For some reason Eur-Lex stubbornly renders the headline of the bibliographic notice in Danish, although the rest of the text is in English. Anyway, the Commission work programme 2012, available in 22 official EU languages, is a suitable read when we are transiting from one annus horribilis to the next. The English language version of the CWP (pdf):
Commission Work Programme 2012: Delivering European renewal; VOL. 1/2 Brussels, 15.11.2011 COM(2011) 777 final (11 pages)
The CWP 2012 offers a convenient overview of ongoing work and planned actions.
Planned actions
If the CWP is Volume 1/2, there should logically be a Volume 2/2, but I was unable to locate it on the legal portal Eur-Lex.
There is, however, an alternative route. If we navigate to the web page The Commission Work Programme, we can find both the CWP proper and an Annex (also in 22 languages). The latter turns out to be the more substantive:
ANNEX to the Commission Work Programme 2012; VOL. 2/2 Brussels, 15.11.2011 COM(2011) 777 final (45 pages)
This is the document for people more deeply interested in one or more areas of the Commission's work in the near future.
About half of the document (pages 2-23) is dedicted to the 129 legislative proposals and other actions planned by the Commission for 2012.
The paper is divided into policy areas, with brief descriptions of each action.
Internal market and services
In this blog post I am going to mention the actions regarding the internal market and services even more briefly:
78 Legislative proposal regarding the protection of investors: Amendment of the UCITS Directive as regards rules on UCITS depositary functions, on manager remuneration policy, and on administrative sanctions
79 Shadow banking communication
80 Legislative proposal on the protection of investors: PRIPs (precontractual disclosures of complex investment products
81 Follow-up to the Performance Check for services: Deepening the single market for services
82 Legislative proposal on collective rights management: Music rights – music online
83 Legislative review of single market and pension funds: Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORP)
84 Legislative proposal: Revision of the Insurance Mediation Directive (IMD)
85 Legislative proposal: Revision of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and of the Directive approximating national trade mark laws
86 Initiative on disclosure of non-financial information by companies
87 Communication about on-line gambling in the Internal Market
88 Enforcement of intellectual property rights – adaptation of the Directive 2004/48 known as IPRED
89 Legislative proposal: Securities Law Directive
90 Legislative proposal: Close-out netting
91 Digital Single Market: Initiative on notice and takedown procedures
92 Legislative proposal: Insurance Guarantee Schemes
93 Legislative proposal: Third Anti Money Laundering Directive
94 Legislative proposal: Amending the Financial Conglomerates Directive (FICOD II) (2002/87/EC)
There are also proposals in the pipeline for 2013 (page 27), a simplification initiative concerning the Statute for a European Company (SE; regulation 2011/2157)(page 39) and a few proposals to withdraw (pages 43-44) in the area of the internal market and services.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. For an interesting and different take of what politics and policies should be about, you can read the blog post by Ronny Patz, #28c3: “The coming war on general purpose computation” as THE 2011 speech, as an introduction to the video presentation by Cory Doctorow.
Future of Europe: The lawyer Ralf Grahn writes about a more perfect union - of Europeans and fit for the 21st century
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Friday, 30 December 2011
End user perspective: BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality
The previous blog post referred to the scope and structure of the transparency guidelines approved for publication by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC):
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Chapter II promised to deal with requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy and states, as a general principle, that the end users’ perspective is paramount. The guidelines discuss how to best adapt a transparency policy to net neutrality-related issues, in particular by taking into account different types of end users and usages.
End user perspective
In Chapter II the guidelines discuss major requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy, identifying a set of criteria (page 14):
Horse's mouth or third party?
The guidelines discuss two approaches to providing end users with information. The direct approach means that the Internet Service Provider offers the user information directly. This route is compulsory.
The complementary, indirect approach means that third parties – such as technical experts in the Internet community, price comparison sites , content providers or NRAs - provide information.
The NRAs have to devise the obligations of the service providers in a proportionate manner, bearing in mind the costs of regulation. Proportionality is discussed on pages 19-20.
Offer and limits
Discussing various aspects of transparency, the guidelines conclude (page 24):
Traffic management
Chapter II ends with the following finding (page 26):
Ralf Grahn
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Chapter II promised to deal with requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy and states, as a general principle, that the end users’ perspective is paramount. The guidelines discuss how to best adapt a transparency policy to net neutrality-related issues, in particular by taking into account different types of end users and usages.
End user perspective
In Chapter II the guidelines discuss major requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy, identifying a set of criteria (page 14):
A fully effective transparency policy (which can be composed of various approaches and measures) should aim at satisfying all of the following characteristics:These criteria are then explained.
- Accessibility
- Understandability
- Meaningfulness
- Comparability
- Accuracy
Horse's mouth or third party?
The guidelines discuss two approaches to providing end users with information. The direct approach means that the Internet Service Provider offers the user information directly. This route is compulsory.
The complementary, indirect approach means that third parties – such as technical experts in the Internet community, price comparison sites , content providers or NRAs - provide information.
The NRAs have to devise the obligations of the service providers in a proportionate manner, bearing in mind the costs of regulation. Proportionality is discussed on pages 19-20.
Offer and limits
Discussing various aspects of transparency, the guidelines conclude (page 24):
Finding: for net neutrality transparency, information is needed on both the general scope of the offer and on the limitations (general and specific) of the offer.
Traffic management
Chapter II ends with the following finding (page 26):
Finding: Common terms of references about aspects of the Internet access service, including where some agreement can be reached on traffic management measures considered reasonable, can help to make the transparent information to end users simpler, and therefore can make a transparency policy more effective.
Ralf Grahn
Scope and structure: BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality
The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) approved the transparency guidelines for publication:
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Executive summary
The Executive summary on pages 3 to 5 offers a short introduction to the thinking of the Board of Regulators (BoR).
The guidelines stress net neutrality as a key pre-condition to the end users’ ability to choose the quality of the service that best fits their needs, but transparency alone is probably insufficient to achieve net neutrality.
At this stage, the guidelines seem to promise a discussion about various approaches to a number of issues, without clear-cut rules to apply.
Scope
The guidelines discuss transparency from three angles (pages 6-7):
Structure
The presentation of the structure of the paper offers an overview to prospective readers (page 7):
Regulatory context
On the pages 10-13 the guidelines present the main EU provisions relating to transparency in the revised eCommunications framework and the role of different players (MS = Member State, NRA = National Regulatory Authority, ISP = Internet Service Provider):
Ralf Grahn
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Executive summary
The Executive summary on pages 3 to 5 offers a short introduction to the thinking of the Board of Regulators (BoR).
The guidelines stress net neutrality as a key pre-condition to the end users’ ability to choose the quality of the service that best fits their needs, but transparency alone is probably insufficient to achieve net neutrality.
At this stage, the guidelines seem to promise a discussion about various approaches to a number of issues, without clear-cut rules to apply.
Scope
The guidelines discuss transparency from three angles (pages 6-7):
- the types of information that different groups of end users (consumers, business customers at a retail level - see section 1 for a more precise description of the beneficiaries) and institutions need in order to promote the ability to make informed choices regarding the quality of the Internet access services;Related, but separate issues under investigation are (page 7):
- the best means of conveying this information to end users;
- possible ways for end users to monitor the features of their services, and for NRAs to verify operators’ information, and the related requirements.
Other BEREC projects are closely linked to this work, namely projects on “Competition issues related to Net Neutrality” and “Net Neutrality and Quality of Service”.
Structure
The presentation of the structure of the paper offers an overview to prospective readers (page 7):
Chapter I focuses on the role of transparency with regard to net neutrality, explaining why it is important, but is not sufficient on its own to address the “net freedoms” objective (nor other concerns expressed in the net neutrality debate). In addition, we give an overview of the legal context and touch on the situation within EU Member States.
Chapter II deals with requirements for a net neutrality transparency policy and states, as a general principle, that the end users’ perspective is paramount. We discuss how to best adapt a transparency policy to net neutrality-related issues, in particular by taking into account different types of end users and usages.
Chapter III talks about the contents of a net neutrality transparency policy, including the most appropriate data to be used, and provides practical examples and case studies.
Chapter IV explores different ways to ensure transparency, talking about the way information is transmitted and discusses mechanisms for monitoring transparency.
Chapter V details the possible roles of the various institutions involved, in particular through case studies, and draws some general conclusions of the report.
Regulatory context
On the pages 10-13 the guidelines present the main EU provisions relating to transparency in the revised eCommunications framework and the role of different players (MS = Member State, NRA = National Regulatory Authority, ISP = Internet Service Provider):
The new EU Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communications was required to be transposed by Member States by 25 May 2011. It brought important changes to the 2002 Regulatory Framework and also tackled the question of net neutrality by imposing on MS, NRAs and ISPs several obligations related to traffic management techniques.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 29 December 2011
EESC on open internet and net neutrality in EU
On 26 October 2011 the advisory body, the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), adopted an opinion on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The open internet and net neutrality in Europe COM(2011) 222 final.
Differing from the EU institutions (Commission, later Parliament and Council), the EESC was prepared to advance more decisively and rapidly, recommending that the principles of an open internet and net neutrality should be formally enshrined in EU law as soon as possible.
According to the EESC, the definition of the principles should contain at least the following elements:
Ralf Grahn
Differing from the EU institutions (Commission, later Parliament and Council), the EESC was prepared to advance more decisively and rapidly, recommending that the principles of an open internet and net neutrality should be formally enshrined in EU law as soon as possible.
According to the EESC, the definition of the principles should contain at least the following elements:
i. Freedom and quality of Internet access
The European Commission should agree a common EU standard on "minimum quality of service" according to the principles of general interest, and should ensure that there is effective monitoring of its application.
ii. Non-discrimination between Internet traffic streams
As a general rule, no differentiation be made between the way in which each individual data stream is treated, whether according to the type of content, the service, application, device or the address of the streams origin or destination. This applies to all points along the network, including interconnection points.
There may be exceptions to this principle, provided they comply with the guidelines set out in proposed recommendation no. iii.
iii. Supervising Internet traffic management mechanisms
Marking exceptions to the principles stated in proposals nos. i and ii, and to limit any possible deviations from these, when ISPs do employ traffic management mechanisms for ensuring the quality of access to the Internet, that they comply with the general principles of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non discrimination between parties and transparency.
iv. Managed services
To maintain the capacity of all players' to innovate, electronic communications operators must be able to market "managed services" alongside Internet access, , provided that the managed service does not degrade the quality of Internet access below a certain satisfactory level, and that vendors act in accordance with existing competition laws and sector-specific regulation.
v. Increased transparency with respect to end users and a defined set of standardised information
There should be clear, precise and relevant information on the services and applications that can be accessed through ISPs: their quality of service, their possible limitations, and any traffic management practices. The EC should guarantee transparency for consumers, including clear information on terms and conditions, the right to use any lawful application and the means of switching providers. The EC should promote more dialogue and effective co-regulatory mechanisms between industry and the national regulators, under the auspices of the EC, in order to agree on EU-wide transparency principles and a set of standardised information.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 28 December 2011
BEREC consultation on draft Guidelines on Net Neutrality and Transparency
At the political level the European Parliament, the EU Council and the Commission (Digital Agenda, Digital Single Market) have all been active on net neutrality issues recently. Closer to the ”factory floor”, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) tries to find common ground among some 35 national eCommunications regulators, aspect by aspect.
Draft guidelines
This autumn the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published:
Draft BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality and Transparency: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 44 (October 2011; 64 pages)
Transparency and net neutrality consultation
BEREC launched a public consultation on 3 October 2011 (the announcement provided informationa about related net neutrality issues, but did not contain the end date of the consultation). The deadline, 2 November 2011, did appear on the News page.
