Okay, so looks like we're online now. First, welcome to this very first session of our Google Hangout Live On Air. You'll be able to watch this video again, on YouTube, after it finishes, and here I'm [INAUDIBLE] introducing you to the participants in these Google Hangouts, starting with Alberto Alemanno. Alberto, can you hear us? >> Yes, hello everyone, I'm very happy to meet you. >> And we also have today, you've met them probably already on the forum and also on Twitter, and on our Facebook groups, to which you can ask questions on Twitter the hashtag is as always Understanding Europe. So here we have Ferdinando Orlando. >> Hi. >> Hi Ferdinando. >> Hi, and welcome. >> And we have also Alban Colin from France, who's also a community TA here on coursera for this second session. How are you, Alban? >> Fine, thanks. Hi, everyone, and welcome to this Hangout. >> And I'm. You've met me also in the first session of the MOOC, understanding Europe, why it matters, and what it can offer you. So Alberto, to you. Can you tell us a little bit how this second session is going and make a quick introduction to this hangout before we go directly to the very numerous questions we are receiving from the participants? >> Yes, yes, welcome to everyone. I am extremely excited to meet you all live for the first time. We have been spending a lot of some time together over the last few weeks. Most of the videos you watch have been recorded over the last few weeks, so they might sound or at least look a bit different than the current feeling of being connected live. The objective of this Google Hangout is to get to know each other and to have the possibility to contexualize the main learnings of our MOOC, Understanding Europe, with the present realities of Europe. So inevitably we expect today's MOOC to be somewhat monopolized by the recent result, that came out of the European Parliament elections. But at the same time we also would like to seize this opportunity to provide you some feedback on how our MOOC has been unfolding over the last three weeks. We are overall extremely happy about the fact that so many participants are engaging with our videos, with our contents. We're happy about how many of you are contributing to the forum, to the different threads that are being created. Created by you and by the fact our teaching assistants have been also providing moderated forum in which you can exchange your ideas. I already see that there are a lot of questions coming on the chat, and I will probably pick some of these questions during the next few minutes. In the meantime I would like to ask a Vonson who is moderating this chat together with Fernando and Alban, whether I have forgot something before moving on to my own analysis of what is going on in Europe today. >> No, thank you Alberto, was perfect and indeed, people are waiting and most of the questions coming in now >> Are about the recent events in Europe and especially the European elections and its aftermath. So here to you a lot of questions and concerns to answer from our participants on this election and what is actually going down now. Yes, I will therefore, make a brief perhaps analyses of what to the results of these European Parliament election is to suggest at least from our own educational- Not purpose. As you might remember, the slogan portraying the European elections was that this time it's different, act, react, impact. This slogan aim mainly at increasing the turnout at the European elections, which as you know very well, has been constantly decreasing from 1979, the year of the. the first election to the European Parliament to the last one in 1999 where we went down to around 43% turnout. Well, as you might know, the turnout in the present elections, the one Just closed was very similar. Just a few digit points, I think 0.3% difference and notably an increase. So there's been a formal confirmation. This is overall a pretty disappointing result, because as the European campaign suggested, this time should have been difference. Well the conditions for having a different elections were all met. The action could have actually took place in terms of higher turnout. The reaction could have been important in terms of European political leaders listening to the results of this election. And finally, in terms of impact, this is probably early to say. So let me tell you in brief that the overall action has been limited. Less than one citizens, European citizen, out of two casted a ballot. This is the 43% turnout I mentioned. Their reaction has been also conventional, >> Because the elections have been perceived, have been narrated as a referendum on the current, national government. So there's very little new under the sun. As for the impact, certainly all the media have been focusing on the fact that for the first For the first time ever, around a quarter of the newly-elected Parliament is represented by elected, who have an anti-European or and anti-establishment agenda. This is certainly a novelty that, however, should not be over-emphasized, as the media are doing, because despite the great numbers. These groups, due to their multifarious nature, internal divisions are very different and coming from the extreme left and extreme right. They are very unlikely to make a difference in terms of decision making and balance of power within the current party. The European political leaders seem that despite this incredible failure of these elections to suggest that everything is under control, and basically suggests that it is business as usual. Indeed, not withstanding the protest vote, the European parliament seems to remain in the hands of the established political families, which do represent around, I would say, 588, according to some towns, 561 out of 751 MEPs. With who are [INAUDIBLE]. So what's next? What kind of consequences we can expect from the new Parliaments? Well, as you might know, the big and the first stress test for the new Parliament will be the role the Parliament will play in the designation and selection of the new Commission President. Here, it might