The Agreements on Extradition and on Mutual Legal Assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, both signed in Washington DC on 25 June 2003 enter into force on 1 February 2010.
A notice by the Council with regard to the entry into force of the EU-USA agreements was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 10.12.2009 L 323/11.
For the substance of the matter, we go back some six years. The Council decision presents the context of judicial cooperation between the European Union and the United States:
COUNCIL DECISION of 6 June 2003 concerning the signature of the Agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (2003/516/EC), published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/25.
The annexed Agreements contain the applicable provisions:
AGREEMENT on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America, published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/27.
AGREEMENT on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America, published OJEU 19.7.2003 L 181/34.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Growing, multilingual Bloggingportal.eu now aggregates 494 euroblogs. Blogs on EU affairs and policy areas can gain visibility, credibility and readers by joining our common European “village well” for facts, opinion and gossip. Click on Contribute to propose a new blog.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Thanksgiving from EU
Thanksgiving is an opportunity to express gratitude. From the perspective of a citizen of the European Union, there are a few things I would like to thank the United States for:
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: 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…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: 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…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty: US neocon leadership for Europe
Ireland has sought and received assurances that the Treaty of Lisbon does not affect or prejudice Ireland's traditional policy of military neutrality.
The assurances do not alter the Lisbon Treaty, but they became a political necessity due to misleading propaganda by No campaigners ahead of the first referendum.
The guarantees are based on mutual understanding: Ireland is free to remain neutral, but it allows its European partners to develop their common foreign, security and defence policies.
***
US neoconservative leadership
For the inimitable Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation, any independent European foreign policy action is a direct threat to American hegemony. “Lisbon Adds To Prague’s Tough Week” (21 September 2009) on The Foundry blog is tellingly posted under American Leadership (as seen by unreformed neoconservatives at war with the Obama administration).
Freedom of opinion applies to all, including McNamara, but even political propaganda should adhere to facts.
She tells us that French President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened Prague with “consequences” of delaying ratification of the Lisbon Treaty “making the statement completely unprompted”.
Howcome unprompted?
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 EU member state governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer had informed the EU heads of state or government that President Vaclav Klaus refuses to sign the ratification instrument despite the qualified majority approvals by both houses of the Czech Parliament, and that some of Klaus’ followers – defeated in the parliamentary arena – have decided to launch a new legal challenge to the Lisbon Treaty, already cleared by the Czech Constitutional Court ahead of the ratification votes.
The real motive for Klaus and his fringe of supporters seems to be to delay the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, when the European Union needs a new Commission in place from 1 November 2009.
It can hardly come as a surprise, if the governments of the EU member states are furious at these disruptive tactics.
According to McNamara, “(i)t is not for President Sarkozy or anyone to threaten Prague for carrying out its constitutional obligations”.
But President Sarkozy explicitly reacted against the harmful consequences of President Vaclav Klaus not fulfilling his constitutional obligations.
Although the constitutional mess is an internal Czech problem, it clearly affects the European Union and its member states (much more directly than the United States of America).
It is only natural that European leaders discuss common concerns, and it is self-evident that the more or less constructive actions by member states influence their standing with other EU member states.
In order to promote their interests, the EU member states need the trust and support of their fellow members.
***
UK EU referendum
According to Sally McNamara, “David Cameron has rightly promised to hold the referendum on the Treaty”.
What is “right” about a referendum?
Is it a principled stand? Does McNamara propagate the principle of plebiscites for all international treaties, everywhere (including the USA)?
McNamara disregards the fact that in the United Kingdom, both Houses of Parliament have approved the Lisbon Treaty, and it has been formally ratified. In the home of parliamentary supremacy, this is the supreme measure of legitimacy, isn’t it?
What would it mean for the credibility of Britain and how would it affect its relations with Europe, if the United Kingdom not only withdraws from the Lisbon Treaty, but prevents the other EU member states from reforming the European Union?
David Cameron and William Hague are wrong in promising a belated referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It could harm the European Union as a whole, and it would certainly poison the UK’s relations with its European partners for a long time to come.
If the Conservative leadership and the British public oppose deeper European integration for the UK, they should draw the conclusions without damaging the rest of Europe – exactly as the Irish government. “Live and let live.”
If the United Kingdom is unwilling or unable to participate in a constructive manner in European integration, the less harmful way is for Britain to take the fundamental decision: In or Out?
A referendum on EU membership would legitimise Britain’s international position, without harming the other member states or the European Union as a whole.
This would do “the rest of Europe a great service”.
***
The Lisbon Treaty as well as the guarantees and assurances offer Ireland all it needs for a confident Yes vote on 2 October 2009.
A No vote would be a gift to US neocons, UK Tories and disruptive figures like Vaclav Klaus. A No vote is hardly a “neutral” choice.
Ralf Grahn
The assurances do not alter the Lisbon Treaty, but they became a political necessity due to misleading propaganda by No campaigners ahead of the first referendum.
The guarantees are based on mutual understanding: Ireland is free to remain neutral, but it allows its European partners to develop their common foreign, security and defence policies.
