If not for the ambiguous word 'stunt', EurActiv's headline description ahead of the 5 to 11 September 2011 week in the European Union would been the dream of the campaign manager for the probable next president of the European Council: Van Rompuy takes lead in eurozone crisis stunt.
Herman Van Rompuy was (s)elected president of the European Council from 1 December 2009 for two and a half years, until 31 May 2012.
The term is renewable once. Van Rompuy seems to embrace the idea of a second term (RTE).
If we look at the agenda of Van Rompuy, he happens to meet members of his electoral college, 27 persons in all with a vote: the heads of state or government of the EU member states.
Very civilised campaigning, far from the 'hoi polloi'.
Update 6 September 2011 about 09:30 EET: I have noticed that Stanley Pignal on the FT Brussels blog discussed Van Rompuy's campaign in a blog post published yesterday. Recommended reading.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Language barriers challenge online campaigning in Europe
The grass root campaigners for a PES Primary we are following have to shovel away without explicit endorsement from the Party of European Socialists (PES) or the formidable resources of its member parties at national level. Lacking a seal of approval from various party headquarters, they also have to overcome general attitude problems among party faithful who wait for a cue. The civil society actors have to surpass inertia and hostility.
In this blog post we look at another critical issue for pan-EU online campaigns: languages.
While an EU-wide campaign can use social media to pass mental barriers and cross national borders, languages are an obstacle and a challenge for civil society actors wanting to get their message across. Babel is a fact of life in Europe.
Without great organisations on their side, the civil society campaigners have to work themselves, build functioning networks through social media, and rely on other volunteers to spread the word in different languages and to drum up support.
The Campaign for a PES Primary has managed to get a helping hand from some Eurobloggers and socialist networks.
The French socialist collective 27roses.eu calls for people to join the Facebook group, as well as to act within their own party at national level.
In German, Martin on Europaeum finds that a primary would bring both the Party of European Socialists and the election to the European Parliament more publicity. Thus it would strengthen the EP.
In Romanian, Dan Luca has posted on the Casa Europei Cluj-Napoca (Europe House) blog, outlining a timetable for an EU-wide primary election for the candidate for the post of Commission President.
Francesca Barca wrote on Europa451.it, contrasting the lack of courage in the 2009 EP election with the level of energy the activists are aiming for in 2014.
I described the campaign on my Swedish blog, Grahnblawg, especially mentioning the Nordic social democratic parties and the competing Europarties being challenged by the PES activists.
On my Finnish blog, Eurooppaoikeus, I told the main things about the PES campaign and how to join it.
The Social Democratic Party in Finland will contribute to the future decision by the Party of European Socialists, but at this stage in Finland as elsewhere, the main question is to reach as many party activists in as many languages as possible, everywhere in the European Union.
The Campaign for a PES Primary is certainly working hard. Desmond O’Toole has just added new posts to the campaign blog, highlighting my entries on attitude obstacles and the presentation in Swedish as well as an entry that the French progressive think tank Eurocité has picked up the 27roses.eu article.
Overcoming linguistic diversity requires much work, but one small step at the time the online campaign is becoming known among socialists, social democrats and labour party members in the European Union.
New members have joined the Facebook campaign page, bringing the number of supporters to 935. The Twitter campaign page @PESPrimary is updated regularly, so social media are in play.
Still we may wonder if the networking efforts of an EU-wide social media campaign can really lift off before the big mainstream media players all over Europe start showing serious interest in this innovative and potentially transformative campaign.
The experiences of this campaign will be relevant for the civil society organisations and networks keen to test the citizens' initiative, when the implementing legislation is in place.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued 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.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
In this blog post we look at another critical issue for pan-EU online campaigns: languages.
While an EU-wide campaign can use social media to pass mental barriers and cross national borders, languages are an obstacle and a challenge for civil society actors wanting to get their message across. Babel is a fact of life in Europe.
Without great organisations on their side, the civil society campaigners have to work themselves, build functioning networks through social media, and rely on other volunteers to spread the word in different languages and to drum up support.
The Campaign for a PES Primary has managed to get a helping hand from some Eurobloggers and socialist networks.
The French socialist collective 27roses.eu calls for people to join the Facebook group, as well as to act within their own party at national level.
In German, Martin on Europaeum finds that a primary would bring both the Party of European Socialists and the election to the European Parliament more publicity. Thus it would strengthen the EP.
In Romanian, Dan Luca has posted on the Casa Europei Cluj-Napoca (Europe House) blog, outlining a timetable for an EU-wide primary election for the candidate for the post of Commission President.
Francesca Barca wrote on Europa451.it, contrasting the lack of courage in the 2009 EP election with the level of energy the activists are aiming for in 2014.
I described the campaign on my Swedish blog, Grahnblawg, especially mentioning the Nordic social democratic parties and the competing Europarties being challenged by the PES activists.
On my Finnish blog, Eurooppaoikeus, I told the main things about the PES campaign and how to join it.
The Social Democratic Party in Finland will contribute to the future decision by the Party of European Socialists, but at this stage in Finland as elsewhere, the main question is to reach as many party activists in as many languages as possible, everywhere in the European Union.
The Campaign for a PES Primary is certainly working hard. Desmond O’Toole has just added new posts to the campaign blog, highlighting my entries on attitude obstacles and the presentation in Swedish as well as an entry that the French progressive think tank Eurocité has picked up the 27roses.eu article.
Overcoming linguistic diversity requires much work, but one small step at the time the online campaign is becoming known among socialists, social democrats and labour party members in the European Union.
New members have joined the Facebook campaign page, bringing the number of supporters to 935. The Twitter campaign page @PESPrimary is updated regularly, so social media are in play.
Still we may wonder if the networking efforts of an EU-wide social media campaign can really lift off before the big mainstream media players all over Europe start showing serious interest in this innovative and potentially transformative campaign.
The experiences of this campaign will be relevant for the civil society organisations and networks keen to test the citizens' initiative, when the implementing legislation is in place.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued 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.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Online campaign challenges in Europe: Inertia and hostility
Online media, or social media, potentially cross national and linguistic borders, but both attitudes and languages present formidable challenges for Europe-wide campaigns.
Here we take a look at attitudes.
In a blog post on Europaportalen, the Swedish researcher Jakob Larsson, who works in the Institute for Futures Studies (Institutet för framtidsstudier), yesterday wondered at how sluggish media attention given to EU issues is during the run-up to the parliament election on 19 September 2010, despite their obvious importance.
Sweden is not unique. In practically all member states of the European Union political parties and media deal with political and policy issues in a national framework. This reflects voter perceptions, but it also fails to educate the public.
