Editorial of February 2024

By the Editorial Team 

The Autumn Eurobarometer and the expectations of European citizens

The Eurobarometer is an instrument used by the institutions of the European Union (EU) to find out and assess the state of European public opinion. Strictly speaking, it is a method of collecting public perceptions, like a survey or poll. Naturally, it focuses on issues and problems that directly concern European integration, but it also covers issues that are relevant from a political, economic, and social point of view. It is a kind of “pulse measuring” of the EU and its citizens. The rigour of the method used, and its credibility make Eurobarometer particularly representative of currents of thought and opinion, with relevance and use in the decision-making and political actions of the EU institutions.

This type of survey – when at all credible, despite the volatility of people’s feelings, emotions, and reactions, which are increasingly moulded by immediacy in the media – is also a factor in good governance. It therefore helps to enliven democracy. It brings the frame of mind of citizens (and therefore voters) closer to political decision-makers. It should be noted that we are increasingly moving towards post-modern democracy – in the sense of post-national, post-State democracy. This means that, with all the (relative) imprecision of the terms now used, democracy and the “popular will” can no longer be circumscribed, imprisoned, reduced to a mere electoral expression, a sporadic vote, preceded by an electoral process (campaign). Furthermore, permanent interaction between elected representatives and voters, as well as an understanding of the people’s messages and way of thinking, are integral factors in a desired democracy and political activity that is sound, transparent and fruitful in terms of satisfying the needs and aspirations of those who are governed. Knowing the reality is fundamental to defining public policies – and the people’s way of feeling and thinking is an inescapable element of that reality.

Continue reading “Editorial of February 2024”

Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union

Gonçalo Martins de Matos (Master in Judiciary Law by the University of Minho) 
           

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick’s political satire black comedy film, completed, in the past Monday, 60 years of age since its release on 29th January 1964. Often considered one of the best comedies ever made and, arguably, the best political satire of the 20th century[1], the depths of human stupidity are surgically dissected by the keen, sagacious mind of Stanley Kubrick. More than that, Kubrick’s cautionary tale about nuclear apocalypse exposes humans in what they tragicomically have more contradictory, hypocritical and idiosyncratic.

Encompassing a wide spectrum of themes, Dr. Strangelove remains very present, shedding, like all great Art, some light on contemporary issues and events. More so in recent years, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, bringing to the Old Continent the dark fog of war again. Since Russia is a nuclear power, the fear of nuclear escalation invaded once again people’s hearts, reminding the great powers of the Cold War’s Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD – a fittingly ironic name, as well) doctrine. NATO members have been (well) cautious, as to avoid a backslide to the obscurity of the Cold War. Obscurity is the right word to describe the surroundings of war: freedom is suffocated, barricades are erected, and truth is the first victim.

Continue reading “Dr. Strangelove or: What Lights Sheds Kubrick on Today’s Union”

The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: from political (dis)agreements to a last chance

Inês Neves (Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Porto | Researcher at CIJ | Member of the Jean Monnet Module team DigEUCit ) and Rita Ferreira Gomes (Associate at Morais Leitão)
           

Setting the scene

From 2020 onwards, migration and asylum have been central to both national and European Union (‘EU’) political agendas. 2023, however, was key and ended with major challenges for 2024.

By the end of 2023, the European Parliament and the Council had reached a political agreement on several key proposals included in the (New) Pact on Migration and Asylum[1] (‘New Pact’), in particular, Proposals for Regulations: i) introducing a screening of third country nationals at the external borders[2] (‘Screening Regulation’); ii) on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’[3] (‘Eurodac Regulation’); iii) on a common procedure for international protection in the Union[4] (‘Asylum Procedures Regulation’); iv) on asylum and migration management[5] (‘Asylum Migration Management Regulation’), and v) addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum[6] (‘Crisis and Force majeure Regulation’).

Some question whether “the legislative proposals [will] have the same fate as the reform package that had been presented by the Commission in 2016[7]. Others see the New Pact as a final opportunity to get it right, or at least deserving of “a chance to succeed[8]. In her 2023 State of the Union speech, President von der Leyen referred to a “historic opportunity to get it over the line”, and compassionately, urged us all to get it done and prove that “Europe can manage migration effectively and with compassion[9].

Continue reading “The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum: from political (dis)agreements to a last chance”

A specter is haunting Spain — the specter of illiberalism: A young democracy facing its ghosts

Rubén Díez (Professor of Sociology at Complutense University)
           

Populism shows a natural tendency to strain the independence of public functions, the autonomy of civil society and media, as well as the institutional mechanisms regulating the civil sphere in liberal democracies. Obama reminded us of this during the funeral of Republican John McCain in September 2018, implicitly referring to President Trump. A portion of Obama’s eulogy highlighted the rules and principles of rational-legal legitimization that govern our democracies. These include adherence to the duties and responsibilities of public office, as well as the norms regulating voting and the party system. Civil organizations, alongside the political class, must take responsibility for safeguarding these principles to prevent populism from taking root within their ranks and political entities. As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt remind us in “How Democracies Die”, more essentialist forms of democracy—with demagogic speeches and leaders, populist organizations, plebiscitary practices, and Caesarism—civil institutions see a reduction in their mediating and arbitrating capacity for the multiplicity of material and ideal interests, hindering the expression of civil solidarity. The leader, party, or movement positions itself as the voice of the people, appealing to collective identities exclusively articulated in a binary key of belonging.