***
US neoconservative leadership
For the inimitable Sally McNamara of the Heritage Foundation, any independent European foreign policy action is a direct threat to American hegemony. “Lisbon Adds To Prague’s Tough Week” (21 September 2009) on The Foundry blog is tellingly posted under American Leadership (as seen by unreformed neoconservatives at war with the Obama administration).
Freedom of opinion applies to all, including McNamara, but even political propaganda should adhere to facts.
She tells us that French President Nicolas Sarkozy threatened Prague with “consequences” of delaying ratification of the Lisbon Treaty “making the statement completely unprompted”.
Howcome unprompted?
The Lisbon Treaty was agreed between 27 EU member state governments, and it has been approved by 26 national parliaments. The Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer had informed the EU heads of state or government that President Vaclav Klaus refuses to sign the ratification instrument despite the qualified majority approvals by both houses of the Czech Parliament, and that some of Klaus’ followers – defeated in the parliamentary arena – have decided to launch a new legal challenge to the Lisbon Treaty, already cleared by the Czech Constitutional Court ahead of the ratification votes.
The real motive for Klaus and his fringe of supporters seems to be to delay the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, when the European Union needs a new Commission in place from 1 November 2009.
It can hardly come as a surprise, if the governments of the EU member states are furious at these disruptive tactics.
According to McNamara, “(i)t is not for President Sarkozy or anyone to threaten Prague for carrying out its constitutional obligations”.
But President Sarkozy explicitly reacted against the harmful consequences of President Vaclav Klaus not fulfilling his constitutional obligations.
Although the constitutional mess is an internal Czech problem, it clearly affects the European Union and its member states (much more directly than the United States of America).
It is only natural that European leaders discuss common concerns, and it is self-evident that the more or less constructive actions by member states influence their standing with other EU member states.
In order to promote their interests, the EU member states need the trust and support of their fellow members.
***
UK EU referendum
According to Sally McNamara, “David Cameron has rightly promised to hold the referendum on the Treaty”.
What is “right” about a referendum?
Is it a principled stand? Does McNamara propagate the principle of plebiscites for all international treaties, everywhere (including the USA)?
McNamara disregards the fact that in the United Kingdom, both Houses of Parliament have approved the Lisbon Treaty, and it has been formally ratified. In the home of parliamentary supremacy, this is the supreme measure of legitimacy, isn’t it?
What would it mean for the credibility of Britain and how would it affect its relations with Europe, if the United Kingdom not only withdraws from the Lisbon Treaty, but prevents the other EU member states from reforming the European Union?
David Cameron and William Hague are wrong in promising a belated referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. It could harm the European Union as a whole, and it would certainly poison the UK’s relations with its European partners for a long time to come.
If the Conservative leadership and the British public oppose deeper European integration for the UK, they should draw the conclusions without damaging the rest of Europe – exactly as the Irish government. “Live and let live.”
If the United Kingdom is unwilling or unable to participate in a constructive manner in European integration, the less harmful way is for Britain to take the fundamental decision: In or Out?
A referendum on EU membership would legitimise Britain’s international position, without harming the other member states or the European Union as a whole.
This would do “the rest of Europe a great service”.
***
The Lisbon Treaty as well as the guarantees and assurances offer Ireland all it needs for a confident Yes vote on 2 October 2009.
A No vote would be a gift to US neocons, UK Tories and disruptive figures like Vaclav Klaus. A No vote is hardly a “neutral” choice.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Taliban or Vatican?
Taliban rule and Sharia law have been making headway in the most backward regions of our planet. Has the Vatican taken heart in its quest for medieval supremacy over temporal rulers?
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
The question has some relevance for the European Union, because the Vatican is an enclave within the EU’s territory.
See BBC News Vatican ‘vetoes’ US envoy names (14 April 2009).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998688.stm
In firmly rebuffing three ambassadors chosen by the US administration, the Vatican has pushed its ideological agenda well beyond international custom, although the Vienna Convention does not require any statement of reasons for denial of ‘agrément’ and accreditation.
Should President Barack Obama give in to the headstrong and reactionary agenda of Pope Benedict XVI?
Not in my view. The United States appoints its ambassadors. The US can live without a head of mission at the Holy See. There is no pressing need for President Obama to visit a hostile Pope with a medieval view of the world.
Obama, after all, was elected on a ticket of hope.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 13 April 2009
Europe’s road to oblivion
The BBC’s Mark Mardell wrote an interesting post on his Euroblog on 9 April 2009 A battle with Eurobabble.
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
During the USA – EU summit president Barack Obama represented the United States, but nobody represented Europe. Instead a number of national prime ministers or presidents addressed each issue.
How is the United States supposed to communicate with a cacophony of voices?
(An aside: Is strenuous American support for EU enlargement going to diminish the communication problems?)
***
Confusion can reign at national level, too. According to Helsingin Sanomat Halonen ja Vanhanen kehuivat Obama-henkeä (5 April 2009) both prime minister Matti Vanhanen and president Tarja Halonen denied that their competing claims to address the summit was the cause of both being denied the chance to speak.
