles De Gaulle. This brings us neatly to De Gaulle, who called three of the most consequential referendums in the history of the French firth republic. January 1961 and April 1962 - Algerian independence Independence for the French colony of Algeria came about after a brutal, years-long armed struggle in which many people died and the French republic itself came close to toppling. But it ended with two referendums. The first, in 1961 asked the Algerian people themselves whether they wanted 'self determination' - by a large margin (75 percent) they voted yes. The following year France as a whole was asked if it agreed with the Evian Agreement, which laid out the conditions for a cease-fire and then negotiations with an Algerian government, effectively bringing the war to an end - 90 percent of people were in agreement. Advertisement April 1969 - Reform of the Senate and regional government But the most consequential reform for De Gaulle himself was perhaps the dullest topic ever subjected to a public vote in France - changes to the regional government organisation and reform of the French Senate. Perhaps over-confident after winning three previous votes, De Gaulle called the vote on the changes, but the referendum rapidly became a vote of confidence in his presidency after a bruising series of crises. The French people voted 'non' to the changes by 52.41 percent, and De Gaulle resigned the following day. After surviving major crises including weeks of nationwide strikes and protests in May 1968, the threat of a coup by military leaders over his Algeria peace plan, France's Resistance hero was eventually brought down by a vote on local government.
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Armenian president signs law to begin EU accession process
Armenian President Vahagn Khachaturyan signed a law on April 4 to formally begin Armenia's accession process to the European Union, Armenia's presidential press service announced. The document does not mean immediate accession, but reflects the "aspirations of citizens." European integration is now part of Armenian legislation. The Armenian parliament passed the bill, "On starting the process of accession of the Republic of Armenia to the European Union," in its final reading on March 26. The initiative, launched as a civil petition after gathering 60,000 signatures, was backed by 64 lawmakers, with seven voting against it. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has stressed that the process can only proceed if the Armenian people approve it in a referendum. The Kremlin previously warned that a country cannot be a member of both the EU and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). "Being members of two different organizations, hypothetically speaking, is simply impossible," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said. The EAEU, founded in 2015, consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan and is widely seen as a tool for Moscow to maintain influence over former Soviet states. Armenia's growing rift with Russia accelerated after the Kremlin failed to prevent Azerbaijan's September 2023 offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to the mass exodus of the region's Armenian population. Pashinyan previously stated that while Armenia seeks closer ties with the EU, full membership remains uncertain. The European Parliament urged the EU to deepen ties with Armenia in a March 2023 resolution, noting that the country meets the Maastricht Treaty's requirements to apply for membership. Read also: Trump to attend NATO summit in The Hague in June, Sikorski says We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Armenia's parliament passes bill on EU accession
The Armenian parliament passed a bill "On starting the process of accession of the Republic of Armenia to the European Union" in its second and final reading on March 26, the news agency reported. The bill, introduced into the parliament as a civil initiative after collecting 60,000 signatures, was supported by 64 lawmakers, with seven voting against it. Yerevan has sought to build a closer relationship with the EU amid deteriorating ties with Russia, though the South Caucasus country is yet to submit a membership application. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stressed in January that even after the bill is passed, the accession process can start only if the Armenian people support it in a referendum. The prime minister noted that the bill should be approached without "undue enthusiasm" and that the country should currently focus on developing more practical steps, such as visa liberalization. Speaking in the European Parliament in October 2023, Pashinyan said that his country is ready to align more closely with the bloc, though he later expressed doubts about whether Armenia is ready for full membership. Pashinyan spoke in the EU's legislature shortly after Russia, Armenia's traditional ally, failed to prevent an Azerbaijani lightning offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, leading to a rapid deterioration of ties between Yerevan and Moscow. Last March, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging the EU's executive bodies to strengthen relations with Armenia. The parliament also said that Armenia meets the Maastricht Treaty requirements to apply for membership. Read also: Russia's sham 'referendums' at gunpoint are null and void, despite Steve Witkoff's comments We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Al-Ahram Weekly
15-03-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Global implications of populism - Focus - Al-Ahram Weekly
