Open Europe improving its spin on Eurobarometer?

Spin and gloss are expressions related to the very human desire to present the emitter in the best light possible.

If the original communication is questioned and debated, this may lead to refined replies, which bring the discussion forward.

Did Open Europe improve its reasoning and advance the debate by yesterday, when Mats Persson again presented his views on the European Commission and EU-wide public opinion?



Persson’s opinions were published on the Swedish EU affairs portal Europaportalen: “EU drar missvisande slutsatser av opinionsmätningar” (The EU draws misleading conclusions from opinion polls).

It seems to me that Persson reiterates – practically verbatim – in Swedish what Open Europe and he said on the publication of the Eurobarometer results 26 August 2010.

Although directed at the Commission, possibly the last sentences contain a germ of willingness by Open Europe to listen to Europeans and to be prepared to discuss economic reform issues in a more pragmatic manner:

… borde kommissionen lyssna på vad medborgare runtom Europa verkligen säger – och sen dra sitt strå still stacken för att åstadkomma genuina EU-reformer efter medborgarnas önskemål.

Detta skulle till och med kunna bidra till att vända några av de minde smickrande opinionerna.

This may be only speculation based on purely cosmetic changes to the message, but if the change is substantive, the Eurobarometer discussion may have taken a small step forward.

However, as Persson must know, the European Union is basically a creature of the member states, so they have to start listening and reforming with at least the level of dedication Open Europe demands from the Commission.

Targeting only the Commission is – spin.




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.

Eurobarometer controversy

The UK based anti-EU lobby group Open Europe managed, perhaps unintentionally, to stir up a debate at European level when they accused the European Commission of spinning the results of the Eurobarometer poll of public opinion in the European Union. After – as they might have seen it – beating the Commission to pulp, they finally reached what they saw as the main result: declining support for EU membership.

The EU Commission’s press release branded as dishonest by Open Europe can be found here (26 August 2010, IP/10/1071; available in 22 languages):



Spring 2010 Eurobarometer: EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance




All guns firing, Open Europe delivered its broadside from its blog, its daily press summary, its fortnightly bulletin and on Director Mats Persson’s blog.



In my humble view, Open Europe gave in to its urge to bash the Commission, while missing a golden opportunity to discuss growing European awareness of the need for economic reform at macro and micro level; that is, if Open Europe really is interested in these issues with the European public good at heart.



British exceptionalism



I had first discussed the political atmosphere and media climate in the United Kingdom, resulting in a high level of distrust and a low level of trust for the European Union, then pointed out how unique British public opinion is in its exceptionalism.



Spin or policy pointers?


My intention was to move on to the issue of declining support for the European Union, but then I felt that I had to take a closer look at Open Europe’s accusations and the European Commission’s “offending” press release.


Shorthand

My reading was that Open Europe seemed to have found particularly offensive that the headline of the press release and Commissioner Viviane Reding had used the words stronger or enhanced “economic governance” as shorthand for the 75 per cent EU-wide support for a “stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all the EU Member States”, the highest support (26 per cent) among institutions - national and international - for ability to “take effective actions against the financial and economic crisis”, as well as high support for some sort of economic reform agenda (reducing public deficit and debt in respondent’s own country, surveillance of international financial groups, and for priorities of the EU 2020 reform strategy).


Challenges


Whether openly accounted for or not, the issues debated reflect fundamental assumptions about politics and policies at European level. Despite my tentative findings, the ongoing discussion and the detailed Eurobarometer results still merit a closer look.




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.



Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.

Eurobarometer findings on EU public opinion: Open Europe blew it

In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States of America, surprisingly for a country where the first amendment enshrines the separation of church and state.

What do citizens of the European Union trust in?


The UK based anti-EU lobby group Open Europe has avidly seized on diminished support for the EU:



On 26 August 2010, the Open Europe blog accused the European Commission: A Classic Example Of EU Spin. According to Open Europe the Commission is “trying to take us for a ride”.



The main item of the Open Europe’s press summary 27 August 2010 was: Support for the EU falls to a nine year low; Only 50% of Germans consider EU membership “a good thing” – down 10 points in less than a year.



