Sweden is fairly British in its EU politics and policies, although more pragmatic and much less abrasive. Here is a recap of some aspects of Sweden in European integration.
Sweden has a long tradition of intergovernmental thinking in international relations. Sweden is one of the top countries in almost all important global rankings, so Swedes do not always see EU standards as an improvement.
Sweden
With regard to EU2020 growth reforms and sustainable public finances, the member states of the European Union have reason to use Sweden as a model, even if the Swedish government is unclear about defence cooperation, well outside the eurozone core, leading a rich-country rebellion against the proposed long term budget (multiannual financial framework MFF) 2014-2020, willing to promote enlargement with no end in sight, and opposing preassures for core countries to advance more rapidly than the 27-member EU as a whole.
The Swedish government showed its competent and pragmatic qualities during the EU Council presidency during the latter half of 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty finally entered into force (from 1 December 2009).
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label EU politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EU politics. Show all posts
Friday, 23 September 2011
Saturday, 5 February 2011
Busy week in Brussels: EU politics and governance
With the General Affairs Council (GAC), the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) and the European Council, it was a busy week in Brussels politics. Here is a roundup of my main blog posts (often the second on the same theme, downstream) about the meetings and reflections on governance, including openness and transparency.
There are, in addition to fairly extensive references to documents, critical assessments of how the EU institutions work, as well as positive comments about praiseworthy efforts to get EU citizens on board.
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU General Affairs Council 31 January 2011 (30 January 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Swedish: Egypten anslöjar EU:s utrikespolitik (Utrikesrådet 31 januari 2011) (31 January 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Finnish: EU:n yleisten asioiden neuvosto valmisteli Eurooppa-nevoston kokousta 4. helmikuuta 2011 (1 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Miracle of European Council conclusions (4 February 2011) (2 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Swedish: EU-rådet mörkar samordningen av ekonomisk politik och budgetpolitik (3 February 2011)
Grahnlaw: European Semester and Annual Growth Survey: Governance by mushroom principle (3 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Main issues (4 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Energy (4 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Eurozone solutions? (4 February 2011)
Eurooppaoikeus, in Finnish: Eurooppa 2030 -hanke: Haasteet ja mahdollisuudet (5 February 2011)
In future blog posts we return to the results of the meeting of the European Council 4 February 2011.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu brings you the posts from 737 Euroblogs, part of an emerging European public online space. Keep up to date and improve your language skills!
P.S. 2: I am happy if you want to read my Euroblogs, which aim to discuss legal and political issues relevant to European enterprises, jobs, employers and employees, consumers and citizens, especially in cross-border situations. Internal market reform (Single Market Act) and the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020 flagship initiatives) are going to be among the main themes, upstream on Grahnlaw (in English), Grahnblawg (in Swedish) and Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish), as well as usually downstream on the trilingual Grahnlaw Suomi Finland. If you are interested in European business, politics or law, we can get acquainted on Facebook and on Twitter @RalfGrahn.
There are, in addition to fairly extensive references to documents, critical assessments of how the EU institutions work, as well as positive comments about praiseworthy efforts to get EU citizens on board.
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU General Affairs Council 31 January 2011 (30 January 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Swedish: Egypten anslöjar EU:s utrikespolitik (Utrikesrådet 31 januari 2011) (31 January 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Finnish: EU:n yleisten asioiden neuvosto valmisteli Eurooppa-nevoston kokousta 4. helmikuuta 2011 (1 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Miracle of European Council conclusions (4 February 2011) (2 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland, in Swedish: EU-rådet mörkar samordningen av ekonomisk politik och budgetpolitik (3 February 2011)
Grahnlaw: European Semester and Annual Growth Survey: Governance by mushroom principle (3 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Main issues (4 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Energy (4 February 2011)
Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council 4 February 2011: Eurozone solutions? (4 February 2011)
Eurooppaoikeus, in Finnish: Eurooppa 2030 -hanke: Haasteet ja mahdollisuudet (5 February 2011)
In future blog posts we return to the results of the meeting of the European Council 4 February 2011.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu brings you the posts from 737 Euroblogs, part of an emerging European public online space. Keep up to date and improve your language skills!
P.S. 2: I am happy if you want to read my Euroblogs, which aim to discuss legal and political issues relevant to European enterprises, jobs, employers and employees, consumers and citizens, especially in cross-border situations. Internal market reform (Single Market Act) and the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020 flagship initiatives) are going to be among the main themes, upstream on Grahnlaw (in English), Grahnblawg (in Swedish) and Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish), as well as usually downstream on the trilingual Grahnlaw Suomi Finland. If you are interested in European business, politics or law, we can get acquainted on Facebook and on Twitter @RalfGrahn.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
EU politics and law: Part federation, part something else? What?
Yesterday’s blog post “EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?” found that the European Union has “parliamentary” traits, but because of the structure of the EU it still feels artificial to try to cram even co-decision (the ordinary legislative procedure) under such a heading, now that the term “Community method” is obsolete.
I still hope for teachers, researchers and students of European Union politics and law, as well as others, to offer their views, but in the meanwhile I will continue the soliloqui.
Federal?
By the structure of the European Union I mean that its powers are basically derived from its constituent parts, the member states, not from the people, although democracy is one of the founding values of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and the functioning of the union is said to be founded on representative democracy (Article 10 TEU).
When the directly elected European Parliament acts at eyelevel with the Council, we can describe the system and the decision making as federal, although the term seems to lack precision.
Should we try that: federal decision making or the federal method?
Does it satisfy sense and sensibility?
What about the rest?
If part of EU decision making is described as federal, we are still left with a few problems.
Are we to exclude the term “federal” when we discuss EU politics, policies or issues, where the European Parliament plays a lesser role than the governments of the member states?
I have a hard time imagining that a 21st century political system in Europe could be called federal, if not also democratic: based on legitimate representative democracy at federal level (with powers at least equal to those of the states).
This leaves outside a number of matters on a sliding scale of intergovernmentalism, from more limited participation by the European Parliament and the Commission to inexistent.
On the flip side of the coin, there are special legislative procedures where the European Council and the Council decide as EU institutions, within the EU framework and its powers (competences), but in principle everything outside the attributed powers is left to purely intergovernmental decisions.
Actually, the existential questions for the European Union are in the hands of the member states, each of them sovereign enough on its own to prevent a decision (liberum veto). Only unanimous agreement by all governments (possibly requiring ratification by all parliaments, or even some national electorates) can reform the structures and powers.
This means that the future development of the European Union could be held hostage by first the government, then the parliament and possibly (if national constitutional requirements so say) the voters as well, even in the smallest member state; at present Malta with about 416,000 people, something like 0.083 per cent of the total EU population of 501 million. Big or small, is this legitimate?
Despite my reticence, should anything on this sliding scale of intergovernmental decision making be included under the concept “federal”?
If not federal, which terms should we employ for the various modes?
Intergovernmental? Confederal? International?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
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.
I still hope for teachers, researchers and students of European Union politics and law, as well as others, to offer their views, but in the meanwhile I will continue the soliloqui.
Federal?
By the structure of the European Union I mean that its powers are basically derived from its constituent parts, the member states, not from the people, although democracy is one of the founding values of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and the functioning of the union is said to be founded on representative democracy (Article 10 TEU).
When the directly elected European Parliament acts at eyelevel with the Council, we can describe the system and the decision making as federal, although the term seems to lack precision.
Should we try that: federal decision making or the federal method?
Does it satisfy sense and sensibility?
What about the rest?
If part of EU decision making is described as federal, we are still left with a few problems.
Are we to exclude the term “federal” when we discuss EU politics, policies or issues, where the European Parliament plays a lesser role than the governments of the member states?
I have a hard time imagining that a 21st century political system in Europe could be called federal, if not also democratic: based on legitimate representative democracy at federal level (with powers at least equal to those of the states).
This leaves outside a number of matters on a sliding scale of intergovernmentalism, from more limited participation by the European Parliament and the Commission to inexistent.
On the flip side of the coin, there are special legislative procedures where the European Council and the Council decide as EU institutions, within the EU framework and its powers (competences), but in principle everything outside the attributed powers is left to purely intergovernmental decisions.
Actually, the existential questions for the European Union are in the hands of the member states, each of them sovereign enough on its own to prevent a decision (liberum veto). Only unanimous agreement by all governments (possibly requiring ratification by all parliaments, or even some national electorates) can reform the structures and powers.
This means that the future development of the European Union could be held hostage by first the government, then the parliament and possibly (if national constitutional requirements so say) the voters as well, even in the smallest member state; at present Malta with about 416,000 people, something like 0.083 per cent of the total EU population of 501 million. Big or small, is this legitimate?
Despite my reticence, should anything on this sliding scale of intergovernmental decision making be included under the concept “federal”?
If not federal, which terms should we employ for the various modes?