be important to provide you some feedback in order to make sure you will fully understand what is going on during these hours. In order to galvanize the European electorate, the idea that many political leaders decided to develop has been to link, for the first time, the vote of the individual European citizens, and express and cast their ballot at the national level, to the choice of the lead candidate for the post of Commission President. This has been the first effort ever to show European citizens that their vote actually could make a difference at the European level, by designating the Commission President, and therefore, also politicizing the commission cabinet, the future commission cabinet. However, the Parliament's interpretation of this specific mechanism, which is foreseen in Article 17, Paragraph 7 of the Treaty of the European Union, has been particularly happy or enthusiastic. In other words, the political leaders who have accepted to develop this process that has been quickly defined [FOREIGN], in German, which means lead candidate, the head of the list is going to be appointed as the new President of the European Commission, has not been, let's say, interpreted in the same way by the political leaders sitting in the European Council. So what is actually going on in Europe is the following, that yesterday, for the first time the new political leaders decided to meet in order to take stock of the results of the election, and they have decided to entrust Juncker, Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg to lead the negotiations that should have designate the new majority within the new parliament, and therefore the possible election of Mr. Juncker himself as the next President of the European Commission. So overall, it seems that all political families have decided, at least the established one, to entrust Mr. Juncker with such an exploratory task. Unfortunately, from a citizen's perspective, yesterday evening the European Council decided to meet over an informal dinner. And the main result of this intergovernmental gathering has been to actually entrust, with such an exploratory mandate, a different person than Mr. Juncker. It is the President of the European Council, Mr. Van Rompuy, who has received such a mandate. You can, therefore, assist to a clear tension between the European Parliament interpretation of article 17 and interpretation given by the main European leaders, who gather informally, within the European Council. They decided to follow a different path. That's where we stand today. There are a lot of speculations. There are a lot of people who are crunching their numbers and trying to see which could be the next majority from the parliament perspective. But many other commentators suggested the [FOREIGN] process is already dead in the very moment in which the European Council, yesterday, decided not to entrust this specific mandate, and not to designate Mr. Juncker as the new President of the European Commission. So, that's where we are. We probably stand in a sort of limbo. It is extremely difficult to predict what's next, but it's absolutely fascinating for you who are studying and engaging with the materials in our course to see how the European Union develops, and how he will certainly come up differently from this process. So, if I have to sum up in one slogan what happened in this election, is that this time was not necessarily different, as originally announced by the EU itself, but probably the next time, or at least the next few months and days, will look different. We certainly look different, because the way in which both the European parliament and the political leaders are acting, is certainly new. Is new in the process, and is also new in terms of system impact that both of us, as citizens, or at least those of us with the possibility to cast their ballad, will have, in the European Parliament, and in the next political leadership where will be quite significant. So let me stop here with this brief introduction and brief comment on the results of the European election and let me turn back to Van San, and to Alban, and Ferdinando. >> Thank you Alberto and yes, let's talk to Ferdinando, who's been receiving questions, I remind you that you can ask questions on Twitter #understandingeurope and on Facebook. And he has been receiving questions on what is basically the subject of our essay, the essay we propose you in this course, about participation and also national results different from state to state. So, Ferdinando, the floor is yours to sum up and ask question to Alberto. Yes, thank you, Alberto, and thank you, Van San, As you know, I am responsible about the forum about the subsection forum about EU legal order and European Parliament election. And we are receiving so many questions. Questions about this European election and the European Parliament also. If I am to sum up the questions, the main subject was how it's possible that German election, for instance, the German rate of participation in the European election, is the opposite but the USA, the United States' rates and Britain's rates. And also, how it is possible, maybe Alberto is better than me, maybe, to reply this, how it's possible that some parties, eurosceptics parties like UKIP with Britain, or Front national, in France, could take this enormous power in this election. Thank you Ferdinando for asking these questions that are certainly central To the reading of the current day elections. Let me start by drawing your attention on the actual number. Behind the aggregate level, so the average turnout of 43%, or the individual high scores by anti-resistant parties, there is important diversity that we don't have to forget. It is important for anyone who would like to analyze the result of these elections to highlight the fact that the European elections are not organized on the very same day independently from a municipal in local elections, but rather the opposite. They organize in different dates in Europe, so we know that the elections took place between last Thursday and last Sunday, that