Stakeholders, including individuals, delivered 77 contributions, available on the consultations page.
Board of Regulators
The Board of Regulators (BoR) 8-9 December 2011 gave its broad support to the documents submitted for approval. The BoR approved the Guidelines on transparency and the report from the public consultation for publication. The two documents:
Draft report on the contributions received during the public consultation on the draft Guidelines on transparency as a tool to achieve net neutrality BoR (11) 66
Revised draft Guidelines on transparency in the scope of net neutrality: best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67
Consultation report
In other words, the report about the public consultation has been published:
BEREC report on the public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality BoR (11) 66 (December 2011; 15 pages)
With a variety of respondents from different backgrounds, the contributions contain a number of approaches and opinions on the best manner to proceed regarding many issues.
Thus, the consultation report mainly provides a general summary of various opinions, without delving into specific contributions. Recommended reading for people interested in net neutrality issues.
One outcome is worth mentioning in order to link the draft guidelines with the final version (page 15):
Approved guidelines
The guidelines approved for publication by the BEREC Board of Regulators (BoR):
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Ralf Grahn
Draft guidelines
This autumn the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) published:
Draft BEREC Guidelines on Net Neutrality and Transparency: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 44 (October 2011; 64 pages)
Transparency and net neutrality consultation
BEREC launched a public consultation on 3 October 2011 (the announcement provided informationa about related net neutrality issues, but did not contain the end date of the consultation). The deadline, 2 November 2011, did appear on the News page.
Stakeholders, including individuals, delivered 77 contributions, available on the consultations page.
Board of Regulators
The Board of Regulators (BoR) 8-9 December 2011 gave its broad support to the documents submitted for approval. The BoR approved the Guidelines on transparency and the report from the public consultation for publication. The two documents:
Draft report on the contributions received during the public consultation on the draft Guidelines on transparency as a tool to achieve net neutrality BoR (11) 66
Revised draft Guidelines on transparency in the scope of net neutrality: best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67
Consultation report
In other words, the report about the public consultation has been published:
BEREC report on the public consultation on the draft BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality BoR (11) 66 (December 2011; 15 pages)
With a variety of respondents from different backgrounds, the contributions contain a number of approaches and opinions on the best manner to proceed regarding many issues.
Thus, the consultation report mainly provides a general summary of various opinions, without delving into specific contributions. Recommended reading for people interested in net neutrality issues.
One outcome is worth mentioning in order to link the draft guidelines with the final version (page 15):
Since the received general comments on net neutrality were very numerous and extensive, it was decided in particular to change the title of the document to “BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches”, to better reflect the intended scope of the guidelines and avoid any further confusion in this respect.
Approved guidelines
The guidelines approved for publication by the BEREC Board of Regulators (BoR):
BEREC Guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality: Best practices and recommended approaches BoR (11) 67 (December 2011; 69 pages)
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 27 December 2011
eCommunications: BEREC Work Programme 2012
The blog post What is the EU doing for growth and jobs? presented the main economic reform programmes in the European Union. The entry Electronic communications in EU: BEREC blog posts focused on one part of the ongoing work on the Digital Agenda and the Digital Single Market, by compiling recent articles about the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC).
BEREC Work Programme 2012 documents
The public process started with the draft Work Programme BoR (11) 40 Rev1 (October 2011; 16 pages).
After the public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report on the public consultation BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages). The contributions from fifteen interested parties are available on the BEREC page for public consultations.
I presented the consultation procedure and the consultation report.
The BEREC Board of Regulators, meeting in Bucharest (Romania) 8-9 December 2011, decided to publish the consultation report and the adopted WP 2012:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators BoR (11) 62 (9 December 2011; 18 pages)
BEREC Work Programme 2012
BEREC noted that the Digital Agenda complements the objectives of the revised 2009 regulatory framework for eCommunications and welcomed the goals and ambitions set out therein (page 3).
BEREC contributes to the development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services by aiming to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (page 4).
The Work Programme 2012 discusses BEREC's key objectives and planned actions with regard to (pages 5-11):
* Framework Directive Article 7/7a procedures
* International roaming (including the reforms proposed by the Commission)
* Universal service provisions (including the recent review communication from the Commission)
* Consumer empowerment (including transparent pricing and broadband speeds)
* Network neutrality (with key issues: transparency, minimum service requirements, discrimination, IP interconnection)
* Next generation networks (NGN) and access (NGA)
* Evaluation of BEREC and its office
Further topics are presented from page 11. They include (although I have not respected the difference between levels of headlines):
* Consistency of remedies and further developments
* Review and update of BEREC Common Positions (CPs)
* Implementation of key remedies
* Non-discrimination
* Regulatory accounting
* Implementation of recommendations
* Recommendation on termination rates
* Benchmarks
* Promotion of broadband
* Access to special rate services
* Cross-border and demand side related issues
* Business services
* Cooperation with RSPG and ENISA
* International cooperation
The BEREC Work Programme 2012 offers clear information about the ongoing and future activities, but leaving scope for queries from the EU institutions.
Nit-picking: BEREC is a body for cooperation between national regulators and its other stakeholders are mainly expert market participants. Still, even among them, far from everyone is a walking dictionary of English acronyms. BEREC could afford the luxury to explain each abbreviation at least when it first appears.
Ralf Grahn
BEREC Work Programme 2012 documents
The public process started with the draft Work Programme BoR (11) 40 Rev1 (October 2011; 16 pages).
After the public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report on the public consultation BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages). The contributions from fifteen interested parties are available on the BEREC page for public consultations.
I presented the consultation procedure and the consultation report.
The BEREC Board of Regulators, meeting in Bucharest (Romania) 8-9 December 2011, decided to publish the consultation report and the adopted WP 2012:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators BoR (11) 62 (9 December 2011; 18 pages)
BEREC Work Programme 2012
BEREC noted that the Digital Agenda complements the objectives of the revised 2009 regulatory framework for eCommunications and welcomed the goals and ambitions set out therein (page 3).
BEREC contributes to the development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services by aiming to ensure a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications (page 4).
The Work Programme 2012 discusses BEREC's key objectives and planned actions with regard to (pages 5-11):
* Framework Directive Article 7/7a procedures
* International roaming (including the reforms proposed by the Commission)
* Universal service provisions (including the recent review communication from the Commission)
* Consumer empowerment (including transparent pricing and broadband speeds)
* Network neutrality (with key issues: transparency, minimum service requirements, discrimination, IP interconnection)
* Next generation networks (NGN) and access (NGA)
* Evaluation of BEREC and its office
Further topics are presented from page 11. They include (although I have not respected the difference between levels of headlines):
* Consistency of remedies and further developments
* Review and update of BEREC Common Positions (CPs)
* Implementation of key remedies
* Non-discrimination
* Regulatory accounting
* Implementation of recommendations
* Recommendation on termination rates
* Benchmarks
* Promotion of broadband
* Access to special rate services
* Cross-border and demand side related issues
* Business services
* Cooperation with RSPG and ENISA
* International cooperation
The BEREC Work Programme 2012 offers clear information about the ongoing and future activities, but leaving scope for queries from the EU institutions.
Nit-picking: BEREC is a body for cooperation between national regulators and its other stakeholders are mainly expert market participants. Still, even among them, far from everyone is a walking dictionary of English acronyms. BEREC could afford the luxury to explain each abbreviation at least when it first appears.
Ralf Grahn
Electronic communications in EU: BEREC blog posts
The previous blog post What is the EU doing for growth and jobs? painted a background picture of main reform programmes in the European Union.
In this context the Digital Agenda and the Digital Single Market are among the catchwords for growth-enhancing and life-enriching reforms in the EU.
If we go beyond the EU institutions in the important area of electronic communications, we find BEREC as a link between political declarations and market realities.
BEREC blog posts
In a number of blog posts we have discussed the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), established by EU regulation 1211/2009 and with its office recently inaugurated in Riga (Latvia). These background posts are in English (EN), Finnish (FI) and Swedish (SV).
Grahnblawg (SV): Berec om nätneutralitet och öppenhet
Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Euroopan sähköisen viestinnän sääntelyviranomaisten yhteistyöelin (BEREC)
Grahnlaw (EN): Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Grahnlaw (EN): EU electronic communications: BEREC medium term strategy consultation
Grahnlaw (EN): EU electronic communications: BEREC Work Programme 2012
Grahnlaw (EN): BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 consultation procedure
Grahnlaw (EN): Report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012
Grahnblawg (SV): Elektronisk kommunikation i EU: Bakgrund till Berec 2012
Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Sähköisen viestinnän sääntely EU:ssa: taustalla BEREC
***
Our next step takes us from the BEREC background to the substance of the Work Programme 2012.
Ralf Grahn
In this context the Digital Agenda and the Digital Single Market are among the catchwords for growth-enhancing and life-enriching reforms in the EU.
If we go beyond the EU institutions in the important area of electronic communications, we find BEREC as a link between political declarations and market realities.
BEREC blog posts
In a number of blog posts we have discussed the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), established by EU regulation 1211/2009 and with its office recently inaugurated in Riga (Latvia). These background posts are in English (EN), Finnish (FI) and Swedish (SV).
Grahnblawg (SV): Berec om nätneutralitet och öppenhet
Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Euroopan sähköisen viestinnän sääntelyviranomaisten yhteistyöelin (BEREC)
Grahnlaw (EN): Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Grahnlaw (EN): EU electronic communications: BEREC medium term strategy consultation
Grahnlaw (EN): EU electronic communications: BEREC Work Programme 2012
Grahnlaw (EN): BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 consultation procedure
Grahnlaw (EN): Report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012
Grahnblawg (SV): Elektronisk kommunikation i EU: Bakgrund till Berec 2012
Eurooppaoikeus (FI): Sähköisen viestinnän sääntely EU:ssa: taustalla BEREC
***
Our next step takes us from the BEREC background to the substance of the Work Programme 2012.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 26 December 2011
What is the EU doing for growth and jobs?
The European Council has repeatedly endorsed and called for a Digital Single Market, as well as other growth reforms. This quote comes from the conclusions 9 December 2011 (EUCO 139/11; page 1, point 2):
In most EU member states the government coffers are empty and for some countries public borrowing (even refinancing) has become prohibitively expensive. Despite the glide into recession, there is scant hope for massive stimulus through state budgets.
Governments are mainly left with the opportunity to undertake qualitative growth reforms, in order to unleash the potential for a return to economic growth, prosperity and job creation. The sooner, the better, but becoming competitive often means breaking societal taboos in the very member states where the reforms have been lagging.
Without going into the substance, here is a compilation of the main EU level programmes to engender growth and new jobs.
Reforms for growth and jobs
Competitiveness is a key concept. For the convenience of readers, here are a few sources regarding proposals and developments to unleash growth potential in the European Union.
Single Market Act
The Single Market Act – twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence – and the latest developments.
EU2020 and flagship initiatives
The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, with seven flagship initiatives:
Digital Agenda for Europe, including the fresh Annual Progress Report 2011 (22 December 2011), where developments regarding the Pillar 1 aim ”A vibrant digital single market” are recorded on pages 2-6.
Innovation Union, including the report State of the Innovation Union 2011; Brussels, 2.12.2011 COM(2011) 849 final
Youth on the Move
A Resource-efficient Europe
An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era, including the monitoring report Industrial Policy: Reinforcing competitiveness; Brussels, 14.10.2011 COM(2011) 642 final, or the fuller version including SEC(2011) 1187. Also the European Competetiveness Report 2011.
