Let the specialists explore vote-weighting, fish quotas, phytosanitary regulations and the like. What people in general need are a few home truths about why the European Union is necessary and why we actually need ‘more Europe’ in some crucial respects, while renouncing regulation overload at the European level.
***
In the United States, more than 200 years ago, the main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
There are two fundamental needs: security and prosperity.
The fundamental challenges remain the same, but in today’s globalising world they are even more real and demanding, while the European nation-states are ever less able to deliver on their own.
Sovereignty is an empty shell, if it means that we reject ‘outside interference’, but are unable to offer working solutions.
The European countries have started to come to grips with this dilemma, by joining forces selectively and often timidly.
***
There are two fundamental challenges:
1. We need modes for more effective European action.
2. Europeans need to understand why.
Our political leaders have invested little in explaining the necessities to their electors. A few cursory remarks and an occasional speech is not enough to shape a needed new vision of the world for whole populations.
The basic challenges need constant repetition. Where mass media do little to educate people – preferring scandal, entertainment or even their own disruptive political agendas – the politicians’ task becomes not only demanding, but almost impossible.
But the political leaders have to make the effort, because enlightening the bewildered populations is a necessary condition for effective action.
One more thing: Blaming politicians is not enough. Our common European heritage tells us that we have the freedom and the responsibility to educate ourselves.
Democracy is, in essence, our responsibility to bear the consequences of our collective wrong choices. But with better choices life can be worth living.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label The Federalist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Federalist. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Friday, 11 January 2008
EU leaders left work undone
Although representative democracy and parliamentary ratification of international treaties are the norm, not an aberration, the members of the European Council have paid too little attention to openness, transparency and equality before and after the signing of the Reform Treaty.
The present structures of the European Union left the leaders with little choice but to negotiate initially on an intergovernmental basis to break the institutional deadlock. Let us say that necessity dictated the choices until the agreement on the IGC 2007 Mandate. But after that, how did our leaders explain their reasons and argue their case for institutional reform?
In my opinion, the leaders of the EU member states were somewhat hasty in wanting to leave the seven year period (since Nice) of institutional wrangling behind them, without enough discussion with the citizens at the national or the EU level about our common challenges or the contents of the Lisbon Treaty.
Our future security and prosperity demand joint action, the pooling resources in a European context. The European Union, as a means to our ends, is with us every day. Communicating Europe requires consistent effort, not a few token appearances a year.
Our leaders’ refusal to publish consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty in every official language of the Union, has only worsened the situation, giving free rein to ‘hallucinatory’ interpretations of the proposed amendments.
You don’t have to look very hard in the blogosphere to see staggering examples of disinformation. Then, look at the quality and the quantity of factual counter-information. The efforts of most of our governments seem derisory in comparison. Lacking communication is a failure of leadership.
Readable, consolidated Treaties as well as assessments and commentaries are needed, among other things, because I believe that at least some citizens are enlightened enough to want to base their opinions on facts and reason, given the chance.
***
In the longer term, the national leaders have to cross their Rubicon. If our main challenges have moved ‘upstairs’, being global or transborder in character, democracy has to follow. In the end, only a European Parliament with full powers can erase the democratic deficit, which the Lisbon Treaty alleviates in some respects while aggravating it in other fields.
***
Personally, I am grateful for information on consolidations and literature on the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to share it with my fellow EU citizens.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. We European citizens do not need nitpicking detail. We need the same kind of effective protection by our Union that I quoted yesterday concerning another, highly successful Union. The main purposes of the United States of America and the US Constitution were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
The present structures of the European Union left the leaders with little choice but to negotiate initially on an intergovernmental basis to break the institutional deadlock. Let us say that necessity dictated the choices until the agreement on the IGC 2007 Mandate. But after that, how did our leaders explain their reasons and argue their case for institutional reform?
In my opinion, the leaders of the EU member states were somewhat hasty in wanting to leave the seven year period (since Nice) of institutional wrangling behind them, without enough discussion with the citizens at the national or the EU level about our common challenges or the contents of the Lisbon Treaty.
Our future security and prosperity demand joint action, the pooling resources in a European context. The European Union, as a means to our ends, is with us every day. Communicating Europe requires consistent effort, not a few token appearances a year.
Our leaders’ refusal to publish consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty in every official language of the Union, has only worsened the situation, giving free rein to ‘hallucinatory’ interpretations of the proposed amendments.