The main headline of the Fortnightly Open Europe Bulletin 27 August 2010: Support for EU hits nine-year low. Open Europe called the European Commission’s press release a blatant and dishonest (taxpayer-funded) attempt by the Commission to spin clearly unfavorable poll results.



The same day, Open Europe Director Mats Persson recycled the allegation in a post on his EUobserver blog: An exceptionally poor attempt at spinning unfavourable poll results.


Commission press release

Let us go to the EU Commission’s offending press release (26 August 2010, IP/10/1071; available in 22 languages):



Spring 2010 Eurobarometer: EU citizens favour stronger European economic governance


Open Europe seems to have found particularly offensive that the headline of the press release and Commissioner Viviane Reding used the words stronger or enhanced “economic governance” as shorthand for the 75 per cent EU-wide support for a “stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all the EU Member States”, the highest support (26 per cent) among institutions - national and international - for ability to “take effective actions against the financial and economic crisis”, as well as high support for some sort of economic reform agenda (reducing public deficit and debt in respondent’s own country, surveillance of international financial groups, and for priorities of the EU 2020 reform strategy).

Actually, sensible enterprise interest groups and single market supporters notice promising signs of European awareness of the need for economic reform, at macro and micro level.


What is Open Europe playing at?

But professedly pro-market Open Europe, worried about “pressing challenges of weak economic growth, rising global competition, insecurity and a looming demographic crisis” blew it.

Blew it by playing with words, instead of looking at the substance.

This is the benign interpretation. It is possible that Open Europe’s interests lie elsewhere, not in a general European interest to achieve economic reform.

A more worrying alternative is dogmatism: that the overriding ideological aim of Open Europe is to dismantle or roll back the European Union, so much so that the interest of functioning economies and markets come second.

Another possibility is that the real agenda of Open Europe is to keep the EU too weak to coordinate economic policies and in order to protect the particular interests of a few financial institutions from sensible supervision.

Or are there still other reasons for such vehemence against ‘economic governance’?



The European Citizen wisely said the Eurobarometer results are vague, and that policy makers and supporters will have to make the cases for their ideas and try and win support for them.

Open Europe’s urge to bash the Commission got in the way of a golden opportunity to boost the economic reform agenda of the European Union, but perhaps this is but a minor concern for this lobby group and its backers.

EU citizens trust in economic reform and in the European Union, more than in their national government or parliament, but what does Open Europe trust in?




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.



Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.

European financial stabilisation mechanism: Open Europe accuses: “Profound dishonesty”

In the 11 May 2010 post on the eurozone rescue package They Said It Wouldn’t Happen, the Open Europe Blog makes these specific allegations with regard to Article 122 TFEU:

3) EU leaders are basing parts of the bailout on Article 122 of the EU Treaties. This is profoundly dishonest and involves a huge legal stretch. Article 122 states that,

"Where a member state is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the member state."

As we’ve stated before, the European Council has previously said that any use of this article must be compatible with the no bailout rule in the EU Treaties. This interpretation is now being completely ignored.

Telegraph journalist Bruno Waterfield summarises the issue well on his EUobserver blog,

“'Exceptional occurrences beyond control’? This is a lie. A whopping, howling lie told to us by Europe’s political class. This crisis is a product of human agency, the choices and decisions taken by people facing circumstances that are man-made and, thus, susceptible to political intervention. To use a legal clause designed for earthquakes or potentially extreme unforeseen circumstances that threaten the existence of one member state to save the skins of the EU’s political class is profoundly deceitful – quite aside from being legally dodgy."

(The whole Open Europe blog post is worth reading as a summary of the arguments leveled at the eurozone rescue package.)



Honestly?

At the time the Lisbon Treaty was drafted, the disruption of natural gas supply to EU member states was perceived as a grave risk. The ‘area of energy’ was added to the text.

As we have seen from the legislative history of Article 122 TFEU, the extension of qualified majority voting (QMV) and the addition of ‘a spirit of solidarity’ were duly presented to the ratifying parliaments.

The spirit of solidarity means that the member states have a greater responsibility than before to help a fellow-member in difficulties or even threatened with severe difficulties.

Even if QMV has been extended to other difficulties than natural disasters, a qualified majority is not an easy test to pass. The Council, where the governments of the member states are represented, has to be convinced about the legal conditions, the European Commission needs to make a proposal and the Council has to decide on the scope and the conditions for financial assistance.