An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs. Also the report Employment and Social Developments in Europe (15 December 2011), downloadable here.
European platform against poverty and social exclusion. Also the report Employment and Social Developments in Europe (15 December 2011), downloadable here.
Annual Growth Survey 2012
Annual Growth Survey 2012 VOL. 1/5; Brussels, 23.11.2011 COM(2011) 815 final
The four AGS Annexes Progress Report on Europe 2020 (Volume 2), Macro-economic Report (Volume 3), Draft Joint Employment Report (Volume 4) and Growth-friendly tax policies in Member States and better tax coordination in the EU (Volume 5), are downloadable here.
Smart Regulation
The communication Smart Regulation in the European Union, Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final, is a part of the Better Regulation strategy. The recent report Minimizing regulatory burden for SMEs - Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises, Brussels, 23.11.2011 COM(2011) 803 final, was endorsed by the European Council, as we saw above.
Ralf Grahn
Recalling the key priority areas for growth it identified in October 2011, in particular, the Single Market Act, the Digital Single Market and the reduction of overall regulatory burden for SMEs and microenterprises, the European Council stressed the need to swiftly adopt the measures with the most potential to boost growth and jobs. It therefore supports the principle of a fast-track programme and invites the Council and the European Parliament to give particular priority to the speedy examination of the proposals identified by the Commission, including in its Annual Growth Survey, as having substantial growth potential. It endorses the actions proposed by the Commission in its report on minimising regulatory burdens for SMEs.
In most EU member states the government coffers are empty and for some countries public borrowing (even refinancing) has become prohibitively expensive. Despite the glide into recession, there is scant hope for massive stimulus through state budgets.
Governments are mainly left with the opportunity to undertake qualitative growth reforms, in order to unleash the potential for a return to economic growth, prosperity and job creation. The sooner, the better, but becoming competitive often means breaking societal taboos in the very member states where the reforms have been lagging.
Without going into the substance, here is a compilation of the main EU level programmes to engender growth and new jobs.
Reforms for growth and jobs
Competitiveness is a key concept. For the convenience of readers, here are a few sources regarding proposals and developments to unleash growth potential in the European Union.
Single Market Act
The Single Market Act – twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence – and the latest developments.
EU2020 and flagship initiatives
The Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, with seven flagship initiatives:
Digital Agenda for Europe, including the fresh Annual Progress Report 2011 (22 December 2011), where developments regarding the Pillar 1 aim ”A vibrant digital single market” are recorded on pages 2-6.
Innovation Union, including the report State of the Innovation Union 2011; Brussels, 2.12.2011 COM(2011) 849 final
Youth on the Move
A Resource-efficient Europe
An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era, including the monitoring report Industrial Policy: Reinforcing competitiveness; Brussels, 14.10.2011 COM(2011) 642 final, or the fuller version including SEC(2011) 1187. Also the European Competetiveness Report 2011.
An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs. Also the report Employment and Social Developments in Europe (15 December 2011), downloadable here.
European platform against poverty and social exclusion. Also the report Employment and Social Developments in Europe (15 December 2011), downloadable here.
Annual Growth Survey 2012
Annual Growth Survey 2012 VOL. 1/5; Brussels, 23.11.2011 COM(2011) 815 final
The four AGS Annexes Progress Report on Europe 2020 (Volume 2), Macro-economic Report (Volume 3), Draft Joint Employment Report (Volume 4) and Growth-friendly tax policies in Member States and better tax coordination in the EU (Volume 5), are downloadable here.
Smart Regulation
The communication Smart Regulation in the European Union, Brussels, 8.10.2010 COM(2010) 543 final, is a part of the Better Regulation strategy. The recent report Minimizing regulatory burden for SMEs - Adapting EU regulation to the needs of micro-enterprises, Brussels, 23.11.2011 COM(2011) 803 final, was endorsed by the European Council, as we saw above.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 25 December 2011
Report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012
BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, is an important cog in the machinery to deliver on the Digital Agenda for Europe. BEREC enhances cooperation among national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and strengthens the internal market in electronic communications networks.
In the previous blog post I looked at some procedural aspects (transparency) and the scope of ”interested parties”. Here I turn to the contents of the report with the Work Programme 2012 consultation summary.
Following the WP 2012 public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report. The fifteen stakeholder contributions are available in full on the BEREC page for public consultations.
The consultation summary title more exactly:
BEREC report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages)
WP consultation report
The report advances through the draft WP, mentioning both the comments made by the interested parties and the proposed reactions prepared for the Board of Regulators (BoR).
Thus, the contributions offer an overview of issues seen as critical, at least by some. They also indicate (group) interests of individual contributors regarding electronic communications in Europe.
In addition to themes covered by the draft WP, contributors proposed additional issues to address in the course of BEREC work.
WP 2012 adapted
Here are a few issues where BEREC indicated a clear will to adapt the text of the final Work Programme 2012 (although naturally feedback can influence future actions without textual adjustments). I quote the theme and the BEREC comment.
Universal Service Provisions: The remarks made by PhoneAbility, Telecom Italia and SFR where taken into account and the theme of calculation of net costs has been added to the Work Programme.
Recommendation on termination rates: As a result BEREC added the evaluation of SMS termination to the Work Programme.
Benchmarks: BEREC added the evaluation to include further benchmark exercises in the future to the Work Programme.
Access to special rate services: BEREC takes note of the comments. The concrete suggestions such as DQ services have been added to the Work Programme.
Cross-border and demand side related issues: BEREC is glad to see so much support for this issue. The harmonisation question as well as further detailed evaluation in the field of cross-border issues and business services will be covered in the Work Programme with regard to the outcome of two reports on this issue by the end of 2011.
Cooperation with RSPG (Radio Spectrum Policy Group) and ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency): BEREC will evaluate questions of further harmonisation in the Work Program Programme.
Additional items... Migration from legacy services: BEREC welcomes the comment made on this issue and will look into it within the existing EWGs.
***
In some cases, such as the adoption of certain standards for seamless interoperability and the creation of a single market for pan-European businesses, BEREC saw the proposals as going beyond its remit.
Ralf Grahn
In the previous blog post I looked at some procedural aspects (transparency) and the scope of ”interested parties”. Here I turn to the contents of the report with the Work Programme 2012 consultation summary.
Following the WP 2012 public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report. The fifteen stakeholder contributions are available in full on the BEREC page for public consultations.
The consultation summary title more exactly:
BEREC report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages)
WP consultation report
The report advances through the draft WP, mentioning both the comments made by the interested parties and the proposed reactions prepared for the Board of Regulators (BoR).
Thus, the contributions offer an overview of issues seen as critical, at least by some. They also indicate (group) interests of individual contributors regarding electronic communications in Europe.
In addition to themes covered by the draft WP, contributors proposed additional issues to address in the course of BEREC work.
WP 2012 adapted
Here are a few issues where BEREC indicated a clear will to adapt the text of the final Work Programme 2012 (although naturally feedback can influence future actions without textual adjustments). I quote the theme and the BEREC comment.
Universal Service Provisions: The remarks made by PhoneAbility, Telecom Italia and SFR where taken into account and the theme of calculation of net costs has been added to the Work Programme.
Recommendation on termination rates: As a result BEREC added the evaluation of SMS termination to the Work Programme.
Benchmarks: BEREC added the evaluation to include further benchmark exercises in the future to the Work Programme.
Access to special rate services: BEREC takes note of the comments. The concrete suggestions such as DQ services have been added to the Work Programme.
Cross-border and demand side related issues: BEREC is glad to see so much support for this issue. The harmonisation question as well as further detailed evaluation in the field of cross-border issues and business services will be covered in the Work Programme with regard to the outcome of two reports on this issue by the end of 2011.
Cooperation with RSPG (Radio Spectrum Policy Group) and ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency): BEREC will evaluate questions of further harmonisation in the Work Program Programme.
Additional items... Migration from legacy services: BEREC welcomes the comment made on this issue and will look into it within the existing EWGs.
***
In some cases, such as the adoption of certain standards for seamless interoperability and the creation of a single market for pan-European businesses, BEREC saw the proposals as going beyond its remit.
Ralf Grahn
BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 consultation procedure
After the public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report on the public consultation. The fifteen stakeholder contributions are available in full on the BEREC page for public consultations.
The consultation summary:
BEREC report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages)
In this blog post I present the basic procedural aspects, before I look at the ”interested parties”.
Transparency
The BEREC Regulation 1211/2009, published two years ago, is available in 23 official EU languages; the English version:
REGULATION (EC) No 1211/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (Text with EEA relevance); OJEU 18.12.2009 L 337/1
With regard to transparency, Article 17, in Chapter IV General Provisions, lays down a general rule on consultation, subject to confidentiality (Article 20) and further to the rules on public access to documents (Article 22):
The annual work programme is specifically mentioned as requiring consultation ahead of adoption, in Article 5(4) about the tasks of the Board of Regulators:
By publishing the draft, the consultation announcement, the contributions, the consultation summary and the final Work Programme 2012, BEREC acted in accordance with the principles on transparency. (A minor detail: The calls for contributions could further identify the document in question by adding the number to the name as well as by linking.)
Interested parties
During this consultation regarding future activities BEREC received contributions from fifteen stakeholders interested enough to want to influence electronic communications policies at the European level (summary page 2, consultations web page): EIDQ Association – the Association for the Directory Information and Related Search Industry, FTTH Council of Europe, The Number – Directory provider, The Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition Europe, Virgin Media, Telekom Austria, Telecom Italia, Belgacom, INTUG – International Telecommunications Users Group, ECTA, Cable Europe, Bundesverband Breitbandkommunikation, ETNO, Phone Ability and SFR.
In comparison, on a more concrete issue, the public consultation on draft guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality received 77 contributions (report BoR (11) 66).
On the other hand, some public consultations have received far fewer comments than the draft Work Programme 2012.
Participation is still way below the true numbers of participants in market and regulation activities. My impression is that the public and private players in the European electronic communications markets have not yet fully discovered BEREC as a new hinge between Digital Agenda aims at the European level and (converging) regulatory activity at the national level.
Ralf Grahn
The consultation summary:
BEREC report on the consultation of the BEREC draft Work Programme 2012 BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages)
In this blog post I present the basic procedural aspects, before I look at the ”interested parties”.
Transparency
The BEREC Regulation 1211/2009, published two years ago, is available in 23 official EU languages; the English version:
REGULATION (EC) No 1211/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (Text with EEA relevance); OJEU 18.12.2009 L 337/1
With regard to transparency, Article 17, in Chapter IV General Provisions, lays down a general rule on consultation, subject to confidentiality (Article 20) and further to the rules on public access to documents (Article 22):
Article 17
Consultation
Where appropriate, BEREC shall, before adopting opinions, regulatory best practice or reports, consult interested parties and give them the opportunity to comment within a reasonable period. BEREC shall, without prejudice to Article 20, make the results of the consultation procedure publicly available.
The annual work programme is specifically mentioned as requiring consultation ahead of adoption, in Article 5(4) about the tasks of the Board of Regulators:
4. The Board of Regulators shall, after consulting interested parties in accordance with Article 17, adopt the annual work programme of BEREC before the end of each year preceding that to which the work programme relates. The Board of Regulators shall transmit the annual work programme to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission as soon as it is adopted.
By publishing the draft, the consultation announcement, the contributions, the consultation summary and the final Work Programme 2012, BEREC acted in accordance with the principles on transparency. (A minor detail: The calls for contributions could further identify the document in question by adding the number to the name as well as by linking.)