During the Enlightenment, some philosophers managed to propagate new ideas beyond national borders, although most people continued to toil in local communities unaware of the paradigm shift taking place.
Despite great technological advances, Europe remains almost in the same situation. European affairs are still the domain of a minority of well-informed and alert people, who understand the interdependence and interaction between politics and issues at EU level and national level. Attitudes are passive and they change slowly.
Then there are the flat-earthers who actively keep digging deeper trenches, exemplified by EUReferendum. The Battle of Britain drones on, now into its 45th day. This could be an understandable mix of history and nostalgia, were it not based on unadulterated hostility towards everything which binds Europeans together:
A political online campaign for Europe has to contend with two attitude challenges: inertia and prejudice (even hatred).
The Campaign for a PES Primary is an example of an EU-wide political campaign, where party activists have to overcome both tardiness and hostility in order to gain wide enough support.
The Facebook campaign page has now gathered 921 members, and the grass root campaigners hope to reach 1,000 supporters by the end of August.
Not a bad start for a pioneering effort, but what (else) can civil society actors learn from the campaign?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued 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.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Here we take a look at attitudes.
In a blog post on Europaportalen, the Swedish researcher Jakob Larsson, who works in the Institute for Futures Studies (Institutet för framtidsstudier), yesterday wondered at how sluggish media attention given to EU issues is during the run-up to the parliament election on 19 September 2010, despite their obvious importance.
Sweden is not unique. In practically all member states of the European Union political parties and media deal with political and policy issues in a national framework. This reflects voter perceptions, but it also fails to educate the public.
During the Enlightenment, some philosophers managed to propagate new ideas beyond national borders, although most people continued to toil in local communities unaware of the paradigm shift taking place.
Despite great technological advances, Europe remains almost in the same situation. European affairs are still the domain of a minority of well-informed and alert people, who understand the interdependence and interaction between politics and issues at EU level and national level. Attitudes are passive and they change slowly.
Then there are the flat-earthers who actively keep digging deeper trenches, exemplified by EUReferendum. The Battle of Britain drones on, now into its 45th day. This could be an understandable mix of history and nostalgia, were it not based on unadulterated hostility towards everything which binds Europeans together:
Fifty years of European political integration is not uniting us – it is dividing us, turning us back into enemies.
As Frenchmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards and the rest, they are our friends and allies, and deserve our respect. As "Europeans", they are Frogs, Huns, Ities, Dagos and the rest. They become our enemies and rivals. They get our enmity.
The "colleagues" need to wake up to this before it is too late. Leave us be, without trespassing on the "nooks and crannies" of our daily life and we are friends. Interfere and threaten us, and we are enemies. And they really don't want that. Look what happened last time.
A political online campaign for Europe has to contend with two attitude challenges: inertia and prejudice (even hatred).
The Campaign for a PES Primary is an example of an EU-wide political campaign, where party activists have to overcome both tardiness and hostility in order to gain wide enough support.
The Facebook campaign page has now gathered 921 members, and the grass root campaigners hope to reach 1,000 supporters by the end of August.
Not a bad start for a pioneering effort, but what (else) can civil society actors learn from the campaign?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued 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.
Antonia on the Euonym blog (Talking about the EU) tells us that the European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, and the UK Representation has been joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Join the event page on Facebook, spread the word through social media and personal contacts, begin preparing your blog posts and start learning a new language.
Wednesday, 18 August 2010
Activists challenge Party of European Socialists (PES): Spent force or renewable resource?
Even if the Campaign for a PES Primary is directed at socialist, social democratic and labour party activists right now, the call for action by Desmond O’Toole and José Reis Santos challenges the leadership of the Party of European Socialists (PES) - in French Parti Socialiste européen (PSE) – and especially the leaders of the national parties.
On the campaign blog Neil Warner of Irish Labour Youth argues that the Campaign for a PES Primary is an absolute necessity; for Europe, democracy and progressive politics.
This is hardly an exaggeration with regard to the future of the PES-PSE. The reformist left parties have been beaten in most parliamentary elections in the member states of the European Union.
Paralysis or renewal?
In the 2009 elections to the European Parliament a paralysed PES failed to field a candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, and the socialists predictably fell far behind the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP).
The Wikipedia article on the Party of European Socialists was last modified on 16 August 2010, but even this entry seems to share the melancholy feeling by presenting outdated information about the PES in the European institutions (as of 2007).
Is the PES a spent force or a renewable resource in the political landscape of Europe?
The Campaign for a PES Primary is the most concrete and imaginative initiative for the Party of European Socialists to reconnect with activists and engage EU citizens ahead of the EP elections in 2014.
Growing Facebook group
Last Friday morning the Facebook campaign page had gathered 590 supporters, and the following morning, Saturday 14 August 2010, they were 650.
In less than four days the number of campaign group members on Facebook has grown by 118 (to 768), so the initiative is making headway and for once the PES activists are seen to be on the offensive in a positive sense.
Euroblogs supportive
In addition to Jon Worth, The European Citizen and Grahnlaw (here and here), new Euroblogs have taken up the PES campaign in a positive light.
Joël Cordier had already published the campaign call in French on his blog, but Jean-Sébastien Lefebvre on the Europa451.fr blog seems to be the first to analyse the proposal in French: Primaires européennes, le réveil des leaders socialistes pour 2014 ?
Peter Sain ley Berry’s View from the Outfield (EUobserver blog) calls the PES campaign An Encouraging Proposal.
Other Europarties?
The campaign challenges the leadership of the PES and the national socialist parties, but it has also left the activists of the other Europarties (political parties at European level) in the starting blocks: the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) and the European Green Party.
Are they going to stay crouched until the race is over?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. 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.
The European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Please, spread the word and start preparing for the event.
On the campaign blog Neil Warner of Irish Labour Youth argues that the Campaign for a PES Primary is an absolute necessity; for Europe, democracy and progressive politics.
This is hardly an exaggeration with regard to the future of the PES-PSE. The reformist left parties have been beaten in most parliamentary elections in the member states of the European Union.
Paralysis or renewal?
In the 2009 elections to the European Parliament a paralysed PES failed to field a candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission, and the socialists predictably fell far behind the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP).
The Wikipedia article on the Party of European Socialists was last modified on 16 August 2010, but even this entry seems to share the melancholy feeling by presenting outdated information about the PES in the European institutions (as of 2007).
Is the PES a spent force or a renewable resource in the political landscape of Europe?
The Campaign for a PES Primary is the most concrete and imaginative initiative for the Party of European Socialists to reconnect with activists and engage EU citizens ahead of the EP elections in 2014.