Open Europe alleges that the “European Council” has previously said that any use of this article must be compatible with the no bail-out rule in the EU Treaties and that this interpretation is now being completely ignored.



First of all, the answer by the acting Presidency of the Council of the European Union is explicitly said not to be binding on either the Council or its members. Secondly, “exceptional occurrences beyond the control of a Member State” have never been defined nor discussed by the Council. Thirdly, the Council stands ready to examine any proposal from the Commission based on then Article 100(2) TEC. In conjunction with the Declaration on Article 100 TEC, the compatibility with the “no bail-out” rule is then mentioned in passing in a sentence leading to the inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline and financial perspectives.

When in fact, the acting Presidency declared its willingness to examine any proposal from the Commission compatible with the treaties, Open Europe’s assertion can be seen as somewhat misleading.

Open Europe’s allegation that the interpretation is now being completely ignored is not backed up by anything in the quoted excerpt.

Of course, even if Open Europe’s allegations are partly misleading and partly lack even a shred of evidence, it does not necessarily mean that they are wrong.

For a somewhat more objective take on the European financial stabilisation mechanism, we need to take a closer look at the no bail-out rule (now Article 123 TFEU) and to discuss the meaning of exceptional occurrences beyond the control of member states.

The discussion continues here on Grahnlaw.




Ralf Grahn

Britain in 2010: A better year for Europe?

Yesterday’s Grahnlaw blog post dealt with Charles Grant’s view through the CER’s rose-tinted spectacles at the UK Conservatives’ aims in Europe: Britain: A constructive EU curmudgeon? (5 January 2010).

This British “best case scenario” envisioned a Tory government selective about the repatriation fights to pick with the EU member states, mindful of national budget and financial sector interests to pursue, and ready to contribute constructively to some parts of the European agenda.

European engagement in UK terms is setting the bar at basement level in comparison to the European Union as a whole.

Moderation and constructive approach have to be compared to other British opinions in order to appear.



On 1 January 2010 Open Europe Blog published a post with the headline: 2010: A Better Year For Europe?. In essence, it was only an advert for an article on Conservative Home:



Lorraine Mullally: The Conservatives must do better than Labour at representing Britain’s interests in Europe (31 December 2009)

What Mullally labels as needed “radical reform” translates into a call for party leader David Cameron and the Conservative Party to stop and to reverse the process of European integration, at least with regard to Britain.

The comments section brims with distrust of Cameron’s resolve, threats of defection to UKIP, proposals for unilateral revocation of the Lisbon Treaty, calls for various referendums on the European Union, denouncements of the undemocratic nature of the EU, complete disbelief in the possibility to reform the EU etc.

Well, there is one commentator with positive views on the European Union. He is from Ireland.


The best way to describe the mentality of the Conservative activists is by misquoting Douglas Jerrold: The best thing I know between the European Union and England is – the sea.

Not much constructive participation for European integration to expect from that quarter, I would think.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Ideas on Europe is an experiment by the University Association for Contemporary European Studies UACES to entice academics down from their ivory towers to engage in informed analysis, comment, dialogue and debate on all things European in the “real”, i.e. virtual world of ordinary mortals. This potentially important multi-user blog is listed among the nearly 500 great euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.

Spanish presidency of EU Council 2010

After Sweden’s six months chairing the Council of the European Union, summed up in a blog post yesterday, the start of the Spanish presidency is just a few days off.

Spain becomes the first member state to steer Council work under Lisbon Treaty rules for the duration, and it is the first in the presidency trio consisting of Spain, Belgium and Hungary, which will take the EU until the end of June 2011.



The Spanish presidency website was launched a while ago, with basic information in Spanish, English and French. It promises to present information in the regional languages Catalan, Galician and Basque, although these pages are still in Spanish at the moment.



The pages offer an eight page summary of the Spanish work programme, which mentions the following four priorities:

• The first and essential priority for the development of the others is the full and effective application of the Lisbon Treaty.
• The second is to guarantee the economic recovery of Europe through greater co-ordination of every member state and the approval of the European strategy for sustainable growth for 2020.
• The third is to reinforce the presence and influence of the European Union in the new world order.
• Finally, the fourth is to place European citizens at the centre of EU policy, with initiatives designed to develop their rights and freedoms.

