This second post looks at the situation a year hence, if the Conservative Party is in power in the United Kingdom and the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force.
***
Lisbon Treaty
Ordinary revision procedure
The amended Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) contains some new options and procedures, although its hard core remains fairly equal to its predecessor.
The government of any member state, the European Parliament and the Commission can make proposals to amend the treaties.
The proposals can serve to increase or to decrease the powers of the European Union.
The European Council consults the European Parliament and the Commission (and the national parliaments have been notified).
The European Council decides to examine the proposals by a simple majority.
In this case the primary option is to call a Convention, but with the consent of the European Parliament it can be dispensed with.
With or without a Convention, an intergovernmental conference decides by common accord (unanimity) the amendments to make to the treaties.
The amendments enter into force after being ratified by all member states.
***
Simplified revision procedure
If the proposals concern only internal policies and actions contained in Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the European Council can decide, by unanimity, to amend the treaty, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission. Such a decision cannot increase the powers of the European Union.
The amendments have to be approved by the member states in accordance with their constitutional requirements.
***
Political framework
We suppose that the Conservative UK government would want to repatriate the social and employment competences it wishes to take back under the Treaty of Nice.
Employment and social policy belong to TFEU Part Three. Granting the United Kingdom a fifth opt-out from the Lisbon Treaty would not increase the EU’s competences.
Under the simplified revision procedure a unanimous decision by the European Council and approval (ratification) by all member states would suffice.
If the Lisbon Treaty is already in force by the time the Tory government is formed, it will make clear that political integration in the EU has gone too far and it would not let matters rest there. [In his recent speech, David Cameron made an unqualified promise to arrange a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, in other words regardless of its entry into force.]
With or without a preceding referendum, the rest depends on the additional powers the British government would propose to scrap, either universally or with regard to itself.
With regard to the Lisbon Treaty, the United Kingdom has already opted out of the Schengen agreement, economic and monetary union (the euro), the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
We lack information about the additional areas Britain would wish to exclude. Therefore it is too early to tell if they would fall under the ordinary or the simplified treaty revision procedure.
The Tories’ European Election Manifesto rejects the new role for the High Representative/Vice-President and the European External Action Service. If changes are proposed, they clearly fall outside TFEU Part Three, and they are core Lisbon Treaty reforms for the other member states. Institutional opt-outs of a horizontal nature are not practicable in general.
***
Conclusion
Under the Lisbon Treaty, limitations of EU powers or opt-outs from internal policy areas would be marginally easier from a legal point of view, but are they politically viable?
The UK’s record as an obstructionist member is solid and the Conservative Party promises even more contempt for its European partners and their common aims.
The EU member states would be foolish to cringe before a member state without loyalty and solidarity.
If even one member state stands up against Britian’s irresponsible behaviour, the plan to deform the treaty crashes.
David Cameron and William Hague would probably have to call a referendum on Britain’s EU membership.
The European Union could offer ex-member Britain a privileged partnership.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Britain and EU: How to deform a treaty (Part I)
Let us imagine that a year from now the new Conservative government in Britain makes a proposal to the Spanish presidency of the Council to change the treaties on which the European Union is founded.
There are two scenarios, depending on if the Treaty of Lisbon is in force or not.
***
Current rules
First we have to look at the circumstances if the second Irish referendum turns in a negative answer or if complications in the Czech Republic, Poland or Germany (or unforeseen events) have prevented the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty by the time the Conservative Party forms the government in the United Kingdom.
If the Treaty of Lisbon is not in force, the UK government would demand the repatriation of powers concerning social and employment policies, as the Conservatives have promised.
According to the existing Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) the Council would decide to consult the European Parliament and the Commission, the latter because the proposal comes from a member state and because the limited powers are European Community competences (first pillar).
After these opinions the Council could call an intergovernmental conference (IGC). This decision is procedural, so it does not require unanimity, only a simple majority (14 out of 27 member states).
What we do know, is that the treaty reform process has been ongoing since December 2000, when political agreement was reached on the Treaty of Nice. At this point in time 27 EU member states have been able to agree unanimously on the compromise Treaty of Lisbon, and 26 national parliaments have approved the amending treaty.
The national political leaders are fed up with institutional reform, and forcing a new round of negotiations would hardly meet with enthusiasm.
Many in Great Britain seem to be unaware of how isolated their country is in the European Union. I doubt that the UK would be able to rally the support of even thirteen other member states.
Even if a simple majority decided to come out in favour of an intergovernmental conference, the treaty amendments would have to be agreed by common accord (unanimity).
Things would then advance to the third hurdle: The agreed amendments would have to be ratified by all member states to enter into force.
Politically, allowing the United Kingdom to opt out of new substantial swathes of Community legislation, in addition to its existing opt-outs, contrary to the voices n many member states calling for a more “social Europe”, would further distort competition on equal terms in the internal market.
Giving in to the British demands would also saddle the European Union with an obstructionist member, bent on using its veto powers to block progress for a long time to come.
In practice, it would translate into a stop for further EU enlargement, because the Lisbon Treaty is the minimum reform required by France and Germany (too little, in my humble opinon).
Could the UK find allies during this process? I imagine that some member states might try to avert British secession because of their market orientation and intergovernmentalist attitude.
Proponents of a European foreign and security policy as well as defence might see Britain as a necessary contributor, but this is a pipe-dream because of the UK’s traditional attitude and the Tories’ basic rejection of any obligations towards its European partners.
***
Conclusion
To fulfil its election promises, the Conservative UK government would have to make a public proposal to tear up the Treaty of Nice, although in a limited fashion.
The effort would probably fail at the first hurdle, but it would be almost guaranteed to hit a brick wall at agreement time, even if the member states’ governments are famous for pusillanimity and muddling through.
Given Britain’s obstructionist record and the Conservatives’ disdainful attitude to their European partners (including leaving the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament), it is hard to believe that none of the national parliament would revolt against a ratification proposal, in the unlikely case that the process was allowed to advance that far.
Sooner or later the UK government would have to admit that it has reached a dead end. For domestic reasons it could hardly shrug it off without a show of action. Unable to deform the treaty, David Cameron and William Hague would probably feel the need to call a referendum on British EU membership.
Ralf Grahn
There are two scenarios, depending on if the Treaty of Lisbon is in force or not.
***
Current rules
First we have to look at the circumstances if the second Irish referendum turns in a negative answer or if complications in the Czech Republic, Poland or Germany (or unforeseen events) have prevented the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty by the time the Conservative Party forms the government in the United Kingdom.
If the Treaty of Lisbon is not in force, the UK government would demand the repatriation of powers concerning social and employment policies, as the Conservatives have promised.
According to the existing Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) the Council would decide to consult the European Parliament and the Commission, the latter because the proposal comes from a member state and because the limited powers are European Community competences (first pillar).
After these opinions the Council could call an intergovernmental conference (IGC). This decision is procedural, so it does not require unanimity, only a simple majority (14 out of 27 member states).
What we do know, is that the treaty reform process has been ongoing since December 2000, when political agreement was reached on the Treaty of Nice. At this point in time 27 EU member states have been able to agree unanimously on the compromise Treaty of Lisbon, and 26 national parliaments have approved the amending treaty.
The national political leaders are fed up with institutional reform, and forcing a new round of negotiations would hardly meet with enthusiasm.
Many in Great Britain seem to be unaware of how isolated their country is in the European Union. I doubt that the UK would be able to rally the support of even thirteen other member states.
Even if a simple majority decided to come out in favour of an intergovernmental conference, the treaty amendments would have to be agreed by common accord (unanimity).
Things would then advance to the third hurdle: The agreed amendments would have to be ratified by all member states to enter into force.
Politically, allowing the United Kingdom to opt out of new substantial swathes of Community legislation, in addition to its existing opt-outs, contrary to the voices n many member states calling for a more “social Europe”, would further distort competition on equal terms in the internal market.
Giving in to the British demands would also saddle the European Union with an obstructionist member, bent on using its veto powers to block progress for a long time to come.
In practice, it would translate into a stop for further EU enlargement, because the Lisbon Treaty is the minimum reform required by France and Germany (too little, in my humble opinon).
Could the UK find allies during this process? I imagine that some member states might try to avert British secession because of their market orientation and intergovernmentalist attitude.
Proponents of a European foreign and security policy as well as defence might see Britain as a necessary contributor, but this is a pipe-dream because of the UK’s traditional attitude and the Tories’ basic rejection of any obligations towards its European partners.
***
Conclusion
To fulfil its election promises, the Conservative UK government would have to make a public proposal to tear up the Treaty of Nice, although in a limited fashion.
The effort would probably fail at the first hurdle, but it would be almost guaranteed to hit a brick wall at agreement time, even if the member states’ governments are famous for pusillanimity and muddling through.
Given Britain’s obstructionist record and the Conservatives’ disdainful attitude to their European partners (including leaving the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament), it is hard to believe that none of the national parliament would revolt against a ratification proposal, in the unlikely case that the process was allowed to advance that far.
Sooner or later the UK government would have to admit that it has reached a dead end. For domestic reasons it could hardly shrug it off without a show of action. Unable to deform the treaty, David Cameron and William Hague would probably feel the need to call a referendum on British EU membership.
Ralf Grahn
UK Conservative Party’s European Election Manifesto
With national mentioned 36 times, UK 33 times, British 32 times and Britain 23 times the UK Conservative Party’s European Election Manifesto (2009) is hardly an inspiration to fellow-Europeans for its broader visions.
From a European perspective the relevance of the Manifesto is limited to what it augurs for European integration and the European Union, when a Tory government is in power in the United Kingdom.
Here is an effort to bundle the different promises in a slightly more systematic manner, with a limited number of shortcuts and explanations in the bullet points.
FUTURE OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
• A referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and a reversal of Britain’s ratification. [In his recent speech, party leader David Cameron promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty without qualification.]
• Alternatively, rolling back political integration if the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force. Details to be set out later.
• No further powers for the European Union. Introducing a legal requirement to arrange a referendum on each future proposal to develop EU powers.
• No adoption of the euro currency.
• Repatriation of social and employment policies to Britain (under Nice Treaty rules).
• Defending the British opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
• Specifically a rejection of (Lisbon Treaty powers concerning?) EU criminal justice, including the fight against terrorism.
• Opposition to Eurojust and Europol.
• Opposition to a European Public Prosecutor.
• Opposition to extended protection by the European Court of Justice in criminal law matters.
• Opposing harmonisation of asylum, visa and immigration policies (but some exceptions possible).
• National control of Britain’s borders.
• Continued EU enlargement, including the Balkan countries, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Turkey. No final borders for the EU.
EXTERNAL SECURITY
Foreign, security and defence policy
• UK independence (from Europe) on foreign policy and defence.
• Using the British veto on proposed EU foreign policy actions and positions.
• Opposition to the new role of the High Representative/Vice President and the European External Action Service.
• Commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, against development of an EU defence role.
• Strong transatlantic relationship; a capable EU seen as a threat.
• An EU role in the fight against global poverty, promoting good governance, democracy and human rights.
COMMERCE
Internal market and world trade
• Defend the Single Market against economic nationalism and protectionism.
• Proper enforcement of Single Market rules and deregulation by 25 per cent by 2012.
• In favour of free trade with the rest of the world.
• For a global trade deal (WTO). For a transatlantic market by 2015.
• Resist all tax harmonisation.
• Reject European level financial regulation.
• Resist European level telecoms regulation.
• Fight against climate change and promote a low carbon economy.
• Liberalising energy markets, communicatins, financial services and public procurement, if needed through “enhanced cooperation”.
• More opportunities for British people in the European jobs market.
• Extended patients’ rights in Europe.
Agriculture and fisheries
• Less spending on agricultural and regional policy. Simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP) and overhaul the common fisheries policy (CFP) to make it sustainable. Ending fish discards.
• Higher animal welfare standards.
BUDGET
• A firm cap on the EU budget at a maximum of 1 per cent of GNP, saving Britain €1 billion a year, and to defend the UK rebate. More funding for science and technology.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
• Forming a new anti-Federalist group in the European Parliament.
• Forcing a vote in the European Parliament to scrap meetings in Strasbourg (the legal set of the EP).
• Force a vote to make Brussels the home of the EP [a matter agreed and changeable at treaty level between the EU member states].
• A review of the system for the European elections.
• Greater transparency, access to documents and freedom of information in relation to the EU institutions.
• Rigorous disclosure regime on MEPs’ expenses.
• Maximum transparency on financial matters (Commissioners).
• Improved domestic scrutiny of EU legislation.
***
Comments
The Tories seem to be keen to promote two transnational aspects of the European Union, for they can hardly believe that ad hoc cooperation (between free nation states) would suffice: to improve the internal market and to achieve a WTO deal on world trade.
In practically all other respects their Manifesto rejects the goals or the means for the European Union to rise to the global foreign policy and security challenges or to enhance the internal security of EU citizens.
In general, they reject the basic ideas of developing integration and a constructive role.
In the economic field they want to promote liberalised markets in important sectors, but they reject all attempts to regulate the European behemots at the same level.
They reject the single currency, and as a consequence improved economic policy coordination.
The Conservative Party looks set to use Britain’s veto powers to block European integration, while promoting EU enlargement without limits.
It seems to be of little concern to David Cameron and William Hague if they lose influence in the European Parliament or the European capitals, as long as they can veto progress on the inside.
This means that UK membership in the European Union is turning from a constant headache to a grave problem for the more constructive EU countries and for the European Union.
It has been said that Britain is necessary for the development of a European defence. Militarily, the United Kingdom is the most advanced of the current EU member states, but since it will reject common progress on the inside, the prospects would still be better with the UK on the outside.
On balance, it would probably be better for the rest of Europe if Britain leaves the European Union and joins the European Economic Area (EEA) or negotiates some other arrangement, where its veto does not block progress.
With or without the Lisbon Treaty, the Conservative Party has promised to renegotiate its EU relations. Its proposals to tear up the Lisbon Treaty or to repatriate EU powers should be rejected, politely but firmly.
David Cameron would then have few options but to arrange a referendum on Britain’s membership, and his empty handed government could hardly contemplate recommending continued membership.
This would end in the rest of the European Union being able to live somewhat less unhappily ever after.
Ralf Grahn
From a European perspective the relevance of the Manifesto is limited to what it augurs for European integration and the European Union, when a Tory government is in power in the United Kingdom.
Here is an effort to bundle the different promises in a slightly more systematic manner, with a limited number of shortcuts and explanations in the bullet points.
FUTURE OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
• A referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and a reversal of Britain’s ratification. [In his recent speech, party leader David Cameron promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty without qualification.]
• Alternatively, rolling back political integration if the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force. Details to be set out later.
• No further powers for the European Union. Introducing a legal requirement to arrange a referendum on each future proposal to develop EU powers.
• No adoption of the euro currency.
• Repatriation of social and employment policies to Britain (under Nice Treaty rules).
• Defending the British opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
• Specifically a rejection of (Lisbon Treaty powers concerning?) EU criminal justice, including the fight against terrorism.
• Opposition to Eurojust and Europol.
• Opposition to a European Public Prosecutor.
• Opposition to extended protection by the European Court of Justice in criminal law matters.
• Opposing harmonisation of asylum, visa and immigration policies (but some exceptions possible).
• National control of Britain’s borders.
• Continued EU enlargement, including the Balkan countries, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Turkey. No final borders for the EU.
EXTERNAL SECURITY
Foreign, security and defence policy
• UK independence (from Europe) on foreign policy and defence.
• Using the British veto on proposed EU foreign policy actions and positions.
• Opposition to the new role of the High Representative/Vice President and the European External Action Service.
• Commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, against development of an EU defence role.
• Strong transatlantic relationship; a capable EU seen as a threat.
• An EU role in the fight against global poverty, promoting good governance, democracy and human rights.
COMMERCE
Internal market and world trade
• Defend the Single Market against economic nationalism and protectionism.
• Proper enforcement of Single Market rules and deregulation by 25 per cent by 2012.
• In favour of free trade with the rest of the world.
• For a global trade deal (WTO). For a transatlantic market by 2015.
• Resist all tax harmonisation.
• Reject European level financial regulation.
• Resist European level telecoms regulation.
• Fight against climate change and promote a low carbon economy.
• Liberalising energy markets, communicatins, financial services and public procurement, if needed through “enhanced cooperation”.
• More opportunities for British people in the European jobs market.
• Extended patients’ rights in Europe.
Agriculture and fisheries
• Less spending on agricultural and regional policy. Simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP) and overhaul the common fisheries policy (CFP) to make it sustainable. Ending fish discards.
• Higher animal welfare standards.
BUDGET
• A firm cap on the EU budget at a maximum of 1 per cent of GNP, saving Britain €1 billion a year, and to defend the UK rebate. More funding for science and technology.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
• Forming a new anti-Federalist group in the European Parliament.
• Forcing a vote in the European Parliament to scrap meetings in Strasbourg (the legal set of the EP).
• Force a vote to make Brussels the home of the EP [a matter agreed and changeable at treaty level between the EU member states].
• A review of the system for the European elections.
• Greater transparency, access to documents and freedom of information in relation to the EU institutions.
• Rigorous disclosure regime on MEPs’ expenses.
• Maximum transparency on financial matters (Commissioners).
• Improved domestic scrutiny of EU legislation.
***
Comments
The Tories seem to be keen to promote two transnational aspects of the European Union, for they can hardly believe that ad hoc cooperation (between free nation states) would suffice: to improve the internal market and to achieve a WTO deal on world trade.
In practically all other respects their Manifesto rejects the goals or the means for the European Union to rise to the global foreign policy and security challenges or to enhance the internal security of EU citizens.
In general, they reject the basic ideas of developing integration and a constructive role.
In the economic field they want to promote liberalised markets in important sectors, but they reject all attempts to regulate the European behemots at the same level.
They reject the single currency, and as a consequence improved economic policy coordination.
The Conservative Party looks set to use Britain’s veto powers to block European integration, while promoting EU enlargement without limits.
It seems to be of little concern to David Cameron and William Hague if they lose influence in the European Parliament or the European capitals, as long as they can veto progress on the inside.
This means that UK membership in the European Union is turning from a constant headache to a grave problem for the more constructive EU countries and for the European Union.
It has been said that Britain is necessary for the development of a European defence. Militarily, the United Kingdom is the most advanced of the current EU member states, but since it will reject common progress on the inside, the prospects would still be better with the UK on the outside.
On balance, it would probably be better for the rest of Europe if Britain leaves the European Union and joins the European Economic Area (EEA) or negotiates some other arrangement, where its veto does not block progress.
With or without the Lisbon Treaty, the Conservative Party has promised to renegotiate its EU relations. Its proposals to tear up the Lisbon Treaty or to repatriate EU powers should be rejected, politely but firmly.
David Cameron would then have few options but to arrange a referendum on Britain’s membership, and his empty handed government could hardly contemplate recommending continued membership.
This would end in the rest of the European Union being able to live somewhat less unhappily ever after.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 30 May 2009
EU solidarity: Hurricane and President Klaus
”Derailing the gravy train” is the grandiloquent motto of the Berlaymonster blog, but at least it helps the passengers to while away the hours until the Britons’ carriage crashes out.
Yesterday, 29 May 2009 the Commission’s disaster-prone Berlaymont building served us a generous helping of solidarity:
“European Union Solidarity Fund: the Commission proposes to grant aid of € 109.4 million to France following Hurricane Klaus
The President of the Commission, Mr José Manuel Barroso, today confirmed the Commission's proposal to allocate aid totalling €109.4 million following the devastation caused by Hurricane Klaus in south-west France in January 2009. This aid will be used to repay the cost of emergency measures such as relief operations, cleaning up the affected areas and repair of basic infrastructures.
President Barroso stated: "My thoughts go out first of all to the victims and their families affected by this disaster. It is the solidarity of all the Member States that is being expressed today towards France, showing once again one of the reasons for the existence of the European Union. I welcome the fact that the Commission dealt with France's request with the utmost expediency, thereby allowing this aid to be granted as quickly as possible."
The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was created after the floods which affected central Europe during summer 2002. It grants emergency aid to Member States and accession countries affected by major natural disasters.”
***
“Nomen est omen”, said the old Romans.
Persons familiar with European Union affairs are painfully aware of the existence of the Czech Republic’s President Vaclav Klaus, a natural disaster in his own right, but without any acknowledged relation to global warming.
Klaus is also a man of solidarity, a staunch defender of the underdog. The numbers may be smaller in the Lisbon Treaty ratification game ─ a paltry 26 to 1 at half time ─ but Klaus has steadfastly refused to attach his name to the ratification instrument.
Perhaps Klaus hopes for a pseudo-scientific disaster to hit Ireland at the time of the referendum on the better deal, or for British diplomacy to acquire the shape of William Hague.
We live in a disaster-prone world, after all, as Berlaymonster knows.
Ralf Grahn
Yesterday, 29 May 2009 the Commission’s disaster-prone Berlaymont building served us a generous helping of solidarity:
“European Union Solidarity Fund: the Commission proposes to grant aid of € 109.4 million to France following Hurricane Klaus
The President of the Commission, Mr José Manuel Barroso, today confirmed the Commission's proposal to allocate aid totalling €109.4 million following the devastation caused by Hurricane Klaus in south-west France in January 2009. This aid will be used to repay the cost of emergency measures such as relief operations, cleaning up the affected areas and repair of basic infrastructures.
President Barroso stated: "My thoughts go out first of all to the victims and their families affected by this disaster. It is the solidarity of all the Member States that is being expressed today towards France, showing once again one of the reasons for the existence of the European Union. I welcome the fact that the Commission dealt with France's request with the utmost expediency, thereby allowing this aid to be granted as quickly as possible."
The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was created after the floods which affected central Europe during summer 2002. It grants emergency aid to Member States and accession countries affected by major natural disasters.”
***
“Nomen est omen”, said the old Romans.
Persons familiar with European Union affairs are painfully aware of the existence of the Czech Republic’s President Vaclav Klaus, a natural disaster in his own right, but without any acknowledged relation to global warming.
Klaus is also a man of solidarity, a staunch defender of the underdog. The numbers may be smaller in the Lisbon Treaty ratification game ─ a paltry 26 to 1 at half time ─ but Klaus has steadfastly refused to attach his name to the ratification instrument.
Perhaps Klaus hopes for a pseudo-scientific disaster to hit Ireland at the time of the referendum on the better deal, or for British diplomacy to acquire the shape of William Hague.
We live in a disaster-prone world, after all, as Berlaymonster knows.
Ralf Grahn
EU: TIR Convention 1975 amendments proposed
The Customs Convention on the international transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention) of 14 November 1975 was approved on behalf of the European Economic Community by way of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2112/78. The Convention entered into force in the Community on 20 June 1983.
The Commission has now published a proposal for the European Community (European Union) to adopt the latest amendments to the TIR Convention agreed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party on Customs Questions Affecting Transport.
The UNECE Working Party on Customs Questions Affecting Transport agreed that some modifications of the TIR Convention are necessary. These modifications concern mainly articles that deal with the financial responsibility and recovery of the customs debt. By reorganizing and clarifying the relevant articles the procedure is easier to understand and to apply. Other amendments that were proposed introduce in the text of the Convention the definition of the international organization and clearly define the process of authorization of this organization to organize the international guarantee chain.
The Commission’s Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be taken by the Community concerning the proposal to amend the Customs Convention on the International Transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention 1975) (Brussels, 26.5.2009, COM(2009) 239 final).
Ralf Grahn
The Commission has now published a proposal for the European Community (European Union) to adopt the latest amendments to the TIR Convention agreed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party on Customs Questions Affecting Transport.
The UNECE Working Party on Customs Questions Affecting Transport agreed that some modifications of the TIR Convention are necessary. These modifications concern mainly articles that deal with the financial responsibility and recovery of the customs debt. By reorganizing and clarifying the relevant articles the procedure is easier to understand and to apply. Other amendments that were proposed introduce in the text of the Convention the definition of the international organization and clearly define the process of authorization of this organization to organize the international guarantee chain.
The Commission’s Proposal for a Council Decision on the position to be taken by the Community concerning the proposal to amend the Customs Convention on the International Transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention 1975) (Brussels, 26.5.2009, COM(2009) 239 final).
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 29 May 2009
Britain on the fringes of Europe ─ far from enough?
Labour Has Left Britain On The Fringes Of Europe, wrote shadow foreign secretary William Hague in The Spectator.
Hague is right, but what his posturing fails to communicate is that his and the Conservatives’ policies are even worse. Almost every Conservative promise would propel the UK even further away from the slipstream of Europe. Leaving the mainstream EPP-ED political group is but one example of a political party, which prefers to hang separately rather than together and which hails opinion polls at the expense of leadership.
The same recipes are proposed for the time when the Conservatives form the government, putting European integration in reverse.
Whatever the latest polls show, there is still a chance to start a discussion about the long term interests of Britain ahead of the European elections.
If not, perhaps the United Kingdom deserves a Conservative government and the consequential loss of friends and influence.
Ralf Grahn
Hague is right, but what his posturing fails to communicate is that his and the Conservatives’ policies are even worse. Almost every Conservative promise would propel the UK even further away from the slipstream of Europe. Leaving the mainstream EPP-ED political group is but one example of a political party, which prefers to hang separately rather than together and which hails opinion polls at the expense of leadership.
The same recipes are proposed for the time when the Conservatives form the government, putting European integration in reverse.
Whatever the latest polls show, there is still a chance to start a discussion about the long term interests of Britain ahead of the European elections.
If not, perhaps the United Kingdom deserves a Conservative government and the consequential loss of friends and influence.
Ralf Grahn
British vote for the European Union
It has become so rare to find rational British voices on European Union affairs (apart from a few active bloggers) that it is worth highlighting this post by Cicero’s Songs I stumbled across: European Union: facing a choice (29 May 2009).
It is a reasoned blog post on the position of the United Kingdom in Europe, on the deteriorating prospects and on the obligations of an individual to take a stand.
A few days remain to think about the future, ahead of the European Parliament election on 4 June 2009.
Ralf Grahn
It is a reasoned blog post on the position of the United Kingdom in Europe, on the deteriorating prospects and on the obligations of an individual to take a stand.
A few days remain to think about the future, ahead of the European Parliament election on 4 June 2009.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Dual-use exports
This is for people with an interest in technologies and matters military. The European Union has published a recast Regulation setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items.
Dual-use items refer to items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, including goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
Officially it is called Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (Recast), and it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.5.2009 L 134/1.
With annexes it runs to 269 pages.
Ralf Grahn
Dual-use items refer to items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, including goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
Officially it is called Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (Recast), and it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.5.2009 L 134/1.
With annexes it runs to 269 pages.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
The Council of the European Union has approved the signing of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements concluded at The Hague on 30 June 2005 on behalf of the European Community, subject to the conclusion of the Convention at a later date.
This is the content of Council Decision 2009/397/EC of 26 February 2009 on the signing on behalf of the European Community of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, just published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.5.2009 L 133/1.
Ireland and the United Kingdom take part in the decision, but Denmark does not.
The text of the Convention, which applies in international cases to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters, is annexed to the Decision.
Ralf Grahn
This is the content of Council Decision 2009/397/EC of 26 February 2009 on the signing on behalf of the European Community of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, just published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.5.2009 L 133/1.
Ireland and the United Kingdom take part in the decision, but Denmark does not.
The text of the Convention, which applies in international cases to exclusive choice of court agreements concluded in civil or commercial matters, is annexed to the Decision.
Ralf Grahn
And Quiet Flows the Spree ─ Merkel’s Germany in the EU
Yesterday I managed to find the full text of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s speech on Europe at the Humboldt University and to post it on this blog in Merkel’s Germany: The European Union mainstream?
Now is the time for some impressions.
Limits
The first things that come to mind are the limits set by Merkel, on the scope of the speech and the European agenda.
Nine years ago, then Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer managed to make the Humboldt University speeches into an institution, resonating around Europe. In his speech "From Confederacy to Federation – Thoughts on the finality of European integration" on 12 May 2000, Fischer spoke about “the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarization as a European Federation, something Robert Schuman demanded 50 years ago. And that means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the Federation. This Federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.”
Merkel refused to speak about the long term goals of European integration, which she saw as potential complications for the practical next steps.
Despite the upcoming European Parliament elections, Merkel did very little to connect the European Union with the daily concerns of citizens. Instead, she chose to convey her personal views and experiences of her work with heads of state or government as well as governments of the EU member states.
Despite the oblique remarks, she did set out some clear preferences and a number of limits.
Franco-German engine
The two most populous states, Germany and France, are the “engine” of European integration in the sense that progress is difficult if they fail to agree. Anyway, Merkel’s assessment was fairly low key, far from some exalted views. (Is her silence of the third biggest country, the United Kingdom, a sign that it is more a part of the problem, than part of the solution?)
European and national interests
Merkel acknowledged that Germany looks after its own interests (and many have surmised that this tendency has been on the increase since the days of Gerhard Schröder and during the economic crisis).
But Merkel sounds credible when she argues that the German government acts with the common European interest in mind and that it is natural that Germany is a net contributor to the European Union.
The view is tempered, but responsible in the main, although many would argue that Germany has fought its corner on financial issues and defended its car industry too keenly during the recession at the expense of the common good.
Lisbon Treaty
Merkel sees the Treaty of Lisbon as a necessity for the functioning of the European Union and as a precondition for further enlargement.
On the other hand, she offers practically nothing on the need for future reform or even for progress among reform-minded countries on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty.
Still, she must be aware of how brittle the hope of effective international action and internal reform on energy and other crucial issues are, even if the Lisbon Treaty is in force.
***
Merkel’s view of the European Union is very much a union of heads of state or government, assisted by their governments.
The EU is clearly a force for the good in Europe, but progress is the sum of untold small steps, without a master plan.
Germany’s role is cautious and constructive.
Perhaps Merkel’s Germany in the European Union could be summed up like this:
Germany is not “in the European mainstream”, it is the European mainstream.
There is little fire, vision or engaging dreams, but a lot of determination to do the daily chores in a responsible manner.
And Quiet Flows the Spree.
Ralf Grahn
Now is the time for some impressions.
Limits
The first things that come to mind are the limits set by Merkel, on the scope of the speech and the European agenda.
Nine years ago, then Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer managed to make the Humboldt University speeches into an institution, resonating around Europe. In his speech "From Confederacy to Federation – Thoughts on the finality of European integration" on 12 May 2000, Fischer spoke about “the transition from a union of states to full parliamentarization as a European Federation, something Robert Schuman demanded 50 years ago. And that means nothing less than a European Parliament and a European government which really do exercise legislative and executive power within the Federation. This Federation will have to be based on a constituent treaty.”
Merkel refused to speak about the long term goals of European integration, which she saw as potential complications for the practical next steps.
Despite the upcoming European Parliament elections, Merkel did very little to connect the European Union with the daily concerns of citizens. Instead, she chose to convey her personal views and experiences of her work with heads of state or government as well as governments of the EU member states.
Despite the oblique remarks, she did set out some clear preferences and a number of limits.
Franco-German engine
The two most populous states, Germany and France, are the “engine” of European integration in the sense that progress is difficult if they fail to agree. Anyway, Merkel’s assessment was fairly low key, far from some exalted views. (Is her silence of the third biggest country, the United Kingdom, a sign that it is more a part of the problem, than part of the solution?)
European and national interests
Merkel acknowledged that Germany looks after its own interests (and many have surmised that this tendency has been on the increase since the days of Gerhard Schröder and during the economic crisis).
But Merkel sounds credible when she argues that the German government acts with the common European interest in mind and that it is natural that Germany is a net contributor to the European Union.
The view is tempered, but responsible in the main, although many would argue that Germany has fought its corner on financial issues and defended its car industry too keenly during the recession at the expense of the common good.
Lisbon Treaty
Merkel sees the Treaty of Lisbon as a necessity for the functioning of the European Union and as a precondition for further enlargement.
On the other hand, she offers practically nothing on the need for future reform or even for progress among reform-minded countries on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty.
Still, she must be aware of how brittle the hope of effective international action and internal reform on energy and other crucial issues are, even if the Lisbon Treaty is in force.
***
Merkel’s view of the European Union is very much a union of heads of state or government, assisted by their governments.
The EU is clearly a force for the good in Europe, but progress is the sum of untold small steps, without a master plan.
Germany’s role is cautious and constructive.
Perhaps Merkel’s Germany in the European Union could be summed up like this:
Germany is not “in the European mainstream”, it is the European mainstream.
There is little fire, vision or engaging dreams, but a lot of determination to do the daily chores in a responsible manner.
And Quiet Flows the Spree.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 28 May 2009
Merkel’s Germany: The European Union mainstream?
The German government has now posted the text of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s speech on Europe at the Humboldt University 27 May 2009.
Germany is the most populous member state of the European Union, its language the most spoken first language in the EU. Germany has been an engine of European integration (together with France), but it has been described as less European and more German since the Chancellorship of Gerhard Schröder.
In many respects, Germany has represented the mainstream of the European Union. Is this still the case?
Before analysing Merkel’s message, here is the text of the speech:
"Humboldt-Rede zu Europa" von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel
Mi, 27.05.2009
in Berlin
Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Professor Markschies,
Exzellenzen,
lieber Herr Professor Nolte,
auch von meiner Seite herzliche Grüße an Herrn Professor Pernice,
liebe Studentinnen und Studenten,
meine Damen und Herren!
Die Reihe der "Humboldt-Reden zu Europa" ist inzwischen eine Institution. Deshalb bedanke ich mich auch herzlich für die Einladung, heute im Rahmen dieser Reihe – fast schon einer ehrwürdigen Reihe – zu Ihnen zu sprechen.
Das Mobiliar im Auditorium Maximum ist, wie mir gesagt wurde, nur noch wenige Wochen im Stil der sechziger Jahre zu sehen. Es ruft bei mir Erinnerungen an meine eigenen Studienjahre – zwar nicht in Berlin, aber in Leipzig – zu Zeiten der DDR wach. In Berlin, nachdem ich hierher umzog, um an der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu arbeiten, endeten all unsere Schritte wenige Meter von hier. Es schien unvorstellbar zu sein, frei in den Westen reisen zu können, geschweige denn zur Europäischen Gemeinschaft zu gehören.
Wir feiern in diesem Jahr bereits den 20. Jahrestag des Mauerfalls. An diese Universität kommen Studentinnen und Studenten, die gar nicht mehr so richtig wissen, von welchem Lebensgefühl wir eigentlich sprechen. Sie wachsen hinein in ein wiedervereinigtes Deutschland und ein geeintes Europa.
In diesem Jahr feiern wir auch fünf Jahre Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union. Es ist erst wenige Jahre her, dass die Europäische Union 120 Millionen neue Bürgerinnen und Bürger hinzugewonnen hat.
Ich spreche oft mit meinem Freund Donald Tusk, dem polnischen Ministerpräsidenten, über diese Veränderungen und auch über den Anteil, den zum Beispiel die Gründung vonSolidarność für den Weg der Ostdeutschen und für die Freiheit ganz Mittel- und Osteuropas gehabt hat. Mutige Menschen in Polen, in Ungarn, der Tschechoslowakei und in der DDR haben einen wesentlichen Beitrag dazu geleistet, dass das Tor zur Überwindung der deutschen Teilung und der Teilung Europas aufgestoßen werden konnte.
Wenn ich mir überlege, was in den letzten Jahren in Europa geschehen ist, dann will ich noch einmal an die "Berliner Erklärung" erinnern, die wir anlässlich des 50. Jahrestages der Unterzeichnung der Römischen Verträge während unserer EU-Ratspräsidentschaft in Berlin verabschiedet haben. Wir – die 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs haben damals gesagt: "Wir Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Europäischen Union sind zu unserem Glück vereint." Ich betone das: Wir sind wahrlich zu unserem Glück vereint.
Auch mein persönlicher Lebensweg hat sich durch die Überwindung der Teilung unseres Kontinents dramatisch verändert – Herr Professor Markschies hat eben darauf hingewiesen. Vielleicht wäre ich heute noch Physikerin in Berlin-Adlershof, wo heute die naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten der Humboldt-Universität angesiedelt sind. Stattdessen darf ich als Bundeskanzlerin des wiedervereinigten Deutschlands – und das ist eine wunderbare Aufgabe – an der Gestaltung der Europäischen Union mitwirken.
Gerade in unserem Jubiläumsjahr – 60 Jahre Bundesrepublik, 20 Jahre Mauerfall – sollten wir uns noch einmal vor Augen führen, weil wir daraus lernen können und erfahren haben: Wandel und Veränderung zum Guten sind möglich. Das ist für uns Realität geworden. Wandel wird von mutigen Menschen gemacht. Die Kraft der Freiheit ist ihr Antrieb. So war es auch am Beginn der europäischen Einigung. Mutige Menschen haben tiefe Gräben, tiefste Gräben, überwunden und eine friedliche neue Ordnung aufgebaut.