Growing Facebook group
Last Friday morning the Facebook campaign page had gathered 590 supporters, and the following morning, Saturday 14 August 2010, they were 650.
In less than four days the number of campaign group members on Facebook has grown by 118 (to 768), so the initiative is making headway and for once the PES activists are seen to be on the offensive in a positive sense.
Euroblogs supportive
In addition to Jon Worth, The European Citizen and Grahnlaw (here and here), new Euroblogs have taken up the PES campaign in a positive light.
Joël Cordier had already published the campaign call in French on his blog, but Jean-Sébastien Lefebvre on the Europa451.fr blog seems to be the first to analyse the proposal in French: Primaires européennes, le réveil des leaders socialistes pour 2014 ?
Peter Sain ley Berry’s View from the Outfield (EUobserver blog) calls the PES campaign An Encouraging Proposal.
Other Europarties?
The campaign challenges the leadership of the PES and the national socialist parties, but it has also left the activists of the other Europarties (political parties at European level) in the starting blocks: the European People’s Party (EPP), the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) and the European Green Party.
Are they going to stay crouched until the race is over?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. 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.
The European Commission in the UK arranges a Day of Multilingual Blogging on 26 September 2010, joined by the multilingual aggregator Bloggingportal.eu and individual Eurobloggers. Please, spread the word and start preparing for the event.
Monday, 18 May 2009
Europeanisation of European elections?
With 109 blog posts to date in his series on the European Parliament elections 2009, Julien Frisch has done more than several professional organisations combined to inspire a pan-European debate on the upcoming greatest transnational poll ever, with 375 million potential voters.
Frisch’s latest post in the series, European Parliament elections 2009 (109): Looking back at 1999 and 2004, concluded that the core messages from 1999, 2004 and 2009 would not change much from the initial assessment:
“The campaign was focused on national topics, the candidates where not known, and the only true European references in the electoral manifestos where similar across all major parties: More democracy, more transparency, better connection to the citizens.”
According to Frisch, the only differences in 2009 “will be two additional countries, Libertas, and the emergence of large-scale internet campaigning. Maybe a glimpse at the institutional EP campaign, too. But the conclusions will be very close to those we got in the past.”
In other words, campaigns and elections European in name, but hardly in reality.
***
30 year perspective
Even in a longer, 30 year perspective, and with a scientific approach, the Europeanisation of the European elections seems to be a slow process indeed.
We turn to the journal Integration 2/09 (April 2009), published by IEP Institut für Europäische Politik, and the article written by Jürgen Mittag and Claudia Hülsken: Von Sekundärwahlen zu europäisierten Wahlen? 30 Jahre Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament.
Since 1979, the European elections on 4 to 7 June 2009 are the seventh. The elections are still perceived as second-order elections by voters, apt to punish the domestic ruling parties, by political parties with short and less funded campaigns than in national elections and by media seldom bothering with European level challenges.
There is more continuity than change, but indirectly, the disparate results converge when the political groups are formed in the European Parliament.
(For assessments of the EP political groups, you could read for instance the following blog posts: European Parliament: Political groups run the show and European Parliament Political Groups.)
***
Why are the European elections only marginally European?
Despite slowly increasing powers for the European Parliament, voter participation has been declining. Some explanations for this paradox:
• Voters are not allowed to set the course for government of the European Union. The significance of minor shifts within the European Parliament is hardly enough to inspire voters.
• There is an almost total silence on the future organisation of Europe beyond the inadequate Lisbon Treaty.
• There is a lack of serious and open European level political debate on decisive and divisive issues, such as influence in world affairs, defence, taxation and budget, the borders of Europe, the Doha round, economic governance and financial regulation, environment and energy, the future of subsidies-driven agriculture, the internal market, economic reform and social rights. The real decisions are taken, within treaty limitations, by the European Council and Council formations.
• The heads of state or government (and national party leaders) have clearly shown that the EU is their union, not a union of citizens. They have revoked even the minimal concession they made to EU citizens to be able to influence the election of the President of the Commission in 2009.
• There is neither a single day for the European elections, nor a uniform election procedure.
• There is no statute for truly pan-European political parties.
• The European level parties and their political foundations have managed to secure considerable EP funding, but they have failed to field candidates for the Commission Presidency.
• The Europarties have produced uninspiring election manifestos, but their efforts to mobilise voters are feeble and sporadic.
• The Europarties’ foundations are nearly invisible in the debate.
• There are more PR campaigns for voter participation than political campaigns on issues.
• National political parties and media decline to educate voters on truly European challenges. Instead they campaign and report within their respective comfort zones, leaving voters drowsy and unimpressed.
The resulting low level of participation is but a symptom. The deeper problem is the low quality of participation, from head of state or government to the apathetic voter: the lack of European leadership and consciousness.
Ralf Grahn
Frisch’s latest post in the series, European Parliament elections 2009 (109): Looking back at 1999 and 2004, concluded that the core messages from 1999, 2004 and 2009 would not change much from the initial assessment:
“The campaign was focused on national topics, the candidates where not known, and the only true European references in the electoral manifestos where similar across all major parties: More democracy, more transparency, better connection to the citizens.”
According to Frisch, the only differences in 2009 “will be two additional countries, Libertas, and the emergence of large-scale internet campaigning. Maybe a glimpse at the institutional EP campaign, too. But the conclusions will be very close to those we got in the past.”
In other words, campaigns and elections European in name, but hardly in reality.
***
30 year perspective
Even in a longer, 30 year perspective, and with a scientific approach, the Europeanisation of the European elections seems to be a slow process indeed.
We turn to the journal Integration 2/09 (April 2009), published by IEP Institut für Europäische Politik, and the article written by Jürgen Mittag and Claudia Hülsken: Von Sekundärwahlen zu europäisierten Wahlen? 30 Jahre Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament.
Since 1979, the European elections on 4 to 7 June 2009 are the seventh. The elections are still perceived as second-order elections by voters, apt to punish the domestic ruling parties, by political parties with short and less funded campaigns than in national elections and by media seldom bothering with European level challenges.
There is more continuity than change, but indirectly, the disparate results converge when the political groups are formed in the European Parliament.
(For assessments of the EP political groups, you could read for instance the following blog posts: European Parliament: Political groups run the show and European Parliament Political Groups.)
***
Why are the European elections only marginally European?
Despite slowly increasing powers for the European Parliament, voter participation has been declining. Some explanations for this paradox:
• Voters are not allowed to set the course for government of the European Union. The significance of minor shifts within the European Parliament is hardly enough to inspire voters.
• There is an almost total silence on the future organisation of Europe beyond the inadequate Lisbon Treaty.
