Region: European Union
Should the EU be given greater responsibility for managing social and economic development?
background
Global challenges such as climate change, economic crises, declining opportunities for social advancement, wars and the manipulation of public opinion via social media are increasingly jeopardising the social cohesion of the European Union if no action is taken. But we can also learn something from crises, draw strengths from them and grow together. With this 10th round of the European HomeParliaments, we are therefore focusing on the topic of "Social and Economic Affairs" and offering an opportunity to reflect on the following: Should the European Union be given greater responsibility for managing the social and economic development of the member states? Or is the exact opposite right - an increased shift of these matters back to what is close, known, manageable and familiar to the nation-states? We invite you to debate and discuss three important reform proposals on the European dimension of social and economic policy. As in parliament, you will first discuss individual issues with each other and then vote on them individually. Together with the results of the numerous other European HomeParliaments taking place simultaneously in various European countries, the resulting outcomes will be incorporated into a pan-European overview and subsequently discussed with EU politicians.
Partial questions
1. Should an EU-wide wealth tax be introduced to counter inequalities and finance EU projects?
Background: A wealth tax already exists in the EU countries of France, Spain, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland. Movements such as "Tax Me Now" and "Tax the Rich" have initiated petitions in recent months and have been signed hundreds of thousands of times. Internationally, one proposal is to levy an annual tax of 2% on assets over five million dollars. In Germany, one proposal is to tax assets of five million euros or more at 2%, assets of over fifty million euros at 3% and assets of one billion euros or more at 5%. This could raise an estimated eighty-five billion euros from Germany alone, which could finance joint European projects.
Pros
In times of tight budgets, citizens must contribute to the financing of state services according to their actual ability to pay. If this is done at the European level, "tax avoidance competition within the EU can be prevented."
The revenue from a wealth tax enables measures to improve social participation and opportunities for advancement for people from the lower and middle classes.
The revenue from the wealth tax enables additional EU funding and innovation projects.
Cons
Wealthy individuals can avoid a European wealth tax by transferring their assets to other countries.
Tax policy is a matter for the nation-states, which can plan and support in line with requirements.
The transfer of tax competencies to the European level strengthens the image of a bureaucratic EU far removed from its citizens.
2. Should the EU guarantee a minimum level of social benefits, such as parental leave, unemployment benefits, and retirement age?
Background: Employment policy and social inclusion measures are primarily the responsibility of the EU countries. This means that national governments decide on issues such as wage regulations, pension schemes, retirement age, and unemployment benefits. However, over the years, the EU has supported Member States with legislation, resources and instruments to coordinate national policies better, promote employment, improve living and working conditions, ensure adequate social protection and combat social exclusion. However, social benefits still vary across the EU in key areas such as parental leave arrangements, duration of disability benefits and retirement age.
Pros
A more substantial role for the EU would make the fight against poverty and equal opportunities less dependent on political developments and the financial resources of the member states.
A higher priority for social policy measures improves the image of the EU in the eyes of many citizens, who have so far perceived it primarily as a project for elites and corporations.
Harmonisation of measures could reduce bureaucracy for workers and companies with EU-wide activities.
Cons
Improvements in services require considerable expenditures, which the EU would have to finance additionally in poorer member states.
Policies addressing social inequality and poverty are better planned and implemented nationally based on specific needs assessments.
The necessary redistribution of funds between the member states reinforces the feeling in the richer countries that they are still paymasters for others despite their own problems, thus increasing the appeal of the slogan "My nation first."
3. Should the EU take a stronger role in promoting breakthrough innovations, such as in the field of artificial intelligence?
Background: Social and economic developments in the EU are interconnected: High social standards depend on the European Union's ability to remain economically competitive internationally. Mario Draghi recently highlighted problem areas in a European Commission report. Competitiveness is associated with innovation, which can lead to the creation of new markets and value. Becoming a leader in growth areas requires investment. Compared to the USA (DARPA3) and China, Europe has lost out on leapfrogging innovations, such as artificial intelligence, social networks, mobility, and battery technologies. The European Innovation Council (EIC) could take over the promotion of leap innovations, provided its mandate is expanded appropriately to assume this responsibility.
Pros
Pooling European innovation resources and investment capacities enables faster development and scaling of future technologies.
More value creation, including through an efficient European innovation agency, is a prerequisite for an economically and socially strong EU.
A strong European counterpart to the American DARPA is also an essential sign of European ambition and strength in intensified global competition.
Cons
Creating a large European innovation agency with the corresponding bureaucracy could be a waste of money. Innovation mostly takes place in European universities and companies. These should receive direct support and be exempt from bureaucratic obstacles.
A centrally organised innovation agency contradicts the idea of subsidiarity and is less able to recognise and promote leap innovations than corresponding local, regional, or national bodies.
An overambitious symbolic policy, which would manifest itself in a separate agency, is counterproductive and distracts from the need for targeted promotion.
Sources
Impressions from the HomeParliaments
