LAMORGESE INSIDE JOBBER: DIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

I piani sull’immigrazioneGiovannini e Lamorgese spiegano che l’Italia non chiuderà i porti

Davanti alla campagna contro gli sbarchi a Lampedusa innescata da Salvini e Meloni, il governo punta a un coinvolgimento dell’Europa e agli accordi bilaterali. «Bisogna salvare le persone e metterle in sicurezza dal punto di vista sanitario», dice il ministro delle Infrastrutture. Il «blocco navale» non si può applicare, spiega la titolare del Viminale

(LaPresse)

Da gennaio a ieri, gli sbarchi di migranti sulle coste italiane sono stati 12.894, a fronte dei circa 3mila dello stesso periodo del 2020. La «cabina di regia» del governo Draghi sull’immigrazione non si è ancora riunita. Ma ieri si è tenuto un primo incontro a Palazzo Chigi per fare il punto della situazione con il presidente del Consiglio, la ministra dell’Interno Luciana Lamorgese e i colleghi di Esteri e Difesa, Luigi Di Maio e Lorenzo Guerini.

In un’intervista rilasciata ad Avvenire, Luciana Lamorgese spiega che i numeri in crescita sono dovuti anche alla crisi sociale ed economica innescata dal Covid-19 che ha colpito il continente africano. Da tempo, dice, «in previsione degli incrementi degli sbarchi in estate, stiamo insistendo con tutti gli interlocutori europei coinvolti come noi nella complessa trattativa sul nuovo Patto Immigrazione e Asilo proposto dalla Commissione». La proposta è stata quella di una «tempestiva attivazione di un meccanismo di emergenza finalizzato al ricollocamento nei Paesi dell’Unione disponibili dei migranti salvati in mare durante eventi di soccorso e ricerca».

La ministra il 19 aprile è stata in Libia, poco dopo la visita di Draghi. E il 20 maggio tornerà a Tunisi insieme alla commissaria europea Ylva Johansoon. L’idea è quella di creare «una logica di partenariato che sappia comprendere, nello stesso pacchetto, progetti di sviluppo, azioni contro il traffico di esseri umani e garanzie per il rispetto dei diritti umani dei migranti». Si punta ad aiutare la Tunisia con i finanziamenti europei. E per la Libia, «il governo vuole proseguire con convinzione sulla linea delle evacuazioni umanitarie, che ha già portato alla realizzazione di otto corridoi per i migranti più vulnerabili», oltre ai «ai rimpatri volontari assistiti dalla Libia». E per questo la ministra spiega di aver proposto quanto prima un incontro a Roma con i rappresentanti delle agenzie Onu e delle autorità libiche.

Nello stesso tempo, però, la ministra dice di voler insistere sulla apertura di canali regolari di immigrazione: «Così facendo sottraiamo i migranti allo sfruttamento della criminalità e rispondiamo alle esigenze di chi, nelle imprese e nelle famiglie, richiede manodopera specializzata. L’ho ripetuto in queste ore alla Conferenza di Lisbona sulla gestione dei flussi migratori: va definita un’adeguata strategia sui canali d’ingresso legale in Europa in una logica di “migrazione circolare”».

Ma nessun «blocco navale» per fermare i barconi, come chiesto da destra. «Tecnicamente», dice Lamorgese, «è una classica misura di guerra, ricompresa tra gli atti di aggressione previsti dall’articolo 3 della risoluzione dell’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite 3314 del 1974. Pertanto il blocco non si può applicare, perché contrasta con le disposizioni che vietano il ricorso all’uso della forza nelle relazioni tra Stati, come metodo di risoluzione nelle controversie internazionali. Analogo principio è sancito dall’articolo 11 della Costituzione italiana».

E la stessa linea è quella illustrata dal ministro delle Infrastrutture e Mobilità sostenibili, che ha la competenza sui porti e sulla Guardia Costiera, in un’intervista alla Stampa. Enrico Giovannini dice: «Ci sono chiare norme vigenti, ancora più importanti da rispettare in epoca di Covid: bisogna salvare le persone e metterle in sicurezza dal punto di vista sanitario. Ma ci sarà una sintesi politica complessiva, che spetta al presidente Draghi e al governo nella sua collegialità». E aggiunge: «Stiamo ragionando su varie opzioni, ben sapendo che questo è un problema strutturale, che ora diventa più visibile per le condizioni meteo favorevoli. Credo che la Guardia Costiera faccia un lavoro straordinario nel salvare vite umane in mare e questo non è in discussione, è la prima cosa da fare. Poi certo serve un’azione diplomatica, un coordinamento europeo, considerando le diverse variabili nei Paesi di partenza dei migranti e azioni sul nostro territorio».