• There is a lack of serious and open European level political debate on decisive and divisive issues, such as influence in world affairs, defence, taxation and budget, the borders of Europe, the Doha round, economic governance and financial regulation, environment and energy, the future of subsidies-driven agriculture, the internal market, economic reform and social rights. The real decisions are taken, within treaty limitations, by the European Council and Council formations.
• The heads of state or government (and national party leaders) have clearly shown that the EU is their union, not a union of citizens. They have revoked even the minimal concession they made to EU citizens to be able to influence the election of the President of the Commission in 2009.
• There is neither a single day for the European elections, nor a uniform election procedure.
• There is no statute for truly pan-European political parties.
• The European level parties and their political foundations have managed to secure considerable EP funding, but they have failed to field candidates for the Commission Presidency.
• The Europarties have produced uninspiring election manifestos, but their efforts to mobilise voters are feeble and sporadic.
• The Europarties’ foundations are nearly invisible in the debate.
• There are more PR campaigns for voter participation than political campaigns on issues.
• National political parties and media decline to educate voters on truly European challenges. Instead they campaign and report within their respective comfort zones, leaving voters drowsy and unimpressed.
The resulting low level of participation is but a symptom. The deeper problem is the low quality of participation, from head of state or government to the apathetic voter: the lack of European leadership and consciousness.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 17 May 2009
European elections: Coming soon (to Libertas)
Today the policies page of Libertas.eu still tells us that the Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on their site in the coming weeks.
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
Ralf Grahn
The front page reminds us that some 17 days remain until the start of the European elections.
Luckily, the term “week” can still be used in the plural.
***
When Libertas says something, like being the most visited political party web site in the world, it is impossible to get credible information to back it up, as told on Irish election: Libertas Says They Dominate The Interwebz (15 May 2009).
***
Because of the lack of credible and substantial information, you can read the posts on The Libertas Collection instead.
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
Friday, 8 May 2009
European elections: Libertas by bumpkins for dupes?
Only some 26 days remain before the first polling stations open in the European elections, and we see that the new contender Libertas has stepped up its increasingly shrill campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, now approved by the parliaments of 26 EU member states.
Let us turn to the policies Libertas offers voters for the following five year term of the European Parliament.
It is getting late in the European election campaign, but we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
That should be enough to disqualifiy Libertas from pretending to be a serious challenger to the existing EU order.
But we have pledged to study the so called core principles on which Libertas’ case rests.
The fifth and final one tells us:
“A lean EU: Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50 % in 2010.”
***
You’re kidding?
You don’t need much sophistication to know that the European Union is a complex structure. The briefest ABC book on the EU tells you that much.
If you splash millions on creating a new political force intent on representing EU citizens in the European Parliament, you can be expected to familiar with at least the basics.
If you really want to cut the number of meetings and create a lean European Union, you have to give the union a simpler design.
This is not going to happen in 2010, although ideas concerning the future would be most welcome.
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it is only going to improve the functioning of the European Union in an incremental way, without simplifying the basic structure.
If you campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, you work to preserve the current Treaty of Nice. It is hard to be more anti-lean than that.
Demanding Formula 1 performance from a horse cart is a joke. Elevating this slogan to the status of core principle reveals the paucity of knowledge and ideas.
This opens up two possible interpretations: Either you are (perhaps in good faith) ignorant bumpkins, or you are cynical enough to know full well what you are doing, assuming that your potential voters are gullible dupes, ready to be taken for a ride.
***
Where are the details?
Libertas offers no clues as to which 50 per cent of meetings in Brussels should be scrapped next year.
Since no serious treatment of their proposal is possible, let us play along with their joke or scam.
Only meetings in Brussels are targeted. This could mean that the European Parliament is free to continue its hated monthly sessions in Strasbourg. Libertas has conjured up a mythical “Brussels” of axis of evil proportions, so perhaps the EP would have to sacrifice its convenient mini-sessions in Brussels to fill its part of the quota.
I am at a loss to propose which meetings the part executive and civil service of the EU, the Commission, should cancel. It is hard to prepare, to manage and to coordinate public bodies without meetings, even if they consume time and resources. I have to leave it at this: If Libertas has a working solution, I am sure that every government on earth will be queueing up to hear it.
Most of the “behind closed doors” dealings Libertas is foaming about take place within the Council structures, where the representatives of the member states meet and where the national administrations send committee members to steer the Commission.
If Libertas wants to undo the iron grip of the member states on the running of the European Union, it should say so. What I am fairly sure of is that such a reform is incompatible with a quest to maintain the current Treaty of Nice.
***
Without serious proposals, Libertas idea is mush. Elevating the reduction of meetings to a core principle only tells us where the rot is.
Cynicism or stupidity, it’s your choice.
Ralf Grahn
Let us turn to the policies Libertas offers voters for the following five year term of the European Parliament.
It is getting late in the European election campaign, but we are still offered the same text on the Policies page: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
That should be enough to disqualifiy Libertas from pretending to be a serious challenger to the existing EU order.
But we have pledged to study the so called core principles on which Libertas’ case rests.
The fifth and final one tells us:
“A lean EU: Cut the number of meetings in Brussels by 50 % in 2010.”
***
You’re kidding?
You don’t need much sophistication to know that the European Union is a complex structure. The briefest ABC book on the EU tells you that much.
If you splash millions on creating a new political force intent on representing EU citizens in the European Parliament, you can be expected to familiar with at least the basics.
If you really want to cut the number of meetings and create a lean European Union, you have to give the union a simpler design.
This is not going to happen in 2010, although ideas concerning the future would be most welcome.
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it is only going to improve the functioning of the European Union in an incremental way, without simplifying the basic structure.
If you campaign against the Lisbon Treaty, you work to preserve the current Treaty of Nice. It is hard to be more anti-lean than that.
Demanding Formula 1 performance from a horse cart is a joke. Elevating this slogan to the status of core principle reveals the paucity of knowledge and ideas.
This opens up two possible interpretations: Either you are (perhaps in good faith) ignorant bumpkins, or you are cynical enough to know full well what you are doing, assuming that your potential voters are gullible dupes, ready to be taken for a ride.
***
Where are the details?
Libertas offers no clues as to which 50 per cent of meetings in Brussels should be scrapped next year.
Since no serious treatment of their proposal is possible, let us play along with their joke or scam.
Only meetings in Brussels are targeted. This could mean that the European Parliament is free to continue its hated monthly sessions in Strasbourg. Libertas has conjured up a mythical “Brussels” of axis of evil proportions, so perhaps the EP would have to sacrifice its convenient mini-sessions in Brussels to fill its part of the quota.