Wenn man sich jetzt – im zeitlichen Umfeld des 60. Jahrestages der Verabschiedung des Grundgesetzes und der Gründung der Bundesrepublik – noch einmal Bilder von damals anschaut und sich vergegenwärtigt, in welch materiell zerstörtem Zustand Deutschland sich damals befunden hat und welche Depression damals hätte aufkommen können, wenn sich nicht mutige Menschen mit Visionen ans Werk gemacht hätten, dann will man dafür sorgen, dass sich Geschichte nicht wiederholt. Deshalb liegt für mich das eigentlich Verbindende der Europäischen Union in den gemeinsamen Grundwerten, in einer verlässlichen Rechtsordnung und dem Streben danach, dass Wohlstand für alle geschaffen werden kann.
Europapolitik ist selbstverständlicher Teil unserer Innenpolitik geworden. 2007, zu Beginn unserer EU-Ratspräsidentschaft, haben wir eingeführt, dass wir uns in jeder Kabinettsitzung mit aktuellen Fragen der Europapolitik ressortmäßig beschäftigen. Das gehört dazu wie die aktuellen Punkte der Innenpolitik. Und es zeigt sich: Dieser Punkt ist oft einer der längeren im Kabinett, weil sehr, sehr viele Dinge entschieden werden müssen, weil es wichtig ist, dass wir ressortabgestimmt in diese Beratungen gehen. Ich weiß aus den Diskussionen mit den Kollegen im Deutschen Bundestag, dass es auch zum Alltag der Ausschussarbeit geworden ist, sich mit den Fragen zu beschäftigen, die zum Beispiel im Europäischen Parlament anstehen.
Meine Damen und Herren, bei meiner politischen Arbeit in der Europäischen Union und für die Idee der europäischen Einigung leiten mich bei all dem, was im Tagesgeschäft zu tun ist, vier Prinzipien deutscher Europapolitik:
Erstens: Das Eintreten für deutsche Interessen in Europa und der Blick für das Ganze. Das sind zwei Seiten derselben Medaille.
Deutschland hat die europäische Einigung stets als Teil seiner Staatsräson verstanden. Das ist im Grundgesetz angelegt – das wird nicht so oft betont, deshalb will ich es noch einmal zitieren. Die Bundesrepublik bekennt sich dazu, "als gleichberechtigtes Glied in einem vereinten Europa dem Frieden der Welt zu dienen." Das zeugte in der damaligen Situation in 1949 von großem Weitblick. Dieser Teil des Grundgesetzes – gleich am Beginn – spielt zum Beispiel bei all den Fragen, die jetzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht behandelt und bei den Fragen des Lissaboner Vertrages, immer wieder eine große Rolle.
Das Grundgesetz ist auch in der Tat mit Blick auf eine europäische Einigung angelegt. In Artikel 24, Absatz 2 des Grundgesetzes heißt es: "Der Bund kann sich zur Wahrung des Friedens einem System gegenseitiger kollektiver Sicherheit einordnen; er wird hierbei in die Beschränkungen seiner Hoheitsrechte einwilligen, die eine friedliche und dauerhafte Ordnung in Europa und zwischen den Völkern der Welt herbeiführen und sichern." – Auch wieder, wie ich finde, sehr weitsichtig. Die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik hätte eigentlich schon viel früher beginnen können.
Deutschland war stets ein starker Anwalt der Erweiterung der Europäischen Union um die Staaten Mittel- und Osteuropas – nicht zuletzt deshalb, weil Deutschland selbst das Glück der Wiedervereinigung in Freundschaft mit seinen Nachbarn erfahren durfte. Deutschland ist mit den Erweiterungen von 2004 und 2007 in die Mitte der Europäischen Union gerückt. Endlich sind aus den östlichen Nachbarn Freunde und Partner geworden. Wir liegen nicht mehr in einer Randlage, sondern in der Mitte der Europäischen Union.
Was ist nun unser Selbstverständnis in der Europäischen Union? Zuerst einmal: Es gibt eine Reihe von Bildern, die ich ablehne und die aus meiner Sicht nicht stimmen. Immer wieder hört man von Deutschland als dem "Zahlmeister" der Europäischen Union. Natürlich, es ist richtig: Jede Deutsche und jeden Deutschen kostet die EU-Mitgliedschaft im statistischen Durchschnitt 263 Euro jährlich. Ich vergleiche das einmal mit dem Bundeshaushalt. In ihn zahlt jeder Deutsche 2.678 Euro ein. Die Zahlen beziehen sich auf 2007. Sie können daran erkennen: Die Sache hält sich in bestimmten Relationen.
Deutschland gehört als einer der wirtschaftsstärksten Mitgliedstaaten natürlich zu den Nettozahlern der Europäischen Union. Aber richtig ist auch: Deutschland profitiert mit Blick auf unsere Exportmöglichkeiten auch überdurchschnittlich vom EU-Binnenmarkt. Und – wenn wir es nur auf die Europäische Union und die Geldströme beziehen: Wir bekommen auch sehr viel Geld zurück. Die neuen Bundesländer zum Beispiel haben in den letzten sechs Jahren allein 29 Milliarden Euro Strukturfondsmittel erhalten. Die Betrachtung, dass wir hier in irgendeiner Weise überzahlen würden, teile ich also nicht.
Noch etwas wird mit dem Wort Zahlmeister verzerrt beschrieben, übrigens auch mit dem an sich gut gemeinten Wort Makler: Damit wird immer wieder suggeriert, dass Deutschland keine oder jedenfalls zu wenige eigene Interessen in Europa vertritt. Ich brauche sicher nicht zu betonen, dass das, was wir täglich tun, eigentlich das Gegenteil ist. Aber wir tun dies niemals mit dem Kopf durch die Wand, sondern immer mit einem Bewusstsein für das Ganze. Schon aus unserer geographischen Mittellage, unserer Wirtschaftskraft und aus unseren geschichtlichen Erfahrungen resultiert eine Rolle in Europa, die es uns ermöglicht, das Ganze relativ gut im Blick zu haben und dabei automatisch unsere eigenen Interessen zu vertreten. Das sind für uns, vielleicht sogar mehr als für andere Länder, keine Gegensätze.
Die vielfältige deutsche Wirtschaftsstruktur – klassische Industrie, Hochtechnologie, aber auch Landwirtschaft – macht uns oft zwangsläufig zu einem verständigen Vermittler unterschiedlicher wirtschaftlicher Interessen. Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei von Anbeginn unser besonders enges und freundschaftliches Verhältnis zu Frankreich, dessen Bedeutung vor 1989 wie auch nach dem Fall der Mauer zentral für die Arbeit in Europa ist. Der ehemalige Präsident, Jaques Chirac, hat mir, als ich ihn als Oppositionsführerin zum ersten Mal besuchte, eine kurze und prägnante Einführung in den Zusammenhalt des Ursprungseuropas gegeben. Montanunion und Landwirtschaft spielten dabei eine zentrale Rolle. Ich bemerkte dann, dass die Landwirtschaft immer noch eine spielt, aber die Montanunion nicht mehr. Nichtsdestotrotz, das waren die Anfänge der europäischen Einigung.
Ich darf sagen, dass ich auch mit dem heutigen französischen Präsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy außerordentlich intensiv und gern zusammenarbeite. Noch immer ist eine gemeinsame deutsch-französische Initiative die beste Gewähr dafür, dass sich Europa auf Fortschritte einigt. Ich verstehe es nicht so, dass eine deutsch-französische Initiative so etwas wie ein Diktat ist. Aber wenn Deutschland und Frankreich in der Europäischen Union gegeneinander arbeiten, ist die Gewähr relativ groß, dass es kaum zu einem Beschluss kommt. Deshalb ist unsere Zusammenarbeit so wichtig.
Ich verstehe die deutsche Europapolitik so: Wir treten für unsere eigenen Interessen ein und wir arbeiten zugleich darauf hin, eine Lösung für Europa in Zusammenarbeit mit den größeren und kleineren Staaten, also mit allen, zu finden. Solange ich in und für Europa arbeite, werde ich Trennungen und Spaltungen innerhalb der Union entgegenarbeiten. Ich glaube, dass dieses Verständnis unserer Europapolitik in den Verhandlungen zum Vertrag von Lissabon besonders deutlich wurde.
Das führt mich nahtlos zum zweiten Prinzip, das meine Europapolitik leitet: Zur Vertiefung der Europäischen Union der 27 Mitgliedstaaten sollte es keine Alternative geben; ich gehe so weit zu sagen: sie hat Vorrang vor einer schnellen Erweiterung. Ich sage es ganz profan: Es geht – das erleben wir ja immer wieder – schlicht und einfach um die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union. Mit 27 Mitgliedstaaten hat die Europäische Union eine stattliche Größe erreicht, was praktische Konsequenzen hat.
Wenn wir es mit der Aussage ehrlich meinen, dass kleine und große Länder eine ähnliche Rolle spielen sollen, dann heißt das natürlich, dass die Redezeiten, wenn jeder der 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs zu jedem Tagesordnungspunkt das Wort ergreift, beträchtlich sind. Das erfordert eine gewisse Einübung, ist oft sehr interessant, aber nicht beliebig verlängerbar. Da ist man dankbar, wenn man einen Vorsitz hat, der straff führt und einem trotzdem den Eindruck vermittelt, dass alles gehört wird.
Auch deshalb brauchen wir den Vertrag von Lissabon, denn er wird dem Europäischen Rat einen Präsidenten geben, der über eine Periode von zweieinhalb Jahren mehr Kontinuität in die Arbeit des Europäischen Rates hineinbringt, Interessen bündeln kann und hoffentlich für mehr Schnelligkeit und Praktikabilität der Arbeit sorgt.
Der Vertrag von Lissabon wird auch das Europäische Parlament als Mitgesetzgeber stärken. Deshalb ist die Wahl am 7. Juni auch von außerordentlicher Bedeutung. Damit wird die Demokratie in Europa gestärkt. Was auch ganz wichtig ist: Der Vertrag von Lissabon wird auch die Zuständigkeiten der Europäischen Union besser beschreiben und die Rolle der nationalen Parlamente stärken, also auch das Miteinander von nationalem und europäischem Parlament. Mit wachsender Bedeutung des Europäischen Parlaments hatte es manchmal schon Verlustängste bei den Parlamentariern bei uns zu Hause gegeben, die ich sehr gut verstehen kann. Das kommt durch den Lissaboner Vertrag wieder in eine bessere Balance.
Deshalb ist es wichtig – ich möchte dies von dieser Stelle aus noch einmal tun –, alle Verantwortlichen dazu aufzurufen, das Ratifikationsverfahren so schnell wie möglich abzuschließen. Ich vertraue darauf, dass die Iren sich für Europa entscheiden. Der Vertrag soll, wie die 27 Mitgliedstaaten im Dezember vergangenen Jahres beschlossen haben, noch in diesem Jahr in Kraft treten. Ich setze darauf, dass uns das gelingt. Dann hätten wir ein gutes Fundament für eine Europäische Union, die ihre Verantwortung in der Welt wahrnehmen kann und ihr gerecht wird.
Ich sagte es: Spaltungen in Europa sind mit mir nicht zu machen. Das ist auch der Grund, warum ich den oft nicht zu Ende gedachten Forderungen nach verstärkter Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik im Euro-Raum entgegentrete, weil ich glaube, dass dies die Gefahr einer Spaltung in sich birgt. Der einheitliche Binnenmarkt ist die Grundlage der Union aller Mitgliedstaaten – sowohl derer, die schon zum Euro-Raum gehören, als auch derer, die Nicht-Euro-Staaten sind. Der Rat der 27 Finanzminister muss deshalb die entscheidende Rolle bei der Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik spielen, wie es in den Verträgen vereinbart ist.
Wenn ich deutlich mache, dass es keine Trennungen im Innern geben darf, füge ich hinzu: Darauf sollten wir auch in unserem Außenverhältnis achten. Europa darf sich niemals selbst spalten oder spalten lassen. Das war eine beklemmende Situation während des Irakkrieges im Jahre 2003. Ich bin sehr froh, dass es uns während der französischen Präsidentschaft, als wir mit dem Konflikt zwischen Russland und Georgien wieder eine sehr heikle außenpolitische Situation hatten, gelungen ist, die Europäische Union zusammenzuhalten, und zwar von Italien bis zu den baltischen Staaten. – Die Länder sind in diesem Zusammenhang nicht ganz zufällig gewählt. – Deshalb ist es wichtig, dass wir alles für einen Zusammenhalt tun.
Im Übrigen wird im Zusammenhang mit Europa auch von mehreren Geschwindigkeiten gesprochen und so getan, als sei das ganz einfach möglich. Eine stärkere Zusammenarbeit von einigen Mitgliedstaaten bedarf immer der Zustimmung aller Mitgliedstaaten. Auch die Machtbefugnis und die Möglichkeiten des europäischen Parlaments ermöglichen eine breitgefächerte unterschiedliche Intensität der Zusammenarbeit nur sehr schwer. Ich sage dann immer spaßeshalber: Wenn wir neue Felder haben, in denen wir in kleineren Gruppen zusammenarbeiten, soll man dann die Parlamentarier der nicht mitarbeitenden Länder hinausschicken? Wer entscheidet dann? Es würde die gesamte Statik der Europäischen Union zerstören. Wenn es nur um Gruppen von Staats- und Regierungschefs ginge, könnte man sich noch eher arrangieren. Aber in der Dreier-Balance von Parlament, Kommission und Rat ist das aus meiner Sicht sehr, sehr schwierig. Die Krönung wäre, man würde in einem Gebiet stärker zusammenarbeiten, wobei ein Kommissar genau für dieses Feld verantwortlich ist, der aus einem Land kommt, das bei der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit gar nicht mitwirkt. Also, ich bitte diejenigen, die so etwas immer wieder proklamieren, dies etwas besser zu durchdenken. Vielleicht übersehe ich auch etwas; ich glaube aber nicht.
Natürlich muss die Europäische Union handlungsfähig sein. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es nun keine Beitrittsperspektiven mehr gibt. Wir müssen zum Beispiel den Ländern des westlichen Balkans eine solche Perspektive einräumen. Die Frage ist nur: Was machen wir jetzt vorrangig? Derzeit ist nach der letzten Erweiterungsrunde die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union nicht in ausreichender Weise gegeben und muss erst einmal wiederhergestellt werden. Und ich füge hinzu, dass die, die sich mit der Ratifikation des Lissaboner Vertrages am schwersten tun, meist die Länder sind, die am schnellsten die nächste Erweiterungsrunde wollen.
Ich fasse zusammen: Deutsche Interessen und das Ganze sehen sowie die Frage der Handlungsfähigkeit, die wir auch in Form der Vertiefung der europäischen Zusammenarbeit sehen müssen.
Das dritte Prinzip lautet: Wir müssen uns das Unvergleichliche der Europäischen Union bewusst machen.
Ich weiß, dass bei den "Humboldt-Reden zu Europa" die Frage der Finalität der Europäischen Union immer wieder eine große Rolle gespielt hat. Ich werde Sie an dieser Stelle enttäuschen müssen, weil ich glaube, dass die Fernziele in diesem Zusammenhang manchmal den nächsten notwendigen politischen Schritt schwerer machen könnten. Die Europäische Union setzt sich seit langem für die möglichst präzise Klärung der Verfasstheit ein, wobei ich glaube, dass der Vertrag von Lissabon eigentlich das Optimum der derzeitigen Bemühungen ist.
Schon ein kleiner Austausch mit Nachbarländern darüber, was denn eigentlich die Kommission in unserem beständigen Staatsverständnis, wie wir es in Deutschland haben, ist – wobei wir dazu neigen würden, zu sagen, sie habe ähnliche Formen wie eine Regierung –, zeigt, dass dies in Frankreich und vielen anderen Ländern auf erbitterten Widerstand stößt.
Folgende Frage habe ich neulich in einem anderen Zusammenhang erörtert: Warum hat das Europäische Parlament eigentlich nicht die Legitimation, auch selbst Gesetzesinitiativen zu ergreifen, wie es im Deutschen Bundestag selbstverständlich ist? Dies spricht dafür, dass wir uns in einem Gebilde eigener Art befinden und deshalb das Anlegen staatsrechtlicher Maßstäbe an die Europäische Union sicherlich sehr schwierig ist. Wir können, indem wir diese Frage immer wieder diskutieren, sehr schnell zu einer Überforderung, zum Auslösen von Ängsten beitragen.
Deshalb liegt mein Hauptaugenmerk bei der Frage, was die Europäische Union ist, darauf, dass klar definiert ist, wie sie sich zu den Nationalstaaten verhält, dass die Nationalstaaten die Herren der Verträge sind, dass die Kompetenzübertragung eindeutig geregelt ist, dass wir alles vermeiden, was Kompetenzübertragung durch die Hintertür bedeutet, und dass wir uns dann daran orientieren: Können wir die Aufgaben, die wir erfüllen müssen, mit der Art, wie wir die Europäische Union gestaltet haben, auch wirklich erfüllen? Diesbezüglich hat uns die jetzige internationale Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise vor eine sehr große Aufgabe gestellt. Die Probe war hart, aber ich finde, dass die Arbeitsteilung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und der Union im Grundsatz recht gut funktioniert hat.
Die Zuständigkeit für die Haushalts-, die Steuer- und die Sozialpolitik liegt aus guten Gründen nach wie vor bei den Mitgliedstaaten. Maßnahmen zur Stützung der Konjunktur waren deshalb auch nationalstaatliche Aufgaben. Aber die Europäische Union ist der notwendige Ordnungsrahmen, in dem die Mitgliedstaaten über ihre Handlungsoptionen entscheiden. Gerade der gemeinsame Binnenmarkt und seine Regelungen schützen uns vor Protektionismus zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Wir haben nationalstaatlich gehandelt und trotzdem hat uns die Europäische Union in Form ihres Ordnungsrahmens ein Wettbewerbsfeld gegeben, in dem wir ohne Protektionismus miteinander arbeiten. Wie groß die Versuchung von Protektionismus in einer solchen wirtschaftlichen Ausnahmesituation ist, haben wir erlebt. Für uns, für Deutschland als Exportnation ist natürlich die Frage, dass wir mit freiem Handel leben können, dass wir als Europäische Union ein gutes Beispiel geben können, von zentraler und eminenter Bedeutung.
Meine Damen und Herren, ich glaube, dass das Vertrauen in die Europäische Union besonders dann gut funktioniert, wenn sie selbst gut funktioniert und sie sich vor allen Dingen immer wieder daran erinnert – damit komme ich zum vierten Prinzip –, dass sie auf der Basis gemeinsamer Werte arbeitet. Deshalb müssen wir die Werte der Europäischen Union, auf die wir uns geeinigt haben und mit denen wir auch die Erweiterung immer bestritten haben, als Kompass für die neuen Herausforderungen nutzen.
Es ist unstrittig, dass uns die Europäische Union Frieden und Freiheit gebracht hat. Die Richtungsentscheidung am Anfang war, die institutionelle Bande zwischen ehemaligen Kriegsgegnern so zu schmieden, dass Frieden in Europa dauerhaft herrschen kann, und Mechanismen so zu etablieren, dass vertrauensvolles und solidarisches Handeln dauerhaft möglich ist.
Und das ist auch heute noch so: Nicht allein der Euro und der Binnenmarkt halten die Europäische Union zusammen. Es sind die gemeinsamen Werte, die unser solidarisches Handeln ermöglichen. Die gemeinsamen Werte geben uns die Kraft zum solidarischen Handeln. Denn es ist ja alles andere als selbstverständlich, dass sich zum Beispiel Länder als Nettozahler dafür einsetzen, dass andere auch auf die Beine kommen. Das bedarf ja eines inneren Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühls. Das sind Grundlagen, die wir durch unsere tägliche Arbeit allein nicht schaffen können. Von denen leben wir.
Deshalb haben wir an einer Grundrechtecharta gearbeitet und diese in der Berliner Erklärung gewürdigt. Wir setzen auf die Kraft der Freiheit. Wir setzen auf den Menschen. Er steht im Mittelpunkt. Seine Würde ist unantastbar. So, wie dies im Grundgesetz steht, so ist es auch das gemeinsame Verständnis aller europäischen Mitgliedstaaten. Indem wir auf die Kraft der Freiheit setzen, erhalten wir uns auch unsere Vielfalt, denn wir haben gelernt: Aus der lebendigen Vielfalt der Sprachen, Kulturen und Regionen können wir für uns alle das Beste gewinnen. Wir können gemeinsam stärker sein, als jeder für sich allein ist. Deshalb glaube ich auch, dass wir uns immer wieder auf die Eigenschaft besinnen sollten, die für mich auch die Seele Europas ausmacht: die Toleranz. Nur ein Europa, das diese Seele kennt und sich seiner Werte bewusst ist, kann die richtigen Weichenstellungen für die Zukunft vornehmen. Hier wird das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Einigkeit und Freiheit natürlich deutlich. Beides muss immer wieder in ein Gleichgewicht gebracht werden.
Daraus ergibt sich die Rolle Europas auch nach außen. Das will ich an zwei Bereichen noch einmal deutlich machen. Zum einen ist dies der Friedensauftrag, der nach innen weitgehend erfüllt ist, sich jetzt aber zunehmend nach außen richtet. Mit unserer Erfahrung können wir natürlich Beispiel sein, wie man Konflikte, die scheinbar über Jahrhunderte hinweg nicht zu überwinden sind, doch überwinden kann. Wir haben es geschafft. Wir sollten deshalb nicht hochmütig sein. Die europäische Geschichte gibt uns keinerlei Grund, anderen große Vorhaltungen zu machen, wenn man betrachtet, wie lange wir gebraucht haben. Aber wir können zumindest sagen, wie es gehen könnte.
Die Europäische Union hat inzwischen auch handfeste Friedensaufgaben übernommen – über 20 zivile und militärische Missionen seit 1999 – und damit ihren Beitrag zu Stabilität und Sicherheit geleistet. Das heißt, die gemeinsame Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik ist eine Form, unsere Werte in der Welt zu verbreiten und zu verankern.
Am Anfang war sicherlich manch einer skeptisch; auch ich war es. Der Bundesverteidigungsminister ist heute hier. Es gibt Missionen, die meiner Überzeugung nach gar nicht anders gemacht werden konnten, wenn ich zum Beispiel an die Vorbereitung der Wahlen im Kongo denke. Das war eine Mission, die wir sehr gut durchgeführt haben und die auch die Europäische Union ein Stück weit zusammengeschweißt hat. Ich glaube, dass die Bedeutung des Politikbereichs der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik wachsen wird. Wir verstehen sie immer so, dass sie nicht gegen die NATO gerichtet ist. Wir wollen hier vielmehr eine enge Verzahnung haben.
Natürlich wissen wir, dass 500 Millionen Menschen in Europa in einer Welt mit insgesamt über sechs Milliarden Menschen manches bewegen können. Wenn wir uns die internationale Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise anschauen, wenn wir uns andere Herausforderungen anschauen, stellen wir fest, dass andere europäische Länder und selbst das größte – Deutschland mit 80 Millionen – zu klein sind, um gegenüber 6,5 Milliarden Menschen viel auszurichten. Wenn wir aber als 500 Millionen – immerhin eine halbe Milliarde – und auch mit unserer Wirtschaftskraft im Rücken gemeinsam bestimmte Ziele vertreten, dann haben wir eine Chance, auf die Gestaltung der Globalisierung, auf die Gestaltung der Welt und der internationalen Institutionen doch einen prägenden Einfluss zu nehmen. Dies ist nach meiner festen Überzeugung die Aufgabe unserer Generation. Hier liegt eine zusätzliche Dimension Europas, die es vor zwanzig, dreißig, vierzig Jahren in dieser Klarheit aus meiner Sicht noch nicht gab.
Dabei kann ich über den Klimaschutz reden, wozu Europa als Vorreiter unter der deutschen und französischen Ratspräsidentschaft Beschlüsse gefasst hat, die wir jetzt gemeinsam mit unseren Partnern umsetzen müssen. Wir hoffen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ihren Beitrag dazu leisten werden, um in Kopenhagen am Jahresende ein Folgeabkommen für Kioto verabschieden zu können. Aber wir können, ohne uns zu überheben, sagen: Ohne die führende Rolle der Europäischen Union, ohne die treibende Kraft der Europäischen Union würde es zu einem solchen Kopenhagener Beschluss nicht kommen. Das ist meine feste Überzeugung.
Unspektakulär funktioniert inzwischen unsere gemeinsame Handelspolitik, die wir immer wieder auch in den Verhandlungen um die Doha-Runde – manchmal auch extrem kompliziert – durchsetzen. Da ist es fast zwingend, dass Frankreich und Deutschland sich auf eine gemeinsame Position verständigen, was nicht immer einfach ist, wofür aber der gemeinsame Wille da ist. Gerade jetzt, in dieser internationalen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, ist das von allergrößter Bedeutung.
Wie sieht unsere Wirtschaft auf der Welt in Zukunft aus? Für mich hat diese Krise gezeigt: Es bedarf auch hier einer gemeinsamen Wertegrundlage. Immerhin sind wir als Deutsche stolz auf unsere Soziale Marktwirtschaft. Aber wir haben auch ein gemeinsames Verständnis des Wirtschaftens im Rahmen der Europäischen Union. Dies ist auch im Vertrag von Lissabon verankert. Ich will zitieren: "Die Union … wirkt auf … eine in hohem Maße wettbewerbsfähige Soziale Marktwirtschaft, die auf Vollbeschäftigung und sozialen Fortschritt abzielt, … hin."
Sie sehen daran, nicht allen ist der Begriff Soziale Marktwirtschaft so geläufig wie uns. Aber der Grundgedanke hat Eingang in den Lissabonner Vertrag gefunden, er ist das Fundament, von dem aus wir für eine internationale Ordnung arbeiten, in der ein Wirtschaftssystem nicht Einzelne ein riesiges Risiko eingehen lässt und anschließend den daraus entstandenen Schaden auf die Gemeinschaft abwälzt.
Ich bin der Meinung, dass wir die Soziale Marktwirtschaft gegenüber den Macht- und Wirtschaftszentren der Welt als erfolgreiches Modell herausstellen und für die Umsetzung ihrer Prinzipien eintreten müssen. Ich werde dafür sehr oft belächelt: Überhebt man sich damit nicht, ist das nicht ein viel zu hoher Anspruch? Da muss ich Ihnen sagen: Ich glaube, nein. Es ist ein dickes Brett, das zu bohren ist. Aber für mich gibt es keine Alternative zu einer Wirtschaftsordnung, die sich auch auf den Grundsatz gründet, dass die Würde des Menschen unantastbar ist, dass Kinderarbeit und Raubbau an der Natur nicht hingenommen werden, dass wir soziale und ökologische Mindeststandards haben. Ansonsten werden wir in einer Welt von vielleicht neun Milliarden nicht mehr so leben können, wie wir es wollen. Wir haben also gar nicht die Wahl, ob wir uns einsetzen. Entweder wir verlieren unsere eigenen Lebensgrundlagen oder aber wir kämpfen dafür, dass diese Prinzipien woanders auch eingehalten werden.
Deshalb haben wir uns auf dem G20-Gipfel sehr vehement dafür eingesetzt, dass jetzt alles getan wird, damit wir aus dieser Krise Lehren ziehen und sich dies auch in der Struktur der internationalen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsordnung durchsetzt. Wir treten in der Europäischen Union ein für eine Charta des nachhaltigen Wirtschaftens. Ich glaube, dass wir neben der Charta der Menschenrechte auch eine Grundlage unserer Wirtschaftsordnung brauchen.
Meine Damen und Herren, Sicherheitspolitik, Klimaschutz, Soziale Marktwirtschaft, Handelspolitik – all das sind Aufgaben, in denen wir als Mitgliedstaaten nicht mehr allein auftreten können, sondern bei deren Erfüllung wir als Gemeinschaft auftreten müssen und so eine starke Stimme in der Welt sind. Diese Aufgabe müssen wir in den nächsten Jahren unbedingt vorantreiben. Darin sehe ich auch eine zentrale Mission der Europäischen Union.
Ein starkes Europa ist für uns eine Europäische Union, die die Freiheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und die Vielfalt der europäischen Länder und Regionen respektiert. Das heißt auch, dass sich das Handeln der jeweiligen Organe auf ihre Kernkompetenzen konzentrieren muss. Es gibt immer wieder skurrile Beispiele. Kürzlich mussten wir uns mit der Dosis des Salzes im Brot befassen, da man sich auf europäischer Ebene plötzlich ängstigte, dass wir alle ungesund leben. Das mag zwar sein, aber am Brot und seinem Salzgehalt liegt es wohl nicht. Wir haben dies abgewendet und uns wichtigen Sachen zugewendet.
Es geht darum, dass wir nicht gegen andere in der Welt arbeiten, sondern mit unseren Partnern weltweit zusammenarbeiten. Deshalb wird es auch darauf ankommen, die Kooperation in die verschiedenen Richtungen unserer Nachbarn auszuweiten, wie wir es jüngst mit der östlichen Dimension und wie wir es mit der Mittelmeerunion gemacht haben. Wir müssen unsere Stärke, die wir nach innen gewonnen haben, jetzt auch nach außen wenden, um einen Beitrag für eine friedliche, sichere und freiheitliche Welt zu leisten. Ich glaube, Europa kann das. Ich sage auch ganz bewusst: Mir macht das Spaß, auch wenn es oft mühselig ist, aber wenn man sich kümmert, geht es auch ein bisschen voran. Es kommt immer auf die Maßstäbe an. Stillstand ist jedenfalls keine Alternative. Deshalb ist Europa eine wunderschöne Sache.
Herzlichen Dank, dass Sie mir zugehört haben.
***
Comments are welcome. I am going to take a closer look at Merkel’s speech, before deciding i fand what I am going to write about it.
Ralf Grahn
Germany is the most populous member state of the European Union, its language the most spoken first language in the EU. Germany has been an engine of European integration (together with France), but it has been described as less European and more German since the Chancellorship of Gerhard Schröder.
In many respects, Germany has represented the mainstream of the European Union. Is this still the case?
Before analysing Merkel’s message, here is the text of the speech:
"Humboldt-Rede zu Europa" von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel
Mi, 27.05.2009
in Berlin
Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Professor Markschies,
Exzellenzen,
lieber Herr Professor Nolte,
auch von meiner Seite herzliche Grüße an Herrn Professor Pernice,
liebe Studentinnen und Studenten,
meine Damen und Herren!
Die Reihe der "Humboldt-Reden zu Europa" ist inzwischen eine Institution. Deshalb bedanke ich mich auch herzlich für die Einladung, heute im Rahmen dieser Reihe – fast schon einer ehrwürdigen Reihe – zu Ihnen zu sprechen.
Das Mobiliar im Auditorium Maximum ist, wie mir gesagt wurde, nur noch wenige Wochen im Stil der sechziger Jahre zu sehen. Es ruft bei mir Erinnerungen an meine eigenen Studienjahre – zwar nicht in Berlin, aber in Leipzig – zu Zeiten der DDR wach. In Berlin, nachdem ich hierher umzog, um an der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu arbeiten, endeten all unsere Schritte wenige Meter von hier. Es schien unvorstellbar zu sein, frei in den Westen reisen zu können, geschweige denn zur Europäischen Gemeinschaft zu gehören.
Wir feiern in diesem Jahr bereits den 20. Jahrestag des Mauerfalls. An diese Universität kommen Studentinnen und Studenten, die gar nicht mehr so richtig wissen, von welchem Lebensgefühl wir eigentlich sprechen. Sie wachsen hinein in ein wiedervereinigtes Deutschland und ein geeintes Europa.
In diesem Jahr feiern wir auch fünf Jahre Osterweiterung der Europäischen Union. Es ist erst wenige Jahre her, dass die Europäische Union 120 Millionen neue Bürgerinnen und Bürger hinzugewonnen hat.
Ich spreche oft mit meinem Freund Donald Tusk, dem polnischen Ministerpräsidenten, über diese Veränderungen und auch über den Anteil, den zum Beispiel die Gründung vonSolidarność für den Weg der Ostdeutschen und für die Freiheit ganz Mittel- und Osteuropas gehabt hat. Mutige Menschen in Polen, in Ungarn, der Tschechoslowakei und in der DDR haben einen wesentlichen Beitrag dazu geleistet, dass das Tor zur Überwindung der deutschen Teilung und der Teilung Europas aufgestoßen werden konnte.
Wenn ich mir überlege, was in den letzten Jahren in Europa geschehen ist, dann will ich noch einmal an die "Berliner Erklärung" erinnern, die wir anlässlich des 50. Jahrestages der Unterzeichnung der Römischen Verträge während unserer EU-Ratspräsidentschaft in Berlin verabschiedet haben. Wir – die 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs haben damals gesagt: "Wir Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Europäischen Union sind zu unserem Glück vereint." Ich betone das: Wir sind wahrlich zu unserem Glück vereint.
Auch mein persönlicher Lebensweg hat sich durch die Überwindung der Teilung unseres Kontinents dramatisch verändert – Herr Professor Markschies hat eben darauf hingewiesen. Vielleicht wäre ich heute noch Physikerin in Berlin-Adlershof, wo heute die naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultäten der Humboldt-Universität angesiedelt sind. Stattdessen darf ich als Bundeskanzlerin des wiedervereinigten Deutschlands – und das ist eine wunderbare Aufgabe – an der Gestaltung der Europäischen Union mitwirken.
Gerade in unserem Jubiläumsjahr – 60 Jahre Bundesrepublik, 20 Jahre Mauerfall – sollten wir uns noch einmal vor Augen führen, weil wir daraus lernen können und erfahren haben: Wandel und Veränderung zum Guten sind möglich. Das ist für uns Realität geworden. Wandel wird von mutigen Menschen gemacht. Die Kraft der Freiheit ist ihr Antrieb. So war es auch am Beginn der europäischen Einigung. Mutige Menschen haben tiefe Gräben, tiefste Gräben, überwunden und eine friedliche neue Ordnung aufgebaut.
Wenn man sich jetzt – im zeitlichen Umfeld des 60. Jahrestages der Verabschiedung des Grundgesetzes und der Gründung der Bundesrepublik – noch einmal Bilder von damals anschaut und sich vergegenwärtigt, in welch materiell zerstörtem Zustand Deutschland sich damals befunden hat und welche Depression damals hätte aufkommen können, wenn sich nicht mutige Menschen mit Visionen ans Werk gemacht hätten, dann will man dafür sorgen, dass sich Geschichte nicht wiederholt. Deshalb liegt für mich das eigentlich Verbindende der Europäischen Union in den gemeinsamen Grundwerten, in einer verlässlichen Rechtsordnung und dem Streben danach, dass Wohlstand für alle geschaffen werden kann.
Europapolitik ist selbstverständlicher Teil unserer Innenpolitik geworden. 2007, zu Beginn unserer EU-Ratspräsidentschaft, haben wir eingeführt, dass wir uns in jeder Kabinettsitzung mit aktuellen Fragen der Europapolitik ressortmäßig beschäftigen. Das gehört dazu wie die aktuellen Punkte der Innenpolitik. Und es zeigt sich: Dieser Punkt ist oft einer der längeren im Kabinett, weil sehr, sehr viele Dinge entschieden werden müssen, weil es wichtig ist, dass wir ressortabgestimmt in diese Beratungen gehen. Ich weiß aus den Diskussionen mit den Kollegen im Deutschen Bundestag, dass es auch zum Alltag der Ausschussarbeit geworden ist, sich mit den Fragen zu beschäftigen, die zum Beispiel im Europäischen Parlament anstehen.
Meine Damen und Herren, bei meiner politischen Arbeit in der Europäischen Union und für die Idee der europäischen Einigung leiten mich bei all dem, was im Tagesgeschäft zu tun ist, vier Prinzipien deutscher Europapolitik:
Erstens: Das Eintreten für deutsche Interessen in Europa und der Blick für das Ganze. Das sind zwei Seiten derselben Medaille.
Deutschland hat die europäische Einigung stets als Teil seiner Staatsräson verstanden. Das ist im Grundgesetz angelegt – das wird nicht so oft betont, deshalb will ich es noch einmal zitieren. Die Bundesrepublik bekennt sich dazu, "als gleichberechtigtes Glied in einem vereinten Europa dem Frieden der Welt zu dienen." Das zeugte in der damaligen Situation in 1949 von großem Weitblick. Dieser Teil des Grundgesetzes – gleich am Beginn – spielt zum Beispiel bei all den Fragen, die jetzt das Bundesverfassungsgericht behandelt und bei den Fragen des Lissaboner Vertrages, immer wieder eine große Rolle.