Interested parties
During this consultation regarding future activities BEREC received contributions from fifteen stakeholders interested enough to want to influence electronic communications policies at the European level (summary page 2, consultations web page): EIDQ Association – the Association for the Directory Information and Related Search Industry, FTTH Council of Europe, The Number – Directory provider, The Voice on the Net (VON) Coalition Europe, Virgin Media, Telekom Austria, Telecom Italia, Belgacom, INTUG – International Telecommunications Users Group, ECTA, Cable Europe, Bundesverband Breitbandkommunikation, ETNO, Phone Ability and SFR.
In comparison, on a more concrete issue, the public consultation on draft guidelines on Transparency in the scope of Net Neutrality received 77 contributions (report BoR (11) 66).
On the other hand, some public consultations have received far fewer comments than the draft Work Programme 2012.
Participation is still way below the true numbers of participants in market and regulation activities. My impression is that the public and private players in the European electronic communications markets have not yet fully discovered BEREC as a new hinge between Digital Agenda aims at the European level and (converging) regulatory activity at the national level.
Ralf Grahn
EU electronic communications: BEREC Work Programme 2012
After the brief presentation of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), we looked at the ongoing public consultation on the draft BEREC medium term strategy outlook.
Relating to the Digital Agenda for Europe, in this blog post we turn to the BEREC Work Programme 2012 documents.
Board of Regulators
The conclusions of the BEREC Board of Regulators meeting in Bucharest (Romania) 8-9 December 2011 deal with the Work Programme for next year in point 7 (page 3). The conclusions after some editing:
7. Draft 2012 BEREC WP
Summary of the contributions received during the public consultation on the 2012 draft BEREC WP BoR (11) 61
Revised 2012 draft BEREC WP BoR (11) 62
Proposal for operationalisation of the BEREC WP 2012 – set-up of EWGs BoR (11) 63
Background
The 2012 BEREC Chair (RTR) presented the results from the public consultation on the BEREC WP for 2012, held in the period 6 October - 4 November 2011, the revised draft WP and a proposal for operationalisation of the BEREC WP 2012, incl. the set-up of EWGs.
Conclusion
The BEREC 2012 WP and the consultation report were approved for publication and implementation.
Documents
If we concentrate on the main documents for the public, we have the draft Work Programme BoR (11) 40 Rev1 (October 2011; 16 pages).
After the public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report on the public consultation BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages). The fifteen contributions are available also on the BEREC page for public consultations.
The final WP:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators BoR (11) 62 (9 December 2011; 18 pages)
***
For the future BEREC could consider linking directly to the relevant documents in its conclusions.
I am going to look at the consultation summary and the final Work Programme 2012 in future blog posts.
Ralf Grahn
Relating to the Digital Agenda for Europe, in this blog post we turn to the BEREC Work Programme 2012 documents.
Board of Regulators
The conclusions of the BEREC Board of Regulators meeting in Bucharest (Romania) 8-9 December 2011 deal with the Work Programme for next year in point 7 (page 3). The conclusions after some editing:
7. Draft 2012 BEREC WP
Summary of the contributions received during the public consultation on the 2012 draft BEREC WP BoR (11) 61
Revised 2012 draft BEREC WP BoR (11) 62
Proposal for operationalisation of the BEREC WP 2012 – set-up of EWGs BoR (11) 63
Background
The 2012 BEREC Chair (RTR) presented the results from the public consultation on the BEREC WP for 2012, held in the period 6 October - 4 November 2011, the revised draft WP and a proposal for operationalisation of the BEREC WP 2012, incl. the set-up of EWGs.
Conclusion
The BEREC 2012 WP and the consultation report were approved for publication and implementation.
Documents
If we concentrate on the main documents for the public, we have the draft Work Programme BoR (11) 40 Rev1 (October 2011; 16 pages).
After the public consultation from 6 October to 4 November 2011, including an oral hearing 21 October, BEREC published a report on the public consultation BoR (11) 61 (9 December 2011; 15 pages). The fifteen contributions are available also on the BEREC page for public consultations.
The final WP:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators BoR (11) 62 (9 December 2011; 18 pages)
***
For the future BEREC could consider linking directly to the relevant documents in its conclusions.
I am going to look at the consultation summary and the final Work Programme 2012 in future blog posts.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 24 December 2011
EU electronic communications: BEREC medium term strategy consultation
In the introduction to the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), I mentioned that BEREC has announced a public consultation, which runs until 16 January 2012.
Board of Regulators
The latest meeting of the Board of Regulators (BoR) took place 8 to 9 December 2011 in Bucharest (Romania).
According to the conclusions the BoR held an extensive discussion on the draft medium term strategy and decided to publish it for consultation. The draft:
Draft BEREC medium term strategy outlook; 14 December 2011 BoR (11) 58 (7 pages)
Medium term strategy
In order to achieve a multi-annual perspective, BEREC is elaborating strategic goals and promises to present a document outlining its midterm strategy in the course of 2012.
According to the BEREC announcement the public consultation runs until 16 January 2012. The draft strategy document outlines the activities of this advisory body for the next 3 to 5 years.
Internal market for electronic communications
In the draft, BEREC starts by setting out its role in general terms as a contributor to the Digital Agenda, before going into detail (page 2):
Emphasis on the digital single market is added through the announcement of the main focus (page 3):
Priorities
After describing some trends in infrastructure and services and among consumers (page 3-4), the BEREC draft discusses the following core or priority issues for the coming years (page 4-5):
The BEREC draft then turns to the quality of its output, by describing its level of ambition regarding common positions, guidelines, the sharing of best practices, information and experiences between NRAs, the monitoring and benchmarking exercises, as well as Article 7/7a procedures related to the Framework Directive (see above) (page 6).
The last page mentions the need for efficiency during times of budget austerity for the NRAs.
Comment
In this first draft strategy BEREC has placed a few signposts outlining main goals and principles for the longer term. For those interested, it offers an introduction to the activities of BEREC.
In the midst of budget consolidation and weakening growth prospects, the European Council has repeatedly called for the establishment of a European digital single market as a means to engender economic growth and job creation. BEREC and the NRAs are in a strategic position between European level aims and the reality of national level regulation.
The stakeholders – including telecommunications enterprises, online service providers and content creators - now have the opportunity to contribute to the final version, although the annual Work Programmes can be expected to remain the main source for plans in the short term.
***
I wish the readers of my blogs, as well as my Facebook and Twitter friends, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2012!
Ralf Grahn
Board of Regulators
The latest meeting of the Board of Regulators (BoR) took place 8 to 9 December 2011 in Bucharest (Romania).
According to the conclusions the BoR held an extensive discussion on the draft medium term strategy and decided to publish it for consultation. The draft:
Draft BEREC medium term strategy outlook; 14 December 2011 BoR (11) 58 (7 pages)
Medium term strategy
In order to achieve a multi-annual perspective, BEREC is elaborating strategic goals and promises to present a document outlining its midterm strategy in the course of 2012.
According to the BEREC announcement the public consultation runs until 16 January 2012. The draft strategy document outlines the activities of this advisory body for the next 3 to 5 years.
Internal market for electronic communications
In the draft, BEREC starts by setting out its role in general terms as a contributor to the Digital Agenda, before going into detail (page 2):
BEREC’s task is to promote the consistent application of the regulatory framework and thereby contribute to the development of the internal market for electronic communications. In doing so, BEREC aims to play its part in the promotion of growth and innovation in the EU. BEREC can also provide considerable expertise and professional advice on European policy initiatives and related debates in the electronic communications sector.
Emphasis on the digital single market is added through the announcement of the main focus (page 3):
The main focus of BEREC in the medium term will be on its contribution to the realisation of the internal market. The contributions in this area, both upon request from the EU institutions and on its own initiative, will include in particular:
a. Adopting common regulatory approaches and best practices in areas where differences impede the internal market, and monitoring conformity with those approaches thereafter.
b. Issuing robust and respected opinions on Article 7 cases. [Footnote 1 adds the explanation: Article 7 and article 7a of the amended Framework Directive describe the process in case an NRA takes a market analysis decision. That NRA has to notify its draft decision to the Commission and to BEREC. Both BEREC and the Commission can then provide the NRA with advice. If, in a later stage, a final decision is notified, the Commission may have serious doubts regarding the decision. In such a case, the Commission has to ask BEREC for advice. The Commission has to take the utmost account of that advice.]
c. Advising the EU institutions on draft legislation and regulation.
Priorities
After describing some trends in infrastructure and services and among consumers (page 3-4), the BEREC draft discusses the following core or priority issues for the coming years (page 4-5):
1. Infrastructural developments: Next generation networks
2. Consumer empowerment: boosting consumer choice and protection
3. Service related developments
The BEREC draft then turns to the quality of its output, by describing its level of ambition regarding common positions, guidelines, the sharing of best practices, information and experiences between NRAs, the monitoring and benchmarking exercises, as well as Article 7/7a procedures related to the Framework Directive (see above) (page 6).
The last page mentions the need for efficiency during times of budget austerity for the NRAs.
Comment
In this first draft strategy BEREC has placed a few signposts outlining main goals and principles for the longer term. For those interested, it offers an introduction to the activities of BEREC.
In the midst of budget consolidation and weakening growth prospects, the European Council has repeatedly called for the establishment of a European digital single market as a means to engender economic growth and job creation. BEREC and the NRAs are in a strategic position between European level aims and the reality of national level regulation.
The stakeholders – including telecommunications enterprises, online service providers and content creators - now have the opportunity to contribute to the final version, although the annual Work Programmes can be expected to remain the main source for plans in the short term.
***
I wish the readers of my blogs, as well as my Facebook and Twitter friends, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2012!
Ralf Grahn
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
One part of the new EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, the telecoms package approved in 2009, was the establishment of BEREC.
The BEREC Regulation 1211/2009, published two years ago, is available in 23 official EU languages; the English version:
REGULATION (EC) No 1211/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (Text with EEA relevance); OJEU 18.12.2009 L 337/1
It did not take the governments of the EU member states more than about half a year to agree to establish the BEREC office in Riga (Latvia), or maybe they waited for the transposition date of the telecoms package to pass:
DECISION TAKEN BY COMMON ACCORD BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES of 31 May 2010 on the location of the seat of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) (2010/349/EU); OJEU 23.6.2010 L 156/12
The BEREC office was inaugurated 14 October 2011, so it has been fully operational in Riga for less than three months.
The BEREC website can be described as spartan. Given the area – electronic communications – the absence of an RSS feed comes as a surprise. There is no social media presence (blog, Twitter, Facebook) I am aware of.
Board of Regulators
According to Regulation 1211/2009, BEREC is composed of a Board of Regulators (BoR), with one member from the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) in each member state. (BoR Rules of Procedure)
The NRAs from European Economic Area (EEA) states and from the candidates for EU accession have observer status.
The Regulation 1211/2009 established the office as a Community body with legal personality, with a Management Committee composed of one representative per member state NRA. (MC Rules of Procedure)
National Regulatory Authorities NRAs
In addition to the 27 EU member NRAs, there are observer NRAs from Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. The names and links are on offer here.
Digital Agenda & digital single market
At the inauguration ceremony in Riga, Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes outlined the contribution of BEREC and the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in the success of the Digital Agenda for Europe goal of a vibrant digital single market. The crucial tasks she mentioned were roaming, net neutrality, superfast broadband and getting every European digital.