***
Are there any lessons for the defenders of intergovernmentalism: freely cooperating sovereign nations (former great powers and all)?
They already have what they want: Bickering member states and leaders competing for two and a half minutes in the limelight are the political reality of the European Union’s supposedly common foreign policy.
Europe’s road to oblivion is paved with petty ambitions.
The real question is what the citizens of the European Union need for a better future.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Kouchner drops support for Turkey
The French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner has dropped his support for Turkish membership in the European Union. He cites the Turkish government’s pressure tactics at the NATO summit and its move away from the secular reform path.
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
La Turquie dans l'UE? Kouchner n'y est plus favorable, reports Libération (7 April 2009).
Le Mexique 51e État des États-Unis d’Amérique ? was Jean Quatremer’s illustration of European quid pro quo on the Coulisses de Bruxelles blog (evening 6 April 2009), with Angela Merkel fictionally supporting Mexico’s membership as the 51st state of the USA.
***
We have been engaged with the same themes on this blog in previous posts.
Turkey ending its EU membership bid? (4 April 2009)
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union! (morning 6 April 2009)
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico (7 April 2009)
***
President Obama endorsed Turkish EU membership, but did he promote it?
Ralf Grahn
USA: Adopt Turkey and Mexico
Eurocentric of The European Citizen wrote a post called America, the 28th Member State? on President Obama’s support for Turkish membership in the European Union.
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Eurocentric reacted to Turkish EU membership being spoken of as a US foreign policy tool and as a “feel good” gesture of reaching out to a country, without taking the obligations of membership into account. American media treatment of the question lacked comprehension of how the European Union works.
***
I have long ago given up hope with regard to US governments and public opinion.
The only new thing about Obama's invitation was that it was made by him, because all the American administrations I can remember have supported Turkey's entry into the European Union for reasons of US geostrategic interests.
It is hard to find even a flimsy pretext for Turkish entry being in the interest of the European Union.
Having been brought up to think that it is bad form to invite guests to your neighbour's party, I think the only way to make Americans realise the challenges is by reversing the situation:
This was the reason for yesterday’s post: Let the United States adopt Turkey and Mexico, with loud and clear endorsement from Europe.
To continue on this path, the US has clear advantages.
It is hard to enter the European Union. The accession treaty has to be concluded with all the member states (27), so each one has a veto. In addition, each one has to ratify the treaty allowing in a new member. Finally, constitutionally the European Union is not equipped even for its existing membership. It is neither effective enough nor democratic.
Compare this with the United States, which has a democratic Constitution of more than 200 years. Only two requirements regulate the acceptance of new states.
According to Article IV, Section 4, the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.
Article IV, Section 3, allows Congress to admit new States into the Union.
Piece of cake, compared to Europe.
***
In other words, if the United States of America wants to reach out and to serve its geopolitical interests, let it invite Turkey and Mexico as the 51st and 52nd states.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Outreach between religions should resonate well in the United States and Turkey. Both are formally secular countries, but imbued by religion, and as such culturally compatible way beyond the potential of the European Union.
***
My challenge to readers is to argue for or against the United States adopting Turkey and Mexico as new states.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 6 April 2009
Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union!
Why do Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy act so curmudgeonly about president Barack Obama’s strong support for Turkish membership in the European Union? Why not come up with innovative ideas of their own?
The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.
Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.
Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.
Ralf Grahn
The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.
Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.
Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 4 July 2008
Government and consent
The Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, is still an evocative document:
“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.”
The first attempt to institute this government between the thirteen states on a surer footing was the Articles of Confederation, 9 July 1778, but showing even more structural weaknesses than the present day European Union.
The Americans were quicker on the uptake than the Europeans, so on 17 September 1787 the Philadelphia Convention agreed upon the Constitution of the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
***
Yes, with distractions like the War of Independence, it took the Americans about a decade to lay the democratic and federal foundations for the rise to economic and military world power.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Congratulations.
What has Europe to celebrate this 4 July 2008?
Ralf Grahn
“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.”
The first attempt to institute this government between the thirteen states on a surer footing was the Articles of Confederation, 9 July 1778, but showing even more structural weaknesses than the present day European Union.
The Americans were quicker on the uptake than the Europeans, so on 17 September 1787 the Philadelphia Convention agreed upon the Constitution of the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
***
Yes, with distractions like the War of Independence, it took the Americans about a decade to lay the democratic and federal foundations for the rise to economic and military world power.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Congratulations.
What has Europe to celebrate this 4 July 2008?
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
Defining moments
Strictly speaking, the Philadelphia Convention lacked the mandate to draft a Constitution to replace the inadequate Articles of Confederation. Urged on, by vision and necessity, the Convention not only drafted a new federal and democratic Constitution setting up the United States of America, but it included a crucial provision on its entry into force.
The Constitution of the United States of America, as agreed upon by the Convention, September 17, 1787, Article VII:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
***
Just a few words and a few defining moments make the difference between success and failure of global proportions.
Ralf Grahn
The Constitution of the United States of America, as agreed upon by the Convention, September 17, 1787, Article VII:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
***
Just a few words and a few defining moments make the difference between success and failure of global proportions.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