Das Grundgesetz ist auch in der Tat mit Blick auf eine europäische Einigung angelegt. In Artikel 24, Absatz 2 des Grundgesetzes heißt es: "Der Bund kann sich zur Wahrung des Friedens einem System gegenseitiger kollektiver Sicherheit einordnen; er wird hierbei in die Beschränkungen seiner Hoheitsrechte einwilligen, die eine friedliche und dauerhafte Ordnung in Europa und zwischen den Völkern der Welt herbeiführen und sichern." – Auch wieder, wie ich finde, sehr weitsichtig. Die Europäische Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik hätte eigentlich schon viel früher beginnen können.
Deutschland war stets ein starker Anwalt der Erweiterung der Europäischen Union um die Staaten Mittel- und Osteuropas – nicht zuletzt deshalb, weil Deutschland selbst das Glück der Wiedervereinigung in Freundschaft mit seinen Nachbarn erfahren durfte. Deutschland ist mit den Erweiterungen von 2004 und 2007 in die Mitte der Europäischen Union gerückt. Endlich sind aus den östlichen Nachbarn Freunde und Partner geworden. Wir liegen nicht mehr in einer Randlage, sondern in der Mitte der Europäischen Union.
Was ist nun unser Selbstverständnis in der Europäischen Union? Zuerst einmal: Es gibt eine Reihe von Bildern, die ich ablehne und die aus meiner Sicht nicht stimmen. Immer wieder hört man von Deutschland als dem "Zahlmeister" der Europäischen Union. Natürlich, es ist richtig: Jede Deutsche und jeden Deutschen kostet die EU-Mitgliedschaft im statistischen Durchschnitt 263 Euro jährlich. Ich vergleiche das einmal mit dem Bundeshaushalt. In ihn zahlt jeder Deutsche 2.678 Euro ein. Die Zahlen beziehen sich auf 2007. Sie können daran erkennen: Die Sache hält sich in bestimmten Relationen.
Deutschland gehört als einer der wirtschaftsstärksten Mitgliedstaaten natürlich zu den Nettozahlern der Europäischen Union. Aber richtig ist auch: Deutschland profitiert mit Blick auf unsere Exportmöglichkeiten auch überdurchschnittlich vom EU-Binnenmarkt. Und – wenn wir es nur auf die Europäische Union und die Geldströme beziehen: Wir bekommen auch sehr viel Geld zurück. Die neuen Bundesländer zum Beispiel haben in den letzten sechs Jahren allein 29 Milliarden Euro Strukturfondsmittel erhalten. Die Betrachtung, dass wir hier in irgendeiner Weise überzahlen würden, teile ich also nicht.
Noch etwas wird mit dem Wort Zahlmeister verzerrt beschrieben, übrigens auch mit dem an sich gut gemeinten Wort Makler: Damit wird immer wieder suggeriert, dass Deutschland keine oder jedenfalls zu wenige eigene Interessen in Europa vertritt. Ich brauche sicher nicht zu betonen, dass das, was wir täglich tun, eigentlich das Gegenteil ist. Aber wir tun dies niemals mit dem Kopf durch die Wand, sondern immer mit einem Bewusstsein für das Ganze. Schon aus unserer geographischen Mittellage, unserer Wirtschaftskraft und aus unseren geschichtlichen Erfahrungen resultiert eine Rolle in Europa, die es uns ermöglicht, das Ganze relativ gut im Blick zu haben und dabei automatisch unsere eigenen Interessen zu vertreten. Das sind für uns, vielleicht sogar mehr als für andere Länder, keine Gegensätze.
Die vielfältige deutsche Wirtschaftsstruktur – klassische Industrie, Hochtechnologie, aber auch Landwirtschaft – macht uns oft zwangsläufig zu einem verständigen Vermittler unterschiedlicher wirtschaftlicher Interessen. Eine besondere Rolle spielt dabei von Anbeginn unser besonders enges und freundschaftliches Verhältnis zu Frankreich, dessen Bedeutung vor 1989 wie auch nach dem Fall der Mauer zentral für die Arbeit in Europa ist. Der ehemalige Präsident, Jaques Chirac, hat mir, als ich ihn als Oppositionsführerin zum ersten Mal besuchte, eine kurze und prägnante Einführung in den Zusammenhalt des Ursprungseuropas gegeben. Montanunion und Landwirtschaft spielten dabei eine zentrale Rolle. Ich bemerkte dann, dass die Landwirtschaft immer noch eine spielt, aber die Montanunion nicht mehr. Nichtsdestotrotz, das waren die Anfänge der europäischen Einigung.
Ich darf sagen, dass ich auch mit dem heutigen französischen Präsidenten Nicolas Sarkozy außerordentlich intensiv und gern zusammenarbeite. Noch immer ist eine gemeinsame deutsch-französische Initiative die beste Gewähr dafür, dass sich Europa auf Fortschritte einigt. Ich verstehe es nicht so, dass eine deutsch-französische Initiative so etwas wie ein Diktat ist. Aber wenn Deutschland und Frankreich in der Europäischen Union gegeneinander arbeiten, ist die Gewähr relativ groß, dass es kaum zu einem Beschluss kommt. Deshalb ist unsere Zusammenarbeit so wichtig.
Ich verstehe die deutsche Europapolitik so: Wir treten für unsere eigenen Interessen ein und wir arbeiten zugleich darauf hin, eine Lösung für Europa in Zusammenarbeit mit den größeren und kleineren Staaten, also mit allen, zu finden. Solange ich in und für Europa arbeite, werde ich Trennungen und Spaltungen innerhalb der Union entgegenarbeiten. Ich glaube, dass dieses Verständnis unserer Europapolitik in den Verhandlungen zum Vertrag von Lissabon besonders deutlich wurde.
Das führt mich nahtlos zum zweiten Prinzip, das meine Europapolitik leitet: Zur Vertiefung der Europäischen Union der 27 Mitgliedstaaten sollte es keine Alternative geben; ich gehe so weit zu sagen: sie hat Vorrang vor einer schnellen Erweiterung. Ich sage es ganz profan: Es geht – das erleben wir ja immer wieder – schlicht und einfach um die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union. Mit 27 Mitgliedstaaten hat die Europäische Union eine stattliche Größe erreicht, was praktische Konsequenzen hat.
Wenn wir es mit der Aussage ehrlich meinen, dass kleine und große Länder eine ähnliche Rolle spielen sollen, dann heißt das natürlich, dass die Redezeiten, wenn jeder der 27 Staats- und Regierungschefs zu jedem Tagesordnungspunkt das Wort ergreift, beträchtlich sind. Das erfordert eine gewisse Einübung, ist oft sehr interessant, aber nicht beliebig verlängerbar. Da ist man dankbar, wenn man einen Vorsitz hat, der straff führt und einem trotzdem den Eindruck vermittelt, dass alles gehört wird.
Auch deshalb brauchen wir den Vertrag von Lissabon, denn er wird dem Europäischen Rat einen Präsidenten geben, der über eine Periode von zweieinhalb Jahren mehr Kontinuität in die Arbeit des Europäischen Rates hineinbringt, Interessen bündeln kann und hoffentlich für mehr Schnelligkeit und Praktikabilität der Arbeit sorgt.
Der Vertrag von Lissabon wird auch das Europäische Parlament als Mitgesetzgeber stärken. Deshalb ist die Wahl am 7. Juni auch von außerordentlicher Bedeutung. Damit wird die Demokratie in Europa gestärkt. Was auch ganz wichtig ist: Der Vertrag von Lissabon wird auch die Zuständigkeiten der Europäischen Union besser beschreiben und die Rolle der nationalen Parlamente stärken, also auch das Miteinander von nationalem und europäischem Parlament. Mit wachsender Bedeutung des Europäischen Parlaments hatte es manchmal schon Verlustängste bei den Parlamentariern bei uns zu Hause gegeben, die ich sehr gut verstehen kann. Das kommt durch den Lissaboner Vertrag wieder in eine bessere Balance.
Deshalb ist es wichtig – ich möchte dies von dieser Stelle aus noch einmal tun –, alle Verantwortlichen dazu aufzurufen, das Ratifikationsverfahren so schnell wie möglich abzuschließen. Ich vertraue darauf, dass die Iren sich für Europa entscheiden. Der Vertrag soll, wie die 27 Mitgliedstaaten im Dezember vergangenen Jahres beschlossen haben, noch in diesem Jahr in Kraft treten. Ich setze darauf, dass uns das gelingt. Dann hätten wir ein gutes Fundament für eine Europäische Union, die ihre Verantwortung in der Welt wahrnehmen kann und ihr gerecht wird.
Ich sagte es: Spaltungen in Europa sind mit mir nicht zu machen. Das ist auch der Grund, warum ich den oft nicht zu Ende gedachten Forderungen nach verstärkter Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik im Euro-Raum entgegentrete, weil ich glaube, dass dies die Gefahr einer Spaltung in sich birgt. Der einheitliche Binnenmarkt ist die Grundlage der Union aller Mitgliedstaaten – sowohl derer, die schon zum Euro-Raum gehören, als auch derer, die Nicht-Euro-Staaten sind. Der Rat der 27 Finanzminister muss deshalb die entscheidende Rolle bei der Koordinierung der Wirtschaftspolitik spielen, wie es in den Verträgen vereinbart ist.
Wenn ich deutlich mache, dass es keine Trennungen im Innern geben darf, füge ich hinzu: Darauf sollten wir auch in unserem Außenverhältnis achten. Europa darf sich niemals selbst spalten oder spalten lassen. Das war eine beklemmende Situation während des Irakkrieges im Jahre 2003. Ich bin sehr froh, dass es uns während der französischen Präsidentschaft, als wir mit dem Konflikt zwischen Russland und Georgien wieder eine sehr heikle außenpolitische Situation hatten, gelungen ist, die Europäische Union zusammenzuhalten, und zwar von Italien bis zu den baltischen Staaten. – Die Länder sind in diesem Zusammenhang nicht ganz zufällig gewählt. – Deshalb ist es wichtig, dass wir alles für einen Zusammenhalt tun.
Im Übrigen wird im Zusammenhang mit Europa auch von mehreren Geschwindigkeiten gesprochen und so getan, als sei das ganz einfach möglich. Eine stärkere Zusammenarbeit von einigen Mitgliedstaaten bedarf immer der Zustimmung aller Mitgliedstaaten. Auch die Machtbefugnis und die Möglichkeiten des europäischen Parlaments ermöglichen eine breitgefächerte unterschiedliche Intensität der Zusammenarbeit nur sehr schwer. Ich sage dann immer spaßeshalber: Wenn wir neue Felder haben, in denen wir in kleineren Gruppen zusammenarbeiten, soll man dann die Parlamentarier der nicht mitarbeitenden Länder hinausschicken? Wer entscheidet dann? Es würde die gesamte Statik der Europäischen Union zerstören. Wenn es nur um Gruppen von Staats- und Regierungschefs ginge, könnte man sich noch eher arrangieren. Aber in der Dreier-Balance von Parlament, Kommission und Rat ist das aus meiner Sicht sehr, sehr schwierig. Die Krönung wäre, man würde in einem Gebiet stärker zusammenarbeiten, wobei ein Kommissar genau für dieses Feld verantwortlich ist, der aus einem Land kommt, das bei der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit gar nicht mitwirkt. Also, ich bitte diejenigen, die so etwas immer wieder proklamieren, dies etwas besser zu durchdenken. Vielleicht übersehe ich auch etwas; ich glaube aber nicht.
Natürlich muss die Europäische Union handlungsfähig sein. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es nun keine Beitrittsperspektiven mehr gibt. Wir müssen zum Beispiel den Ländern des westlichen Balkans eine solche Perspektive einräumen. Die Frage ist nur: Was machen wir jetzt vorrangig? Derzeit ist nach der letzten Erweiterungsrunde die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union nicht in ausreichender Weise gegeben und muss erst einmal wiederhergestellt werden. Und ich füge hinzu, dass die, die sich mit der Ratifikation des Lissaboner Vertrages am schwersten tun, meist die Länder sind, die am schnellsten die nächste Erweiterungsrunde wollen.
Ich fasse zusammen: Deutsche Interessen und das Ganze sehen sowie die Frage der Handlungsfähigkeit, die wir auch in Form der Vertiefung der europäischen Zusammenarbeit sehen müssen.
Das dritte Prinzip lautet: Wir müssen uns das Unvergleichliche der Europäischen Union bewusst machen.
Ich weiß, dass bei den "Humboldt-Reden zu Europa" die Frage der Finalität der Europäischen Union immer wieder eine große Rolle gespielt hat. Ich werde Sie an dieser Stelle enttäuschen müssen, weil ich glaube, dass die Fernziele in diesem Zusammenhang manchmal den nächsten notwendigen politischen Schritt schwerer machen könnten. Die Europäische Union setzt sich seit langem für die möglichst präzise Klärung der Verfasstheit ein, wobei ich glaube, dass der Vertrag von Lissabon eigentlich das Optimum der derzeitigen Bemühungen ist.
Schon ein kleiner Austausch mit Nachbarländern darüber, was denn eigentlich die Kommission in unserem beständigen Staatsverständnis, wie wir es in Deutschland haben, ist – wobei wir dazu neigen würden, zu sagen, sie habe ähnliche Formen wie eine Regierung –, zeigt, dass dies in Frankreich und vielen anderen Ländern auf erbitterten Widerstand stößt.
Folgende Frage habe ich neulich in einem anderen Zusammenhang erörtert: Warum hat das Europäische Parlament eigentlich nicht die Legitimation, auch selbst Gesetzesinitiativen zu ergreifen, wie es im Deutschen Bundestag selbstverständlich ist? Dies spricht dafür, dass wir uns in einem Gebilde eigener Art befinden und deshalb das Anlegen staatsrechtlicher Maßstäbe an die Europäische Union sicherlich sehr schwierig ist. Wir können, indem wir diese Frage immer wieder diskutieren, sehr schnell zu einer Überforderung, zum Auslösen von Ängsten beitragen.
Deshalb liegt mein Hauptaugenmerk bei der Frage, was die Europäische Union ist, darauf, dass klar definiert ist, wie sie sich zu den Nationalstaaten verhält, dass die Nationalstaaten die Herren der Verträge sind, dass die Kompetenzübertragung eindeutig geregelt ist, dass wir alles vermeiden, was Kompetenzübertragung durch die Hintertür bedeutet, und dass wir uns dann daran orientieren: Können wir die Aufgaben, die wir erfüllen müssen, mit der Art, wie wir die Europäische Union gestaltet haben, auch wirklich erfüllen? Diesbezüglich hat uns die jetzige internationale Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise vor eine sehr große Aufgabe gestellt. Die Probe war hart, aber ich finde, dass die Arbeitsteilung zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und der Union im Grundsatz recht gut funktioniert hat.
Die Zuständigkeit für die Haushalts-, die Steuer- und die Sozialpolitik liegt aus guten Gründen nach wie vor bei den Mitgliedstaaten. Maßnahmen zur Stützung der Konjunktur waren deshalb auch nationalstaatliche Aufgaben. Aber die Europäische Union ist der notwendige Ordnungsrahmen, in dem die Mitgliedstaaten über ihre Handlungsoptionen entscheiden. Gerade der gemeinsame Binnenmarkt und seine Regelungen schützen uns vor Protektionismus zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten. Wir haben nationalstaatlich gehandelt und trotzdem hat uns die Europäische Union in Form ihres Ordnungsrahmens ein Wettbewerbsfeld gegeben, in dem wir ohne Protektionismus miteinander arbeiten. Wie groß die Versuchung von Protektionismus in einer solchen wirtschaftlichen Ausnahmesituation ist, haben wir erlebt. Für uns, für Deutschland als Exportnation ist natürlich die Frage, dass wir mit freiem Handel leben können, dass wir als Europäische Union ein gutes Beispiel geben können, von zentraler und eminenter Bedeutung.
Meine Damen und Herren, ich glaube, dass das Vertrauen in die Europäische Union besonders dann gut funktioniert, wenn sie selbst gut funktioniert und sie sich vor allen Dingen immer wieder daran erinnert – damit komme ich zum vierten Prinzip –, dass sie auf der Basis gemeinsamer Werte arbeitet. Deshalb müssen wir die Werte der Europäischen Union, auf die wir uns geeinigt haben und mit denen wir auch die Erweiterung immer bestritten haben, als Kompass für die neuen Herausforderungen nutzen.
Es ist unstrittig, dass uns die Europäische Union Frieden und Freiheit gebracht hat. Die Richtungsentscheidung am Anfang war, die institutionelle Bande zwischen ehemaligen Kriegsgegnern so zu schmieden, dass Frieden in Europa dauerhaft herrschen kann, und Mechanismen so zu etablieren, dass vertrauensvolles und solidarisches Handeln dauerhaft möglich ist.
Und das ist auch heute noch so: Nicht allein der Euro und der Binnenmarkt halten die Europäische Union zusammen. Es sind die gemeinsamen Werte, die unser solidarisches Handeln ermöglichen. Die gemeinsamen Werte geben uns die Kraft zum solidarischen Handeln. Denn es ist ja alles andere als selbstverständlich, dass sich zum Beispiel Länder als Nettozahler dafür einsetzen, dass andere auch auf die Beine kommen. Das bedarf ja eines inneren Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühls. Das sind Grundlagen, die wir durch unsere tägliche Arbeit allein nicht schaffen können. Von denen leben wir.
Deshalb haben wir an einer Grundrechtecharta gearbeitet und diese in der Berliner Erklärung gewürdigt. Wir setzen auf die Kraft der Freiheit. Wir setzen auf den Menschen. Er steht im Mittelpunkt. Seine Würde ist unantastbar. So, wie dies im Grundgesetz steht, so ist es auch das gemeinsame Verständnis aller europäischen Mitgliedstaaten. Indem wir auf die Kraft der Freiheit setzen, erhalten wir uns auch unsere Vielfalt, denn wir haben gelernt: Aus der lebendigen Vielfalt der Sprachen, Kulturen und Regionen können wir für uns alle das Beste gewinnen. Wir können gemeinsam stärker sein, als jeder für sich allein ist. Deshalb glaube ich auch, dass wir uns immer wieder auf die Eigenschaft besinnen sollten, die für mich auch die Seele Europas ausmacht: die Toleranz. Nur ein Europa, das diese Seele kennt und sich seiner Werte bewusst ist, kann die richtigen Weichenstellungen für die Zukunft vornehmen. Hier wird das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Einigkeit und Freiheit natürlich deutlich. Beides muss immer wieder in ein Gleichgewicht gebracht werden.
Daraus ergibt sich die Rolle Europas auch nach außen. Das will ich an zwei Bereichen noch einmal deutlich machen. Zum einen ist dies der Friedensauftrag, der nach innen weitgehend erfüllt ist, sich jetzt aber zunehmend nach außen richtet. Mit unserer Erfahrung können wir natürlich Beispiel sein, wie man Konflikte, die scheinbar über Jahrhunderte hinweg nicht zu überwinden sind, doch überwinden kann. Wir haben es geschafft. Wir sollten deshalb nicht hochmütig sein. Die europäische Geschichte gibt uns keinerlei Grund, anderen große Vorhaltungen zu machen, wenn man betrachtet, wie lange wir gebraucht haben. Aber wir können zumindest sagen, wie es gehen könnte.
Die Europäische Union hat inzwischen auch handfeste Friedensaufgaben übernommen – über 20 zivile und militärische Missionen seit 1999 – und damit ihren Beitrag zu Stabilität und Sicherheit geleistet. Das heißt, die gemeinsame Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik ist eine Form, unsere Werte in der Welt zu verbreiten und zu verankern.
Am Anfang war sicherlich manch einer skeptisch; auch ich war es. Der Bundesverteidigungsminister ist heute hier. Es gibt Missionen, die meiner Überzeugung nach gar nicht anders gemacht werden konnten, wenn ich zum Beispiel an die Vorbereitung der Wahlen im Kongo denke. Das war eine Mission, die wir sehr gut durchgeführt haben und die auch die Europäische Union ein Stück weit zusammengeschweißt hat. Ich glaube, dass die Bedeutung des Politikbereichs der Europäischen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik wachsen wird. Wir verstehen sie immer so, dass sie nicht gegen die NATO gerichtet ist. Wir wollen hier vielmehr eine enge Verzahnung haben.
Natürlich wissen wir, dass 500 Millionen Menschen in Europa in einer Welt mit insgesamt über sechs Milliarden Menschen manches bewegen können. Wenn wir uns die internationale Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise anschauen, wenn wir uns andere Herausforderungen anschauen, stellen wir fest, dass andere europäische Länder und selbst das größte – Deutschland mit 80 Millionen – zu klein sind, um gegenüber 6,5 Milliarden Menschen viel auszurichten. Wenn wir aber als 500 Millionen – immerhin eine halbe Milliarde – und auch mit unserer Wirtschaftskraft im Rücken gemeinsam bestimmte Ziele vertreten, dann haben wir eine Chance, auf die Gestaltung der Globalisierung, auf die Gestaltung der Welt und der internationalen Institutionen doch einen prägenden Einfluss zu nehmen. Dies ist nach meiner festen Überzeugung die Aufgabe unserer Generation. Hier liegt eine zusätzliche Dimension Europas, die es vor zwanzig, dreißig, vierzig Jahren in dieser Klarheit aus meiner Sicht noch nicht gab.
Dabei kann ich über den Klimaschutz reden, wozu Europa als Vorreiter unter der deutschen und französischen Ratspräsidentschaft Beschlüsse gefasst hat, die wir jetzt gemeinsam mit unseren Partnern umsetzen müssen. Wir hoffen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ihren Beitrag dazu leisten werden, um in Kopenhagen am Jahresende ein Folgeabkommen für Kioto verabschieden zu können. Aber wir können, ohne uns zu überheben, sagen: Ohne die führende Rolle der Europäischen Union, ohne die treibende Kraft der Europäischen Union würde es zu einem solchen Kopenhagener Beschluss nicht kommen. Das ist meine feste Überzeugung.
Unspektakulär funktioniert inzwischen unsere gemeinsame Handelspolitik, die wir immer wieder auch in den Verhandlungen um die Doha-Runde – manchmal auch extrem kompliziert – durchsetzen. Da ist es fast zwingend, dass Frankreich und Deutschland sich auf eine gemeinsame Position verständigen, was nicht immer einfach ist, wofür aber der gemeinsame Wille da ist. Gerade jetzt, in dieser internationalen Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise, ist das von allergrößter Bedeutung.
Wie sieht unsere Wirtschaft auf der Welt in Zukunft aus? Für mich hat diese Krise gezeigt: Es bedarf auch hier einer gemeinsamen Wertegrundlage. Immerhin sind wir als Deutsche stolz auf unsere Soziale Marktwirtschaft. Aber wir haben auch ein gemeinsames Verständnis des Wirtschaftens im Rahmen der Europäischen Union. Dies ist auch im Vertrag von Lissabon verankert. Ich will zitieren: "Die Union … wirkt auf … eine in hohem Maße wettbewerbsfähige Soziale Marktwirtschaft, die auf Vollbeschäftigung und sozialen Fortschritt abzielt, … hin."
Sie sehen daran, nicht allen ist der Begriff Soziale Marktwirtschaft so geläufig wie uns. Aber der Grundgedanke hat Eingang in den Lissabonner Vertrag gefunden, er ist das Fundament, von dem aus wir für eine internationale Ordnung arbeiten, in der ein Wirtschaftssystem nicht Einzelne ein riesiges Risiko eingehen lässt und anschließend den daraus entstandenen Schaden auf die Gemeinschaft abwälzt.
Ich bin der Meinung, dass wir die Soziale Marktwirtschaft gegenüber den Macht- und Wirtschaftszentren der Welt als erfolgreiches Modell herausstellen und für die Umsetzung ihrer Prinzipien eintreten müssen. Ich werde dafür sehr oft belächelt: Überhebt man sich damit nicht, ist das nicht ein viel zu hoher Anspruch? Da muss ich Ihnen sagen: Ich glaube, nein. Es ist ein dickes Brett, das zu bohren ist. Aber für mich gibt es keine Alternative zu einer Wirtschaftsordnung, die sich auch auf den Grundsatz gründet, dass die Würde des Menschen unantastbar ist, dass Kinderarbeit und Raubbau an der Natur nicht hingenommen werden, dass wir soziale und ökologische Mindeststandards haben. Ansonsten werden wir in einer Welt von vielleicht neun Milliarden nicht mehr so leben können, wie wir es wollen. Wir haben also gar nicht die Wahl, ob wir uns einsetzen. Entweder wir verlieren unsere eigenen Lebensgrundlagen oder aber wir kämpfen dafür, dass diese Prinzipien woanders auch eingehalten werden.
Deshalb haben wir uns auf dem G20-Gipfel sehr vehement dafür eingesetzt, dass jetzt alles getan wird, damit wir aus dieser Krise Lehren ziehen und sich dies auch in der Struktur der internationalen Finanz- und Wirtschaftsordnung durchsetzt. Wir treten in der Europäischen Union ein für eine Charta des nachhaltigen Wirtschaftens. Ich glaube, dass wir neben der Charta der Menschenrechte auch eine Grundlage unserer Wirtschaftsordnung brauchen.
Meine Damen und Herren, Sicherheitspolitik, Klimaschutz, Soziale Marktwirtschaft, Handelspolitik – all das sind Aufgaben, in denen wir als Mitgliedstaaten nicht mehr allein auftreten können, sondern bei deren Erfüllung wir als Gemeinschaft auftreten müssen und so eine starke Stimme in der Welt sind. Diese Aufgabe müssen wir in den nächsten Jahren unbedingt vorantreiben. Darin sehe ich auch eine zentrale Mission der Europäischen Union.
Ein starkes Europa ist für uns eine Europäische Union, die die Freiheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und die Vielfalt der europäischen Länder und Regionen respektiert. Das heißt auch, dass sich das Handeln der jeweiligen Organe auf ihre Kernkompetenzen konzentrieren muss. Es gibt immer wieder skurrile Beispiele. Kürzlich mussten wir uns mit der Dosis des Salzes im Brot befassen, da man sich auf europäischer Ebene plötzlich ängstigte, dass wir alle ungesund leben. Das mag zwar sein, aber am Brot und seinem Salzgehalt liegt es wohl nicht. Wir haben dies abgewendet und uns wichtigen Sachen zugewendet.
Es geht darum, dass wir nicht gegen andere in der Welt arbeiten, sondern mit unseren Partnern weltweit zusammenarbeiten. Deshalb wird es auch darauf ankommen, die Kooperation in die verschiedenen Richtungen unserer Nachbarn auszuweiten, wie wir es jüngst mit der östlichen Dimension und wie wir es mit der Mittelmeerunion gemacht haben. Wir müssen unsere Stärke, die wir nach innen gewonnen haben, jetzt auch nach außen wenden, um einen Beitrag für eine friedliche, sichere und freiheitliche Welt zu leisten. Ich glaube, Europa kann das. Ich sage auch ganz bewusst: Mir macht das Spaß, auch wenn es oft mühselig ist, aber wenn man sich kümmert, geht es auch ein bisschen voran. Es kommt immer auf die Maßstäbe an. Stillstand ist jedenfalls keine Alternative. Deshalb ist Europa eine wunderschöne Sache.
Herzlichen Dank, dass Sie mir zugehört haben.
***
Comments are welcome. I am going to take a closer look at Merkel’s speech, before deciding i fand what I am going to write about it.
Ralf Grahn
Directory of European Community legislation in preparation
A new service of the European Union’s legal portal Eur-Lex is its Directory of European Community legislation in preparation.
(Although the European Union has practically replaced the term European Community except in legal documents, it is perhaps in order to refer to the “first pillar” EC in this context.)
The Directory is a helpful tool for those, who want to find the pending legislative proposals in any of twenty policy areas. It is then possible to narrow the search to a sub-area. Here is how Eur-Lex describes the tool and the main structure of the Directory:
Directory of Community legislation in preparation
You can print out the chapter of the Directory of Community legislation in preparation that you are interested in from the PDF files for each chapter. The larger chapters have been split into several PDF files.
• 01 General, financial and institutional matters (number of acts: 59)
• 02 Customs Union and free movement of goods (number of acts: 40)
• 03 Agriculture (number of acts: 110)
• 04 Fisheries (number of acts: 40)
• 05 Freedom of movement for workers and social policy (number of acts: 39)
• 06 Right of establishment and freedom to provide services (number of acts: 20)
• 07 Transport policy (number of acts: 91)
• 08 Competition policy (number of acts: 5)
• 09 Taxation (number of acts: 42)
• 10 Economic and monetary policy and free movement of capital (number of acts: 27)
• 11 External relations (number of acts: 412)
• 12 Energy (number of acts: 30)
• 13 Industrial policy and internal market (number of acts: 118)
• 14 Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments (number of acts: 17)
• 15 Environment, consumers and health protection (number of acts: 138)
• 16 Science, information, education and culture (number of acts: 24)
• 17 Law relating to undertakings (number of acts: 22)
• 18 Common Foreign and Security Policy (number of acts: 11)
• 19 Area of freedom, security and justice (number of acts: 114)
• 20 People's Europe (number of acts: 2)
Ralf Grahn
(Although the European Union has practically replaced the term European Community except in legal documents, it is perhaps in order to refer to the “first pillar” EC in this context.)
The Directory is a helpful tool for those, who want to find the pending legislative proposals in any of twenty policy areas. It is then possible to narrow the search to a sub-area. Here is how Eur-Lex describes the tool and the main structure of the Directory:
Directory of Community legislation in preparation
You can print out the chapter of the Directory of Community legislation in preparation that you are interested in from the PDF files for each chapter. The larger chapters have been split into several PDF files.
• 01 General, financial and institutional matters (number of acts: 59)
• 02 Customs Union and free movement of goods (number of acts: 40)
• 03 Agriculture (number of acts: 110)
• 04 Fisheries (number of acts: 40)
• 05 Freedom of movement for workers and social policy (number of acts: 39)
• 06 Right of establishment and freedom to provide services (number of acts: 20)
• 07 Transport policy (number of acts: 91)
• 08 Competition policy (number of acts: 5)
• 09 Taxation (number of acts: 42)
• 10 Economic and monetary policy and free movement of capital (number of acts: 27)
• 11 External relations (number of acts: 412)
• 12 Energy (number of acts: 30)
• 13 Industrial policy and internal market (number of acts: 118)
• 14 Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments (number of acts: 17)
• 15 Environment, consumers and health protection (number of acts: 138)
• 16 Science, information, education and culture (number of acts: 24)
• 17 Law relating to undertakings (number of acts: 22)
• 18 Common Foreign and Security Policy (number of acts: 11)
• 19 Area of freedom, security and justice (number of acts: 114)
• 20 People's Europe (number of acts: 2)
Ralf Grahn
Eur-Lex: Access to European Union law
Eur-Lex, the legal portal of the European Union, offers an incredible amount of serious information about the EU. The centerpiece is the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU), where the legislation and other official acts are published.
While press releases, multimedia presentations and news reporting cover the instant information needs, the published acts and proposals are the primary sources for practitioners and serious students of European Union affairs.
Here is how Eur-Lex describes the available documentation:
About EUR-Lex
EUR-Lex provides free access to European Union law and other documents considered to be public. The website is available in 23 official languages of the European Union; choose your preferred language from the language bar at the top of the homepage.
The contents of the site amount to some 3 600 000 documents with texts dating back to 1951. The database is updated daily and every year around 15 000 documents are added.
EUR-Lex offers:
• daily editions of the Official Journal of the European Union online,
• simple search, advanced search and browsing options,
• the possibility to display and/or download documents (PDF, HTML, DOC, TIFF),
• analytical metadata for each document.
I would like to access the Official Journal of the European Union
The Official Journal of the European Union is the principal source of EUR-Lex content and it is published in the early morning after every working day. It consists of two series: L (Legislation) and C (Information and Notices). E and A are Official Journals published as annexes to the C series (e.g. C 307 A, C 309 E).
Latest issues are accessible from the homepage; click on the links in the upper right-hand corner, just under the language bar.
Previous issues can be found by clicking on the OFFICIAL JOURNAL link on top of the left-hand menu. You can find an issue of the Official Journal by browsing or by searching. All issues from 1998 onwards are available in PDF. To access texts published before 1998, use the SIMPLE SEARCH – Search by publication reference (Official Journal).
I would like to search for a document
There are two search interfaces in EUR-Lex; SIMPLE SEARCH and ADVANCED SEARCH. While advanced search provides a fuller range of search and display features, simple search will accommodate most users’ requirements.
You have a wide range of search options; search by search terms, search by date, search by author, search by natural number, etc.
Another option is to browse our collections and directories; choose from treaties, international agreements, legislation in force, preparatory acts, case-law and parliamentary questions. Each of the aforementioned sectors offers a browsing feature, such as the Directory of Community legislation in force.
What do I do with my search result?
You have direct access to all the documents in your list of search results; just click on your preferred format. You can also check which languages and formats are available, display complementary data, sort or refine your search result to get more relevant documents (find these options on the yellow bar and/or the search box). You can review and/or combine the queries made in one session by clicking on Search history.
To get more information on a document follow the link ‘bibliographic notice’ (example). The notice is a display of metadata (author, dates, indexes, form, related documents, etc.) which provides insight into each document and shows relationships between documents. For bilingual display of a document follow the link Bibliographic notice + Text (bilingual display).
EUR-Lex also offers consolidated versions of documents (where available). These versions are intended for documentation purposes only and have no legal value. Find them in the bibliographic notice or by browsing the Directory of Community legislation in force.
What else can I do?
You can read about EU law, the legislative procedures and EU institutions. You can consult the selection of new documents on the homepage or consult our thematic files.
EUR-Lex also offers links to the budget of the European Union, the institutions’ registers and other documentation and information sources.
New developments are announced in our Newsletter.
Ralf Grahn
While press releases, multimedia presentations and news reporting cover the instant information needs, the published acts and proposals are the primary sources for practitioners and serious students of European Union affairs.
Here is how Eur-Lex describes the available documentation:
About EUR-Lex
EUR-Lex provides free access to European Union law and other documents considered to be public. The website is available in 23 official languages of the European Union; choose your preferred language from the language bar at the top of the homepage.
The contents of the site amount to some 3 600 000 documents with texts dating back to 1951. The database is updated daily and every year around 15 000 documents are added.
EUR-Lex offers:
• daily editions of the Official Journal of the European Union online,
• simple search, advanced search and browsing options,
• the possibility to display and/or download documents (PDF, HTML, DOC, TIFF),
• analytical metadata for each document.
I would like to access the Official Journal of the European Union
The Official Journal of the European Union is the principal source of EUR-Lex content and it is published in the early morning after every working day. It consists of two series: L (Legislation) and C (Information and Notices). E and A are Official Journals published as annexes to the C series (e.g. C 307 A, C 309 E).
Latest issues are accessible from the homepage; click on the links in the upper right-hand corner, just under the language bar.
Previous issues can be found by clicking on the OFFICIAL JOURNAL link on top of the left-hand menu. You can find an issue of the Official Journal by browsing or by searching. All issues from 1998 onwards are available in PDF. To access texts published before 1998, use the SIMPLE SEARCH – Search by publication reference (Official Journal).
I would like to search for a document
There are two search interfaces in EUR-Lex; SIMPLE SEARCH and ADVANCED SEARCH. While advanced search provides a fuller range of search and display features, simple search will accommodate most users’ requirements.
You have a wide range of search options; search by search terms, search by date, search by author, search by natural number, etc.
Another option is to browse our collections and directories; choose from treaties, international agreements, legislation in force, preparatory acts, case-law and parliamentary questions. Each of the aforementioned sectors offers a browsing feature, such as the Directory of Community legislation in force.
What do I do with my search result?
You have direct access to all the documents in your list of search results; just click on your preferred format. You can also check which languages and formats are available, display complementary data, sort or refine your search result to get more relevant documents (find these options on the yellow bar and/or the search box). You can review and/or combine the queries made in one session by clicking on Search history.
To get more information on a document follow the link ‘bibliographic notice’ (example). The notice is a display of metadata (author, dates, indexes, form, related documents, etc.) which provides insight into each document and shows relationships between documents. For bilingual display of a document follow the link Bibliographic notice + Text (bilingual display).
EUR-Lex also offers consolidated versions of documents (where available). These versions are intended for documentation purposes only and have no legal value. Find them in the bibliographic notice or by browsing the Directory of Community legislation in force.
What else can I do?
You can read about EU law, the legislative procedures and EU institutions. You can consult the selection of new documents on the homepage or consult our thematic files.
EUR-Lex also offers links to the budget of the European Union, the institutions’ registers and other documentation and information sources.