Intergovernmental? Confederal? International?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
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.
Monday, 27 September 2010
EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?
Almost two decades ago, from 1 November 1993, the Treaty on European Union (TEU; Maastricht Treaty, 1992) established the European Union (EU) as the overall term and as the framework for intergovernmental second pillar foreign and security policy, as well as third pillar justice and home affairs.
However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.
Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.
Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.
Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.
At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?
Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.
But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.
There is need for a wider, more political term.
The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.
Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?
The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.
The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.
In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.
Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)
Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?
Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?
Your help is needed.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.
Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.
Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.
Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.
At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?
Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.
But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.
There is need for a wider, more political term.
The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.
Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?
The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.
The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.
In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.
Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)
Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?
Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?
Your help is needed.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Friday, 3 September 2010
Barroso communicating Europe: National and European identities
We do not know if the EU Commissioners gathered in Val Duchesse agreed to shred Viviane Reding’s communication plan and decided to enter the fascinating world of 21st century communication instead, but we do know that we saw both disquieting and promising signs around the time of the Commission’s seminar retreat.
In English on EUobserver and thus widely distributed, Valentina Pop reported Commission president José Manuel Barroso on the defensive, blaming national capitals for the plunge in EU popularity.
Pop’s article seems to be based on the lengthier Barroso interview published the previous day in the Corriere della Sera: “Troppi Paesi individualisti e miopi – Così il progetto europeo si ferma”.
In my view, while the defensive aspects floated to the surface in Pop’s essentially correct summary, in the Italian interview the blame was balanced by more arguments about our identities, as well as proposals and activities of the European Union.
Barroso’s thoughts about our double identities – national and European – as well as a sense of ownership of the European project, are worth noting:
In the blog post No National European Vision, The European Citizen noted the difficulties the EU institutions have in communicating what the European Union does, but he made the observations that member state governments do not fall or get re-elected based on their Council voting record, and national political parties are not designed for European politics and issues.
Anti-EU brigade
Gawain Towler (UKIP) sees the reasons for the EU’s unpopularity in simpler terms: because it is unresponsive, bureaucratic, undemocratic and irrelevant to people's lives. Democracy, or the lack of it, is the distinguishing feature between the national and the European level.
On his Telegraph blog, Daniel Hannan (anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists Group) offers Five reasons why the EU is more unpopular than ever. Hannan lists the euro, the bail-outs, the sense of iniquity, the spiralling costs and the lack of democracy, but he offers no remedies.
In the Mail Online, Mary Ellen Synon empties her euroseptic tank, using Open Europe’s spin and her own fantasies to depict Barroso as a midnight stalker.
Are these anti-EU ideas helpful for our understanding? Perhaps there is reason to look at a few entries with constructive intent.
European ideas
On the academic blog collective Ideas on Europe, Giorgi Tabagari deals with the EU as a Scapegoat, showing approval of Barroso’s statement that we won’t solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own. If the EU is merely deemed as a benefit like late Polish president once put quite bluntly, it will never manage to compete with the USA or emerging powers, Tabagari concludes.
In his previous blog entry, The European Union and the Crisis, Tabagari related the history of social policy at European level before offering prescriptions for the future of the European Union:
To put matters into perspective, The European Citizen makes a case for arguing with the “facts”, while acknowledging that the Eurobarometer results leave the battlefield of specific policies wide open. He points out the tendentious reporting by anti-EU commentators, supplying a few omitted facts. Among them:
Lessons?
The most vehement anti-EU sentiments reflect a domestic UK legitimacy problem more than they help our understanding of the European Union.
Let them bask in the glory of localism in post-Roman Britain, the ‘patriotic’ rebellions of Queen Boudicca, or whatever (in the spirit of Synon), but the rest of the EU has to think forward.
In my view, Barroso’s remarks on the need for European and national identities were equally directed at us EU citizens as at our national governments. We have to decide if we want the European project and EU level solutions.
Naturally, each one of us has reason to think about what our state could achieve on its own in this world of emerging powers.
Citizens seem to be critical of the European Union’s achievements by May 2010 regarding their main concerns – unemployment and the economy – but open towards EU level solutions.
The Commission and the other EU institutions still have to prove that they are a part of the solution, instead of a part of the problem. The battle of ideas The European Citizen referred to is on, with lessons to draw regarding politics, policies and communication.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
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.
In English on EUobserver and thus widely distributed, Valentina Pop reported Commission president José Manuel Barroso on the defensive, blaming national capitals for the plunge in EU popularity.
Pop’s article seems to be based on the lengthier Barroso interview published the previous day in the Corriere della Sera: “Troppi Paesi individualisti e miopi – Così il progetto europeo si ferma”.
In my view, while the defensive aspects floated to the surface in Pop’s essentially correct summary, in the Italian interview the blame was balanced by more arguments about our identities, as well as proposals and activities of the European Union.
Barroso’s thoughts about our double identities – national and European – as well as a sense of ownership of the European project, are worth noting:
Non possiamo più pensare a una identità esclusiva, dobbiamo abituarci al concetto di identità multipla.
... i problemi non si risolveranno fino a che ogni nazione non vede il progetto europeo come il suo progetto.
In the blog post No National European Vision, The European Citizen noted the difficulties the EU institutions have in communicating what the European Union does, but he made the observations that member state governments do not fall or get re-elected based on their Council voting record, and national political parties are not designed for European politics and issues.
Anti-EU brigade
Gawain Towler (UKIP) sees the reasons for the EU’s unpopularity in simpler terms: because it is unresponsive, bureaucratic, undemocratic and irrelevant to people's lives. Democracy, or the lack of it, is the distinguishing feature between the national and the European level.
On his Telegraph blog, Daniel Hannan (anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists Group) offers Five reasons why the EU is more unpopular than ever. Hannan lists the euro, the bail-outs, the sense of iniquity, the spiralling costs and the lack of democracy, but he offers no remedies.
In the Mail Online, Mary Ellen Synon empties her euroseptic tank, using Open Europe’s spin and her own fantasies to depict Barroso as a midnight stalker.
Are these anti-EU ideas helpful for our understanding? Perhaps there is reason to look at a few entries with constructive intent.
European ideas
On the academic blog collective Ideas on Europe, Giorgi Tabagari deals with the EU as a Scapegoat, showing approval of Barroso’s statement that we won’t solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own. If the EU is merely deemed as a benefit like late Polish president once put quite bluntly, it will never manage to compete with the USA or emerging powers, Tabagari concludes.
In his previous blog entry, The European Union and the Crisis, Tabagari related the history of social policy at European level before offering prescriptions for the future of the European Union:
Once again there is only one way out: a common European fiscal and economic policy ruled by a European government which is properly empowered and thus able to provide an appropriate guidance. We also need a common European budget in support of the economy and of the people. The solution for the crisis should not necessarily be at citizens’ expense. Either we become united or we will perish, for the umpteenth time.
To put matters into perspective, The European Citizen makes a case for arguing with the “facts”, while acknowledging that the Eurobarometer results leave the battlefield of specific policies wide open. He points out the tendentious reporting by anti-EU commentators, supplying a few omitted facts. Among them:
... the trust rates for national governments are over 10% lower, and nobody is suggesting that national governments should stop mooting ideas or bringing forward policies (or, in the other extreme, being abolished to allow for more government from the "more trusted" EU level of governance).
Lessons?
The most vehement anti-EU sentiments reflect a domestic UK legitimacy problem more than they help our understanding of the European Union.
Let them bask in the glory of localism in post-Roman Britain, the ‘patriotic’ rebellions of Queen Boudicca, or whatever (in the spirit of Synon), but the rest of the EU has to think forward.
In my view, Barroso’s remarks on the need for European and national identities were equally directed at us EU citizens as at our national governments. We have to decide if we want the European project and EU level solutions.
Naturally, each one of us has reason to think about what our state could achieve on its own in this world of emerging powers.
Citizens seem to be critical of the European Union’s achievements by May 2010 regarding their main concerns – unemployment and the economy – but open towards EU level solutions.
The Commission and the other EU institutions still have to prove that they are a part of the solution, instead of a part of the problem. The battle of ideas The European Citizen referred to is on, with lessons to draw regarding politics, policies and communication.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
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.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
Mr Bildt went to Madrid
Our blog post Mr Bildt goes to Madrid (8 January 2010) tried to show that the presidency of the Council of the European is – and should be – more restricted under the Lisbon Treaty (despite the fact that Sweden marketed its presidency of the Council as that of the European Union, which went beyond even the previous Treaty of Nice).
We now have the short speech Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt gave as part of the festivities kicking off the Spanish presidency in Madrid yesterday.
Although Bildt still spoke of the Swedish presidency of the European Union, he was clear in underlining the new roles created by the Treaty of Lisbon, which are: the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the high representative Catherine Ashton and the presidency of the Council configurations other than the foreign affairs Council taken over by Spain.
