Eurocentric

Once in a while there is cause to highlight a Euroblog worth reading, especially if it is fairly new and worth a larger readership than it may have had time to acquire. One such blog is Eurocentric’s The European Citizen.



When you read Eurocentric’s blog posts and comments, it is hard to believe the self-description: I am a second year student of Law and Politics…

The qualities are more akin to those of a graduate, researcher or teacher.

The latter part – with an interest in the EU and European politics – is much easier to believe.

Make Eurocentric a ‘must read’ among Euroblogs.


Ralf Grahn

Euroblogging: Expanding Bloggingportal.eu

Two months have gone since I wrote about the launch of the Euroblog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu.

During this time, checking Bloggingportal.eu has become a daily habit for me, a handy way to scan about a hundred daily posts and to read the ones I find interesting (and have time for). I can also check the preferences highlighted by the editors.

I now have the latest post headlines appearing visibly on my own blog.

In two months the multilingual Bloggingportal.eu has expanded by almost 19 per cent, by 53 blogs (from 281 to 334).


Act now!

There is still room for expansion, I think. Bloggers can submit their own blog on European affairs or they can suggest a suitable blog for inclusion. Please, do.

***

The initiators and editors of Bloggingportal.eu are doing a great job in creating the European public space.


Ralf Grahn

EU TFEU: Europol I

The EU Treaty of Lisbon incorporates the foundations of Europol – the European Police Office – into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The ordinary legislative procedure, with qualified majority voting in the Council and co-decision by the European Parliament, will apply instead of the current intergovernmental convention-based cooperation. Scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments is enhanced.

But, is Europol an armed villain ready to pounce on our cherished liberties, or is it potentially hampered by the limitations imposed by the member states?


***

Article 88 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) lays out Europol’s mission to support and strengthen action by the EU member states’ police authorities. The Article is found in the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, now published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/84. The location of the provision is added from the TFEU table of equivalences (page 368–371):

Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’

Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’

Chapter 5 ‘Police cooperation’

Article 88 TFEU
(ex Article 30 TEU)

1. Europol's mission shall be to support and strengthen action by the Member States' police authorities and other law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime affecting two or more Member States, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy.

2. The European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Europol's structure, operation, field of action and tasks. These tasks may include:

(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of information, in particular that forwarded by the authorities of the Member States or third countries or bodies;

(b) the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative teams, where appropriate in liaison with Eurojust.

These regulations shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol's activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments.

3. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the Member State or States whose territory is concerned. The application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.

***

In Article 2, point 68, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/66):

POLICE COOPERATION

68) The following Chapter 5 and Articles 69 F, 69 G and 69 H shall be inserted. Articles 69 F and 69 G shall replace the current Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 69 H shall replace Article 32 thereof, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …

The IGC 2007 then laid out the text of Article 69g TFEU (ToL) as above. After renumbering this provision became Article 88 TFEU in the consolidated version. Cf. ToL table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.

***

The current Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) belongs to the intergovernmental third pillar, in Title VI ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’. The provision, to be replaced, is found in the latest consolidated version of the treaties in force (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/24–25):

Article 30 TEU

1. Common action in the field of police cooperation shall include:

(a) operational cooperation between the competent authorities, including the police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services of the Member States in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences;

(b) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information, including information held by law enforcement services on reports on suspicious financial transactions, in particular through Europol, subject to appropriate provisions on the protection of personal data;

(c) cooperation and joint initiatives in training, the exchange of liaison officers, secondments, the use of equipment, and forensic research;

(d) the common evaluation of particular investigative techniques in relation to the detection of serious forms of organised crime.

2. The Council shall promote cooperation through Europol and shall in particular, within a period of five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:

(a) enable Europol to facilitate and support the preparation, and to encourage the coordination and carrying out, of specific investigative actions by the competent authorities of the Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity;

(b) adopt measures allowing Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States to conduct and coordinate their investigations in specific cases and to develop specific expertise which may be put at the disposal of Member States to assist them in investigating cases of organised crime;

(c) promote liaison arrangements between prosecuting/investigating officials specialising in the fight against organised crime in close cooperation with Europol;

(d) establish a research, documentation and statistical network on cross-border crime.

