EP breaking down national silos in digital markets?

In the blog posts Elements of style: digital single market in European Parliament and Digital commons in the European Parliament, we managed to evade what the EP had to say about the contents of the digital single market (DSM) to be.  

DSM preparation in EP

We remember that under the procedure file 2015/2147(INI) two rapporteurs, Kaja Kallas and Evelyne Gebhardt, had produced a joint report for two committees (the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ITRE and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection IMCO), adorned with opinions from six other committees.

The resulting report A8-0371/2015 on Towards a Digital Single Market Act, contained 78 pages, almost four times the number of pages in the DSM communication from the Commission (20 pages).

If we disregard the constant flak from the nationalists, who want the EU to fail at everything, the 19 January 2016 EP plenary debate on the DSM committee report was fairly positive and focused.

Benchmark

Now is the time to return to the DSM benchmark or litmus test, based on the political guidelines for the Commission, by president Jean-Claude Juncker:

I believe that we must make much better use of the great opportunities offered by digital technologies, which know no borders. To do so, we will need to have the courage to break down national silos in telecoms regulation, in copyright and data protection legislation, in the management of radio waves and in the application of competition law.

In short, if the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) want to catch up and overtake in order to become world leaders, digital single market (DSM) regulation has to become better and more uniform than in the advanced federal United States and Canada (as well as elsewhere).

Resolution P8_TA(2016)0009

The final European Parliament resolution P8_TA(2016)0009 of 19 January 2016 on Towards a Digital Single Market (still 28 pages) was adopted by 551 votes against 88 (with 39 abstentions).

Naturally, it is difficult to draw hard conclusions from kind words or a friendly reception, which often leave the level of engagement unclear and reservations or even active resistance unspoken.

The resolution was also long enough to make me content to pick a few random examples, hoping that they would offer some indication of where the European Parliament stands with regard to breaking down national silos.

Telecommunications

With regard to telecommunications rules the EP seems to favour competition, but it does not look clear if Parliament is speaking about national markets or a European telecoms market:

52. Emphasises that private investments in fast and ultra-fast communication networks are a requirement for any digital progress that must be incentivised by a stable EU regulatory framework enabling all players to make investments, including in rural and remote areas; considers that increased competition has been associated with higher levels of infrastructure investment, innovation, choices and lower prices for consumers and businesses; considers that little evidence exists of a link between consolidation of operators and increased investment and output in networks; considers that this should be carefully assessed, and competition rules enforced, to avoid excessive market concentration, the creation of oligopolies at European level and a negative impact for consumers;

Copyright

Even if the European Parliament (point 39) welcomes the Commissions commitment to modernise the current copyright framework (especially in order to remunerate right holders), the EP seems to dig in to defend the territoriality of copyright in Europe:

38. Cautions against indiscriminately promoting the issuing of mandatory pan-European licences since this could lead to a decrease in the content made available to users: highlights that the principle of territoriality is an essential element of the copyright system given the importance of territorial licensing in the EU;

Data protection

The EP mentioned a high level of general data protection often enough, but I have to leave until later to gauge the ambition of the Commission and the state of mind of the European Parliament with regard to current regulation.

Common standards appear to be a necessary condition for the conclusion of agreements on safe international data transfers:

128. Recognises the global nature of the data economy; recalls that the creation of the digital single market is dependent on the free flow of data within and outside the European Union; calls, therefore, for steps to be taken by the EU and its Member States in cooperation with third countries to ensure high standards of data protection and safe international data transfers, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation and the existing EU case law, when pursuing cooperation with third countries within the Digital Single Market Strategy;

Radio spectrum

Conceptually, how are radio waves more national than air? However, should we understand that member states defend their national radio spectrum silos to the utmost, while (the Commission and) the Parliament want to make at least some progress, as proposed in the Lamy report (High Level Group on the future of the UHF spectrum)? Anyway:  

59. Highlights that radio spectrum is a critical resource for the internal market for mobile, wireless broadband communications, as well as broadcasting, and is essential for the future competitiveness of the European Union; calls as a priority for a harmonised and pro-competitive framework for spectrum allocation and effective management to prevent delays in spectrum allocation, and for a level playing field for all market players, and in light of the Lamy report, for a long-term strategy on the future uses of the various bands of spectrum, which are necessary in particular for 5G deployment;

Competition law

The Commission and the European Parliament see eye to eye on competition in the digital single market, if we believe:

6. Supports the Commission's plan to ensure that EU competition policy applies fully to the digital single market, as competition gives consumers more choice but will also provide a level playing field, and regrets that the current lack of a European digital framework has highlighted the failure to reconcile the interests of large and small providers;

These were just first impressions. As regarding the single market in general, at some stage we have to follow up on individual proposals and responses regarding the EU and EEA digital single market.

However, if legislation and regulation on telecoms, copyright, data protection, radio waves (spectrum) and competition are federal matters in Canada and the United States, how does the European Union compare with regard to quality and uniformity?

Ralf Grahn

Military: Yankees go while European leaders sleep

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from president Barack Obama that private Ryan and his comrades should redeploy to Asia, where the action is going to be.