I am at a loss to propose which meetings the part executive and civil service of the EU, the Commission, should cancel. It is hard to prepare, to manage and to coordinate public bodies without meetings, even if they consume time and resources. I have to leave it at this: If Libertas has a working solution, I am sure that every government on earth will be queueing up to hear it.
Most of the “behind closed doors” dealings Libertas is foaming about take place within the Council structures, where the representatives of the member states meet and where the national administrations send committee members to steer the Commission.
If Libertas wants to undo the iron grip of the member states on the running of the European Union, it should say so. What I am fairly sure of is that such a reform is incompatible with a quest to maintain the current Treaty of Nice.
***
Without serious proposals, Libertas idea is mush. Elevating the reduction of meetings to a core principle only tells us where the rot is.
Cynicism or stupidity, it’s your choice.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
European elections: Libertas saving our money?
Someone might see an ironic contradiction in the two announcements we see today on the web pages of Libertas.eu:
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
European elections: Real choice for voters?
Everyone who wonders at voters’ apathy ahead of the June 2009 European elections should read Peter Sain ley Berry’s blog on EUobserver: A Political Website Standard Might Improve Election Turnout (5 May 2009).
The blog post looks at the web sites of the European political groups in search of meaningful information about the European Union the Europarties want EU citizens to vote for.
Consumers are protected, but real choice is not on offer for voters in the European elections.
***
European integration is an ongoing project and the Treaty of Lisbon is but an intermediate station on the way to a European Union willing and able to defend the security interests and improve the prosperity of EU citizens.
Far from “institutional navel-gazing” the future of Europe remains the profound issue the European level parties have to tackle and where they need to engage with citizens.
Beyond the Lisbon Treaty, an EU based on its citizens is the main challenge for the first decades of this century. Democratic government, legitimacy, accountability, effective institutions, fiscal and budgetary reform, as well as the future borders of the European Union need clear visions.
Foreign and security policy, including our defence, are crucial to our security, but even a blind man can see the inadequacy of present and proposed arrangements in a challenging world.
The internal market still falls short of a borderless area for people and services in the face of obstruction and roll-back pressures based on national protectionist arguments.
The future of EU spending requires new choices. Does our future rest on agricultural subsidies and regional funding, or should Europe build its future on brain power?
At the present time, the European Parliament does not decide these questions, at least not on its own, but the EP can become the catalyst for change. Naturally, the European Parliament will also house the sovereignists, wedded to antiquated ideals and existing power structures. If willing, the European Parliament can become the arena where the opposing views clash and are given meaning to the citizens of the European Union.
But, of course, for that to happen the European political parties and movements have to take on a new role. If the current party coalitions are unable, constructive pan-European parties are needed.
Then there is the level of “business as usual”. Each Europarty needs to offer its blueprint for the next five years of legislative work. How will its future vision translate into the humdrum activities in the short term?
Citizens need to think about our global and common European challenges. Even if the national parties campaign on irrelevant issues, there is still a margin of choice for the informed voter.
Ralf Grahn
The blog post looks at the web sites of the European political groups in search of meaningful information about the European Union the Europarties want EU citizens to vote for.
Consumers are protected, but real choice is not on offer for voters in the European elections.
***
European integration is an ongoing project and the Treaty of Lisbon is but an intermediate station on the way to a European Union willing and able to defend the security interests and improve the prosperity of EU citizens.
Far from “institutional navel-gazing” the future of Europe remains the profound issue the European level parties have to tackle and where they need to engage with citizens.
Beyond the Lisbon Treaty, an EU based on its citizens is the main challenge for the first decades of this century. Democratic government, legitimacy, accountability, effective institutions, fiscal and budgetary reform, as well as the future borders of the European Union need clear visions.
Foreign and security policy, including our defence, are crucial to our security, but even a blind man can see the inadequacy of present and proposed arrangements in a challenging world.
The internal market still falls short of a borderless area for people and services in the face of obstruction and roll-back pressures based on national protectionist arguments.
The future of EU spending requires new choices. Does our future rest on agricultural subsidies and regional funding, or should Europe build its future on brain power?
At the present time, the European Parliament does not decide these questions, at least not on its own, but the EP can become the catalyst for change. Naturally, the European Parliament will also house the sovereignists, wedded to antiquated ideals and existing power structures. If willing, the European Parliament can become the arena where the opposing views clash and are given meaning to the citizens of the European Union.
But, of course, for that to happen the European political parties and movements have to take on a new role. If the current party coalitions are unable, constructive pan-European parties are needed.
Then there is the level of “business as usual”. Each Europarty needs to offer its blueprint for the next five years of legislative work. How will its future vision translate into the humdrum activities in the short term?
Citizens need to think about our global and common European challenges. Even if the national parties campaign on irrelevant issues, there is still a margin of choice for the informed voter.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 4 May 2009
European elections: Libertas’ principles ─ what do they mean?
We are some 31 days from the start of the European elections. A few moments ago, the policies page of Libertas.eu still told us that:
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
***
First principle
The problem is that a simplistic slogan is actually much harder to understand than a detailed explanation, because it raises a number of questions: What do they mean by that? How are they going to achieve it? What are the consequences?
If Libertas is serious about its politics, it should start detailing its policies and their consequences immediately.
In the meanwhile, without a proper Libertas programme, we will have to make do with what is on offer.
Libertas tells us that it is committed to five core principles. We take one at a time, and try to figure out what they mean.
We start with the first one.
***
Hold the EU accountable: Only elected politicians should make the law, says Libertas.
Is Libertas smashing through an open door?
Council?
The supreme law-making body of the European Union is the Council, where the ministers of the EU member states approve the directives and regulations.
Most people would accept the ministers as elected politicians, although their mandate is national.
Is this the problem for Libertas? Should national level politicians be disqualified from EU level decisions?
If Libertas wants to abolish the Council, it should say so. Likewise, if it wants to turn the Council into a second chamber (Senate) of the European Parliament, with directly elected Senators.
**
European Parliament?
The slogan can hardly be directed against the directly elected European Parliament, which participates in many areas of EU legislation. The EP’s participation would increase and develop under the Treaty of Lisbon, so representative democracy at EU level improves during the next parliamentary term, if the treaty enters into force.
Presumably Libertas means to improve representative democracy further by its legislative action within the EP, since it is standing in the elections to the European Parliament.
**
Commission?
The rallying cry can hardly target the Commission, either. The Commission drafts legislative proposals, which are adopted by the Council and often the European Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that Libertas would want to ban the strictly limited cases of delegated legislation by the Commission. Any national or European political system would choke, if the daily fluctuating import values of vegetables or the latest food additive or other details of implementation would have to go the full parliamentary route.