Bildt’s succinct reminders of the need for the European Union and of the challenges ahead are worth reading.
From Madrid
For comparison, the Spanish EU Council presidency website used the following headline to describe the ceremony: Sweden passes the baton on to Spain at the beginning of a “new era” (8 January 2010). The first paragraph was telling, as well (emphasis mine):
The rest of the press release was hardly more illuminating as to the new role of the Council presidency, despite an oblique reference to the Lisbon Treaty and later the new leadership mentioned on the last two lines.
Spain had to start planning its Council presidency long before anyone knew for sure, if the Lisbon Treaty is going to enter into force. Planned big events are hard to cancel, but the speeches and press releases of the Spanish government fell short of educating the public.
Other political news of the day can be found in: Rodríguez Zapatero advocates strengthening the economic union; Press conference of Zapatero, Van Rompuy and Barroso.
(For some reason the front page headline What is going to happen again features the depressing: No hay eventos pendientes.)
New start by Belgium?
The next Council presidency goes to Belgium, so the handing over will take place in Brussels, one would think. That could be the start of a tradition adapted to the new realities.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Kosmopolito describes itself as the blog with a European perspective. It is written by Kosmopolit and a small team. Kosmopolito is listed among the now more than 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.
We now have the short speech Sweden’s foreign minister Carl Bildt gave as part of the festivities kicking off the Spanish presidency in Madrid yesterday.
Although Bildt still spoke of the Swedish presidency of the European Union, he was clear in underlining the new roles created by the Treaty of Lisbon, which are: the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy, the high representative Catherine Ashton and the presidency of the Council configurations other than the foreign affairs Council taken over by Spain.
Bildt’s succinct reminders of the need for the European Union and of the challenges ahead are worth reading.
From Madrid
For comparison, the Spanish EU Council presidency website used the following headline to describe the ceremony: Sweden passes the baton on to Spain at the beginning of a “new era” (8 January 2010). The first paragraph was telling, as well (emphasis mine):
The Swedish minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, today formally handed on the baton of the rotating Presidency of the EU to the Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, at an inaugural gala at which both spoke of the decisive moment which Europe is going through and the need to live up to the expectations which it raises.
The rest of the press release was hardly more illuminating as to the new role of the Council presidency, despite an oblique reference to the Lisbon Treaty and later the new leadership mentioned on the last two lines.
Spain had to start planning its Council presidency long before anyone knew for sure, if the Lisbon Treaty is going to enter into force. Planned big events are hard to cancel, but the speeches and press releases of the Spanish government fell short of educating the public.
Other political news of the day can be found in: Rodríguez Zapatero advocates strengthening the economic union; Press conference of Zapatero, Van Rompuy and Barroso.
(For some reason the front page headline What is going to happen again features the depressing: No hay eventos pendientes.)
New start by Belgium?
The next Council presidency goes to Belgium, so the handing over will take place in Brussels, one would think. That could be the start of a tradition adapted to the new realities.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Kosmopolito describes itself as the blog with a European perspective. It is written by Kosmopolit and a small team. Kosmopolito is listed among the now more than 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, a useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs, i.a. politics, policies, economics, finance and law.
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Bloggingportal challenges Europarties
Bloggingportal.eu has grown considerably since the start. It now brings together 487 Euroblogs in one convenient place on its Posts page. Voluntary editors tag the entries according to their contents (although the system needs improvement) and post their choices on the Home page. RSS feeds are available for all posts or for the editors’ choice on the “front page”.
Here are some of my reflections on Bloggingportal.eu generally, the editors’ choices and blogging politicians representing Europarties.
Multilingualism?
Bloggingportal.eu is multilingual, offering the choice of 25 languages (including Norwegian). In practice, English is by far the dominant language by number of blogs, numerically followed by French, but some of them of high quality.
When we think that German is the most widely spoken mother tongue in the European Union, the rarity of German language EU blogs is striking. On the other hand, there are now a few active quality blogs in Spanish.
Without exaggerating much, one could say that most of the other languages are represented by one or a few individuals.
There are still wide uncovered areas in an EU with 500 million inhabitants.
Editors’ choices
The editors should, in my opinion, look for original content as opposed to boilerplate announcements, journalistic quality, various viewpoints, variety of themes and linguistic diversity.
In practice, professional journalists and some experienced citizen bloggers seem to be highlighted on the Home page most frequently, and there is fairly little linguistic variety.
Bloggingportal.eu offers a Feedback button, so readers can offer their views and suggestions for improvements.
Europarties
Fairly few professional EU politicians blog actively. Interestingly, blogging foreign ministers like Carl Bildt and Alexander Stubb seem to be able to post original content frequently, although their languages – Swedish and Finnish – remain behind the language barrier for most readers.
If we look at the number of MEPs and staffers, relatively few have taken up blogging (or found their way to Bloggingportal.eu). There are a few encouraging examples, but even among them there are some problems from a reader’s viewpoint.
Many politicians’ blog posts are hasty announcements of the “I’ll be in Strasbourg next week” type. Some report events, not only national in scope, but from constituency level, such as the birthday of a local party loyalist. Then there are posts, which rattle off links to parliamentary questions and letters, or reproduce announcements by political groups, without added value or a European dimension.
All in all, there are not many MEP posts with serious, reflected content, inviting political discussion with citizens on issues of common European concern.
Naturally, elected politicians have to tend to their constituents, but do the European level parties – Europarties – step into the breach?
If we discount self-promotion on national or local issues by individual politicians, there is practically only one political party, which bridges the gap to citizens, by offering political discussion with a European dimension.
This exception is the Party of European Socialists [tagged pse on Bloggingportal.eu] and especially the Social Europe Journal, which is not listed on Bloggingportal.eu in the category of MEPs / MPs / Political parties, but among Think tanks / Academic / Federations.
Although some elected politicians write for Social Europe, most of the columnists are intellectuals (academics and party activists), who discuss the future of reformist socialism and social democracy in Europe.
The articles are reasoned and often well written, from a European perspective, which means that many of them are promoted to the front page of Bloggingportal.eu.
Good for them! If they deserve to be highlighted, they should be.
But this still leaves us with some questions. In a European Union dominated by centre-right, liberal and (far) right political forces, with active Greens staking out their visions for the future and uppity newcomers like the Pirate Party claiming the front row on web related issues, where are these other Europarties?
Do they think and act at European level? If so, why is there so little to be seen?
I have no yearning for boilerplate resolutions, but for ideas about our European future, engaging citizens to read, reflect and respond.
It is time for the other Europarties, their political foundations and the EP political groups, as well as staffers and activists, to take up the challenge and for the PES to fight to keep its lead.
Ralf Grahn
Here are some of my reflections on Bloggingportal.eu generally, the editors’ choices and blogging politicians representing Europarties.
Multilingualism?
Bloggingportal.eu is multilingual, offering the choice of 25 languages (including Norwegian). In practice, English is by far the dominant language by number of blogs, numerically followed by French, but some of them of high quality.
When we think that German is the most widely spoken mother tongue in the European Union, the rarity of German language EU blogs is striking. On the other hand, there are now a few active quality blogs in Spanish.
Without exaggerating much, one could say that most of the other languages are represented by one or a few individuals.
There are still wide uncovered areas in an EU with 500 million inhabitants.
Editors’ choices
The editors should, in my opinion, look for original content as opposed to boilerplate announcements, journalistic quality, various viewpoints, variety of themes and linguistic diversity.
In practice, professional journalists and some experienced citizen bloggers seem to be highlighted on the Home page most frequently, and there is fairly little linguistic variety.
Bloggingportal.eu offers a Feedback button, so readers can offer their views and suggestions for improvements.
Europarties
Fairly few professional EU politicians blog actively. Interestingly, blogging foreign ministers like Carl Bildt and Alexander Stubb seem to be able to post original content frequently, although their languages – Swedish and Finnish – remain behind the language barrier for most readers.
If we look at the number of MEPs and staffers, relatively few have taken up blogging (or found their way to Bloggingportal.eu). There are a few encouraging examples, but even among them there are some problems from a reader’s viewpoint.
Many politicians’ blog posts are hasty announcements of the “I’ll be in Strasbourg next week” type. Some report events, not only national in scope, but from constituency level, such as the birthday of a local party loyalist. Then there are posts, which rattle off links to parliamentary questions and letters, or reproduce announcements by political groups, without added value or a European dimension.
All in all, there are not many MEP posts with serious, reflected content, inviting political discussion with citizens on issues of common European concern.
Naturally, elected politicians have to tend to their constituents, but do the European level parties – Europarties – step into the breach?
If we discount self-promotion on national or local issues by individual politicians, there is practically only one political party, which bridges the gap to citizens, by offering political discussion with a European dimension.
This exception is the Party of European Socialists [tagged pse on Bloggingportal.eu] and especially the Social Europe Journal, which is not listed on Bloggingportal.eu in the category of MEPs / MPs / Political parties, but among Think tanks / Academic / Federations.