The strategy document Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense tells us that in keeping with this evolving strategic landscape, our (US) posture in Europe must also evolve (meaning far less men and weapons in Europe). This can hardly come as a surprise to even the most casual of news followers.

While both sides want to maintain the NATO alliance, this long expected move leaves European leaders naked with regard to the state of EU foreign, security and defence policy, especially their inability to even begin the construction of a common European defence.

Since a press statements on every mishap in the world seems to be the extent of EU foreign policy, perhaps the high representative Catherine Ashton could crank out a few lines to let the heads of state or government continue sleeping on the job(?)


Update 11 January 2012: Analysis from Reuters on the state of European thinking and action on common defence.



Ralf Grahn

European Union versus SOPA and Protect IP Act?

The European Parliament took a stand against the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) bill debated in the US House of Representatives and its sister, the Protect IP Act (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011) discussed in the Senate.

Both bills raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the internet as well as for service providers and businesses, not only in the United States, but globally.

How about the other EU institutions?

Here are the results of a quick search for public EU materials through the EEAS web pages.


European External Action Service EEAS

We start from the country page for the United States of America at the European External Action Service EEAS, where we find no specific item dedicated to the issue. However, there is material about the recent summit between the European Union and the United States of America.


EU-US summit

We take a closer look at the recent EU-US summit, 28 November 2011. Did the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, the high representative Catherine Ashton or trade commissioner Karel De Gucht raise issues related to the internet in their discussions with president Barack Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton?

In the EU-US Summit Joint statement, Washington, 28 November 2011 (document 17805/11), paragraph 4 mentioned the work of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), underlining the need to avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards affecting trade, but also highlighting the the efforts to protect intellectual property rights (IPR):

4. We applaud the success of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) on a wide range of issues and welcome the progress achieved in secure trade and supply chain security, electric vehicles and related infrastructure, regulatory practices, small and medium-sized enterprises, and in the Information Communications Technology (ICT) sector. We encourage the TEC’s continued leadership in helping us avoid unnecessary divergence in regulations and standards that adversely affects trade. We urge the TEC, together with our regulators and standard-setters to step up co-operation in key sectors such as nanotechnology and raw materials to develop compatible approaches to emerging technologies. We also instruct the TEC to pursue its work on strategic economic questions, not least in the field of investment, innovation policy, and the protection of intellectual property rights to level the playing field for our companies in third countries, in particular emerging economies.

The leaders did pay respect to an undivided global internet, before plunging into the security-driven concrete agenda, in paragraph 22:

22. We share a commitment to a single, global Internet, and will resist unilateral efforts to weaken the security, reliability, or independence of its operations — recognizing that respect for fundamental freedoms online, and joint efforts to strengthen security, are mutually reinforcing. We welcome the progress made by the EU-U.S. Working Group on Cyber-security and Cyber-crime, notably the successful Cyber Atlantic 2011 exercise. We endorse its ambitious goals for 2012, including combating online sexual abuse of children; enhancing the security of domain names and Internet Protocol addresses; promotion of international ratification, including by all EU Member States, of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime ideally by year’s end; establishing appropriate information exchange mechanisms to jointly engage with the private sector; and confronting the unfair market access barriers that European and U.S. technology companies face abroad.

The mandate of the new TEC high level working group on jobs and growth includes regulatory issues affecting trade (press release MEMO/11/843). Thus, it could be a forum for the prevention of new barriers.


Transatlantic Economic Council TEC

The Commission's DG Trade provides an overview of the meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council TEC, i.a.:

Information and Communication Technology: The EU and US reviewed the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) trade related principles which were agreed earlier this year and discussed ways of promoting the implementation of these principles within their bilateral economic relationship and in their trade negotiations with third countries. (IP/11/402)

The press release IP/11/402 notes the agreement on a set of ten fundamental principles for trade in information and communication technology (ICT) services, bilaterally and in order to open up markets for EU and US companies worldwide.

Logically, bilateral and globally propagated standards for information and communication technology (ICT) should exclude the creation of unilateral barriers, although the agreed principles come equipped with a caveat, far from clear in scope:

The EU-US Trade Principles for ICT Services have been agreed on a best endeavour basis and do not affect the rights of the EU or the US to maintain their respective policy approaches to the protection of intellectual property, privacy and personal data and the enhancement of cultural diversity.

The two-page document adds that financial services (one of the SOPA concerns) are excluded from the scope:

European Union-United States Trade Principles for Information and Communication Technology Services (4 April 2011)

The ten principles are briefly defined. Many of them could be affected by the SOPA and Protect IP bills.


Security and intellectual property or fundamental rights?

TFTP, ACTA, PNR... the list of invasive treaties problematic with regard to fundamental rights in the EU has grown.

The summit declaration and the TEC principles contain a few vague pointers, but what if the legislative powers in the USA decide to go even further than the executive, which works hard enough as it is to export its agendas on internet security and protection of intellectual property?

What have the EU institutions said and done? Where do they stand on freedoms and rights?



