The European Council meets Thursday and Friday (28-29 October 2010), but two days ahead of the meeting of the heads of state or government of the EU member states the public information appears poorly structured and incomplete in the light of the published press releases and the old draft agenda.
Yesterday president Herman Van Rompuy defended the proposals of the Task force on economic governance in a speech in Brussels. A few days earlier Van Rompuy had sent a letter to members of the European Council, with the Task force report published 21 October 2010. There is a fact sheet dated the same day.
Otherwise, there was little of substance from the European Council or the Council this morning.
Institutions
Van Rompuy has rejected the perception that the European Council meetings are summits. He has underlined the European Council as an institution of the European Union
However, for the citizens of the EU, little resembles an institution deliberating public affairs transparently and accountably. What we see from the outside looks like a summit of the leaders, by the leaders, and for the leaders.
It is unclear if Van Rompuy even wants the European Council to evolve institutionally, or if he prefers to nurture a high level workshop in the (vain?) hope of creating an esprit de corps strong enough to overcome great obstacles.
There is also a lack of connection between the conclusions customarily published after (not before) the meeting and the real discussions taking place.
(Wo)men
Not even an EU summit seems to be enough. French president Nicolas Sarkozy and German chancellor Angela Merkel short-circuited the European Union, by making a deal on the stability and growth pact bilaterally. Merkel has certainly antagonised supporters at home and abroad, but her gains look less certain (see for instance Spiegel International in English and Deutsche Welle in German).
(Wo)men and institutions
Jean Monnet is quoted as saying: "Nothing is possible without men; nothing is lasting without institutions."
Naturally, Charles Kupchan was declared to be wrong when he concluded that the EU needs a new generation of leaders who can breathe life into a project that is perilously close to expiring, and that for now, they are nowhere to be found.
What do you think?
Are the current national leaders willing and the European Council as an institution able to provide anything better than top-down impetus for European disintegration?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Technology is changing politics, says Personal Democracy Forum, which has sent missionaries to the scattered tribes on the Old Continent. Between the great powwows (highly acclaimed), Antonella Napolitano regularly reports to US HQ and the world in general through the Euro Roundups on her blog. One to follow.
Despite national and linguistic borders there is a European online public space of sorts. You can find the new posts from 680 Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.
Showing posts with label Jean Monnet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jean Monnet. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Sunday, 22 July 2007
Spinelli, Monnet eller De Gaulle (in Swedish)
Mellanstatligt samarbete, diplomatiska förhandlingar bakom stängda dörrar, de nationella regeringarna som avgörande aktörer, orubbad nationell självständighet, oinskränkt suveränitet, enhälliga beslut, vetorätt för varje stat i varenda fråga, handlingsförlamning som följd, minsta gemensamma nämnaren som resultat och klassiska internationella fördrag som instrument; De Gaulles strävan var att ge Europa fransk ledning på national-konservativ grund.
Med liknande national-konservativa motiv (både på höger- och vänsterkanten) framhäver några ledande landspolitiker fortfarande det som föredömligt att medlemsländerna, det vill säga de själva, är herrar över EU-fördragen.
Den syn på europeiskt samarbete som De Gaulle personifierade var ingen integrationsmodell utan ett uttryck för viljan att nå en (över)maktbalans på klassiskt vis.
Därför kan man tala om enbart två egentliga integrationsmodeller: den funktionella och den konstitutionella
De har ofta ställts i motsatsförhållande till varandra, liksom deras förgrundsgestalter Jean Monnet respektive Altiero Spinelli.
Bägge hade dock samma mål. Monnet har kopplats ihop med de små stegens integration, men hans mål var Europas förenta stater. Det var namnet han gav sin aktionskommitté: le Comité d’action pour les Etats-Unis d’Europe. Redan i Ventotenemanifestet 1941 krävde Spinelli att Europas förenta stater skulle grundas.