Illiberalism in its most extreme forms, especially when it seizes power, thrives by co-opting civil institutions and intermediate spaces. In addition, it silences or sidelines those who articulate alternative positions to its political project. This is achieved by subverting the law and discrediting dissenting voices often through the civil exclusion of discordant voices. If the ultimate expression of this idealized political project successfully materializes in a specific place and time, it opens the door for an anti-democratic populist project to crystallize. Some recent examples include traits of this ideal definition of illiberal scenarios: the leadership of Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Law and Justice in Poland, the Brexit referendum in 2016, the declaration of independence in Catalonia in 2017, and the Trump administration in the USA. Sadly, a progressive and accelerated trend of democratic degradation may be observed in Spain as 2023 ends, following the formation of a new coalition government led by the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) with the support of left-wing populist, nationalist, and separatist forces.

Continue reading “A specter is haunting Spain — the specter of illiberalism: A young democracy facing its ghosts”

The internalisation of EU law by citizens and how it operates a threat to EU democratic values

André Lima Machado (Master in European Union Law - UMINHO) 
           

1. Introductory remarks

Last May 10, the Head of State of the Portuguese Republic, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, addressed the European Parliament in Strasbourg on the occasion of the Europe Day celebrations.[1] President Marcelo – as he is affectionately called by the Portuguese – called for a stronger Europe, a Europe that leads and anticipates, rather than a Europe that follows events. He went on to explain that the Portuguese believe in the future of Europe: in a Europe that is not the Europe of Heads of State, Heads of Government, or party leaders, but rather a Europe of European women and men, because without both there is not and there never will be a strong Europe, within itself and in the world. This is the challenge – said President Marcelo – there is not much time left to anticipate it, and the millions of Europeans deserve it. 

Moreover, this is a recurring idea in President Marcelo’s speech: “Europe cannot waste time”. And why is that? Because the circumstances of integration have changed substantially. The Portuguese President began by recalling the last time he spoke to MEPs, seven years ago, at the start of his first mandate. It was another time, another world, another Europe. He listed the changes that had occurred since then, such as the pandemic, the UK’s decision to opt out, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “In another time, another world, another Europe”, people still believed in the international order, in the existing balance of power, in the advancement of human rights, in the victory of diplomacy over war. People believed in the reform of universal institutions (even if postponed) and in the European security inherited from the 20th century (even if weakened). They believed in the primacy of globalisation, multilateralism, and common causes.

Continue reading “The internalisation of EU law by citizens and how it operates a threat to EU democratic values”

Lula da Silva is President of Brazil once again: are we closing a cycle of lawfare?

By Guilherme Torrentes (Master in Human Rights from the University of Minho)

On January 1, 2023, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was sworn in as President of Brazil for the third time, after one of the fiercest electoral disputes since the re-democratization of the country (which occurred in 1985), in which Lula da Silva defeated Jair Bolsonaro. It is perhaps the end of a cycle of “lawfare” – a term that can be defined as the strategic use of law for the purpose of delegitimizing, harming, or annihilating an enemy[1] – that is, the perverse use of legal rules and procedures for the purpose of political persecution. This cycle of lawfare was initiated in a tentative way by what became known as “Mensalão” (a “mega” or “maxi” judicial process that culminated in the conviction of several political members of Lula’s first government for corruption) and worsened with the impeachment process of President Dilma Roussef and “Operação Lava Jato” (another “mega” judicial process that culminated in the illegal imprisonment of Lula for 580 days).

This cycle of lawfare has jeopardized the continuity of the democratic rule of law, as the Brazilian judiciary and criminal process have been instrumentalized by the exception and subjectivity undesirable to its performance, in order to achieve the desired political ends. It is worth noting that in 2018, the Brazilian State failed to comply with a recommendation of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee to guarantee Lula the right to run for the presidential elections of that year, invoking its domestic laws to not apply Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which guarantees every citizen the right and the opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors).[2]

Continue reading “Lula da Silva is President of Brazil once again: are we closing a cycle of lawfare?”

Editorial of October 2021

By Alessandra Silveira (Editor) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

Strange times and the need to remember the obvious…on the recent decision of the Polish Constitutional Court

The recent judgment of the Polish Constitutional Court calls into question one of the base pillars of the European legal order – namely the primacy of EU law over national law. As a result, it is likely that the European Commission will bring infringement proceedings against Poland. If the CJEU finds that Poland has not complied with its judgment, it may impose a financial penalty.