Dai porti ai ponti, quello sullo stretto di Messina è tornato in auge, nonostante non sia inserito nel Pnrr. Giovannini risponde: «Oggi ci sono alcune condizioni diverse rispetto al progetto originario, dal punto di vista economico, normativo e trasportistico. Ad esempio, c’è la novità della linea ferroviaria ad alta velocità Salerno-Reggio Calabria, quella sì inserita nel Piano di Ripresa e Resilienza. La relazione tecnica della commissione istituita al ministero è stata inviata al Parlamento: vengono scartate le ipotesi dei tunnel, mentre si suggerisce di fare uno studio di fattibilità tecnico-economica sulle soluzioni del ponte a una o a più campate. In quest’ultimo casa servono anche analisi sismiche, perché la posizione del ponte sarebbe diversa, più vicina a Reggio calabria e a Messina. Sulla base di questa relazione ci sarà un dibattito pubblico». Il ministro invita «a discutere sui fatti e a prendere decisioni informate, abbandonando il dibattito ideologico a cui abbiamo assistito in passato. Ci sarà una discussione tra le forze politiche, in Parlamento e nell’opinione pubblica, poi si deciderà se fare o meno questo studio di fattibilità».


L'AGORA' DI DI MAIO E' ARRIVATA A BRUXELLES. QUANDO LO METTIAMO IN GALERA QUESTO IDIOTA???

 

Will deliberation save democracy in crisis?

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.

A tourist admires the archaeological site of the ancient Market (Agora) of Athens during an autumn rain , Friday 16 September 2005. [Orestis Panagiotou/EPA/EFE]

European democracy is in urgent need of reinventing itself. Under threat by polarisation and disinformation, deliberative democracy could help bring back power to the people, from the hyperlocal to the international political field, write Pepijn Kennis and Samuel Doveri Vesterbye.

Pepijn Kennis is a regional member of parliament and representative of Brussels’ deliberative movement AGORA (@PepijnKennis). Samuel Doveri Vesterbye is the managing director of the European Neighbourhood Council (@SamuelJsdv).

Distrust, disinformation and echo-chambers

The European political context is one of institutional distrust and a manipulative media landscape. Ever since the 60s, people have lost trust in democratic institutions. But recently, we’ve been losing trust much faster.

Mostly, it seems, we don’t believe our politicians are representing us: in Greece, for example, only 13% believe that elected officials care about regular citizens. In France, less than 10% of citizens trust their political parties. It seems largely overdue to review our idea that democracy should be representative and that representation is democratic.

The problem of political mistrust isn’t uniquely European. It is found across most of the EU’s neighbourhood, ranging from Eastern Europe and Turkey, to the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa. It should come as no surprise that 68% of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine report distrust in political parties, while 62% don’t trust parliaments and 58% distrust their elected government.

The media aren’t helping either. Large scale campaigns of disinformation, a liberalised media landscape competing with clickbait and fake news for the readers’ attention and social media echo chambers (e.g. algorithmic polarisation) together make for an explosive cocktail.

People hear what they want to hear, not necessarily what’s true, and they are surrounded by others who hear the same. Each creates his own reality, drifting further away from a shared narrative.

According to the United Kingdom’s National Security Communications Team, foreign actors continue to pose a serious threat in terms of negative and disinformation influences, particularly through online channels. Liberal democracies allow for media pluralism, which make them particularly vulnerable to disinformation.

A rising number of democracies therefore face ‘soft security threats’ from authoritarian regimes running disinformation campaigns across open democracies.

One way of mitigating this is a drastic renewal of our democratic models, by increasingly involving and efficiently institutionalising citizens in all their diversity directly in decision making. New and data-driven research show how participation can play a key role in surpassing disinformation and polarisation.

Don’t borrow from the authoritarian cookbook

“Dissatisfaction with and lack of confidence in the functioning of the institutions of democratic government have become widespread,” Samuel P. Huntington wrote in 1973. What Huntington describes in the early 1970s has only gotten worse.

Today, disinformation (“fake news”) and declining public distrust have been turbo-charged by a new structural phenomenon: the internet. Huntington famously proposed hierarchical restructuring to counter the crisis of liberal democracy.