Is Libertas against the Commission’s power to propose legal acts? If that is the case, why not say so?
The rationale for the Commission’s right of proposal is its task to look after the general interest. If Libertas wants to weaken the general interest, which interests does it want to strengthen?
***
National parliaments
National parliaments already make the domestic laws, so the aim of Libertas’ slogan has to be something else. And why should Libertas speak about domestic law-making in a campaign for the European Parliament?
***
Perplexing
As we see, the meaning and the implications of Libertas’ first core principle are far from clear. Honestly, I don’t know what to make of it.
If Libertas wants to maintain what we already have, why launch it as a battle cry, as the first principle of its campaign?
If they want something different, why not tell voters what it is and why it is important?
What do we vote for, if we cast our ballot for a Libertas candidate?
Libertas’ first principle leaves us hanging in suspense.
Ralf Grahn
“The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.”
***
First principle
The problem is that a simplistic slogan is actually much harder to understand than a detailed explanation, because it raises a number of questions: What do they mean by that? How are they going to achieve it? What are the consequences?
If Libertas is serious about its politics, it should start detailing its policies and their consequences immediately.
In the meanwhile, without a proper Libertas programme, we will have to make do with what is on offer.
Libertas tells us that it is committed to five core principles. We take one at a time, and try to figure out what they mean.
We start with the first one.
***
Hold the EU accountable: Only elected politicians should make the law, says Libertas.
Is Libertas smashing through an open door?
Council?
The supreme law-making body of the European Union is the Council, where the ministers of the EU member states approve the directives and regulations.
Most people would accept the ministers as elected politicians, although their mandate is national.
Is this the problem for Libertas? Should national level politicians be disqualified from EU level decisions?
If Libertas wants to abolish the Council, it should say so. Likewise, if it wants to turn the Council into a second chamber (Senate) of the European Parliament, with directly elected Senators.
**
European Parliament?
The slogan can hardly be directed against the directly elected European Parliament, which participates in many areas of EU legislation. The EP’s participation would increase and develop under the Treaty of Lisbon, so representative democracy at EU level improves during the next parliamentary term, if the treaty enters into force.
Presumably Libertas means to improve representative democracy further by its legislative action within the EP, since it is standing in the elections to the European Parliament.
**
Commission?
The rallying cry can hardly target the Commission, either. The Commission drafts legislative proposals, which are adopted by the Council and often the European Parliament.
I find it hard to believe that Libertas would want to ban the strictly limited cases of delegated legislation by the Commission. Any national or European political system would choke, if the daily fluctuating import values of vegetables or the latest food additive or other details of implementation would have to go the full parliamentary route.
Is Libertas against the Commission’s power to propose legal acts? If that is the case, why not say so?
The rationale for the Commission’s right of proposal is its task to look after the general interest. If Libertas wants to weaken the general interest, which interests does it want to strengthen?
***
National parliaments
National parliaments already make the domestic laws, so the aim of Libertas’ slogan has to be something else. And why should Libertas speak about domestic law-making in a campaign for the European Parliament?
***
Perplexing
As we see, the meaning and the implications of Libertas’ first core principle are far from clear. Honestly, I don’t know what to make of it.
If Libertas wants to maintain what we already have, why launch it as a battle cry, as the first principle of its campaign?
If they want something different, why not tell voters what it is and why it is important?
What do we vote for, if we cast our ballot for a Libertas candidate?
Libertas’ first principle leaves us hanging in suspense.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Declan Ganley & Libertas: A question of credibility
Since I am for democratic EU reform, I should welcome the general drift of chairman Declan Ganley’s statements about what Libertas stands for.
Why do I need convincing?
It started with the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.
Their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ were:
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
I was writing about a number of the relevant Lisbon Treaty provisions at the time, and I found a number of Libertas’s justifications and assertions distortive and manipulative.
This opened up a credibility gap.
***
Alleged Irish interests, most narrowly defined, seemed to fuel the campaign.
Where were the pro-European or pan-European visions for a strong and prosperous Europe?
The better deal for Ireland was quickly discarded after the referendum.
Ireland has been given political assurances by its EU partners, but Ganley has expanded his anti-Lisbon campaign to the whole European Union, ahead of the European elections.
Was a better deal ever a serious option or just hogwash?
***
Veracity and credibility are the most important assets of a political party in its quest for hearts and minds.
The claims, programmes, recruitment, financing and procedures of a political party – especially on a moral crusade - require analysis and constructive criticism.
The right way for Libertas is not to lash out at critical comments, but to show tangible proof of improvement.
I checked Libertas’ web site this morning to find new and positive signs, but there was nothing of the kind.
Ralf Grahn
Why do I need convincing?
It started with the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland.
Their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ were:
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
I was writing about a number of the relevant Lisbon Treaty provisions at the time, and I found a number of Libertas’s justifications and assertions distortive and manipulative.
This opened up a credibility gap.
***
Alleged Irish interests, most narrowly defined, seemed to fuel the campaign.
Where were the pro-European or pan-European visions for a strong and prosperous Europe?
The better deal for Ireland was quickly discarded after the referendum.
Ireland has been given political assurances by its EU partners, but Ganley has expanded his anti-Lisbon campaign to the whole European Union, ahead of the European elections.
Was a better deal ever a serious option or just hogwash?
***
Veracity and credibility are the most important assets of a political party in its quest for hearts and minds.
The claims, programmes, recruitment, financing and procedures of a political party – especially on a moral crusade - require analysis and constructive criticism.
The right way for Libertas is not to lash out at critical comments, but to show tangible proof of improvement.
I checked Libertas’ web site this morning to find new and positive signs, but there was nothing of the kind.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 18 April 2009
European elections FR: For or against Sarkozy?
What are the upcoming European elections about? A host of issues, different from country to country, but seldom bearing on the work of the European Parliament.
How can the few citizens of the European Union who bother to cast their ballots ever be supposed to understand the implications of their vote, if the political parties at European level (Europarties) have refused to nominate candidates for the Commission Presidency and the visible national parties compete on domestic platforms and grievances?
Perhaps a certain degree of European consciousness evolves slowly, so let us leave the new(ish) member states. Instead, let us find our model in one of the founding members, France, the home of the Schuman declaration.
Here is a snapshot presented by two French quality Euroblogs.
***
L’Européen jamais content
Cédric Puisney, also known as L’Européen jamais content, comments on an electoral campaign singularly out of breath in his blog post Européennes 2009 : UMPathétique (17 April 2009).