You don’t have to look very hard in the blogosphere to see staggering examples of disinformation. Then, look at the quality and the quantity of factual counter-information. The efforts of most of our governments seem derisory in comparison. Lacking communication is a failure of leadership.
Readable, consolidated Treaties as well as assessments and commentaries are needed, among other things, because I believe that at least some citizens are enlightened enough to want to base their opinions on facts and reason, given the chance.
***
In the longer term, the national leaders have to cross their Rubicon. If our main challenges have moved ‘upstairs’, being global or transborder in character, democracy has to follow. In the end, only a European Parliament with full powers can erase the democratic deficit, which the Lisbon Treaty alleviates in some respects while aggravating it in other fields.
***
Personally, I am grateful for information on consolidations and literature on the Treaty of Lisbon, in order to share it with my fellow EU citizens.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. We European citizens do not need nitpicking detail. We need the same kind of effective protection by our Union that I quoted yesterday concerning another, highly successful Union. The main purposes of the United States of America and the US Constitution were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
Thursday, 10 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: CFSP competence
Strong or brittle? Feet of iron or feet of clay? The US Constitution or the Articles of Confederation? These questions deserve some thought when we look at the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the European Union as laid out in the Treaty of Lisbon.
***
Basically, you can approach the European Union from two different angles. You can try to ponder what the Union could do for its citizens: external and internal security as well as enhancing prosperity. Or you can reason from a domestic perspective.
A sincere form of ‘special relationship’ would be to emulate the success of the United States of America. The main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
According to the Reform Treaty, the scope of EU competence covers all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
We have to bear in mind the joint declarations 13 (see previous posting) and 14 (see below), which emphasize the continued freedom of Member States to pursue their national foreign and security policies, regardless of the common interest.
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is almost exclusively in the hands of the Member States. The European Council and the Council rule, if they can reach unanimous decisions (as a rule).
The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP means that democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and judicial review by the Court of Justice are nearly completely excluded. (The external action of the Commission is placed under intergovernmental tutelage.)
If not overridden by national policies or paralysed by dissenting views and vetoes, the Union conducts, defines and implements the CFSP, meant to lead to increasing convergence of Member States’ actions in the long run. The loyalty, solidarity and compliance of Member States are keys to effective common action on the world stage.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306) amends Article 11 TEU. In the consolidated version paragraphs 1 and 2 have replaced the existing paragraph 1, and the present paragraph 2 has been renumbered paragraph 3 and amended slightly.
Article 11
1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 25b of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 240a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.
3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.
***
Joint Declaration (number 14) concerning the common foreign and security policy continues in the same vein as Declaration 13 to subtract from the consistency of common policy by underlining the independent policies of the Member States, especially the Members of the UN Security Council, and the intergovernmental nature of the policies the Member States happen to agree on, as well as the “specific nature” of the Member States’ security and defence policy:
“In addition to the specific rules and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, the Conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.”
***
Next time we look at the foreign policy instruments of the EU.
Ralf Grahn
***
Basically, you can approach the European Union from two different angles. You can try to ponder what the Union could do for its citizens: external and internal security as well as enhancing prosperity. Or you can reason from a domestic perspective.
A sincere form of ‘special relationship’ would be to emulate the success of the United States of America. The main purposes of that Union were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
***
According to the Reform Treaty, the scope of EU competence covers all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
We have to bear in mind the joint declarations 13 (see previous posting) and 14 (see below), which emphasize the continued freedom of Member States to pursue their national foreign and security policies, regardless of the common interest.
The common foreign and security policy (CFSP) is almost exclusively in the hands of the Member States. The European Council and the Council rule, if they can reach unanimous decisions (as a rule).
The intergovernmental nature of the CFSP means that democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and judicial review by the Court of Justice are nearly completely excluded. (The external action of the Commission is placed under intergovernmental tutelage.)
If not overridden by national policies or paralysed by dissenting views and vetoes, the Union conducts, defines and implements the CFSP, meant to lead to increasing convergence of Member States’ actions in the long run. The loyalty, solidarity and compliance of Member States are keys to effective common action on the world stage.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306) amends Article 11 TEU. In the consolidated version paragraphs 1 and 2 have replaced the existing paragraph 1, and the present paragraph 2 has been renumbered paragraph 3 and amended slightly.