The summary of the work programme is available in Spanish as well.



More detail is on offer in the [Draft] 18 month programme of the Council, prepared by the Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian presidencies (Council document 16771/09; 89 pages).



Two RSS feeds are promised: Eventos (Events) and Noticias (News).

The Swedish presidency achieved the highest standard among EU presidencies yet, but at this stage it is impossible to predict the quantity and quality of the Spanish communications effort, including the use of social media and interactive features.


Devil’s advocate



Open Europe has published a briefing: The EU in 2010 – what to expect from the Spanish EU Presidency (18 December 2009; 24 pages).



The EU in 2010, an 18 December 2009 post on the Open Europe blog makes the unsurprising observation that the Spanish government wants to use its Presidency to achieve greater political, social and integration in Europe – to work for a more ‘unified’ EU.

The self-evident position for every member state signed up to the Lisbon Treaty and previous treaties to see European integration as an ongoing work, is described by Open Europe as being “fundamentally at odds with British priorities in the EU in 2010”.

I do not know which British government (?) priorities Open Europe refers to, or if the lobby group just assumes the role to be the sole voice for UK interests.

Anti-integrationist in a union aiming at closer integration: Why be on the team, if you want to play against it, Open Europe?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Get to know the emerging EU blogosphere Margot Wallström wrote about, conveniently aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.

European Parliament reform

Those who think that the European Union should develop according to the agreed and ratified treaty aims of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe are likely to favour the emergence of a parliamentary system, based on the votes of EU citizens, with European level government.

In this respect, the Treaty of Lisbon is a step forward, because it strengthens the legislative powers of the European Parliament, by extending co-decision (the ordinary legislative procedure) to a number of policy areas or issues.

The importance of the Lisbon Treaty should not be exaggerated. Special legislative procedures remain in many areas, with the Council in a privileged position. Treaty reform is still in the hands of the member states, not the representatives of EU citizens. Foreign, security and defence policy continue to be outside the effective control of the European Parliament, and even the Council’s powers are basically subject to unanimity, ensuring that the European Union remains a relative midget in world affairs. The member states block the resources (taxation) and make the strategic spending decisions (long term budget), although the European Parliament is allowed a wider role with regard to annual budgets.

Regardless of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, an effective and democratic European Union is still a long way off.


***

New European Parliament

The newly elected European Parliament will convene for the first time in about two weeks. It should start to formulate its priorities for the coming five years.

There are questions, where the European Parliament can function as a conscience and a catalyst or debate. There are also matters, where the EP has all the tools to gain the trust of EU citizens by wise internal decisions and practices.


As the only EU institution directly elected by the citizens, the European Parliament has an obligation to keep the question of EU reform alive. This requires the judicious use of own initiative reports on long term institutional reform towards real parliamentary democracy.

In the future, all running political affairs should be decided by simple majorities, abolishing the need for majorities of the component members (and thus the stifling “grand coalitions”).

The European elections 2009 and the political parties at European level (Europarties) showed weaknesses, which demand constructive initiatives and proposals in order to strengthen European level democracy.

The European Parliament needs to take a critical look at itself and its image. As shown by the Westminster expenses scandal, the EP has to change its attitude to openness, transparency and sound financial practices, although it has curbed some of the most flagrant excesses from the beginning of the new parliamentary term.

The European Parliament does a better job than the Council at informing the public about its legislative work (committee agendas, proposed amendments, reports) than the Council, but the same standards should be extended to the EP’s internal bodies, such as the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents, including the meeting documents. They should be made automatically and visibly accessible to the public in the same manner.

Internal audit reports should be made available automatically and followed up by proposals and decisions, including actions taken against wayward MEPs. Whistleblowers should be promoted instead of demoted.