New developments are announced in our Newsletter.
Ralf Grahn
Iceland starts EU membership talks?
Today, 28 May 2009 the government of Iceland is going to put forward a proposal for authority to start negotiations on membership of the European Union.
If the Althingi (Parliament) grants the authority, Iceland is in “pole position” for accession due to its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). Despite its severe economic crisis, Iceland is a stable democracy. Its Parliament, Althingi, evokes the longest parliamentary tradition in the world. It was established as a legislature and judiciary in 930. Iceland became a member of the Council of Europe in 1950.
Acquis communautaire
The internal market legislation of the European Community (European Union) is already in force. In addition, as an EEA country Iceland participates in a number of other policy areas and EU programmes.
Iceland participates in the Schengen area abolishing internal border controls and improving controls on the external borders, and it is a member of the NATO alliance in common with the mainstream members of the European Union.
In other words, Iceland already fulfils most of the EU membership criteria, although internal political differences and the difficulties concerning fisheries and agriculture should not be underestimated.
We can compare the situation with the EFTA countries Austria, Finland and Sweden. They had negotiated the EEA Agreement, which entered into force at the beginning of 1994. But they went on to upgrade their relationship with the European Union through full membership, which entered into force exactly a year later, in 1995.
***
Membership application: Yes or no?
Today, 28 May 2009 the new Icelandic government is going to propose that the Althingi (Parliament) grants it powers to apply for membership in the European Union.
Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs offers the following overview in English:
Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution on Application for Accession to the European Union
(Submitted to the 137th session of Parliament 2009)
The Parliament resolves to empower the Government to submit an application for membership of the European Union and upon the completion of negotiations with the Union to hold a national referendum on a prospective membership agreement.
Comments on the Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution
The proposal on application for membership of the European Union is submitted in order to give the Icelandic people an opportunity to reject or accept an agreement on accession to the EU once negotiations have been concluded.
The application to the European Union is thus not equivalent to membership, upon which, indeed, it is for the Icelandic nation to take the final decision. In addition, a legislative proposal will be submitted on the holding of national referendums on important matters that the Government or Parliament decides to submit to the nation.
Prior to the start of negotiations, extensive consultations will take place with interest groups on agreement objectives in various sectors, such as fisheries, agriculture and regional issues, in the field of public services, the environment, equal rights and currency matters, and the broadest possible consensus will be sought on the basis for negotiations. The possibility of closer monetary cooperation will be explored in parallel to the negotiations on possible accession in order to support the Icelandic krona. Emphasis is placed on an open and transparent process and regular information sharing with the general public and interest groups.
A Committee of professionals will be appointed by the Government of Iceland to carry out the negotiations with the European Union. The Committee will be supported by a broad-based consultative body representing different interest groups, from which the Committee will seek advice and which the Committee will keep informed on the ongoing progress of negotiations. Iceland as a European nation wishes to take an active part in the development of a democratic Europe built on the foundations of social justice, equality and the respect for human dignity and the environment. Europe is the cornerstone of human rights in the world, and an advocate for stability, sustainable development, justice and prosperity throughout the world.
Parties concerned reserve the right to advocate for or against any final agreement, bearing in mind that possible support is contingent upon various provisos.
Iceland’s vital interests include:
• ensuring the sovereign control of water and energy resources and their utilization.
• ensuring the sovereign control of the fisheries resources, the sustainable utilization of these resources, and a share of straddling stocks and as much representation of national interests in international agreements on fisheries as possible.
• ensuring thriving Icelandic agriculture based on food security and safety.
• ensuring the democratic right to manage public services based on social principles.
• defending the rights of workers and labour.
• achieving a favourable and growth based competitive environment for business in Iceland while at the same time taking account of unique factors owing to specific circumstances.
It is foreseen that Parliament will establish a special European Parliamentary Committee, in which all the political parties will be represented, to consult with the Negotiating Committee to the European Union.
***
Iceland’s international relations
The (previous) Government of Iceland presented a report on Iceland’s international relations to the Althingi in March 2009. (The link is to an 11 page excerpt available in English.)
Ralf Grahn
If the Althingi (Parliament) grants the authority, Iceland is in “pole position” for accession due to its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). Despite its severe economic crisis, Iceland is a stable democracy. Its Parliament, Althingi, evokes the longest parliamentary tradition in the world. It was established as a legislature and judiciary in 930. Iceland became a member of the Council of Europe in 1950.
Acquis communautaire
The internal market legislation of the European Community (European Union) is already in force. In addition, as an EEA country Iceland participates in a number of other policy areas and EU programmes.
Iceland participates in the Schengen area abolishing internal border controls and improving controls on the external borders, and it is a member of the NATO alliance in common with the mainstream members of the European Union.
In other words, Iceland already fulfils most of the EU membership criteria, although internal political differences and the difficulties concerning fisheries and agriculture should not be underestimated.
We can compare the situation with the EFTA countries Austria, Finland and Sweden. They had negotiated the EEA Agreement, which entered into force at the beginning of 1994. But they went on to upgrade their relationship with the European Union through full membership, which entered into force exactly a year later, in 1995.
***
Membership application: Yes or no?
Today, 28 May 2009 the new Icelandic government is going to propose that the Althingi (Parliament) grants it powers to apply for membership in the European Union.
Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs offers the following overview in English:
Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution on Application for Accession to the European Union
(Submitted to the 137th session of Parliament 2009)
The Parliament resolves to empower the Government to submit an application for membership of the European Union and upon the completion of negotiations with the Union to hold a national referendum on a prospective membership agreement.
Comments on the Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution
The proposal on application for membership of the European Union is submitted in order to give the Icelandic people an opportunity to reject or accept an agreement on accession to the EU once negotiations have been concluded.
The application to the European Union is thus not equivalent to membership, upon which, indeed, it is for the Icelandic nation to take the final decision. In addition, a legislative proposal will be submitted on the holding of national referendums on important matters that the Government or Parliament decides to submit to the nation.
Prior to the start of negotiations, extensive consultations will take place with interest groups on agreement objectives in various sectors, such as fisheries, agriculture and regional issues, in the field of public services, the environment, equal rights and currency matters, and the broadest possible consensus will be sought on the basis for negotiations. The possibility of closer monetary cooperation will be explored in parallel to the negotiations on possible accession in order to support the Icelandic krona. Emphasis is placed on an open and transparent process and regular information sharing with the general public and interest groups.
A Committee of professionals will be appointed by the Government of Iceland to carry out the negotiations with the European Union. The Committee will be supported by a broad-based consultative body representing different interest groups, from which the Committee will seek advice and which the Committee will keep informed on the ongoing progress of negotiations. Iceland as a European nation wishes to take an active part in the development of a democratic Europe built on the foundations of social justice, equality and the respect for human dignity and the environment. Europe is the cornerstone of human rights in the world, and an advocate for stability, sustainable development, justice and prosperity throughout the world.
Parties concerned reserve the right to advocate for or against any final agreement, bearing in mind that possible support is contingent upon various provisos.
Iceland’s vital interests include:
• ensuring the sovereign control of water and energy resources and their utilization.
• ensuring the sovereign control of the fisheries resources, the sustainable utilization of these resources, and a share of straddling stocks and as much representation of national interests in international agreements on fisheries as possible.
• ensuring thriving Icelandic agriculture based on food security and safety.
• ensuring the democratic right to manage public services based on social principles.
• defending the rights of workers and labour.
• achieving a favourable and growth based competitive environment for business in Iceland while at the same time taking account of unique factors owing to specific circumstances.
It is foreseen that Parliament will establish a special European Parliamentary Committee, in which all the political parties will be represented, to consult with the Negotiating Committee to the European Union.
***
Iceland’s international relations
The (previous) Government of Iceland presented a report on Iceland’s international relations to the Althingi in March 2009. (The link is to an 11 page excerpt available in English.)
Ralf Grahn
European Economic Area (EEA) in practice
The European Economic Area (EEA) extends the four freedoms of the European Community to the EFTA states Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, giving them access to an internal market of 30 states and almost 500 million people. Agriculture and fisheries are excluded, but the EFTA EEA countries cooperate in other policy areas as well.
The basic document is the Agreement on the European Economic Area. More information is available on the EFTA web pages about the EEA Agreement.
Quick overviews are offered by a number of EEA fact sheets.
***
Technical adaptation
The European Community (European Union) legislation in the relevant areas is constantly evolving. The purpose of this blog post is limited: to show how “technical” new provisions are adopted by the non-EU members. Article 98 of the EEA Agreement spells out the mechanism for amending the Annexes to the Agreement, as well as the Protocols mentioned:
Article 98
The Annexes to this Agreement and Protocols 1 to 7, 9 to 11, 19 to 27, 30 to 32, 37, 39, 41 and 47, as appropriate, may be amended by a decision of the EEA Joint Committee in accordance with Articles 93 (2), 99, 100, 102 and 103.
***
In practice
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 28.5.2009 L 130 offers examples of recent Decisions by the EEA Joint Committee, numbers 21 to 39/2009 amending Annexes.
Joint Committee Decision 40/2009 amends Protocol 31 on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.
Ralf Grahn
The basic document is the Agreement on the European Economic Area. More information is available on the EFTA web pages about the EEA Agreement.
Quick overviews are offered by a number of EEA fact sheets.
***
Technical adaptation
The European Community (European Union) legislation in the relevant areas is constantly evolving. The purpose of this blog post is limited: to show how “technical” new provisions are adopted by the non-EU members. Article 98 of the EEA Agreement spells out the mechanism for amending the Annexes to the Agreement, as well as the Protocols mentioned:
Article 98
The Annexes to this Agreement and Protocols 1 to 7, 9 to 11, 19 to 27, 30 to 32, 37, 39, 41 and 47, as appropriate, may be amended by a decision of the EEA Joint Committee in accordance with Articles 93 (2), 99, 100, 102 and 103.
***
In practice
The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 28.5.2009 L 130 offers examples of recent Decisions by the EEA Joint Committee, numbers 21 to 39/2009 amending Annexes.
Joint Committee Decision 40/2009 amends Protocol 31 on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 27 May 2009
EU: Balance of payments assistance
The Regulation amending the facility to provide financial assistance to EU member states with balance of payments problems has been officially published. The amending Regulation raises the facility from EUR 25 billion to EUR 50 billion and clarifies some of the provisions.
The official name is: Council Regulation (EC) No 431/2009 of 18 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments, and it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.5.2009 L 128/1.
Ralf Grahn
The official name is: Council Regulation (EC) No 431/2009 of 18 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 332/2002 establishing a facility providing medium-term financial assistance for Member States' balances of payments, and it was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.5.2009 L 128/1.
Ralf Grahn
EU Services Directive: Government bill in Sweden
The national transposition of the Services Directive has advanced in Sweden. The government has presented a bill to the Parliament (Riksdag).
Officially, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.12.2006 L 376/36.
Here is a link to the Swedish bill Regeringens proposition Genomförande av tjänstedirektivet 2008/09:187 (293 pages).
The Services Directive has to be transposed into national legislation before 28 December 2009.
Ralf Grahn
Officially, Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.12.2006 L 376/36.
Here is a link to the Swedish bill Regeringens proposition Genomförande av tjänstedirektivet 2008/09:187 (293 pages).
The Services Directive has to be transposed into national legislation before 28 December 2009.
Ralf Grahn
Legislation on European Parliament (Eur-Lex)
About legal materials related to the European Union.
Just in time for the European Parliament elections, the European Union’s legislative portal Eur-Lex has published a new thematic file with legislative instruments, preparatory acts and other acts on the European Parliament.
The thematic files are potentially useful for those who are interested in a certain area, but here I would like to add a word of caution. I checked two documents to verify the quality:
1) First, the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The primary reference is to the original edition published in the Official Journal in 2005, but even if you look for the later information, you would miss later and the latest amendments in force, those entering into force after the European elections and the ones lying in wait in case the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.
2) With regard to the Act concerning the elections of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, you almost have to know in advance that you need to find the consolidated version, if you want meaningful information.
***
Two suggestions: The thematic files could become even more user-friendly by checking possible amendments, recent or lying in wait, with the relevant services. It might be a good idea to refer directly to the consolidated versions of acts (if any); the researcher who needs the original acts can easily find them from there by going in the reverse direction.
Ralf Grahn
Just in time for the European Parliament elections, the European Union’s legislative portal Eur-Lex has published a new thematic file with legislative instruments, preparatory acts and other acts on the European Parliament.
The thematic files are potentially useful for those who are interested in a certain area, but here I would like to add a word of caution. I checked two documents to verify the quality:
1) First, the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The primary reference is to the original edition published in the Official Journal in 2005, but even if you look for the later information, you would miss later and the latest amendments in force, those entering into force after the European elections and the ones lying in wait in case the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force.
2) With regard to the Act concerning the elections of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, you almost have to know in advance that you need to find the consolidated version, if you want meaningful information.
***
Two suggestions: The thematic files could become even more user-friendly by checking possible amendments, recent or lying in wait, with the relevant services. It might be a good idea to refer directly to the consolidated versions of acts (if any); the researcher who needs the original acts can easily find them from there by going in the reverse direction.
Ralf Grahn
UK towards EU fringes and beyond?
Tony Blair promised to place Britain at the heart of Europe, and failed. Gordon Brown resisted the adoption of the Euro currency and he has been a grumpy European all along, although he misleadingly calls it staying in the mainstream of Europe. David Cameron wants to put European integration in reverse.
With only pockets of resistance among elites, the media and the public, the United Kingdom is on a trajectory towards the fringes of European politics, possibly outside.
Consternation mingled with sadness is the main feeling of Europeans, who watch Britain losing friends and influence. A constructive UK would be a major asset for the European Union, but it does not seem to be on the cards.
In the end, democratic societies end up with the leaders and the outcomes they deserve. What we don’t know is if this is the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning, for the United Kingdom in the European Union.
British and expat voters in Britain can support a better future by casting their votes for the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party or the Labour Party in the European elections 4 June 2009.
Ralf Grahn
With only pockets of resistance among elites, the media and the public, the United Kingdom is on a trajectory towards the fringes of European politics, possibly outside.
Consternation mingled with sadness is the main feeling of Europeans, who watch Britain losing friends and influence. A constructive UK would be a major asset for the European Union, but it does not seem to be on the cards.
In the end, democratic societies end up with the leaders and the outcomes they deserve. What we don’t know is if this is the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning, for the United Kingdom in the European Union.
British and expat voters in Britain can support a better future by casting their votes for the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party or the Labour Party in the European elections 4 June 2009.
Ralf Grahn
European People’s Party: A more coherent group?
Euros du Village have interviewed one of the French top candidates in the European Parliament elections, Dominique Baudis: « Le depart des tories permettra au PPE d’être plus coherent ».
The departure of the British Conservatives will allow the European People’s Party (EPP) to be more coherent. It is necessary that the EPP consists of parties in favour of a strong European Union. The EPP has played a major role in the construction of Europe, and it can stay more faithful to its legacy, says Baudis:
« Le départ des conservateurs britanniques va surtout permettre au PPE d’avoir une attitude plus cohérente. Il est nécessaire que le PPE soit composé de partis politiques favorables à une UE forte. Le PPE a, dans son histoire, toujours exercé un rôle majeur dans la construction de l’Union Européenne. Le départ des tories permettra donc au PPE d’être plus cohérent et plus fidèle à son histoire. De plus, malgré ce départ, il reste en mesure d’être le groupe parlementaire le plus important au Parlement Européen. »
At the national level, Dominique Baudis represents the party of France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy (UPM).
Earlier German Chancellor Angela Merkel has excluded warm relationships with those who reject the Treaty of Lisbon, but want to promote EU enlargement.
***
Ahead of the European elections, David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party ride on waves of anti-European and Euroskeptic feeling as well as indifference to Britain’s position in Europe. But for a future government indifference and contempt towards France, Germany and other EU members is a sure-fire recipe for How to lose friends and influence.
In the United Kingdom, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for increasing isolation. The Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Labour offer better prospects for constructive engagement in Europe.
Ralf Grahn
The departure of the British Conservatives will allow the European People’s Party (EPP) to be more coherent. It is necessary that the EPP consists of parties in favour of a strong European Union. The EPP has played a major role in the construction of Europe, and it can stay more faithful to its legacy, says Baudis:
« Le départ des conservateurs britanniques va surtout permettre au PPE d’avoir une attitude plus cohérente. Il est nécessaire que le PPE soit composé de partis politiques favorables à une UE forte. Le PPE a, dans son histoire, toujours exercé un rôle majeur dans la construction de l’Union Européenne. Le départ des tories permettra donc au PPE d’être plus cohérent et plus fidèle à son histoire. De plus, malgré ce départ, il reste en mesure d’être le groupe parlementaire le plus important au Parlement Européen. »
At the national level, Dominique Baudis represents the party of France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy (UPM).
Earlier German Chancellor Angela Merkel has excluded warm relationships with those who reject the Treaty of Lisbon, but want to promote EU enlargement.
***
Ahead of the European elections, David Cameron and the UK Conservative Party ride on waves of anti-European and Euroskeptic feeling as well as indifference to Britain’s position in Europe. But for a future government indifference and contempt towards France, Germany and other EU members is a sure-fire recipe for How to lose friends and influence.
In the United Kingdom, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for increasing isolation. The Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Labour offer better prospects for constructive engagement in Europe.
Ralf Grahn
United Kingdom: European elections and EU membership
The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the EU member states. It is an important trading nation and financial centre. A constructive UK could be important for the foreign and security policies and defence of the European Union.
But Britain has been an awkward partner in Europe for three and a half decades, and the next general election seems destined to bring in a Conservative government with even less consideration for its European partners. The Tories have promised to put European integration in reverse, and they would most probably use the UK’s factual importance and veto powers to block EU progress for a long time.
***
CAP München
Ahead of the European Parliament elections the Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung (CAP; Center for Applied Policy Research) in Munich has published an impressive amount of analysis and comment on its web pages dedicated to the issues and campaigns (Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009).
***
Great Britain and Europe
Almut Möller: Europawahl 2009 in Großbritannien ─ Zwischen Desinteresse und Protest (European elections 2009 in Great Britain ─ Between lack of interest and protest; 18 May 2009; 4 pages) is a competent description of the British electoral scene and the intellectual climate with regard to Europe.
From a continental perspective, Möller describes a Britain where the European Parliament elections will make little European impact and where Europe is seen as unimportant. Even the elites show scant knowledge about Europe and the British way of handling the idea of Europe causes one to shake one’s head:
„Großbritannien und die EU: Man kennt sie nicht, man mag sie nicht – aber offenbar will man dabei sein
Die Europawahlen werden auch 2009 an Großbritannien vorbeiziehen, ohne „europäische“ Spuren zu hinterlassen. Die Briten werden entweder mit ähnlich geringem Interesse wählen wie in der Vergangenheit, und die Wahlbeteiligung wird erneut unter dem EU-weiten Durchschnitt liegen. Oder aber die Wähler gehen an die Urnen, um den Politikern in Westminster die rote Karte zu zeigen – in diesem Fall wäre zwar die Wahlbeteiligung höher, aber die Wahlentscheidung wäre eine national motivierte.
Aus britischer Perspektive bleibt die Europäische Union weiterhin ein Fremdkörper. Für das ehemalige Empire gibt es viele andere Referenzpunkte, die mehr zählen als Europa: Zunächst das eigene Land mit seiner großen Geschichte und seinen ungebrochenen Traditionslinien. Die USA, mit denen man eine ganz eigene Verbundenheit hat. Die Welt, mit der die Briten nicht nur durch eine koloniale Geschichte verbunden sind, sondern die sie auch durch ihre Sprache geprägt und sich für die Zukunft erschließbar gemacht haben. Und Europa, Europa ist, wenn überhaupt, nur ein Referenzpunkt von vielen. Als Kontinentaleuropäer reibt man sich nicht selten die Augen über die britische Sicht auf Europa. Ist erstaunt über mangelndes Wissen selbst unter den Eliten und schüttelt den Kopf über den „törichten“ Umgang der Briten mit der europäischen Idee. Vielleicht ist man als Deutscher oder Franzose aber auch nur ein wenig verärgert darüber, dass der für uns so wichtige Referenzpunkt „Europa“ auf der Insel so wenig zählt.“
***
UK membership in the European Union
Given the Euroskepticism of large parts of the population, the political elites and the media, as well as the lack of recognition for European parliamentary life, Möller finds it astonishing that there is no serious (European) debate on the membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union:
„Eines ist allerdings erstaunlich: Wenn so große Teile der Bevölkerung, der politischen Elite und der Medien europaskeptisch sind, wenn ein Land mit so großer parlamentarischer Tradition der Entwicklung des europäischen Parlamentarismus so wenig Beachtung schenkt – warum gibt es dann nicht längst eine ernsthafte Debatte über die Zukunft der Mitgliedschaft des Vereinigten Königreichs in der Europäischen Union?“
***
In a few days the UK Conservative Party will leave the European mainstream EPP-ED group in the European Parliament in order to sit with hard-line nationalists.
If we take into account the latest announcements of party leader David Cameron and look beyond the European Parliament elections to the next general election in Great Britain, Almut Möller’s question becomes even more pressing.
Why should the member states of the European Union accept continued membership for the United Kingdom if it acts according to Cameron’s hints to further diminish its attachment to the Council of Europe and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, preliminary requirements for every EU member?
If the UK repudiates the basic tenets of the European Union, ever closer union and loyal cooperation, and the next government launches renegotiations to reverse its responsibilities, why should the other member states accept?
The European Union is difficult enough without Trojan horses.
Ralf Grahn
But Britain has been an awkward partner in Europe for three and a half decades, and the next general election seems destined to bring in a Conservative government with even less consideration for its European partners. The Tories have promised to put European integration in reverse, and they would most probably use the UK’s factual importance and veto powers to block EU progress for a long time.
***
CAP München
Ahead of the European Parliament elections the Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung (CAP; Center for Applied Policy Research) in Munich has published an impressive amount of analysis and comment on its web pages dedicated to the issues and campaigns (Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009).
***
Great Britain and Europe
Almut Möller: Europawahl 2009 in Großbritannien ─ Zwischen Desinteresse und Protest (European elections 2009 in Great Britain ─ Between lack of interest and protest; 18 May 2009; 4 pages) is a competent description of the British electoral scene and the intellectual climate with regard to Europe.
From a continental perspective, Möller describes a Britain where the European Parliament elections will make little European impact and where Europe is seen as unimportant. Even the elites show scant knowledge about Europe and the British way of handling the idea of Europe causes one to shake one’s head:
„Großbritannien und die EU: Man kennt sie nicht, man mag sie nicht – aber offenbar will man dabei sein
Die Europawahlen werden auch 2009 an Großbritannien vorbeiziehen, ohne „europäische“ Spuren zu hinterlassen. Die Briten werden entweder mit ähnlich geringem Interesse wählen wie in der Vergangenheit, und die Wahlbeteiligung wird erneut unter dem EU-weiten Durchschnitt liegen. Oder aber die Wähler gehen an die Urnen, um den Politikern in Westminster die rote Karte zu zeigen – in diesem Fall wäre zwar die Wahlbeteiligung höher, aber die Wahlentscheidung wäre eine national motivierte.
Aus britischer Perspektive bleibt die Europäische Union weiterhin ein Fremdkörper. Für das ehemalige Empire gibt es viele andere Referenzpunkte, die mehr zählen als Europa: Zunächst das eigene Land mit seiner großen Geschichte und seinen ungebrochenen Traditionslinien. Die USA, mit denen man eine ganz eigene Verbundenheit hat. Die Welt, mit der die Briten nicht nur durch eine koloniale Geschichte verbunden sind, sondern die sie auch durch ihre Sprache geprägt und sich für die Zukunft erschließbar gemacht haben. Und Europa, Europa ist, wenn überhaupt, nur ein Referenzpunkt von vielen. Als Kontinentaleuropäer reibt man sich nicht selten die Augen über die britische Sicht auf Europa. Ist erstaunt über mangelndes Wissen selbst unter den Eliten und schüttelt den Kopf über den „törichten“ Umgang der Briten mit der europäischen Idee. Vielleicht ist man als Deutscher oder Franzose aber auch nur ein wenig verärgert darüber, dass der für uns so wichtige Referenzpunkt „Europa“ auf der Insel so wenig zählt.“
***
UK membership in the European Union
Given the Euroskepticism of large parts of the population, the political elites and the media, as well as the lack of recognition for European parliamentary life, Möller finds it astonishing that there is no serious (European) debate on the membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union:
„Eines ist allerdings erstaunlich: Wenn so große Teile der Bevölkerung, der politischen Elite und der Medien europaskeptisch sind, wenn ein Land mit so großer parlamentarischer Tradition der Entwicklung des europäischen Parlamentarismus so wenig Beachtung schenkt – warum gibt es dann nicht längst eine ernsthafte Debatte über die Zukunft der Mitgliedschaft des Vereinigten Königreichs in der Europäischen Union?“
***
In a few days the UK Conservative Party will leave the European mainstream EPP-ED group in the European Parliament in order to sit with hard-line nationalists.
If we take into account the latest announcements of party leader David Cameron and look beyond the European Parliament elections to the next general election in Great Britain, Almut Möller’s question becomes even more pressing.
Why should the member states of the European Union accept continued membership for the United Kingdom if it acts according to Cameron’s hints to further diminish its attachment to the Council of Europe and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, preliminary requirements for every EU member?
If the UK repudiates the basic tenets of the European Union, ever closer union and loyal cooperation, and the next government launches renegotiations to reverse its responsibilities, why should the other member states accept?
The European Union is difficult enough without Trojan horses.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
David Cameron’s Horrorland speech
After reading David Cameron’s article in The Guardian, New politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power (25 May 2009), I could hardly wait to hear more about Britain under a Conservative government.
Since this is a blog about the European Union and European integration, I picked two items of interest ahead of today’s speech in the blog post Ailing United Kingdom: Proportional representation and EU membership:
1) People’s courts?
Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.
Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?
2) European Union
As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.
Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.
If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.
If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state
***
Horrorland speech
I have now read Davic Cameron’s Horroland speech, serving generous helpings of indignities of contemporary life in Britain. Did the speech, officially called Fixing Broken Politics (26 May 2009). offer additional information about my questions?
***
Fundamental rights?
To curb the protection given by courts to individuals, Cameron proposes the following:
“And we will introduce a British Bill of Rights to strengthen our liberties, spell out the extent and limit of rights more clearly, and ensure proper democratic accountability over the creation of any new rights.”
The reasoning looks disingenious. Cameron is clearly out to restrict the protection offered by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (UK: Human Rights Act), but he describes it as a strengthening of the liberties of the British people.
Naturally, he does not even mention the more modern Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the United Kingdom has opted out of together with then Kaczynski Poland, hardly the best proponents of human rights among the 27 EU member states.
Cameron does not go into details, although he should. Does a watered-down domestic Bill of Rights mean that Britain is going to secede from the European Human Rights Convention and leave the Council of Europe?
***
Goodbye, European Union?
Cameron’s offers the following recipe for UK relations with the European Union:
“We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”
This time around, Cameron seems to promise a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon regardless of its entry into force.
Every future transfer of powers to the European Union would be bogged down by a national referendum.
A Conservative government would – so it seems – negotiate a return of unspecified powers from the EU to the United Kingdom. We are none the wiser as to my questions: Why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state.
The membership of the United Kingdom is already a severe problem for Europe.
I see little reason for the rest of the EU member states to accept reverse integration or permanent immobility in an organisation plagued by the unanimity rules and detailed treaties.
Let the coming UK government make its demands explicit before the European elections. Failure to bring about the tearing up of the Treaty of Nice leaves the option of secession.
A constructive UK would be a loss, but British membership under Cameron would be a greater calamity for Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Since this is a blog about the European Union and European integration, I picked two items of interest ahead of today’s speech in the blog post Ailing United Kingdom: Proportional representation and EU membership:
1) People’s courts?
Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.
Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?
2) European Union
As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.
Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.
If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.
If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state
***
Horrorland speech
I have now read Davic Cameron’s Horroland speech, serving generous helpings of indignities of contemporary life in Britain. Did the speech, officially called Fixing Broken Politics (26 May 2009). offer additional information about my questions?
***
Fundamental rights?
To curb the protection given by courts to individuals, Cameron proposes the following:
“And we will introduce a British Bill of Rights to strengthen our liberties, spell out the extent and limit of rights more clearly, and ensure proper democratic accountability over the creation of any new rights.”
The reasoning looks disingenious. Cameron is clearly out to restrict the protection offered by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (UK: Human Rights Act), but he describes it as a strengthening of the liberties of the British people.
Naturally, he does not even mention the more modern Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the United Kingdom has opted out of together with then Kaczynski Poland, hardly the best proponents of human rights among the 27 EU member states.
Cameron does not go into details, although he should. Does a watered-down domestic Bill of Rights mean that Britain is going to secede from the European Human Rights Convention and leave the Council of Europe?
***
Goodbye, European Union?
Cameron’s offers the following recipe for UK relations with the European Union:
“We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”
This time around, Cameron seems to promise a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon regardless of its entry into force.
Every future transfer of powers to the European Union would be bogged down by a national referendum.
A Conservative government would – so it seems – negotiate a return of unspecified powers from the EU to the United Kingdom. We are none the wiser as to my questions: Why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state.
The membership of the United Kingdom is already a severe problem for Europe.
I see little reason for the rest of the EU member states to accept reverse integration or permanent immobility in an organisation plagued by the unanimity rules and detailed treaties.
Let the coming UK government make its demands explicit before the European elections. Failure to bring about the tearing up of the Treaty of Nice leaves the option of secession.
A constructive UK would be a loss, but British membership under Cameron would be a greater calamity for Europe.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Council meetings (VI) National parliaments
The complexity of the European Union appears, when devising the (provisional) agendas of the Council meetings. Not only the national governments, but the national parliaments, require their periods of grace before certain items can be placed on the agenda.
Legislative procedures are time-consuming.
***
Protocol on national parliaments
Protocol (No 9) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union lays down a system of scrutiny for the national parliaments (excerpt):
I. Information for national parliaments of Member States
1. All Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) shall be promptly forwarded to national parliaments of the Member States.
2. Commission proposals for legislation as defined by the Council in accordance with Article 207(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, shall be made available in good time so that the government of each Member State may ensure that its own national parliament receives them as appropriate.
3. A six-week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union being made available in all languages to the European Parliament and the Council by the Commission and the date when it is placed on a Council agenda for decision either for the adoption of an act or for adoption of a common position pursuant to Article 251 or 252 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to exceptions on grounds of urgency, the reasons for which shall be stated in the act or common position.
***
In other words, the national parliaments dispose of a six week period to make up their mind about a legislative proposal or a proposal relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, this period would be extended to eight weeks (Protocol No 1; Article 4).
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
The Council agenda has to observe this period. Only a unanimous decision on the grounds of urgency allows for an exception to be made:
Article 3(3) Council’s Rules of Procedure
3. Items relating to the adoption of an act or a common position on a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU Treaty) shall not be placed on the provisional agenda for a decision until the six-week period provided for in point 3 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union has elapsed.
The Council may unanimously derogate from the six-week period where the entry of an item is subject to the exception on grounds of urgency provided for in point 3 of that Protocol.
Ralf Grahn
Legislative procedures are time-consuming.
***
Protocol on national parliaments
Protocol (No 9) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union lays down a system of scrutiny for the national parliaments (excerpt):
I. Information for national parliaments of Member States
1. All Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) shall be promptly forwarded to national parliaments of the Member States.
2. Commission proposals for legislation as defined by the Council in accordance with Article 207(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, shall be made available in good time so that the government of each Member State may ensure that its own national parliament receives them as appropriate.
3. A six-week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union being made available in all languages to the European Parliament and the Council by the Commission and the date when it is placed on a Council agenda for decision either for the adoption of an act or for adoption of a common position pursuant to Article 251 or 252 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, subject to exceptions on grounds of urgency, the reasons for which shall be stated in the act or common position.
***
In other words, the national parliaments dispose of a six week period to make up their mind about a legislative proposal or a proposal relating to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Under the Lisbon Treaty, this period would be extended to eight weeks (Protocol No 1; Article 4).
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
The Council agenda has to observe this period. Only a unanimous decision on the grounds of urgency allows for an exception to be made:
Article 3(3) Council’s Rules of Procedure
3. Items relating to the adoption of an act or a common position on a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU Treaty) shall not be placed on the provisional agenda for a decision until the six-week period provided for in point 3 of the Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the European Union has elapsed.
The Council may unanimously derogate from the six-week period where the entry of an item is subject to the exception on grounds of urgency provided for in point 3 of that Protocol.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Council meetings (V) Provisional agendas
In the context of Article 204 TEC (Article 237 TFEU) and based on the programming, the Council’s Rules of Procedure foresaw the establishment of indicative provisional agendas by the incoming Council Presidency for the next six months. When a Council meeting approaches, a provisional agenda is drawn up and communicated to the members of the Council, together with the relevant documents.
The main rule is that the provisional agenda and the relevant documents are sent to the governments at least 14 days before the Council meeting, as provided for in Article 3(1) and (2) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
***
A longer period of 21 days is envisioned, when the documents relate to:
• Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons (TEC Title IV of Part 3)
• Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (TEU Title VI).
This is what footnote (1), statement (b), says:
(b) Re Article 3(1) and (2)
“The President will endeavour to ensure that, in principle, the provisional agenda for each meeting of the Council dealing with implementation of Title IV of Part 3 of the EC Treaty and Title VI of the EU Treaty and any documents relating to the items involved reach members of the Council at least 21 days before the beginning of the meeting.”
***
Article 3(1) and (2) Council’s Rules of Procedure
Article 3
Agenda
1. Taking into account the Council's 18-month programme, the President shall draw up the provisional agenda for each meeting. The agenda shall be sent to the other members of the Council and to the Commission at least 14 days before the beginning of the meeting.
2. The provisional agenda shall contain the items in respect of which a request for inclusion on the agenda, together with any documents relating thereto, has been received by the General Secretariat from a member of the Council or from the Commission at least 16 days before the beginning of that meeting. The provisional agenda shall also indicate by way of an asterisk the items on which the Presidency, a member of the Council or the Commission may request a vote. Such an indication shall be made once all the procedural requirements provided for by the Treaties have been complied with.
-----
***
In most cases the member states’ representations at the Council and the governments back home are familiar with the upcoming issues, but the strict rules are meant to pre-empt surprises.
Some exceptions are foreseen, as shown by footnote 1 with statement (c) to Article 3:
(c) Re Articles 1 and 3
“Without prejudice to Article 22(2) of the EU Treaty, which specifies that an extraordinary Council meeting may be convened at very short notice in cases requiring a rapid decision, the Council is aware of the need for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The arrangements in Article 3 shall not prevent this need from being met.”
Ralf Grahn
The main rule is that the provisional agenda and the relevant documents are sent to the governments at least 14 days before the Council meeting, as provided for in Article 3(1) and (2) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
***
A longer period of 21 days is envisioned, when the documents relate to:
• Visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons (TEC Title IV of Part 3)
• Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (TEU Title VI).
This is what footnote (1), statement (b), says:
(b) Re Article 3(1) and (2)
“The President will endeavour to ensure that, in principle, the provisional agenda for each meeting of the Council dealing with implementation of Title IV of Part 3 of the EC Treaty and Title VI of the EU Treaty and any documents relating to the items involved reach members of the Council at least 21 days before the beginning of the meeting.”
***
Article 3(1) and (2) Council’s Rules of Procedure
Article 3
Agenda
1. Taking into account the Council's 18-month programme, the President shall draw up the provisional agenda for each meeting. The agenda shall be sent to the other members of the Council and to the Commission at least 14 days before the beginning of the meeting.
2. The provisional agenda shall contain the items in respect of which a request for inclusion on the agenda, together with any documents relating thereto, has been received by the General Secretariat from a member of the Council or from the Commission at least 16 days before the beginning of that meeting. The provisional agenda shall also indicate by way of an asterisk the items on which the Presidency, a member of the Council or the Commission may request a vote. Such an indication shall be made once all the procedural requirements provided for by the Treaties have been complied with.
-----
***
In most cases the member states’ representations at the Council and the governments back home are familiar with the upcoming issues, but the strict rules are meant to pre-empt surprises.
Some exceptions are foreseen, as shown by footnote 1 with statement (c) to Article 3:
(c) Re Articles 1 and 3
“Without prejudice to Article 22(2) of the EU Treaty, which specifies that an extraordinary Council meeting may be convened at very short notice in cases requiring a rapid decision, the Council is aware of the need for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy to be dealt with swiftly and efficiently. The arrangements in Article 3 shall not prevent this need from being met.”