the elections have been organized at the national level, what has reflected inevitably the national political discourse and also the fact that inevitably these important political diversity gave rise to different realities. The turnout in countries like Belgium or Luxembourg, where voting is actually mandatory, has been extremely high, but this certainly creates a distortion in our reading of the 33% turnout. I'm giving you just as an example. Coming to the so-called antiestablishment parties, the parties who certainly won the most in terms of, at the aggregate level from the previous elections. Well, also here we have to be extremely cautious in discussing about or defining this big win as an earthquake, as many people have done. Many observers seem to suggest and to convey the wrong impression at the European level, these groups will make the difference by creating, for instance, a new political group. It seems that it is very likely that these different forces which have very different nature, very different defender, as I said, some coming from the left, some coming from the right, extreme left and extreme right, they pursue different objects and therefore will be very unlikely that they will belong to the same family. We cannot confront the political agenda followed by the Portuguese Left Bloc or Podemos. We, in Syriza in Greece, with that pursued by the Front National in France or the one by UKIP or the Danish People's Party. Here we are talking about very different realities, that certainly became important at the national level. But paradoxically, and this is an interesting paradox, these groups now have gained an important political capital. That has been gathered at the national level, but it won't be represented at the national level. Will only be reflected at the European level where it will basically be diluted by the mainstream political parties. So it is important to be extremely cautious when understanding the realities of the current anti-establishment parties within the European Parliament. They seem extremely powerful at the national level because that's where they come from. But once they are represented within the European Parliament, their power seems to be extremely less important. And there's even the likelihood that they will give rise to a further polarization within the European Parliament has once more, paradoxically giving more power to the established political families, who will have now a real incentive to work together in order not to be caught within the obstructionist measures that these new parties within the Parliament are expected to develop. >> Thank you Albert and regarding Euro skepticism. Alban has some question whether people really did vote on your issues and whether they were able to understand what was at stake. So, Alban can you tell us what people have been asking about this on the forums, Twitter, Facebook, and here on YouTube. >> Alban, we cannot hear you, I guess. >> Sorry, is that better? >> Yeah, we hear you now. So your questions. >> Thanks Albert for the and thanks so well for the explanations. We ask effectively a lot of questions of a lot of folks on the forum, and here, and on YouTube. And I asked about the information that people that do not have to make the minds up about Europe. The thing that they don't have explanation in the media, or at school or in the university. Some of them think that they should be mandatory to some explanation or some information. Basically, that's cool. I just want to know what do you think about that, what's your point of view? >> Yes Alban, it's very important to take this perspective. Meaning, trying to understand to what extent the average European citizen is well-placed to cast this ballot and to make a choice in Europe. In order to do so, we have to compare its position is literacy at the national level. Can we really say that the average French citizen is better place to work in France than at the European level? Well, it is a difficult question. It depends really on which country we're focusing on. But the overall impression is that the average civic awareness existing at the national level It is intense to be higher than the civic awareness existing at the European level. In other words, people tend to be more familiar, and to feel closer to the national political system than to the European political system. To what extent this result, which seems to be quite objective, could entitle us to say that at the end of the day Europeans or not all Europeans should express their voice. Well I think this would be a slippery slope. I think that everyone in Europe should be entitled to express a vote and even if many Europeans have expressed an anti-establishment that protest the vote against the European Union, their vote is as valuable as someone who has expressed a vote that as confirmed or has been in favor of an established political family like the [INAUDIBLE] party or the Social Democrats. So we really have to pay attention not to fall victim of a sort of political correctness bias that would enable us to judge anyone who has not voted towards European or a pro-integration agenda. In my view, all votes carry the same weight. And at the same time, the fact that today, within the new European Parliament that would be constituted in July, there will be more voices rather than less voices. It is actually a big win for the democratic nature of Europe. This shows how democratic the European Union is. And at the same time, it will force the established political families to address much of the discontent that these national political parties. Were capable to channel through their protest vote, and to finally bring it on the table of the European Parliament. You see, this seems to be a positive side of the current results. Many forms of discontent in the past, were not against the European Union. We're not channel, within institutional Channel. They didn't have a significant, or no representation at all within the European Parliament. But now, they will be represented and this will make them more responsible for the position