Although some elected politicians write for Social Europe, most of the columnists are intellectuals (academics and party activists), who discuss the future of reformist socialism and social democracy in Europe.
The articles are reasoned and often well written, from a European perspective, which means that many of them are promoted to the front page of Bloggingportal.eu.
Good for them! If they deserve to be highlighted, they should be.
But this still leaves us with some questions. In a European Union dominated by centre-right, liberal and (far) right political forces, with active Greens staking out their visions for the future and uppity newcomers like the Pirate Party claiming the front row on web related issues, where are these other Europarties?
Do they think and act at European level? If so, why is there so little to be seen?
I have no yearning for boilerplate resolutions, but for ideas about our European future, engaging citizens to read, reflect and respond.
It is time for the other Europarties, their political foundations and the EP political groups, as well as staffers and activists, to take up the challenge and for the PES to fight to keep its lead.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Educating future EU Council Presidencies ─ Czech example
Today and tomorrow the Trans European Policy Studies Association TEPSA and the Real Instituto Elcano arrange a conference on the Spanish EU Council presidency 2010, which starts the 18 month trio presidency Spain-Belgium-Hungary. See Spain: Presidency of the EU Council 2010 (Grahnlaw, 25 November 2009).
In addition to the ongoing Swedish presidency, past presidency experiences are valuable for the politicians and the administrations in the member states preparing to take on the responsibilities.
Czech EU Council presidency
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski
Piotr Maciej Kazcynski wrote Lessons from the Czech EU Presidency (CEPS Commentary, 4 September 2009; 2 pages), in the first six months of 2009. Kaczynski lists five major errors:
• The presidency was politically (but not administratively) terminated when the Topolanek government was toppled without being immediately replaced.
• Neglecting unofficial contacts in Brussels, including lack of interaction by Czech civil society actors.
• The mix of national and European politics, with lack of domestic political peace, including uncertainty about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
• Promoting national instead of European issues (or at least arguments).
• Not tailoring the presidency to the real capabilities of the Czech Republic, leading to flawed delivery.
From these filures, Kazcynski draws lessons for future EU Council presidencies.
***
Daniel Esparza
Daniel Esparza evaluated the Czech EU Council presidency in Reflexiones sobre la Presidencia checa en la UE: ¿la “peor de toda la historia” o crisis de identidad generalizada? (Real Instituto Elcano, ARI 157/2009, 17 November 2009).
The circumstances were difficult: the economic and financial crisis, the EU’s institutional and Lisbon Treaty difficulties, the Gaza crisis and the Russian gas crisis.
The lecturing of Europe by the Topolanek government during the “first presidency” was not well received by the bigger EU member states. In Europe, the activities of president Vaclav Klaus and the ODS party in government labeled the Czech Republic much more “eurosceptic” than it is.
During Jan Fischer’s caretaker government, the “second presidency” was seen as serene, calm, diplomatic and professional.
According to Esparza the Czech EU Council presidency made certain progress in its substantial priority areas ─ economy, energy and EU in the world ─ but the arrogance shown by president Klaus lecturing the European Parliament and to some extent by prime minister Topolanek made few friends among the EU institutions, although Topolanek worked hard for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Czech presidency occurred during a period of general identity crisis in the European Union, post the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism and EU enlargement. Some have hankered back to the halcyon days of the EEC, especially “eurosceptics” in Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic (who rejected the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Others have tried to adapt to new challenges and circumstances in a globalised world, by strengthening the EU’s ability to act and compete in the world (eurofederalists).
The Czech presidency of the Council of the European Union will be unforgettable, despite substantive progress during these six months. Still, the europhobic reputation of the Czech Republic caused by Vaclav Klaus and some anti-EU politicians is unfair to the majority of the Czech political parties and the population. Jan Fischer’s caretaker government had time to repair some damage with professionalism and diplomatic tact, and it later contributed to the solution of the political and institutional crisis of the European Union.
***
Sieps midterm assessment
A third and detailed reference to the Czech EU Council presidency is a mid-term assessment, published before the end of the presidency, namely David Král, Vladimir Bartovic and Vera Rihackova: The 2009 Czech EU Presidency: Contested Leadership at a Time of Crisis (Swedish Institute for European Policy Sudies, occasional papers, SIEPS 2009:2op; 91 pages).
***
Czech EU relations
Those who are interested in the relations between the Czech Republic and the European Union in general, can read the blog post Czech EU mysteries explained (Grahnlaw, 26 November 2009), which refers to the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
In addition to the ongoing Swedish presidency, past presidency experiences are valuable for the politicians and the administrations in the member states preparing to take on the responsibilities.
Czech EU Council presidency
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski
Piotr Maciej Kazcynski wrote Lessons from the Czech EU Presidency (CEPS Commentary, 4 September 2009; 2 pages), in the first six months of 2009. Kaczynski lists five major errors:
• The presidency was politically (but not administratively) terminated when the Topolanek government was toppled without being immediately replaced.
• Neglecting unofficial contacts in Brussels, including lack of interaction by Czech civil society actors.
• The mix of national and European politics, with lack of domestic political peace, including uncertainty about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
• Promoting national instead of European issues (or at least arguments).
• Not tailoring the presidency to the real capabilities of the Czech Republic, leading to flawed delivery.
From these filures, Kazcynski draws lessons for future EU Council presidencies.
***
Daniel Esparza
Daniel Esparza evaluated the Czech EU Council presidency in Reflexiones sobre la Presidencia checa en la UE: ¿la “peor de toda la historia” o crisis de identidad generalizada? (Real Instituto Elcano, ARI 157/2009, 17 November 2009).
The circumstances were difficult: the economic and financial crisis, the EU’s institutional and Lisbon Treaty difficulties, the Gaza crisis and the Russian gas crisis.
The lecturing of Europe by the Topolanek government during the “first presidency” was not well received by the bigger EU member states. In Europe, the activities of president Vaclav Klaus and the ODS party in government labeled the Czech Republic much more “eurosceptic” than it is.
During Jan Fischer’s caretaker government, the “second presidency” was seen as serene, calm, diplomatic and professional.
According to Esparza the Czech EU Council presidency made certain progress in its substantial priority areas ─ economy, energy and EU in the world ─ but the arrogance shown by president Klaus lecturing the European Parliament and to some extent by prime minister Topolanek made few friends among the EU institutions, although Topolanek worked hard for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Czech presidency occurred during a period of general identity crisis in the European Union, post the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism and EU enlargement. Some have hankered back to the halcyon days of the EEC, especially “eurosceptics” in Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic (who rejected the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Others have tried to adapt to new challenges and circumstances in a globalised world, by strengthening the EU’s ability to act and compete in the world (eurofederalists).
The Czech presidency of the Council of the European Union will be unforgettable, despite substantive progress during these six months. Still, the europhobic reputation of the Czech Republic caused by Vaclav Klaus and some anti-EU politicians is unfair to the majority of the Czech political parties and the population. Jan Fischer’s caretaker government had time to repair some damage with professionalism and diplomatic tact, and it later contributed to the solution of the political and institutional crisis of the European Union.
***
Sieps midterm assessment
A third and detailed reference to the Czech EU Council presidency is a mid-term assessment, published before the end of the presidency, namely David Král, Vladimir Bartovic and Vera Rihackova: The 2009 Czech EU Presidency: Contested Leadership at a Time of Crisis (Swedish Institute for European Policy Sudies, occasional papers, SIEPS 2009:2op; 91 pages).
***
Czech EU relations
Those who are interested in the relations between the Czech Republic and the European Union in general, can read the blog post Czech EU mysteries explained (Grahnlaw, 26 November 2009), which refers to the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Grahnlaw ─ virtual library with 1,400 posts on EU politics and law
A few days ago Grahnlaw (in English) passed the mark of 1,400 blog posts published on European Union law and EU politics. The Lisbon Treaty has been at the core of the blog. During a long time, the legal changes, Article by Article, were at the centre. Lately, political questions regarding the ratification process and the implementation of reform treaty have been on top; the amending treaty finally enters into force 1 December 2009.
Grahnlaw can be described as a virtual library of EU law and politics, because the daily visitors do not only read the latest articles. Each day, readers access a few hundred different web pages with archived posts containing facts or opinion.
From very modest beginnings two and a half years ago, the number of visitors has kept rising steadily, except for the few months with no or with light blogging. About 95 per cent of the readers come from Europe and North America. Visitors with other languages than English represent between 40 and 50 per cent of the visitors.
The EU institutions, national administrations, media, organisations, businesses, educational and research institutions are represented among the visitors. Interested EU citizens are an important group of readers.
Because of spam comments, I felt that I had to start moderating, but civil comments on topic are much appreciated. General or off topic feedback can be given by email.