But when democracy is broken, you don’t borrow from the authoritarian cookbook to fix it.

As a democracy, hierarchy and centralised power may look attractive and efficient, but it’s hardly in our comparative advantage to use what authoritarian competitors do best. Following Huntington’s logic, we might as well get rid of many democratic inconveniences, install a strongman, curb judicial independence and do away with parliamentary oversight.

Contrary to the above, democracies are more likely to find long-term and sustainable solutions to disinformation and polarisation by renewing their own model of governance, while pushing for more, not less, democracy.

The Deliberative Turn

The OECD recently published a report on innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions, titled ‘Catching the Deliberative Wave’. The report reviews nearly 300 cases where policymakers involved citizens in some way in policymaking.

It finds that for participatory processes to help restore trust in our democracies, it is crucial to bring together a diverse group of citizens, give them proper information and the time to process it, moderate open and frank discussions, and have governments commit themselves to the results beforehand.

To focus on the information gathering and processing, these procedures are often referred to as ‘Deliberative Democracy’, as opposed to ‘Direct Democracy’, e.g. an uninformed (or misinformed) referendum, or ‘Representative Democracy’ i.e. through elected representatives in parliaments or senates.

In Brussels, the citizens’ movement Agora.Brussels advocates for deliberative democracy to exist permanently. To achieve this, they participated in the elections for regional parliament and obtained one seat.

This allowed them to organise a sortition (random selection) of 89 citizens, reflecting the diversity of the population in terms of age, gender and educational level. Together, these citizens decided to work on the theme of housing, and their regional MP has committed himself to transmit whatever they decide for a vote in parliament.

The movement believes that citizens have at least as much legitimacy to make decisions then elected politicians, and often they are more capable to think in the general interest in the long run.

Many more are turning the deliberative way. Most often cited, the Irish Constitutional Convention allowed randomly selected citizens to overcome political differences and electoral interests and propose thing such as a more liberal abortion policy and gay marriage, which would never have passed in an elected parliament.

In France, President Macron organised the Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat and committed himself beforehand to submitting the results to a presidential decree, a parliamentary vote or a referendum.

Much more recently, Chileans decided in a referendum they want citizens, not congressional representatives, to write a new constitution. Though these are one-off examples, they show the strength of deliberative democracy.

If the European Union wants to promote democracy domestically and globally, it should join this deliberative wave and build a local-to-local foreign policy. It should start by organising its convention on the future of Europe in a deliberative manner, and implement these processes in a structural manner in both its own policy-making and its support to member states and foreign states alike.

Deliberation will give hope to millions: Democracy 2.0

In traditional elections, several counter-measures already exist to counter polarisation. They include internet regulation and media literacy. Yet both are limited and often ineffective because voters get their information online and citizens become disposable for politicians in between election periods.

Continuous deliberation is a complementary necessity in a healthy democracy as it stops algorithmic echo-chambers in decision making while lowering citizens’ mistrust. Furthermore, research overwhelmingly shows that dialogue and deliberation increase consensus while moderating citizens’ political views, largely because they are face-to-face as opposed to online and anonymous.

Using randomly selected citizens’ panels as a new form of democratic governance is therefore attractive because it takes away the option of citizens to point the finger at politicians.

During the decision-making process, deliberative citizen panels would no longer get the majority of their information from the internet, but instead consult experts and evidence-based studies, thereby eliminating disinformation to a large extent.

Allowing a small, yet perfectly diverse and mathematically representative sample of society, to continuously govern our democracies effectively allows us to outcompete authoritarians in terms of efficiency and legitimacy.

It would allow democracy to renew itself based on what it does best: take decisions in the general interest of their citizens, instead of trying to catch up with authoritarian efficiency by downgrading our liberties.

Deliberation will give hope to millions around the world, who also believe that democracy is a universal right. From the right to the left, it can give a renewed sense of purpose: Democracy 2.0.

SE LA SUONANO E SE LA CANTANO.

 

Democracy ‘loses currency’ in Europe, warns Freedom House

Spread of anti-democratic norms. highlighting the situation in Poland, Hungary, Slovenia and Serbia [Freedom House]

In its latest report published on Wednesday (28 April) the NGO Freedom House warns of an “antidemocratic turn” throughout Europe, “fuelling a deterioration in human freedom with global implications”.