Despite differing views on the ultimate goals of European integration, the European Parliament has many reasons to take on board criticism of its practices, such as Open Europe’s publication The European Parliament - What does it do and how does it affect your everyday life? (April 2009)



For instance, the following proposals by Open Europe (with some modifications by me) merit serious consideration:

• The Parliament should publish the official figures for MEPs’ salary, pension and expense entitlements in one easily accessible document. (This should include information about EU and national taxation.)
• MEPs need to be open and transparent about how they spend their allowances and should publish all this information.
• MEPs should be obliged to produce receipts for all expenses, and receive allowances accordingly, rather than receive flat-rate expenses for office equipment, etc.
• All unused allowances, and allowances not supported with receipts, should be reimbursed back to the EU budget.
• Any MEP who is caught misusing allowances should, after a proper legal inquiry, be suspended and replaced.
• A robust register of MEPs’ financial interests
• The European Parliament should regularly propose to the Council treaty reform leading to an end to the “traveling circus” between Brussels and Strasbourg
• An end to opaque back-room deals with regard to MEPs rights and obligations (Open committee preparation. See also Bureau and Conference of Presidents publicity above)
• Publish full minutes of Committee meetings
• Allow MEPs greater freedom in debates
• MEPs need to make it clear what they stand for (much facilitated, if the need for grand coalitions is scrapped)



Ralf Grahn

European Union: Better regulation

On its road to an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, the European Union has as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing common policies or activities, to promote throughout the European Community a harmonious, balanced and sustainable development of economic activities, a high level of employment and of social protection, equality between men and women, sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of competitiveness and convergence of economic performance, a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States (Article 1 TEC).


Social market economy

Among the modernised aims of the European Union, in the Lisbon Treaty Article 3(3) TEU, we find “a highly competitive social market economy”:

“3. The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.

It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child.

It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.

It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”


***

Legislation and regulation

Legislation is an important instrument for the European Union promotes its aims, and the stream of Directives, Regulations and Decisions is impressive.

In principle, the objectives of the legislative acts are worthy, such as improved environmental standards, consumer protection, human safety, health and wellbeing.

While the legislation is often addressed to the member states, much of it targets businesses. Regulation leads to compliance costs for enterprises, and the combined cost of business regulation is too great to ignore at national and European level.

Much can be said for replacing different national rules by common norms for 27 EU member states (or 30 countries of the European Economic Area, EEA), but the economy in the internal market is not meant to be only “social”, but also “highly competitive”.

Given the importance of the European Union, both benefits and costs of business regulation need to be scrutinised carefully, because European level legislation affects about 500 million people.


***

Better regulation

The European Commission pursues a Better Regulation strategy, with the following courses of action:



 Promoting the design and application of better regulation tools at the EU level, notably simplification, reduction of administrative burdens and impact assessment.
 Working more closely with Member States to ensure that better regulation principles are applied consistently throughout the EU by all regulators.
 Reinforcing the constructive dialogue between stakeholders and all regulators at the EU and national levels


The Commission’s own assessment of its agenda is the Communication Third strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union (Brussels, 28.1.2009, COM(2009) 15 final).



The Communication presents efforts to cut “red tape” by scrapping obsolete legislation and codifying existing legal acts. The implications of proposed new laws are scrutinised through impact assessments, with new Impact assessment guidelines (since 15 January 2009; SEC(2009) 92).




***

Open Europe

Open Europe’s publication Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation was published in February 2009, which means that some of the questions it raises may have been addressed in the Communication (and accompanying documents) as well as the new Impact assessment guidelines.




Still, the publication raises valid points about regulatory costs at both national (UK) and European level. (It does not look at the benefits.)

Despite the efforts, the costs of regulation have continued to rise.

Administrative costs have been at the centre of attention, with the EU scrapping obsolete legislation and simplifying existing laws. The wider costs of compliance with regulation, fees and licenses as well as knock-on effects have been less well scrutinised.

Open Europe correctly underlines the importance of European level regulation, meaning that a purely domestic (UK) agenda is too limited in scope.


***

New Commission

The newly elected European Parliament is starting its work and the legislative engine, the new Commission, will begin to set its priorities from the end of this year (1 November 2009).

Open Europe’s remarks and suggestions need to be taken seriously by the EU institutions, comparing them to the latest Communication and Impact assessment guidelines.

Although Open Europe dealt with national issues from a British perspective, all national governments could profit from many of the suggestions, both with regard to their contributions to Council work and to their domestic agendas on sensible regulation.

A level playing-field within the EU (EEA) is desirable, but far from enough. A highly competitive social market economy needs to be competitive in a global context as well.