Ralf Grahn

IPR protection: ACTA opinions USA and EU

After the signing ceremony blog post ACTA signed – EU deaf-mute and arguments by proponents in IPR protection in world trade: ACTA signed, we turn to recent and varied opinions about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the quest for more stringent protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in international trade.


Information Society Project

Margot has posted a note on the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, wondering if ACTA is unconstitutional in the United States as a Sole Executive Agreement.

The post links to four articles, among which Infojustice.org and Techdirt are the most recent ones.


Infojustice.org

Sean Flynn, on Infojustice.org, discusses the Constitutional problem in the USA. Can ACTA be implemented by the executive, or does it need approval by Congress? The post links to a number of articles arguing the need for Congressional consent and doubting if the ACTA provisions are consistent with US law.

The post also discusses potential approval or ratification problems in the European Union and Mexico, with links to detailed opinions and sources.


Techdirt

Ahead of the signing ceremony, Techdirt ran a story with links to a number of articles regarding Constitutional concerns in the United States and EU views corroborating that ACTA is an international treaty. According to the article, intellectual property is clearly a Congressional issue.


USTR

Official US views are expressed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), which was diligent enough to post three news items during the weekend.

Partners Sign Groundbreaking Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, with a link to the USTR ACTA ”fact sheet”

ACTA: Meeting U.S. Objectives

Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiating Parties

Due to the lack of recent active information from EU institutions and services, the USTR serves European and other readers as well:

Representatives of the European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended the ceremony and confirmed their continuing strong support for and preparations to sign the Agreement as soon as practicable. All participants expressed their firm resolve to work cooperatively to achieve the Agreement’s prompt entry into force, and to support actively its goals.

Ralf Grahn

Jackson Hole calling US and eurozone politicians

Yesterday, I presented the speeches by the Federal Reserve chairman Ben S. Bernanke and the ECB chief Jean-Claude Trichet in the blog post (in Swedish) USA och Europa: Bernanke och Trichet i Jackson Hole, as well as the message addressed to the eurozone by the IMF chief Christine Lagarde: Jackson Hole: IMF Lagarde talking to Europe.


Jackson Hole calling politicians

The central bankers and the leaders of the international financial institutions want the politicians in the USA and Europe to get their act together, Reuters reports: Analysis: Economic leaders fear policy paralysis (28 August 2011).

The Wall Street Journal chips in with: Central Bankers Worry Economy Still in Peril (29 August 2011).

A Financial Times editorial praised Lagarde for starting a debate on how to get rid of excessive debt in the USA and in Europe, but criticised her willingness to send the tab to the taxpayers: Lagarde spells out ugly truth on debt (28 August 2011).

The message from Jackson Hole to politicians is that monetary policy alone can't keep the global expansion going, according to Bloomberg: Central Bankers Urge Governments on Expansion (29 August 2011).

I am still hoping to find comments on Lagarde's message to the eurozone leaders:

So Europe must recommit credibly to a common vision, and it needs to be built on solid foundations—including, for example, fiscal rules that actually work.

European Parliament

The European Parliament committee on economic and monetary affairs (ECON) meets today to discuss the sovereign debt markets with the Jean-Claud Trichet and about restoring market confidence with Jean-Claude Juncker, Jacek Rostowski and Olli Rehn (Draft agenda).

A few days ago, ECON chairwoman Sharon Bowles (ALDE) published an article about the challenges on Public Service Europe. The costs of a failure of the euro are simply too huge: Bowles: 'Saving the euro is paramount' (26 August 2011).

According to the Swedish ECON committee member Gunnar Hökmark (EPP), the continuing accumulation of debt did not solve the debt crisis. Too little has been done to enhance competitiveness and to create durable growth: En höst som måste vända utvecklingen (28 August 2011).


Bloggingportal

For continuing discussion about the eurozone challenges and other European issues, follow the new articles from 841 euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, an important part of the European public space. Look for the tags 'eurozone' and competitiveness'.

In addition to my four blogs (links in margin), I am active on Twitter and Facebook.



Ralf Grahn

Containing eurozone and US jitters?

Italy and Spain have faced increasing pressure from the bond markets, as well as outspoken calls to put their house in order.

To shift you into the right mood, Place du Luxembourg offers a detailed view of last week's bond yields and developments in the eurozone, with an abundance of references.

Not only vacations of political leaders and central bankers, but weekends too, were cut because of the credit downgrade of the United States and sour bond markets in the euro area.


Sarkozy and Merkel

The French president Nicolas Sarkozy and the German chancellor Angela Merkel issued a joint statement, where they reiterated their full support for the implementation of the agreement at the eurozone summit 21 July 2011.

They wish for the rapid approval of the decisions by the national parliaments, and they welcome the decisions by Italy and Spain to speed up budgetary consolidation and reforms for improving competitiveness. See (in French):

Zone euro – Communiqué franco-allemand


ECB Trichet

After a telephone conference of the Governing Council, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB) Jean-Claude Trichet issued a statement, which welcomed the announcements made by the governments of Italy and Spain concerning new measures and reforms in the areas of fiscal and structural policies. The Governing Council considers a decisive and swift implementation by both governments as essential in order to substantially enhance the competitiveness and flexibility of their economies, and to rapidly reduce public deficits.

