After looking (and calling) for Portuguese EU related blogs, presenting three Spanish quality Euroblogs and discussion in Spanish about online media and social media, we decide to pause to take a look at our map of the online public space in Europe.
There is one corner, which raises grave concern.
This time, I want to show special consideration to so called eurosceptics, who, in my humble view, seldom show signs of true scepticism. I don’t know why people insist on the use of this euphemism, when most of them seem to hate the idea of European integration and the very existence of the European Union.
Geographically or mentally, most of these anti-EU campaigners are located in England. All the miseries of life in contemporary United Kingdom seem to stem from one root cause: the evil European Union.
They are, of course, entitled to their opinions, but I am a bit worried about how some of them go about the business of rejecting the European Union and everything it does.
Every negative allegation about the EU is given full credence. Some of these anti-EU campaigners are content to pass it on to their followers, spiced with some general remarks on the total corruptness or dictatorial nature of the EU(SSR). A second wave of followers uncritically re-emits the message, as if proven on the authority of the first who missed the mark.
Even if aided and abetted by the gutter press, the vitriol has to be refined to win the hearts and minds of the general public, with a view towards gaining the cause for a UK referendum on EU membership and ultimate victory for secession.
It will be long, it will be hard – before withdrawal.
Thus, the anti-EU and pro EU referendum campaigners need to step up their act.
“Know your enemy” is sound advice to anti-EU bloggers in Albion and elsewhere.
The first leg of our journey takes us to the sausage factory (or factories) of the European Union.
Sausage factory and outlets
Otto von Bismarck is quoted as saying: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Most people glance at European Union affairs through national mainstream media, which tend to highlight national politicians and grievances, but I recommend the use of primary sources whenever possible.
This means a visit to the factory outlets, perhaps even following the sausage making process.
With all the hoop-la surrounding new communication strategies, social media, participation and other novelties, it is easy to forget that main products are official communications from the EU institutions.
Eur-Lex portal
The main store is the legal portal Eur-Lex, which promises “Access to European Union law”. In 23 official languages the store offers the visitor a number of specialised departments, where you find – for free - more information than you can read in a lifetime.
EU Treaties
Everything the European Union does is based on and limited by the Treaties. An awful lot of nonsense about the EU would be eliminated if people cared to read and even more importantly, to understand the powers of the European Union and the limitations of these “competences” regarding the issue at hand.
Admittedly, it would often take the joy out of your life, your conspiracy theories, Euromyths, gut reactions and facile quotes, as well as those of the gutter press, but if nobody can curtail your freedom of speech, there is the risk that at least some of your readers show more sense, which can damage your credibility in the long run.
OJEU – Official Journal of the European Union
The steady stream of EU legislation is found in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU), accessible online from 1998 onwards. Here you find practically everything, from the Treaties to the minute details of delegated acts and competition notices. Many different search options are available.
Preparatory acts
The political battles, inside the EU institutions and outside, are often fought over proposed legislation or policies. Head towards Preparatory acts, if you want to know the sinister plans of the European Commission. COM documents contain the policy papers and proposals. They are often accompanied by more technical SEC (or staff) documents. From this page you can also access Pre-Lex to follow a specific act, or the European Parliament’s Legislative observatory Oeil.
In the pipeline
If you want an overview of the legislation in the pipeline regarding a certain policy area, you can access the Directory of European Union legislation in preparation, divided into twenty different policy fields, then more finely tuned under subheadings. The latest version is updated to 1 August 2010, so you have to search among preparatory acts for the newest proposals.
EU budget
Your wretched country contributes to the cost of the European Union according to a reduced rate (UK rebate). The shortfall is financed by other member states, including the poorest ones. However, your morally upright view is that being a member is punishment enough. Any contribution to the evil EUSSR adds insult to injury, if the monies are taken from British taxpayers. In order to be more convincing, you have to access your favourite hate object: the EU budget.
Become and intellectual giant!
Admittedly, these sources represent only the tip of the iceberg, but if you follow the easy steps outlined in this study guide, you are on your way to stardom, advancing confidently every day.
Put the lessons to good use, and you shall gain the stature of an intellectual giant among your anti-EU followers.
Become a better class of enemy.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label anti-EU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-EU. Show all posts
Monday, 13 September 2010
Friday, 26 June 2009
European Conservatives: Prague declaration analysis (Part three)
What does the Prague declaration of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG) in the European Parliament tell us about the future policies of the new political group, built around the UK Conservative Party of David Cameron and William Hague (26 MEPs), the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) of the Kaczynski twins (15 MEPs) and the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS) of Mirek Topolanek (formerly Vaclav Klaus) (9 MEPs), with a fluctuating number of individual representatives from other member states?