Populism is rising in Europe, the US, and Russia, raising questions about national and international politics and implications for global stability. Populism has been rising in different regions, including Europe and the US, constituting a challenge to local and global politics. While this phenomenon existed in Europe before World War II, the rise of the Soviet Union as a principal threat to Europe after the war prompted it to neglect populism's negatives and emphasise confronting the Soviet challenge instead. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Europe began a process of identifying new internal and external threats, attempting to keep its capabilities mobilised for confronting challenges that might suddenly arise. This process led to identifying several internal threats, such as migration, lack of skilled employment, and populism as serious threats. Moreover, European integration began a new phase with the conclusion of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, creating the EU in its current form, which prompted Europeans to identify populism as a threat that might impede European integration. The phenomenon of populism does not have a precise definition among scholars. While some limit it to the charismatic style of leaders that can attract voters, others define it as an ideology that promotes national sovereignty. Populism has two main pillars: securing public security from external threats and eliminating the gap between societal segments. Some scholars argue that populism thrives on the popular will and the conflict between rich and poor. Based on this definition, some considered former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez to be a populist leader, who declared himself the executioner of citizens' desires and the protector of his country against others. Populism is not restricted to individuals, as national policies could be included under its paradigms. For instance, some policies that gain more public support than expected can be described as populist policies, particularly if they are against the status quo. In other words, policies adopted by populists in some countries, including Poland, to accomplish populist purposes, such as restraining immigration, can be described as populist policies. Populism is also not an exclusively left-wing feature, as extreme right-wing parties in Europe might be characterised as populist. They oppose foreign immigration and employ public protests to exercise pressure on elected governments that follow a welcoming approach to refugees. This means that populism as a political ideology brings together extreme-right and leftist parties through prompting them to adopt similar approaches. For the left, people are being harmed due to the widening economic gap between the rich, who are utilising resources for their own benefit, and the poor. For the right, the gap has increased because governments have employed capitalist policies in line with existing global political and economic norms. Consequently, both the extreme-right and left agree on the necessity of amending the ruling norms. People might vote for populists due to a mistrust in national institutions, as societal segments that believe themselves to have been harmed also believe that national institutions function in favour of the rich elite. Moreover, capitalist systems feature high rates of economic inequality, which results in solidifying the influence of the ruling elite. Some liberals describe populists as racists, economically illiterate, aggressive, pro-authoritarianism, morally inferior, and dangerous. These attributes have been criticised by Michael Cox, a British scholar of global politics, who argues that populists are smarter than they are sometimes given credit for, as was seen in their success in drawing the UK out of the European Union (EU), as well as winning the US presidential elections in 2016. Other examples of populist success in Austria and Hungary prove that populism has roots within the European Union. Populism can also be defined as a style of public mobilisation. From this perspective, populism is a double-edged phenomenon, as it provokes protests and strikes, increasing political instability and solidifying the absence of consensus between governments and opposition parties. Moreover, protests can be seen as a tool of delivering on the voices of the fragmented social classes by mobilising those who are harmed and pushing them into more integration in society. Demonstrations also increase the public accountability of governments. This study adopts a broad definition of populism to include charismatic individuals and policies that aim at disrupting current political norms and introducing new ones based on electoral results. DEMOCRACY: The connection between populism and democracy is complex. Basically, constitutional democracy in any country depends on two main pillars, which are the balance of power and reciprocal checks. Both principles are criticised by populists, who argue that elected legislative authorities represent the people and therefore must not be divided into two chambers. Moreover, balancing elected institutions with unelected institutions, such as the judiciary, has been criticised by radical populists who believe that the elected authorities must not be contested as they are elected by the public to accomplish their wishes, and these ought to be respected. An outstanding example of this came with what US President Donald Trump did in November 2018 when he declared new rules to ban anyone crossing the borders of the US illegally from receiving asylum and attempting to stop illegal immigration at America's southern borders. Judge Jon Tigar of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit revoked that decision and ordered the Trump administration to accept asylum requests from migrants whether they had entered