In its annual report the US government-funded NGO, which specialises in research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom, and human rights points out that “incumbent leaders are spreading antidemocratic practices across Europe” and in many countries, ruling parties are undermining democratic principles to stay in power.

The 2021 report, named ‘Nations in Transit’ covers 29 countries, providing numerical ratings within five categories: consolidated democracies, semi-consolidated democracies, transitional or hybrid regimes, semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes, and consolidated authoritarian regimes.

This year’s report marks the 17th consecutive year of overall decline, leaving the countries designated as democracies at its “lowest point in the history of the report”.

The Washington-based group warns that many of the evaluated countries “are currently worse off than they were four years ago”, as measured by the net change in their Democracy Scores.

Overall, countries are “turning away from democracy and find themselves trapped in a cycle of setbacks and partial recoveries”.

The democratic decline is particularly obvious in Central and Southeast Europe where countries are seeing drops in respect for human rights, as well as media and election freedoms.

Poland and Hungary

According to the report, Hungary and Poland both stand out for their “unparalleled democratic deterioration over the past decade” having experienced the biggest declines measured in the history of the report.

‘Nations in Transit’ says that “Hungary has undergone the biggest decline, plummeting through two categorical boundaries to become a Transitional or Hybrid Regime last year.”

Meanwhile, “Poland is still categorized as a Semiconsolidated Democracy, but its decline over the past five years has been steeper than that of Hungary.”, it added.

The ruling parties in the two capitals “have long been emulating each other in cracking down on judicial autonomy, independent media, the civic sector, and vulnerable minority populations”, the report highlighted.

Serbia and Bulgaria

According to the US-based NGO, “a success story is especially needed in the Balkans, where democratic gains have been rolled back in most countries”.

In Serbia, “President Aleksandar Vučić and his Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) have overseen the mainstreaming of smear campaigns and progovernment propaganda, which contributed to the SNS’s sweeping election victory and the formation of a nonrepresentative parliament in 2020”, the report states.

Additionally, it mentions that Serbia has only recently been reclassified as a “hybrid regime, and still more is hurtling toward reclassification.”

In a separate, dedicated report, Bulgaria’s Democracy score declined from 4.50 to 4.25 due to concerns in relation to the “politicization of the prosecutor general’s office, the lack of accountability for police and prosecutorial misconduct, and the discriminatory treatment of Romany citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic”.

The report also stated that in 2020, “a slight deterioration of the work environment for journalists” and “cases of police using force against media workers during the year’s demonstrations” were observed. Moreover, “some journalists were verbally or physically assaulted in other contexts”.

Media freedom

According to Freedom House, independent and critical outlets faced increasing pressure from the media-capture model pioneered in Hungary – and to a lesser extent, Serbia – in 2020. Under this model, “legal and economic tools are used to squelch critical outlets and bolster friendly reporting”.

The report points out that the antidemocratic norm-setting in Poland, Hungary, and Serbia has influenced neighbouring countries, such as Slovenia.

“This antidemocratic learning process is most visible in Poland, where last year the government used a state-owned energy giant to acquire four-fifths of the country’s regional media outlets and announced plans to impose an advertising tax, which would strip an already ailing private media sector of vital resources”, stated the report.

Furthermore, “the Polish government has used state-owned companies to take control of regional outlets while harassing critical media through administrative and legal measures. In 2020, Gazeta Wyborcza, the country’s second largest daily newspaper, was fighting over 50 lawsuits, many of them filed by the ruling Law and Justice party and its allies”.

[Edited by Benjamin Fox]

E CHI CONTROLLERA' O DOVREBBE CONTROLLARE I CONTROLLORI? IL SIGNOR E LA SIGNORA NESSUNO.

 

Pandora Papers reveals hidden wealth of world’s most powerful

[Photo: Georgi Gotev]

A massive leak of financial documents on Sunday (3 October) that allegedly ties 27 EU politicians and global figures including King Abdullah of Jordan, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis, and associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin to secret stores of wealth.

The dump of more than 11.9 million records, amounting to about 2.94 terabytes of data, came five years after the leak known as the “Panama Papers” exposed how money was hidden by the wealthy in ways that law enforcement agencies could not detect. It was published by a consortium of investigative journalists from around the world.

OLAF investigates EU leaders in Panama Papers scandal

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is investigating several European politicians and high-ranking civil servants for tax evasion, using information leaked in the Panama Papers scandal. EURACTIV’s partner La Tribune reports.