The ECRG has presented ten short principles. The part looked at the preamble. The second part presented the principles from 1 to 5, and this third part contains the remaining principles, one at a time, with subjective comments.
***
NATO first
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
Comment
The plethora of common interests between the United States and the European Union – values, trade, foreign, security and defence – are reduced and made subservient to the defence alliance NATO, although the US needs a coherent Europe to deal with in all mutual areas and as an ally in the world. Despite the importance of NATO, the US has more pressing global challenges to think about, and twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union it has a right to expect that the EU will be able to defend itself in most conceivable situations before long.
The ECRG says nothing about developing the foreign, security and defence policy, or the common defence, of the European Union. The most fundamental challenges for the EU are left unanswered (but the UK Conservatives’ European Election Manifesto was outright hostile towards the timid Lisbon Treaty reforms in the foreign policy area.)
My reading is that it is an error to do anything to keep the UK within the European Union based on its foreign policy influence or military capabilities, as long as Britain is opposed to using them for the common good.
Young democracies need support, from Morocco to Murmansk, but the crux of the matter is how we are going to achieve coherent and cohesive European Union action with regard to the Eastern Partnership, the Union for the Mediterranean or Russia. The sovereign integrity of each EU member state is a recipe for disaster.
***
Immigration control
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures
Comment
Improved immigration control and asylum procedures seem to be in line with the EU’s aims under the Hague Programme and the future Stockholm Programme on justice and home affairs (area of freedom, security and justice).
Given the participating parties, it is surprising thing that the European Conservatives mention these policies in a document on the European Union. Great Britain has opted out of the Schengen area of free internal travel and external border control. Under the Lisbon Treaty Britain would opt out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and together with Poland from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights containing the guiding values with regard to individuals.
The ECRG parties are hardly the ones most famous for promoting effective, but fair responses to the common challenges of migration and asylum.
***
Public services
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
Waste
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
Equality of member states
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
The European Conservatives are potential saboteurs in the evolving foreign, security and defence area. They are hardly credible as European reformers in the area of freedom, security and justice, either.
With almost nothing to give, it remains a mystery why they don’t act forcefully for their countries to withdraw from the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
The ECRG has presented ten short principles. The part looked at the preamble. The second part presented the principles from 1 to 5, and this third part contains the remaining principles, one at a time, with subjective comments.
***
NATO first
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
Comment
The plethora of common interests between the United States and the European Union – values, trade, foreign, security and defence – are reduced and made subservient to the defence alliance NATO, although the US needs a coherent Europe to deal with in all mutual areas and as an ally in the world. Despite the importance of NATO, the US has more pressing global challenges to think about, and twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union it has a right to expect that the EU will be able to defend itself in most conceivable situations before long.
The ECRG says nothing about developing the foreign, security and defence policy, or the common defence, of the European Union. The most fundamental challenges for the EU are left unanswered (but the UK Conservatives’ European Election Manifesto was outright hostile towards the timid Lisbon Treaty reforms in the foreign policy area.)
My reading is that it is an error to do anything to keep the UK within the European Union based on its foreign policy influence or military capabilities, as long as Britain is opposed to using them for the common good.
Young democracies need support, from Morocco to Murmansk, but the crux of the matter is how we are going to achieve coherent and cohesive European Union action with regard to the Eastern Partnership, the Union for the Mediterranean or Russia. The sovereign integrity of each EU member state is a recipe for disaster.
***
Immigration control
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures
Comment
Improved immigration control and asylum procedures seem to be in line with the EU’s aims under the Hague Programme and the future Stockholm Programme on justice and home affairs (area of freedom, security and justice).
Given the participating parties, it is surprising thing that the European Conservatives mention these policies in a document on the European Union. Great Britain has opted out of the Schengen area of free internal travel and external border control. Under the Lisbon Treaty Britain would opt out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and together with Poland from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights containing the guiding values with regard to individuals.
The ECRG parties are hardly the ones most famous for promoting effective, but fair responses to the common challenges of migration and asylum.
***
Public services
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
Waste
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
Equality of member states
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small.
Comment
Who could oppose such gifted platitudes?
***
The European Conservatives are potential saboteurs in the evolving foreign, security and defence area. They are hardly credible as European reformers in the area of freedom, security and justice, either.