the country legally or not. Trump criticised the judge and called his decision a 'disgrace' as well as claiming that he was a judge who was following rules set out by former US president Barack Obama. The way Trump connected this judge with the former president shows his perception that the judiciary is an institution that must follow the elected president and work in line with his policies and not stand against them. A similar situation occurred in Turkey when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan transformed the Turkish political regime from a parliamentary to a presidential one, consolidating the powers of the president over the judicial branch. While the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) justified this step as a way of maintaining political stability in the country, some analysts argued that the purpose of these constitutional amendments was to consolidate the executive power of the president over the judiciary. Since populists reject the principle of the balance of power upon which any democratic system is built, and since they attempt to restrict the judicial branch, we can label them as the supporters of authoritarian leaders who perceive themselves to be legally mandated by the people to act freely. Such a view justifies the attack of populists on unelected institutions that might impede any attempt to change political norms. Even so, populists prefer to stand for elections, even if they are not always convinced of their validity, to get into office, as it is then that they can employ their power to destroy existing systems. For example, in 2016 populists in the UK succeeded in pushing the Conservative Party government headed by former British prime minister David Cameron into a popular referendum about withdrawing from the European Union, even though Cameron's government was against the campaign. Populists are not democratic. However, when their choices are limited between direct democracy and representative democracy, they choose direct democracy to undermine the legitimacy of representative institutions that are perceived to be an impediment to them. The success of the Hungarian populist party Fidesz in jeopardising the democratic system in that country is another indicator of this. Fidesz gained a two-thirds supermajority in Hungary's 2010 parliamentary elections, and in 2012 a new constitution was adopted without taking into consideration the concerns of the opposition parties. Fidesz did not stop there, as its lawmakers passed a law in December 2018 aiming at stripping Hungary's Supreme Court of its main administrative jurisdiction and putting this under a new court to be established and supervised by the justice minister appointed by Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, hence tightening the grip of the party's leader over the judicial branch. Populist participation in coalition governments can destabilise countries, as their more liberal partners may not be able to cope with their ideas. For example, the assassination of populist Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002 helped his populist party the List Pim Fortuyn (LPF) to win second place in the elections (26 seats out of 150) that were held in May 2002. Consequently, the LPF participated in the coalition government led by Jan Peter Balkenende, who was affiliated with the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), a major centrist party in the Netherlands. This government lasted 87 days and collapsed due to conflicts between two ministers from the LPF. The LPF also stood against EU enlargement, so it was not possible for two parties with different perspectives on European integration and immigration to work together. GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS: Populism is destructive of global politics as populists are reluctant to accept the idea of integration with other nations, meaning that the rise of populism is a real threat to the unity of Europe, for example. Countries integrate economically and politically to achieve higher rates of economic growth, stability within their markets, and to preserve their national security. Several steps have been adopted by Europe to reach the current stage of economic integration. For example, the EU has abolished limitations on trade and permitted factor mobility, meaning that labour can move from one country to another freely. Yet, according to British populists, the principle of factor mobility, particularly the free movement of labour, significantly impacted unemployment rates in the UK. They argued that an influx of workers from other European countries, particularly from Eastern Europe, had taken jobs that should have been filled by British citizens. Populists perceive integration as a threat to their own culture and identity. While integration aims at maintaining political and economic security, it also removes boundaries between different cultures, affecting the local habits of countries and pushing for new norms of culture over time. European populists argue that integration makes national identities melt in the framework of a new continental identity, allowing citizens to become dual citizens, for example. They reject the idea of open borders, seeing them as an obvious threat to national security. Since economic integration requires the free movement of labour, capital, and other factors of production, and since the Schengen Agreement allows Europeans to move freely between different countries, European populists are demanding the renegotiation of the Schengen Agreement and the imposing of strict surveillance on borders. The increasing number of terrorist attacks that have taken place in Europe in recent years has also solidified the populist perspectives on