they will carry. This depot, will become policy makers. They will have to take hard decisions and they will have to shift their default mood, which is about complaining, into a more constructive stance. In order to take decisions, they might be favorable, also to their own electorate. Okay, thank you, Alberto. And I had a personal thought about it. Since we see that Euro skeptics were for instance, high in France and in the UK in systems, where at the national level, they are underrepresented. Can we foresee some improvement, whether it is at national level, putting some more proportionality in the votes, or at European level by having for instance, transnational lists. We've had, maybe for the first time, transnational campaigns. What you said, that Spitz and Company that were traveling around Europe, and notably also, not in the UK. So what's the room for improvement and how could the 2019 European elections be even more democratic and not meaning that we should have less Euro skeptics, but maybe go further in the process of the European political integration? >> Thank you Valsef for your comments. I do believe that the room for improvement in terms of democratic improvement enhancement, of the political process in Europe is enormous, and that's probably the main lessons that we really should draw from these results. What happened now, it is a clear disconnect between the national vote and the European vote. And this recent candidate process which by the way, was not fully endorsed by the political leadership, bureau for a series of reasons we can investigate later, does not necessarily suggest that the European Union political season is currently culpable to field this gap. I do expect the new elected to actually develop in the future, and during the next five years, but some of the solutions that you have suggested. Taking the commitment to make their political engagements go beyond the borders, developing cross border and trans national political families culpable to present according to a similar common agenda, different candidates in more than one country. And to go further than that, by making sure that a European public sphere could be created by, for instance, devoting one single day for the European elections all across the European union. And making sure that this day of election, won't be overlapping with lockout, or national elections. It is clearly the right time to think about how we can improve a European public sphere, because it is pretty intuitive that should the political parties at the national level, had developed similar mechanisms in the past, probably the current protest vote, would have not occurred to the same expense. The discontent would have been somehow addressed by the different political families, at the European level, instead of at the national level. And what seems to have become a national liability like the [FOREIGN], It would have become for us a European issue, an issue that should be solved at the European political level. So there are a lot of mechanisms that can be developed, top down and not only bottom up. Institutional mechanisms that could improve the democratic nature of the European political process. >> Thank you, Alberto. And we've talked extensively about the inner of the European Union and internal policies, but we have also, I guess, fundamental, a lot of questions about the external action and the role of the EU, abroad or towards it's partners and I guess you have questions about first, Ukraine. Ukraine was also voting for the presidential elections on Sunday. And about TTP, the transatlancy care treaty negotiations that were also a big issue, at least in France and Germany, in this European campaign. So Ferdinando the floor is yours. >> Yes, as you know Alberto, how our forum is full about question and about doubts, about critics also. About their role, the external role, the external politics, and the external relation with between Europe and Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, and so on. Nowadays Ukraine is very important for our forum, so what is in your opinion, the most criticism point about this situation, this very volatile situation, and We have also many question about. This is a topic very important to, a very hard topic in these days because this subject is assault or fog, about this. And so, Howard, our student wants to know more and more about who, and who is responsible for this, and what TTIP can produce, for our life or how our European lives in, how our life day by day in terms of the, the further, if I have to sum this, we have many, many, many people that send, send this question. So, what's your reply? Thank you Ferdinando. It is actually true that we have collected a lot of questions on the external dimension of the European Union over the last few days. And there is a clear interest in to the negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships. So let me split the two questions by first providing you, a general overview of the external action of the European union, and then I will come and spend a few comments on Titi. The European union, it is, very unique mature/g,when it comes to its internal functioning and we have been highlighted. The specificity of the institutional design of the, at the same time the European Union is also a very hybrid creature when it comes to its external action. Why so? Because the European Union enjoys legal personality. It is actually capable to sign up international treaties and to take commitments at the external level. But at the same time, it's not entirely capable to do so in all policy areas. So, it is extremely complex to fully understand the weight the European Union plays as an international actor. We are certainly familiar with the idea that when it comes to international trade, what we call commercial policy, the European Union is virtually culpable to take any possible international commitment like signing up for the WTO, the World Trade Organization, or now negotiating an international trade agreement with the US. But as soon as we come to the foreign policy, well, the