With almost nothing to give, it remains a mystery why they don’t act forcefully for their countries to withdraw from the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Nosemonkey’s EUtopia distinguishes fact from fiction
Nosemonkey’s EUtopia is one of the top Euroblogs. Far from enthusiastic about how the European Union (mal)functions, J Clive Matthews explains how the EU works and patiently engages in discussion with commentators, a number of them with the simplistic views of British anti-EU campaigners.
Nosemonkey is worth following continuously, but this time I would like to mention two posts, which try to set some persistent myths straight:
UKIP’s “Britain paying the EU £40 million a day” claim vs the REAL costs of UK EU membership (22 May 2009).
What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009).
Include the comments in your reading, and wonder at Nosemonkey’s patience.
Ralf Grahn
Nosemonkey is worth following continuously, but this time I would like to mention two posts, which try to set some persistent myths straight:
UKIP’s “Britain paying the EU £40 million a day” claim vs the REAL costs of UK EU membership (22 May 2009).
What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009).
Include the comments in your reading, and wonder at Nosemonkey’s patience.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 9 May 2009
European elections: The Libertas Collection
If contradictions are the stuff of drama, Declan Ganley and Libertas are well endowed. Chairman Ganley posed as pro-European, but his campaign sowed fear among the Irish against the European Union.
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn
Ganley still calls himself a pro-European, but his spending spree has bought up bunches of narrow-minded rejectionists from the fringes of respectable politics.
In practical terms, Libertas does not to take the European Union back to the people of Europe, but back to the Treaty of Nice.
For the lovers of European dissonance, starring Declan Ganley, here is the vintage Libertas Collection.
EU’s Irish future – The Libertas model
To Libertas: Where is the better deal for Ireland and Europe?
The latest from Libertas
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
Declan Ganley and European elections 2009
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Europarties
For a strong and democratic Europe?
Is Libertas a European level party?
Soini owns up to joining Libertas
Libertas: Foul or foul-up?
European Parliament: Bureau – spider in the web
The elites who wrote the Lisbon Treaty
European elections: Soini LIbertas candidate?
EU : Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas: What you can’t get
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is …?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?
For Libertas Brussels is Washington
Libertas’s big catch: Lech Walesa
Who are Libertas? And what?
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
European elections: Libertas’ new accountability
European elections: Libertas’ principles – what do they mean?
European elections: Libertas and full disclosure?
European elections: LIbertas saving our money?
EU Lisbon Treaty countdown
European elections: Libertas disparages representative democracy
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
***
There was an alternative. If Declan Ganley had been serious about building a strong and democratic European Union, he could have used his talent and resources to forge a constructive alliance, practicing the virtues it preaches.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 12 April 2009
EU: Special legislative procedure (III)
Libertas and other anti-intellectuals propagate a distorted picture of a mythical “Brussels”, where unelected officials swamp Europeans with harmful legislation. Instead of political programmes, they offer Jeremiads.
In the best case, these anti-EU crusaders are only deluded fools, although able to influence the ignorant. This should be enough for every informed voter to trust someone else, but I suspect that these anti-campaigners are not looking for supporters with critical faculties and basic knowledge.
In the worst case, these distortionists are perfectly aware of the reality, but consider it unfit for public consumption.
Let it be said: The Commission (where the unelected civil servants reside, just as their counterparts elsewhere are unelected) does not legislate in the main. It may be given limited powers to enact implementing legislation on the basis of existing legislation. The Commission proposes and administers. (In my view, the Commission should become a politically accountable government.)
The legislative powers belong to the Council, where the politically accountable ministers of the EU member states meet (not an ideal arrangement in my opinion, since their mandate is national, not an EU one). But unelected?
In some cases the Council of the European Union legislates on its own, or with marginal participation by the European Parliament, often unanimously, sometimes with high hurdles (qualified majority). This is the special legislative procedure of which we are going to see a few more examples.
(According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the directly elected European Parliament participates on an equal basis in many areas of legislation. This is usually called codecision, in the Lisbon Treaty officially the ordinary legislative procedure. Even in these cases large majorities are required in the Council.)
***
A few more examples of the special legislative procedure, as presented in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
External borders
Various measures concerning the external borders and short-stay residence permits are enacted by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 77 TFEU). However, the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states is of interest to EU citizens. For facilitating measures, a special legislative procedure and unanimity are required:
Article 77(3) TFEU
3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 20(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Family law
Judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications can advance by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 81 TFEU). Cross-border family situations are important for millions of EU residents. The member states have however exempted family law matters by special safeguards:
Article 81(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, measures concerning family law with cross-border implications shall be established by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision determining those aspects of family law with cross-border implications which may be the subject of acts adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The proposal referred to in the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the Council may adopt the decision.