***

We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.

The European Convention proposed a unified treaty, which would have abolished the pillar structure. Under Section 5 ‘Police cooperation’, Article III-177 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was meant to replace the provisions on Europol (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/61).

In substance, Article III-177 laid the foundations for the later stages of the treaty reform process. The only differences between the draft Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty TFEU are either ones of general terminology or stylistic, so I leave it to the interested reader to look up the draft text if needed.

***

The IGC 2004 adopted the text of the European Convention without change.

The corresponding provision is Article III-276 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/122).

***

The provision on Europol was, in essence, written by the European Convention, with the ordinary legislative procedure, including the application of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council and co-decision by the European Parliament. The European Convention also held out the promise of scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments.

The result was adopted by, first the IGC 2004 and then the IGC 2007, with minimal modifications.

***

Almost every provision on EU powers, including the one on Europol, has led to spates of ‘creative’ writing in the blogosphere, where counterfactual allegations have been brandished as gospel truth, on the sole authority of previous ill-informed (or worse) writers. I have seldom or never seen writers of this kind of wild allegations retract their phantasms even if confronted with undeniable facts.

Therefore, it falls to citizens to try to find and to evaluate more objective (but often sadly dull) information about realities.

For instance, with a cool head, read the third paragraph of Article 88 TFEU. Is it likely that we are going to be ‘invaded’ by armed teams of foreign police aiming to crush our liberties?

The member states have, in my view, severely limited the action of Europol. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the Member State or States whose territory is concerned.

In liaison and agreement with the national authorities. Do ‘invading’ hordes ask for permission?

The application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.

Force is the sole responsibility of the member states. How can you square this with invading armies?

***

Would it be amiss for a European citizen to ask if the restrictions are not a high price to pay for member states’ sensitivities?

We could start with the assumption that most citizens of good regard an effective combat against serious crime as important for their own and their society’s security and prosperity.

We know that the free movement for all within the EU regrettably makes it easier for serious crime to spread across borders.

We also know that corruption and organised crime are deeply entrenched in some member states, including old ones, and in some prospective members.

If these assumptions are correct, can we be sure that a Europol cast in a supportive role and dependent on the good will of the member states’ authorities is going to be able to perform effectively, without being frustrated in its efforts by corrupt forces?

And, if crime and mystery is the field where the important questions for European citizens are to be decided, would it not be better to look towards Eliot Ness and “The Untouchables” than at fantasies about invading aliens?



Ralf Grahn

EU against the death penalty

Is the European Union going to re-introduce the death penalty, as claimed as gospel truth by at least Wonko’s World, Why England Needs A Parliament, John Trenchard, PJC Journal and by now a host of other blogs read by thousands of impressionable readers?

None of the above seems to have done any research on their own, but they seem to have been more than willing to publish as a fact that the European Union ‘in a footnote of a footnote’ is making the death penalty possible.

By the look of it, the likely ultimate source is a June 2005 interview with Professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider in German, with the double headline ‘Europa nicht als Groβstaat, sondern als “Republik der Republiken” organiseren – Interview mit Prof. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider über die EU-Verfassung’, posted on the web pages of BüSo, Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität.

The interview contains a heading ‘Wiederkehr des Todesstrafe?’ (Return of the death penalty?), and Schachtschneider’s answer that Article II-62 of the Constitutional Treaty (and the Charter of Fundamental Rights) is untrue. His gives the explanations relating to the Charter as his reasons for two claims: 1) that there is no Constitutional protection of the right to life anymore in the case of war or imminent danger of war, and 2) that the death penalty is possible and will come.

***

Let us take a look at the EU position on the death penalty. Here is the political answer, the one which came out on top when I googled ‘EU death penalty’. The Delegation of the European Commission to the USA has a web page dedicated to ‘EU policy & action on the death penalty’. The following categorical statement can be found there:

“The European Union (EU) is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and has consistently espoused its universal abolition, working towards this goal.”