At a personal level, writing the blog is a learning experience, which serves my interest in a democratic future for the European Union, for the Lisbon Treaty is still very far from a federation based on the consent and political choices of the EU’s citizens.
Blogging is also training for speaking and lecturing engagements.
In addition, the Euroblogosphere offers me a sense of community with active EU citizens, across national borders and language barriers.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.
Grahnlaw can be described as a virtual library of EU law and politics, because the daily visitors do not only read the latest articles. Each day, readers access a few hundred different web pages with archived posts containing facts or opinion.
From very modest beginnings two and a half years ago, the number of visitors has kept rising steadily, except for the few months with no or with light blogging. About 95 per cent of the readers come from Europe and North America. Visitors with other languages than English represent between 40 and 50 per cent of the visitors.
The EU institutions, national administrations, media, organisations, businesses, educational and research institutions are represented among the visitors. Interested EU citizens are an important group of readers.
Because of spam comments, I felt that I had to start moderating, but civil comments on topic are much appreciated. General or off topic feedback can be given by email.
At a personal level, writing the blog is a learning experience, which serves my interest in a democratic future for the European Union, for the Lisbon Treaty is still very far from a federation based on the consent and political choices of the EU’s citizens.
Blogging is also training for speaking and lecturing engagements.
In addition, the Euroblogosphere offers me a sense of community with active EU citizens, across national borders and language barriers.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common European future.
Saturday, 7 November 2009
EU: Did Britain join a free market or a political project?
On the FT Brussels blog, Tony Barber wrote a post on the mutual incomprehension between Britain and much of the rest of the European Union: Europe not in the mood to thank Cameron for his EU speech (5 November 2009). ─ The comments are worth reading, too.
A political project
The proposal was the 9 May 1950 Schuman declaration on a first step in the federation of Europe.
The following engagement was the 18 April 1951 Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (Treaty of Paris), which set out the resolve of the founding members to lay the bases of institutions capable of giving direction to their future common destiny.
The attempt to build a European Defence Community and a European (Political) Community failed at the altar, but the marriage took place through the 1957 Treaties of Rome, which put in place two new communities, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
The EEC treaty and all the subsequent treaties remind of us of the determination to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.
After trying and failing to subvert the EEC through EFTA, Britain was admitted to the European communities in 1973 (and the membership was confirmed by its only national referendum, in 1975).
The main reason to join, for the UK political class as well as Her Majesty’s subjects, was to gain access to the fledgling common market, but already then more than a free trade area. The political nature of the project was evident, although some still persist in claiming that they were duped.
De Gaulle’s sinister predictions about British incompatibility with a united Europe came true; they were as stubbornly nationalist as he.
The basic contradiction is that European integration is meant to be a one way street, leading to ever closer union, whereas Britain has obstructed and limited and promises to reverse the direction.
In the European Parliament, when William Hague and others establish an anti-integrationist political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), with other right wingers hailing national sovereignty above all, they go against the basic aim of European integration.
However mildly David Cameron phrases his intention to roll back the present state of the European Union, he rejects the main objectives of the European project.
If the Conservative Party fails to understand the principal aim of European integration, and if the Tories continue to mislead the British public, the UK is in the wrong club.
Asking for comprehension from European partners about English delusions is truly “pathetic”.
Article 50 TEU offers the opportunity to nurse false beliefs outside the European Union. For the sake of Europe: Better off out.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Get to know the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.
A political project
The proposal was the 9 May 1950 Schuman declaration on a first step in the federation of Europe.
The following engagement was the 18 April 1951 Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (Treaty of Paris), which set out the resolve of the founding members to lay the bases of institutions capable of giving direction to their future common destiny.
The attempt to build a European Defence Community and a European (Political) Community failed at the altar, but the marriage took place through the 1957 Treaties of Rome, which put in place two new communities, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
The EEC treaty and all the subsequent treaties remind of us of the determination to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.
After trying and failing to subvert the EEC through EFTA, Britain was admitted to the European communities in 1973 (and the membership was confirmed by its only national referendum, in 1975).
The main reason to join, for the UK political class as well as Her Majesty’s subjects, was to gain access to the fledgling common market, but already then more than a free trade area. The political nature of the project was evident, although some still persist in claiming that they were duped.
De Gaulle’s sinister predictions about British incompatibility with a united Europe came true; they were as stubbornly nationalist as he.
The basic contradiction is that European integration is meant to be a one way street, leading to ever closer union, whereas Britain has obstructed and limited and promises to reverse the direction.
In the European Parliament, when William Hague and others establish an anti-integrationist political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), with other right wingers hailing national sovereignty above all, they go against the basic aim of European integration.
However mildly David Cameron phrases his intention to roll back the present state of the European Union, he rejects the main objectives of the European project.
If the Conservative Party fails to understand the principal aim of European integration, and if the Tories continue to mislead the British public, the UK is in the wrong club.
Asking for comprehension from European partners about English delusions is truly “pathetic”.
Article 50 TEU offers the opportunity to nurse false beliefs outside the European Union. For the sake of Europe: Better off out.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Get to know the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Tory EU options
What is the UK Conservative Party going to do about Europe, except lobby against Tony Blair? The party conference in Manchester has thus far spread more confusion than light on Britain’s future relationship with or in the European Union, while the democratic approval of the Lisbon Treaty by all 27 EU member states has made the party line of a Lisbon Treaty referendum increasingly unrealistic.
***
Bruno Waterfield
In The Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield pierces the Conservative leadership’s veil of subterfuge on the Lisbon Treaty in ”The Tories must be more open on Europe” (5 October 2009). The time for hiding behind the ratification of the amending treaty is over:
“In reality, the Poles and Czechs have already ratified. The only thing that hasn’t happened is that their presidents have not signed an “instrument of ratification” to be deposited in Rome.
This is a formality. Nobody expects either president to defy both chambers of his country’s parliament by refusing to sign until a British general election. It is fantasy politics at best or dishonesty at worst to declare otherwise.”
***
Daniel Hannan
On the other hand, Daniel Hannan who is seen as a Conservative hardliner (and withdrawalist?) on Europe, caught his supporters by surprise with his sudden mellifluous expression of trust in David Cameron’s leadership towards a referendum on Europe, in “Euro-row? What Euro-row?” (The Telegraph, 5 October 2009).
Better than a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is:
“… to push for a wider repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster – not just the rights surrendered at Lisbon, but those surrendered at Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.”
According to Hannan, opt-outs concerning only Britain would be easier for other member states to accept, because they would not change the institutional structure for everyone else. Such a deal would be put to the British people in a referendum, and Hannan is hopeful that it will happen under the next Conservative government.
***
Stanley Crossick
In “British Conservatives: gazing in a rear-view mirror” (Blogactiv, 5 October 2009) Stanley Crossick notes that in an opinion poll only 3 per cent of Conservative Party members said that Britain should play a full part in building an ever closer union. (This happens to be the main purpose of European integration since the 1957 EEC Treaty.)
According to Crossick, securing opt-outs from existing policy areas is out of the question, as David Cameron and William Hague must surely know. This leaves Britain with three options:
“• To hold a referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU.
• To play a blocking role – eg on the budget – and try to force concessions.
• To ‘grin and bear it’.
The first choice is the only rational and honest one. The referendum would have to precede the negotiation of the terms of the withdrawal.
The second choice would destroy the UK’s reputation and would be irresponsible.
The third is the only feasible choice.
The paradox is that none of the major challenges facing the UK can be resolved solely at domestic level – economic recession, climate change, energy security, immigration, terrorism, international crime…
***
Comment
Bruno Waterfield is right about requiring an open, realistic and honest EU policy from the Conservative leadership.
Daniel Hannan’s “conversion” has sown confusion among his hard-line secessionist supporters, but it has probably decapitated a potential rebellion in Manchester.
From a European standpoint, Hannan’s indirect admission of the legitimacy of the aspirations of Britain’s EU partners is a welcome step.
As Crossick states, an In or Out referendum is the only rational and honest choice.
Destroying the UK’s reputation and irresponsibility seem to be minor concerns in the British EU debate. Left on the inside, Britain would continue to play a blocking role, to the detriment of the other member states.
‘To grin and bear it’ hardly depicts a constructive role. It could easily descend into Britain playing its multiple veto cards and resorting to extortion tactics. Would it be a wise choice for the other EU member states to keep an even more obstructionist Britain on board?
The Conservative Party, the British public, the member states of the European Union and EU citizens have a right to expect a clear EU policy from the Manchester conference, but only a constructive UK would be worth having in the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
***
Bruno Waterfield
In The Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield pierces the Conservative leadership’s veil of subterfuge on the Lisbon Treaty in ”The Tories must be more open on Europe” (5 October 2009). The time for hiding behind the ratification of the amending treaty is over:
“In reality, the Poles and Czechs have already ratified. The only thing that hasn’t happened is that their presidents have not signed an “instrument of ratification” to be deposited in Rome.