Article 11
1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence.
The common foreign and security policy is subject to specific rules and procedures. It shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously, except where the Treaties provide otherwise. The adoption of legislative acts shall be excluded. The common foreign and security policy shall be put into effect by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and by Member States, in accordance with the Treaties. The specific role of the European Parliament and of the Commission in this area is defined by the Treaties. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall not have jurisdiction with respect to these provisions, with the exception of its jurisdiction to monitor compliance with Article 25b of this Treaty and to review the legality of certain decisions as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 240a of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
2. Within the framework of the principles and objectives of its external action, the Union shall conduct, define and implement a common foreign and security policy, based on the development of mutual political solidarity among Member States, the identification of questions of general interest and the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.
3. The Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area.
The Member States shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
The Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles.
***
Joint Declaration (number 14) concerning the common foreign and security policy continues in the same vein as Declaration 13 to subtract from the consistency of common policy by underlining the independent policies of the Member States, especially the Members of the UN Security Council, and the intergovernmental nature of the policies the Member States happen to agree on, as well as the “specific nature” of the Member States’ security and defence policy:
“In addition to the specific rules and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union, the Conference underlines that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State’s membership of the Security Council of the United Nations.
The Conference also notes that the provisions covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions nor do they increase the role of the European Parliament.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.”
***
Next time we look at the foreign policy instruments of the EU.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 13 December 2007
EU Treaty of Lisbon objectives
Why is there a European Union? What do the Member States want to promote or achieve by joining forces within an institutional framework which presupposes team play? Why have these Member States voluntarily decided to pool their resources, more or less effectively, in certain areas?
The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave one answer when he dealt with threats to our prosperity and security: Nation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems, but global governance is too weak.
***
The general aims of the European Union are, in my humble opinion, acceptable, but the question remains if the Member States have been able to equip the Union with adequate means to meet our common challenges effectively.
The security threats are supposed to be met by common foreign, security and defence policies, but these seem to fall short of the simple test posed by Alexander Hamilton: “the means ought to be proportional to the end” (The Federalist, Number XXIII). Here, the intergovernmental conference seems to have further strengthened the centrifugal forces, worsened the prospects for effective decision-making and deepened the democratic deficit.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon merges the European Community into a single European Union. In addition, some of the proposals of the Constitutional Treaty find their home among the objectives of the revised Treaty on European Union.
As between rival siblings, jealousy and bickering may lead to spurious victories: French government officials have congratulated themselves on banning free and undistorted competition from the objectives of the Union to a Protocol annexed to the Treaties (Protocol on the internal market and competition).
German industrialists, British merchants, American capitalists, Polish plumbers and Chinese entrepreneurs, all have undermined the confidence of a great nation, always on the lookout for a protective political fix. Only now, it is to be called protection, not protectionism.
***
The Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (CIG 14/07),
Article 2
1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
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 ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.
5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.
Ralf Grahn
The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband gave one answer when he dealt with threats to our prosperity and security: Nation-states, for all their continuing strengths, are too small to deal on their own with these big problems, but global governance is too weak.
***
The general aims of the European Union are, in my humble opinion, acceptable, but the question remains if the Member States have been able to equip the Union with adequate means to meet our common challenges effectively.
The security threats are supposed to be met by common foreign, security and defence policies, but these seem to fall short of the simple test posed by Alexander Hamilton: “the means ought to be proportional to the end” (The Federalist, Number XXIII). Here, the intergovernmental conference seems to have further strengthened the centrifugal forces, worsened the prospects for effective decision-making and deepened the democratic deficit.
***
The Treaty of Lisbon merges the European Community into a single European Union. In addition, some of the proposals of the Constitutional Treaty find their home among the objectives of the revised Treaty on European Union.
As between rival siblings, jealousy and bickering may lead to spurious victories: French government officials have congratulated themselves on banning free and undistorted competition from the objectives of the Union to a Protocol annexed to the Treaties (Protocol on the internal market and competition).
German industrialists, British merchants, American capitalists, Polish plumbers and Chinese entrepreneurs, all have undermined the confidence of a great nation, always on the lookout for a protective political fix. Only now, it is to be called protection, not protectionism.
***
The Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon (CIG 14/07),
Article 2
1. The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.
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 ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.
4. The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro.
5. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
6. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences which are conferred upon it in the Treaties.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