The web pages contain 73 links to various policy documents, action in the United Nations, action on US death row cases, European and international agreements and policy makers as well as archived documents relating to earlier years.

See for yourself:

http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/deathpenhome.htm

Fairly conclusive for a normal person, one would think: The European Union is against capital punishment.

***

The motives and working ethics of bloggers like the above are such that I do not want to begin dissecting them.

But how is it possible that the EU institutions and the governments of the member states let such wildfires start and spread without actively, visibly and instantly rebutting malicious rumours devoid of factual basis?


Ralf Grahn

Stubb continues blogging

Why abolish a winning formula? This seems to be the sentiment of blogger Alexander Stubb, Foreign Minister of Finland since Friday.

In his Finnish blog Stubb has an entry, dated 7 April 2008 to prove it. In addition he declares that he will continue blogging, “self-evidently”:

http://www.alexstubb.com/fi/index.php?trg=diary

Perhaps Jon Worth can take heart, and his potential clients take the plunge, as discussed in the post:

http://www.jonworth.eu/political-pr-and-the-age-of-the-web/


Ralf Grahn

European Union Law Blog

With about 100 million German speaking EU citizens – about one in five, actually – I have wondered at the scarcity of German blogs on EU law and politics. Jon Worth’s Euroblog helped me find Nicole Meβmers blog on EU politics. See:

http://www.jonworth.eu/blog/euroblog/

http://www.nicole-messmer.de/

Earlier I had noticed the blog of Jan Seifert, Jan’s EUblog:

http://blog.jan-seifert.de/

But a blog on European law in general and especially the Treaty of Lisbon had eluded me. Now there is a cure, the European Union Law Blog, written by Michelle Potier in Leipzig, posting mainly in German (despite the English blog name). The latest posts have focused on the Lisbon Treaty and the ratification debate in an informative and timely manner. See this welcome blog on:

http://www.law-europe.eu/

Despite the likeness of the names, the European Union Law Blog should not be confused with the EU Law Blog:

http://eulaw.typepad.com/

There is one similarity between all the blogs mentioned here: Recommended reading for everyone interested in EU politics or law.


Ralf Grahn

P.S. 6 April 2008: I apologise for the mistake above. I realised that I exaggerated the number of German speakers within the European Union. Perhaps 90 million would be more like a correct number, still a considerable proportion of about 490 million EU citizens in all.

In addition to being the official language of Germany and Austria, German has official status in Belgium and Luxembourg plus the Province of Bolzano-Bozen within the EU, as well as official status outside the EU in neighbouring Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

For more information you can read the Wikipedia article 'German language'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language

P.S. II: Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty are due 15 April 2008, and in book form 9 May 2008 (Europe day).

Citizen journalism

The Blogosphere offers much more than neurotic shoppers and beatific cat-owners; sometimes blog writers bring forward themes and viewpoints neglected by political and business leaders as well as mainstream media.

In spite of modish claims that the Internet makes people dumber, I have tried to collect examples of the opposite, at least as an option, in my blogroll.

Looking for sources on the EU budget review, I came across an impressive long piece by Clive Bates on his blog, Bacon Butty: “Buddy can you spare a trillion? The EU budget review”. Without necessarily agreeing with all of his conclusions, I admit that his analysis and questions merit further thought, detailed discussion and convincing answers.

If the EU budget review 2008/9 manages to apply even a token of Bates’ rigour through the political process of decision-making, we could expect a post-2013 long term budget much more adapted to the needs of the citizens of the European Union than the present financial perspective (2007–2013).

Today I am going to make the addition of one shining example of citizen journalism to my blogroll.


Ralf Grahn


Source:

Clive Bates: Buddy can you spare a trillion? The EU budget review; 1 November 2007; http://baconbutty.blogspot.com/2007/11/buddy-can-you-spare-trillion-eu-budget.html