The statement required full implementation by Italy and Spain of the new measures, as well as by all the eurozone countries with regard to both their national commitments and the decisions by the euro area summit 21 July.

On these conditions, the ECB dangled the hope of intervening through its Securities Markets Programme:

7 August 2011 - Statement by the President of the ECB


Italy

During the week, Italy was hit by prohibitively high rates to (re)fianance its public debt. At a press conference 5 August 2011, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and finance minister Giulio Tremonti announced measures to accelerate the reduction of the public deficit and to introduce structural reforms.

Il Sole 24ore explains that anticipated budget cuts will balance the Italian budget already in 2013, instead of 2014: Anticipo 23 miliardi per i tagli. More on the government proposals, including a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, here, and on the demands of the ECB here.


Spain

In the other big eurozone country hit by the bond markets, El País offers us an overview of the new measures by the Spanish government and finance minister Elena Salgado during the weekend: Salgado detalla un plan de ajuste de 5.000 millones ante la présion europea.


G7 statement

The Financial Times has gained access to and published the statement by the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G7 countries, who promise action and liquidity.

This morning the markets in Asia have not been jubilant, but perhaps we should wait for the details of various measures to emerge and be digested.



Ralf Grahn

Wealth of Nations roundup

Competitiveness is at the heart of living standards and the quality of life, so our previous compilation of blog posts was a European ICT competitiveness roundup.

Here are the last July 2011 additions, which bring more European and global elements to the discussion.

Grahnlaw: European business leaders boost the European Dream (29 July 2011)

Grahnlaw: USA and EU falling behind in innovation and competitiveness (30 July 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): USA ja EU: Innovaatiot ja kilpailukyky laahaavat (31 July 2011)

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish): Kilpailukyky: Voittajat ja haastajat (31 July 2011). - Something of a synthesis post, this one.

***

The Nordic countries are still impressive, but they have to run hard to keep their positions. The Asian tigers make huge progress and some of the new EU member states have caught up spectacularly well.

In the United States, some of the individual states are more competitive than any of the sovereign economies in the world, but is the USA as a whole in decline and without the mentality for proactive public policies to turn the tide?

Many of the members of the European Union and the EU as a whole worry me. Do the member state politicians have what it takes to achieve sustainable public finances and to make the Europe 2020 reform strategy a success story, nationally and as contributors at the EU level?

Smart, sustainable and inclusive growth is a huge challenge, but shouldn't Europeans become interested in the building process, rather than waiting until things have gone wrong and showing their indignation only when already hit by the consequences?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. From Turkey, the land of Orhan Pamuk, the prolific social media activist Erkan Saka sends us one of his regular Euro updates.

USA and EU falling behind in innovation and competitiveness

We have seen that the European trade associations for businesses offering ICT goods and services want pan-European regulation. The industry players have lined up behind the Digital Agenda, including the Digital Single Market, expecting the politicians to play their part for a competitive Europe.

The dual ambitions of the European Commission to focus on promoting sustainable public finances and contributing to growth-enhancing economic reforms according to the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) are, in my view, remarkably well in line with what European business leaders and policy shapers are calling for.

But the European Union needs much more: full scale support from politicians at all levels.


ITIF

Again, Twitter acted as the news medium, alerting me to the ITIF benchmarking report about innovation and competitiveness. (Sadly, I am not able to give credit to the individual tweeter, since I forgot to note the tweet, which already seems to have disappeared.)

The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation ITIF, based in Washington DC (USA), published The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU and U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness, which found both dark clouds over all and bright spots with regard to nine of the the United States of America (introduction):

… the 2011 report finds that America has made little or no progress since 1999. Of the 44 countries and regions surveyed, the United States still ranks fourth behind Singapore, Finland and Sweden. But this is down from the number one position in 2000. Of greater concern, however, is the fact that the U.S. continues to rank at the bottom – second only to Italy – on progress in improving its innovation capacity and competitiveness over the last decade. But the updated report contains encouraging news for some individual states. Measured against the foreign countries and regions, Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Colorado, and New Hampshire would all be ranked number one in innovation-based competitiveness if they were their own countries.

Great for Finland and Sweden, but only if we do not count the nine top US states, more innovative than any nation in the world.

If the USA ranked a (disappointing) fourth, what should we say about the EU, where the fifteen old member states (EU-15) remain stuck in eighteenth place, with the ten new member states (EU-10) still further behind, in position 27?

The rate of progress for the US and the EU can only be described as dismal. Both continue to lose ground in the the ”great game” of the 21st century, the global innovation race.

Besides the good marks for Finland and Sweden, the best news from Europe is that five Central European countries – Cyprus, Slovenia, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Latvia – are in the top ten regarding the speed of long term progress between 1999 and 2011, although the recent depression has sapped strength.

The study offers practical advice for the USA and for Europe. Both must push back innovation mercantilism and improve their policies on innovation, productivity and competitiveness.