the necessity of closing borders in Europe. For instance, the 2015 Paris attacks, originally planned in Belgium and carried out on French territory, consolidated populist perspectives on the necessity of closed borders. Populists conceive integration as an attack on the sovereignty of their countries, as it allows a higher authority beyond their borders to intervene in their internal affairs. A prominent example of this was the case of Italy in 2011, when the EU exerted significant pressure on the then government led by prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi resigned, and Mario Monti, a technocrat, was appointed as prime minister without an election. This event fuelled populist sentiments, which were reflected in the 2013 Italian general elections. The populist Five Star Movement emerged as a major force, gaining 25.6 per cent of the vote in the Chamber of Deputies and 23.8 per cent in the Senate. Another clear example of populist protest has been against refugee relocation policies in Europe, which have faced significant opposition from several states, including Italy. Germany under former chancellor Angela Merkel sought to return refugees to their first country of registration, a move seen as an attempt to alleviate growing dissent within her then ruling coalition government. Since most refugees had entered Europe through Greece and Italy, these countries were disproportionately burdened and forced to accommodate more refugees than they could manage. Meanwhile, other states, such as Poland and Hungary, refused to accept refugees, citing national-security concerns. These countries viewed the EU's refugee policies as a direct challenge to their national sovereignty and an unwelcome intrusion into their domestic affairs. The French National Front (now National Rally) views the EU as a mechanism that undermines the will of French citizens, perceiving it as an integrationist project at odds with national interests. It rejects the concept of European citizenship and opposes the current framework of cooperation with European institutions, particularly on issues such as security and immigration. Instead, it advocates renegotiating the European treaties to make them more aligned with the principles of national sovereignty. A similar stance is adopted by the Sweden Democrats, who also call for the renegotiation of the European treaties and propose leaving the EU altogether if their demands are not met. If the populists succeeded in dismantling the EU, this would likely see the euro currency abolished and replaced by the reintroduction of national currencies. This return to nationalism could exacerbate conflicts between countries, making them more visible and severe as cooperation gives way to competition and unilateral decision-making. On the other hand, populists prioritise maximising their national interests on the international stage, often pursuing confrontational policies rather than cooperative ones. After Trump assumed office in the US for the first time in 2016, his administration introduced significant instability in relations with its European allies, particularly over their financial contributions to NATO. Trump argued that the US' Western allies were benefiting from NATO's protection while the US bore the majority of the burden. He demanded that member states increase their contributions to the NATO budget by raising their military expenditures to two per cent of GDP. Trump's demand for increased military expenditures by European NATO members represented an effort to replace existing norms with new ones favouring the US without fully considering the adverse effects this might have on NATO's European members. For example, some countries, such as Iceland, lack large standing armies capable of absorbing such increased spending. This demand illustrates how populists are willing to disrupt established alliances and forge new ones to prioritise their national interests. Further examples of Trump's populist foreign policies include the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed in 2015, his economic conflict with China through the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese imports to the US market, and the sanctions imposed on Turkey. These actions underscore the confrontational nature of populist policies on the international stage. Moreover, these examples demonstrate that the rise of populism in one country can pose a broader threat to global stability. This perspective explains the EU's strict response to Austria in 2000 following the success of the populist Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), which secured 26.9 per cent of the vote in the 1999 elections. In February 2000, the FPÖ formed a coalition government with the conservative Austrian People's Party (ÖVP), sparking widespread concern across Europe. The EU downgraded bilateral relations between its 14 member states at the time and Austria to a bureaucratic level. Additionally, the European Commission warned that any violation of EU values by Austria's government could result in penalties, including the suspension of Austria's voting rights in the European Council. What's next: Populists are nationalists who do not mind standing for election if this is the only way to get them into office. However, once elected, they might try to weaken the democratic system. Unlike democrats who use ballots and constitutional methods such as referendums to pass laws, populists often believe in popular rallies as the most effective way to show support for passing controversial laws, such as limiting migration and withdrawing from agreements. Based on this, if populists succeeded in ruling major countries in Europe, such as Germany or France, this could make it more probable