The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a Washington D.C.-based network of reporters and media organizations, said the files are linked to some 35 current and former national leaders and more than 330 politicians and public officials in 91 countries and territories.

The 150 news outlets that joined the investigative partnership include The Washington Post, the BBC, The Guardian, Radio France, Oštro Croatia, the Indian Express, Zimbabwe’s The Standard, Morocco’s Le Desk and Ecuador’s Diario El Universo.

From EU countries, the Pandora Papers contains data on three politicians in France, five in Spain, three in Portugal, two in Belgium, four in Italy, two in Slovenia, four in the Czech Republic, two in Romania and two in Bulgaria.

Cyprus – and Russia

A law firm in Cyprus, Nicos Chr. Anastasiades and Partners appears in the Pandora Papers as a key offshore go-between for wealthy Russians. The firm retains the name of its founder, Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades, and the president’s two daughters are partners there.

Among other dealings, the Cypriot law firm prepared reference letters for Russian steel magnate Alexander Abramov, including one drafted days after the US added the billionaire’s name to the list of oligarchs close to President Putin. Abramov didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Another Russian in the Pandora Papers who has ties to Putin is Konstantin Ernst, a television executive and Oscar-nominated producer. He has been called Putin’s top image-maker, a creative talent who sold the nation on the idea that the president is “Russia’s strong-willed saviour.”

The Washington Post said Russian woman Svetlana Krivonogikh became the owner of a Monaco apartment via an offshore company incorporated on the Caribbean island of Tortola in April 2003, just weeks after she gave birth to a girl. At the time, she was in a secret, years-long relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Post said, citing Russian investigative outlet Proekt.

The Post said Krivonogikh, her daughter, who is now 18, and the Kremlin did not respond to requests for comment.

Czech Republic

The leaked records show that, in 2009, current Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis injected $22 million into a string of shell companies to buy a sprawling property, known as Chateau Bigaud, in a hilltop village in Mougins, France, near Cannes.

Babis has not disclosed the shell companies and the chateau in the asset declarations he’s required to file as a public official, according to documents obtained by ICIJ’s Czech partner, Investigace.cz. In 2018, a real estate conglomerate indirectly owned by Babis quietly bought the Monaco company that owned the chateau.

Tony Blair

The Pandora Papers show that, in 2017, former UK Prime Minister Blair and his wife, Cherie, became the owners of an $8.8 million Victorian building by acquiring the British Virgin Islands company that held the property.  The London building now hosts Cherie Blair’s law firm.

The records indicate that Cherie Blair and her husband, who served as a diplomat in the Middle East after stepping down as prime minister in 2007, bought the offshore company that owned the building from the family of Bahrain’s industry and tourism minister Zayed bin Rashid al-Zayani.

Azerbaijan

The investigation found Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his family have secretly been involved in British property deals worth more than £400 million ($542 million), according to the BBC.

The files show how the family bought 17 properties, including a £33 million office block in London for the president’s 11-year-old son.

The research also reveals how another office block owned by the family nearby was sold to the Crown Estate for 66 million pounds in 2018. The Crown Estate said it carried out the checks required in law at the time of purchase but is now looking into the matter. The Aliyevs declined to comment to the BBC.

King of Jordan

The Pandora Papers show that an English accountant in Switzerland worked with lawyers in the British Virgin Islands to help Jordan’s monarch, King Abdullah II, secretly purchase 14 luxury homes worth more than $106 million in the U.S. and the U.K. The advisers helped him set up at least 36 shell companies from 1995 to 2017.

In neighbouring Lebanon, where similar questions about wealth and poverty have played out, the Pandora Papers show top political and financial figures have also embraced offshore havens.

They include the current prime minister, Najib Mikati, his predecessor, Hassan Diab, and Riad Salameh, the governor of Lebanon’s central bank, who is under investigation in France for alleged money laundering.

Pakistan

The ICIJ said the leaked documents showed members of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s inner circle, including cabinet ministers, have secretly owned companies and trusts holding millions of dollars of hidden wealth. The documents also showed the personal wealth of Pakistani military leaders, it added.

The consortium said the documents contained no suggestion that Khan himself owns offshore companies.

It said Finance Minister Shaukat Fayaz Ahmed Tarin and members of his family own four offshore firms. According to Tariq Fawad Malik, a financial consultant who handled the paperwork on the companies, they were set up as part of the Tarin family’s intended investment in a bank with a Saudi business, the ICIJ said. The deal did not proceed.