Ralf Grahn
Ethelred’s European manifesto (UK-EU)
After knocking on the door for twelve years, the United Kingdom was finally let into the European Economic Community in 1973. About three and a half decades later large parts of the media, the political elites and the population still treat European integration as an endeavour alien to the native spirit. The degree of estrangement from the European Union seems to be on the increase.
Perhaps a few mock historical texts are needed to liberate Europe from this sceptred isle, gliding towards Manhattan.
***
Ethelred
Despite the misfortunes of Ethelred the Unready, his doomed fight against continental invaders is as noble as his words: British serfdom for British serfs. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with the EU, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We have jointly granted us the Laws, the most necessary and wholesome for the public Good …
***
If distortions are detected, you can rest assured that they serve a noble cause, the restitution of Ethelred’s glory.
Perhaps the rest of Europe could get back to business.
Ralf Grahn
Perhaps a few mock historical texts are needed to liberate Europe from this sceptred isle, gliding towards Manhattan.
***
Ethelred
Despite the misfortunes of Ethelred the Unready, his doomed fight against continental invaders is as noble as his words: British serfdom for British serfs. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
Declaration of Independence
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with the EU, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We have jointly granted us the Laws, the most necessary and wholesome for the public Good …
***
If distortions are detected, you can rest assured that they serve a noble cause, the restitution of Ethelred’s glory.
Perhaps the rest of Europe could get back to business.
Ralf Grahn
Ailing United Kingdom: Proportional representation and EU membership
The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the member states of the European Union and a lot of power to shape EU affairs. With a responsible and constructive attitude, the UK could have even more influence. But the discourse on Europe among the elites, the media and the population is so strange that it has long ago become a common European concern.
***
Subjects treated as such
In the land of the unwritten and unknown constitution, the subjects of unlimited parliamentary discretion are singing the old tune:
It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor wot gets the blame,
It’s the rich wot gets the gravy,
Ain’t it all a bleedin’ shame?
***
David Cameron
After reading David Cameron’s article in The Guardian, New politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power (25 May 2009), I can hardly wait to hear more about Britain under a Conservative government.
Let me just pick two items of interest ahead of today’s speech.
People’s courts?
Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.
Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?
European Union
As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.
Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.
If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.
If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state
***
Jon Worth
Jon Worth called for radical electoral reform in Now is always the wrong time for opponents of electoral reform:
“The creaking British constitutional settlement - thankfully exposed by the expenses scandals - is ripe for reform. And if not now, when?”
Richard Laming
On the Federal Union blog Richard Laming comments on David Cameron in the post Somewhere else:
“You don’t need to talk about progressive politics to understand David Cameron’s attitude to Europe, you merely need to read that sentence. Europe is “somewhere else”.
If you look at a map, though, or if you look at our trading patterns, or our environmental problems, or our security interests, Europe is not somewhere else, it is where we are.”
Jon Worth and Richard Laming are right, but they are rare creatures in a country seemingly unfit for real reform or constructive EU membership.
Ralf Grahn
***
Subjects treated as such
In the land of the unwritten and unknown constitution, the subjects of unlimited parliamentary discretion are singing the old tune:
It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor wot gets the blame,
It’s the rich wot gets the gravy,
Ain’t it all a bleedin’ shame?
***
David Cameron
After reading David Cameron’s article in The Guardian, New politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power (25 May 2009), I can hardly wait to hear more about Britain under a Conservative government.
Let me just pick two items of interest ahead of today’s speech.
People’s courts?
Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.
Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?
European Union
As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.
Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.
If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.
If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state
***
Jon Worth
Jon Worth called for radical electoral reform in Now is always the wrong time for opponents of electoral reform:
“The creaking British constitutional settlement - thankfully exposed by the expenses scandals - is ripe for reform. And if not now, when?”
Richard Laming
On the Federal Union blog Richard Laming comments on David Cameron in the post Somewhere else:
“You don’t need to talk about progressive politics to understand David Cameron’s attitude to Europe, you merely need to read that sentence. Europe is “somewhere else”.
If you look at a map, though, or if you look at our trading patterns, or our environmental problems, or our security interests, Europe is not somewhere else, it is where we are.”
Jon Worth and Richard Laming are right, but they are rare creatures in a country seemingly unfit for real reform or constructive EU membership.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 25 May 2009
European Union: Council meetings (IV) Indicative provisional agendas
In the context of Article 204 TEC (Article 237 TFEU) and based on the programming, the Council’s Rules of Procedure foresee the establishment of indicative provisional agendas by the incoming Council Presidency for the next six months.
Article 2(5)
5. The incoming Presidency shall establish indicative provisional agendas for Council meetings scheduled for the next six-month period, showing the legislative work and operational decisions envisaged. These indicative provisional agendas shall be established at the latest one week before the beginning of its term of office, on the basis of the Council's 18-month programme and after consulting the Commission. Where necessary, extra Council meetings may be provided for, in addition to those previously planned.
Similar indicative provisional agendas for Council meetings scheduled for the six-month period following that referred to in the first subparagraph shall be established by the Presidency concerned, after consulting the Commission and the next Presidency, at the latest one week before the beginning of its term of office.
If during a six-month period any of the meetings planned during that period proves to be no longer warranted, the Presidency shall not convene it.
***
Although the Council’s Rules of Procedure offer possibilities for exceptional circumstances and emergencies, we can see that the backbone is fairly rigid. The main themes are usually known well in advance.
In practice, different Council formations (configurations) often meet on almost the exact days of their meetings during the preceding year.
Various committees, Coreper and governments’ internal coordination, as well as parliamentary scrutiny, work within an established framework with general timetables known well in advance.
But the agenda becomes more precise closer to the meeting.
Ralf Grahn
Article 2(5)
5. The incoming Presidency shall establish indicative provisional agendas for Council meetings scheduled for the next six-month period, showing the legislative work and operational decisions envisaged. These indicative provisional agendas shall be established at the latest one week before the beginning of its term of office, on the basis of the Council's 18-month programme and after consulting the Commission. Where necessary, extra Council meetings may be provided for, in addition to those previously planned.
Similar indicative provisional agendas for Council meetings scheduled for the six-month period following that referred to in the first subparagraph shall be established by the Presidency concerned, after consulting the Commission and the next Presidency, at the latest one week before the beginning of its term of office.
If during a six-month period any of the meetings planned during that period proves to be no longer warranted, the Presidency shall not convene it.
***
Although the Council’s Rules of Procedure offer possibilities for exceptional circumstances and emergencies, we can see that the backbone is fairly rigid. The main themes are usually known well in advance.
In practice, different Council formations (configurations) often meet on almost the exact days of their meetings during the preceding year.
Various committees, Coreper and governments’ internal coordination, as well as parliamentary scrutiny, work within an established framework with general timetables known well in advance.
But the agenda becomes more precise closer to the meeting.
Ralf Grahn
Horst Köhler: Germany in Europe
Germany has reviewed its great transformation and paid tribute to its 60 year old written Constitution. In his speech, President Horst Köhler evoked the role of Germany in Europe, on the day before he was elected for a second term:
„Wir sind eine freie, geeinte Nation, und wir sind glücklich darüber. Dabei wissen wir: Ohne unsere Freunde in Europa, ohne die europäische Friedensordnung und den Gemeinsamen Markt hätten wir vieles nicht erreicht. Deshalb stehen wir zu unserer Verantwortung als Motor der europäischen Einigung. Deshalb liegt uns am Herzen, was aus Europa wird. Und deshalb sollten wir alle am 7. Juni zur Europawahl gehen und damit ein Zeichen setzen. Auch da entscheidet sich unsere Zukunft.“
***
The European Union is team play. You play for your team, not against it. You are given, but you give in return.
It does not make everything hunky-dory, but the basic aims and the feeling of responsibility are there.
Ralf Grahn
„Wir sind eine freie, geeinte Nation, und wir sind glücklich darüber. Dabei wissen wir: Ohne unsere Freunde in Europa, ohne die europäische Friedensordnung und den Gemeinsamen Markt hätten wir vieles nicht erreicht. Deshalb stehen wir zu unserer Verantwortung als Motor der europäischen Einigung. Deshalb liegt uns am Herzen, was aus Europa wird. Und deshalb sollten wir alle am 7. Juni zur Europawahl gehen und damit ein Zeichen setzen. Auch da entscheidet sich unsere Zukunft.“
***
The European Union is team play. You play for your team, not against it. You are given, but you give in return.
It does not make everything hunky-dory, but the basic aims and the feeling of responsibility are there.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Council meetings (III) Programming
Formally, the Council of the European Union is convened by its President in accordance with Article 204 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Cf. the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/136.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the corresponding provision would be Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153.
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
The treaty provisions are complemented by the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
Originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, the latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure is of 1 January 2009.
Draft Presidency programme
Article 2(4) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure strives to enhance continuity in the work of the Council, despite the rotating six months presidencies, by establishing a joint presidency programme for the trio during 18 months:
“4. Every 18 months, the three Presidencies due to hold office shall prepare, in close cooperation with the Commission, and after appropriate consultations, a draft programme of Council activities for that period. The three Presidencies shall jointly submit the draft programme no later than one month before the relevant period, with a view to its endorsement by the General Affairs and External Relations Council, convened in a meeting as referred to in paragraph 2(a).”
The provision has been given further precisions by the following statement, added as a footnote:
(1) See statement (a) set out below:
(a) Concerning Article 2(4):
“The 18-month programme will include a general introductory section setting the programme in the context of the European Union's longer term strategic orientations. On this section, the three Presidencies in charge of preparing the draft 18-month programme will consult with the three subsequent Presidencies, as part of the “appropriate consultations” referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 4.
The draft 18-month programme should also have regard, inter alia, to relevant points arising from the dialogue on the political priorities for the year, conducted at the Commission's initiative.”
***
Presidency trio
Presidency troika meetings have taken place for a long time, but the practice to institute Presidency trios with a joint 18 month programme started in 2007. It is one example of how the workings of the EU institutions can be at least marginally improved without treaty change.
The first Presidency trio consisted of Germany, Portugal and Slovenia.
The ongoing second trio comprises France, the Czech Republic (until 30 June 2009) and Sweden (from 1 July 2009).
Spain, Belgium and Hungary with form the third Presidency trio, from the beginning of 2010.
Source: Wikipedia: Presidency of the Council of the European Union (latest update 20 May 2009).
The trio programme forms the basis for the work programme of each Council Presidency and the meeting calendar.
Ralf Grahn
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the corresponding provision would be Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153.
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
The treaty provisions are complemented by the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
Originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, the latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure is of 1 January 2009.
Draft Presidency programme
Article 2(4) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure strives to enhance continuity in the work of the Council, despite the rotating six months presidencies, by establishing a joint presidency programme for the trio during 18 months:
“4. Every 18 months, the three Presidencies due to hold office shall prepare, in close cooperation with the Commission, and after appropriate consultations, a draft programme of Council activities for that period. The three Presidencies shall jointly submit the draft programme no later than one month before the relevant period, with a view to its endorsement by the General Affairs and External Relations Council, convened in a meeting as referred to in paragraph 2(a).”
The provision has been given further precisions by the following statement, added as a footnote:
(1) See statement (a) set out below:
(a) Concerning Article 2(4):
“The 18-month programme will include a general introductory section setting the programme in the context of the European Union's longer term strategic orientations. On this section, the three Presidencies in charge of preparing the draft 18-month programme will consult with the three subsequent Presidencies, as part of the “appropriate consultations” referred to in the first sentence of paragraph 4.
The draft 18-month programme should also have regard, inter alia, to relevant points arising from the dialogue on the political priorities for the year, conducted at the Commission's initiative.”
***
Presidency trio
Presidency troika meetings have taken place for a long time, but the practice to institute Presidency trios with a joint 18 month programme started in 2007. It is one example of how the workings of the EU institutions can be at least marginally improved without treaty change.
The first Presidency trio consisted of Germany, Portugal and Slovenia.
The ongoing second trio comprises France, the Czech Republic (until 30 June 2009) and Sweden (from 1 July 2009).
Spain, Belgium and Hungary with form the third Presidency trio, from the beginning of 2010.
Source: Wikipedia: Presidency of the Council of the European Union (latest update 20 May 2009).
The trio programme forms the basis for the work programme of each Council Presidency and the meeting calendar.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Council meetings (II) Venues
Formally, the Council of the European Union is convened by its President in accordance with Article 204 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Cf. the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/136.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the corresponding provision would be Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153.
***
Venues
Just as the member states have fixed the seat of the European Parliament and twelve monthly sessions, including the budget session, in Strasbourg, they have ordained the seat of the Council and the venues of its meetings at treaty level.
In the Lisbon Treaty it is Protocol (No 6) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union. Point (b) of the Sole Article says:
“The Council shall have its seat in Brussels. During the months of April, June and October, the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg.”
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
Originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, the latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure is of 1 January 2009.
Article 1 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure reiterates the treaty level provisions, but it also gives an indication of the advance programming of Council meetings and offers the possibility to hold meetings outside Brussels or Luxembourg:
Article 1
Notice and venue of meetings
1. The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its members or of the Commission.
2. Seven months before the beginning of its term of office, after consulting the Presidencies preceding and following its term of office where appropriate, the Presidency shall make known the dates which it envisages for meetings that the Council will have to hold in order to complete its legislative work or take operational decisions.
3. The Council shall have its seat in Brussels. During the months of April, June and October the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg.
In exceptional circumstances and for duly substantiated reasons, the Council or the Committee of Permanent Representatives (hereinafter referred to as Coreper), acting unanimously, may decide that a Council meeting will be held elsewhere.
***
Meeting calendar
The upcoming Swedish EU Council Presidency has published a meeting calendar for the second half of 2009 (latest update 3 April 2009).
***
Informal Council meetings
The Council makes legislative and other decisions at its formal meetings, but in addition the Ministers regularly take part in informal meetings. These are often arranged in the country holding the rotating Council Presidency.
The upcoming Swedish EU Council Presidency has published a separate list of the informal Council meetings planned for the second half of 2009.
In addition, various international meetings, other meetings and conferences are arranged during a Council Presidency.
Ralf Grahn
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the corresponding provision would be Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153.
***
Venues
Just as the member states have fixed the seat of the European Parliament and twelve monthly sessions, including the budget session, in Strasbourg, they have ordained the seat of the Council and the venues of its meetings at treaty level.
In the Lisbon Treaty it is Protocol (No 6) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union. Point (b) of the Sole Article says:
“The Council shall have its seat in Brussels. During the months of April, June and October, the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg.”
***
Council’s Rules of Procedure
Originally published OJEU 16.10.2006 L 285/47, the latest consolidated version of Council Decision 2006/683/EC, Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure is of 1 January 2009.
Article 1 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure reiterates the treaty level provisions, but it also gives an indication of the advance programming of Council meetings and offers the possibility to hold meetings outside Brussels or Luxembourg:
Article 1
Notice and venue of meetings
1. The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its members or of the Commission.
2. Seven months before the beginning of its term of office, after consulting the Presidencies preceding and following its term of office where appropriate, the Presidency shall make known the dates which it envisages for meetings that the Council will have to hold in order to complete its legislative work or take operational decisions.
3. The Council shall have its seat in Brussels. During the months of April, June and October the Council shall hold its meetings in Luxembourg.
In exceptional circumstances and for duly substantiated reasons, the Council or the Committee of Permanent Representatives (hereinafter referred to as Coreper), acting unanimously, may decide that a Council meeting will be held elsewhere.
***
Meeting calendar
The upcoming Swedish EU Council Presidency has published a meeting calendar for the second half of 2009 (latest update 3 April 2009).
***
Informal Council meetings
The Council makes legislative and other decisions at its formal meetings, but in addition the Ministers regularly take part in informal meetings. These are often arranged in the country holding the rotating Council Presidency.
The upcoming Swedish EU Council Presidency has published a separate list of the informal Council meetings planned for the second half of 2009.
In addition, various international meetings, other meetings and conferences are arranged during a Council Presidency.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 24 May 2009
European elections: Talibans to the rescue?
It is always interesting to read Nosemonkey, but I wonder at his reasoning in Why voting for a eurosceptic party is a good thing for the EU (23 May 2009).
Naturally, the European Union needs critics and reformers, but that that is not what added representation for the British National Party (BNP) or the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is going to bring. There is nothing ‘skeptic’ about them. They want the European Union to fail and the United Kingdom to secede regardless of reform issues.
What Nosemonkey is doing is akin to calling for the Talibans to reform the United States.
***
Julien Frisch is looking for the kind of criticism needed to improve the European project in Why we might need EU-sceptic parties (24 May 2009).
"The problem is that EU-sceptic parties’ critique to anything the EU does can easily be discredited as if it was just done to harm the Union, as a matter of principle and not as a constructive approach to make the Union better, even when they are right.
I think we will need heavily EU-critical parties with a true love to the basic idea of such a supranational entity. So far, this critique too often comes from the extremes, but it needs to comes from the centres of the political spectrum, to make it more credible.
But maybe those political forces will first need the EU-sceptic pitbulls to smooth the way before they get their window of opportunity to make the EU a better polity than it is today…"
***
It is a corruption of language to gather Taliban-like BNP or UKIP under the banner of ‘skepticisim’, and it is a folly to see them as saviours. Eurotoxic EU reform is a non-starter.
The inadequate treaties of the European Union, including the Lisbon Treaty, and the EU’s obvious shortcomings need a different kind of critique.
The basic questions are how to enhance the security and to improve the prosperity of EU citizens in a turbulent world.
We can become more secure, if the European Union is able to speak with one voice in the world, and more prosperous if the EU embraces economic reform fit for the 21st century.
For this the EU needs real powers, but they have to be legitimate, based on representative democracy and with accountable government at EU level.
EU 2.0 is well beyond the parochial world view of our national governments and the mainstream views of those wedded to the current ‘institutional balance’, but even a hundred ‘Nigel Farages’ in the European Parliament is not going to bring about needed reform, or even the discussion needed to address the right issues.
During more than three decades British tabloids have managed to poison the atmosphere, but they have not even started reflection about how to improve the European Union. Why should more of the same be any better?
Ralf Grahn
Naturally, the European Union needs critics and reformers, but that that is not what added representation for the British National Party (BNP) or the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is going to bring. There is nothing ‘skeptic’ about them. They want the European Union to fail and the United Kingdom to secede regardless of reform issues.
What Nosemonkey is doing is akin to calling for the Talibans to reform the United States.
***
Julien Frisch is looking for the kind of criticism needed to improve the European project in Why we might need EU-sceptic parties (24 May 2009).
"The problem is that EU-sceptic parties’ critique to anything the EU does can easily be discredited as if it was just done to harm the Union, as a matter of principle and not as a constructive approach to make the Union better, even when they are right.
I think we will need heavily EU-critical parties with a true love to the basic idea of such a supranational entity. So far, this critique too often comes from the extremes, but it needs to comes from the centres of the political spectrum, to make it more credible.
But maybe those political forces will first need the EU-sceptic pitbulls to smooth the way before they get their window of opportunity to make the EU a better polity than it is today…"
***
It is a corruption of language to gather Taliban-like BNP or UKIP under the banner of ‘skepticisim’, and it is a folly to see them as saviours. Eurotoxic EU reform is a non-starter.
The inadequate treaties of the European Union, including the Lisbon Treaty, and the EU’s obvious shortcomings need a different kind of critique.
The basic questions are how to enhance the security and to improve the prosperity of EU citizens in a turbulent world.
We can become more secure, if the European Union is able to speak with one voice in the world, and more prosperous if the EU embraces economic reform fit for the 21st century.
For this the EU needs real powers, but they have to be legitimate, based on representative democracy and with accountable government at EU level.
EU 2.0 is well beyond the parochial world view of our national governments and the mainstream views of those wedded to the current ‘institutional balance’, but even a hundred ‘Nigel Farages’ in the European Parliament is not going to bring about needed reform, or even the discussion needed to address the right issues.
During more than three decades British tabloids have managed to poison the atmosphere, but they have not even started reflection about how to improve the European Union. Why should more of the same be any better?
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 23 May 2009
European elections: Role of Europarties
Ahead of the European Parliament elections, we recap some basics and signal new research on the Europarties, officially political parties at European level, meant to form a European awareness and to express the political will of the EU citizens.
***
Current Treaty
Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the basic principles governing political parties at European level.
According to the first subparagraph the Europarties are seen as a factor for EU integration.
Regulations concerning (the status of) European parties and their funding can be issued by co-decision (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/132):
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
The Treaty of Lisbon is not in force (yet), but in many instances it represents the updated view of the member states (and EU institutions) on how the European Union should function.
The basic provisions on representative democracy and the Europarties have been renumbered in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 10 of the amended Treaty on European Union, in Title II Provisions on democratic principles (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/20) sets out the framework with the political parties mentioned in paragraph 4:
Article 10 TEU
1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.
2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.
**
Article 224 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) took over the substance of the second subparagraph of Article 191 TEC, with the minor amendments (OJEU page 149):
Article 224 TFEU
(ex Article 191, second subparagraph, TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, by means of regulations, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level referred to in Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in particular the rules regarding their funding.
***
Secondary legislation
Statute for a European political party
There are existing statutes for European companies (SE) and European co-operatives as well as proposals for European associations and European mutuals, but there is no enactment on truly European political parties.
***
Funding for Europarties
It took a long time before the European Parliament and the Council were able to agree on European level political parties. The result was Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJEU 15.11.2003 L 297/1), since amended by Regulation No 1524/2007 (OJEU 27.12.2007 L 343/5).
The consolidated version (of 27 December 2007) of Regulation 2004/2003 is available here:
Even if no true category of European political party is created, the Regulation lays down certain criteria for the parties eligible for funding from the European Union.
***
Implementing decision
The Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, has been published as amended by the bureau Decision 1 February 2006 in OJEU 28.6.2006 C 150/9.
***
Expenditure
Under the European Parliament in the European Union budget for 2009 there are the following appropriations:
Article 402 contains EUR 10.858 million for European political parties and Article 403 allows contributions to their European political foundations worth 7.0 million.
***
New study
The French think tank Notre Europe has actively studied and organised ahead of the upcoming European Parliament elections.
One of the results is the study on the political parties at European level, by Francisco Roa Bastos Des « partis politiques au niveau européen » ? Etat des lieux à la veille des élections européennes de juin 2009. (Published 20 May 2009)
The study 25 page paper encapsulates the stages of development of the Europarties. It analyses their main characteristics on an integration continuum and exposes their weaknesses. Additionally, it ssees the need for further study on how these parties function in reality.
Ralf Grahn
***
Current Treaty
Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the basic principles governing political parties at European level.
According to the first subparagraph the Europarties are seen as a factor for EU integration.
Regulations concerning (the status of) European parties and their funding can be issued by co-decision (OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/132):
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding.
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
The Treaty of Lisbon is not in force (yet), but in many instances it represents the updated view of the member states (and EU institutions) on how the European Union should function.
The basic provisions on representative democracy and the Europarties have been renumbered in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty.
Article 10 of the amended Treaty on European Union, in Title II Provisions on democratic principles (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/20) sets out the framework with the political parties mentioned in paragraph 4:
Article 10 TEU
1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.
2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.
Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.
3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.
4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.
**
Article 224 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) took over the substance of the second subparagraph of Article 191 TEC, with the minor amendments (OJEU page 149):
Article 224 TFEU
(ex Article 191, second subparagraph, TEC)
The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, by means of regulations, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level referred to in Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and in particular the rules regarding their funding.
***
Secondary legislation
Statute for a European political party
There are existing statutes for European companies (SE) and European co-operatives as well as proposals for European associations and European mutuals, but there is no enactment on truly European political parties.
***
Funding for Europarties
It took a long time before the European Parliament and the Council were able to agree on European level political parties. The result was Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJEU 15.11.2003 L 297/1), since amended by Regulation No 1524/2007 (OJEU 27.12.2007 L 343/5).
The consolidated version (of 27 December 2007) of Regulation 2004/2003 is available here:
Even if no true category of European political party is created, the Regulation lays down certain criteria for the parties eligible for funding from the European Union.
***
Implementing decision
The Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 29 March 2004 laying down the procedures for implementing Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding, has been published as amended by the bureau Decision 1 February 2006 in OJEU 28.6.2006 C 150/9.
***
Expenditure
Under the European Parliament in the European Union budget for 2009 there are the following appropriations:
Article 402 contains EUR 10.858 million for European political parties and Article 403 allows contributions to their European political foundations worth 7.0 million.
***
New study
The French think tank Notre Europe has actively studied and organised ahead of the upcoming European Parliament elections.
One of the results is the study on the political parties at European level, by Francisco Roa Bastos Des « partis politiques au niveau européen » ? Etat des lieux à la veille des élections européennes de juin 2009. (Published 20 May 2009)
The study 25 page paper encapsulates the stages of development of the Europarties. It analyses their main characteristics on an integration continuum and exposes their weaknesses. Additionally, it ssees the need for further study on how these parties function in reality.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 22 May 2009
Euroskepticism and other creeds
The term Euroskeptic (or Eurosceptic) has been used misleadingly to lend adversaries of European integration an aura of intellectual respectability.
Here are a few suggestions for a new and more accurate political EU vocabulary in a UK context, ahead of the European elections.
***
Constructive
Liberals
Stronger Together Poorer Apart
***
Euroskeptic
Labour Party
Behind the slipstream of Europe, paring down the Lisbon Treaty and approving it with four opt-outs.
***
Anti-European
Libertas
Campaigns to take the European Union back to the Treaty of Nice and to put an end to free movement.
Conservative Party
Wants to wreck the Lisbon Treaty, leave the mainstream EPP-ED parliamentary group and commence integration in reverse. The ones who love French wine and cheese and holidays on the Riviera may object to being called anti-Europeans, which however refers to their political views.
***
Eurotoxic
UKIP and BNP want Britain to exit.
***
Reasoned suggestions are welcome.
Ralf Grahn
Here are a few suggestions for a new and more accurate political EU vocabulary in a UK context, ahead of the European elections.
***
Constructive
Liberals
Stronger Together Poorer Apart
***
Euroskeptic
Labour Party
Behind the slipstream of Europe, paring down the Lisbon Treaty and approving it with four opt-outs.
***
Anti-European
Libertas
Campaigns to take the European Union back to the Treaty of Nice and to put an end to free movement.
Conservative Party
Wants to wreck the Lisbon Treaty, leave the mainstream EPP-ED parliamentary group and commence integration in reverse. The ones who love French wine and cheese and holidays on the Riviera may object to being called anti-Europeans, which however refers to their political views.
***
Eurotoxic
UKIP and BNP want Britain to exit.
***
Reasoned suggestions are welcome.
Ralf Grahn
Åland Islands: Lisbon Treaty & ratification update
Not much of an update, actually, but to keep the editors of Wikipedia and other observers informed.
This blog post can only state that 13 months have now passed since the Åland Parliament registered the request from the President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, to approve the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon (on 21 April 2008).
The matter is still lingering in the Legal Committee, which has failed to issue a report for the plenary. (Earlier posts have dealt with the background.)
National parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the reform treaty. Finland has completed its ratification procedure, but the unresolved issue is if the Lisbon Treaty will be applicable in the Åland Islands. A positive vote requires a two thirds majority in the regional parliament.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The loose ends with regard to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are:
• In the Czech Republic, President Vaclav Klaus seems bent upon doing all he can to disrupt or delay the procedure, despite ratifications in nearly all member states and the amending treaty now approved by two chambers of the national parliament. The latest excuse is a planned new complaint to the Constitutional Court, which has already ruled on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty.
• In Poland President Lech Kaczynski has withheld his signature from the Lisbon Treaty approved by both houses of parliament.
• In Germany the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is expected to ponder the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty until after the European elections.
• Ireland has been given political assurances about maintaining the oversized Commission and assurances concerning sensitive areas (abortion, tax, neutrality) if the Lisbon Treaty is approved in the second referendum, probably in October. The final wording of these guarantees is expected at the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009.
This blog post can only state that 13 months have now passed since the Åland Parliament registered the request from the President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, to approve the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon (on 21 April 2008).
The matter is still lingering in the Legal Committee, which has failed to issue a report for the plenary. (Earlier posts have dealt with the background.)
National parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the reform treaty. Finland has completed its ratification procedure, but the unresolved issue is if the Lisbon Treaty will be applicable in the Åland Islands. A positive vote requires a two thirds majority in the regional parliament.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The loose ends with regard to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty are:
• In the Czech Republic, President Vaclav Klaus seems bent upon doing all he can to disrupt or delay the procedure, despite ratifications in nearly all member states and the amending treaty now approved by two chambers of the national parliament. The latest excuse is a planned new complaint to the Constitutional Court, which has already ruled on the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty.
• In Poland President Lech Kaczynski has withheld his signature from the Lisbon Treaty approved by both houses of parliament.
• In Germany the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) is expected to ponder the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty until after the European elections.
• Ireland has been given political assurances about maintaining the oversized Commission and assurances concerning sensitive areas (abortion, tax, neutrality) if the Lisbon Treaty is approved in the second referendum, probably in October. The final wording of these guarantees is expected at the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009.
EU Lisbon Treaty: National parliaments (Sweden)
According to the Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, the limits of EU competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of EU competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
Two protocols are relevant for the national parliaments:
• Protocol (No 1) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union; and
• Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
According to Article 12 TEU, national parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the union (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115):
Article 12 TEU
National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:
(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;
(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty;
(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;
(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;
(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.
***
Preparation for the Lisbon Treaty
The national parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the Treaty of Lisbon. Politically Ireland has secured that every member state keeps a member of the Commission, if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, as well as assurances on sensitive issues.
On the basis of this “better deal”, the Irish government will propose a new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, when the details of the guarantees have been finalised at the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009.
This blog has called for the EU institutions to prepare the needed acts and decisions for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in an open, transparent and interactive manner. Only the European Parliament has acted openly, while the Council and the Commission have either failed to carry on preparatory work or they have kept EU citizens in the dark.
But the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has implications for national parliaments, as well.
If the Irish vote Yes in the second referendum and the other loose ends are tied up (formal ratification by the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany), the reform treaty enters into force quickly, at the beginning of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument. (In addition, approval or rejection in the Åland Islands affects the geographical scope of the reform treaty.)
At the national level, too, the needed preparatory measures have to be prepared in advance.
***
Sweden
The Riksdag Board of the Swedish Parliament (riksdagsstyrelsen) has produced a legislative proposal on the application of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag): Tillämpningen av Lissabonfördraget i riksdagen 2008/09:URF2.
All the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty are studied, including the anticipated increase in the work-load of the Parliament, and the 124 page study contains proposed amendments to the Riksdag Act (riksdagsordningen).
Without going into details here, the proposals are interesting for national parliaments in other EU member states and for researchers.
Ralf Grahn
Two protocols are relevant for the national parliaments:
• Protocol (No 1) on the role of national parliaments in the European Union; and
• Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
According to Article 12 TEU, national parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the union (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115):
Article 12 TEU
National Parliaments contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union:
(a) through being informed by the institutions of the Union and having draft legislative acts of the Union forwarded to them in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union;
(b) by seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;
(c) by taking part, within the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice, in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in that area, in accordance with Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and through being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities in accordance with Articles 88 and 85 of that Treaty;
(d) by taking part in the revision procedures of the Treaties, in accordance with Article 48 of this Treaty;
(e) by being notified of applications for accession to the Union, in accordance with Article 49 of this Treaty;
(f) by taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national Parliaments and with the European Parliament, in accordance with the Protocol on the role of national Parliaments in the European Union.
***
Preparation for the Lisbon Treaty
The national parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the Treaty of Lisbon. Politically Ireland has secured that every member state keeps a member of the Commission, if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, as well as assurances on sensitive issues.
On the basis of this “better deal”, the Irish government will propose a new referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, when the details of the guarantees have been finalised at the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009.
This blog has called for the EU institutions to prepare the needed acts and decisions for the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in an open, transparent and interactive manner. Only the European Parliament has acted openly, while the Council and the Commission have either failed to carry on preparatory work or they have kept EU citizens in the dark.
But the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has implications for national parliaments, as well.
If the Irish vote Yes in the second referendum and the other loose ends are tied up (formal ratification by the Czech Republic, Poland and Germany), the reform treaty enters into force quickly, at the beginning of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument. (In addition, approval or rejection in the Åland Islands affects the geographical scope of the reform treaty.)
At the national level, too, the needed preparatory measures have to be prepared in advance.
***
Sweden
The Riksdag Board of the Swedish Parliament (riksdagsstyrelsen) has produced a legislative proposal on the application of the Treaty of Lisbon in the Swedish Parliament (Riksdag): Tillämpningen av Lissabonfördraget i riksdagen 2008/09:URF2.
All the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty are studied, including the anticipated increase in the work-load of the Parliament, and the 124 page study contains proposed amendments to the Riksdag Act (riksdagsordningen).
Without going into details here, the proposals are interesting for national parliaments in other EU member states and for researchers.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 21 May 2009
EU: Genetically modified micro-organisms (GMMs)
On the basis of Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) a recast Directive has been issued on the contained use of GMMs:
Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (Recast).
This text, with EEA relevance, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 125/75.
The aim of Directive 2009/41 is:
Article 1
This Directive lays down common measures for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms with a view to protecting human health and the environment.
Ralf Grahn
Directive 2009/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (Recast).
This text, with EEA relevance, was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 125/75.
The aim of Directive 2009/41 is:
Article 1
This Directive lays down common measures for the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms with a view to protecting human health and the environment.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Community Customs Code (implementation)
The European Community (European Union) is more than a free trade area. It is a customs union with a common commercial policy with regard to the rest of the world (third countries), as laid down in Article 131 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Here are some updates for import and export businesses, depending on where they are located.
Community Customs Code
The centerpiece is the Community Customs Code. The latest consolidated version of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is of 1 January 2007.
***
Implementing provisions
Implementing provisions are contained in: Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
The regulation has been amended several times, and the latest consolidated version of Regulation 2454/93 is of 1 January 2009.
***
Latest amendments
Amending implementing provisions have now been published by:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/2009 of 30 April 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (Text with EEA relevance), in OJEU 21.5.2009 L 125/6.
Ralf Grahn
Here are some updates for import and export businesses, depending on where they are located.
Community Customs Code
The centerpiece is the Community Customs Code. The latest consolidated version of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is of 1 January 2007.
***
Implementing provisions
Implementing provisions are contained in: Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.
The regulation has been amended several times, and the latest consolidated version of Regulation 2454/93 is of 1 January 2009.
***
Latest amendments
Amending implementing provisions have now been published by:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 414/2009 of 30 April 2009 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (Text with EEA relevance), in OJEU 21.5.2009 L 125/6.
Ralf Grahn
EU: European Environment Agency
The environment is increasingly seen as an important area, with common challenges facing Europe and the world.
Article 174 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the objectives of the European Union’s environment policy, and Article 175 TEC is the legal base for the adoption of measures to achieve the objectives.
As in other policy areas, practical work at European level has been delegated to a Community Agency.
The European Environment Agency (EEA), located in Copenhagen (Denmark), has now been given a new codified Regulation:
Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Codified version), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 126/13.
Scope
The scope of the codified Regulation 401/2009 is:
Article 1
1. This Regulation provides for the European Environment Agency, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agency’, and aims at the setting up of a European Environment Information and Observation Network.
2. To achieve the aims of environmental protection and improvement laid down by the Treaty and by successive Community action programmes on the environment, as well as of sustainable development, the objective of the Agency and of the European Environment Information and Observation Network shall be to provide the Community and the Member States with:
(a) objective, reliable and comparable information at European level enabling them to take the requisite measures to protect the environment, to assess the results of such measures and to ensure that the public is properly informed about the state of the environment, and to that end;
(b) the necessary technical and scientific support.
Ralf Grahn
Article 174 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) lays down the objectives of the European Union’s environment policy, and Article 175 TEC is the legal base for the adoption of measures to achieve the objectives.
As in other policy areas, practical work at European level has been delegated to a Community Agency.
The European Environment Agency (EEA), located in Copenhagen (Denmark), has now been given a new codified Regulation:
Regulation (EC) No 401/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Codified version), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 126/13.
Scope
The scope of the codified Regulation 401/2009 is:
Article 1
1. This Regulation provides for the European Environment Agency, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agency’, and aims at the setting up of a European Environment Information and Observation Network.
2. To achieve the aims of environmental protection and improvement laid down by the Treaty and by successive Community action programmes on the environment, as well as of sustainable development, the objective of the Agency and of the European Environment Information and Observation Network shall be to provide the Community and the Member States with:
(a) objective, reliable and comparable information at European level enabling them to take the requisite measures to protect the environment, to assess the results of such measures and to ensure that the public is properly informed about the state of the environment, and to that end;
(b) the necessary technical and scientific support.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Endangered species (implementing powers)
In the blog post EU: Protecting endangered species (fauna and flora) we announced amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 407/2009 of 14 May 2009.