This is a formality. Nobody expects either president to defy both chambers of his country’s parliament by refusing to sign until a British general election. It is fantasy politics at best or dishonesty at worst to declare otherwise.”
***
Daniel Hannan
On the other hand, Daniel Hannan who is seen as a Conservative hardliner (and withdrawalist?) on Europe, caught his supporters by surprise with his sudden mellifluous expression of trust in David Cameron’s leadership towards a referendum on Europe, in “Euro-row? What Euro-row?” (The Telegraph, 5 October 2009).
Better than a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty is:
“… to push for a wider repatriation of powers from Brussels to Westminster – not just the rights surrendered at Lisbon, but those surrendered at Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice.”
According to Hannan, opt-outs concerning only Britain would be easier for other member states to accept, because they would not change the institutional structure for everyone else. Such a deal would be put to the British people in a referendum, and Hannan is hopeful that it will happen under the next Conservative government.
***
Stanley Crossick
In “British Conservatives: gazing in a rear-view mirror” (Blogactiv, 5 October 2009) Stanley Crossick notes that in an opinion poll only 3 per cent of Conservative Party members said that Britain should play a full part in building an ever closer union. (This happens to be the main purpose of European integration since the 1957 EEC Treaty.)
According to Crossick, securing opt-outs from existing policy areas is out of the question, as David Cameron and William Hague must surely know. This leaves Britain with three options:
“• To hold a referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU.
• To play a blocking role – eg on the budget – and try to force concessions.
• To ‘grin and bear it’.
The first choice is the only rational and honest one. The referendum would have to precede the negotiation of the terms of the withdrawal.
The second choice would destroy the UK’s reputation and would be irresponsible.
The third is the only feasible choice.
The paradox is that none of the major challenges facing the UK can be resolved solely at domestic level – economic recession, climate change, energy security, immigration, terrorism, international crime…
***
Comment
Bruno Waterfield is right about requiring an open, realistic and honest EU policy from the Conservative leadership.
Daniel Hannan’s “conversion” has sown confusion among his hard-line secessionist supporters, but it has probably decapitated a potential rebellion in Manchester.
From a European standpoint, Hannan’s indirect admission of the legitimacy of the aspirations of Britain’s EU partners is a welcome step.
As Crossick states, an In or Out referendum is the only rational and honest choice.
Destroying the UK’s reputation and irresponsibility seem to be minor concerns in the British EU debate. Left on the inside, Britain would continue to play a blocking role, to the detriment of the other member states.
‘To grin and bear it’ hardly depicts a constructive role. It could easily descend into Britain playing its multiple veto cards and resorting to extortion tactics. Would it be a wise choice for the other EU member states to keep an even more obstructionist Britain on board?
The Conservative Party, the British public, the member states of the European Union and EU citizens have a right to expect a clear EU policy from the Manchester conference, but only a constructive UK would be worth having in the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 22 June 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty: “Meaningless” Irish guarantees?
Yesterday’s blog post, EU Lisbon Treaty: Vaclav Klaus is wrong, showed that Czech President Vaclav Klaus did not quite attain the standards of "every normal human being, a first form pupil” in his understanding of the guarantees to Ireland. He can hardly have been caught unawares, because the assurances were outlined by the European Council in December 2008, and Klaus has missed few opportunities to pontificate on Lisbon Treaty matters.
***
“Meaningless guarantees” to Ireland
The lobby group Open Europe has attacked the assurances given to Ireland on different grounds: Irish to vote on exactly the same text of Lisbon Treaty – EU admits that nothing has changed (19 June 2009).
The core argument of Open Europe – which seems to contradict Klaus’ statements – is that the deal makes no change whatsoever to the text of the Treaty, meaning Irish voters will be voting on exactly the same text they rejected last year.
If the Lisbon Treaty remains the same, are the guarantees meaningless?
We are in agreement with Open Europe that the European Council can retain a Commissioner from each member state and that the rest of the Treaty remains unchanged.
The Irish government has asked for the assurances based on the distorted claims of No campaigners ahead of the first referendum. Many Irish voters were confused by forceful, but erroneous assertions, and they felt that they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty.
Thus, it is only logical that the government of Ireland has sought correct interpretations on some issues, which confused the electorate. The assurances are shorter to read and easier to understand than a presentation of the whole amending treaty. The other EU member states have given these clarifications their seal of approval.
***
Neutrality
Open Europe has found one expert opinion to support the assertion that Irish military neutrality is at risk.
In my view, Dr Karen Devine’s interpretation is not correct. There is no need for a specific opt-out, because the Lisbon Treaty text on both defence policy in general and the mutual assistance clause already allows for each member state to define its own policy and action. Thus, Ireland does not need an opt-out.
The Presidency Conclusions of the June 2009 European Council seem to respond adequately to the concerns of Irish citizens with regard to neutrality, including the issue of mutual assistance, by clarifying the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Naturally, one can discuss if the lack of solidarity by Ireland is a desirable state of affairs in a political union such as the EU, but that is another story.
***
The guarantees are not meaningless, because they explain why major concerns in Ireland are groundless.
Open Europe has given No campaigners dud ammunition.
Ralf Grahn
***
“Meaningless guarantees” to Ireland
The lobby group Open Europe has attacked the assurances given to Ireland on different grounds: Irish to vote on exactly the same text of Lisbon Treaty – EU admits that nothing has changed (19 June 2009).
The core argument of Open Europe – which seems to contradict Klaus’ statements – is that the deal makes no change whatsoever to the text of the Treaty, meaning Irish voters will be voting on exactly the same text they rejected last year.
If the Lisbon Treaty remains the same, are the guarantees meaningless?
We are in agreement with Open Europe that the European Council can retain a Commissioner from each member state and that the rest of the Treaty remains unchanged.
The Irish government has asked for the assurances based on the distorted claims of No campaigners ahead of the first referendum. Many Irish voters were confused by forceful, but erroneous assertions, and they felt that they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty.
Thus, it is only logical that the government of Ireland has sought correct interpretations on some issues, which confused the electorate. The assurances are shorter to read and easier to understand than a presentation of the whole amending treaty. The other EU member states have given these clarifications their seal of approval.
***
Neutrality
Open Europe has found one expert opinion to support the assertion that Irish military neutrality is at risk.
In my view, Dr Karen Devine’s interpretation is not correct. There is no need for a specific opt-out, because the Lisbon Treaty text on both defence policy in general and the mutual assistance clause already allows for each member state to define its own policy and action. Thus, Ireland does not need an opt-out.
The Presidency Conclusions of the June 2009 European Council seem to respond adequately to the concerns of Irish citizens with regard to neutrality, including the issue of mutual assistance, by clarifying the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Naturally, one can discuss if the lack of solidarity by Ireland is a desirable state of affairs in a political union such as the EU, but that is another story.
***
The guarantees are not meaningless, because they explain why major concerns in Ireland are groundless.
Open Europe has given No campaigners dud ammunition.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Swedish EU Council Presidency: Tepid but competent?
The Czech government hands over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July 2009, but the government of Sweden already offers some basic information in English about the upcoming six month term.
***
Information in Swedish
Ahead of both the European elections and the Council Presidency, the Parliament’s EU information centre (EU-upplysningen) has been churning out short and readable snippets of information on a daily basis.
In the Nordic tradition, the Government (Regeringen) and the Parliament (Riksdag) fairly openly inform the public about the work of the Council ahead of meetings, and the deliberations of the Riksdag’s EU Committee are published with some delay.
Government bills in general and those relating to EU matters are usually detailed and informative.
Minister for Europe Cecilia Malmström, a former MEP, toured Sweden spreading the word about the European Union, before her itinerary turned more towards the capitals of the EU member states.
Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is continually on the road, and he blogs even more frequently than his FM colleagues David Miliband (UK) and Alexander Stubb (Finland).
Established by trade unions and employers’ organisations, Europaportalen is a lively portal for news and debate on EU issues.
***
Despite the solid achievements, some observations and critical remarks can be made. (These are my subjective impressions.)
Official Swedish EU policies are pro open markets, competitiveness, budget reform and a radical reassessment of the common agricultural policy. Sweden has not adopted the euro, although it has no opt-out. Otherwise Swedish policies can be described as intergovernmental. Sweden participates in more policy areas than Britain, and its intergovernmental penchant is less adversarial. No visions concerning radical EU reform are to be expected.
Lukewarm Europeans they may be, but many seem to expect a competent Council Presidency.
The Council Presidency will mean a (temporary?) change, but government information is not readily translated into English and other languages for international readers.
The availability of information does not translate into a burning desire to access it on the part of the public.
For 200 years, since 1809 Sweden has stayed out of European trouble by minding its own business and professing neutrality.