However, there is a possibility for de-escalation which would allow for this imbroglio to be first be resolved politically. This was the case regarding the German Constitutional Court’s astonishing decision of 5 May 2020, concerning the ECB’s bond buying programme for purchasing Member States’ public debt on the secondary market. The crux of the matter was that the German Constitutional Court’s judgment followed a judgment by CJEU which settled the issue of the validity of the ECB’s bond buying programme. The German Constitutional Court in its decision disregarded the decision of the competent court under Article 19(1) TEU, according to which the CJEU ensures that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of EU treaties. It did not take long for the so-called “illiberal democracies” in Europe to welcome the ruling of the German Constitutional Court, using it to subvert judicial independence and freedom of expression as recognised by the EU. Fortunately, the good sense of the German governmental and parliamentary authorities under Angela Merkel’s leadership prevailed – and the European institutions did not have to act accordingly (at least immediately). It is important to note that in a second decision regarding the ECB’s bond buying programme also appeared to walk back from the edge of the cliff.

In any case, such episodes recommend revisiting the elementary notions of European integration law, because there are occasions when certain civilisational achievements still need to be defended, and the reason behind some choices needs to be recalled. What functional reason justifies the primacy of Union law over national law? Does Union law take precedence over national constitutional norms (or, on the contrary, can it be declared unconstitutional or set aside on the grounds of alleged unconstitutionality)?

Continue reading “Editorial of October 2021”

Defining disinformation in the EU: a matter beyond linguistics

Miguel Pereira (Master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of the University of Minho)

The EU has been a trailblazer in what regards combating disinformation. Through initiatives involving online platforms and drafting of long-term strategies tackling multiple fronts, it has recognized the issue and attempted to address it through non-regulatory policy making. The instruments that have been put forth to combat the phenomenon are often controversial (as is to be expected in all discussions impacting freedom of expression and information) and their effectiveness hard to assess. The debate surrounding these instruments tends to absorb most of the attention, leaving less room to discuss the actual definition of disinformation. This concept is, nonetheless, vital to the successful implementation of policies in this area and to an adequate protection of fundamental rights in the EU, meriting a closer look.

Disinformation is often wrongly equated to, and used interchangeably with, “fake news”. This approach muddles the debate with imprecision and can be particularly pernicious for two reasons. On one side, it does not adequately capture the full scope of the problem which goes well beyond fake news reporting and includes a wide array of:

Continue reading “Defining disinformation in the EU: a matter beyond linguistics”

Editorial of September 2021

By Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

On the recent Polish challenges to the primacy of EU Law

1. Some recent progress

On 14 July 2021 the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter, “ECJ”) issued an Interim Order declaring that the Polish State should suspend the activity of the, widely regarded as breaching the principle of the independence of the judiciary, Disciplinary Chamber of the (Polish) Supreme Court. The ECJ’s decision came as no surprise both due to the nature of the Chamber itself and the fact the same Court had already issued a similar order a few months before. One day after, on 15 July 2021, the ECJ would issue a judgment confirming that the Chamber was in breach of Article 19(1) TEU and Article 267 TFEU.

What could be seen as a surprise is the fact that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, whose level independence could hardly be called adequate after the reforms by the current ruling party, directly challenged (deciding on the previous order) the ECJ. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal argued that the interim measures ordered by the ECJ should be considered as incompatible with the Polish Constitution and therefore not enforced.

Continue reading “Editorial of September 2021”

Editorial of May 2021

Alessandra Silveira, Joana Covelo de Abreu, Pedro Madeira Froufe (Editors) and Tiago Sérgio Cabral (Managing Editor)

Conference on the future of Europe and the defence of European values

On March 10th, 2021, following a long negotiation, the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission signed the “Joint Declaration” on the “Conference on the Future of Europe”, holding its joint presidency.[1] The Conference will be officially launched on May 9th, 2021 in an inaugural session in Strasburg and it will be extended until the Spring of 2022. It aims at creating a new public forum for an open, inclusive, transparent and structured debate with Europeans around the issues that matter to them and affect their everyday lives. A new Special Eurobarometer, published one day before the signing of the Joint Declaration, focuses on the Conference and measures attitudes towards it and some of the key themes to be covered.[2]

Three-quarters of Europeans consider that the Conference will have a positive impact on democracy within the EU: 76% agree that it represents significant progress for democracy within the EU, with a clear majority supporting this view in every EU Member State. The very vast majority of Europeans (92%) across all Member States demand that citizens’ voices are “taken more into account in decisions relating to the future of Europe”. While voting in EU elections is clearly regarded (by 55% of respondents) as the most effective way of ensuring voices are heard by decision-makers at EU level, there is very strong support for EU citizens having a greater say in decisions relating to the future of Europe. 45% of Europeans declare themselves “rather in favour of the EU but not in the way it has been realised so far”. Six in ten Europeans agree that the Coronavirus crisis had made them reflect on the future of the EU while 39% disagree with this.

Continue reading “Editorial of May 2021”