Både Monnet och Spinelli motarbetade reglerna om enhälliga beslut (vetorätt) och ville ersätta handlingsförlamning med övernationella beslut.
Olikheter har funnits beträffande funktionalisternas betoning på gemensamma aktioner och konstitutionalisternas tonvikt på gemensamma institutioner.
Medan Monnet i sin praktiska verksamhet koncentrerade sig på att vinna ledande politiker för sin sak och att bygga myndigheter med supranationella drag, var Spinelli från början inställd på en konstituerande folkförsamling och en demokratisk federation.
Europeiska unionen kommer att vara ofullbordad även efter den regeringskonferens som strax inleds. I de allra viktigaste frågorna är unionen handlingsförlamad, Europaparlamentet och unionens medborgare sidsteppade och domstolen utan behörighet.
De primära europeiska frågorna kräver demokrati och beslut på europeisk nivå. Åtminstone så långt instämmer jag med dem som kräver en paneuropeisk folkomröstning om Europeiska unionens reformfördrag.
Ralf Grahn
Litteratur:
Jean Monnet
Mémoires, tome 2
Fayard, 1976
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa
Prefazione
(i Luciano Angelino: Le forme dell’Europa. Spinelli o della federazione. Il Melangolo, 2003)
Med liknande national-konservativa motiv (både på höger- och vänsterkanten) framhäver några ledande landspolitiker fortfarande det som föredömligt att medlemsländerna, det vill säga de själva, är herrar över EU-fördragen.
Den syn på europeiskt samarbete som De Gaulle personifierade var ingen integrationsmodell utan ett uttryck för viljan att nå en (över)maktbalans på klassiskt vis.
Därför kan man tala om enbart två egentliga integrationsmodeller: den funktionella och den konstitutionella
De har ofta ställts i motsatsförhållande till varandra, liksom deras förgrundsgestalter Jean Monnet respektive Altiero Spinelli.
Bägge hade dock samma mål. Monnet har kopplats ihop med de små stegens integration, men hans mål var Europas förenta stater. Det var namnet han gav sin aktionskommitté: le Comité d’action pour les Etats-Unis d’Europe. Redan i Ventotenemanifestet 1941 krävde Spinelli att Europas förenta stater skulle grundas.
Både Monnet och Spinelli motarbetade reglerna om enhälliga beslut (vetorätt) och ville ersätta handlingsförlamning med övernationella beslut.
Olikheter har funnits beträffande funktionalisternas betoning på gemensamma aktioner och konstitutionalisternas tonvikt på gemensamma institutioner.
Medan Monnet i sin praktiska verksamhet koncentrerade sig på att vinna ledande politiker för sin sak och att bygga myndigheter med supranationella drag, var Spinelli från början inställd på en konstituerande folkförsamling och en demokratisk federation.
Europeiska unionen kommer att vara ofullbordad även efter den regeringskonferens som strax inleds. I de allra viktigaste frågorna är unionen handlingsförlamad, Europaparlamentet och unionens medborgare sidsteppade och domstolen utan behörighet.
De primära europeiska frågorna kräver demokrati och beslut på europeisk nivå. Åtminstone så långt instämmer jag med dem som kräver en paneuropeisk folkomröstning om Europeiska unionens reformfördrag.
Ralf Grahn
Litteratur:
Jean Monnet
Mémoires, tome 2
Fayard, 1976
Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa
Prefazione
(i Luciano Angelino: Le forme dell’Europa. Spinelli o della federazione. Il Melangolo, 2003)
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
What did Monnet do?
EUlawblogger’s “Response to the Grahnlaw blog” was an interesting and fair presentation of his or her reasons. They enrich the discussion on EU treaty reform, even if we do not have shared views on everything.
I think that my previous post “Two basic approaches” already shed some light on our underlying assumptions about the “Whys” of European integration.
Thus, only a few minor points.