situation is slightly different, because the European Union mode of functioning differs enormously. Basically, the European Union can act at the international level within the foreign policy fields only when a unanimity can be reached, within the council. That basically means that all European countries need to agree on a particular position, be that economic sanctions against or the or opposition. Vis-a-vis the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This certainly makes the European Union look extremely weak. We want to be defending the European Union on the international sphere when thinking about how fragmented the differentiated position has been within the European Union. In its reaction vis-a-vis the Ukraine situation. This context is extremely regretful for the European Union and for its citizens. But at the same time, it finds its own roots. Led to a lot of political integration within the European Union. Much of the resistance thwarts the development of. Sanction policy vis-a-vis Ukraine has to do with policies like the energy policy, where the European Union is not speaking with one voice. And where the economic interest of each individual state currently diverges. Therefore, only more Europe could deter more Europe, could give rise to more external Europe. Yes, that's fine. >> Yeah, yeah, no, no. I'm letting you on just to say that we'll jump back to the Euro and the crisis and the internal efforts just after that with a question from Alemano, but now we're more attentive now. >> It was Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is the most ambitious international agreement ever negotiated at the world wide level. It aims at establishing a free trade area between the United States and Europe, thus creating the largest market for trading products and services and also investments at the worldwide level. However, is currently questioned by civilized society in quite severe terms. Because if on the one side, we have a bunch of economic studies suggesting that TD might actually deliver significant economic gains that could be passed to small and medium enterprises and not only to nationals, but finally to the average consumer. On the other side, we have a lot of fear that the social cost is stemming from these economic benefit of might be too important and therefore would weaken the case for such an agreement. Well, this is a very interesting debate, certainly not an easy one that should debated not only at the economic level but also at a, it's a socio-economic level. Is it actually true that TD could lead to such an increase of social cost for society as a whole? Well, my own take, having been work a lot on the TD negotiations and having contributed to two parties to report. One for the European Parliament and one for the European Commission is that there is a lot of misinformation revolving around the mechanism that is expected to deliver these gains within the teaching. Let me briefly explain you which is the mechanism that we'll deliver the most important case within TD. Well, as you might know, one of the main obstacles to the free movement of goods, but also services, at the worldwide level Is represented by regulations. Regulations tend to differ from one region to another, from one country to another and they basically translate into higher compliance costs for anyone who is interested to export his goods or services into another territory. Well, against this backdrop, the United States and the European Union are currently trying to see whether it is possible to make their different regulatory standards compatible, one with another. What does it mean compatible? This is the most important point where a lot of misunderstandings exist. Compatibility means that each country will keep its own regulatory standards. That basically means that the United States will continue producing its own cars by following its car safety rules, and the European Union will do exactly the same. However, because of the company meeting the objective, the idea of tariff, is to reach sectoral agreements for each particular area. It might be cars, in my example, but it could also be pharmaceutical or food. Establishing an equivalence existing between the two standards. That basically means that if the US cars is safe and it has been approved in America, well they say the very same car should be accepted in the European territories. Vice versa, if a European car is compliant with the European standard, it should be automatically accepted by the U.S. I don't really see the functioning of this compatibility chapter in the agreement as a race to the bottom. What most of civil society seems to be scared about. The concern is that this possible compatibility exercise might lead in providing incentives to the other jurisdiction to lower there standards in order to compete economically. Well these arguments seems to be intuitive, but it doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence. I think that it would be extremely difficult for any politicians and policy maker to sell the idea. It is all cross influences that TD will lower instead of increasing the safety standards. Actually, the real incentives for any policy maker, is to guarantee safety and to actually increase over time the safety rather than decreasing that. I, therefore, do not buy the argument, according to which TTIP might lead to or resistance. The other concern linked Is and relates to the so-called state investor mechanism. Well, in any international trade agreement, whose objective is also the investment? There is a habit to include a specific dedicated distribute settlement mechanism, allowing the investors to say the, who US investors who have been investing significant amount of resources in the European Union, to lodge a complaint in front of arbitrators which have been created within the European Union and the United States in order to solve the disputes. Well there is a clear concern that the creation of an alternative dispute mechanism on top of the existing dispute mechanism might create a sort of shortcut that might