These Regulations, which relate to the CITES Convention, have now been complemented by a Regulation, which shifts and illustrates the implementing powers of the Commission:
Regulation (EC) No 398/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 23 April 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 126/5.
Ralf Grahn
These Regulations, which relate to the CITES Convention, have now been complemented by a Regulation, which shifts and illustrates the implementing powers of the Commission:
Regulation (EC) No 398/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 23 April 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 21.5.2009 L 126/5.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
European election quiz
Since the Berlaymont building is closed and holidays approaching, we continue our European election theme in a lighter vein, by offering our readers a quiz:
1) Which head of state would be your guess to think and act in the spirit of the Sun King, Louis XIV: L’Europe c’est Moi?
2) An insular political party which dismisses the obligation of the Article 1 TEU aim of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe appears as an outmoded irrelevance?
3) A pan-European party on an anti-sleaze campaign, but practicing no openness or accountability with regard to its own affairs, political or financial?
4) A political foundation in the United States contends that the Lisbon Treaty, approved by the national parliaments in 26 EU member states, lacks legitimacy?
5) A portal aggregating about 375 Euroblogs?
6) The high official, who after securing behind-closed-doors support for a second term, has recorded a message that “Your vote matters. Please use it” for the European elections 2009?
7) An elder statesman, who in 1946 called for a kind of United States of Europe?
8) A younger activist, imprisoned by the Fascists, who wrote the Ventotene Manifesto (1941) together with Ernesto Rossi?
9) The architect of the European Parliament’s Draft treaty establishing the European Union (1984)?
10) The only member state with more opt-outs from the existing treaties than the United Kingdom?
***
Answer in the comments section. No prizes are promised.
Ralf Grahn
1) Which head of state would be your guess to think and act in the spirit of the Sun King, Louis XIV: L’Europe c’est Moi?
2) An insular political party which dismisses the obligation of the Article 1 TEU aim of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe appears as an outmoded irrelevance?
3) A pan-European party on an anti-sleaze campaign, but practicing no openness or accountability with regard to its own affairs, political or financial?
4) A political foundation in the United States contends that the Lisbon Treaty, approved by the national parliaments in 26 EU member states, lacks legitimacy?
5) A portal aggregating about 375 Euroblogs?
6) The high official, who after securing behind-closed-doors support for a second term, has recorded a message that “Your vote matters. Please use it” for the European elections 2009?
7) An elder statesman, who in 1946 called for a kind of United States of Europe?
8) A younger activist, imprisoned by the Fascists, who wrote the Ventotene Manifesto (1941) together with Ernesto Rossi?
9) The architect of the European Parliament’s Draft treaty establishing the European Union (1984)?
10) The only member state with more opt-outs from the existing treaties than the United Kingdom?
***
Answer in the comments section. No prizes are promised.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: Verhofstadt or Barroso?
On the web pages of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) Guido Montani writes Who is my candidate? (19 May 2009).
After discussing the post of the President of the Commission, Montani concludes:
“We can say something more. Verhofstadt is in favour of the United States of Europe. He is in favour of a federal budget, a federal foreign policy and the removal of the veto right. A public debate, in the European Parliament, on the choice of the President of the European Commission is also a debate on the federalist future of the European Union. Therefore, I have no doubt. If there is the possibility to choose between Barroso and Verhofstadt, I choose Verhofstadt and at the next European election I will vote for a European party supporting Verhosfstadt as the next President of the European Commission.”
***
Guy Verhofstadt
Here is Wikipedia’s article on three times Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (last modified 10 May 2009).
***
“It’s your choice”
We citizens of the European Union have been told about the European elections that our votes matter and that the kind of Europe we want is our choice.
In my view, Guy Verhofstadt is the most credible candidate put forward to date as an alternative to José Manuel Barroso.
Heads of state or government may have trumpeted their preferences long before they listened to our voices or counted our votes, but political parties, MEP candidates and EU citizens are not bound by their deals.
What we need now is clear information about the possibilities to vote for parties or candidates who support Verhofstadt.
Please, comment in order to give citizens a choice.
Ralf Grahn
After discussing the post of the President of the Commission, Montani concludes:
“We can say something more. Verhofstadt is in favour of the United States of Europe. He is in favour of a federal budget, a federal foreign policy and the removal of the veto right. A public debate, in the European Parliament, on the choice of the President of the European Commission is also a debate on the federalist future of the European Union. Therefore, I have no doubt. If there is the possibility to choose between Barroso and Verhofstadt, I choose Verhofstadt and at the next European election I will vote for a European party supporting Verhosfstadt as the next President of the European Commission.”
***
Guy Verhofstadt
Here is Wikipedia’s article on three times Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (last modified 10 May 2009).
***
“It’s your choice”
We citizens of the European Union have been told about the European elections that our votes matter and that the kind of Europe we want is our choice.
In my view, Guy Verhofstadt is the most credible candidate put forward to date as an alternative to José Manuel Barroso.
Heads of state or government may have trumpeted their preferences long before they listened to our voices or counted our votes, but political parties, MEP candidates and EU citizens are not bound by their deals.
What we need now is clear information about the possibilities to vote for parties or candidates who support Verhofstadt.
Please, comment in order to give citizens a choice.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Social rules in road transport (infringements & penalties)
The Commission has published a report on the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport provided for in the legislation of the Member States, as required by Article 10 of Directive 2006/22/EC on minimum conditions for the implementation of social legislation relating to road transport activities.
The infringements concern two regulations.
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport contains very precise rules on the maximum driving times and the minimum rest periods and breaks for drivers engaged in professional transport.
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport concerns the instalment and use of the tachograph.
***
Penalties for infringements
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of both Regulations. The penalties have to be effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory.
Recital 26 of the Regulation states in addition that the possibility of immobilising the vehicle where serious infringements are detected should also be included within the common range of measures open to member states.
However, there is no definition in the Regulation of what should be considered a serious infringement.
Directive 2006/22/EC originally contained an Annex III with a non-exhaustive list of what is to be regarded as an infringement. This Annex III has recently been replaced by a new Annex by way of Commission Directive 2009/5/EC. This new Annex III contains guidelines on the categorisation of infringements against the two Regulations.
***
Conclusions
The Commission’s analysis reaches the conclusion that the penalties for serious infringements vary too much between the EU member states (page 7 and 8):
The rules on penalties applicable to serious infringements of the social legislation vary appreciably between Member States as regards the types of penalties, the level of fines and the categorisation of infringements.
While all Member States use fines as a penalty, not all of them provide for the immobilization of vehicles or imprisonment, for example. In some Member States, withdrawal of a driver’s driving licence or driver card is possible.
When looking at how the Member States grade the different types or levels of infringements, the situation becomes even more complex. The amounts of the fines vary significantly between Member States, in extreme cases by as much as 1:10. These differences can only be partly explained by the socio-economic differences that make the same fine proportionate and dissuasive in one country but not necessarily in another.
While for infringements against the driving times and rest periods, it is rather clear which infringements has to be considered to be more serious than another, the categorisation of infringements varies considerably between Member States for infringements against Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. Some infringements are seen as serious infringements in one country, but not necessarily in another.
Moreover, the penalties applied for infringement of the rules of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 do not correspond in many Member States with the Community guidelines on the categorisation of infringements as contained in Commission Directive 2009/5/EC amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC.
For drivers and undertakings engaged in international transport, it is therefore very difficult to receive a clear message concerning the gravity of possible infringements when they do not comply with certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as the penalties they risk in the different Member States give contradictory feedback.
The Commission considers this situation resulting of the decisions of the legislators to be unsatisfactory in terms of equal conditions for drivers and undertakings. The new Annex to Directive 2006/22/EC, introduced by Commission Directive 2009/5/EC, provides a basis for a common understanding of what should be considered as serious infringement and what not.
Member States are encouraged to take the necessary steps to provide for more harmonised application of the social rules in road transport and thus to improve observance of the social rules in road transport.
The Commission will continue to work on this issue, in particular by supporting dialogue between Member States concerning national interpretation and application of the social rules in road transport through the Committee foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and taking into account the limits of the competence that Member States and the legislators have decided to give to the Commission.
***
Source
Report from the Commission Analysing the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States; Brussels, 15.5.2009, COM(2009) 225 final.
Ralf Grahn
The infringements concern two regulations.
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport contains very precise rules on the maximum driving times and the minimum rest periods and breaks for drivers engaged in professional transport.
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport concerns the instalment and use of the tachograph.
***
Penalties for infringements
Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 requires Member States to lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of both Regulations. The penalties have to be effective, proportionate, dissuasive and non-discriminatory.
Recital 26 of the Regulation states in addition that the possibility of immobilising the vehicle where serious infringements are detected should also be included within the common range of measures open to member states.
However, there is no definition in the Regulation of what should be considered a serious infringement.
Directive 2006/22/EC originally contained an Annex III with a non-exhaustive list of what is to be regarded as an infringement. This Annex III has recently been replaced by a new Annex by way of Commission Directive 2009/5/EC. This new Annex III contains guidelines on the categorisation of infringements against the two Regulations.
***
Conclusions
The Commission’s analysis reaches the conclusion that the penalties for serious infringements vary too much between the EU member states (page 7 and 8):
The rules on penalties applicable to serious infringements of the social legislation vary appreciably between Member States as regards the types of penalties, the level of fines and the categorisation of infringements.
While all Member States use fines as a penalty, not all of them provide for the immobilization of vehicles or imprisonment, for example. In some Member States, withdrawal of a driver’s driving licence or driver card is possible.
When looking at how the Member States grade the different types or levels of infringements, the situation becomes even more complex. The amounts of the fines vary significantly between Member States, in extreme cases by as much as 1:10. These differences can only be partly explained by the socio-economic differences that make the same fine proportionate and dissuasive in one country but not necessarily in another.
While for infringements against the driving times and rest periods, it is rather clear which infringements has to be considered to be more serious than another, the categorisation of infringements varies considerably between Member States for infringements against Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85. Some infringements are seen as serious infringements in one country, but not necessarily in another.
Moreover, the penalties applied for infringement of the rules of Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 do not correspond in many Member States with the Community guidelines on the categorisation of infringements as contained in Commission Directive 2009/5/EC amending Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC.
For drivers and undertakings engaged in international transport, it is therefore very difficult to receive a clear message concerning the gravity of possible infringements when they do not comply with certain provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, as the penalties they risk in the different Member States give contradictory feedback.
The Commission considers this situation resulting of the decisions of the legislators to be unsatisfactory in terms of equal conditions for drivers and undertakings. The new Annex to Directive 2006/22/EC, introduced by Commission Directive 2009/5/EC, provides a basis for a common understanding of what should be considered as serious infringement and what not.
Member States are encouraged to take the necessary steps to provide for more harmonised application of the social rules in road transport and thus to improve observance of the social rules in road transport.
The Commission will continue to work on this issue, in particular by supporting dialogue between Member States concerning national interpretation and application of the social rules in road transport through the Committee foreseen in Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, and taking into account the limits of the competence that Member States and the legislators have decided to give to the Commission.
***
Source
Report from the Commission Analysing the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States; Brussels, 15.5.2009, COM(2009) 225 final.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Free movement Switzerland (Bulgaria & Romania)
The Swiss Confederation is the one EFTA country, which is not a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) ─ as are Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway ─ so closer relations with the European Union and its member states have been built gradually on the basis of bilateral (and plurilateral) agreements.
The Wikipedia overview article Switzerland and the European Union (latest update 19 May 2009) describes the Swiss Confederation as a virtual member of the EEA or even the EU. (Despite the so called Guillotine Clause, given the importance of referendums in the Swiss constitutional system, the “even the EU” could be seen as an exaggeration.)
***
Accession and free movement
From the point of view of the European Union, the extension of free movement to Switzerland with regard to the latest EU entrants Bulgaria and Romania is now confirmed by the official publication of the relevant documents.
Council Decision
The first document is the formal Council Decision 2009/392/EC of 27 November 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons regarding the participation, as contracting parties of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania pursuant to their accession to the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 20.5.2009 L 124/51.
***
Protocol
The second document is the Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, regarding the participation, as contracting parties of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania pursuant to their accession to the European Union, published OJEU 20.5.2009 L 124/53.
The Protocol, to be ratified, contains the substantial provisions, including the transitional clauses (limitations).
Ralf Grahn
The Wikipedia overview article Switzerland and the European Union (latest update 19 May 2009) describes the Swiss Confederation as a virtual member of the EEA or even the EU. (Despite the so called Guillotine Clause, given the importance of referendums in the Swiss constitutional system, the “even the EU” could be seen as an exaggeration.)
***
Accession and free movement
From the point of view of the European Union, the extension of free movement to Switzerland with regard to the latest EU entrants Bulgaria and Romania is now confirmed by the official publication of the relevant documents.
Council Decision
The first document is the formal Council Decision 2009/392/EC of 27 November 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons regarding the participation, as contracting parties of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania pursuant to their accession to the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 20.5.2009 L 124/51.
***
Protocol
The second document is the Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, regarding the participation, as contracting parties of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania pursuant to their accession to the European Union, published OJEU 20.5.2009 L 124/53.
The Protocol, to be ratified, contains the substantial provisions, including the transitional clauses (limitations).
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
European elections: UK Conservative Party
Barely in time for the 4 June 2009 vote, the UK Conservative Party has launched its campaign for the European elections ─ with David Cameron calling for a national election.
Incidentally, the Tories have also published a European Election Manifesto.
The Conservatives call for a modern European Union with pledges such as keeping Britain outside the euro, repatriating social and employment legislation and forming an anti-federalist political group in the European Parliament.
***
Neo-cons’ stooge
On Conservative Home, Sally McNamara of the US Heritage Foundation, writes a blog post: Cameron should take on the European issue now.
McNamara praises the Conservatives for promising a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (ratified by the United Kingdom) and for the promise to leave the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament.
Her further wish-list contains the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union, as a major issue of British political life, and crucial to the defense of Britain’s long-term interests.
Writing for a British public, McNamara is more tactful than when blogging on The Foundry at Heritage. She does not spell out that the crux of the defence of Britain’s long term interests lies in securing US leadership in the world.
In other words, the United Kingdom with a Conservative government is the neo-cons’ fifth column within the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Incidentally, the Tories have also published a European Election Manifesto.
The Conservatives call for a modern European Union with pledges such as keeping Britain outside the euro, repatriating social and employment legislation and forming an anti-federalist political group in the European Parliament.
***
Neo-cons’ stooge
On Conservative Home, Sally McNamara of the US Heritage Foundation, writes a blog post: Cameron should take on the European issue now.
McNamara praises the Conservatives for promising a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon (ratified by the United Kingdom) and for the promise to leave the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament.
Her further wish-list contains the renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union, as a major issue of British political life, and crucial to the defense of Britain’s long-term interests.
Writing for a British public, McNamara is more tactful than when blogging on The Foundry at Heritage. She does not spell out that the crux of the defence of Britain’s long term interests lies in securing US leadership in the world.
In other words, the United Kingdom with a Conservative government is the neo-cons’ fifth column within the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Gravy train stops at Westminster (European elections)
Once upon a time, Carlo Levi wrote a moving account of how Christ stopped at Eboli.
For the British, with their keen sense of irony, it must be another kind of revelation to see how the Brussels gravy train they have been fed by Eurotoxic tabloids during the last decades has come to a stop at Westminster.
***
Why not use the opportunity to think about the challenges for Europe in a turbulent world, and to vote wisely in the European elections?
Ralf Grahn
For the British, with their keen sense of irony, it must be another kind of revelation to see how the Brussels gravy train they have been fed by Eurotoxic tabloids during the last decades has come to a stop at Westminster.
***
Why not use the opportunity to think about the challenges for Europe in a turbulent world, and to vote wisely in the European elections?
Ralf Grahn
European elections: My vote matters?
Yesterday Commission President José Manuel Barroso launched an appeal to EU citizens to vote in the upcoming European elections. His message was that my vote matters, and that the course of the European Union is in my hands.
Yesterday I was only able to access the press release, but today I could see the recorded video message, and the text is available in additional languages.
***
The European Union today is much less responsive to the voice of its citizens than I would prefer. Official messages – including Barroso’s – tend to overemphasise the role of the European Parliament, especially ahead of the EP elections.
But as citizens we have a damned duty to cast our vote, limited as it may be, and to make the wisest choice possible for the future of our children and grandchildren in Europe.
We just have to find someone who is part of the solution, instead of the problem.
Ralf Grahn
Yesterday I was only able to access the press release, but today I could see the recorded video message, and the text is available in additional languages.
***
The European Union today is much less responsive to the voice of its citizens than I would prefer. Official messages – including Barroso’s – tend to overemphasise the role of the European Parliament, especially ahead of the EP elections.
But as citizens we have a damned duty to cast our vote, limited as it may be, and to make the wisest choice possible for the future of our children and grandchildren in Europe.
We just have to find someone who is part of the solution, instead of the problem.
Ralf Grahn
Air Transport Agreement USA, European Community, Iceland and Norway
On the legal information portal Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, COM documents, the Commission has published two documents on the accession of Norway and Iceland to the EU-US Air Transport Agreement, creating market access for air carriers:
EU-US Air Transport Agreement
Brussels, 15.5.2009 COM(2009) 226 final:
Proposal for a
Decision of the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council
On the signature and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, for the one part, the European Community and its Member States, for the second part, Iceland, for the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, for the fourth part; and
On the signature and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, on the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, regarding the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part; the European Community and its Member States, of the second part; Iceland, of the third part; and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part
***
Ancillary Agreement
Brussels, 15.5.2009 COM(2009) 229 final:
Proposal for a
Decision of the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council
On the conclusion of the of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, for the one part, the European Community and its Member States, for the second part, Iceland, for the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, for the fourth part; and
On the conclusion of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, on the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, regarding the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part; the European Community and its Member States, of the second part; Iceland, of the third part; and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part
Procedure number: 2009/0066 (CNS)
Ralf Grahn
EU-US Air Transport Agreement
Brussels, 15.5.2009 COM(2009) 226 final:
Proposal for a
Decision of the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council
On the signature and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, for the one part, the European Community and its Member States, for the second part, Iceland, for the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, for the fourth part; and
On the signature and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, on the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, regarding the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part; the European Community and its Member States, of the second part; Iceland, of the third part; and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part
***
Ancillary Agreement
Brussels, 15.5.2009 COM(2009) 229 final:
Proposal for a
Decision of the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council
On the conclusion of the of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, for the one part, the European Community and its Member States, for the second part, Iceland, for the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, for the fourth part; and
On the conclusion of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, on the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, regarding the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part; the European Community and its Member States, of the second part; Iceland, of the third part; and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part
Procedure number: 2009/0066 (CNS)
Ralf Grahn
European Central Bank: New TARGET2 and Eurosystem guidelines
Two new Guidelines by the European Central Bank (ECB) have been published.
TARGET2
Annexes II, III and IV to Guideline ECB/2007/2 have been amended in accordance with the Annex to the Guideline of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/9 of 7 May 2009 amending Guideline ECB/2007/2 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross Settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2).
Guideline ECB/2009/9 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 19.5.2009 L 123/94.
***
Eurosystem
Amendments have been made to Guideline ECB/2000/7 of 31 August 2000 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem to allow access to Eurosystem open market operations and standing facilities by credit institutions which, in view of their specific institutional nature under Community law, are subject to scrutiny of a standard comparable to supervision by competent national authorities.
The amendments are enacted by the Guideline of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/10 of 7 May 2009 amending Guideline ECB/2000/7 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem, published OJEU 19.5.2009 L 123/99.
Ralf Grahn
TARGET2
Annexes II, III and IV to Guideline ECB/2007/2 have been amended in accordance with the Annex to the Guideline of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/9 of 7 May 2009 amending Guideline ECB/2007/2 on a Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross Settlement Express Transfer system (TARGET2).
Guideline ECB/2009/9 was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 19.5.2009 L 123/94.
***
Eurosystem
Amendments have been made to Guideline ECB/2000/7 of 31 August 2000 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem to allow access to Eurosystem open market operations and standing facilities by credit institutions which, in view of their specific institutional nature under Community law, are subject to scrutiny of a standard comparable to supervision by competent national authorities.
The amendments are enacted by the Guideline of the European Central Bank ECB/2009/10 of 7 May 2009 amending Guideline ECB/2000/7 on monetary policy instruments and procedures of the Eurosystem, published OJEU 19.5.2009 L 123/99.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Protecting endangered species (fauna and flora)
Following changes to the lists set out in the Appendices to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (the CITES Convention), Regulation (EC) No 338/97 listing animal and plant species in respect of which trade is restricted or controlled has been amended.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 407/2009 of 14 May 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein replaces the Annex to Regulation 338/97 by a new Annex of nearly 60 pages.
Regulation 407/2009 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 19.5.2009 L 123/3.
***
Latinists and admirers of Carl von Linné are in for a treat.
Ralf Grahn
Commission Regulation (EC) No 407/2009 of 14 May 2009 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein replaces the Annex to Regulation 338/97 by a new Annex of nearly 60 pages.
Regulation 407/2009 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 19.5.2009 L 123/3.
***
Latinists and admirers of Carl von Linné are in for a treat.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 18 May 2009
Europeanisation of European elections?
With 109 blog posts to date in his series on the European Parliament elections 2009, Julien Frisch has done more than several professional organisations combined to inspire a pan-European debate on the upcoming greatest transnational poll ever, with 375 million potential voters.
Frisch’s latest post in the series, European Parliament elections 2009 (109): Looking back at 1999 and 2004, concluded that the core messages from 1999, 2004 and 2009 would not change much from the initial assessment:
“The campaign was focused on national topics, the candidates where not known, and the only true European references in the electoral manifestos where similar across all major parties: More democracy, more transparency, better connection to the citizens.”
According to Frisch, the only differences in 2009 “will be two additional countries, Libertas, and the emergence of large-scale internet campaigning. Maybe a glimpse at the institutional EP campaign, too. But the conclusions will be very close to those we got in the past.”
In other words, campaigns and elections European in name, but hardly in reality.
***
30 year perspective
Even in a longer, 30 year perspective, and with a scientific approach, the Europeanisation of the European elections seems to be a slow process indeed.
We turn to the journal Integration 2/09 (April 2009), published by IEP Institut für Europäische Politik, and the article written by Jürgen Mittag and Claudia Hülsken: Von Sekundärwahlen zu europäisierten Wahlen? 30 Jahre Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament.
Since 1979, the European elections on 4 to 7 June 2009 are the seventh. The elections are still perceived as second-order elections by voters, apt to punish the domestic ruling parties, by political parties with short and less funded campaigns than in national elections and by media seldom bothering with European level challenges.
There is more continuity than change, but indirectly, the disparate results converge when the political groups are formed in the European Parliament.
(For assessments of the EP political groups, you could read for instance the following blog posts: European Parliament: Political groups run the show and European Parliament Political Groups.)
***
Why are the European elections only marginally European?
Despite slowly increasing powers for the European Parliament, voter participation has been declining. Some explanations for this paradox:
• Voters are not allowed to set the course for government of the European Union. The significance of minor shifts within the European Parliament is hardly enough to inspire voters.
• There is an almost total silence on the future organisation of Europe beyond the inadequate Lisbon Treaty.
• There is a lack of serious and open European level political debate on decisive and divisive issues, such as influence in world affairs, defence, taxation and budget, the borders of Europe, the Doha round, economic governance and financial regulation, environment and energy, the future of subsidies-driven agriculture, the internal market, economic reform and social rights. The real decisions are taken, within treaty limitations, by the European Council and Council formations.
• The heads of state or government (and national party leaders) have clearly shown that the EU is their union, not a union of citizens. They have revoked even the minimal concession they made to EU citizens to be able to influence the election of the President of the Commission in 2009.
• There is neither a single day for the European elections, nor a uniform election procedure.
• There is no statute for truly pan-European political parties.
• The European level parties and their political foundations have managed to secure considerable EP funding, but they have failed to field candidates for the Commission Presidency.
• The Europarties have produced uninspiring election manifestos, but their efforts to mobilise voters are feeble and sporadic.
• The Europarties’ foundations are nearly invisible in the debate.
• There are more PR campaigns for voter participation than political campaigns on issues.
• National political parties and media decline to educate voters on truly European challenges. Instead they campaign and report within their respective comfort zones, leaving voters drowsy and unimpressed.
The resulting low level of participation is but a symptom. The deeper problem is the low quality of participation, from head of state or government to the apathetic voter: the lack of European leadership and consciousness.
Ralf Grahn
Frisch’s latest post in the series, European Parliament elections 2009 (109): Looking back at 1999 and 2004, concluded that the core messages from 1999, 2004 and 2009 would not change much from the initial assessment:
“The campaign was focused on national topics, the candidates where not known, and the only true European references in the electoral manifestos where similar across all major parties: More democracy, more transparency, better connection to the citizens.”
According to Frisch, the only differences in 2009 “will be two additional countries, Libertas, and the emergence of large-scale internet campaigning. Maybe a glimpse at the institutional EP campaign, too. But the conclusions will be very close to those we got in the past.”
In other words, campaigns and elections European in name, but hardly in reality.
***
30 year perspective
Even in a longer, 30 year perspective, and with a scientific approach, the Europeanisation of the European elections seems to be a slow process indeed.
We turn to the journal Integration 2/09 (April 2009), published by IEP Institut für Europäische Politik, and the article written by Jürgen Mittag and Claudia Hülsken: Von Sekundärwahlen zu europäisierten Wahlen? 30 Jahre Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament.
Since 1979, the European elections on 4 to 7 June 2009 are the seventh. The elections are still perceived as second-order elections by voters, apt to punish the domestic ruling parties, by political parties with short and less funded campaigns than in national elections and by media seldom bothering with European level challenges.
There is more continuity than change, but indirectly, the disparate results converge when the political groups are formed in the European Parliament.
(For assessments of the EP political groups, you could read for instance the following blog posts: European Parliament: Political groups run the show and European Parliament Political Groups.)
***
Why are the European elections only marginally European?
Despite slowly increasing powers for the European Parliament, voter participation has been declining. Some explanations for this paradox:
• Voters are not allowed to set the course for government of the European Union. The significance of minor shifts within the European Parliament is hardly enough to inspire voters.
• There is an almost total silence on the future organisation of Europe beyond the inadequate Lisbon Treaty.
• There is a lack of serious and open European level political debate on decisive and divisive issues, such as influence in world affairs, defence, taxation and budget, the borders of Europe, the Doha round, economic governance and financial regulation, environment and energy, the future of subsidies-driven agriculture, the internal market, economic reform and social rights. The real decisions are taken, within treaty limitations, by the European Council and Council formations.
• The heads of state or government (and national party leaders) have clearly shown that the EU is their union, not a union of citizens. They have revoked even the minimal concession they made to EU citizens to be able to influence the election of the President of the Commission in 2009.
• There is neither a single day for the European elections, nor a uniform election procedure.
• There is no statute for truly pan-European political parties.
• The European level parties and their political foundations have managed to secure considerable EP funding, but they have failed to field candidates for the Commission Presidency.
• The Europarties have produced uninspiring election manifestos, but their efforts to mobilise voters are feeble and sporadic.
• The Europarties’ foundations are nearly invisible in the debate.
• There are more PR campaigns for voter participation than political campaigns on issues.
• National political parties and media decline to educate voters on truly European challenges. Instead they campaign and report within their respective comfort zones, leaving voters drowsy and unimpressed.
The resulting low level of participation is but a symptom. The deeper problem is the low quality of participation, from head of state or government to the apathetic voter: the lack of European leadership and consciousness.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 17 May 2009
European elections: Coming soon (to Libertas)
Today the policies page of Libertas.eu still tells us that the Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on their site in the coming weeks.
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
Ralf Grahn
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
Ralf Grahn
Swedish EU Council Presidency: Tepid but competent?
The Czech government hands over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July 2009, but the government of Sweden already offers some basic information in English about the upcoming six month term.
***
Information in Swedish
Ahead of both the European elections and the Council Presidency, the Parliament’s EU information centre (EU-upplysningen) has been churning out short and readable snippets of information on a daily basis.
In the Nordic tradition, the Government (Regeringen) and the Parliament (Riksdag) fairly openly inform the public about the work of the Council ahead of meetings, and the deliberations of the Riksdag’s EU Committee are published with some delay.
Government bills in general and those relating to EU matters are usually detailed and informative.
Minister for Europe Cecilia Malmström, a former MEP, toured Sweden spreading the word about the European Union, before her itinerary turned more towards the capitals of the EU member states.
Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is continually on the road, and he blogs even more frequently than his FM colleagues David Miliband (UK) and Alexander Stubb (Finland).
Established by trade unions and employers’ organisations, Europaportalen is a lively portal for news and debate on EU issues.
***
Despite the solid achievements, some observations and critical remarks can be made. (These are my subjective impressions.)
Official Swedish EU policies are pro open markets, competitiveness, budget reform and a radical reassessment of the common agricultural policy. Sweden has not adopted the euro, although it has no opt-out. Otherwise Swedish policies can be described as intergovernmental. Sweden participates in more policy areas than Britain, and its intergovernmental penchant is less adversarial. No visions concerning radical EU reform are to be expected.
Lukewarm Europeans they may be, but many seem to expect a competent Council Presidency.
The Council Presidency will mean a (temporary?) change, but government information is not readily translated into English and other languages for international readers.
The availability of information does not translate into a burning desire to access it on the part of the public.
For 200 years, since 1809 Sweden has stayed out of European trouble by minding its own business and professing neutrality.
Long before joining the European Union, Sweden built a successful but self-contained welfare society, which has not defined itself as European in a deeper sense. Swedish EU debates tend to be limited in scope, centred more on the preservation of a national model than contributing to a pan-European debate. Only last year did the Green Party give up its demand to secede from the EU, in favour of more pragmatic politics within the union (and the Green movement).
Mainstream media can always be criticised for paying too little attention to EU affairs, but my impression is that editorialists and columnists do a decent job, as does public service television. But EU issues do not lend themselves easily to both balanced and interesting reporting, since they disappear in the labyrinth and there are no clear contending government and opposition views at EU level. Anyway, even the best efforts are met by a yawn.
Despite their technical and language skills, very few Swedes participate in EU-wide debates or the Euroblogosphere, at least from a pan-European perspective. It is as if Europe offered little of interest and even less to learn.
Ralf Grahn
***
Information in Swedish
Ahead of both the European elections and the Council Presidency, the Parliament’s EU information centre (EU-upplysningen) has been churning out short and readable snippets of information on a daily basis.
In the Nordic tradition, the Government (Regeringen) and the Parliament (Riksdag) fairly openly inform the public about the work of the Council ahead of meetings, and the deliberations of the Riksdag’s EU Committee are published with some delay.
Government bills in general and those relating to EU matters are usually detailed and informative.
Minister for Europe Cecilia Malmström, a former MEP, toured Sweden spreading the word about the European Union, before her itinerary turned more towards the capitals of the EU member states.
Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is continually on the road, and he blogs even more frequently than his FM colleagues David Miliband (UK) and Alexander Stubb (Finland).
Established by trade unions and employers’ organisations, Europaportalen is a lively portal for news and debate on EU issues.
***
Despite the solid achievements, some observations and critical remarks can be made. (These are my subjective impressions.)
Official Swedish EU policies are pro open markets, competitiveness, budget reform and a radical reassessment of the common agricultural policy. Sweden has not adopted the euro, although it has no opt-out. Otherwise Swedish policies can be described as intergovernmental. Sweden participates in more policy areas than Britain, and its intergovernmental penchant is less adversarial. No visions concerning radical EU reform are to be expected.
Lukewarm Europeans they may be, but many seem to expect a competent Council Presidency.
The Council Presidency will mean a (temporary?) change, but government information is not readily translated into English and other languages for international readers.
The availability of information does not translate into a burning desire to access it on the part of the public.
For 200 years, since 1809 Sweden has stayed out of European trouble by minding its own business and professing neutrality.
Long before joining the European Union, Sweden built a successful but self-contained welfare society, which has not defined itself as European in a deeper sense. Swedish EU debates tend to be limited in scope, centred more on the preservation of a national model than contributing to a pan-European debate. Only last year did the Green Party give up its demand to secede from the EU, in favour of more pragmatic politics within the union (and the Green movement).
Mainstream media can always be criticised for paying too little attention to EU affairs, but my impression is that editorialists and columnists do a decent job, as does public service television. But EU issues do not lend themselves easily to both balanced and interesting reporting, since they disappear in the labyrinth and there are no clear contending government and opposition views at EU level. Anyway, even the best efforts are met by a yawn.
Despite their technical and language skills, very few Swedes participate in EU-wide debates or the Euroblogosphere, at least from a pan-European perspective. It is as if Europe offered little of interest and even less to learn.
Ralf Grahn
Eurovision: Norway and Iceland – Nordics in EU
The Eurovision Song Contest migrates from oil and gas producing Russia to similarly employed Norway, but let us not draw too many parallels.
The European Economic Area (EEA) did rather well in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow. Alexander Rybak of Norway came out on top with Fairytale, and Yohanna from Iceland came second with Is It True?
***
Norway
Today 17 May Norwegians have woken up to National Day (syttende mai), celebrated in an Independence Day atmosphere. Referendums have twice rejected membership in the European Union, and EFTA country Norway is a member of the internal market through the European Economic Area, the largest common market in the world with 500 million inhabitants. Norway participates in the Schengen Agreement on external border control and internal travel, as well as in various issues concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.
Norway is a wealthy and stable democracy, and it belongs to the top of the world in many international rankings.
Despite close cooperation, membership negotiations with the European Union are not part of Norway’s more serious Eurovision in the near future.
***
Iceland
According the Iceland Review Online the new government of Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurdadóttir is preparing a parliamentary resolution on launching EU membership talks, and has conducted advance discussions with the opposition parties.
***
The resolution will be presented to the Althingi parliament next week, but it remains to be seen if Sigurdadóttir’s plan to submit a membership application in July will be approved by a parliament where most of the parties have resisted joining the EU.
Like Norway, Iceland is part of the fifteen year old EEA and the Schengen Agreement. Despite the financial disaster, Iceland is a stable democracy (with the world’s oldest parliament), rule of law, as well as Nordic quality governance and public services.
If the difficult issues, such as fishing rights, can be solved, most of the Community legislation (acquis communautaire) could be ticked off at record speed.
If matters advance that far, Icelanders would most probably decide on the membership in a referendum, but it is difficult to predict the outcome.
***
Unenthusiastic Europeans?
People sometimes wonder that people in the Nordic countries inside the European Union are fairly unenthusiastic about the European project, and two still remain on the outside.
Denmark joined only in 1973, together with the United Kingdom and Ireland. Sweden and Finland became EU members even later, in 1995.
Norway and Iceland, as stated above, are still on the outside.
There are other causes, besides relatively short periods of EU membership. Despite high levels of taxation, Nordic citizens are justifiably proud of their economic and technological standards, quality of life, good governance, high quality public services and fairly equal societies.
EU (or continental) standards of governance are not necessarily perceived as improvements. Here the European Union has a lot to do, if it wants to be less of a let-down. On the other hand, only a constant willingness to learn and to improve will keep the Nordics in the top of the world leagues, so a degree of humility is not only becoming, it is a necessity.
The Eurovision of the Nordic EU members’ governments can hardly be described as enthusiastic, but generally as constructive and pragmatic.
Business interests hope for more decisive action by the EU to free world trade, to improve the internal market and to get the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs moving.
Citizens, perhaps grudgingly, gradually acknowledge the need for more Europe with regard to climate change, the environment, energy, development policies and peace missions.
Ralf Grahn
The European Economic Area (EEA) did rather well in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow. Alexander Rybak of Norway came out on top with Fairytale, and Yohanna from Iceland came second with Is It True?
***
Norway
Today 17 May Norwegians have woken up to National Day (syttende mai), celebrated in an Independence Day atmosphere. Referendums have twice rejected membership in the European Union, and EFTA country Norway is a member of the internal market through the European Economic Area, the largest common market in the world with 500 million inhabitants. Norway participates in the Schengen Agreement on external border control and internal travel, as well as in various issues concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.
Norway is a wealthy and stable democracy, and it belongs to the top of the world in many international rankings.
Despite close cooperation, membership negotiations with the European Union are not part of Norway’s more serious Eurovision in the near future.
***
Iceland
According the Iceland Review Online the new government of Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurdadóttir is preparing a parliamentary resolution on launching EU membership talks, and has conducted advance discussions with the opposition parties.
***
The resolution will be presented to the Althingi parliament next week, but it remains to be seen if Sigurdadóttir’s plan to submit a membership application in July will be approved by a parliament where most of the parties have resisted joining the EU.