Europe needs to fully embrace innovation, including the ”creative destruction” so alien to many of its protectionist politicians.

America is described as ”torpid”, sleepwalking to decline without decisive and proactive public action to shape and to act on an national innovation strategy.

This century is not going to be Atlantic, if the US and Europe remain in the slow lane.

You can study the full report:

Robert D. Atkinson and Scott M. Andes, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: The Atlantic Century II: Benchmarking EU & U.S. Innovation and Competitiveness (July 2011, 42 pages)

***

We need the humility to learn and the courage to act, in both Europe and the United States.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. SFGate tells us that Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has unveiled An Economic Growth and Competitivenss Agenda for California, in Silicon Valley. The plan is available here.

Business leaders boost the European Dream

After our European ICT competitiveness roundup it seems natural to take a closer look at the hopes and expectations of European corporate leaders with regard to the future of the EU.

Some people doubt the usefulness of social media, but I beg to differ. This time I noticed an interesting report through @AchimMuellers on Twitter, a consultant who also blogs on Achim Müllers.

Müllers' tweet led me to the report by Booz & Co, the European Executive Council (EEC) and INSEAD: Revitalising the European Dream: A Corporate View.

In addition to demands for EU clout in world affairs and global free trade, the replies from 2,000 European business leaders and policy shapers are remarkably well in line with the current dual ambitions of the European Commission (and the Council) to focus on promoting sustainable public finances and contributing to growth-enhancing economic reforms according to the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020).

However, many business leaders feel that there is a lack of dialogue and interaction with the Commission.

Despite differing outlooks among big corporations and SMEs, as well as between individual countries, the authors of the 19-page report are convinced that

... the revitalisation of the European dream is an imperative that corporate leaders support, not at the expense of other regions, but as a critical requirement and contributor to a healthy and sustainable global economy.

Form and function

The web version of the European Dream report shows the conflict between form and function. The graphical designers have been allowed to use pleasing pastel colours, such as light blue on white and white on blue, which make reading harder and less enjoyable than simpler solutions like black on white. Caveat emptor!



Ralf Grahn


P.S. With the US countdown to default ongoing, professor Robert Reich offers a trenchant view of an ailing America (in the Social Europe Journal).

UK and the fall of the ”EU dictatorship”

”Gov(ernmen)t sees off revolt by Tory eurosceptics”, if we believe the AFP, but readers of Mail Online are happy to be served ”Tory eurosceptics win battle over UK 'sovereignty clause' ”.

In UK discourse about the EU even the most basic of facts are contested, if we assume that the reporting concerns the same Parliament and the same European Union (Bill).

Those who are able to stomach it can delve deeper into parliamentary debate on Europe, UK style.


EuroGoblin

Ahead of the parliamentary debate in the United Kingdom, EuroGoblin was more interested in the coming vote than in the crusade from the Daily Express: We Are the Knights Who Say … No! (10 January 2011).

In my view it would be wrong to ignore the astounding argumentation concerning the ”EU dictatorship” by the self-proclaimed ”world's greatest newspaper” The Daily Express, presented on 23 pages in order to ”Get Britain out of the EU” (8 January 2011).

That a newspaper can thrive on such writing anywhere in the free world beggars belief, not only with regard to editorial standards, but the quality of large parts of the political establishment and the educational system of the nation.


BRICs rising and Europe sinking

I wrote a comment on the EuroGoblin blog, where I tried to explain why the European Union needs less retrograde thinking and a whole lot more of energy in a world increasingly shaped by the BRICs. Even if the United Kingdom is an extreme example of toxic discourse, the rest of Europe is well on its way to oblivion:

I am actually less insouciant than you [EuroGoblin], because the debate in the United Kingdom is characterised by varying degrees of backwardness, even more than in Europe generally.

In the real world various Asian countries have already surpassed the EU member states in educational achievements (Pisa), China is about to pass Europe in research and development within a decade, the world’s industrial output is increasingly produced in Asia, the Chinese armed forces are strenghtened at a rapid pace, the US and European governments are in hock to China, and as consumers we spend more than we earn on Chinese goods.

There seem to be only token efforts to put the European Union back on the world map and on the road to economic prosperity.

Discussing various scenarios of backward mobility (as in the UK) gives me the impression of criminal neglect from our beloved leaders.

Energy and democracy

In my view, the citizens of the European Union need an energetic and effective union in the crucial matters of security and prosperity, but this union has to be based on its citizens, meaning full EU level democracy and political accountability.

A Britain erring between the Scylla of still more sterile sovereignty or the Charybdis of EU withdrawal is certainly not the leadership model Europeans need for the high seas of the 21st century. The best we can hope for from the United Kingdom is to do as little damage as possible.

But where are the leaders the rest of us EU citizens need?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Oh, US is US, and EU is EU, and never the twain shall meet? Forgive me, Kipling, but it will be interesting to see what my new acquaintance The Worden Report makes of his comparison of federalism in the United States and the European Union in the end. In my humble opinion, Europe has substantially more than a healthy dose of Anti-Federalist (News)Papers for the challenges of the 21st century, especially in the English language.