***
Cross-border crime
We like to move around freely, but we want effective police action to curb cross-border crime. The ordinary legislative procedure applies to certain serious cross-border crimes, according to Article 83 TFEU. But new areas require unanimity. Minimum rules follow the previous legislative procedure:
Article 83(2) TFEU
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
***
European Public Prosecutor
The first subparagraph of Article 86(1) TFEU contains the basic principle on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, by a special legislative procedure, although nobody believes in a unanimous decision. (Thus, the choreography leading to enhanced cooperation is in place.)
Article 86(1) TFEU, first subparagraph
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament.
***
Operational police cooperation
Isn’t effective police cooperation in the interest of law-abiding citizens? Article 87(1) concerns the establishment of police cooperation involving all the member states' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences; paragraph 2 lists measures falling under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Paragraph 3 reserves special treatment for operational police cooperation. If unanimity and a special legislative procedure fail, enhanced cooperation may follow between a group of member states.
Article 87(3) TFEU
3. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning operational cooperation between the authorities referred to in this Article. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
In case of the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft measures be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft measures concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
The specific procedure provided for in the second and third subparagraphs shall not apply to acts which constitute a development of the Schengen acquis.
***
Police operations in another member state
The rules for operations police and other authorities in the territory of another member state are enacted according to a special legislative procedure, unanimously.
Article 89 TFEU
(ex Article 32 TEU)
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Articles 82 and 87 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
From the viewpoint of an EU citizen, I would hope for more problem solving action and less fretting about sovereignty.
Ralf Grahn
In the best case, these anti-EU crusaders are only deluded fools, although able to influence the ignorant. This should be enough for every informed voter to trust someone else, but I suspect that these anti-campaigners are not looking for supporters with critical faculties and basic knowledge.
In the worst case, these distortionists are perfectly aware of the reality, but consider it unfit for public consumption.
Let it be said: The Commission (where the unelected civil servants reside, just as their counterparts elsewhere are unelected) does not legislate in the main. It may be given limited powers to enact implementing legislation on the basis of existing legislation. The Commission proposes and administers. (In my view, the Commission should become a politically accountable government.)
The legislative powers belong to the Council, where the politically accountable ministers of the EU member states meet (not an ideal arrangement in my opinion, since their mandate is national, not an EU one). But unelected?
In some cases the Council of the European Union legislates on its own, or with marginal participation by the European Parliament, often unanimously, sometimes with high hurdles (qualified majority). This is the special legislative procedure of which we are going to see a few more examples.
(According to the Treaty of Lisbon, the directly elected European Parliament participates on an equal basis in many areas of legislation. This is usually called codecision, in the Lisbon Treaty officially the ordinary legislative procedure. Even in these cases large majorities are required in the Council.)
***
A few more examples of the special legislative procedure, as presented in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty, published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115.
***
External borders
Various measures concerning the external borders and short-stay residence permits are enacted by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 77 TFEU). However, the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states is of interest to EU citizens. For facilitating measures, a special legislative procedure and unanimity are required:
Article 77(3) TFEU
3. If action by the Union should prove necessary to facilitate the exercise of the right referred to in Article 20(2)(a), and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt provisions concerning passports, identity cards, residence permits or any other such document. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
Family law
Judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications can advance by the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 81 TFEU). Cross-border family situations are important for millions of EU residents. The member states have however exempted family law matters by special safeguards:
Article 81(3) TFEU
3. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, measures concerning family law with cross-border implications shall be established by the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision determining those aspects of family law with cross-border implications which may be the subject of acts adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
The proposal referred to in the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the Council may adopt the decision.
***
Cross-border crime
We like to move around freely, but we want effective police action to curb cross-border crime. The ordinary legislative procedure applies to certain serious cross-border crimes, according to Article 83 TFEU. But new areas require unanimity. Minimum rules follow the previous legislative procedure:
Article 83(2) TFEU
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
***
European Public Prosecutor
The first subparagraph of Article 86(1) TFEU contains the basic principle on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, by a special legislative procedure, although nobody believes in a unanimous decision. (Thus, the choreography leading to enhanced cooperation is in place.)
Article 86(1) TFEU, first subparagraph
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means
of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European
Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the
consent of the European Parliament.
