The Secretary General, Thorbjørn Jagland, mention in the interview with the German Economic News, the economic and social inequality as a major cause of the crisis of the EU. The Europeans have lost confidence in the institutions of the EU. The EU must urgently solve the social question in order to prevent serious distortions.
The Euro Council is one of the few institutions that still pull in the Russian Federation and the EU on one line: The European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights are the cornerstones on which all European nations agreed – and that even in times of geopolitical tensions, are respected in all countries.
Striking: While now 47 states have submitted with 820 million citizens the sayings of the Court and the Convention and of such made enforceable basis for their nations human rights, the EU is not a party to the European Convention on Human Rights to this day – although this explicitly in the Lisbon Treaty has been adopted.
The Secretary General, Thorbjørn Jagland, who was on Tuesday in the German Society for Foreign Policy (DGAP) to host, the German Economic News said: “It would be a good signal if the EU would join the euro Europe especially in the current crisis , The EU would thus indicate to citizens in no uncertain terms that it considers the civil and human rights high and also easier to control. ”
The reason why the EU is still not a member of the Council of Europe, located in jurisdictional disputes. Initially there were concerns from some Member States. With the opinion of the EU’s Court in Luxembourg new concerns were raised, which in turn led to confusion in the EU Commission. It is not surprising that the EU is now giving serious consideration to establishing a separate Court of Human Rights – a suggestion that for Jagland has no understanding: “The European taxpayer will not pay for duplicate structures. The EU must not lose grave battle. So it paralyzes itself – and also everything is more expensive. If the EU finally accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, they could also set an example of thrift. ”
The EU’s reluctance against the euro Europe but also has political reasons: The Euro Europe sees itself as “apolitical” in the strictest sense. Only then he was able to represent the rights of citizens and to ensure confidence in the institutions. Jagland believes that it is important to have cross-party instances. This can be clearly seen in Ukraine: the euro Europe has its own delegation of 50 people in Kiev and tried a functioning democracy to help the Ukrainian Parliament in the implementation of the basic principles: human rights and the rule of law are the cornerstones. This would be enforced against interests. Jagland: “There are many geopolitical interests in Ukraine, which are not good for Ukraine. It is not only the Russians who have interests there. ”
Jagland attempts to address the problem of across Europe widening gap between rich and poor – in the context of the rule of law, which is reflected in particular in the fight against corruption. So the unrest in Ukraine are not broken out, because the Ukrainians in the first place a contract with the EU wanted to, but because they “were the rule of the oligarchs tired”. Jagland: “If we fail Ukraine to combat corruption effectively, it has as a state no chance.”
The taking advantage of a few at the expense of the general public sees Jagland as the central problem in the EU: “The high levels of youth unemployment and poverty, to the degree in which we see them now, not continue to exist. The EU must address the social rights of its citizens, to overcome the extreme inequality. Everywhere there is the feeling that people were left behind. This feeling is paving the way for radical nationalism “Jagland believes that for this very reason, the British would have voted against the EU”. The result was as it was because the British have lost confidence in the institutions. The major issues such as migration and globalization stand for many Europeans as a threat. The high level of unemployment and poverty make this feeling to a real experience. By contrast, the EU must fight, if it is to have a chance in the future. ”
Jagland expresses concern that the signals are in some Member States in the wrong direction. Because of the international terrorism, the desire for security grows. Yet governments are approaching the problem by Jaglands view from the wrong side. So the euro Europe has criticized since the Paris attacks the practice of restricting drastically under the heading of counterterrorism civil rights: “The freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are central rights of citizens, which should not be curtailed. We need to find especially on the Internet, common standards in order to protect these rights and at the same time to define the limits where they are not covered by the basic right of free expression – such as the hate speech. However, we see the danger that some countries want to abuse this effort for to suppress expressions of opinion which do not suit them. We see this – and we already are complaints from France, Great Britain, Turkey and Russia. The European Court will give us an interpretation of how those rights must be configured.
It is widely underestimated how effective the European Court of Human Rights. Its judgments are bound for the States. The release of two journalists critical of the government in Turkey has been ordered by the Supreme Court of Turkey with a reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court. The court may recognize the ban on LGBT advertising in Russia as illegal – and Russia’s then forced to change the laws if it wants to remain a member of the Euro Council.
For the EU, Jagland looks the most important task in the future to negotiate a reasonable deal with Britain: “The EU must find a solution partnership with Britain. The currently-heard at one point or another approach, one must London after the referendum punish is destructive. The common interest of all Europeans must be to link the UK in the best way. “With this appeal Jagland reminded of the founders of Europe. Winston Churchill suggested the institutions after the Second World War to make a repeat of the devastation impossible.