Puisney refers to the “stupid” call by the spokesperson for the Socialist Party (PS) Benôit Hamon for a vote of “sanction” against President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European elections.
After that Puisney turns to the campaign of the governing UMP party (EPP). He finds no political programme, but a visible appeal for donations. The real stars of the UMP campaign are not its top candidates, but Nicolas Sarkozy (the President of the French Republic), showing his voluntarist grin on the election poster.
***
Stupid or not, the campaign seems to be a contest for or against the sitting President of the Republic. Is representation for French citizens in the European Parliament really a question of a fifth column for the Elysée Palace or a counter-force to that?
With the possible exception of Sarkozy, most enlightened Europeans know that his term as acting President of the European Council ended nearly four months ago.
***
Diner’s Room
What if the European elections in France have really sunken to the level of a Franco-French dogfight?
Jules at Diner’s Room has written an ironic piece on the latest examples of Sarkozy’s famed modesty and diplomatic language to have gained international recognition: Classe mondiale (17 April 2009).
The comments are worth reading, too.
***
Together these blog posts give new life and meaning to the UMP slogan Quand l’Europe veut, l’Europe peut.
Need I exhort campaigners in newer member states to emulate the shining example given by the founding member and engine of European integration?
Ralf Grahn
How can the few citizens of the European Union who bother to cast their ballots ever be supposed to understand the implications of their vote, if the political parties at European level (Europarties) have refused to nominate candidates for the Commission Presidency and the visible national parties compete on domestic platforms and grievances?
Perhaps a certain degree of European consciousness evolves slowly, so let us leave the new(ish) member states. Instead, let us find our model in one of the founding members, France, the home of the Schuman declaration.
Here is a snapshot presented by two French quality Euroblogs.
***
L’Européen jamais content
Cédric Puisney, also known as L’Européen jamais content, comments on an electoral campaign singularly out of breath in his blog post Européennes 2009 : UMPathétique (17 April 2009).
Puisney refers to the “stupid” call by the spokesperson for the Socialist Party (PS) Benôit Hamon for a vote of “sanction” against President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European elections.
After that Puisney turns to the campaign of the governing UMP party (EPP). He finds no political programme, but a visible appeal for donations. The real stars of the UMP campaign are not its top candidates, but Nicolas Sarkozy (the President of the French Republic), showing his voluntarist grin on the election poster.
***
Stupid or not, the campaign seems to be a contest for or against the sitting President of the Republic. Is representation for French citizens in the European Parliament really a question of a fifth column for the Elysée Palace or a counter-force to that?
With the possible exception of Sarkozy, most enlightened Europeans know that his term as acting President of the European Council ended nearly four months ago.
***
Diner’s Room
What if the European elections in France have really sunken to the level of a Franco-French dogfight?
Jules at Diner’s Room has written an ironic piece on the latest examples of Sarkozy’s famed modesty and diplomatic language to have gained international recognition: Classe mondiale (17 April 2009).
The comments are worth reading, too.
***
Together these blog posts give new life and meaning to the UMP slogan Quand l’Europe veut, l’Europe peut.
Need I exhort campaigners in newer member states to emulate the shining example given by the founding member and engine of European integration?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 17 April 2009
European elections: And the ELDR candidate is…?
The European liberal democrats (ELDR) launched their campaign for the June 2009 European elections and held their Council meeting yesterday. Here is the information they offer on the Council page:
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
“The ELDR Council Meeting will take place on the 16 April 2009 in Brussels, Belgium (from 11h00 to 14h00 followed by a lunch)
More info will follow in due course.”
The home page tells us that the Irish Fianna Fail has joined the liberals and that the ELDR has replied to the open letter by the Party of European Socialists (PES).
***
Commission President
But the most important question for EU citizens is the name of the liberal candidate to head the European Commission for the next five years.
On this, nothing.
Richard Laming of Federal Union fared no better in his search. In his blog post Silence speaks louder than words Laming concludes that the ELDR are not alone in European politics in ducking this issue, but that was not his understanding of what liberal politics was meant to mean.
***
Quisling Prime Ministers
They have all politically agreed on the Treaty of Lisbon, but they feel no obligation to act in the spirit of the two miserly concessions they made directly to the citizens of the European Union: To take account of the EP election results when appointing the candidate to become the President of the Commission and to put into practice the limited citizens’ initiative.
Long before the elections, the PES has been undermined, most notably by prime ministers Socrates, Zapatero and Brown.
The ELDR affiliated members of the European Council come from smaller countries such as Finland and Estonia, so their defection from the cause of European level democracy has gone largely unnoticed.
But the Quisling mechanism is the same: Overt or covert support for a second term for José Manuel Barroso (EPP), without interference from voters.
They did not even have the guts to support Barroso, if that is their intention.
Their subliminal message is: The European Union is their project, not ours. Solidarity between heads of state or government, but not towards the citizens of the European Union. The European elections do not matter.
A docile and less legitimate Commission strengthens the hand of national leaders in their ineffective and increasingly intergovernmental dealings at EU level, at a time when the world cries out for effective European solutions.
***
Results of deception
Catastrophic numbers of voters look set to abstain from voting in June, despite umpteen million euros plowed into awareness campaigns.
Paper or web pages – it doesn’t really matter: You cannot campaign on election manifestos or open letters, without flesh and blood candidates competing for at least one top spot.
The political parties at European level are abject failures, and I am still eagerly waiting for the first noteworthy contribution from their foundations (think-tanks), despite massive funding.
***
Alternatives?
It is extremely sad that Libertas is the only political party with pan-European ambitions, which has been able to attract attention even in media specialised on European affairs. Libertas has made a hash out of its launch.
If successful, a campaign against the Lisbon Treaty boils down to an expensive manoeuvre to retain the failed Treaty of Nice. It like opting for quicksand instead of progress.
There is no political programme for the coming five years, just strings of complaints and vague statements of pro-Europeanism contradicted by the recruited anti-European nationalists (and worse).
***
The state of this Union is bleak.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 29 March 2009
European elections: Soini Libertas candidate?
The True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) dropped Jussi Halla-aho, under prosecution for xenophobic blogging, from their list of candidates in the European elections in June 2009.
Party chairman Timo Soini ─ one of the signatories of Libertas’s failed application for recognition as a political party at European level and for funding from the European Parliament ─ stepped into the breach by launching his own candidacy, despite his earlier rejection of the idea.
The True Finns tout the European elections as a last call to prevent the Treaty of Lisbon from entering into force:
http://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/ajankohtaista/?issue=137
***
Question marks
Interestingly, Libertas is not mentioned, although Soini has conceded earlier that an elected True Finn MEP might join them in a parliamentary group in the European Parliament.