My conclusions about EUlawblogger’s preference for inter-governmental wrangling came from wording on the IGC and the “failure” of the Convention method. Happily, neither of us is a fan of secretive Treaty amendment.
I was intrigued by the question: What did Monnet do in the same situation?
Perhaps I should have caught the drift better, but what I did remember was the following: Jean Monnet nurtured close relations with the USA and the UK. He would have wanted to see Great Britain within the European Coal and Steel Community, and later the European Economic Community. Since the UK governments were not ready to participate, the six willing states became founders of the communities.
(To be sure, I then checked Jean Monnet: Mémoires 2. Livre de Poche, 1976, page 671. Monnet remembers how he had travelled to London in 1950 to try to persuade the British to join the negotiations on the Schuman plan, and now, in 1957, he tried to rally Britain to join the talks which would lead to the Rome treaties.)
Am I to infer that the willing and able have to advance, even if a valuable European player lacks the inclination?
Why did my blog only mention the UK?
“The UK is standing out as the most difficult member state with its long list of parts of the constitution it wants revised”, wrote Simon Taylor on EuropeanVoice.com on 31 May 2007. This perception has been fairly common, both before and after that.
Blog posts are usually more like snippets of information than treatises. Topicality is one reason to choose a specific theme at a certain time.
One would not have to go very far back to find my views on president Sarkozy’s economic reforms, for instance. I reported on Prodi’s and Balkenende’s speeches in the European Parliament on grahnlaw.
Formerly, on other fora, I have covered the challenges of globalisation, the French referendum, the German coalition government’s programme, the WTO Doha round, Gordon Brown’s views on CAP reform, and the EU’s failed Lisbon strategy, to name a few.
Political union aside, many would find quite a lot of similarities between (broadly) British views and mine.
I am not going to make binding promises concerning when to discuss the Polish and Czech governments, but I do see that they seem to lack some of the European spirit I would welcome everywhere.
Ralf Grahn
I think that my previous post “Two basic approaches” already shed some light on our underlying assumptions about the “Whys” of European integration.
Thus, only a few minor points.
My conclusions about EUlawblogger’s preference for inter-governmental wrangling came from wording on the IGC and the “failure” of the Convention method. Happily, neither of us is a fan of secretive Treaty amendment.
I was intrigued by the question: What did Monnet do in the same situation?
Perhaps I should have caught the drift better, but what I did remember was the following: Jean Monnet nurtured close relations with the USA and the UK. He would have wanted to see Great Britain within the European Coal and Steel Community, and later the European Economic Community. Since the UK governments were not ready to participate, the six willing states became founders of the communities.
(To be sure, I then checked Jean Monnet: Mémoires 2. Livre de Poche, 1976, page 671. Monnet remembers how he had travelled to London in 1950 to try to persuade the British to join the negotiations on the Schuman plan, and now, in 1957, he tried to rally Britain to join the talks which would lead to the Rome treaties.)
Am I to infer that the willing and able have to advance, even if a valuable European player lacks the inclination?
Why did my blog only mention the UK?
“The UK is standing out as the most difficult member state with its long list of parts of the constitution it wants revised”, wrote Simon Taylor on EuropeanVoice.com on 31 May 2007. This perception has been fairly common, both before and after that.
Blog posts are usually more like snippets of information than treatises. Topicality is one reason to choose a specific theme at a certain time.
One would not have to go very far back to find my views on president Sarkozy’s economic reforms, for instance. I reported on Prodi’s and Balkenende’s speeches in the European Parliament on grahnlaw.
Formerly, on other fora, I have covered the challenges of globalisation, the French referendum, the German coalition government’s programme, the WTO Doha round, Gordon Brown’s views on CAP reform, and the EU’s failed Lisbon strategy, to name a few.
Political union aside, many would find quite a lot of similarities between (broadly) British views and mine.
I am not going to make binding promises concerning when to discuss the Polish and Czech governments, but I do see that they seem to lack some of the European spirit I would welcome everywhere.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
