EU: Ecofin followed up G20 Cannes summit

When I waded through the documents published by the G20 summit in Cannes 3 to 4 November 2011, I wondered if the Ecofin Council of the EU would find anything intelligent to say, something to highlight for posterity.

Now we have the Ecofin conclusions:

3129th Council meeting Economic and Financial Affairs; Brussels, 30 November 2011 (provisional version, 17683/11; 26 pages)

We are able to see that Ecofin bravely resisted any temptation to offer unmerited attention to any detail at the expense of the whole (page 7):

FOLLOW-UP TO THE G-20 SUMMIT

The Council took stock of the outcome of the G-20 summit held in Cannes on 3 and 4 November, on the basis of a debriefing by the Commission and by the French delegation (in its capacity as G-20 presidency).

The G-20 summit covered:
• coordination of economic policies;
• the G-20 framework for growth;
• reform of financial regulation;
• reform of the international monetary system;
• commodity price volatility;
• other issues, such as food security, global governance, development cooperation, trade, corruption, employment and energy

We leave the sherpas to prepare the next G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, in June 2012, and we look forward to the next Ecofin follow-up.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: UKIP for Mexico

Read UKIP’s campaign policies for the Euro elections, and find out that Mexico is the way to go for Britain, according to Nigel Farage and his not so angry old men.

The main plank of the UK Independence Party’s manifesto for the European elections 2009 is:

“The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union and that our membership should be replaced with a genuine free trade agreement similar to those enjoyed by other non-EU nations such as Switzerland, Norway and Mexico.”

***

If UKIP manages to get the United Kingdom out of the European Union, the party is less particular about the future model of cooperation. Reassuringly, friendly relations can be seen as opting for peace rather than war, but free trade can come in different shapes.

Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), which gives it access to the internal market, but without real powers to form the rules.

Switzerland is formally bound only by bilateral treaties with the European Union, but in practice a virtual member of the EEA.

Non-European Mexico has agreed on a free trade area (FTA) with the European Union. Recently the relations have been upgraded to a strategic partnership.


***

The common feature of the three examples is that the relationships have evolved, becoming ever closer.

Interestingly, UKIP proposes that the United Kingdom should renounce its seat at the tables, where European decisions are made.

I hope that UK voters conduct a full debate on the ways and means, well ahead of the European elections.


Ralf Grahn

Kouchner drops support for Turkey

The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has dropped his support for Turkish membership in the European Union. He cites the Turkish government’s pressure tactics at the NATO summit and its move away from the secular reform path.

La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).



Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.



***

We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.

Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)



Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)



USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)



***

President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?


Ralf Grahn

USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico

Eurocentric of The European Citizen wrote a post called America, the 28th Member State? on President Obama’s support for Turkish membership in the European Union.



Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.

***

I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.

The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.

It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.

Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:

This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.

To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.

It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.

Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.

According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.

Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.

Piece of cake, compared to Europe.

***

In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.

***

My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.


Ralf Grahn

Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union!

Why do Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy act so curmudgeonly about president Barack Obama’s strong support for Turkish membership in the European Union? Why not come up with innovative ideas of their own?

The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.

Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.

Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.

Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.


Ralf Grahn