BEREC medium term strategy consultation
BEREC has announced a public consultation, which runs until 16 January 2012. The draft strategy document the stakeholders are invited to comment on is:
Draft BEREC medium term strategy outlook; 14 December 2011 BoR (11) 58 (7 pages)
BEREC Work Programme 2012
The recently published Work Programme for 2012 offers more detail about the coming activities in the short term:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators; 9 December 2011 BoR (11) 62 (18 pages)
Ralf Grahn
The BEREC Regulation 1211/2009, published two years ago, is available in 23 official EU languages; the English version:
REGULATION (EC) No 1211/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (Text with EEA relevance); OJEU 18.12.2009 L 337/1
It did not take the governments of the EU member states more than about half a year to agree to establish the BEREC office in Riga (Latvia), or maybe they waited for the transposition date of the telecoms package to pass:
DECISION TAKEN BY COMMON ACCORD BETWEEN THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES of 31 May 2010 on the location of the seat of the Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) (2010/349/EU); OJEU 23.6.2010 L 156/12
The BEREC office was inaugurated 14 October 2011, so it has been fully operational in Riga for less than three months.
The BEREC website can be described as spartan. Given the area – electronic communications – the absence of an RSS feed comes as a surprise. There is no social media presence (blog, Twitter, Facebook) I am aware of.
Board of Regulators
According to Regulation 1211/2009, BEREC is composed of a Board of Regulators (BoR), with one member from the National Regulatory Authority (NRA) in each member state. (BoR Rules of Procedure)
The NRAs from European Economic Area (EEA) states and from the candidates for EU accession have observer status.
The Regulation 1211/2009 established the office as a Community body with legal personality, with a Management Committee composed of one representative per member state NRA. (MC Rules of Procedure)
National Regulatory Authorities NRAs
In addition to the 27 EU member NRAs, there are observer NRAs from Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. The names and links are on offer here.
Digital Agenda & digital single market
At the inauguration ceremony in Riga, Commission vice-president Neelie Kroes outlined the contribution of BEREC and the National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) in the success of the Digital Agenda for Europe goal of a vibrant digital single market. The crucial tasks she mentioned were roaming, net neutrality, superfast broadband and getting every European digital.
BEREC medium term strategy consultation
BEREC has announced a public consultation, which runs until 16 January 2012. The draft strategy document the stakeholders are invited to comment on is:
Draft BEREC medium term strategy outlook; 14 December 2011 BoR (11) 58 (7 pages)
BEREC Work Programme 2012
The recently published Work Programme for 2012 offers more detail about the coming activities in the short term:
Work Programme 2012 BEREC Board of Regulators; 9 December 2011 BoR (11) 62 (18 pages)
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
European Union versus SOPA and Protect IP Act?
The European Parliament took a stand against the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill debated in the US House of Representatives and its sister, the Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) discussed in the Senate.
Both bills raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.
How about the other EU institutions?
Here are the results of a quick search for public EU materials through the EEAS web pages.
European External Action Service EEAS
We start from the country page for the United States of America at the European External Action Service EEAS, where we find no specific item dedicated to the issue. However, there is material about the recent summit between the European Union and the United States of America.
EU-US summit
We take a closer look at the recent EU-US summit, 28 November 2011. Did the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the high representative Catherine Ashton or trade commissioner Karel De Gucht raise issues related to the internet in their discussions with president Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton?
In the EU-US Summit Joint statement, Washington, 28 November 2011 (document 17805/11), paragraph 4 mentioned the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), underlining the need to avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards affecting trade, but also highlighting the the efforts to protect intellectual property rights (IPR):
The mandate of the new TEC high level working group on jobs and growth includes regulatory issues affecting trade (press release MEMO/11/843). Thus, it could be a forum for the prevention of new barriers.
Transatlantic Economic Council TEC
The Commission's DG Trade provides an overview of the meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council TEC, i.a.:
The press release IP/11/402 notes the agreement on a set of ten fundamental principles for trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services, bilaterally and in order to open up markets for EU and US companies worldwide.
Logically, bilateral and globally propagated standards for information and communication technology (ICT) should exclude the creation of unilateral barriers, although the agreed principles come equipped with a caveat, far from clear in scope:
The two-page document adds that financial services (one of the SOPA concerns) are excluded from the scope:
European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services (4 April 2011)
The ten principles are briefly defined. Many of them could be affected by the SOPA and Protect IP bills.
Security and intellectual property or fundamental rights?
TFTP, ACTA, PNR... the list of invasive treaties problematic with regard to fundamental rights in the EU has grown.
The summit declaration and the TEC principles contain a few vague pointers, but what if the legislative powers in the USA decide to go even further than the executive, which works hard enough as it is to export its agendas on internet security and protection of intellectual property?
What have the EU institutions said and done? Where do they stand on freedoms and rights?
Ralf Grahn
Both bills raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.
How about the other EU institutions?
Here are the results of a quick search for public EU materials through the EEAS web pages.
European External Action Service EEAS
We start from the country page for the United States of America at the European External Action Service EEAS, where we find no specific item dedicated to the issue. However, there is material about the recent summit between the European Union and the United States of America.
EU-US summit
We take a closer look at the recent EU-US summit, 28 November 2011. Did the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the high representative Catherine Ashton or trade commissioner Karel De Gucht raise issues related to the internet in their discussions with president Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton?
In the EU-US Summit Joint statement, Washington, 28 November 2011 (document 17805/11), paragraph 4 mentioned the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), underlining the need to avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards affecting trade, but also highlighting the the efforts to protect intellectual property rights (IPR):
4. We applaud the success of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) on a wide range of issues and welcome the progress achieved in secure trade and supply chain security, electric vehicles and related infrastructure, regulatory practices, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. We encourage the TEC’s continued leadership in helping us avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards that adversely affects trade. We urge the TEC, together with our regulators and standard-setters to step up co-operation in key sectors such as nanotechnology and raw materials to develop compatible approaches to emerging technologies. We also instruct the TEC to pursue its work on strategic economic questions, not least in the field of investment, innovation policy, and the protection of intellectual property rights to level the playing field for our companies in third countries, in particular emerging economies.The leaders did pay respect to an undivided global internet, before plunging into the security-driven concrete agenda, in paragraph 22:
22. We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations — recognizing that respect for fundamental freedoms online, and joint efforts to strengthen security, are mutually reinforcing. We welcome the progress made by the EU-U.S. Working Group on Cyber-security and Cyber-crime, notably the successful Cyber Atlantic 2011 exercise. We endorse its ambitious goals for 2012, including combating online sexual abuse of children; enhancing the security of domain names and Internet Protocol addresses; promotion of international ratification, including by all EU Member States, of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime ideally by year’s end; establishing appropriate information exchange mechanisms to jointly engage with the private sector; and confronting the unfair market access barriers that European and U.S. technology companies face abroad.
The mandate of the new TEC high level working group on jobs and growth includes regulatory issues affecting trade (press release MEMO/11/843). Thus, it could be a forum for the prevention of new barriers.
Transatlantic Economic Council TEC
The Commission's DG Trade provides an overview of the meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council TEC, i.a.:
Information and Communication Technology: The EU and US reviewed the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) trade related principles which were agreed earlier this year and discussed ways of promoting the implementation of these principles within their bilateral economic relationship and in their trade negotiations with third countries. (IP/11/402)
The press release IP/11/402 notes the agreement on a set of ten fundamental principles for trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services, bilaterally and in order to open up markets for EU and US companies worldwide.
Logically, bilateral and globally propagated standards for information and communication technology (ICT) should exclude the creation of unilateral barriers, although the agreed principles come equipped with a caveat, far from clear in scope:
The EU-US Trade Principles for ICT Services have been agreed on a best endeavour basis and do not affect the rights of the EU or the US to maintain their respective policy approaches to the protection of intellectual property, privacy and personal data and the enhancement of cultural diversity.
The two-page document adds that financial services (one of the SOPA concerns) are excluded from the scope:
European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services (4 April 2011)
The ten principles are briefly defined. Many of them could be affected by the SOPA and Protect IP bills.
Security and intellectual property or fundamental rights?
TFTP, ACTA, PNR... the list of invasive treaties problematic with regard to fundamental rights in the EU has grown.
The summit declaration and the TEC principles contain a few vague pointers, but what if the legislative powers in the USA decide to go even further than the executive, which works hard enough as it is to export its agendas on internet security and protection of intellectual property?
What have the EU institutions said and done? Where do they stand on freedoms and rights?
Ralf Grahn
European Parliament versus SOPA and Protect IP Act
If passed, the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill debated in the US House of Representatives and its sister, the Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) discussed in the Senate raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.
How has the European Union reacted?
I hope that Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who is in charge of the Digital Agenda for Europe - @NeelieKroesEU on Twitter – responds to the question I tweeted yesterday.
We can record at least one reaction from an EU institution. Ahead of the EU-US summit in Washington DC on 28 November we saw a resolution from the European Parliament (EP).
European Parliament
Based on a joint motion for a resolution, replacing motions by the ECR, ALDE, S&D and PPE groups, on 17 November 2011 the European Parliament adopted a resolution P7_TA(2011)0510 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011. The EP stressed that the imperative of safeguarding freedom and security at home should not be met at the cost of sacrificing core principles relating to civil liberties and the need to uphold common standards on human rights.
Paragraph 26 was more specific:
Vikki Chowney on Econsultancy interprets this as a call by the EP for SOPA to be abandoned. So does Edward J. Black in the Huffington Post.
The EU affairs consultant Caroline De Cock - @linotherhino on Twitter – has tweeted on SOPA, including a reference to an article by three professors, Mark Lemley, David S. Levine and David G. Post, in the Stanford Law Review: Don't Break the Internet.
I would expect the EU to monitor and react visibly to such proposed long-arm statutes and jurisdiction. While we wait for the Commission to respond, we can search for statements from the EU and the US administration.
Ralf Grahn
How has the European Union reacted?
I hope that Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who is in charge of the Digital Agenda for Europe - @NeelieKroesEU on Twitter – responds to the question I tweeted yesterday.
We can record at least one reaction from an EU institution. Ahead of the EU-US summit in Washington DC on 28 November we saw a resolution from the European Parliament (EP).
European Parliament
Based on a joint motion for a resolution, replacing motions by the ECR, ALDE, S&D and PPE groups, on 17 November 2011 the European Parliament adopted a resolution P7_TA(2011)0510 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011. The EP stressed that the imperative of safeguarding freedom and security at home should not be met at the cost of sacrificing core principles relating to civil liberties and the need to uphold common standards on human rights.
Paragraph 26 was more specific:
26. Stresses the need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communication by refraining from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names;
Vikki Chowney on Econsultancy interprets this as a call by the EP for SOPA to be abandoned. So does Edward J. Black in the Huffington Post.
The EU affairs consultant Caroline De Cock - @linotherhino on Twitter – has tweeted on SOPA, including a reference to an article by three professors, Mark Lemley, David S. Levine and David G. Post, in the Stanford Law Review: Don't Break the Internet.
I would expect the EU to monitor and react visibly to such proposed long-arm statutes and jurisdiction. While we wait for the Commission to respond, we can search for statements from the EU and the US administration.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 18 December 2011
EU telecommunications: Public consultation on net neutrality (2010)
From the Digital Agenda for Europe communication 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2, our next step regarding the open and neutral nature of the internet takes us to the public consultation.
Public consultation
The Commission launched the promised public consultation on net neutrality 30 June 2010 (press release IP/10/860, available in 22 languages). The Commission wanted to know more about potential problems linked with certain forms of traffic management and whether the new telecom rules are sufficient to tackle them; technical and economic aspects; quality of service considerations; and whether net freedoms may be affected.
The Commission web page about the public consultation on the open internet and and net neutrality offers i.a. the consultation questionnaire, the responses and a summary, as well as video recordings from a seminar (”summit”) which discussed the issues in November 2010.
The Commission's questionnaire (12 pages) offers a presentation of the issues and indications of what the executive wanted respondents to comment on, but the focus was on (page 2):
For your convenience: Annex I on page 10 contains the Commission's 2009 declaration on net neutrality (also published in the Official Journal).
Responses
The consultation ended 30 September 2010, and on 9 November the Commission informed about the 318 responses through a press release (IP/10/1482, available in 22 languages), with main findings.
A summary report on the responses offers more detail (6 pages). The EU telecoms framework had still to be tested on the ground and various concerns were expressed with regard to the future, but the main findings indicated no need for new legislation, although further guidance might be welcome.
The responses of individual stakeholders can be found here.
Ralf Grahn
Public consultation
The Commission launched the promised public consultation on net neutrality 30 June 2010 (press release IP/10/860, available in 22 languages). The Commission wanted to know more about potential problems linked with certain forms of traffic management and whether the new telecom rules are sufficient to tackle them; technical and economic aspects; quality of service considerations; and whether net freedoms may be affected.
The Commission web page about the public consultation on the open internet and and net neutrality offers i.a. the consultation questionnaire, the responses and a summary, as well as video recordings from a seminar (”summit”) which discussed the issues in November 2010.
The Commission's questionnaire (12 pages) offers a presentation of the issues and indications of what the executive wanted respondents to comment on, but the focus was on (page 2):
This questionnaire therefore focuses principally on the behaviour of operators, and in particular how they may manage traffic flowing over their networks (through a set of practices commonly referred to as 'network management' or 'traffic management'), in order to see how this behaviour might impact on the 'net freedoms' of citizens (i.e. their 'ability to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice') [reference in footnote 1: This is a regulatory policy objective enshrined in Article 8 of the amended Framework Directive.]
This consultation invites views on how best to preserve the open and neutral character of the internet, given the will of the European Institutions to enshrine this goal as a policy objective and regulatory principle to be promoted by national regulatory authorities, and to consider whether further public policy responses are needed.
For your convenience: Annex I on page 10 contains the Commission's 2009 declaration on net neutrality (also published in the Official Journal).
Responses
The consultation ended 30 September 2010, and on 9 November the Commission informed about the 318 responses through a press release (IP/10/1482, available in 22 languages), with main findings.
A summary report on the responses offers more detail (6 pages). The EU telecoms framework had still to be tested on the ground and various concerns were expressed with regard to the future, but the main findings indicated no need for new legislation, although further guidance might be welcome.
The responses of individual stakeholders can be found here.
Ralf Grahn
EU Digital Agenda: Open internet and net neutrality background
I mentioned the EU TTE Council (transport, telecommunications and energy) 12 and 13 December 2011 on my blogs in Finnish, Swedish (here and here) and English. The TTE Council adopted conclusions which on five pages establish the open internet and net neutrality as a policy objective in Europe, while balancing between contradictory claims and interests.
Here I am going to take a web log approach on my blogs, recording the steps from the Digital Agenda.
Digital Agenda for Europe
Let us start upstream, returning to A Digital Agenda for Europe. The original communication was published 19 May 2010, even if the revised version is dated 26 August 2010. The proposal kicked off one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
The communication from the European Commission is available in 22 EU languages; here the English version:
A Digital Agenda for Europe; Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2
Open internet
The Digital Agenda communication offered this introduction to the openness of the internet (page 20-21), with a few indications about the occurring questions:
Net neutrality
Wikipedia offers a long introduction to the controversial topic Network neutrality. The article is general in scope, but most of the contents deal with developments and opinion in the United States. However, it discusses the legal situation in the European Union and a few member states (with some need for editing and updating).
Ralf Grahn
Here I am going to take a web log approach on my blogs, recording the steps from the Digital Agenda.
Digital Agenda for Europe
Let us start upstream, returning to A Digital Agenda for Europe. The original communication was published 19 May 2010, even if the revised version is dated 26 August 2010. The proposal kicked off one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
The communication from the European Commission is available in 22 EU languages; here the English version:
A Digital Agenda for Europe; Brussels, 26.8.2010 COM(2010) 245 final/2
Open internet
The Digital Agenda communication offered this introduction to the openness of the internet (page 20-21), with a few indications about the occurring questions:
2.4.3. Open and neutral internet
The Commission will also monitor closely the implementation of the new legislative provisions on the open and neutral character of the internet, which safeguard users' rights to access and distribute information online and ensure transparency about traffic management [Footnote 27 reference to: Article 8(4)(g) of the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; Articles 20(1)(b) and 21(3)(c) and (d) of the Universal Service Directive]. The Commission will launch a public consultation before summer 2010 as part of its more general commitment to report by the end of the year, in the light of market and technological developments, on whether additional guidance is required, in order to secure the basic objectives of freedom of expression, transparency, the need for investment in efficient and open networks, fair competition and openness to innovative business models.
Net neutrality
Wikipedia offers a long introduction to the controversial topic Network neutrality. The article is general in scope, but most of the contents deal with developments and opinion in the United States. However, it discusses the legal situation in the European Union and a few member states (with some need for editing and updating).
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 17 December 2011
Open internet and net neutrality in EU
The TTE Council of the European Union met to deal with transport and telecommunications issues:
3134th Council meeting Transport, Telecommunications and Energy; Brussels, 12 and 13 December 2011 (document 18416/11; 27 pages)
The general TTE conclusions offer an overview of the Council's response to the open internet and net neutrality, issued in relation to the Digital Agenda (pages 19-20):
Open internet and net neutrality
The general conclusions refer and link to the specific conclusions prepared by Coreper and dated 1 December 2011:
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "The open internet and net neutrality in Europe" - Adoption of Council conclusions (document 17904/11, available in the other EU languages as well; 9 pages)
If you want to be on the safe side, you can compare with the text distributed to the press after TTE adoption, at this point in English and French.
COM(2011) 222
There is a link to the communication from the Commission (Council document 9350/11), but through Eur-Lex we can access COM(2011) 222 in 22 languges and three document formats. Here to the English version (pdf):
The open internet and net neutrality in Europe; Brussels, 19.4.2011 COM(2011) 222 final (10 pages)
Ralf Grahn
3134th Council meeting Transport, Telecommunications and Energy; Brussels, 12 and 13 December 2011 (document 18416/11; 27 pages)
The general TTE conclusions offer an overview of the Council's response to the open internet and net neutrality, issued in relation to the Digital Agenda (pages 19-20):
Open internet and net neutrality
The Council adopted conclusions on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe (17904/11).
These conclusions were drawn up on the basis of the Commission communication on the subject published in April 2011 (9350/11). This communication seeks to fulfil the Commission commitment to preserve "the open and neutral character of the internet, taking full account of the will of the co-legislators now to enshrine net neutrality as a policy objective and regulatory principle to be promoted by national regulatory authorities". This commitment was made in its declaration on net neutrality when the 2009 telecoms package was concluded (OJ C 308, 18.12.2009, p.2).
In the conclusions the Council underlines, inter alia, the need to preserve the open and neutral character of the internet and consider net neutrality as a policy objective. It welcomes the Commission's intention to assess the need, based on investigations by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications' (BEREC), for more stringent measures and to publish additional guidance on net neutrality if necessary. In addition, it welcomes the Commission's commitments to monitor the implementation of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications and services and to issue a code of existing EU online rights by 2012.
The Commission is invited, inter alia, to assess, jointly with BEREC, the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds occurring in member states, and report to the Council and the Parliament on the situation thereof by 2012. Furthermore, the Commission is invited to provide additional information on the best practices in traffic management and on how to respond to the requirements of global service providers concerning quality and pricing of services.
Open internet and net neutrality
The general conclusions refer and link to the specific conclusions prepared by Coreper and dated 1 December 2011:
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - "The open internet and net neutrality in Europe" - Adoption of Council conclusions (document 17904/11, available in the other EU languages as well; 9 pages)
If you want to be on the safe side, you can compare with the text distributed to the press after TTE adoption, at this point in English and French.
COM(2011) 222
There is a link to the communication from the Commission (Council document 9350/11), but through Eur-Lex we can access COM(2011) 222 in 22 languges and three document formats. Here to the English version (pdf):
The open internet and net neutrality in Europe; Brussels, 19.4.2011 COM(2011) 222 final (10 pages)
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 15 December 2011
Euro sovereign
@HECParis has tweeted a manifesto by Jean Monnet chairs Stabilizing the Euro Area and the EU, posted on Facebook. Even if the article was posted 30 November 2011, many of the basics concerning the common currency are presented in a clear manner.
One fraught European summit and about two weeks of increasing turbulence later I want to turn to one aspect relating to my discussion about the need for a euro sovereign (latest post here), since some have doubted the relevance of the issue, while others have evaded this fundamental discussion.
If the debt levels and deficits of the basket cases USA, the UK and in the eurozone are more or less comparable, why do the markets shun the euro area?
The main difference seems to be the lack of a European sovereign for the common currency.
Are there better explanations?
Ralf Grahn
One fraught European summit and about two weeks of increasing turbulence later I want to turn to one aspect relating to my discussion about the need for a euro sovereign (latest post here), since some have doubted the relevance of the issue, while others have evaded this fundamental discussion.
If the debt levels and deficits of the basket cases USA, the UK and in the eurozone are more or less comparable, why do the markets shun the euro area?
The main difference seems to be the lack of a European sovereign for the common currency.
Are there better explanations?
Ralf Grahn
European democracy or euro crash?
Prime minister David Cameron did not get off the Titanic. He blocked the Euro ambulance.
The Titanic metaphor catches the imagination, but it is wrong because the United Kingdom was not aboard the Euro vessel, so it is logically impossible to get off.
Bagehot's notebook offered a more apt simile, Chernobyl. Fixing it, or containing and limiting the continent-wide fallout is in Britain's interest.
Sadly, the UK Parliament instead hailed Cameron, promised more vetoes and rebalanced Britain's EU relationship towards limiting them to economic ties. These formulas are wide enough for those who want the UK pissing in, both on the inside and from the outside of the EU tent.
The Euro ambulance was forced to make a detour, but the team of 17 was joined by up to nine voluntary well-wishers, all except Britain.
Alignment
We should not overrate the success.
We do not know what the fiscal compact will turn out to be in the end. We do not know if even all eurozone countries are going to join. We know even less about how many of the other EU members will participate.
What I see is more of a slow process of alignment by EU countries around the euro core, leaving Britain less able to form and lead alliances.
Far from enough
I think that the eurozone and the other EU members showed more resolve than before, but the Euro ambulance went to fetch only one of the several casualties, leaving the rest on the ground.
The high borrowing costs, the falling euro, the sliding stock markets, the coming downgrades, the troubled banks and the glide into recession show that the structures and powers in place are not robust enough, the agreed remedies are insufficient and moving in slow motion is far from enough.
Just three examples from my Twitter stream yesterday.
@JasonBWhitman (Policy chairman US Young Republicans) asked me about the probability of the euro crashing. @spignal (Stanley Pignal of the FT) tested the waters with a question about how probable a new eurozone summit was becoming before the end of the year. @JSLefebvre (French EU journalist) retweeted a 'complicated' poll showing that the French are attached to Europe, but do not believe the euro summits have brought results.
This leaves us with a number of unanswered fundamental questions about European integration and the future of the eurozone.
To put it plainly:
The common European currency, the euro, needs a sovereign. In the Western political tradition of democracy and fundamental rights, this sovereign must be based on the citizens to be legitimate and accountable (democracy), equipped with robust structures and sufficient powers, as well as providing good governance and transparency.
No taxation without representation, but also a real federal budget and taxes, a lender of last resort (federal reserve) with broad enough mandate.
Foreign policy, security and defence, are among the policies to conduct at the European level.
European democracy or euro crash?
Our leaders have not yet faced up to the challenges, and their national electorates are far behind, but the alternatives should concentrate minds, hopefully sooner rather than too late.
Ralf Grahn
The Titanic metaphor catches the imagination, but it is wrong because the United Kingdom was not aboard the Euro vessel, so it is logically impossible to get off.
Bagehot's notebook offered a more apt simile, Chernobyl. Fixing it, or containing and limiting the continent-wide fallout is in Britain's interest.
Sadly, the UK Parliament instead hailed Cameron, promised more vetoes and rebalanced Britain's EU relationship towards limiting them to economic ties. These formulas are wide enough for those who want the UK pissing in, both on the inside and from the outside of the EU tent.
The Euro ambulance was forced to make a detour, but the team of 17 was joined by up to nine voluntary well-wishers, all except Britain.
Alignment
We should not overrate the success.
We do not know what the fiscal compact will turn out to be in the end. We do not know if even all eurozone countries are going to join. We know even less about how many of the other EU members will participate.
What I see is more of a slow process of alignment by EU countries around the euro core, leaving Britain less able to form and lead alliances.
Far from enough
I think that the eurozone and the other EU members showed more resolve than before, but the Euro ambulance went to fetch only one of the several casualties, leaving the rest on the ground.
The high borrowing costs, the falling euro, the sliding stock markets, the coming downgrades, the troubled banks and the glide into recession show that the structures and powers in place are not robust enough, the agreed remedies are insufficient and moving in slow motion is far from enough.
Just three examples from my Twitter stream yesterday.
@JasonBWhitman (Policy chairman US Young Republicans) asked me about the probability of the euro crashing. @spignal (Stanley Pignal of the FT) tested the waters with a question about how probable a new eurozone summit was becoming before the end of the year. @JSLefebvre (French EU journalist) retweeted a 'complicated' poll showing that the French are attached to Europe, but do not believe the euro summits have brought results.
This leaves us with a number of unanswered fundamental questions about European integration and the future of the eurozone.
To put it plainly:
The common European currency, the euro, needs a sovereign. In the Western political tradition of democracy and fundamental rights, this sovereign must be based on the citizens to be legitimate and accountable (democracy), equipped with robust structures and sufficient powers, as well as providing good governance and transparency.
No taxation without representation, but also a real federal budget and taxes, a lender of last resort (federal reserve) with broad enough mandate.
Foreign policy, security and defence, are among the policies to conduct at the European level.
European democracy or euro crash?
Our leaders have not yet faced up to the challenges, and their national electorates are far behind, but the alternatives should concentrate minds, hopefully sooner rather than too late.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Defiant UK Parliament praises Cameron and rebalances EU relationship
Yesterday the UK Parliament (House of Commons) adopted, by 278 votes to 200 (all Liberal Democrat MPs abstaining), the following motion:
BBC News UK Politics offer additional information.
Comments
When prime minister David Cameron defended his EU summit blunder, he also soothingly said that Britain remains a full member of the European Union and that EU membership is vital to Britain's national interest.
Parliament has now changed tack in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union (and its member states).
The general tenor of the debate and the wording of the praise can be described as defiant.
Parliament calls for a rebalancing of the UK's relationship with the European Union towards economic arrangements solely.
When Parliament commends prime minister Cameron for his refusal to allow an EU agreement – not affecting Britain – to pass, it has to be noted that the ”safeguards for the UK” had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty proposal at hand at the European Council.
There is a positive expectation from Parliament for more British vetoes to come.
Leaders of the EU institutions and in the member states have expressed wishes to see the United Kingdom become a responsible and constructive member of the European Union, but in vain as we now see.
If the Liberal Democrats were able to explain Cameron's European summit catastrophe as an unfortunate accident, the new course set and the hostility shown from the government benches breaks the moral backbone of the coalition.
This is a watershed for the Liberal Democrats, who have tried in vain to temper the tribalist spirits among the Conservatives. If Nick Clegg and the other LibDem ministers do not resign, they make a historic mistake. Better to live with honour, than to suffer the contempt from such coalition partners.
Ralf Grahn
That this House commends the Prime Minister on his refusal at the European Council to sign up to a Treaty without safeguards for the UK; regards the use of the veto in appropriate circumstances to be a vital means of defending the national interests of the UK; and recognises the desire of the British people for a rebalancing of the relationship with our European neighbours based on co-operation and mutually beneficial economic arrangements.
BBC News UK Politics offer additional information.
Comments
When prime minister David Cameron defended his EU summit blunder, he also soothingly said that Britain remains a full member of the European Union and that EU membership is vital to Britain's national interest.
Parliament has now changed tack in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union (and its member states).
The general tenor of the debate and the wording of the praise can be described as defiant.
Parliament calls for a rebalancing of the UK's relationship with the European Union towards economic arrangements solely.
When Parliament commends prime minister Cameron for his refusal to allow an EU agreement – not affecting Britain – to pass, it has to be noted that the ”safeguards for the UK” had nothing whatsoever to do with the treaty proposal at hand at the European Council.
There is a positive expectation from Parliament for more British vetoes to come.
Leaders of the EU institutions and in the member states have expressed wishes to see the United Kingdom become a responsible and constructive member of the European Union, but in vain as we now see.
If the Liberal Democrats were able to explain Cameron's European summit catastrophe as an unfortunate accident, the new course set and the hostility shown from the government benches breaks the moral backbone of the coalition.
This is a watershed for the Liberal Democrats, who have tried in vain to temper the tribalist spirits among the Conservatives. If Nick Clegg and the other LibDem ministers do not resign, they make a historic mistake. Better to live with honour, than to suffer the contempt from such coalition partners.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
EU in Britain: When David comes marching home again... (Updated)
Before discussing if the decisions of the European summit were enough in the face of increasing headwinds, I published one more assessment of the EU politics of the UK government led by Cavid Cameron.
Having read the prime minister's statement, I wondered (on Twitter):
Cameron's public reasons
Cameron described his demands to the other EU members:
Analysis
Irrelevant: First of all, Cameron's demands were not relevant to the issues at the European summit and these issues figured nowhere on the agenda.
Immodest and unreasonble: Springing totally irrelevant demands on the EU leaders, could Cameron even imagine that they would be accepted? Was this his 'good faith'?
How can he call proposals to roll back the internal market to decision-making based on unanimity, modest and reasonable?
Qualified majority voting replaced unanimity in 1966 in the common market, and without this step there would be no internal market today (imperfect as it is).
Loss of credibility: There are only two major EU policy areas, where the United Kingdom has been a visible driving force. One is the internal market, the other is (never-ending) enlargement.
Unfair exception: If no unfair advantage was intended, why did Cameron require the introduction of a new national veto on a specific part of the internal market (financial services)?
How are special exceptions for Britain compatible with the 'level playing field' he asks for, the the very soul of the internal market, including competition rules and enforcement?
Wouldn't you expect president Sarkozy to bemoan the the lack of proper protection, sooner than the premier of free market and free trade Britain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 13 December 2011: In the European Parliament Commission president José Manuel Barroso said that one member state, the United Kingdom, 'asked for a specific protocol on financial services, which, as presented, was a risk to the integrity of the internal market. This made compromise impossible'.
This has been contested by the lobby group Open Europe on Twitter and with a link to their blog post on the matter:
Barroso has the advantage over Open Europe and me that he was there, and one leaked paper does not necessarily tell the whole story, but I think that added clarity would not go amiss, so I have tweeted:
Let us wait and see what we learn during the next days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbolically and at a practical level, David Cameron shot decades of UK credibility as a champion of the internal market to pieces. Apply the flexibility of a network to the single market, and what do you end up with?
'Some would call' was the formula, based on internal assessment.
Some would call this a disingenuous statement about an unprincipled blackmail operation gone wrong, despite the jingoistic hero's welcome indicative of the political climate in England.
Fall-out in Europe
The other EU members hoped that the UK would accept and ratify a treaty fix, which would have enabled the euro countries to enshrine their agreement on budget discipline, without affecting non-euro Britain. For the UK, simply to allow it to happen. Cameron chose to be unhelpful.
Some commentators have explained that Cameron had no choice, because he could not face the House with such a simple request. Besides being fairly self-indulgent, what does that tell us about the prime minister?
If sorting out the problems in the eurozone was Cameron's main wish (and most definitively in the interest of Britain and its banks), his actions made it harder to achieve.
He made even Britain's closest EU allies furious, and the looming political and legal problems they have to contend with in an intergovernmental setting are numerous. (This does not mean that the other leaders minus Britain achieved more than a tiny proportion of what is needed.)
Cameron returned without the safeguards he ostensibly was looking for. Internal market rules, including financial services, are still agreed at EU level, but after losing friends, influence and people, it is going to be harder for the United Kingdom to influence the outcome of future negotiations.
Fall-out at home
As I see it, Cameron launched his political blackmail operation to pacify his secessionist backbenchers. They have succeeded in turning the UK's sour EU relations toxic, scored a victory with the anti-EU mass market press and public opinion, revealed Cameron's dependence on them and devastated the Liberal Democrats. So the taste of blood will egg them on, instead of placating them.
Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are in a terrible bind. It looks as if they would be all but annihilated in a new general election, but swallowing the latest grave humiliation until the end of the parliamentary term will only bring a stay of execution. Is it worth the pain to grin and bear?
Scotland got one more reason to contemplate independence.
Businesses generally and the financial industry are worried.
Bottom line?
If helping the eurozone and defending Britain's interests were the aims of Cameron, how do you assess the outcome?
Cameron in House of Commons
The BBC provides both a video report of the Cameron statement and the debate in the House of Commons and interviews, as well as a live blog dealing with the fall-out from the UK walk-out.
There are many interesting comments and a number of helpful links to further reading.
If your intellectual curiousity drives you, try to find the references to the needs of the European Union and EU citizens, or for constructive contributions from its member state Britain.
Then think about why national level polities with veto powers are perhaps not the best level or form to promote common European interests, which in my view are those of EU citizens.
Ralf Grahn
Having read the prime minister's statement, I wondered (on Twitter):
Would #Cameron statement stand 10 minutes of scrutiny by young solicitor's clerk first day on the job? #UKpolitics #euro
Cameron's public reasons
Cameron described his demands to the other EU members:
Those safeguards – on the single market and on financial services – were modest, reasonable and relevant.
We were not trying to create an unfair advantage for Britain.
Analysis
Irrelevant: First of all, Cameron's demands were not relevant to the issues at the European summit and these issues figured nowhere on the agenda.
Immodest and unreasonble: Springing totally irrelevant demands on the EU leaders, could Cameron even imagine that they would be accepted? Was this his 'good faith'?
How can he call proposals to roll back the internal market to decision-making based on unanimity, modest and reasonable?
Qualified majority voting replaced unanimity in 1966 in the common market, and without this step there would be no internal market today (imperfect as it is).
Loss of credibility: There are only two major EU policy areas, where the United Kingdom has been a visible driving force. One is the internal market, the other is (never-ending) enlargement.
Unfair exception: If no unfair advantage was intended, why did Cameron require the introduction of a new national veto on a specific part of the internal market (financial services)?
How are special exceptions for Britain compatible with the 'level playing field' he asks for, the the very soul of the internal market, including competition rules and enforcement?
Wouldn't you expect president Sarkozy to bemoan the the lack of proper protection, sooner than the premier of free market and free trade Britain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 13 December 2011: In the European Parliament Commission president José Manuel Barroso said that one member state, the United Kingdom, 'asked for a specific protocol on financial services, which, as presented, was a risk to the integrity of the internal market. This made compromise impossible'.
This has been contested by the lobby group Open Europe on Twitter and with a link to their blog post on the matter:
Read our latest blog post explaining why #Barroso was wrong to suggest Cameron's demands threatened the single market
Barroso has the advantage over Open Europe and me that he was there, and one leaked paper does not necessarily tell the whole story, but I think that added clarity would not go amiss, so I have tweeted:
@OpenEurope Hopefully #EUCommission #EUCouncil & member states open up what #Cameron sprang on #EUCO and how. bit.ly/uHG6Tn
Let us wait and see what we learn during the next days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symbolically and at a practical level, David Cameron shot decades of UK credibility as a champion of the internal market to pieces. Apply the flexibility of a network to the single market, and what do you end up with?
'Some would call' was the formula, based on internal assessment.
Some would call this a disingenuous statement about an unprincipled blackmail operation gone wrong, despite the jingoistic hero's welcome indicative of the political climate in England.
Fall-out in Europe
The other EU members hoped that the UK would accept and ratify a treaty fix, which would have enabled the euro countries to enshrine their agreement on budget discipline, without affecting non-euro Britain. For the UK, simply to allow it to happen. Cameron chose to be unhelpful.
Some commentators have explained that Cameron had no choice, because he could not face the House with such a simple request. Besides being fairly self-indulgent, what does that tell us about the prime minister?
If sorting out the problems in the eurozone was Cameron's main wish (and most definitively in the interest of Britain and its banks), his actions made it harder to achieve.
He made even Britain's closest EU allies furious, and the looming political and legal problems they have to contend with in an intergovernmental setting are numerous. (This does not mean that the other leaders minus Britain achieved more than a tiny proportion of what is needed.)
Cameron returned without the safeguards he ostensibly was looking for. Internal market rules, including financial services, are still agreed at EU level, but after losing friends, influence and people, it is going to be harder for the United Kingdom to influence the outcome of future negotiations.
Fall-out at home
As I see it, Cameron launched his political blackmail operation to pacify his secessionist backbenchers. They have succeeded in turning the UK's sour EU relations toxic, scored a victory with the anti-EU mass market press and public opinion, revealed Cameron's dependence on them and devastated the Liberal Democrats. So the taste of blood will egg them on, instead of placating them.
Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are in a terrible bind. It looks as if they would be all but annihilated in a new general election, but swallowing the latest grave humiliation until the end of the parliamentary term will only bring a stay of execution. Is it worth the pain to grin and bear?
Scotland got one more reason to contemplate independence.
Businesses generally and the financial industry are worried.
Bottom line?
If helping the eurozone and defending Britain's interests were the aims of Cameron, how do you assess the outcome?
Cameron in House of Commons
The BBC provides both a video report of the Cameron statement and the debate in the House of Commons and interviews, as well as a live blog dealing with the fall-out from the UK walk-out.
There are many interesting comments and a number of helpful links to further reading.
If your intellectual curiousity drives you, try to find the references to the needs of the European Union and EU citizens, or for constructive contributions from its member state Britain.
Then think about why national level polities with veto powers are perhaps not the best level or form to promote common European interests, which in my view are those of EU citizens.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 12 December 2011
New resolve in euro crisis – Is it enough?
Despite up Eurs style unhelpfulness, twisted Tory priorities and possibly continuing sabotage from the UK government of David Cameron, the eurozone countries and the other EU members still have the main task in front of them.
For those too busy to read and interpret the official statements, the outcome of the European Council and the euro area statement have been simplified into this graph:
Economic governance in graphs (European Commission, Europe 2020)
Let me be clear about this: The summit(s) do not sort out the fundamental weaknesses of the euro currency (economic union).
The common European currency, the euro, needs a sovereign. In the Western political tradition of democracy and fundamental rights, this sovereign must be based on the citizens to be legitimate and accountable (democracy), equipped with robust structures and sufficient powers, as well as providing good governance and transparency.
The European leaders have refused to even broach the fundamental issues.
As a result of the British block to progress, the disciplinarian and intergovernmental ”fiscal compact” is harder to manage, but it also fails to address the need for the European Central Bank to act as a lender of last resort, of eurobonds to mutualise debt and of a real federal budget.
With glee, many enemies of European integration (in the UK) point to the failings and predict the rapid crash of the euro.
Given the consequences globally, I would not be as merry, but more important is how the steps taken will be interpreted by the markets and citizens in Europe and globally.
My interpretation is that the arrangement, contorted as it is, marks a step forward. There is now more resolve in the eurozone and in the European Union generally to advance. Despite looming downgrades of member states, the EU and European banks, the EU and the ECB may eventually progress in face of the strong headwinds.
The beginning recession is not going to make matters easier, but the leaders and citizens in Europe realise that we are in this together.
We do not know if it is going to be enough, but it is still more than nothing.
Since the resolve of Winston Churchill has been much in evidence lately, let me conclude with a quote (1942):
Ralf Grahn
For those too busy to read and interpret the official statements, the outcome of the European Council and the euro area statement have been simplified into this graph:
Economic governance in graphs (European Commission, Europe 2020)
Let me be clear about this: The summit(s) do not sort out the fundamental weaknesses of the euro currency (economic union).
The common European currency, the euro, needs a sovereign. In the Western political tradition of democracy and fundamental rights, this sovereign must be based on the citizens to be legitimate and accountable (democracy), equipped with robust structures and sufficient powers, as well as providing good governance and transparency.
The European leaders have refused to even broach the fundamental issues.
As a result of the British block to progress, the disciplinarian and intergovernmental ”fiscal compact” is harder to manage, but it also fails to address the need for the European Central Bank to act as a lender of last resort, of eurobonds to mutualise debt and of a real federal budget.
With glee, many enemies of European integration (in the UK) point to the failings and predict the rapid crash of the euro.
Given the consequences globally, I would not be as merry, but more important is how the steps taken will be interpreted by the markets and citizens in Europe and globally.
My interpretation is that the arrangement, contorted as it is, marks a step forward. There is now more resolve in the eurozone and in the European Union generally to advance. Despite looming downgrades of member states, the EU and European banks, the EU and the ECB may eventually progress in face of the strong headwinds.
The beginning recession is not going to make matters easier, but the leaders and citizens in Europe realise that we are in this together.
We do not know if it is going to be enough, but it is still more than nothing.
Since the resolve of Winston Churchill has been much in evidence lately, let me conclude with a quote (1942):
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Ralf Grahn
EU: Economic crisis, Tory priorities and euro bully-boys (Updated)
Here is a thoughtful tweet from @Nosemonkey (J Clive Matthews) in London:
To the warlike atmosphere created by campaigning anti-EU media and secessionist Tory backbenchers and which has fed into popular images of a bulldogian Churchill defending Britain from nazi invasion, I add a tweet of my own:
Admittedly, it is speculation. At which stage would Churchill, who in 1946 proposed a United States of Europe built around France and Germany, but with Britain among its friends and sponsors, have taken the plunge to engage fully as a constructive member?
Perhaps it would have taken new generations not rooted in the Boer War and the imperial past to start playing a positive part as a key player in Europe. But the new generations found it hard to shrug off their tribal legacy, with David Cameron the bulldog biting 26 heads of state or government before withdrawing to the company of his secessionist backbenchers at Chequers for R&R [victory celebrations] (The Independent, Financial Times).
The bully-boys (The Sun) and blithering idiots (The Telegraph) on the Continent may be forgiven for thinking that their simple demand for a laissez-passer for a treaty fix among 27, but affecting only the willing, was a reasonable demand. They may have been misguided in thinking that the euro crisis and the global financial crisis, combined with worsening economic prospects globally, were weightier aims even for the future of the United Kingdom (Reuters), but they were taught a lesson about UK Tory priorities (Mail Online).
Naturally, there are some domestic quislings bickering against these new heights of unhelpfulness, but they only add to the festive spirit.
The Liberal Democrat leader and the coalition partner Nick Clegg has, belatedly, come out against Cameron's blocking move (The Telegraph). Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, has accused Cameron of damaging Scottish interests (AFP Google News). British business leaders are troubled by the prospects of isolation in Europe (BBC News Business).
After slamming down criticism from Clegg (Huffington Post UK), foreign secretary William Hague is going to meet US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to discuss wisely chosen topics such as Syria and Iran, where there is still life in the 'special relationship' (The Guardian, question 6 out of 7 Britain is facing).
Let us end our exposé of the statecraft of unhelpfulness here.
Update 12 December 2011: We now have the PM's statement on what he did at the European Council, but IMHO neither the wording nor the reasoning stand much rigorous analysis. Cameron's 'good faith' negotiations did not sound attractive enough to entice deputy prime minister Nick Clegg to sit on the government bench in the House of Commons (BBC News UK politics).
Just wondering... (on Twitter)
Would #Cameron statement stand 10 minutes of scrutiny by young solicitor's clerk first day on the job? #UKpolitics #euro
Ralf Grahn
Question: Is there a single foreign leader that respects Cameron? Just wondering if the UK has any friends left anywhere...
To the warlike atmosphere created by campaigning anti-EU media and secessionist Tory backbenchers and which has fed into popular images of a bulldogian Churchill defending Britain from nazi invasion, I add a tweet of my own:
Churchill was still wedded to Empire, Commonwealth & Anglosphere but IMHO would today be smart enough to be European.
Admittedly, it is speculation. At which stage would Churchill, who in 1946 proposed a United States of Europe built around France and Germany, but with Britain among its friends and sponsors, have taken the plunge to engage fully as a constructive member?
Perhaps it would have taken new generations not rooted in the Boer War and the imperial past to start playing a positive part as a key player in Europe. But the new generations found it hard to shrug off their tribal legacy, with David Cameron the bulldog biting 26 heads of state or government before withdrawing to the company of his secessionist backbenchers at Chequers for R&R [victory celebrations] (The Independent, Financial Times).
The bully-boys (The Sun) and blithering idiots (The Telegraph) on the Continent may be forgiven for thinking that their simple demand for a laissez-passer for a treaty fix among 27, but affecting only the willing, was a reasonable demand. They may have been misguided in thinking that the euro crisis and the global financial crisis, combined with worsening economic prospects globally, were weightier aims even for the future of the United Kingdom (Reuters), but they were taught a lesson about UK Tory priorities (Mail Online).
Naturally, there are some domestic quislings bickering against these new heights of unhelpfulness, but they only add to the festive spirit.
The Liberal Democrat leader and the coalition partner Nick Clegg has, belatedly, come out against Cameron's blocking move (The Telegraph). Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, has accused Cameron of damaging Scottish interests (AFP Google News). British business leaders are troubled by the prospects of isolation in Europe (BBC News Business).
After slamming down criticism from Clegg (Huffington Post UK), foreign secretary William Hague is going to meet US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to discuss wisely chosen topics such as Syria and Iran, where there is still life in the 'special relationship' (The Guardian, question 6 out of 7 Britain is facing).
Let us end our exposé of the statecraft of unhelpfulness here.
Update 12 December 2011: We now have the PM's statement on what he did at the European Council, but IMHO neither the wording nor the reasoning stand much rigorous analysis. Cameron's 'good faith' negotiations did not sound attractive enough to entice deputy prime minister Nick Clegg to sit on the government bench in the House of Commons (BBC News UK politics).
Just wondering... (on Twitter)
Would #Cameron statement stand 10 minutes of scrutiny by young solicitor's clerk first day on the job? #UKpolitics #euro
Ralf Grahn