Like Norway, Iceland is part of the fifteen year old EEA and the Schengen Agreement. Despite the financial disaster, Iceland is a stable democracy (with the world’s oldest parliament), rule of law, as well as Nordic quality governance and public services.
If the difficult issues, such as fishing rights, can be solved, most of the Community legislation (acquis communautaire) could be ticked off at record speed.
If matters advance that far, Icelanders would most probably decide on the membership in a referendum, but it is difficult to predict the outcome.
***
Unenthusiastic Europeans?
People sometimes wonder that people in the Nordic countries inside the European Union are fairly unenthusiastic about the European project, and two still remain on the outside.
Denmark joined only in 1973, together with the United Kingdom and Ireland. Sweden and Finland became EU members even later, in 1995.
Norway and Iceland, as stated above, are still on the outside.
There are other causes, besides relatively short periods of EU membership. Despite high levels of taxation, Nordic citizens are justifiably proud of their economic and technological standards, quality of life, good governance, high quality public services and fairly equal societies.
EU (or continental) standards of governance are not necessarily perceived as improvements. Here the European Union has a lot to do, if it wants to be less of a let-down. On the other hand, only a constant willingness to learn and to improve will keep the Nordics in the top of the world leagues, so a degree of humility is not only becoming, it is a necessity.
The Eurovision of the Nordic EU members’ governments can hardly be described as enthusiastic, but generally as constructive and pragmatic.
Business interests hope for more decisive action by the EU to free world trade, to improve the internal market and to get the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs moving.
Citizens, perhaps grudgingly, gradually acknowledge the need for more Europe with regard to climate change, the environment, energy, development policies and peace missions.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 16 May 2009
EU: Radio-frequency identification (RFID)
According to Article 211 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), the Commission can formulate recommendations to ensure the proper functioning of the common market (internal market).
Radio frequency identification (RFID) marks a new development in the information society where objects equipped with microelectronics that can process data automatically will increasingly become an integral part of every day life.
RFID is progressively becoming more common, and hence a part of individuals’ lives in a variety of domains such as logistics, healthcare, public transport, the retail trade, in particular for improved product safety and faster product recalls, entertainment, work, road toll management, luggage management, and travel documents.
RFID technology has the potential to become a new motor for growth and jobs and thus make a powerful contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, as it holds great promise in economic terms, where it can bring about new business opportunities, cost reduction and increased efficiency, in particular in tackling counterfeiting and in managing e-waste, hazardous materials, and the recycling of products at their end of life.
RFID technology enables the processing of data, including personal data. It raises questions about the monitoring of individuals and the protection of personal data.
This is the background for Commission Recommendation 2009/387/EC of 12 May 2009 on the implementation of privacy and data protection principles in applications supported by radio- frequency identification, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.5.2009 L 122/47.
***
Scope
Points 1 and 2 of Recommendation 2009/387/EC set out the scope:
Scope
1. This Recommendation provides guidance to Member States on the design and operation of RFID applications in a lawful, ethical and socially and politically acceptable way, respecting the right to privacy and ensuring protection of personal data.
2. This Recommendation provides guidance on measures to be taken for the deployment of RFID applications to ensure that national legislation implementing Directives 95/46/EC, 1999/5/EC and 2002/58/EC is, where applicable, respected when such applications are deployed.
***
The member states are supposed to make the recommendation known to stakeholders and to report back in two years time. Within three years from now, the Commission will issue a report on implementation.
Ralf Grahn
Radio frequency identification (RFID) marks a new development in the information society where objects equipped with microelectronics that can process data automatically will increasingly become an integral part of every day life.
RFID is progressively becoming more common, and hence a part of individuals’ lives in a variety of domains such as logistics, healthcare, public transport, the retail trade, in particular for improved product safety and faster product recalls, entertainment, work, road toll management, luggage management, and travel documents.
RFID technology has the potential to become a new motor for growth and jobs and thus make a powerful contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, as it holds great promise in economic terms, where it can bring about new business opportunities, cost reduction and increased efficiency, in particular in tackling counterfeiting and in managing e-waste, hazardous materials, and the recycling of products at their end of life.
RFID technology enables the processing of data, including personal data. It raises questions about the monitoring of individuals and the protection of personal data.
This is the background for Commission Recommendation 2009/387/EC of 12 May 2009 on the implementation of privacy and data protection principles in applications supported by radio- frequency identification, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.5.2009 L 122/47.
***
Scope
Points 1 and 2 of Recommendation 2009/387/EC set out the scope:
Scope
1. This Recommendation provides guidance to Member States on the design and operation of RFID applications in a lawful, ethical and socially and politically acceptable way, respecting the right to privacy and ensuring protection of personal data.
2. This Recommendation provides guidance on measures to be taken for the deployment of RFID applications to ensure that national legislation implementing Directives 95/46/EC, 1999/5/EC and 2002/58/EC is, where applicable, respected when such applications are deployed.
***
The member states are supposed to make the recommendation known to stakeholders and to report back in two years time. Within three years from now, the Commission will issue a report on implementation.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)
The Eurpean Union’s common fisheries policy (CFP) is the point where dwindling fish stocks, oversized fishing fleets and undersized fishing revenue clash.
Eur-Lex is the web portal for legal information about the European Union. In addition to treaties, secondary legislation, preparatory acts, procedure tracking and other factual information, Eur-Lex runs a service called Thematic files.
The Thematic files collect the most relevant legal acts, preparatory acts and other acts of a specified policy area, and group them together for interested users, without further comment.
A short while ago, we signaled the new thematic file on Human rights. The latest addition is The common fisheries policy (CPT), dated 13 May 2009.
The available thematic files are found here.
Ralf Grahn
Eur-Lex is the web portal for legal information about the European Union. In addition to treaties, secondary legislation, preparatory acts, procedure tracking and other factual information, Eur-Lex runs a service called Thematic files.
The Thematic files collect the most relevant legal acts, preparatory acts and other acts of a specified policy area, and group them together for interested users, without further comment.
A short while ago, we signaled the new thematic file on Human rights. The latest addition is The common fisheries policy (CPT), dated 13 May 2009.
The available thematic files are found here.
Ralf Grahn
EU: European Works Council
Social policy at European Union level is clearly centred on work. The objectives mentioned in Article 136 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) are: the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment and the combating of exclusion.
The legal base for the European Community’s supporting and complementing action is Article 137 TEC, where one of the fields mentioned is the information and consultation of workers, to which the codecision procedure applies (Article 251 TEC).
***
Recast Works Council Directive
Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) has now been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.5.2009 L 122/28.
The objective of the recast Directive, with EEA relevance, is:
Article 1
Objective
1. The purpose of this Directive is to improve the right to information and to consultation of employees in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings.
2. To that end, a European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees shall be established in every Community-scale undertaking and every Community-scale group of undertakings, where requested in the manner laid down in Article 5(1), with the purpose of informing and consulting employees. The arrangements for informing and consulting employees shall be defined and implemented in such a way as to ensure their effectiveness and to enable the undertaking or group of undertakings to take decisions effectively.
3. Information and consultation of employees must occur at the relevant level of management and representation, according to the subject under discussion. To achieve that, the competence of the European Works Council and the scope of the information and consultation procedure for employees governed by this Directive shall be limited to transnational issues.
4. Matters shall be considered to be transnational where they concern the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings as a whole, or at least two undertakings or establishments of the undertaking or group situated in two different Member States.
5. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, where a Community-scale group of undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) comprises one or more undertakings or groups of undertakings which are Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) or (c), a European Works Council shall be established at the level of the group unless the agreements referred to in Article 6 provide otherwise.
6. Unless a wider scope is provided for in the agreements referred to in Article 6, the powers and competence of European Works Councils and the scope of information and consultation procedures established to achieve the purpose specified in paragraph 1 shall, in the case of a Community-scale undertaking, cover all the establishments located within the Member States and, in the case of a Community-scale group of undertakings, all group undertakings located within the Member States.
7. Member States may provide that this Directive shall not apply to merchant navy crews.
***
Businesses concerned
A European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees must be established in the enterprises defined.
Community scale undertaking
‘Community-scale undertaking’ means any undertaking with at least 1 000 employees within the Member States and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States; Article 2(a).
Community scale group of undertakings
‘Community-scale group of undertakings’ means a group of undertakings with the following characteristics:
— at least 1 000 employees within the Member States,
— at least two group undertakings in different Member States, and
— at least one group undertaking with at least 150 employees in one Member State and at least one other group undertaking with at least 150 employees in another Member State; Article 2(c).
***
Transposition
Directive 2009/38 repeals Directive 94/45/EC, as amended, with effect from 6 June 2011, when the time to transpose the provisions of the new Directive into national law has ended.
Ralf Grahn
The legal base for the European Community’s supporting and complementing action is Article 137 TEC, where one of the fields mentioned is the information and consultation of workers, to which the codecision procedure applies (Article 251 TEC).
***
Recast Works Council Directive
Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (Recast) has now been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.5.2009 L 122/28.
The objective of the recast Directive, with EEA relevance, is:
Article 1
Objective
1. The purpose of this Directive is to improve the right to information and to consultation of employees in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings.
2. To that end, a European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees shall be established in every Community-scale undertaking and every Community-scale group of undertakings, where requested in the manner laid down in Article 5(1), with the purpose of informing and consulting employees. The arrangements for informing and consulting employees shall be defined and implemented in such a way as to ensure their effectiveness and to enable the undertaking or group of undertakings to take decisions effectively.
3. Information and consultation of employees must occur at the relevant level of management and representation, according to the subject under discussion. To achieve that, the competence of the European Works Council and the scope of the information and consultation procedure for employees governed by this Directive shall be limited to transnational issues.
4. Matters shall be considered to be transnational where they concern the Community-scale undertaking or Community-scale group of undertakings as a whole, or at least two undertakings or establishments of the undertaking or group situated in two different Member States.
5. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, where a Community-scale group of undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) comprises one or more undertakings or groups of undertakings which are Community-scale undertakings or Community-scale groups of undertakings within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) or (c), a European Works Council shall be established at the level of the group unless the agreements referred to in Article 6 provide otherwise.
6. Unless a wider scope is provided for in the agreements referred to in Article 6, the powers and competence of European Works Councils and the scope of information and consultation procedures established to achieve the purpose specified in paragraph 1 shall, in the case of a Community-scale undertaking, cover all the establishments located within the Member States and, in the case of a Community-scale group of undertakings, all group undertakings located within the Member States.
7. Member States may provide that this Directive shall not apply to merchant navy crews.
***
Businesses concerned
A European Works Council or a procedure for informing and consulting employees must be established in the enterprises defined.
Community scale undertaking
‘Community-scale undertaking’ means any undertaking with at least 1 000 employees within the Member States and at least 150 employees in each of at least two Member States; Article 2(a).
Community scale group of undertakings
‘Community-scale group of undertakings’ means a group of undertakings with the following characteristics:
— at least 1 000 employees within the Member States,
— at least two group undertakings in different Member States, and
— at least one group undertaking with at least 150 employees in one Member State and at least one other group undertaking with at least 150 employees in another Member State; Article 2(c).
***
Transposition
Directive 2009/38 repeals Directive 94/45/EC, as amended, with effect from 6 June 2011, when the time to transpose the provisions of the new Directive into national law has ended.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 15 May 2009
EU: Europol Decisions
The European Police Office (Europol) has been given a legal framework easier to adapt to changing needs. Joint investigation teams won’t be immune from prosecution. Europol has a new Director.
***
Europol Decision
The laborious procedures to amend and to ratify the Europol Convention have now been replaced by a Council Decision:
Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 15.5.2009 L 121/37.
***
Joint investigation teams
In the same OJEU issue, the immunity from legal proceedings is not extended to Europol staff placed at the disposal of a joint investigation team in respect of official acts required to be undertaken in fulfilment of the tasks set out in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol).
This is the content of:
Council Regulation (EC) No 371/2009 of 27 November 2008 amending Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 549/69 determining the categories of officials and other servants of the European Communities to whom the provisions of Article 12, the second paragraph of Article 13 and Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities apply.
***
New Director of Europol
Mr Robert Wainwright has been appointed as Director of Europol from 16 April 2009 to 15 April 2013.
The official confirmation is by the Council Act of 6 April 2009 appointing the Director of Europol, published OJEU 15.5.2009 C 111/4.
Ralf Grahn
***
Europol Decision
The laborious procedures to amend and to ratify the Europol Convention have now been replaced by a Council Decision:
Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 15.5.2009 L 121/37.
***
Joint investigation teams
In the same OJEU issue, the immunity from legal proceedings is not extended to Europol staff placed at the disposal of a joint investigation team in respect of official acts required to be undertaken in fulfilment of the tasks set out in Article 6 of Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol).
This is the content of:
Council Regulation (EC) No 371/2009 of 27 November 2008 amending Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 549/69 determining the categories of officials and other servants of the European Communities to whom the provisions of Article 12, the second paragraph of Article 13 and Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities apply.
***
New Director of Europol
Mr Robert Wainwright has been appointed as Director of Europol from 16 April 2009 to 15 April 2013.
The official confirmation is by the Council Act of 6 April 2009 appointing the Director of Europol, published OJEU 15.5.2009 C 111/4.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Directors’ pay
The financial and economic mess continues to claim victims, including in the financial services sector and among company directors, but in some cases their remuneration has been excessive with regard to results and geared towards shortsighted targets.
The public has been called on to bail out companies by billions in any currency, while many continue to join the ranks of the unemployed.
Politicians have felt the need to show some consideration for the apprehension felt by voters.
Two European level recommendations have now been published.
***
Remuneration in financial institutions
Based on Article 211 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) on the Commission’s responsiblities concerning the proper functioning of the common market (internal market), the Commission has issued:
Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 15.5.2009 L 120/22.
This text with EEA relevance points out that excessive risk-taking in the financial services industry and in particular in banks and investment firms has contributed to the failure of financial undertakings and to systemic problems in the Member States and globally. These problems have spread to the rest of the economy and led to high costs for society. Whilst not the main cause of the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007 and 2008, there is a widespread consensus that inappropriate remuneration practices in the financial services industry also induced excessive risk-taking and thus contributed to significant losses of major financial undertakings.
The Recommendation is directed at the EU member states:
SECTION I
Scope and definitions
1. Scope
1.1. Member States should ensure that the principles contained in sections II, III and IV apply to all financial undertakings having their registered office or their head office in their territory.
1.2. Member States should ensure that the principles contained in sections II, III and IV apply to the remuneration of those categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the financial undertaking.
1.3. When taking measures to ensure that financial undertakings implement those principles, Member States should take into account the nature, the size as well as the specific scope of activities of the financial undertakings concerned.
1.4. Member States should apply the principles contained in sections II, III and IV to financial undertakings on an individual basis and on a consolidated basis. Principles on sound remuneration policy should apply at group level to the parent undertaking and to its subsidiaries, including those established in offshore financial centres.
1.5. This Recommendation does not apply to fees and commissions received by intermediaries and external service providers in case of outsourced activities.
***
Directors’ pay in listed companies
On the same internal market basis and in the same OJEU issue, the Commission has published another recommenndation:
Commission Recommendation 2009/385/EC of 30 April 2009 complementing Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC as regards the regime for the remuneration of directors of listed companies.
As an internal market measure, this text too has EEA relevance, and it starts with the presumption that experience over the last years, and more recently in relation to the financial crisis, has shown that remuneration structures have become increasingly complex, too focused on short-term achievements and in some cases led to excessive remuneration, which was not justified by performance.
The briefest look at the scope of the Recommendation. The crux of the matter lies in the additions to existing recommendations:
SECTION I
Scope and definitions
1. Scope
1.1. The scope of section II of this Recommendation corresponds to that of Recommendation 2004/913/EC. The scope of section III of this Recommendation corresponds to that of Recommendation 2005/162/EC.
1.2. Member States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that listed companies, to which Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC are applicable, have regard to this Recommendation.
2. Definitions in addition to those laid down in Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC
2.1. ‘Variable components of remuneration’ means components of directors’ remuneration entitlement which are awarded on the basis of performance criteria, including bonuses.
2.2. ‘Termination payments’ means any payment linked to early termination of contracts for executive or managing directors, including payments related to the duration of a notice period or a non-competition clause included in the contract.
Ralf Grahn
The public has been called on to bail out companies by billions in any currency, while many continue to join the ranks of the unemployed.
Politicians have felt the need to show some consideration for the apprehension felt by voters.
Two European level recommendations have now been published.
***
Remuneration in financial institutions
Based on Article 211 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) on the Commission’s responsiblities concerning the proper functioning of the common market (internal market), the Commission has issued:
Commission Recommendation 2009/384/EC of 30 April 2009 on remuneration policies in the financial services sector, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 15.5.2009 L 120/22.
This text with EEA relevance points out that excessive risk-taking in the financial services industry and in particular in banks and investment firms has contributed to the failure of financial undertakings and to systemic problems in the Member States and globally. These problems have spread to the rest of the economy and led to high costs for society. Whilst not the main cause of the financial crisis that unfolded in 2007 and 2008, there is a widespread consensus that inappropriate remuneration practices in the financial services industry also induced excessive risk-taking and thus contributed to significant losses of major financial undertakings.
The Recommendation is directed at the EU member states:
SECTION I
Scope and definitions
1. Scope
1.1. Member States should ensure that the principles contained in sections II, III and IV apply to all financial undertakings having their registered office or their head office in their territory.
1.2. Member States should ensure that the principles contained in sections II, III and IV apply to the remuneration of those categories of staff whose professional activities have a material impact on the risk profile of the financial undertaking.
1.3. When taking measures to ensure that financial undertakings implement those principles, Member States should take into account the nature, the size as well as the specific scope of activities of the financial undertakings concerned.
1.4. Member States should apply the principles contained in sections II, III and IV to financial undertakings on an individual basis and on a consolidated basis. Principles on sound remuneration policy should apply at group level to the parent undertaking and to its subsidiaries, including those established in offshore financial centres.
1.5. This Recommendation does not apply to fees and commissions received by intermediaries and external service providers in case of outsourced activities.
***
Directors’ pay in listed companies
On the same internal market basis and in the same OJEU issue, the Commission has published another recommenndation:
Commission Recommendation 2009/385/EC of 30 April 2009 complementing Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC as regards the regime for the remuneration of directors of listed companies.
As an internal market measure, this text too has EEA relevance, and it starts with the presumption that experience over the last years, and more recently in relation to the financial crisis, has shown that remuneration structures have become increasingly complex, too focused on short-term achievements and in some cases led to excessive remuneration, which was not justified by performance.
The briefest look at the scope of the Recommendation. The crux of the matter lies in the additions to existing recommendations:
SECTION I
Scope and definitions
1. Scope
1.1. The scope of section II of this Recommendation corresponds to that of Recommendation 2004/913/EC. The scope of section III of this Recommendation corresponds to that of Recommendation 2005/162/EC.
1.2. Member States should take all appropriate measures to ensure that listed companies, to which Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC are applicable, have regard to this Recommendation.
2. Definitions in addition to those laid down in Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC
2.1. ‘Variable components of remuneration’ means components of directors’ remuneration entitlement which are awarded on the basis of performance criteria, including bonuses.
2.2. ‘Termination payments’ means any payment linked to early termination of contracts for executive or managing directors, including payments related to the duration of a notice period or a non-competition clause included in the contract.
Ralf Grahn
EPIN: Weak Barroso Commission
The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) has published a working paper: The European Commission 2004-09: A politically weakened institution? Views from the National Capitals (No 23 / May 2009; 20 pages), which compiles the views of 26 EU researchers.
The main findings are devastating for the Barroso Commission and worrying with regard to the European general interest:
“First, the Commission remains at the centre of European decision-making process. At the same time however, its political position seems to have weakened since 2004. The national capitals’ perception is that it has lost out vis-à-vis other institutions, especially the Council of Ministers. Within the Council the Commission is perceived as being largely dependent on bigger member states. This view is shared by both the bigger (especially France and Germany) and smaller nations.
Second, the Commission seems to be losing political leadership in the Union. It is more and more perceived as serving the interests of the larger member states, sometimes even at the expense of smaller ones. The dominant perception is that among the European institutions the lowest common denominator is no longer determined as it was by the Council, because the Commission is increasingly anticipating national positions at an earlier stage and taking them into account at the preparatory level. Hence, it is no longer the institution that seeks the higher standards of ‘Community interest’ – this may well be the role for the new European Parliament.
Even if not all countries share these perceptions, there was not a single member country claiming that the Commission is gaining (rather than losing) ground vis-à-vis the other institutions; that it has improved its independence record against the larger nations or that it seeks higher standards rather than the lowest common denominator. “
***
Successes and failures
For those who care to read the report, it contains an overview of the Commission’s perceived successes and failures during the last five years. In this way, it serves as a reminder of the major European policy issues, including bilateral questions between the Commission and individual member states.
The Commission’s (lack of) response to the financial and economic crisis was seen as its greatest failure.
The institutional shift came next:
“The second single most popular feeling in national capitals is that the Barroso Commission lacks political leadership. There is an argument put out across the Union that the Commission’s dependency on member states has increased to such an extent that it challenges
1) the inter-institutional balance;
2) the balance between the big and small members;
3) the institution’s capacity to uphold and guard the prerequisites of the acquis communautaire, notably vis-à-vis the bigger member states;
4) the Commission’s collegiality and
5) [the] its future effectiveness. “
***
New Commission
There is an Annex, where probable renewed mandates and exiting Commissioners are presented, based on information from the capitals.
***
Comment
This blog has argued that the European Union has become increasingly intergovernmentalist, with the European Council (heads of state or government), especially from a few larger member states, taking over more and more of the lead role (including failures to act), in tandem with the Council (ministers). In parallel, the Barroso Commission has been weak(ened).
The EPIN report supports these observations, although it refers only to increased intergovernmentalism and the role of the Council of Ministers, without discussing the European Council. The role of the heads of state or government, especially in the greater member states, would have merited special attention.
Effective and legitimate government?
Outside the scope of the report, the weaknesses of the existing institutional framework, including the incremental reforms by the Lisbon Treaty, require critical discussion. Effective and legitimate European level government won’t be found inside the box.
Done deal?
Politically, ahead of the European elections, the report questions the wisdom as well as the motives of heads of state or government to support a new term as President of the Commission for José Manuel Barroso. The failure of the Europarties to field alternative candidates is a lamentable loss for European level democracy.
Ralf Grahn
The main findings are devastating for the Barroso Commission and worrying with regard to the European general interest:
“First, the Commission remains at the centre of European decision-making process. At the same time however, its political position seems to have weakened since 2004. The national capitals’ perception is that it has lost out vis-à-vis other institutions, especially the Council of Ministers. Within the Council the Commission is perceived as being largely dependent on bigger member states. This view is shared by both the bigger (especially France and Germany) and smaller nations.
Second, the Commission seems to be losing political leadership in the Union. It is more and more perceived as serving the interests of the larger member states, sometimes even at the expense of smaller ones. The dominant perception is that among the European institutions the lowest common denominator is no longer determined as it was by the Council, because the Commission is increasingly anticipating national positions at an earlier stage and taking them into account at the preparatory level. Hence, it is no longer the institution that seeks the higher standards of ‘Community interest’ – this may well be the role for the new European Parliament.
Even if not all countries share these perceptions, there was not a single member country claiming that the Commission is gaining (rather than losing) ground vis-à-vis the other institutions; that it has improved its independence record against the larger nations or that it seeks higher standards rather than the lowest common denominator. “
***
Successes and failures
For those who care to read the report, it contains an overview of the Commission’s perceived successes and failures during the last five years. In this way, it serves as a reminder of the major European policy issues, including bilateral questions between the Commission and individual member states.
The Commission’s (lack of) response to the financial and economic crisis was seen as its greatest failure.
The institutional shift came next:
“The second single most popular feeling in national capitals is that the Barroso Commission lacks political leadership. There is an argument put out across the Union that the Commission’s dependency on member states has increased to such an extent that it challenges
1) the inter-institutional balance;
2) the balance between the big and small members;
3) the institution’s capacity to uphold and guard the prerequisites of the acquis communautaire, notably vis-à-vis the bigger member states;
4) the Commission’s collegiality and
5) [the] its future effectiveness. “
***
New Commission
There is an Annex, where probable renewed mandates and exiting Commissioners are presented, based on information from the capitals.
***
Comment
This blog has argued that the European Union has become increasingly intergovernmentalist, with the European Council (heads of state or government), especially from a few larger member states, taking over more and more of the lead role (including failures to act), in tandem with the Council (ministers). In parallel, the Barroso Commission has been weak(ened).
The EPIN report supports these observations, although it refers only to increased intergovernmentalism and the role of the Council of Ministers, without discussing the European Council. The role of the heads of state or government, especially in the greater member states, would have merited special attention.
Effective and legitimate government?
Outside the scope of the report, the weaknesses of the existing institutional framework, including the incremental reforms by the Lisbon Treaty, require critical discussion. Effective and legitimate European level government won’t be found inside the box.
Done deal?
Politically, ahead of the European elections, the report questions the wisdom as well as the motives of heads of state or government to support a new term as President of the Commission for José Manuel Barroso. The failure of the Europarties to field alternative candidates is a lamentable loss for European level democracy.
Ralf Grahn
Heritage Foundation saving Europe!?
With friends like these ...
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 14 May 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty “threatens the transatlantic relationship”
Ahead of the European elections Sally McNamara’s views on the Lisbon Treaty and the transatlantic relationship are worth reading. From the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
After discussing legitimacy and support, we turn to the effects of the Treaty of Lisbon on the transatlantic relationship, according to McNamara:
“The Lisbon Treaty ... It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.”
***
Transatlantic relationship
The transatlantic relationship includes Canada and the United States on the one shore of the Atlantic, and Europe on the eastern shore. Despite economic competition and occasional spats, they form a community of values with broadly similar interests in the world, including international organisations.
In terms of trade and investment, they are firmly linked. The European Union is central in developing transatlantic and global commercial relations.
The financial and economic crisis highlights the need for coordinated solutions, through international institutions and bilaterally. Challenges like energy security become increasingly important, and global warming threatens the whole planet.
The European Union and its North American partners have shared interests in hosts of other policy areas, ranging from global challenges and organisations to daily contacts between citizens.
Common responses to internal and external security challenges are of fundamental importance. The European Union needs to enhance its capability in the fields of foreign, security and defence policy in order to act more coherently in its neighbourhood and to act more decisively in world affairs alongside the USA.
Most of the European Union’s member states are NATO members and the transatlantic defence alliance continues to be important, for the defence of Europe as well as in the wider world.
In its later days, the previous American administration started to mend some of the fences it had broken. The new US administration under President Barack Obama has sought to find common ground and forge stronger ties with the European Union and its member states, including at the April EU─US summit in Prague.
If anything, I reckon that the US government would be relieved to be able to deal with one Europe. In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon would bring about minor improvements.
McNamara, on the other hand, has learned nothing. She does not see the European Union as a valuable ally, but as a danger. The Lisbon Treaty threatens her exceedingly narrow view of the transatlantic relationship. Hence, a somewhat more coherent Europe would not be a boon for US interests, but the bane of its domination of the world stage, as she sees it.
Still adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, the Heritage Foundation seems set on its course to drive a wedge between the United States of America and the European Union.
***
There are, of course, opponents to the Lisbon Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic. Their motives are seldom expressed as openly as by the Heritage Foundation, but are they less misdirected for that?
Ralf Grahn
EU: Aviation security charges - SEC documents published
One of the blog posts yesterday mentioned the publication of the Commission Proposal for a Directive on aviation security charges (Brussels, 11.5.2009 COM(2009) 217 final).
The accompanying Commission Staff Working Documents Impact assessment SEC(2009) 616 and the impact assessment summary SEC(2009) 615 have now been published on Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, SEC documents.
Ralf Grahn
The accompanying Commission Staff Working Documents Impact assessment SEC(2009) 616 and the impact assessment summary SEC(2009) 615 have now been published on Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, SEC documents.
Ralf Grahn
Heritage Foundation: Dividing USA and EU
Yesterday evening the Irish blog Semper Idem drew my attention to one of the more astounding positions I have seen on the EU Treaty of Lisbon: The Heritage on the Lisbon Treaty (13 May 2009).
On the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, Sally McNamara presents her view on the relations between the United States and Europe: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
The last paragraph is worth reading on both shores of the Atlantic:
“The Lisbon Treaty is an affront to democracy that lacks any semblance of popular support or legitimacy. It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
Legitimacy of Lisbon Treaty
First, we look at the legitimacy and popular support of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Treaty of Lisbon was agreed by the democratically legitimate national governments of all 27 EU member states. It has been approved, according to their constitutional requirements, by the national parliaments in 26 of these member states.
The Lisbon Treaty does not alter the fundamental basis of the European Union.
Lisbon remains an international treaty and the European Union is still an organisation based on an international treaty between states.
Objectively, there was little cause to subject either the Constitutional or the Lisbon Treaty, of incremental reform, to a referendum.
It is absurd to contend that the Lisbon Treaty lacks legitimacy, where it has been approved.
Some national leaders had stupidly promised national referendums on the previous Constitutional Treaty, but these were settled during the parliamentary ratification processes concerning the slightly watered-down Treaty of Lisbon. The legitimacy point is moot.
The exception is Ireland, where a constitutional interpretation requires a referendum. A majority of the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hoping for at “better deal”.
The No side never presented a credible formula for the better deal, but the second referendum in Ireland will be based on the “better deal” the Irish government has secured (although the finer details have not been published).
Popular support for the Lisbon Treaty as for many government measures is far from overwhelming, but we live under the rules of representative democracy. Governments are even expected to “do the right thing” for the long term, despite short term unpopularity.
The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated document, resembling a technical manual more than a rousing political document. It is hard to understand for ordinary voters, and much of the vocal opposition seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its contents and implications. The less educated were more prone to vote No in Ireland.
Lacking “any semblance of popular support” is a wild exaggeration, but the political atmosphere in one major member state, the United Kingdom, can be described as Eurotoxic. Still, even there both Houses of Parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification procedure has been formally concluded. Under the rules of representative democracy, the decision is legitimate.
If we want to discuss lack of democratic legitimacy, we have to move to the European level.
The Lisbon Treaty fails to bring about an effective and democratically legitimate government at EU level, but that is hardly what McNamara is complaining about.
Following the Golden Rule, she should advocate the Articles of Confederation for the United States, if she wants Europe to preserve the Treaty of Nice.
I find it astounding when someone extols the virtues of the US Constitution, but wants to deny Europeans even a pale shadow.
Ralf Grahn
On the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, Sally McNamara presents her view on the relations between the United States and Europe: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
The last paragraph is worth reading on both shores of the Atlantic:
“The Lisbon Treaty is an affront to democracy that lacks any semblance of popular support or legitimacy. It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
Legitimacy of Lisbon Treaty
First, we look at the legitimacy and popular support of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Treaty of Lisbon was agreed by the democratically legitimate national governments of all 27 EU member states. It has been approved, according to their constitutional requirements, by the national parliaments in 26 of these member states.
The Lisbon Treaty does not alter the fundamental basis of the European Union.
Lisbon remains an international treaty and the European Union is still an organisation based on an international treaty between states.
Objectively, there was little cause to subject either the Constitutional or the Lisbon Treaty, of incremental reform, to a referendum.
It is absurd to contend that the Lisbon Treaty lacks legitimacy, where it has been approved.
Some national leaders had stupidly promised national referendums on the previous Constitutional Treaty, but these were settled during the parliamentary ratification processes concerning the slightly watered-down Treaty of Lisbon. The legitimacy point is moot.
The exception is Ireland, where a constitutional interpretation requires a referendum. A majority of the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty, hoping for at “better deal”.
The No side never presented a credible formula for the better deal, but the second referendum in Ireland will be based on the “better deal” the Irish government has secured (although the finer details have not been published).
Popular support for the Lisbon Treaty as for many government measures is far from overwhelming, but we live under the rules of representative democracy. Governments are even expected to “do the right thing” for the long term, despite short term unpopularity.
The Lisbon Treaty is a complicated document, resembling a technical manual more than a rousing political document. It is hard to understand for ordinary voters, and much of the vocal opposition seems to be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation of its contents and implications. The less educated were more prone to vote No in Ireland.
Lacking “any semblance of popular support” is a wild exaggeration, but the political atmosphere in one major member state, the United Kingdom, can be described as Eurotoxic. Still, even there both Houses of Parliament approved the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification procedure has been formally concluded. Under the rules of representative democracy, the decision is legitimate.
If we want to discuss lack of democratic legitimacy, we have to move to the European level.
The Lisbon Treaty fails to bring about an effective and democratically legitimate government at EU level, but that is hardly what McNamara is complaining about.
Following the Golden Rule, she should advocate the Articles of Confederation for the United States, if she wants Europe to preserve the Treaty of Nice.
I find it astounding when someone extols the virtues of the US Constitution, but wants to deny Europeans even a pale shadow.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Heritage Foundation: Lisbon Treaty risks US leadership
I want to thank Semper Idem for bringing it to my attention: The Heritage on the Lisbon Treaty.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation tells the whole world why the UK Conservatives should scrap the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Europe should be saved from challenging US leadership on the world stage.
I can hardly wait for the explanations from the EU disintegrator William Hague and the talented Mr Declan Ganley.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. While waiting, you can always read European elections: The Libertas Collection.
European Union worth living and dying for
David of Writing for (y)EU wrote a thoughtful post on the shifting media and campaign landscape: The Times They Are a-Changing (12 May 2009).
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
Merriment at FT Brussels blog
Tony Barber’s post at the Financial Times Brussels blog catches the mood: Barroso’s impotent EU critics hop with fury (13 May 2009).
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
EU: Aviation security charges (methods)
The Commission proposes a new Directive: Proposal for a Directive on aviation security charges (Brussels, 11.5.2009 COM(2009) 217 final).
The procedure number to follow is 2009/0063 (COD).
The proposal is accompanied by two documents SEC(2009) 615 final and SEC(2009) 616 final, not yet posted on Eur-Lex under Preparatory acts > SEC documents.
***
Comments on search
Without going into the substance of these security charges, important for the aviation industry, one can see how the Commission proposals have been evolving over time.
Having the procedure number from the outset makes it easy to follow the procedure (PreLex, Legislative Observatory).
Impact assessments, policy options as well as subsidiarity and proportionality are discussed, among others.
***
Transport – legal base
Transport is a somewhat special policy area of the European Community, seen to have its distinctive features, so the legal base of the proposed Directive is not in the general provisions on harmonisation (approximation) in the internal market, but specifically Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):
Article 80 TEC
1. The provisions of this title shall apply to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.
2. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, decide whether, to what extent and by what procedure appropriate provisions may be laid down for sea and air transport.
The procedural provisions of Article 71 shall apply.
***
As we see, there is some method to this madness.
Ralf Grahn
The procedure number to follow is 2009/0063 (COD).
The proposal is accompanied by two documents SEC(2009) 615 final and SEC(2009) 616 final, not yet posted on Eur-Lex under Preparatory acts > SEC documents.
***
Comments on search
Without going into the substance of these security charges, important for the aviation industry, one can see how the Commission proposals have been evolving over time.
Having the procedure number from the outset makes it easy to follow the procedure (PreLex, Legislative Observatory).
Impact assessments, policy options as well as subsidiarity and proportionality are discussed, among others.
***
Transport – legal base
Transport is a somewhat special policy area of the European Community, seen to have its distinctive features, so the legal base of the proposed Directive is not in the general provisions on harmonisation (approximation) in the internal market, but specifically Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):
Article 80 TEC
1. The provisions of this title shall apply to transport by rail, road and inland waterway.
2. The Council may, acting by a qualified majority, decide whether, to what extent and by what procedure appropriate provisions may be laid down for sea and air transport.
The procedural provisions of Article 71 shall apply.
***
As we see, there is some method to this madness.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Sarkozy and naked ambition
In Le Taurillon, Fabien Cazenave analyses the European vision of Nicolas Sarkozy: Sarkozy veut l’Europe des etats, pas des citoyens (12 May 2009).
***
President Sarkozy is a prime example of naked ambition and a European Union formed around the heads of state or government of a few member states.
Ahead of the European elections, Sarkozy’s campaign opener was most edifying.
Sarkozy’s Europe is not headed towards a union of citizens.
For EU 2.0 you will have to look elsewhere.
Ralf Grahn
***
President Sarkozy is a prime example of naked ambition and a European Union formed around the heads of state or government of a few member states.
Ahead of the European elections, Sarkozy’s campaign opener was most edifying.
Sarkozy’s Europe is not headed towards a union of citizens.
For EU 2.0 you will have to look elsewhere.