The ICIJ quoted Tarin as saying in a statement: “The off-shore companies mentioned were incorporated as part of the fundraising process for my bank.”

Kenya

According to the documents, Kenya’s President Uhuru Kenyatta and six members of his family have been linked to 13 offshore companies.

The Kenyattas’ offshore investments included a company with stocks and bonds worth $30 million, the BBC reported. The Kenyatta’s had not yet responded to requests for comment, it added.

European names

Among the European names mentioned with details of their offshore connections are the current President of Montenegro Milo Djukanovic, the current President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskiy, former Maltese minister and EU Commissioner John Dalli, former Prime Minister of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili, former Finance minister of France and IMF Chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the minister of finance of Serbia Sinisa Mali.

[Edited by Alice Taylor]

IL PARADISO UE PER I LAVORATORI? GLI ARRESTI DOMICILIARI.

 

Giving workers the flexibility they seek, and the security they deserve

DISCLAIMER: All opinions in this column reflect the views of the author(s), not of EURACTIV Media network.

Promoted content

Credit: Shutterstock

For a growing number of workers, the ideal workplace is home — and the perfect employer is not one, but many. Welcome to the flexible workforce, nurtured by the emergence of digital work platforms like Uber, Deliveroo, and Task Rabbit, and accelerated by the Covid-19 lockdowns of the past year. Given trends, this could also be how more of us will work in the future.

But if the pandemic has accelerated the shift toward the flexible workforce, it has also exposed its vulnerabilities. The economic slowdown of 2020 hit freelancers hard: 50% worldwide reported job losses, according to Fairwork, which tracks the platform economy.

Therefore, it’s only fair that those of us who enjoy the fruits of the flexible economy — including cheap rides and home deliveries on demand — take interest in their well-being. We must ensure these workers have access to some of the same safety net protections that traditional employees receive in a civilized society.

The rise of the so-called “gig economy” is undisputed. Last year, the European Commission’s Joint Research Center estimated that 11% of European adults have provided services at least once through a digital platform. A study commissioned by Mastercard expects the sector to grow 17.5% annually, representing $455 billion in global activity by 2023.

The European Commission has been closely monitoring this tectonic shift. This year, the Commission opened two consultations with trade unions and employers’ organizations and social partners on improving work conditions for people employed through digital platforms.

Policymakers are exploring ways to provide the flexible workforce with protections defined by its European Pillar of Social Rights — which promises secure employment and fair wages, access to a minimum income, a right to social protection and to adequate unemployment benefits, work-life balance, social dialogue and life-long learning. What’s important is to strike the right balance — providing a better safety net, while nurturing the innovation that companies like Uber, TaskRabbit, FarmDrop, and others have brought to market.

Of course, innovation often results in disruption — and in this case, disruption of the traditional employment contract. If we want to maintain the social contract that Europe is known for, we must design an equally innovative set of labour policies for the future of work.

At Mastercard, we’re eager to work with policymakers, platform companies and the many other stakeholders — because we believe we can provide the innovative tools to begin building a safety net for the flexible economy. Working with Xynteo and Europe Delivers, a business coalition committed to sustainable growth models, we convened more than 60 flex workers, businesses, tech entrepreneurs, labor groups, universities, and NGOs earlier this year to gain insights — and potential solutions — to the challenges flex workers face. The workers celebrated their independence to choose who they work for, where they work and how much work they do. But they also described the downside of the flexible work economy — fickle clients, long payment cycles, uneven cash flow, and struggles to get credit and health insurance.

Mastercard is already a financial intermediary between many employers and flex workers and we can build a platform to address many of the needs of employers and workers. An innovative website or app could enable employers to pay their freelancers almost immediately. Mastercard already provides such a service to Uber and Lyft drivers, giving them instant access via card to the money they earn, rather than having to wait days or weeks under traditional payment systems.

This only scratches the surface of what we can do. An “income smoothing” program driven by artificial intelligence could shift income during boom times into a saving account that workers can tap when the work slows. AI could also drive a credit-rating system that takes into account the seasonal and intermittent nature of flex work, easing the ability of business owners to get loans. Workers could also receive personal finance content, including primers on business skills like pricing and budgeting.

We believe that a standardized payments platform would make it easier for employers to work with financial service providers to provide the customized banking, savings, credit, insurance and educational services their workers desperately seek. We’re ready to start the conversation on how to give flex workers the support they need.

Mark Barnett is President of Mastercard Europe.

Lettori fissi