Ralf Grahn

Open Europe's EU reform

Open Europe lobbies actively on European issues through critical comment, a daily press summary highlighting almost every derogatory news item available, media appearances, op-ed articles and participation in events.



The torrent of negative comment raised my interest to find out what Open Europe is lobbying for, in other words what the “reformed” European Union would look like.

I found a web document called Our vision. When I asked, Open Europe admitted that they do not have one document that sets out their reform agenda in one place. However, for specific reform proposals they recommended Chapter 5 of their publication Out of control? Measuring a decade of EU regulation and The European Parliament – What does it do and how does it affect your everyday life?




***


Finalité

Every member state has signed up to the aim of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe. This aim is the first one stated in the preamble of the Treaty establishing the European Community (since the Treaty of Rome, 1957, EEC Treaty). Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union sets out that the establishment of the EU marks a new step in the process of creating this closer union among the peoples of Europe.

The process and the direction are clear, but the treaties do not spell out the speed or the ultimate goals (finalité) of European integration.

Since I am primarily interested in the overall vision of Open Europe, Our vision remains the main source for assessing their alternative vision. For systematic reasons, I will choose the order of the issues and the comments.



Main aim

By calling for a flexible European Union, based on voluntary cooperation, Open Europe rejects the basic aim of the treaties, at least for the United Kingdom.

It looks hard to reconcile a repudiation of an organisation’s main aims with continued membership. The logical option would be for Britain to withdraw from the European Union.



Practical alternatives

Withdrawal

Open Europe sees that the current process of integration leads to failure, deadlock and crisis. The UK (and other member states) could seek a looser relationship with the centre - for example replacing their current mode of membership by free trade and single market agreements with the other member states.

Logically, the “looser relationship” would mean secession.

This option would be clear-cut, with participation in the single market through international agreements with the European Union (member states). The models already exist.

Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway together with the 27 EU member states form the European Economic Area (EEA), which allows them access to the internal market as well as the option to participate in EU programmes of choice. (In addition, they are part of the Schengen area of free travel and common controls at the external borders.)

Then there is the Swiss model, marginally more independent. Switzerland concludes bilateral agreements with the European Union (including Schengen).

The drawback of both models is that the outsiders can mainly accept (or reject) what the European Union has cooked up. They can influence outcomes through consultation and lobbying, but they are not present when the EU institutions reach the internal outcomes.

In my opinion, Open Europe needs to do much more to indicate the course of action to take and to assess the consequences if Britain withdraws from the European Union, which would be the logical option considering its rejection of the basic treaty aims.


Dismantled EU

Open Europe’s other option is that the EU as a whole could be restructured to accommodate different members’ conflicting interests.

Apart from a minimum core of common rules, participation in EU policies should be voluntary. The less integrationist member states should not stop groups of other countries from pursuing deeper integration among themselves within the EU framework.

Countries would be allowed to opt in or out of: the common foreign and security policy; border control; justice and home affairs legislation; the CAP and CFP; cross-Europe emissions trading; external aid and other EU spending policies (e.g. on research). It would also mean allowing member states to take back control of regional aid and to repeal some legislation which is currently tacked inappropriately onto the internal market (like the Working Time Directive).


In my view, Open Europe’s view of the future European Union is incompatible with the aim to achieve ever closer union, under the existing treaties, as expressed by the timid reforms in the Treaty of Lisbon and especially with regard to the global challenges of the 21st century. Beyond the Lisbon Treaty, a unified foreign and security policy, including a future common defence, are prerequisites for Europe as an influential actor on the global stage. Effective powers require democratic government at EU level. Economic policy, resources (taxation) and some internal policies need to be strengthened.

But Open Europe’s vision of the dismantled European Union à-la-carte has one redeeming feature, worth further study.

Open Europe recognises that less integrationist countries should not stop (groups of) other countries from pursuing deeper integration within the EU framework. It does, however, raise a number of questions, which need to be addressed.

The European Union is based on international treaties, concluded between the member states, subject to unanimous agreement and ratification by all member states. The powers (competences) of the EU are laid down in these treaties, in some detail.

The enlarged European Union is almost impossible to reform, as shown by the painful road since the Nice summit in December 2000. The proposed reforms (Lisbon Treaty) are at the level of the least reform-minded countries.