circumvent the functioning of both the political and the legal system, thus providing a comparative advantage to multinationals, as compared to national governments. Also here I have some doubts about the importance, the significance of these concerns. If we look at the data, only a few of these dispute systems, disputes have been settled through these mechanisms around the world. And at the same time it is not sure that these investors say these will be included in TTIP, and the best illustration of such an uncertainty on the European side, is the fact that the hour trade commissioner decided to open a public consultation a couple of weeks ago which is still running, allowing anyone in civil society to express its fear, its ideas about the opportunity to create such a mechanism. So the jury is still out when it comes to debating the pros and cons of a state investor despot mechanism within TTIP, and more in general to the benefit and the cost of TTIP at an international agreement of new generation. >> Thank you Alberto, I think you have been answering a lot of questions coming in also during your speech from about you and the US and the concerns. And I refer also to the articles you've been writing about it and you can find additional content in them, additional contents tab on Coursera, where your writing is available, and on your blog, albertoalemanno.eu. So now let's turn to Alban, and ask him what were his questions related to the economy of the Euro and the crisis. Alban Colin, the floor is yours. >> Yes, thanks Gustav. We have different questions about European politics, and especially European fiscal policy and monetary politics. And I would just ask you two things that were brought up by fellow students, both on the forums and here on the hangout. Our first, Jim D., who asked how much of the economy crisis would you contribute to unification of currency, the Euro? And in the same way, from is it possible to orchestrate a command monetary policy with fiscal policies? Do you think that it's contradictory and do you think it has a small or real or huge impact on the economic crisis, or do you think that it has no impact at all? >> Well both questions are very relevant and I think can be addressed together. When discussing about the level of economic integration in Europe, we often forget the so-called original sin of Europe, something that I will be discussing also throughout the Mook. What I refer to when I talk about the original sin is the fact that European integration went probably too fast in Europe. When a decision was taken a few years before the Maastricht Treaty, but it was Maastricht that such a decision was taken to develop a monetary union which would have led to [COUGH] sharing the monetary serenity among Europe without necessarily backing up such a decision. We've fully fledge economic and fiscal union. This has lead to a clear contradictory and schizophrenic policies because as you might know, many European National politics, economic policies, they found themselves caught in a real straitjacket. On the one side, they had to stick and abide a set of clear criteria, the Growth and Stability Pact that was creating a lot of discipline in terms of also Fiscal discipline. But on the other side they lost completely their ability to develop monetary policy which could have been independent and could have done justice to the economic realities of that particular country. This has been the situation for too long. And as the first question suggests, the economic crisis that started in 2008, certainly represented that important push for the European political leaders [COUGH] to somehow address this important gap. And to, if you want, to fix the original sin by creating the conditions to finally lay down the premises for an incipient economic union. Today, the European Commission has been [COUGH] entrusted [COUGH]. We, the authority, through this so-called European semester do supervise and monitor the budget of each individual member state. There are a lot of initiatives that were taken at the time. The European Bank Union represent the very last step that was reached by the political leaders, but there will certainly [COUGH] be more to come over the next few months. As you know, the implementation of the new Banking Union which builds up on the previous steps, is still debated today. But overall and this certainly addresses both the first and the second questions, the facts that occur over the last two years in Europe certainly represent the important acceleration in the economic integration of Europe. And seem to be quite promising if seen from pro-integration perspective. [COUGH] >> Yes, Alberto, do you think, for instance, that following the campaign, there will be possibly new answers and probably innovative answers to the economy crisis? if we go back to what the three main we're proposing, we had youth mechanism to fight youth unemployment. >> We had a digital single market where getting to, give a new, impetus to the single market especially in the digital area. And also you incur about minimum wage in the EU, we also see that the European Central Bank, the ECB has just before the election, in considering to have an influence on the level of the Euro. So will this new commission and this new Parliament be able to create and bring up new mechanisms [SOUND] beyond [COUGH]. >> The banking regulation and banking union. Maybe to find a solution to this economic crisis crippling the EU. >> This is, a very timely question, for the new European leadership. It is pretty clear that the way in which the economic policies in Europe are developed, especially now, that they are oversighted, they are moniyotrf by the European Commission. Are creating a further straight jacket for the social welfare systems of many welfare countries. There is a clear case and a clear threat in reality that the European Union is posing to the social welfare system of those countries, to the point that the economic agendas of the left and the right parties are becoming so similar one to another. And the main responsibility