for wars to occur. Russia, for instance, which is ruled by a populist leader, is waging an offensive war against Ukraine due to the latter's desire to join the European Union and NATO, which is perceived by the Russians as a threat. If the populist influence keeps rising in Europe, it is expected that populist governments across the continent will try to amend the EU agreements to impose restrictions on the movement of people across borders, downgrading EU integration. They will also impose more restrictions on foreign migration, which are perceived by populists as a threat to European identity. If they succeed in amending the EU agreements, they will also mobilise national identity, which over time could lead to increasing competition and tensions with neighbouring countries, as each will attempt to impose its hegemony over others. Mechanisms of cooperation and coordination will be reduced, as populists do not want to see foreign agreements that might limit their ability to act internally and externally and consider them to be a threat to national sovereignty. Moreover, the European role in global politics will be affected, and a conflict of interests may be evident between European countries that might pursue contradictory foreign policies to maximise their own interests. The rise of populism in Europe could also lead to the rise of populists in Africa and Asia, increasing the potential for war between countries. To conclude, populism as a phenomenon does not have a precise definition, as some theorists define it as an ideology while others perceive it as a political movement provoked by those left out of economic progress wanting to take down ruling norms and establish new ones. As a result, for these theorists the core of populism lies in the strife between the rich and the poor. Other theorists believe that populism affects the democratic system positively, as it forces the ruling elite to consider the demands of fragmented social segments. However, the negatives of populism are still overwhelming, as populists generally attempt to undermine the legitimacy of non-elected institutions like the judiciary. Moreover, they tend to be authoritarian and seek to limit the efficiency of the democratic system, which is believed to be beneficial for the elite. On the international level, populists are nationalistic and seek to maximise benefits for their countries, even by waging economic wars or withdrawing from international treaties. Since populists are nationalists, they reject the idea of any integration that might restrict national sovereignty or place it under external obligations that could be seen as not fitting national character. The writer is a researcher at Al-Habtoor Research Centre in Cairo. * A version of this article appears in print in the 13 March, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
German central bank proposes reforms to government borrowing limits
Germany's central bank on Tuesday proposed reforms to strict constitutional rules on government borrowing, as the country searches for options to finance a major hike in spending on defence and infrastructure. The proposal by the Bundesbank, seen by dpa, would tweak the restrictions - known as the debt brake - to allow the next government greater room for manoeuvre. The debt brake was introduced under former chancellor Angela Merkel in 2009 and limits new budgetary debt to 0.35% of gross domestic product (GDP) every year. Critics believe the rules have hindered necessary investments in measures to protect the environment and in the country's infrastructure such as roads and railways. The Frankfurt-based Bundesbank has suggested that the brake should instead be tied to the ratio of government debt to GDP. If the German debt-to-GDP ratio amounts to less than 60%, a mark in line with EU rules set out in the Maastricht Treaty, the administration in Berlin would be allowed borrow the equivalent of 1.4% of GDP every year. However, if debt exceeds the 60% barrier, the Bundesbank proposal would limit annual government borrowing to 0.9% of GDP. The plan would grant the German government an extra €100 billion to €220 billion ($105 billion to $231 billion) per year by 2030, depending on the debt-to-GDP ratio. The ratio was at 62.9% in 2023, according to the German statistical office, with the latest figures from the third quarter of 2024 placing it at 62.4%. Political leaders in Berlin are currently scrambling to agree on how to finance a massive increase in military spending amid the dramatic shift in US foreign policy. Negotiations are under way between the conservative CDU/CSU bloc - made up of the Christian Democrats (CDU) and the Bavaria-only Christian Social Union (CSU) - and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) to form a coalition following elections last month. The next administration will either have to tackle the debt brake head on, or find creative solutions modelled on the €100 billion emergency fund for the German military that followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Both options would require a two-thirds majority in the lower house of the German parliament, the Bundestag. However, more than one-third of seats in the incoming Bundestag are set to be taken by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and The Left, two parties that the CDU/CSU bloc has ruled out working with. This has led to suggestions that conservative leader Friedrich Merz - the country's presumptive next chancellor - could call a special session of the outgoing Bundestag to rush through the reforms before the next parliament meets. However, the move would still require support from either the Greens or the free-market Free Democrats, leaving Merz with very little room for manoeuvre.