Open Europe’s principles of unhindered progress and voluntary participation require new ground rules. In the near future, as long as intergovernmental conferences (with or without conventions) agree on treaty reform, a qualified majority of member states should be allowed to progress, as long as the minority is allowed to opt out of the policy area and future implementation.

It is hard to believe that anti-integrationist countries would abide by a promise to let the majority progress, or that future treaties would be ratified by all member states. Therefore, the European Union would have to agree on coming treaties entering into force among the ratifying states.

It is more natural that the minority opts out, than that the majority is forced to establish special procedures among itself, such as enhanced or permanent structured cooperation. The participating countries would constitute the Council with regard to each policy area. Governance would be messy, but somehow possible.

The supranational institutions of the European Union would, however, give rise to more serious questions. Should the MEPs of the opting-out nations be allowed to legislate on all matters, if their states of origin are exempt from duties pertaining to important policy areas? Should the fringe nations be given the same weight in the Commission, the Court of Justice, the consultative bodies and agencies?

On the other hand, after massive opt-outs some member states would be quick to demand lower contributions to the EU budget.

Open Europe needs to look closer at the implications of a European Union à-la-carte, if it wants to present it as a credible alternative.

Long term, the EU treaties need to be replaced by a basic law, which can be amended at EU level, by democratically legitimate institutions, by qualified majorities. How does Open Europe envision the situation of fringe countries in this context?



***

Open Europe has been consistently long on critique, but short on constructive proposals. It is high time to set out the alternatives for the United Kingdom (and perhaps some other member states) in much more detail, both secession and some sort of minimal membership, which would satisfy not only British preferences but the aspirations of the European mainstream.



Ralf Grahn

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

Open Europe and Ulrich Beck

Once in a while Open Europe’s daily press summary contains a gem among the constant Jeremiads.



One example was Ulrich Beck's article in the Guardian This economic crisis cries out to be transformed into the founding of a new Europe (13 April 2009).



Recommended reading for all and sundry.

More Europe and why.


Ralf Grahn

Lisbon and Constitution side by side

The anti-EU lobbying group Open Europe has published an updated version of their comparison of the EU Lisbon Treaty and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The treaty texts are presented side by side, with the differences easy to spot.

The numbering of the articles follows the plan for a coming officially unofficial consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty to be published by the European Union, when all the ratification processes are over and the Reform Treaty in force.

(My blog has looked at the the Treaty of Lisbon according to the numbering given by the intergovernmental conference and will continue to do so, on the assumption that the reader of the treaty searches for answers to an article with the specific number mentioned in the amending treaty as presented.)

***

Open Europe’s press summary 21 January 2008 included the following:
“Saturday’s Times reported that EU Communications Commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said that the European Council is refusing her request to publish a readable version of the Lisbon Treaty. Such a text will only be made public after ratification in the member states.”
(I refer to my numerous posts on the matter of consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty for the citizens of the European Union.)

Ralf Grahn


Source:

Open Europe: The Lisbon Treaty and the European Constitution: A side-by-side comparison; January 2008;
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/comparative.pdf

Open Europe: Press summary archive; 21 January 2008;
http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/summary.aspx?id=511

Spoilsports

Every working day Open Europe monitors the European press to fault the European Union. Sometimes the organisation publishes a longer piece like its recent “The New Treaty: What will it mean and do we need a referendum?”.

This paper deals with most of the questions on the table of European Union leaders ahead of the June European Council.

Open Europe discusses what is likely to be in the new treaty:

· An EU President
· An EU Foreign Minister, and more powers for the EU over foreign policy
· Reducing British ability to block legislation
· More majority voting?

Open Europe does not find a kind word to say about any of the reforms being discussed. It then moves on to demand a referendum.

For a European citizen it is fascinating to read arguments that totally ignore the interests of Europeans, the European Union and the good the EU could achieve in the world, given the tools.

In the end, it is difficult to avoid the impression that everything British is superior, anything European is inferior and every proposal from Brussels is a curse. Only thus can the real underpinning of the arguments be understood.

But is it really an ethical position to be member of a union only to maximise one’s chances to fly solo, to obstruct progress and to sabotage decision-making? Or is the purpose of Open Europe to beat a retreat behind the moat and to restart an era of “splendid isolation”?

Ralf Grahn