Long before joining the European Union, Sweden built a successful but self-contained welfare society, which has not defined itself as European in a deeper sense. Swedish EU debates tend to be limited in scope, centred more on the preservation of a national model than contributing to a pan-European debate. Only last year did the Green Party give up its demand to secede from the EU, in favour of more pragmatic politics within the union (and the Green movement).
Mainstream media can always be criticised for paying too little attention to EU affairs, but my impression is that editorialists and columnists do a decent job, as does public service television. But EU issues do not lend themselves easily to both balanced and interesting reporting, since they disappear in the labyrinth and there are no clear contending government and opposition views at EU level. Anyway, even the best efforts are met by a yawn.
Despite their technical and language skills, very few Swedes participate in EU-wide debates or the Euroblogosphere, at least from a pan-European perspective. It is as if Europe offered little of interest and even less to learn.
Ralf Grahn
***
Information in Swedish
Ahead of both the European elections and the Council Presidency, the Parliament’s EU information centre (EU-upplysningen) has been churning out short and readable snippets of information on a daily basis.
In the Nordic tradition, the Government (Regeringen) and the Parliament (Riksdag) fairly openly inform the public about the work of the Council ahead of meetings, and the deliberations of the Riksdag’s EU Committee are published with some delay.
Government bills in general and those relating to EU matters are usually detailed and informative.
Minister for Europe Cecilia Malmström, a former MEP, toured Sweden spreading the word about the European Union, before her itinerary turned more towards the capitals of the EU member states.
Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is continually on the road, and he blogs even more frequently than his FM colleagues David Miliband (UK) and Alexander Stubb (Finland).
Established by trade unions and employers’ organisations, Europaportalen is a lively portal for news and debate on EU issues.
***
Despite the solid achievements, some observations and critical remarks can be made. (These are my subjective impressions.)
Official Swedish EU policies are pro open markets, competitiveness, budget reform and a radical reassessment of the common agricultural policy. Sweden has not adopted the euro, although it has no opt-out. Otherwise Swedish policies can be described as intergovernmental. Sweden participates in more policy areas than Britain, and its intergovernmental penchant is less adversarial. No visions concerning radical EU reform are to be expected.
Lukewarm Europeans they may be, but many seem to expect a competent Council Presidency.
The Council Presidency will mean a (temporary?) change, but government information is not readily translated into English and other languages for international readers.
The availability of information does not translate into a burning desire to access it on the part of the public.
For 200 years, since 1809 Sweden has stayed out of European trouble by minding its own business and professing neutrality.
Long before joining the European Union, Sweden built a successful but self-contained welfare society, which has not defined itself as European in a deeper sense. Swedish EU debates tend to be limited in scope, centred more on the preservation of a national model than contributing to a pan-European debate. Only last year did the Green Party give up its demand to secede from the EU, in favour of more pragmatic politics within the union (and the Green movement).
Mainstream media can always be criticised for paying too little attention to EU affairs, but my impression is that editorialists and columnists do a decent job, as does public service television. But EU issues do not lend themselves easily to both balanced and interesting reporting, since they disappear in the labyrinth and there are no clear contending government and opposition views at EU level. Anyway, even the best efforts are met by a yawn.
Despite their technical and language skills, very few Swedes participate in EU-wide debates or the Euroblogosphere, at least from a pan-European perspective. It is as if Europe offered little of interest and even less to learn.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 15 May 2009
Heritage Foundation saving Europe!?
With friends like these ...
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Adversarial to the hilt and exaggerating the importance of the Lisbon Treaty beyond belief, Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation sees a slightly improved European Union as a danger for US hegemony in the world instead of as a better ally.
Her recipe to save Europe “from itself” is the most disingenuous piece of advice I have seen in a long time.
One can only gape with amazement at the contorted reasoning on the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry, where McNamara calls on William Hague and the UK Conservative Party to undermine Europe in order to “save” it: A Lisbon Treaty Retrospective? (Posted May 13th, 2009 at 11.41am)
On the Lisbon Treaty:
“It also threatens the transatlantic relationship, and underscores the EU’s ambitions to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage. If the Conservative’s make good on their pledge to take the Treaty to the British public, it will almost certainly be rejected and hopefully save Europe from itself.”
***
European helpers
First, we have to realise that there are some in the USA prepared to support and finance such crap. But their paranoid world view needs European helpers, even if the various unanimity rules make the European Union an easy prey.
Enter the UK Conservative Party. William Hague has promised a referendum on the ratified Treaty of Lisbon, if it has not entered into force when the Tories form the government. With or without a referendum, Hague has promised a renegotiation of Britain’s membership in the European Union. In less than a month, after the European elections, the Tories are going to establish an anti-integrationist political group in the European Parliament, with more or less savoury elements of the nationalist right.
After recruiting bunches of ultra-nationalists and assorted extremists, Libertas.eu is pouring almost unlimited resources into an election campaign built on a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. What Declan Ganley calls taking the European Union back for the people, would in practice mean taking the EU back to the Treaty of Nice.
Wittingly or unwittingly, who stands to gain from the actions of Hague and Ganley?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
European Union worth living and dying for
David of Writing for (y)EU wrote a thoughtful post on the shifting media and campaign landscape: The Times They Are a-Changing (12 May 2009).
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
David’s references to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address and to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign made me think about what a European Union worth living and dying for would look like.
Lincoln said it in 1863 “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
Citizens elected Barack Obama President of the United States in 2008.
Abolition and emancipation.
Lincoln and Obama embody the essential difference between “We the People” of the US and the existing European Union 1.0 of heads of state or government.
“We the People” is the core of the future EU 2.0, a union worth living and dying for.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The current European Union does not offer us much voice; the more important to use our limited vote wisely in the European elections, for a better EU.
Merriment at FT Brussels blog
Tony Barber’s post at the Financial Times Brussels blog catches the mood: Barroso’s impotent EU critics hop with fury (13 May 2009).
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
What else can they do?
A sizeable portion of the heads of state or government have shown that their union is not going to concede even the presidency of the Commission to the voters in the European elections (out of the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty).
Well in advance of the elections to the European Parliament, they have – as national party leaders – across party lines incapacitated the Europarties, leaving the European People’s Party (EPP) with the only declared candidate: a renewed mandate for José Manuel Barroso.
Impotent fury or realistic assessment of the state of the union, Adam Smith comes to mind (with minor alterations):
Heads of state or government seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to undermine democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The sadness of the situation is in no way lessened by the populist quality of much dissent, as shown in the post European elections: The Libertas Collection.
EU: Sarkozy and naked ambition
In Le Taurillon, Fabien Cazenave analyses the European vision of Nicolas Sarkozy: Sarkozy veut l’Europe des etats, pas des citoyens (12 May 2009).
***
President Sarkozy is a prime example of naked ambition and a European Union formed around the heads of state or government of a few member states.
Ahead of the European elections, Sarkozy’s campaign opener was most edifying.
Sarkozy’s Europe is not headed towards a union of citizens.
For EU 2.0 you will have to look elsewhere.
Ralf Grahn
***
President Sarkozy is a prime example of naked ambition and a European Union formed around the heads of state or government of a few member states.
Ahead of the European elections, Sarkozy’s campaign opener was most edifying.
Sarkozy’s Europe is not headed towards a union of citizens.
For EU 2.0 you will have to look elsewhere.
Ralf Grahn
EU 2.0
I have tried to illustrate different evolutionary stages of the European Union by using the following illustrations:
EU 1.0
The European Union of member states, functioning through diplomats and technocrats. The existing version based on the Treaty of Nice (modified by the accession treaties).
The heads of state or government increasingly see themselves as the nucleus, with the Commisison as a pliant accessory.
EU 1.1
The European Union based on the Treaty of Lisbon. In essence, more of the same but with an improved repair manual. Not much to get excited about, even if the powers of the directly elected European Parliament would improve to a degree. Foreign affairs would be slightly better coordinated than according to the current version. Improvements in justice.
Dumb to promise national referendums and at least as unjustified to require them on the merits of this international treaty among states.
Britain’s efforts to emasculate the Lisbon Treaty and the UK’s four opt-outs place it on the fringes of European integration, anyway.
There is nothing inherently democratic in the veto powers resting in each member state, when 26 have completed parliamentary ratification. The ‘liberum veto’ is directly derived from the primitive rules of international law.
In practice, calling for a referendum is based on a will to wreck the Treaty of Lisbon, pure and simple. The person may be against everything the European Union stands for or he may want his country to secede. In practical terms, the result would probably be an EU limping along under the Nice Treaty, in other words a return to EU 1.0.
EU 2.0
The last days have brought some discussion about the meaning of EU 2.0. Is it release 2.0 as in programme, or is it as in web 2.0?
Julien Frisch and Josef Litobarski have discussed the issue.
The concept of EU 2.0 is far from new.