Cheering crowds? Barroso’s EU “State of the Union” address

In the United States of America with a population of 310 million (Wikipedia), President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address drew 48 million television viewers, according to USA Today.

With the same 15.5 per cent of the 501 million population of the European Union, about 78 million EU citizens would have followed the “State of the Union” speech by Commission President José Manuel Barroso.



Before the “big speech” I remarked on the constitutional difference between the powers and the election of the President of the USA versus the position of the European Commission in the “institutional triangle”. In the USA, the State of the Union speech is enshrined in the Constitution, while in the European Union you have to struggle to find a legal base. (I am still waiting for clarifications promised from the European Parliament.)

When the chiefs of the EU Commission and the European Parliament felt the pressure to draw a decent crowd among 736 MEPs, they panicked.



In How many presidents does it take to run Europe? (7 September 2010), The Economist’s new Charlemagne noted how Nigel Farage, of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group and UKIP, seized on the constitutional differences and the viewer numbers between the USA and the EU.



The European Parliament’s press release, State of the (E)Union: The Europe of today and tomorrow debated in the EP, mentions no figures for viewers on the EP’s own channel europarltv, nor did I find any statistics regarding the session elsewhere on the EP website.



We can only speculate that EP Live may have experienced a peak of viewers because of the hyped name and the critical discussion preceding the “State of the Union” address, but how many thousands would we speak about?.



Despite the absence of cheering (or jeering) crowds, “Séance en direct” is an important public service, giving EU citizens online access to the plenary sessions – live or recorded - of the European Parliament in the original language and 22 other language channels. Agendas and documents complement the supply, which guarantees a certain level of transparency in EU affairs.




Ralf Grahn

UK versus USA and EU: Oceans apart on fundamental rights

After yesterday’s blog posts on a new pocket-sized version of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and basic information about the Council of Europe and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is time to turn to the odd man out among civilised nations: the United Kingdom.



In the Declaration of Independence (1776), by the Second Continental Congress, the thirteen united States of America turned the tables on King George III:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, ...

Principles of the English Bill of Rights (1689) and Enlightenment philosophy also flowed into the Constitution of the United States of America (1787), including the first ten amendments known as the United States Bill of Rights, which came into effect in 1791.



In the United Kingdom, absent the notion of citizenship and a codified constitution, subjects of the Crown enjoy certain rights based on a patchwork of domestic statutory provisions and common law rules.



The set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed form the uncodified constitution. According to the fundamental doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Parliament can change any law including the constitutional rules by a simple Act of Parliament, so domestically the rights of a British subject hang by a thread, subject to the whims of each Parliament in Westminster.



English nationalists seem to worship a ragtag bag of domestic documents from Magna Carta onwards with fervour, as if these parchments and papers somehow conferred superior protection for Englishmen compared to the human rights enshrined in other EU countries or the United States. Have these fervent Crown subjects even read the Magna Carta?



The Magna Carta is a historically important document, but so is the Code of Hammurabi.



The Conservative election manifesto 2010 still saw superior human rights and fundamental freedoms as an encroachment [on Parliamentary sovereignty] and pledged to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights (page 79).



Intellectually and politically an unqualified statement like that would have placed the United Kingdom on par with Belarus with regard to European human rights standards.



The latest general election led to a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, so the UK Coalition programme 2010 shows restraining influences on the government’s urge to gain the upper hand against judges and the people (page 11):

We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, rights under the ECHR will be given continued protection, and there is even talk of potentially extending the rights of British subjects.

It is still amazing: Where in the civilised world of today can you, as the Conservatives, emerge as the biggest party in free and fair elections on a promise to curtail human rights?


Without UK membership in the European Union (indirectly benefiting from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights despite opting out) and the Council of Europe, with the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) finally brought into force in 2000 by the UK Human Rights Act 1998, individuals in Britain would have few guarantees against excesses by government or parliament.

The media climate and the political atmosphere in the United Kingdom are still oceans apart from the fundamental rights traditions protecting citizens across the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel.



I wonder why.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Grahnlaw blog invites comments relevant to the topics discussed, but the number and the variety of spam comments seems to be increasing steadily. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent 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.

EU tax: Discussing a part of a fraction of public spending

Total government expenditure in EU-27 during 2011 is forecast at 50.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to the publication Public Finances in EMU 2010 (European economy 4/2010).



The draft budget of the European Union for 2011 (DB) corresponds to 1.14 per cent of EU gross national income (GNI), which amounts to EUR 142.6 billion in commitment appropriations.

Very roughly, the EU’s public spending is one 44th part of total public spending in the European Union.



Federal government spending in the United States of America is estimated to be 25.06 per cent of GDP in the financial year 2011.

The cumulative sum of European Union spending is important, but only a tiny fraction of what the US government spends as a proportion of wealth creation.

Still, some people are deluded enough to believe that they live in a centralised European super-state.

Before we see the concrete options, we can only guess that the coming proposal on an EU tax would concern only a part of the minuscule proportion of total public spending the European Union budget stands for in Europe.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. 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.