for this,uh, coming together of the left and the right wing, it is very, very much related to the constraints imposed by the European Union. In these circumstances it is pretty clear that only the European Union Is and can be entitled to address those social challenges that the nation states today in Europe doesn't seem capable to do. There is, therefore, a clear case for more political initiatives. We have, as Vassan pointed out, some initiatives. Taken up during the last few months, address at employment, and how to develop an employment scheme that favors mobility in Europe, that's completing the internal market for workers. But there is much more to be done and we know that not only are Europeans citizens initiative, but also some political parties including for instance is currently advocating. But also the socialist party, the social democrats mentioned several times the possibility to create minimum wage policy, or some other forms of solidarity schemes at the European level. Of course, most of those initiatives they do rely and they do start from the assumption that there could be a fiscal policy in Europe. Because it will be needed in the medium long run to have a common thought where these social schemes could be financed, okay. So, thank you very much. And we've been also seeing now, on the forum, a couple questions about balance, voting rights and, and voting rules. So first in England, Scotland, and the UK someone was wondering if the, electoral system had an impact, on the results and whether the UK was the only one not to have transferable votes, but to have a lists system. And the answer is in fact, it is a mandatory requirements that at the national level, the electoral system Is meant in a proportionate way, proportional voting, that is you have to not vote for one candidate but vote for a whole list. THen you can decide what constituency you want to have, whether a national constituency, a subnational, regional constituency. For instance we've been changing quite a few times from a national constituency to a local constituency, taking, encompassing a number of regions. Of course there are pros and cons for each system. When you take small constituencies, then you have a limited number of seats and then only main parties will be able to be represented. Whereas in Germany for instance, they have bigger wants and also they don't this threshold. It was judged unconstitutional by the German constitutional courts, so you have a threshold, like a five percent or a three percent threshold, to get representation in the UN parliaments. So, a lot of parties were able to be represented in the different parliaments, and maybe you've seen that also in the extreme right party. Making one percents is going to be for Germany in the European parliament. But at the same time you see that the Liberal Democrats and Pirates are also going to be able to be represented thanks to this very. To this very rule in Germany, where you have no threshold for presentation. And we have also questions for the voting rights of Italians abroad. So, let's turn, we have two Italians in the room now, we have Alberto and Ferdinando. But Ferdinando had an answer to that, so can you please elaborate and give us the question and the answer at the same time for your fellow Italians, Ferdinando. >> Yes, I went a that. >> Posed me a question on YouTube, saying that Italian citizen living abroad are not able to vote. But I am an Italian citizen living abroad, living in France, and I. >> I'm totally capable to vote, I'm voting for European election, this European election in my town, in my little town, in my small town. And, so the right to vote for the European election is fully right that only European citizen has for instance me, as Italian, I have the possibility to vote for Italian candidates as I did. Or to vote for the French candidate If I'm registered on the French register for the election. So, this is, I think this is a really good point. A point that Show us that you do have the rights of lord, the fundamental rights of lord in Europe are. I should let you all sit down, I think this is a one of the not the European products, but the Europe but the force, the might, the European might that we have to disrupt. That we have to demand to, and I think this is a mark of a better footing the first week of the Obama book. So all the European citizen are able to go in France in Italy or wherever. I don't know if Alberto has voting privileges in France or in Spain. He has so, Alberto this is a personal question for you, whether you were able to vote and in what country maybe you did. >> Any European citizen is entitled to vote when he is abroad, it's part of his European political rights. And not only to vote, but also to run for elections, so both an active and passive side of the vote exists and is protected. So I received two cards, in my case. One in my residence which is outside of Italy, which is my country of birth and I could actually vote in my town of Este. What is interesting is that I also received another letter from my own city, where I was born in Italy, telling me that I had to be in Italy on that date, since there were municipal elections, I could have also voted there for the European parliament. There is a clear effort made by national authorities to make our life easier in Europe and to allow us to exercise our vote. However, there are also some possible abuses and this is a little story, anecdote that I would like to share with you. That a very famous journalist, who is actually the Editor in Chief of Die Zeit, which is the leading business magazine in Germany. This guy is of Italian descent, he therefore carries two passports, an Italian and a German one. And what happened to him, due to the fact that elections were not hold in the very same day, he happened to be in Italy and in Germany during the elections and he therefore decided to vote in both countries. This is a clear violation of the right to vote, which has already prompted the attention of the German authorities, who are currently prosecuting him for abusing