Let us look at some of Nosemonkey’s thoughts about EU 2.0: Shouting into the storm – and EU 2.0 (7 September 2007):
“It’s time for pro-EU types to start looking rationally at the situation, and to realise that the time to win converts to the cause is long past. Anyone who really wants the EU to succeed in the decades to come shouldn’t be defending the current behemoth of overlapping institutions that make up the thing, but attacking it.
The EU doesn’t need a reform treaty, it needs to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. Start proposing that kind of radical change, with EU citizens involved at every stage of the rebuild, and the next stage of the EU - EU 2.0, if you will - should actually end up with genuine popular support. Without that support as its foundation, it’s only going to crumble.”
***
In my view, EU 2.0 represents a Copernican revolution, from a union of states to a union of people: citizens’ vote, EP power and accountable government.
Precisely because the European Parliament’s powers are limited, EU 2.0 or the future of Europe is the most important issue in the European elections.
What do the Europarties and the candidates tell us?
If nothing, you will have to make up your own mind between flat-earthers and progressive forces. Starting to think is the beginning of EU 2.0.
Ralf Grahn
EU 1.0
The European Union of member states, functioning through diplomats and technocrats. The existing version based on the Treaty of Nice (modified by the accession treaties).
The heads of state or government increasingly see themselves as the nucleus, with the Commisison as a pliant accessory.
EU 1.1
The European Union based on the Treaty of Lisbon. In essence, more of the same but with an improved repair manual. Not much to get excited about, even if the powers of the directly elected European Parliament would improve to a degree. Foreign affairs would be slightly better coordinated than according to the current version. Improvements in justice.
Dumb to promise national referendums and at least as unjustified to require them on the merits of this international treaty among states.
Britain’s efforts to emasculate the Lisbon Treaty and the UK’s four opt-outs place it on the fringes of European integration, anyway.
There is nothing inherently democratic in the veto powers resting in each member state, when 26 have completed parliamentary ratification. The ‘liberum veto’ is directly derived from the primitive rules of international law.
In practice, calling for a referendum is based on a will to wreck the Treaty of Lisbon, pure and simple. The person may be against everything the European Union stands for or he may want his country to secede. In practical terms, the result would probably be an EU limping along under the Nice Treaty, in other words a return to EU 1.0.
EU 2.0
The last days have brought some discussion about the meaning of EU 2.0. Is it release 2.0 as in programme, or is it as in web 2.0?
Julien Frisch and Josef Litobarski have discussed the issue.
The concept of EU 2.0 is far from new.
Let us look at some of Nosemonkey’s thoughts about EU 2.0: Shouting into the storm – and EU 2.0 (7 September 2007):
“It’s time for pro-EU types to start looking rationally at the situation, and to realise that the time to win converts to the cause is long past. Anyone who really wants the EU to succeed in the decades to come shouldn’t be defending the current behemoth of overlapping institutions that make up the thing, but attacking it.
The EU doesn’t need a reform treaty, it needs to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch. Start proposing that kind of radical change, with EU citizens involved at every stage of the rebuild, and the next stage of the EU - EU 2.0, if you will - should actually end up with genuine popular support. Without that support as its foundation, it’s only going to crumble.”
***
In my view, EU 2.0 represents a Copernican revolution, from a union of states to a union of people: citizens’ vote, EP power and accountable government.
Precisely because the European Parliament’s powers are limited, EU 2.0 or the future of Europe is the most important issue in the European elections.
What do the Europarties and the candidates tell us?
If nothing, you will have to make up your own mind between flat-earthers and progressive forces. Starting to think is the beginning of EU 2.0.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 11 May 2009
Preparing for the Lisbon Treaty
It is hard to distinguish which anti-intellectual and anti-European arguments are most absurd, but one of the more insidious ones is the alleged anti-democratic nature of preparation for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Irish government is going to arrange a second referendum, based on the guarantees it has received from its European partners.
The treaty is dead only for those who despise representative democracy (although it takes place at the national instead of the European level).
The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the first day of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument.
In other words, if the institutions wait until the deposition of the last ratification, there is no chance for them to prepare the necessary decisions to put the Lisbon Treaty into practice in time.
It would be irresponsible to wait, but the Council and the Commission have been cowardly enough to stop preparatory work, at least in public.
This is a loss for open and transparent debate about the implementing issues.
The European Parliament has shown more sense of responsibility, laying down its views in votes on five reports last week.
***
The protracted ratification processes have already caused problems with regard to the nomination of the Commission President and the Commissioners as well as the number of MEPs to be elected.
Some writers have attacked the training of the European External Action Service (EEAS) ahead of the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Do they prefer an incoherent European Union in world affairs, with untrained representatives and less security for EU citizens?
Contrary to what the critics say, the EU institutions and the member states should not only take responsibility, but act and argue openly.
They should clearly state the near total ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and they should show that they are ready to launch the treaty, if it is finally improved.
Instead of hiding their heads in the sand, they should report on preparatory work, and publish draft proposals, consulting with experts, NGOs and the public.
If EU 1.0 diplomats and technocrats do not grasp the nettle of their own accord, EU citizens should remind them of their duties.
Ralf Grahn
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Irish government is going to arrange a second referendum, based on the guarantees it has received from its European partners.
The treaty is dead only for those who despise representative democracy (although it takes place at the national instead of the European level).
The Lisbon Treaty enters into force on the first day of the month following the deposition of the last ratification instrument.
In other words, if the institutions wait until the deposition of the last ratification, there is no chance for them to prepare the necessary decisions to put the Lisbon Treaty into practice in time.
It would be irresponsible to wait, but the Council and the Commission have been cowardly enough to stop preparatory work, at least in public.
This is a loss for open and transparent debate about the implementing issues.
The European Parliament has shown more sense of responsibility, laying down its views in votes on five reports last week.
***
The protracted ratification processes have already caused problems with regard to the nomination of the Commission President and the Commissioners as well as the number of MEPs to be elected.
Some writers have attacked the training of the European External Action Service (EEAS) ahead of the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Do they prefer an incoherent European Union in world affairs, with untrained representatives and less security for EU citizens?
Contrary to what the critics say, the EU institutions and the member states should not only take responsibility, but act and argue openly.
They should clearly state the near total ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and they should show that they are ready to launch the treaty, if it is finally improved.
Instead of hiding their heads in the sand, they should report on preparatory work, and publish draft proposals, consulting with experts, NGOs and the public.
If EU 1.0 diplomats and technocrats do not grasp the nettle of their own accord, EU citizens should remind them of their duties.
Ralf Grahn
Anyone But Barroso and EU 2.0
I have not joined the Anyone But Barroso campaign, because I have limited my demands to competing candidates for the Commission Presidency. For me, the pan-European election comes first, the personalities second.
But I have been saddened by the fact that the Anyone But Barroso campaign has been in dire straits. Even if the campaigners were right about the need for a new President of the European Commission, the Europarties have failed in the very reason for their existence, to field competing candidates. They failed because of national heads of state or government, who are also national party leaders.
A host of heads of state or government in EU member states have gone back on the miserly concession they made when signing the Lisbon Treaty, to let the votes of EU citizens influence the nomination; this well ahead of the European elections.
N.B. These elites ─ heads of state or government ─are not “Brussels”, but national.
***
The Anyone But Barroso campaign site has reported on mischievous use, emanating from Portugal, and a few minutes ago I was unable to access the site because of overload.
Are these dark forces going to target the Financial Times next?
Wolfgang Münchau’s Financial Times column Like a fish, Europe is rotting from the head is a clear indictment of the premature choice of national leaders and the European People’s Party.
Well, I cannot remember even one spontaneous exclamation of joy from EPP grass roots.
***
An ever closer union among the members of the European Council against the EU citizens fails in two respects: legitimacy and outcomes.
To the extent possible, vote for the citizens’ European Union 2.0 in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
But I have been saddened by the fact that the Anyone But Barroso campaign has been in dire straits. Even if the campaigners were right about the need for a new President of the European Commission, the Europarties have failed in the very reason for their existence, to field competing candidates. They failed because of national heads of state or government, who are also national party leaders.
A host of heads of state or government in EU member states have gone back on the miserly concession they made when signing the Lisbon Treaty, to let the votes of EU citizens influence the nomination; this well ahead of the European elections.
N.B. These elites ─ heads of state or government ─are not “Brussels”, but national.
***
The Anyone But Barroso campaign site has reported on mischievous use, emanating from Portugal, and a few minutes ago I was unable to access the site because of overload.
Are these dark forces going to target the Financial Times next?
Wolfgang Münchau’s Financial Times column Like a fish, Europe is rotting from the head is a clear indictment of the premature choice of national leaders and the European People’s Party.
Well, I cannot remember even one spontaneous exclamation of joy from EPP grass roots.
***
An ever closer union among the members of the European Council against the EU citizens fails in two respects: legitimacy and outcomes.
To the extent possible, vote for the citizens’ European Union 2.0 in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