***
Operational police cooperation
Isn’t effective police cooperation in the interest of law-abiding citizens? Article 87(1) concerns the establishment of police cooperation involving all the member states' competent authorities, including police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences; paragraph 2 lists measures falling under the ordinary legislative procedure.
Paragraph 3 reserves special treatment for operational police cooperation. If unanimity and a special legislative procedure fail, enhanced cooperation may follow between a group of member states.
Article 87(3) TFEU
3. The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish measures concerning operational cooperation between the authorities referred to in this Article. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
In case of the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft measures be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft measures concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
The specific procedure provided for in the second and third subparagraphs shall not apply to acts which constitute a development of the Schengen acquis.
***
Police operations in another member state
The rules for operations police and other authorities in the territory of another member state are enacted according to a special legislative procedure, unanimously.
Article 89 TFEU
(ex Article 32 TEU)
The Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall lay down the conditions and limitations under which the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Articles 82 and 87 may operate in the territory of another Member State in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of that State. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.
***
From the viewpoint of an EU citizen, I would hope for more problem solving action and less fretting about sovereignty.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 29 March 2009
Magna Carta or EU Charter?
Recently I encountered yet another one of those anti-EU campaigners who prefer their ’ancient rights and freedoms’ to the existence of the European Union. The Magna Carta (1215) seems to be a favourite reference.
Is their belief based on a myth or on rational thought?
I invite readers to make a comparison.
Read the text of the Magna Carta in an English translation, available here with an introductory note:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
Then turn to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 14.12.2007 C 303/1.
After reading both, make your informed decision. Which Charter do you opt for and why?
Ralf Grahn
Is their belief based on a myth or on rational thought?
I invite readers to make a comparison.
Read the text of the Magna Carta in an English translation, available here with an introductory note:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html
Then turn to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 14.12.2007 C 303/1.
After reading both, make your informed decision. Which Charter do you opt for and why?
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 28 June 2008
Anti-EU by any other name
By the way, I have wondered at the widespread acceptance of the ‘Euroscepticism’ as the label people use, whose attitude reveals nothing sceptic. No doubts, no uncertainty, no open minds. After reading a lot of these outpourings, I am beginning to think that the ‘Eurosceptic’ in search of truths has yet to be born.
Thus, the label is woolly and misleading. Let’s call a spade a spade.
The early constitutional history of the United States saw the debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists. Let people who identify with Europe be called Europeans, pro-Europeans or pro-EU, and let the people who want to wreck the European Union be called by the most objective term available: anti-EU.
(Some of them, for reasons yet to be verified, deny that they are anti-Europeans. They are only vehemently against Europe’s common institutions and manifestations)
***
Another healthy distinction would be to see EU detractors clearly define what they are against (if a viable programme for anything proves too demanding).
Do they want to dismember the European Union completely, or would they be content to see their own country secede from the EU?
If they have nothing against the vast majority of Europeans deepening European integration, these campaigners could redirect their energies towards secession. With a sharper focus they could perhaps improve their chances of success.
Actually, if their ideals are the ‘free nations of Europe’, why not let the other free nations decide for themselves on cooperation and common action, without insult or injury?
Traders (and nations of shopkeepers) want to keep their customers happy and engage in profitable relations with their providers, don’t they?
Why cause a lot of aggravation, if they only want to live happily ever after behind their moat?
Ralf Grahn
Thus, the label is woolly and misleading. Let’s call a spade a spade.
The early constitutional history of the United States saw the debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists. Let people who identify with Europe be called Europeans, pro-Europeans or pro-EU, and let the people who want to wreck the European Union be called by the most objective term available: anti-EU.
(Some of them, for reasons yet to be verified, deny that they are anti-Europeans. They are only vehemently against Europe’s common institutions and manifestations)
***
Another healthy distinction would be to see EU detractors clearly define what they are against (if a viable programme for anything proves too demanding).
Do they want to dismember the European Union completely, or would they be content to see their own country secede from the EU?
If they have nothing against the vast majority of Europeans deepening European integration, these campaigners could redirect their energies towards secession. With a sharper focus they could perhaps improve their chances of success.
Actually, if their ideals are the ‘free nations of Europe’, why not let the other free nations decide for themselves on cooperation and common action, without insult or injury?
Traders (and nations of shopkeepers) want to keep their customers happy and engage in profitable relations with their providers, don’t they?
Why cause a lot of aggravation, if they only want to live happily ever after behind their moat?
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