Woebegone: Torpor in Minnesota and silly season in Brussels

It has been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, is the standard opening of Garrison Keillor reporting on events in this fictional town in Minnesota, USA. The radio show A Prairie Home Companion is heard on public radio stations in the United States and known to Europeans through reemissions of National Public Radio (NPR) programmes and by national radio stations. (In Finland, you can listen to News from Lake Wobegon on YLE Mondo through national cable TV radio, or locally on FM in Helsinki.)



The probably best known Garrison Keillor quote wraps up his “home town” nicely: Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.



Garrison Keillor’s philosophical chats are also available in print.



If it can always be silly season in Lake Wobegon, with a population of about 1,000, it is astounding that “Brussels”, the de facto capital of the European Union (population about 501,000,000), still takes the plunge into summer recess so seriously, as if the world stopped rotating for a month for the convenience of people working in the EU institutions: See upcoming events on European Agenda and EU Calendar.



With slightly different spelling: woebegone.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. 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.

European Union’s Manifest Destiny?

“There is no end in sight for blogging on the high politics of EU fundamentals”, was not an expression of weariness, but of conviction that we European citizens need to reflect on the need for Europe in the wider world and to adapt our means to the challenges.



What The European Citizen called European Theology Season, I would rename European Teleology Season, “telos” being the purpose, aim, end or design of European integration and the European Union (finalité).



The European Citizen continues his style of quality blogging, sharing links to other Euroblogs (Charlemagne, Jason O’Mahony, Eurogoblin and Grahnlaw), before putting forward his reasoned arguments for greater political involvement to decide how we run the EU, and how we can make it work better for those who have lost out.

According to Eurocentric, this requires greater political integration; more pan-European elections that offer a choice in competing policies.

However, even the “progressive” view of Eurocentric seems to accord little weight to the future of Europe in world affairs.


Manifest destiny?

The Americans have had the knack for catchy phrases, so instead of the “telos”, “teleology”, “finalité” of Eurospeak and muddling through, they coined the phrase “manifest destiny”.

Today the European Union lacks a manifest destiny in a positive sense, but if it does not rapidly agree on purposes and structures well above its current ambitions, I am afraid that it will be swept into increasing irrelevance in world affairs - political, military and economic - with severe repercussions for the security and prosperity of EU citizens in the next decades.

An effective union, based on democratic and accountable government, is not a blank cheque for centralised power in all policy areas, only for legitimate rule on issues where an “energetic” European Union can do things better in addition to the Single Market, such as foreign policy, defence, international development, research, environment, economic relations, budget and currency.

I find it disheartening that European leaders and people, by default, seem to regard learning Mandarin and bowing to Asian values as lesser burdens than agreeing on structures necessary to effectively advance European (universal) values and interests at home and in the world.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Even if the Grahnlaw blog and my replies are in English, feel free to comment in Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish.

Fourth of July

The Fourth of July is not a bad day for Europeans to reflect on the need for government and the legitimacy of power in this global age.

Dear Readers,



the Declaration of Independence.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Transatlantic learning for better lawmaking

Share your Europe, say the editors of Bloggingportal.eu. They have invited bloggers and non-bloggers to offer their visions for the future of Europe on the My Europe Week blog during this week until Europe Day 9 May 2010. A short while ago, there were 48 posts tagged #myeurope on the special Bloggingportal.eu page.

After a number of posts from an internal perspective, the time has come to widen our horizon. My question is:

Are we humble enough to learn?


Altiero Spinelli, Jean Monnet and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing are among those Europeans who have evoked the birth and the establishment of the United States of America as an inspiration for Europe, sometimes at a highly symbolic level.

However, the part vision I am going to offer here is more mundane.

When I read a Finnish Government Bill, there is routinely a discussion about the legislation and recent reforms in other countries. As in Sweden, the proposed changes are presented in detail.

When I turn to a Communication (proposal) from the European Commission, the contents generally feel more formalistic and less illuminating. There are seldom, if ever, arguments about how things are done elsewhere.

Is the European Union really so ‘sui generis’ that we have nothing to learn from the outside world?

Is it somehow politically incorrect to refer to the USA, which has a federal Constitution?

Is it more comfortable to entertain the illusion that we have invented the wheel, instead of openly admitting that we could learn from others and improve on what they have done?

One of the few exceptions I can readily remember were Mario Monti’s speeches about the need for convergence in competition matters, especially cartels (antitrust) where authorities on both shores of the Atlantic grappled with the practices of the same business Behemoths.

Despite the structural differences ─ the USA a federation, the EU a treaty based organisation ─ both are faced with similar challenges.

The USA and the EU are multi-level systems of governance, trying to facilitate life and commerce on a continental scale.

The terms in use are often different, but the underlying problems and challenges are more or less closely related, even if this is an extremely rough guide: Commerce Clause (internal market, external trade), Necessary and Proper (subsidiarity and proportionality), Full Faith and Credit (area of freedom, security and justice) etc.

However, we should routinely go beyond that to practical levels of application.

Do we have the humility to learn? Do we have the candour to admit it? Are we mature enough to move from furtive peeks to open discussion?