Ralf Grahn
EU 2.0
I have tried to illustrate different evolutionary stages of the European Union by using the following illustrations:
EU 1.0
The European Union of member states, functioning through diplomats and technocrats. The existing version based on the Treaty of Nice (modified by the accession treaties).
The heads of state or government increasingly see themselves as the nucleus, with the Commisison as a pliant accessory.
EU 1.1
The European Union based on the Treaty of Lisbon. In essence, more of the same but with an improved repair manual. Not much to get excited about, even if the powers of the directly elected European Parliament would improve to a degree. Foreign affairs would be slightly better coordinated than according to the current version. Improvements in justice.
Dumb to promise national referendums and at least as unjustified to require them on the merits of this international treaty among states.
Britain’s efforts to emasculate the Lisbon Treaty and the UK’s four opt-outs place it on the fringes of European integration, anyway.
There is nothing inherently democratic in the veto powers resting in each member state, when 26 have completed parliamentary ratification. The ‘liberum veto’ is directly derived from the primitive rules of international law.
In practice, calling for a referendum is based on a will to wreck the Treaty of Lisbon, pure and simple. The person may be against everything the European Union stands for or he may want his country to secede. In practical terms, the result would probably be an EU limping along under the Nice Treaty, in other words a return to EU 1.0.
EU 2.0
The last days have brought some discussion about the meaning of EU 2.0. Is it release 2.0 as in programme, or is it as in web 2.0?
Julien Frisch and Josef Litobarski have discussed the issue.
The concept of EU 2.0 is far from new.
Let us look at some of Nosemonkey’s thoughts about EU 2.0: Shouting into the storm – and EU 2.0 (7 September 2007):
“It’s time for pro-EU types to start looking rationally at the situation, and to realise that the time to win converts to the cause is long past. Anyone who really wants the EU to succeed in the decades to come shouldn’t be defending the current behemoth of overlapping institutions that make up the thing, but attacking it.
The EU doesn’t need a reform treaty, it needs to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. Start proposing that kind of radical change, with EU citizens involved at every stage of the rebuild, and the next stage of the EU - EU 2.0, if you will - should actually end up with genuine popular support. Without that support as its foundation, it’s only going to crumble.”
***
In my view, EU 2.0 represents a Copernican revolution, from a union of states to a union of people: citizens’ vote, EP power and accountable government.
Precisely because the European Parliament’s powers are limited, EU 2.0 or the future of Europe is the most important issue in the European elections.
What do the Europarties and the candidates tell us?
If nothing, you will have to make up your own mind between flat-earthers and progressive forces. Starting to think is the beginning of EU 2.0.
Ralf Grahn
EU 1.0
The European Union of member states, functioning through diplomats and technocrats. The existing version based on the Treaty of Nice (modified by the accession treaties).
The heads of state or government increasingly see themselves as the nucleus, with the Commisison as a pliant accessory.
EU 1.1
The European Union based on the Treaty of Lisbon. In essence, more of the same but with an improved repair manual. Not much to get excited about, even if the powers of the directly elected European Parliament would improve to a degree. Foreign affairs would be slightly better coordinated than according to the current version. Improvements in justice.
Dumb to promise national referendums and at least as unjustified to require them on the merits of this international treaty among states.
Britain’s efforts to emasculate the Lisbon Treaty and the UK’s four opt-outs place it on the fringes of European integration, anyway.
There is nothing inherently democratic in the veto powers resting in each member state, when 26 have completed parliamentary ratification. The ‘liberum veto’ is directly derived from the primitive rules of international law.
In practice, calling for a referendum is based on a will to wreck the Treaty of Lisbon, pure and simple. The person may be against everything the European Union stands for or he may want his country to secede. In practical terms, the result would probably be an EU limping along under the Nice Treaty, in other words a return to EU 1.0.
EU 2.0
The last days have brought some discussion about the meaning of EU 2.0. Is it release 2.0 as in programme, or is it as in web 2.0?
Julien Frisch and Josef Litobarski have discussed the issue.
The concept of EU 2.0 is far from new.
Let us look at some of Nosemonkey’s thoughts about EU 2.0: Shouting into the storm – and EU 2.0 (7 September 2007):
“It’s time for pro-EU types to start looking rationally at the situation, and to realise that the time to win converts to the cause is long past. Anyone who really wants the EU to succeed in the decades to come shouldn’t be defending the current behemoth of overlapping institutions that make up the thing, but attacking it.
The EU doesn’t need a reform treaty, it needs to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. Start proposing that kind of radical change, with EU citizens involved at every stage of the rebuild, and the next stage of the EU - EU 2.0, if you will - should actually end up with genuine popular support. Without that support as its foundation, it’s only going to crumble.”
***
In my view, EU 2.0 represents a Copernican revolution, from a union of states to a union of people: citizens’ vote, EP power and accountable government.
Precisely because the European Parliament’s powers are limited, EU 2.0 or the future of Europe is the most important issue in the European elections.
What do the Europarties and the candidates tell us?
If nothing, you will have to make up your own mind between flat-earthers and progressive forces. Starting to think is the beginning of EU 2.0.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
EU: Anyone But Barroso keeps growing
While the political parties at European level have been sitting on their hands ahead of the European elections, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only official candidate for the Commission Presidency, active European’s have been voicing their opinions against a repeat performance by José Manuel Barroso.
In yesterday’s post Anyone But Barroso and EU 2.0, we mentioned the Financial Times column by Wolfgang Münchau: Like a fish, Europe is rotting from its head.
Now we notice Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström interviewed by Swedish Europaportalen: Wallström ratar omval av Barroso (Wallström rejects re-election of Barroso).
In line with her PES affiliation and feminist leanings, Wallström proposes former Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou from Greece.
***
As usual, Jon Worth backs Pascal Lamy, but the Director-General of the WTO has just been confirmed for a new four year term.
***
Among EPP grass roots I have yet to register the first spontaneous exclamation of joy on account of the nomination of Barroso, despite backing from the Congress.
***
The EU heads of state or government deliberately cut out EU citizens from having a say. They have managed to alienate citizens from their union, but have they made a good or even a popular choice?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Anyone But Barroso website
In yesterday’s post Anyone But Barroso and EU 2.0, we mentioned the Financial Times column by Wolfgang Münchau: Like a fish, Europe is rotting from its head.
Now we notice Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström interviewed by Swedish Europaportalen: Wallström ratar omval av Barroso (Wallström rejects re-election of Barroso).
In line with her PES affiliation and feminist leanings, Wallström proposes former Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou from Greece.
***
As usual, Jon Worth backs Pascal Lamy, but the Director-General of the WTO has just been confirmed for a new four year term.
***
Among EPP grass roots I have yet to register the first spontaneous exclamation of joy on account of the nomination of Barroso, despite backing from the Congress.
***
The EU heads of state or government deliberately cut out EU citizens from having a say. They have managed to alienate citizens from their union, but have they made a good or even a popular choice?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Anyone But Barroso website
European Union: Council meetings (I)
In a European Union based on member states, the European Council consisting of heads of state or government and the Council consisting of ministers form the decisive tandem.
When intergovernmental dealing leads nowhere, they can always accuse a weakened Commission of weakness in guarding the common interest.
***
Council meetings
The existing Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) has a short and quite formal provision on Council meetings. The President is the responsible government minister of the member state holding the rotating Council presidency.
He can act of his own accord or on the request of a member state. or the Commission (the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/136):
Article 204 TEC
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
In the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), point 190 repealed Articles 202 and 203, and point 191 concerned amendments to Article 205 TEC.
In other words, no specific amendments were made to Article 204 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/104).
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
After renumbering the provision became Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153):
SECTION 3
THE COUNCIL
Article 237 TFEU
(ex Article 204 TEC)
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
***
Structural differences
The wording is the same in the current and the Lisbon Treaty, but one notable difference is introduced by the Lisbon Treaty concerning the President. The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will be chaired by the double-hatted High Representative, while the rotating Council presidency continues to chair the other Council configurations.
We take one step backwards, to remind us of the main differences between the treaties.
In the current TEC, the tasks of the Council are described in an incomplete manner.
The Treaty of Lisbon locates the main institutional provisions in the amended TEU. The Council’s tasks, composition, qualified majorities, main configurations, Coreper, meetings in public and Presidency are at least mentioned in Article 16 of the amended Treaty on European Union. (We have discussed various aspects in previous posts.)
The Lisbon Treaty is more readable for the general reader. More technical provisions are located in the TFEU, although both treaties are equally binding.
***
Meetings are important enough to merit further presentation. We will look at details in a later blog post.
Ralf Grahn
When intergovernmental dealing leads nowhere, they can always accuse a weakened Commission of weakness in guarding the common interest.
***
Council meetings
The existing Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) has a short and quite formal provision on Council meetings. The President is the responsible government minister of the member state holding the rotating Council presidency.
He can act of his own accord or on the request of a member state. or the Commission (the latest consolidated version of the treaties, published OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/136):
Article 204 TEC
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
***
Original Lisbon Treaty
In the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), point 190 repealed Articles 202 and 203, and point 191 concerned amendments to Article 205 TEC.
In other words, no specific amendments were made to Article 204 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/104).
***
Consolidated Lisbon Treaty
After renumbering the provision became Article 237 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/153):
SECTION 3
THE COUNCIL
Article 237 TFEU
(ex Article 204 TEC)
The Council shall meet when convened by its President on his own initiative or at the request of one of its Members or of the Commission.
***
Structural differences
The wording is the same in the current and the Lisbon Treaty, but one notable difference is introduced by the Lisbon Treaty concerning the President. The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will be chaired by the double-hatted High Representative, while the rotating Council presidency continues to chair the other Council configurations.
We take one step backwards, to remind us of the main differences between the treaties.
In the current TEC, the tasks of the Council are described in an incomplete manner.
The Treaty of Lisbon locates the main institutional provisions in the amended TEU. The Council’s tasks, composition, qualified majorities, main configurations, Coreper, meetings in public and Presidency are at least mentioned in Article 16 of the amended Treaty on European Union. (We have discussed various aspects in previous posts.)
The Lisbon Treaty is more readable for the general reader. More technical provisions are located in the TFEU, although both treaties are equally binding.
***
Meetings are important enough to merit further presentation. We will look at details in a later blog post.
Ralf Grahn
European Union: A short and readable basic law?
Is a short and readable basic law for the European Union pure fantasy, or could it become a reality?
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
***
Piecemeal amendments and minute compromises between member states under veto threat have resulted in detailed treaties. They are unsystematic, hard to read and contain redundant material.
The draft Constitution by the European Convention and the Constitutional Treaty by the intergovernmental conference made an attempt at reform of the institutions, but they produced updated and more systematic texts as well.
The Treaty of Lisbon meant a backward step, but many of the substantial and systematic improvements were preserved. In the end, the Lisbon Treaty is more readable than the existing treaties.
***
Structure
The Lisbon Treaty is structured in a more logical way than the current treaties. Basic provisions are situated in the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), while more technical details and policy areas are found in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which replaces the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).
Clarity is added by abolishing the distinction between the European Union and the European Community.
But the latest intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) baulked at placing the whole of external action into the TFEU. Not only did it preserve the intergovernmental character of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the common security and defence policy (CSDP); the provisions remained in the TEU, together with general provisions on the European Union’s external action.
The substantial limitations mean that, despite incremental improvements, the European Union will remain unable to speak with one voice in the world.
But here we are more interested in the supposition that the European Union could have a short and readable basic law.
***
Technically possible
Leaving the Table of Contents outside, and shifting the external action including the CFSP and the CSDP to a second order document would leave us with us with a basic document of less than twenty pages.
Even as it is, the TEU text proper is only about thirty pages long.
As a literary document the TEU is nowhere near the level of the US Constitutions, but tolerably readable if ridded from the references to the TFEU and Protocols.
If the US Constitution could be re-written today, including the amendments, it would get rid of redundant provisions, and it would be even more elegant the existing one.
***
Political difficulties
The main problem is not technical, but political. The European Union is based on international treaties between member states, not a union by the people.
About 200 pages of treaty text and about 160 pages of protocols and declarations follow from the member states’ desire to control events in minute detail.
This is the old covenant, European Union 1.0 based on diplomats and technocrats.
The Lisbon Treaty is version EU 1.1 with added powers for the European Parliament and other reforms.
To demand, as Libertas does, a strong TREATY, but short and readable, is not realistic. Where should the detailed provisions be placed? Would the member states suddenly let go their grip?
As long as the basic documents are international treaties between member states, I see no inherent reason to accept the calls for referendums. (Ireland, due to a domestic constitutional interpretation, happens to be the odd man out.)
***
Solution
If the power is vested in the people, the European Union could have a strong, short and readable basic document.
It would not be a treaty, but a basic law or constitution. This would be the new covenant, EU 2.0.
The shift from the old covenant to the new – from EU 1.0 (or 1.1) to EU 2.0 – would leave the detailed legislation to be approved by the European Parliament and the policies to be pursued by an accountable government.
The federation’s Constitution could be short and clear for all to understand.
The move from EU 1.0 (or 1.x) to EU 2.0 would be groundbreaking. Therefore, as a union of people, the new European Union would need the consent of the governed.
In my view, the willing electorates would form the new union, and the states with negative referendum results would stay outside the new union.
But afterwards the Constitution could be amended by the Parliament, probably by a qualified majority. Representative democracy is the norm; referendums the exception.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 11 May 2009
European Union: Non-confessional ethics uninteresting?
The Treaty of Lisbon is not yet in force, but in many instances it is the updated compilation of how the European Union is supposed to act.
Let us take Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115/55:
Article 17 TFEU
1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.
3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.
***
Faith based dialogue
Today the Commission has issued two press releases:
Presidents of Commission and Parliament discuss ethical contributions for European and global economic governance with European faith leaders (Brussels, 11 May 2009; IP/09/730)
Presidents of Commission and Parliament will discuss ethical contributions for European and global economic governance with European faith leaders on 11 May 2009 - Participants' list (Brussels, 11 May 2009; MEMO/09/227).
***
In these trying times, we are given the impression that worthy contributions were made by Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EP President Hans-Gert Pöttering as well as the representatives of the Anglican Church, the Churches of the Reformation, the Conference of European Churches, the Islamic Communities, the Jewish leaders, the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
***
Non-confessional ethics?
Article 17 TFEU includes the philosophical and non-confessional organisations in the open, transparent and regular dialogue maintained by the European Union.
The Commission made no mention of these organisations.
Ralf Grahn
Let us take Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115/55:
Article 17 TFEU
1. The Union respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States.
2. The Union equally respects the status under national law of philosophical and non-confessional organisations.
3. Recognising their identity and their specific contribution, the Union shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations.
***
Faith based dialogue
Today the Commission has issued two press releases:
Presidents of Commission and Parliament discuss ethical contributions for European and global economic governance with European faith leaders (Brussels, 11 May 2009; IP/09/730)
Presidents of Commission and Parliament will discuss ethical contributions for European and global economic governance with European faith leaders on 11 May 2009 - Participants' list (Brussels, 11 May 2009; MEMO/09/227).
***
In these trying times, we are given the impression that worthy contributions were made by Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EP President Hans-Gert Pöttering as well as the representatives of the Anglican Church, the Churches of the Reformation, the Conference of European Churches, the Islamic Communities, the Jewish leaders, the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
***
Non-confessional ethics?
Article 17 TFEU includes the philosophical and non-confessional organisations in the open, transparent and regular dialogue maintained by the European Union.
The Commission made no mention of these organisations.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: UKIP for Mexico
Read UKIP’s campaign policies for the Euro elections, and find out that Mexico is the way to go for Britain, according to Nigel Farage and his not so angry old men.
The main plank of the UK Independence Party’s manifesto for the European elections 2009 is:
“The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.”
***
If UKIP manages to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union, the party is less particular about the future model of cooperation. Reassuringly, friendly relations can be seen as opting for peace rather than war, but free trade can come in different shapes.
Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), which gives it access to the internal market, but without real powers to form the rules.
Switzerland is formally bound only by bilateral treaties with the European Union, but in practice a virtual member of the EEA.
Non-European Mexico has agreed on a free trade area (FTA) with the European Union. Recently the relations have been upgraded to a strategic partnership.
***
The common feature of the three examples is that the relationships have evolved, becoming ever closer.
Interestingly, UKIP proposes that the United Kingdom should renounce its seat at the tables, where European decisions are made.
I hope that UK voters conduct a full debate on the ways and means, well ahead of the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
The main plank of the UK Independence Party’s manifesto for the European elections 2009 is:
“The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.”
***
If UKIP manages to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union, the party is less particular about the future model of cooperation. Reassuringly, friendly relations can be seen as opting for peace rather than war, but free trade can come in different shapes.
Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), which gives it access to the internal market, but without real powers to form the rules.
Switzerland is formally bound only by bilateral treaties with the European Union, but in practice a virtual member of the EEA.
Non-European Mexico has agreed on a free trade area (FTA) with the European Union. Recently the relations have been upgraded to a strategic partnership.
***
The common feature of the three examples is that the relationships have evolved, becoming ever closer.
Interestingly, UKIP proposes that the United Kingdom should renounce its seat at the tables, where European decisions are made.
I hope that UK voters conduct a full debate on the ways and means, well ahead of the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Preparing for the Lisbon Treaty
It is hard to distinguish which anti-intellectual and anti-European arguments are most absurd, but one of the more insidious ones is the alleged anti-democratic nature of preparation for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Irish government is going to arrange a second referendum, based on the guarantees it has received from its European partners.
The treaty is dead only for those who despise representative democracy (although it takes place at the national instead of the European level).
The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the first day of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument.
In other words, if the institutions wait until the deposition of the last ratification, there is no chance for them to prepare the necessary decisions to put the Lisbon Treaty into practice in time.
It would be irresponsible to wait, but the Council and the Commission have been cowardly enough to stop preparatory work, at least in public.
This is a loss for open and transparent debate about the implementing issues.
The European Parliament has shown more sense of responsibility, laying down its views in votes on five reports last week.
***
The protracted ratification processes have already caused problems with regard to the nomination of the Commission President and the Commissioners as well as the number of MEPs to be elected.
Some writers have attacked the training of the European External Action Service (EEAS) ahead of the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Do they prefer an incoherent European Union in world affairs, with untrained representatives and less security for EU citizens?
Contrary to what the critics say, the EU institutions and the member states should not only take responsibility, but act and argue openly.
They should clearly state the near total ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and they should show that they are ready to launch the treaty, if it is finally improved.
Instead of hiding their heads in the sand, they should report on preparatory work, and publish draft proposals, consulting with experts, NGOs and the public.
If EU 1.0 diplomats and technocrats do not grasp the nettle of their own accord, EU citizens should remind them of their duties.
Ralf Grahn
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Irish government is going to arrange a second referendum, based on the guarantees it has received from its European partners.
The treaty is dead only for those who despise representative democracy (although it takes place at the national instead of the European level).
The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the first day of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument.
In other words, if the institutions wait until the deposition of the last ratification, there is no chance for them to prepare the necessary decisions to put the Lisbon Treaty into practice in time.
It would be irresponsible to wait, but the Council and the Commission have been cowardly enough to stop preparatory work, at least in public.
This is a loss for open and transparent debate about the implementing issues.
The European Parliament has shown more sense of responsibility, laying down its views in votes on five reports last week.
***
The protracted ratification processes have already caused problems with regard to the nomination of the Commission President and the Commissioners as well as the number of MEPs to be elected.
Some writers have attacked the training of the European External Action Service (EEAS) ahead of the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Do they prefer an incoherent European Union in world affairs, with untrained representatives and less security for EU citizens?
Contrary to what the critics say, the EU institutions and the member states should not only take responsibility, but act and argue openly.
They should clearly state the near total ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and they should show that they are ready to launch the treaty, if it is finally improved.
Instead of hiding their heads in the sand, they should report on preparatory work, and publish draft proposals, consulting with experts, NGOs and the public.
If EU 1.0 diplomats and technocrats do not grasp the nettle of their own accord, EU citizens should remind them of their duties.
Ralf Grahn
Anyone But Barroso and EU 2.0
I have not joined the Anyone But Barroso campaign, because I have limited my demands to competing candidates for the Commission Presidency. For me, the pan-European election comes first, the personalities second.
But I have been saddened by the fact that the Anyone But Barroso campaign has been in dire straits. Even if the campaigners were right about the need for a new President of the European Commission, the Europarties have failed in the very reason for their existence, to field competing candidates. They failed because of national heads of state or government, who are also national party leaders.
A host of heads of state or government in EU member states have gone back on the miserly concession they made when signing the Lisbon Treaty, to let the votes of EU citizens influence the nomination; this well ahead of the European elections.
N.B. These elites ─ heads of state or government ─are not “Brussels”, but national.
***
The Anyone But Barroso campaign site has reported on mischievous use, emanating from Portugal, and a few minutes ago I was unable to access the site because of overload.
Are these dark forces going to target the Financial Times next?
Wolfgang Münchau’s Financial Times column Like a fish, Europe is rotting from the head is a clear indictment of the premature choice of national leaders and the European People’s Party.
Well, I cannot remember even one spontaneous exclamation of joy from EPP grass roots.
***
An ever closer union among the members of the European Council against the EU citizens fails in two respects: legitimacy and outcomes.
To the extent possible, vote for the citizens’ European Union 2.0 in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
But I have been saddened by the fact that the Anyone But Barroso campaign has been in dire straits. Even if the campaigners were right about the need for a new President of the European Commission, the Europarties have failed in the very reason for their existence, to field competing candidates. They failed because of national heads of state or government, who are also national party leaders.
A host of heads of state or government in EU member states have gone back on the miserly concession they made when signing the Lisbon Treaty, to let the votes of EU citizens influence the nomination; this well ahead of the European elections.
N.B. These elites ─ heads of state or government ─are not “Brussels”, but national.
***
The Anyone But Barroso campaign site has reported on mischievous use, emanating from Portugal, and a few minutes ago I was unable to access the site because of overload.
Are these dark forces going to target the Financial Times next?
Wolfgang Münchau’s Financial Times column Like a fish, Europe is rotting from the head is a clear indictment of the premature choice of national leaders and the European People’s Party.
Well, I cannot remember even one spontaneous exclamation of joy from EPP grass roots.
***
An ever closer union among the members of the European Council against the EU citizens fails in two respects: legitimacy and outcomes.
To the extent possible, vote for the citizens’ European Union 2.0 in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 10 May 2009
European Union: Re-use of public sector information (PSI)
This concerns businesses, citizens and public bodies in the European Union.
The public sector collects, produces, reproduces and disseminates a wide range of information in many areas of activity, such as social, economic, geographical, weather, tourist, business, patent and educational information.
Digital content plays an important role in this evolution. Content production has given rise to rapid job creation in recent years and continues to do so. Most of these jobs are created in small emerging companies.
The evolution towards an information and knowledge society influences the life of every citizen in the Community, inter alia, by enabling them to gain new ways of accessing and acquiring knowledge.
.
One of the principal aims of the establishment of an internal market is the creation of conditions conducive to the development of Community-wide services. Public sector information is an important primary material for digital content products and services and will become an even more important content resource with the development of wireless content services. Broad cross-border
geographical coverage will also be essential in this context. Wider possibilities of re-using public sector information should inter alia allow European companies to exploit its potential and contribute to economic growth and job creation.
***
Public sector information
I have deliberately re-used public sector information, practically word for word, emanating from the European Union.
The source of this information is Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 31.12.2003 L 345/90; there seem to be no amendments.
But as we saw, public sector information (PSI) comes in many shapes and sizes besides legal documents, and many of them can potentially become commercial services.
***
Review
The Commission has now undertaken a review of Directive 2003/98 in the internal market. There are two relevant documents:
1) The Commission’s Communication Re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC (Brussels, 7.5.2009 COM(2009) 212 final) has been posted on Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, COM documents.
2) The more detailed accompanying document is the Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2009) 597.
***
Main findings
The Commission notes that PSI is used as raw material for a variety of products and services offered to Europe’s citizens every day, such as car navigation systems, weather forecasts, financial and insurance services. The value of the EU PSI market is estimated at €27 billion,2 which is four times the EU market for mobile roaming services. This shows the central role of public sector content in the digital age as a driver of economic activity. A further increase in the use of this resource will therefore directly contribute to the EU’s goals of increasing competitiveness and creating more jobs.
The Commission reaches the following conclusions:
The PSI Directive has introduced the basic conditions to facilitate the re-use of PSI throughout the EU. Progress has been made since its adoption. Commercial re-use of PSI has been allowed, monopolies have been broken, fair trading conditions have been introduced, prices have decreased and there is more transparency. Progress and implementation of the Directive in the MS is however uneven.
Big barriers still exist. These include attempts by public sector bodies to maximise cost recovery, as opposed to benefits for the wider economy, competition between the public and the private sector, practical issues hindering re-use, such as the lack of information on available PSI, and the mindset of public sector bodies failing to realise the economic potential.
These problems and progress by MS to redress them need to be monitored and assessed before the Commission can consider legislative amendments to the PSI Directive.
MS need to focus their efforts now on full and correct implementation and application of the Directive, terminating exclusive arrangements, applying licensing and charging models that facilitate the availability and re-use of PSI, ensuring equal conditions for public bodies reusing their own documents and other re-users, and promoting quick and inexpensive conflict resolution mechanisms.
The Commission will carry out a further review by 2012 when more evidence on the impact, effects and application of the Directive should be available and will consider legislative amendments at that stage, taking into consideration the progress made in the meantime in the Member States.
Ralf Grahn
The public sector collects, produces, reproduces and disseminates a wide range of information in many areas of activity, such as social, economic, geographical, weather, tourist, business, patent and educational information.
Digital content plays an important role in this evolution. Content production has given rise to rapid job creation in recent years and continues to do so. Most of these jobs are created in small emerging companies.
The evolution towards an information and knowledge society influences the life of every citizen in the Community, inter alia, by enabling them to gain new ways of accessing and acquiring knowledge.
.
One of the principal aims of the establishment of an internal market is the creation of conditions conducive to the development of Community-wide services. Public sector information is an important primary material for digital content products and services and will become an even more important content resource with the development of wireless content services. Broad cross-border
geographical coverage will also be essential in this context. Wider possibilities of re-using public sector information should inter alia allow European companies to exploit its potential and contribute to economic growth and job creation.
***
Public sector information
I have deliberately re-used public sector information, practically word for word, emanating from the European Union.
The source of this information is Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 31.12.2003 L 345/90; there seem to be no amendments.
But as we saw, public sector information (PSI) comes in many shapes and sizes besides legal documents, and many of them can potentially become commercial services.
***
Review
The Commission has now undertaken a review of Directive 2003/98 in the internal market. There are two relevant documents:
1) The Commission’s Communication Re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC (Brussels, 7.5.2009 COM(2009) 212 final) has been posted on Eur-Lex, under Preparatory acts, COM documents.
2) The more detailed accompanying document is the Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2009) 597.
***
Main findings
The Commission notes that PSI is used as raw material for a variety of products and services offered to Europe’s citizens every day, such as car navigation systems, weather forecasts, financial and insurance services. The value of the EU PSI market is estimated at €27 billion,2 which is four times the EU market for mobile roaming services. This shows the central role of public sector content in the digital age as a driver of economic activity. A further increase in the use of this resource will therefore directly contribute to the EU’s goals of increasing competitiveness and creating more jobs.
The Commission reaches the following conclusions:
The PSI Directive has introduced the basic conditions to facilitate the re-use of PSI throughout the EU. Progress has been made since its adoption. Commercial re-use of PSI has been allowed, monopolies have been broken, fair trading conditions have been introduced, prices have decreased and there is more transparency. Progress and implementation of the Directive in the MS is however uneven.
Big barriers still exist. These include attempts by public sector bodies to maximise cost recovery, as opposed to benefits for the wider economy, competition between the public and the private sector, practical issues hindering re-use, such as the lack of information on available PSI, and the mindset of public sector bodies failing to realise the economic potential.
These problems and progress by MS to redress them need to be monitored and assessed before the Commission can consider legislative amendments to the PSI Directive.
MS need to focus their efforts now on full and correct implementation and application of the Directive, terminating exclusive arrangements, applying licensing and charging models that facilitate the availability and re-use of PSI, ensuring equal conditions for public bodies reusing their own documents and other re-users, and promoting quick and inexpensive conflict resolution mechanisms.
The Commission will carry out a further review by 2012 when more evidence on the impact, effects and application of the Directive should be available and will consider legislative amendments at that stage, taking into consideration the progress made in the meantime in the Member States.
Ralf Grahn
European Union 2.0
Each issue of The Economist reminds the readers that the paper was first published in September 1843 to take part in ”a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress.”
In the Charlemagne column An unloved parliament and in Charlemagne’s notebook The wrong way to make voters care about Europe, The Economist’s European affairs editor opts for the obstructionists.
What is going to happen if the once distinguished paper keeps on choosing the smaller Matryoshka doll, every time it broaches European subjects?
***
Europe Day
Kosmopolito doubted if the handing out of free umbrellas, pens and bottle openers was the right way to go to get closer to the citizen.
The European Citizen wondered why the Party of European Socialists (PES) was the only one to mention Europe Day on its website. In a comment to Europe Day 2009 stocktaking Eurocentric said:
“The EU needs a new story, really. It can no longer be about member states; it has to be about citizens, and it has to speak to citizens (or, preferably, encourage citizens to speak to it).
It may have been (and be) a project to save the nation state, but Europe needs to be a way of citizens ensuring effective government when the nation state simply isn't up to the task. Europe needs to be about citizen empowerment; about citizens being able to influence and set standards in society. The idea of Europe needs to speak to people in these terms.
Which is why it's disappointing that the EP parties haven't been as assertive or organised as they should be.”
Eurocentric is right.
The Schuman declaration saw the pooling of coal and steel production as the first step in the federation of Europe.
Franco-German reconciliation was a historical milestone and war between the members of the European Union is almost unthinkable.
But the old paradigms of technocracy and diplomacy have outlived their usefulness.
More Europe is needed in world affairs and to erase barriers within the European Union.
Legitimacy can only spring from EU citizens, not from member states or their leaders who have other things on their plate.
The time has come for the European Union 2.0 ─ the legitimate union where the citizens set the course for the government.
EU 2.0 = democracy and federation.
Ralf Grahn
In the Charlemagne column An unloved parliament and in Charlemagne’s notebook The wrong way to make voters care about Europe, The Economist’s European affairs editor opts for the obstructionists.
What is going to happen if the once distinguished paper keeps on choosing the smaller Matryoshka doll, every time it broaches European subjects?
***
Europe Day
Kosmopolito doubted if the handing out of free umbrellas, pens and bottle openers was the right way to go to get closer to the citizen.
The European Citizen wondered why the Party of European Socialists (PES) was the only one to mention Europe Day on its website. In a comment to Europe Day 2009 stocktaking Eurocentric said:
“The EU needs a new story, really. It can no longer be about member states; it has to be about citizens, and it has to speak to citizens (or, preferably, encourage citizens to speak to it).
It may have been (and be) a project to save the nation state, but Europe needs to be a way of citizens ensuring effective government when the nation state simply isn't up to the task. Europe needs to be about citizen empowerment; about citizens being able to influence and set standards in society. The idea of Europe needs to speak to people in these terms.
Which is why it's disappointing that the EP parties haven't been as assertive or organised as they should be.”
Eurocentric is right.
The Schuman declaration saw the pooling of coal and steel production as the first step in the federation of Europe.
Franco-German reconciliation was a historical milestone and war between the members of the European Union is almost unthinkable.
But the old paradigms of technocracy and diplomacy have outlived their usefulness.
More Europe is needed in world affairs and to erase barriers within the European Union.
Legitimacy can only spring from EU citizens, not from member states or their leaders who have other things on their plate.
The time has come for the European Union 2.0 ─ the legitimate union where the citizens set the course for the government.
EU 2.0 = democracy and federation.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 9 May 2009
European Union: Reduced VAT rates
The long wrangle over reduced rates of value added tax (VAT) reaches a (temporary) close with the publication of Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards reduced rates of value added tax, in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2009 L 116/18.
Locally produced services
Directive 2009/47 allows member states the possibility of applying reduced VAT rates to the labour-intensive services covered by the temporary provisions applicable until the end of 2010 as well as to restaurant and catering services, and it enters into force on 1 June 2009.
A few specific exemptions are included.
Consolidation
At this moment, the latest consolidated version of the VAT Directive, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, originally published OJEU 11.12.2006 L 347/1, is of 21 January 2009.
Ralf Grahn
Locally produced services
Directive 2009/47 allows member states the possibility of applying reduced VAT rates to the labour-intensive services covered by the temporary provisions applicable until the end of 2010 as well as to restaurant and catering services, and it enters into force on 1 June 2009.
A few specific exemptions are included.
Consolidation
At this moment, the latest consolidated version of the VAT Directive, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, originally published OJEU 11.12.2006 L 347/1, is of 21 January 2009.
Ralf Grahn
Europe Day 2009 stocktaking
Europe’s history is full of mass slaughter and devastation, but Europe has also been the home of the universities, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, leading to representative democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law.
Schuman declaration
We read the visionary, yet realistic words of the Schuman declaration of 9 May 1950: Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.
Enlargement and some progress
Since then, the European Union has come into being, encompassing 27 member states. It was a major achievement when Central European countries were able to reunite with the democracies of Western Europe. But this larger EU is far from ready to master the challenges of the 21st century.
Despite remarkable achievements, the nation states of Europe have remained more wedded to the past than committed to the future.
Just as their rejection of the Briand plan opened the door to the Second World War, shortsighted political elites sunk the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community, cold-shouldered the Spinelli draft Constitution and ushered in an era of endless institutional tinkering, instead of opting for a strong and democratic union.
Behind the curve
We Europeans are behind the curve, and the misdirected anti-EU campaigners are even more oblivious of the world’s challenges than our leaders and we citizens in general.
The state of the union is sobering: The Treaty of Lisbon is like a revised issue of a maintenance manual for the European Union. Minor faults in the Treaty of Nice have been corrected, but the main failings are preserved, even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
In the United States, more than 200 years ago, the main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
Vision: Real powers and real democracy
Cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as national, regional and local politics can continue to thrive, but two main areas require more Europe:
1) If we want the European Union to enhance our security on the global scene, and if we want it to do good in the world, the EUt needs to be effective.
2) For our prosperity, the European Union needs to become a borderless area for people, services and justice.
In order to be effective, the EU needs real powers, where they count.
Real powers must be based on democratic legitimacy: the directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable government, based on the citizens’ vote.
When EU citizens have understood this much, future Europe Days will remember the coming of age of Europeans and of Europe.
Even with the limited political rights that we have, between 4 and 7 June 2009 you can vote for a forward-looking version of Europe, instead of a continent rooted in past prejudices.
Ralf Grahn
Schuman declaration
We read the visionary, yet realistic words of the Schuman declaration of 9 May 1950: Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity.
Enlargement and some progress
Since then, the European Union has come into being, encompassing 27 member states. It was a major achievement when Central European countries were able to reunite with the democracies of Western Europe. But this larger EU is far from ready to master the challenges of the 21st century.
Despite remarkable achievements, the nation states of Europe have remained more wedded to the past than committed to the future.
Just as their rejection of the Briand plan opened the door to the Second World War, shortsighted political elites sunk the European Defence Community and the European (Political) Community, cold-shouldered the Spinelli draft Constitution and ushered in an era of endless institutional tinkering, instead of opting for a strong and democratic union.
Behind the curve
We Europeans are behind the curve, and the misdirected anti-EU campaigners are even more oblivious of the world’s challenges than our leaders and we citizens in general.
The state of the union is sobering: The Treaty of Lisbon is like a revised issue of a maintenance manual for the European Union. Minor faults in the Treaty of Nice have been corrected, but the main failings are preserved, even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
In the United States, more than 200 years ago, the main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
Vision: Real powers and real democracy
Cultural and linguistic diversity, as well as national, regional and local politics can continue to thrive, but two main areas require more Europe:
1) If we want the European Union to enhance our security on the global scene, and if we want it to do good in the world, the EUt needs to be effective.
2) For our prosperity, the European Union needs to become a borderless area for people, services and justice.
In order to be effective, the EU needs real powers, where they count.
Real powers must be based on democratic legitimacy: the directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable government, based on the citizens’ vote.
When EU citizens have understood this much, future Europe Days will remember the coming of age of Europeans and of Europe.
Even with the limited political rights that we have, between 4 and 7 June 2009 you can vote for a forward-looking version of Europe, instead of a continent rooted in past prejudices.
Ralf Grahn
European elections: The Libertas Collection
If contradictions are the stuff of drama, Declan Ganley and Libertas are well endowed. Chairman Ganley posed as pro-European, but his campaign sowed fear among the Irish against the European Union.
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn