ICT Standardisation Priorities for the DSM

In the blog entry ICT standardisation in EU digital single market context, I tried to present the framework for the ICT (information and communication technology) DSM (digital single market) standardisation communication the European Commission published ahead of the general European standardisation package:

ICT Standardisation Priorities for the Digital Single Market; Brussels, 19.4.2016 COM(2016) 176 final (14 pages)

In section 3.1. Five priority domains: the building blocks of ICT standard setting (p. 5) the Commission presented its priority areas:

The Commission has identified the following priority areas: 5G communications, cloud computing, the internet of things (IoT), (big) data technologies and cybersecurity. These are the essential technology building blocks of the Digital Single Market.

In addition, the Commission hoped for positive effects in other areas (p.5):

Areas such as eHealth, smart energy, intelligent transport systems and connected and automated vehicles, including trains, advanced manufacturing, smart homes and cities and smart farming will significantly benefit from the proposed prioritisation of standards, as they rely on the essential building blocks identified. A regular review of the priorities is planned so as to respond to changes in technology and society.

This set the course for future action (p. 6):

The actions identified in this Communication aim to raise the political and strategic importance of ICT standardisation as a crucial element of the Digital Single Market, in response to growing global competition. They aim to improve the focus, agility and efficiency of the standards setting system in ICT. They encourage new approaches in standardisation, such as promoting community building, attracting new sectors, promoting open standards and platforms where needed, strengthening the link between research and standardisation, including testing of the standards, promoting consistent application of standards and their uptake by the market, developing when needed certification schemes.

The priorities selected will complement other standardisation instruments used to implement European standardisation policy. In addition to the planned Joint Initiative on European standardisation, these are the Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation, and the Annual Union Work Programme.

After discussing the technical areas in more detail, the communication turned to governance in section 3.2. A high-level commitment to deliver and ensure leadership through standards (from page 12):

The Commission therefore proposes a high-level process to achieve the prioritised actions. This process will build on and complement the European Multi-stakeholders Platform, the ICT Rolling Plan on ICT Standardisation and the Annual Union Work Programme for European Standardisation as delivery mechanisms for standards and standardisation deliverables.

The Commission then went on to describe the new elements under the following headings:

1) Validation of priorities and improving the efficiency of the standard-setting process in Europe

2) Regularly reviewing and monitoring progress

3) Improving EU support to ICT priority standardisation

4) Ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access

5) Strengthening the EU's presence in international dialogue and cooperation on ICT standards

With regard to globalisation, the Commission highlighted the need for international cooperation (p. 14):

Reflecting the global nature of digital technology development, the Commission will continue to proactively engage with key international partners (such as the US, China, Japan, South Korea) to ensure global alignment of priorities in the ICT domain, and a consistent approach to standard setting. The Commission intends to identify, by mid-2016, possibilities for setting-up and funding a supporting mechanism to monitor on-going work and support the participation of European experts in the relevant international standardisation and other fora working on the ICT priority areas.

Finally, the Commission presented a summary of its future actions:

- launch by 2017 a regular inter-institutional dialogue on European standardisation, highlighting – inter alia – ICT priorities in order to take stock of progress on the deliverables – and where necessary – to adapt the priorities. The Commission intends to include such regular dialogue in the foreseen Joint Initiative on Standardisation.

- work in collaboration with stakeholders including ESOs, EPO, industry and research, on the identification, by 2017, of possible measures to (i) improve accessibility and reliability of information on patent scope, including measures to increase the transparency and quality of standard essential patent declarations as well as (ii) to clarify core elements of an equitable, effective and enforceable licensing methodology around FRAND principles and (iii) to facilitate the efficient and balanced settlement of disputes.

– as of mid-2016, investigate possibilities for setting up and funding supporting mechanism to strengthen European participation in global standard setting, by monitoring global standardisation activities in the ICT domain, and support the wider participation of European experts.

Rolling Plan

For an update on the activities, you can turn to the executive summary or the whole (133 pages) Rolling Plan for ICT Standardisation 2017.  

If you are content with an overview, the first 13 pages of the ICT standardisation plan offer you a fair orientation:

• Executive summary of the sections of the Rolling Plan 2017 organised around four thematic areas: key enablers, societal challenges, innovation for the single market and sustainable growth.
• The strategic role of ICT standardisation in the context of EU policy making
• Promoting the implementation of standards
• EU policy areas supported by ICT standardisation

Alphabet soup

To end on a more flippant note, if the Brussels bubble is routinely accused of being an alphabet soup kitchen, right now the Rolling Plan offers the best concentration of Brussels bubblese I remember having come across (p. 8):

The Commission would like to thank all Members of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on ICT Standardisation for their active collaboration and for making this document possible: the EU Member States, EFTA States, standard setting organisations (ETSI, CEN, CENELEC, ISO, IEEE, IEC, ITU, OMG, IETF/IAB, OASIS, Ecma, W3C/ERCIM, UN/CEFACT), industry associations (Business Europe, Cable Europe, Digital Europe, ECIS, ETNO, EBU, EuroISPA, SBS, OFE, Orgalime) and stakeholder associations (AGE, ANEC, ECOS, EDF, ETUC).

You might need the antidote offered by Annex III: Terms, definitions and abbreviations (from page 131), where some of the abbreviations and acronyms are explained.  

Ralf Grahn

More Europe Manifesto: single seat for European Parliament

After my latest post about the More Europe Manifesto I wanted to compress the conclusions about EU or eurozone level democracy into Twitter mode:

#Euro crisis Everything else has failed - why not try EU #democracy

#Euro Alternatives are #Merkozy or #democracy leading #eurozone

Citizens for Europe

But let us return to More Europe. In order to overcome the crises in the eurozone and the wider European Union, a group of Spanish eurobloggers has launched an appeal for More Europe.

You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.

The initiators act as EU citizens. Hence they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.

After stating the need for greater European integration, their sixth proposal aims at bringing the so called travelling circus of the European Parliament to an end.

“More Europe” Statement

Given the dramatic social situation in many Member States caused by the economical crisis and the anti-European voices predicting the breakup of the Economic and Monetary Union, the undersigned ask for More Europe.

We consider it is necessary to move to a greater European integration in order to address the current situation of social and economic crisis affecting Europe and for this reason we will join our forces as European citizens. To achieve our goal we claim that:

-----

6) We believe it is essential to set only one seat for the European Parliament, either in Brussels or Strasbourg, in order to reduce costs and duplication of duties. We believe that this austerity measure will bring the institutions closer to citizens. If Brussels is chosen as the only headquarters, we suggest that Strasbourg remains as a symbol of the creation of the EU and become a peace and common history museum.

One seat

Before the Treaty of Lisbon officially introduced the citizens' initiative (ECI) – in Article 11(4) TEU – the campaign collected signatures for locating the European Parliament solely in Brussels. When I looked, 1,270,847 persons had signed the One Seat initiative, said to save about 200 million euros annually if enacted.


European Citizens' Initiative (ECI)

The ordinary legislative procedure applies to the provisions for the ECI procedures and conditions (Article 24 TFEU).

Even if the principle is clear, a lot of ECI details are laid down in a Regulation, available in all 23 official EU languages; in English:

REGULATION (EU) No 211/2011 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative; OJEU 11.3.2011 L 65/1

The Regulation 211/2011 will apply only from April Fools' Day 2012 (officially 1 April).

The European Economic and Social Committee EESC) has published a brochure for organisers and the wider public:

Your Guide to the European Citizens' Initiative (2011; 24 pages; available in 22 languages)

The admissibility criteria seem to point in the direction of more or less normal legislative issues, within the Commission's powers to make proposals, not high politics concerning the nature of the EU itself or even Treaty details.

Article 2(1) limits the admissibility in the the following manner:

Article 2
Definitions

For the purpose of this Regulation the following definitions shall apply:

1. ‘citizens’ initiative’ means an initiative submitted to the Commission in accordance with this Regulation, inviting the Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, which has received the support of at least one million eligible signatories coming from at least one quarter of all Member States;

Intergovernmental cooperation

Like most of the really important matters in the European Union, the seats of the institutions have been agreed between the governments of the member states (”owners”). Protocol (No 6) annexed to the Lisbon Treaty states:

Sole Article

(a) The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.

Officially, Strasbourg is the seat of the European Parliament, a fact opponents often glide over, although most of the work of the MEPs, most of the time is done in Brussels.

As a Treaty level provision, the seat of the EP is behind two unanimity locks: agreement by all the governments of the member states and ratification by all the members (national parliaments).

The seat of the European Parliament is an example of the outcomes with ”freely cooperating sovereign nation states”, a principle cherished by the government of the United Kingdom, to name just one prime proponent of sub-optimal outcomes.


French opposition

Despite public outcry and a majority of MEPs coming out in favour of one seat (Brussels), including an impact assessment 'A tale of two cities' and the @SingleSeatEU campaign, the French government continues its adamant opposition to any change. Some governments have come out in favour of one seat, too.

The More Europe Manifesto is slightly more cautious than the one seat campaign, the MEPs' vote and the Single Seat campaign, but the tenor is the same. They even want to offer Strasbourg compensation, should Brussels emerge as the sole seat.

I suppose that all the initiatives would like to see the General Secretariat joining the rest of the Parliament in its future single location.

Somehow the sensible solution would be to let the European Parliament decide on its own location and organisation. Now the EP is seen as wasteful, without the powers to change the obviously unsatisfactory state of affairs in this respect.


More Europe proposals

I have mentioned the refreshing More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone, as well as EU-wide constituencies and the next Commission president to emerge with a clear political mandate from the voters in the elections to the European Parliament.

Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope, hashtag #moreurope, and help to spread the word. The More Europe proposals are worth discussion among citizens and politicians.

***

Citizens of the European Union are entitled to express their opinions and to help forming public opinion in favour of reform.

Gutta cavat lapidem...



Ralf Grahn

State minimalism and parliamentary absolutism in EU

Max Steinbeis on Verfassungsblog vividly described Belgium: Failed State mitten in Europa (12 January 2011). Given the slow but seemingly inexorable descent into oblivion, Belgium's greatest gift to Europe could be to cede an ample enough territory to establish the real European Capital (E.C.): Brussels E.C? (7 January 2011).

Square this tenuous statehood and EU membership with the fiery fundamentalist rhetoric about parliamentary sovereignty – nay, absolutism crowding out the rule of law - a stone's throw away, across the Channel in UK Westminster.

We wonder if, or for how long, Belgium remains a state, and we begin to think about how the assets and liabilities should be divided.

We wonder how long it takes before the British people wake up to demand a modern and comprehensive Constitution with fundamental rights, instead of an elective dictatorship based on unrepresentative elections.

United or not, Europe is excelling in diversity.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On Think about it 4 you find promising young bloggers from around the world writing in English about climate change. Think 4 is organised by the European Journalism Centre.



P.S. 2: There are now five updates worth reading to my previous blog post on the EUSSR and the new Pilgrim Fathers.

Brussels E.C?

As Arthur Beesley tells us in the Irish Times about the country which still a few days ago had a driving role in the process of European integration, ”Belgian political stalemate continues as Flemish parties reject compromise”:

THE TWO largest Dutch-speaking parties in Belgium have rejected new compromise proposals to broker a power-sharing deal with their French-speaking counterparts, prolonging a political saga that has left the country in the control of a caretaker government for 208 days.

Little by little I start wondering if the European Union should acquire Brussels with surroundings and make it the European Capital (E.C.), administered as an EU territory with 23 official languages.

The non-discussions between the linguistic communities and regions of Belgium could then be limited to the rest of the country and the ”negotiations” could continue until the state falls apart from exhaustion.


Le Taurillon

Even on a more serious note, these questions are now more widely discussed. There are three recent articles worth mentioning, with viewpoints on both Belgium and Europe, in the eurozine Le Taurillon. The writers discuss Belgian as well as European aspects:

Marine Cornelis: Les difficultés gouvernementales en Belgique, quelles leçons pour l'Europe (4 January 2011)

Quel rôle pour l'UE en cas de scission de la Belgique ? 1/2

Quel rôle pour l'UE en cas de scission de la Belgique ? 2/2


Johan Vande Lanotte

The Wikipedia article ”2010-2011 Belgian government formation” follows the (non)events on the ground until two Flemish parties rejected the mediation proposal by Johan Vande Lanotte, who did not publish the proposal, so we do not know by how much the federal state would be further hollowed out even by the failed proposal.


Fallout

Bloomberg offers a picture of the background as well as of the economic fallout of the rejected proposal: Belgium's Leaders seek To Exit From Political Impasse as Bond Spreads Widen (7 January 2011)

Long term we can ask if it is possible or even reasonable to keep a couple together if one of the partners has decided to split.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Strasbourg Observers is the legal blog team of five researchers led by Professor Eva Brems at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University. Events these last days have shown why human and fundamental rights need constant strengthening in Europe. Here is the mission statement: Blog commenting on developments in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

“Romagate” is everywhere, including Brussels and Belgium

From a human rights perspective, Stijn Smet on the Strasbourg Observers describes the “utterly unacceptable treatment of Roma by Sarkozy’s government”. The discriminatory practice violates both the freedom of movement within the EU and the prohibition of collective expulsions. The blog post links to the resolution by the European Parliament and the 5 August 2010 missive containing further instructions on the ‘evacuation’ of Roma camps.

However, the blog post does not stop there. It notes the existence of cases which fall under the radar screen of international media, but reveal a poisonous attitude towards Roma. One such case concerns the Brussels area, where there is now no place to station caravans legally. The blog entry describes attempts to prevent Roma from stationing their vans illegally, and it goes on to discuss to which extent states (including Belgium) have a positive obligation to provide spaces for the ‘Gypsy way of life’.

The blog post is an introduction to complex questions facing not only the European Union and the Council of Europe, but national, regional and local authorities all over Europe. This blog post needs to be read in European public administrations.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu as well as individual Eurobloggers.

Woebegone: Torpor in Minnesota and silly season in Brussels

It has been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, is the standard opening of Garrison Keillor reporting on events in this fictional town in Minnesota, USA. The radio show A Prairie Home Companion is heard on public radio stations in the United States and known to Europeans through reemissions of National Public Radio (NPR) programmes and by national radio stations. (In Finland, you can listen to News from Lake Wobegon on YLE Mondo through national cable TV radio, or locally on FM in Helsinki.)



The probably best known Garrison Keillor quote wraps up his “home town” nicely: Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.



Garrison Keillor’s philosophical chats are also available in print.



If it can always be silly season in Lake Wobegon, with a population of about 1,000, it is astounding that “Brussels”, the de facto capital of the European Union (population about 501,000,000), still takes the plunge into summer recess so seriously, as if the world stopped rotating for a month for the convenience of people working in the EU institutions: See upcoming events on European Agenda and EU Calendar.



With slightly different spelling: woebegone.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

Manneken Pis wants you? Pillow talk on “Brussels”?

Uncle Sam wants you, is one of the famous slogans worldwide. Everyone knows that Uncle Sam is the personification of the United States.

If you try to invent something equally hard hitting for the other great union, the EU, perhaps a sense of creeping despair affects you too.



The member states chucked out the official symbols of the European Union from the Lisbon Treaty (but leaving customary use), and for most of the EU’s 500 million population the union feels as personal and personable as a complicated chemical formula.

Brussels – in 23 official languages – has become the closest thing to the de facto capital and the main symbol of the European Union.

The use of “Brussels”, or “Brussels Bubble”, tends to be far from affectionate. The whipping-boy of Europe has an image problem, if we use a mild expression. Deservedly so, many would add.

To complicate matters further, Brussels is the official capital of Belgium (a country almost as complex and ungovernable as the European Union).



If and when “Brussels” wants to find a more engaging and cuddly symbol for citizens, the best known tourist attraction of Brussels is a statue of a peeing boy, Manneken Pis.

Despite the overabundant online offer of (fake) organ-enhancement and potency pills, Manneken Pis remains the symbol of Belgian Brussels, without growth potential to reach European stature.



Dear readers, before you turn to Mathew Lowry’s recruitment drive for subject specialist Euroblogs on EU issues, I invite you to think about the image of the European Union and the lack of official and unofficial symbols.



Does the European Union need and does it deserve more pillow talk?




Ralf Grahn

EU Council on Digital Agenda for Europe

Brussels correspondents must often feel like being stationed on the Atlantic Ocean to report about the movements of the Gulf Stream: important, but lacking drama.



The news roundup 1 June 2010 on the TTE Council conclusions about the Digital Agenda for Europe left me with the feeling that it is hard for journalists to find much to tell the public about the imperceptible moves towards action, even in areas crucial for our future prosperity.

The surprisingly many brave souls who zoom in on this blog are probably a more hardy lot than the readers of main stream media, including the online resources focused on the EU, willing to endure large doses of institutional Brussels speak and exact references to documents.



The press release from the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) Council meeting 31 May 2010 (document 10418/10; page 7) refers and links to the proposed Digital Agenda for Europe (document 9981/10) and the separate conclusions (document 10130/10).



After presenting the background, the Council pronouncements begin in the Annex (from page 3). In the original document you find references, which I leave out. As a tribute to the resilience of my readers, here are the TTE Council conclusions:

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,


1. TAKES NOTE OF

• The adoption of the Commission Communication on 19 May 2010 proposing a "Digital Agenda for Europe", the first of the seven flagships of the "Europe 2020 Strategy" which contains the actions it proposes to take at EU and national level to tackle bottlenecks and deliver on the Europe 2020 priorities, that is developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation, promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy and fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion;

• The European Parliament's resolution of 5 May 2010 on "a new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu".


2. RECALLS


• The Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 on "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth";

• The European Council Conclusions of 25-26 March 2010;

• The Granada Ministerial Declaration of 19 April 2010 on the "European Digital Agenda";

• The Council conclusions of 18 December 2009 on "Post-i2010 Strategy - towards an open, green and competitive knowledge society".


3. ACKNOWLEDGES


• The importance of the Digital Agenda for Europe:

− that wider deployment and more effective use of digital technologies can provide Europeans with a better quality of life through, for example, better health care, safer transport, new media opportunities and easier access to goods and services, including public services, and cultural content, in particular across borders;

− that Europe should put the necessary resources in the development of a digital single market based on fast and ultra fast internet and interoperable applications in order to use its full potential to raise productivity and generate economic growth and attract investments, create jobs and reinforce its influence at a global level;

• That this Agenda will require a sustained level of commitment at both EU and Member State levels;

• That Europe should encourage the digital economy in order to use its enabling and cross-sectoral capability to increase productivity and competitiveness of other sectors and to take advantage of ICT to better meet the global challenges, such as the transformation to a low carbon and resource-efficient economy and the creation of more and better jobs;

• That differences exist between Member States in the development of the information society, in particular with regard to broadband networks, as indicated in "Europe's Digital Competitiveness Report 2010";

• That efficient and competitive investment in next generation broadband networks will be important for innovation, consumer choice and for the competitiveness of the European Union;

• That the Digital Agenda for Europe plays a key role within the "Europe 2020 Strategy" and should be consistent with the other components of this strategy and with the other forthcoming flagship initiatives, inter alia 'Innovation Union' and 'An Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era';

• That the Digital Agenda for Europe should boost the competitiveness of the European ICT sector at the worldwide level, thereby creating growth and jobs in the EU.


4. ENDORSES


• The establishment of an ambitious action agenda based upon concrete proposals notably to:

− create a fully functioning digital Single Market to the benefit of European businesses, in particular SMEs, and European consumers;

− strengthen Europe's competitive position in this important sector through reinforcing efforts on ICT Research and Development and Innovation and boosting the knowledge triangle;

− take coordinated measures on network and information security in order to increase trust and confidence in cyberspace;

− deploy effective measures to promote pro-competitive investments in broadband for all and the wide availability and take-up of faster internet;

− promote the take-up and use of the internet in order to ensure inclusion in the digital society, namely through the extensive use of equipment and digital content and tools in education and learning, by enhancing digital literacy and skills and by improving accessibility for all, especially for persons with disabilities;

− deploy ICT in order to address key societal challenges such as climate change, ageing and health care and fully exploit the potential of eGovernment, with due consideration to Member States' competences;

− enhance interoperability of IT solutions in Europe and promote a better use of standards;

− strengthen the European technological capacity in ICT, expanding the opportunities for SMEs to fully participate in the global market;

− establish a strong external dimension to the European Digital Agenda;

− encourage legal access to on-line content and facilitate electronic commerce for businesses and consumers;

− take measures to promote supply of quality on-line content to all consumers in the European Union;

− evaluate the Digital Agenda for Europe by the European Commission on a regular basis and to report to the Council and the European Parliament;

• The focusing of the Digital Agenda for Europe in its key actions in order to ensure that the economic, social and cultural potential of ICT is exploited to the maximum;

• The approach taken by the Commission to implement the "Digital Agenda for Europe" on the basis of a wide stakeholder involvement.


5. DRAWS THE ATTENTION OF THE HEADS OF STATE AND GOVERNMENT


• To the significance of the Digital Agenda for Europe for the economic and social development in the EU for their discussion at the European Council in June 2010, which should finally launch the Europe 2020 Strategy, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.


6. INVITES THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES


• To seek ways to enhance horizontal coordination between concerned institutions both at the EU and national level in order to improve the implementation of the Digital Agenda for Europe.

Comment

If a fully functioning digital single market means what it implies ─ one regulatory and supervisory regime and market for telecoms, content, e-commerce and copyright ─ the European Union could really make a difference in the life of businesses, consumers and citizens.

Let us hope that, for once, the EU Council is going to over-achieve.

In general, the conclusions of the TTE Council were positive, and they did not endorse censorship measures or limitations of users’ freedoms. However, this does not mean that the dangers have disappeared; they are just brewing somewhere else.

Returning to the beginning of this blog post, with regard to media attention. As a journalist, how would you have presented the story?




Ralf Grahn

Gravy train stops at Westminster (European elections)

Once upon a time, Carlo Levi wrote a moving account of how Christ stopped at Eboli.

For the British, with their keen sense of irony, it must be another kind of revelation to see how the Brussels gravy train they have been fed by Eurotoxic tabloids during the last decades has come to a stop at Westminster.


***

Why not use the opportunity to think about the challenges for Europe in a turbulent world, and to vote wisely in the European elections?


Ralf Grahn

For Libertas Brussels is Washington

Most of Libertas’s political message seems to be cloned on the age-old platform of American populist movements and politicians: Vote for us to clean up Washington!

The only real difference is that Brussels has replaced Washington.

After muckraking demands for disclosure of EU expenses, budget cuts and reducing the number of meetings, there is not much policy left.

Interestingly, Libertas has been extremely shy of disclosing its own affairs. As long as no credible information is given, the only reasonable assumption is that Libertas is a vanity project of Declan Ganley and that its courtiers and national chapters depend on his largesse.


***

Policies

The Libertas web site reminds us that the European elections start in some 33 days, but we are still greeted by this disclaimer about policies:


“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”


For a new political movement, there may have been excuses for this message until its great gathering, but it remains posted on the web page even after the first Libertas congress in Rome.


Ralf Grahn

The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty

The launch of Libertas has led to increased volumes of distortion about the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon.

How unelected were the elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty?

The draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was written by the European Convention. In addition to the Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen appointed by the European Council (national leaders) there were:

• 15 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States (one from each Member State),
• 13 representatives of the Heads of State or Government of the candidate States (1 per candidate State),
• 30 representatives of the national parliaments of the Member States (two from each Member State),
• 26 representatives of the national parliaments of the candidate States (two from each candidate State),
• 16 members of the European Parliament,
• 2 representatives of the European Commission.

Out of 105 delegates, 38 represented the national governments, 56 the national parliaments and 16 the directly elected European Parliament.

The only ones who remotely resembled unelected Brussels bureaucrats were two who represented the European Commission, which is nominated by the heads of state or government and approved by the European Parliament.

***

During the intergovernmental conference 2003─2004 the national governments of the EU member states watered down the Convention’s proposal to reach agreement on the Constitutional Treaty.

Where were the supranational bureaucrats?

***

The bleaker Treaty of Lisbon resulted from a new round of negotiations between the governments of the member states.

Where were the “unaccountable” Brussels bureaucrats, who by the way are held to account by the member states’ governments in the Council and by the European Parliament?

***

How truthful and accountable is Libertas?


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament session

The legislative term of the European Parliament is divided into annual sessions, part-sessions and sittings, but the internal autonomy of the EP does not extend to where it sits.


***

Current treaty

Article 196 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) in force offers us information about the sessions of the European Parliament. The annual session meets on the second Tuesday in March. Extraordinary sessions can be convened (latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/134):


Article 196 TEC

The European Parliament shall hold an annual session. It shall meet, without requiring to be convened, on the second Tuesday in March.

The European Parliament may meet in extraordinary session at the request of a majority of its Members or at the request of the Council or of the Commission.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 184 of the original Treaty of Lisbon makes two small amendments to the wording of Article 196 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/102):


184) In the second paragraph of Article 196, the words ‘in extraordinary session’ shall be replaced by ‘in extraordinary part-session’ and the words ‘of its Members’ shall be replaced by ‘of its component members’.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

When extraordinary part-session and component members have been inserted and the provision renumbered, the consolidated (readable) Lisbon Treaty version of Article 229 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) looks like this (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/151):


Article 229 TFEU
(ex Article 196 TEC)

The European Parliament shall hold an annual session. It shall meet, without requiring to be convened, on the second Tuesday in March.

The European Parliament may meet in extraordinary part-session at the request of a majority of its component Members or at the request of the Council or of the Commission.


***

Comment

After the amendments Article 229 TFEU is identical with Article III-336 of the Constitutional Treaty. Component members does not alter the meaning, although it makes it clearer for the reader. Part-session takes into account that the annual session in practice lasts the whole year.

At the first glance a provision like this may look dull or even meaningless, but it is significant for the orderly conduct of parliamentary business and has connections with other provisions.


***

EP Rules of Procedure

Internally the European Parliament has arranged for the conduct of business in its Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008):


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN


Title VI Sessions starts with Chapter 1 Sessions of Parliament, comprising Rules 126 to 129:


TITLE VI SESSIONS

CHAPTER 1 SESSIONS OF PARLIAMENT


Rule 126 Parliamentary term, sessions, part-sessions, sittings

1. The parliamentary term shall run concurrently with the term of office of Members provided for in the Act of 20 September 1976.

2. The session shall be the annual period prescribed by the Act and the Treaties.

3. The part-session shall be the meeting of Parliament convened as a rule each month and subdivided into daily sittings.


(Explanation: Sittings of Parliament held on the same day shall be deemed to be a single sitting.)


Rule 127 Convening of Parliament

1. Parliament shall meet, without requiring to be convened, on the second Tuesday in March each year and shall itself determine the duration of adjournments of the session.

2. Parliament shall, moreover, meet without requiring to be convened on the first Tuesday after expiry of an interval of one month from the end of the period referred to in Article 10(1) of the Act of 20 September 1976.

3. The Conference of Presidents, stating its reasons, may alter the duration of adjournments decided pursuant to paragraph 1 at least two weeks before the date previously fixed by Parliament for resuming the session; the date of resumption shall not, however, be postponed for more than two weeks.

4. Exceptionally, after consulting the Conference of Presidents, the President shall convene Parliament at the request of a majority of its component Members or at the request of the Commission or the Council.

Exceptionally, with the approval of the Conference of Presidents, the President may convene Parliament in cases of urgency.


Rule 128 Venue of sittings and meetings

1. Parliament shall hold its sittings and its committee meetings in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.

Proposals for additional part-sessions in Brussels and any amendments thereto will require only a majority of the votes cast.

2. Any committee may decide to ask that one or more meetings be held elsewhere. Its request, with the reasons therefor, shall be made to the President, who shall place it before the Bureau. If the matter is urgent, the President may take the decision himself. Should the request be rejected by the Bureau or the President the reasons for the rejection shall be stated.


Rule 129 Attendance of Members at sittings

1. An attendance register shall be laid open for signature by Members at each sitting.

2. The names of Members present, as shown in the attendance register, shall be recorded in the minutes of each sitting.


***

Traveling circus

The so called traveling circus is impractical for the members of the European Parliament, costly for taxpayers and bewildering for EU citizens.

It has been imposed by the member states at treaty level through ─ in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty ─ Protocol (No 6) on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/265).

Point (a) of the Sole Article dictates twelve monthly (part-)sessions to be held in Strasbourg:


(a) The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg.


***

Rational decision-making, the will of the MEPs or citizens’ initiatives do not count. As a treaty level provision Protocol No 6 can be changed only unanimously by the member states, one of which is France.

But a great victory for all those who extol the virtues of voluntary intergovernmental cooperation between free, independent and sovereign European states!

Outside the Strasbourg part-sessions the European Parliament convenes for so called mini-sessions in Brussels, where its committees meet and the Commission is located, as well as the Council.


***

Immunity


In the consolidated Lisbon Treaty Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union means that the year long annual session of the European Parliament protects the immunity of MEPs, unless waived by the EP:

Article 9
(ex Article 10)

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.


***

Assessment of available information

Most of the information about the European Parliament seems to be available and fairly well ordered, but when the Rules of Procedure refer to the Act of 20 September 1976 (which leads to the amending 2002 decision) there are voids to fill.

Ahead of the European elections it is necessary for the European Parliament to upgrade the available, accessible and updated information about European electoral rules (however little there is to be proud of).



Ralf Grahn

EU no Leviathan

“To dismantle that bloated, anti-democratic monstrosity in Brussels, I hope. To save the Europeans from themselves, yet again. They never learn.”

Some agitated minds seem to be ill at ease with the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Union in general, but the reasons given are not always very illuminating.

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the EU’s founding values: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities?

According to the new version of the Treaty on European Union (Article 2), these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

What do they find obnoxious about the aims of the Union (Article 3), such as freedom, security and justice, free movement of persons, the internal market, combating social exclusion and discrimination, promoting social justice and equality between women and men?

Do they know that competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States (Article 4), that the limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral and that the use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (Article 5)?

Are they aware of the fact that the Reform Treaty is mainly about improving the inner working (procedures) of the European Union, not about the attribution of new powers?

What about the unelected officials as lawmakers?

The Lisbon Treaty (Article 8a) states that the functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament. Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.

Perhaps the culprit is here: The Commission shall promote the general interest of the Union and take appropriate initiatives to that end. The President of the Commission is proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council, by common accord with the President-elect, shall adopt the list of persons to be members of the Commission, which shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament (Article 9d).

Should the civil servants of the Commission, the judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union and officials other Union institutions be elected by popular vote? Are civil servants and judges elected by the citizens in, for instance, Britain?

The Commission does not make laws, it makes proposals. Laws are enacted by the Council, in many cases jointly with the European Parliament.

Areas of intergovernmental co-operation are less transparent than the questions where the European Parliament exercises legislative and budgetary functions. Shouldn’t those who long for openness and democratic accountability demand extended powers for the European Parliament, in short a democratic Union?

A number of European local governments employ more than 30,000 public servants. Are these cities bloated monstrosities, too? There are some 490 million EU citizens, and the relative size of the Union’s budget is one twentieth part of the federal budget of the United States of America.

By May 2004 governments and parliaments in 27 democratic European countries had applied and been accepted as members of the European Union. Surely, they must have seen some benefits. Surely, looking back at Europe’s history, they had learned something.

The European Union is no Leviathan. How should one evaluate a school system and media, which fail to give people basic civic knowledge?


Ralf Grahn