of his political right. >> Okay, thank you, and we are going to take one last question now, and then this hangout will be over. Linking these questions to immigration, both within the EU and from outside the EU. That was a huge debate as well, Die Zeit for these European elections, maybe one of the most transnational debates. We've been witnessing debates about the European immigration policy in most of the countries voting these past few days. And Alban is going to tell us what participants in the forum on Twitter, on Facebook, and here on the Hangouts on YouTube have been asking regarding immigration in Europe. Thank you, Vincent. >> Hello. >> Yes, as you said there are a lot of very animated discussions and partially here on the Hangouts. A lot of the discussions as mentioned, were about the common policies, and particularly about immigration and immigration policies set from the outside of the EU, and within the EU. And a lot of people like Gavin, Smith, Enya, etcetera were asking, why, wanted any common policy? Why every country were doing things alone or were left alone? And should Europe be part of it and do something, or should a country be more organized? This is a very sensitive and delicate question, but I think it's important, and as you mentioned, a lot of people are concerned about it. >> Thank you for your questions. I would have expected the current European elections to be, and to offer an opportunity for discussing real subjects. And immigration, in my view, should have been the first subject to be debated in the European Union and during the electoral campaigns. Unfortunately, and this is absolutely regretful, these debates did not take place. Immigration is being used, partly as a national team, by some of the anti-establishment movement, but also by some of the established political families in order to gain more votes. This is certainly not what we would need from the European Union. Immigration is certainly one of the areas where the European Union has been trying to do something useful in order to come up with a real policy establishing a legal framework for legal migration. That is capable to find a balance between the economic need the European Union has to host immigrants and to actually receive them and make them European citizens. But also the expectations of many European citizens, of safety. Immigration is perceived as a safety issue more than an economic issue, but in reality, both aspects should be taken into account. The efforts made by the European Union over time, are clearly Insufficient in order to create the bigger framework for legal migration that I mentioned, they are fragmented. They are not in this society, well-implemented or implemented in a uniform way. And as we know well, from the images we receive from the media on a weekly basis, the problem between brackets or the challenge of immigration, is not faced by all the European countries in the same way. And unfortunately, there's been a failure of the European Union to adopt a policy aimed at curbing irregular immigration and to developing a policy which remains credible. Too often we hear that immigration becomes only a problem when some accidents and some crises occur. But I would expect the European Union and possibly the new European political leadership to be more serious about it. The current commissioner, Cecelia Malmstrom, was certainly in good faith in pushing for such an agenda. But as we know well, and we have learned in this course, the European Commission alone cannot make miracles when the political wheel, by the council and the European parliament, is not there, it is not met. So there's a lot of wishful thinking on my side, that immigration might be one of the new privileged area of intervention on the next European Commission and possibly European Parliament and Council. So for the new legislature there is a lot of work to be done. Immigration, an immigration policy is not a panacea that can address all the consequences stemming from the import and flow of people. But there's a clear economic case for developing a more structured approach, that is capable to do justice to their need, to have a real serious immigration policy that looks not only at high skilled workers, but also low skilled workers and promoting family authentication in the long term residents. >> Thanks a lot Alberto. And before letting you conclude on this, I would like to thank all of you who participated in the forums, on this hangout, on Twitter, on Facebook. Especially from of course our forum sole, Victor Ogourtkopf, Elena Debbiekosskaf, Ernest Tanribakakamp, and also our other teaching assistants, who have been helping us building these hangouts today and were not able to make it live, but Legan Lou, Martin Breniker, and Arjan Toupan. As well as the two very useful and excellent community TAs here today with us, Ferdinando Orlando and Alban Colin, who were giving to Alberto the questions you have been asking. Sorry if we didn't get to your questions. Also, thanks to Svedka and to Venice from agency paris who is behind everything in these MOOCs by by HEC. So Alberto, here's the last words to you now. >> Yes it has been a pleasure to meet you today, to spend some time. I hope it has been a fruitful meeting. I really look forward to meeting you again in the near future. There are still some videos, some classes, some quizzes, some essays. We will try to keep you updated on what is going on with our weekly messages, possibly some videos as well that we'd be recording in the next weeks. I wish you all the best with our course. Keep your critical prospective on what everything is going on in Europe. Our objective in this course is not to make you, or turn your mind into a European mindset, it is to make you understand Europe. That's what we care the most, and hopefully we're going to be able to achieve this objective by the end of the MOOC. Once more thanks a million, also to Vasa, Fernando, and Alvan for assisting us, and for Vanessa who is our project manager. And I should say good luck to each of you and see you soon, bye bye.