Better lawmaking is profiting from the experiences of others.

Is the European Union self-confident enough for a new level of transatlantic (mutual) learning?




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Why not the United States of Europe?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are landmarks in human history. They attest to the continental vision and the political will of the Founding Fathers.

Still in the 21st century, Europeans cannot escape the example set by the innovative Americans at the end of the 18th century. For some visionaries the USA has been an inspiration. For others, tribal instincts are paramount, and they vehemently reject everything beyond classic international cooperation, even when sovereignty is turning into an empty shell.



When Jean Monnet became a free citizen in 1955, he named his NGO the Action Committee for the United States of Europe.


Why not USE?

Despite the inspirational value of the Founding Fathers and the subsequent development of the USA into the leading world power, it would be wrong to call the future European federation the United States of Europe.

Why?

The existing European Union is a treaty based international organisation. The EU has member states.

The coming European federation would be based on its citizens, with a democratic system of government.

Thus, the new union would primarily unite people, not states. This should be reflected in the name.


The distinction is not a new one. For instance, Umberto Campagnolo writing Repubblica Federale Europea in 1945 (new edition Rubettino, 2004; page 68) argued that the name United States of Europe would be wrong from a theoretical, historical and political viewpoint.


A federal Europe is based on representative democracy and an appropriate division of powers, based on a simple formula: How are the security and prosperity of its citizens best enhanced?

The USA became something of a melting pot of nations, but the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe is based on existing states and linguistic communities. This is something the federation needs to serve and protect.

With regard to the daily lives of citizens, a federal system based on private initiative and complemented by local, regional and national democratic decision making would not be especially intrusive.

On the other hand, there is a need for more Europe. In fundamental policy areas our interests as citizens are best served by establishing sufficient powers at the European level according to a written Constitution, based on a principle of solidarity:

• Foreign policy, including defence
• Freedoms, justice and security
• Economic and monetary policy
• External and internal trade
• Research, communications, energy and the environment

It goes without saying that these powers require a real federal budget and that they have to be exercised through free and fair elections to the European Parliament, leading to accountable government.

If this vision seems too audacious, we can continue on the path towards decline and oblivion.

Ahead of Europe Day, your vision is welcome on My Europe Week. Share your Europe.




Ralf Grahn

Trust is good, control is better? US & EU at a crossroads

In the Lisbon Treaty preamble the member states of the European Union confirmed their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law. The EU shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice, according to Article 3(2) TEU.

“Trust is good, control is better”, has been ascribed to V. I. Lenin, not our first choice among icons of liberty. However, these words seem to encapsulate the purported defence of our freedoms, by elected governments on both shores of the Atlantic.



From data retention of all electronic communications and nudie pics at airports to spying on bank data, nothing is to be left unseen by the US administration and the European Union, in the name of our security.

Security is important, but are our administrations driven by fear? Is any level of control ever sufficient to eliminate all threats?

What happened to liberty, human rights and fundamental freedoms?

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” would be a better motto for our leaders than the vain pursuit of total control.




Ralf Grahn

After SWIFT – sudden EU-US data protection agreement consultation

Lately the Commission, the Council and the US administration have been as busy lobbying the SWIFT / TFTP agreement on rendering financial data from the European Union to the United States as they previously were anxious to keep the European Parliament in the dark. Not that the quality of information seems to have improved despite turning on the volume.



The European Parliament has informed us about the 29 to 23 vote of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) to propose rejection: SWIFT: MEPs to vote on backing or sacking EU/US data sharing deal (5 February 2010).

I wonder why the 23 who voted for breaching EU data protection standards have been so silent about their reasons.


The Euroblogosphere has actively debated the SWIFT agreement and the muscular diplomacy employed, for instance: Henrik Alexandersson, Henrik Alexandersson, Netzpolitik, Henrik Alexandersson, Julien Frisch, Henrik Alexandersson, Thomas Mayer, Jon Worth, Europaeum, Julien Frisch, Open Europe Blog, Sköne Oke.



Suddenly



Suddenly, after keeping the European Parliament and the EU citizens in the dark for so long about the SWIFT agreement, the European Commission’s DG Freedom, Security and Justice has launched an online consultation on the future European Union (EU) - United States of America (US) international agreement on personal data protection and information sharing for law enforcement purposes. The consultation runs until 12 March 2010.

I wonder.





Ralf Grahn







P.S. The BBC’s Europe editor Gavin Hewitt writes a blog, which presents European politics to readers in Britain and worldwide.

Gavin Hewitt’s Europe is listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, which has now grown to 532 great Euroblogs.

Bloggingportal.eu is your useful one-stop-shop for fact, opinion and gossip on EU affairs, i.a. politics, more than thirty policy areas, communication, economics, finance, business, civil society and law.

At the same time Euroblogs are an agreeable way to brush up one’s skills in foreign languages.

If you are interested in the EU or the euroblogosphere, you can also subscribe to the RSS feed for new blog posts appearing on Bloggingportal.eu.

By the way, I also discuss European issues, including the relations between the EU and Switzerland, in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus and in Swedish on Grahnblawg.