PensionReforms' summary and comments
One of the main points of formal pension arrangements of all kinds (public and private) is to protect older people against poverty.  These are normally people who have limited (and reducing with age) opportunities to earn a living.  If protection against poverty is a reasonable objective, the EU countries score something less than an overall pass mark.

On average, throughout the 27 countries in the EU, 19% of pensioners live in poverty, as measured by local standards. However:
".....the range is quite large, from 5 percent of the elderly in the Czech Republic, to over 18 percent in Bulgaria and Denmark, and close to or more than 30 percent in the United Kingdom, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Cyprus."

So, given that the individual countries seem not to be doing a great job overall at protecting the vulnerable elderly, why wouldn't the EU as a whole take some responsibility?

The report takes as a given that "... a basic income is philosophically and ethically justified":
"In this article, we broaden the scope of the discussion to examining the various (and often technical) options, difficulties and pitfalls associated with the practical design and implementation of a harmonised European minimum income scheme."

The report looks at current minimum income guarantees and finds that there is such a minimum in "nearly every country" regardless of the overall design of their pension arrangements.  They can be a "minimum pension", a "pension supplement", a "guaranteed minimum income" or a "general social assistance scheme".  In no case does the minimum extend to an "unconditional basic pension" though the Netherlands' AOW pension and the Danish Folkepension come closest.

According to the report, "fiscal competition" prevents the introduction of a Basic Pension (BP) by individual countries.  "Social tourism" offers natural constrains on what individual countries can do.

"When designing a European minimum income scheme for the elderly, policymakers must make a decision on each of the following issues: 1. the group that will be covered and the precise entitlement criteria;  2. the level of the benefit and how this will be determined;  3. the way the scheme will be financed;  4. all kinds of issues with regard to the organisation, administration and management of the scheme;  and 5. the exact role of the European level in general and the EU in particular."

The report goes through each of these, listing the issues that need to be resolved.

There are three main potential ways forward:
"At one extreme is a universal BP with equal benefits in all member states (taking differences in prices into account), benefits adapted to the household situation using the same equivalence scale all over the EU and provided by the EU.  Benefits are defined as a certain percentage of the median or average income within the EU.  The BP is completely tax free to ensure that the benefit is the same for everyone in net terms."

Another approach sets an EU framework but requires each country to implement its own version:
"...EU governments agree to implement a BP in each member state, leaving all details of its design and implementation to the member states.  In other words, national governments themselves define the target group, the level of the benefit, the way it is updated over time and the equivalence scale used to compensate for economies of scale within households."

On balance, the report suggests that a compromise between those two "extremes" might be more possible:
"The third category, a hybrid of the two schemes above, can take many forms.  It is the most complex one that could try to integrate the strengths of both extremes.  Probably, it is the most promising way to achieve some kind of European social sharing scheme.  Given the minimum income guarantees already in existence in most EU member states, such a reform would entail bigger changes in one country than in another."

The report concludes:
"Our findings confirm that it is one thing to be in favour of BP, but another to design a realistic and politically feasible proposal."

PensionReforms guesses that if so many EU countries can have a common currency (not all, though) then a common minimum standard of living for the elderly might be possible though the difficulties seem formidable and are probably insurmountable.

There is no doubt that poor old people need help now but PensionReforms suggests that Europe's role is probably better confined to research and information-sharing rather than direct action.  According to Eurostat data cited in the report, the following countries have current poverty rates amongst those over age 65 of more than 20%:
Belgium (23%), Cyprus (51%), Estonia (33%), Ireland (29%), Italy (22%), Latvia (33%), Lithuania (30%), Malta (21%), Portugal (26%), Spain (28%) and the United Kingdom (30%).  

PensionReforms would be interested to understand whether each of these countries thinks there is a problem and, if so, what each is doing about today's pensioner poverty (not tomorrow's).  A Basic Pension, even if practicable, would be years in the making but people are in poverty now.

A limited licence and registration allows access to this report online. (File size 295 KB; 25 pp)  321