The reasons may be tactical, since it may be harder to attract nationalistic voters under a pan-European umbrella.
Nothing is, of course, said about possible campaign contributions from Libertas.
***
Media scene
A quick scan of the web versions of Finnish main media (Helsingin Sanomat, Hufvudstadsbladet, YLE) revealed no critical questions about the possible European links of the True Finns’ campaign, just Soini’s well-known anti-EU message and discussion about the reasons for dropping Halla-aho. See for instance YLE ‘Charges for True Finns Councillor Over Racist Blog Comments’ (last update 28 March 2009):
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/03/charges_for_true_finns_councillor_over_racist_blog_comments_645781.html
Are the media in Finland as uninterested as the general public is oblivious of possible European connections? The elections are European, aren’t they?
Ralf Grahn
Party chairman Timo Soini ─ one of the signatories of Libertas’s failed application for recognition as a political party at European level and for funding from the European Parliament ─ stepped into the breach by launching his own candidacy, despite his earlier rejection of the idea.
The True Finns tout the European elections as a last call to prevent the Treaty of Lisbon from entering into force:
http://www.perussuomalaiset.fi/ajankohtaista/?issue=137
***
Question marks
Interestingly, Libertas is not mentioned, although Soini has conceded earlier that an elected True Finn MEP might join them in a parliamentary group in the European Parliament.
The reasons may be tactical, since it may be harder to attract nationalistic voters under a pan-European umbrella.
Nothing is, of course, said about possible campaign contributions from Libertas.
***
Media scene
A quick scan of the web versions of Finnish main media (Helsingin Sanomat, Hufvudstadsbladet, YLE) revealed no critical questions about the possible European links of the True Finns’ campaign, just Soini’s well-known anti-EU message and discussion about the reasons for dropping Halla-aho. See for instance YLE ‘Charges for True Finns Councillor Over Racist Blog Comments’ (last update 28 March 2009):
http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2009/03/charges_for_true_finns_councillor_over_racist_blog_comments_645781.html
Are the media in Finland as uninterested as the general public is oblivious of possible European connections? The elections are European, aren’t they?
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
EU citizens and leaders: Democratic choice?
The European Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States; Article 6(1) TEU. These principles are supposed to guide the Union’s internal as well as its external action.
Let us take a look at democracy, when the Treaty of Lisbon is about to create two important posts: the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President. How are the holders of these public offices going to reflect the choices of the citizens of the European Union?
***
First, we take a look at the procedural basics under the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Here is what the Lisbon Treaty says about the President (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306). According to Article 9b(5) TEU: The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once.
Then, we recall what the Reform Treaty has to say about the High Representative. Article 9e(1) TEU states: The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.
Finally, we are reminded that the High Representative is also going to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Commission. Pursuant to Article 9d(7) TEU, third subparagraph, the President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
***
If the essence of representative democracy is the power of the people to elect and to change their leaders, the Treaty of Lisbon does not reach that standard.
So much for those who think that there is no further need for institutional EU reform.
***
In the meantime, there are different shades of grey. Democratic practice can evolve, even without a written Constitution.
The Lisbon Treaty already admits that the election results should influence the choice of Commission President, and it gives the European Parliament a say. Article 9d(7) TEU states: Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members.
***
The President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President are as important to the citizens of the Union as the President of the Commission.
Instead of following in the footsteps of Vatican Conclaves, which leave the public waiting for white smoke after the fact, the European Council could, within the established rules, do something real to re-engage at least some of the citizens it undeniably has alienated, both during the treaty negotiations and after the signing of the Reform Treaty.
Let there be open nominations as well as public hearings and campaigns for these offices. This would lead to a real European debate on common issues.
Peter Sain ley Berry said, quite correctly: For Europe’s President to emerge from some closed European Council meeting without any prior attempt to test the democratic will and without any requirement for the candidates to lay their credentials before the European public will be wrong, short-sighted, bad government and a disgrace.
***
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will preside over the European Council later this year, has understood the power of political initiative. Some of his ideas seem half-baked, some are outright disastrous and part of them can be brilliant, but he is constantly on the move.
This week, Sarkozy more or less launched Tony Blair as a candidate for the office of President of the European Council. Initial reactions, especially in Great Britain, seemed to come from ingrained sympathies or antipathies concerning Blair as a person.
Few paused to think about the wider picture.
With one candidate (almost) in the open, could Sarkozy have stumbled on a winning formula, beyond the choice of persons. It would not take much to make the choice of leaders a European public affair.
Open nominations, televised debates and public discussion could bring Europe a step closer to a democracy worthy of the schoolmaster for the rest of the world.
Ralf Grahn
See:
Peter Sain ley Berry: Let EU citizens choose their president too; EUobserver 11.01.2008;
http://euobserver.com/7/25428
Let us take a look at democracy, when the Treaty of Lisbon is about to create two important posts: the President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President. How are the holders of these public offices going to reflect the choices of the citizens of the European Union?
***
First, we take a look at the procedural basics under the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU).
Here is what the Lisbon Treaty says about the President (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306). According to Article 9b(5) TEU: The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once.
Then, we recall what the Reform Treaty has to say about the High Representative. Article 9e(1) TEU states: The European Council, acting by a qualified majority, with the agreement of the President of the Commission, shall appoint the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The European Council may end his term of office by the same procedure.
Finally, we are reminded that the High Representative is also going to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the European Commission. Pursuant to Article 9d(7) TEU, third subparagraph, the President, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the other members of the Commission shall be subject as a body to a vote of consent by the European Parliament. On the basis of this consent the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council, acting by a qualified majority.
***
If the essence of representative democracy is the power of the people to elect and to change their leaders, the Treaty of Lisbon does not reach that standard.
So much for those who think that there is no further need for institutional EU reform.
***
In the meantime, there are different shades of grey. Democratic practice can evolve, even without a written Constitution.
The Lisbon Treaty already admits that the election results should influence the choice of Commission President, and it gives the European Parliament a say. Article 9d(7) TEU states: Taking into account the elections to the European Parliament and after having held the appropriate consultations, the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for President of the Commission. This candidate shall be elected by the European Parliament by a majority of its component members.
***
The President of the European Council and the High Representative/Vice-President are as important to the citizens of the Union as the President of the Commission.
Instead of following in the footsteps of Vatican Conclaves, which leave the public waiting for white smoke after the fact, the European Council could, within the established rules, do something real to re-engage at least some of the citizens it undeniably has alienated, both during the treaty negotiations and after the signing of the Reform Treaty.
Let there be open nominations as well as public hearings and campaigns for these offices. This would lead to a real European debate on common issues.
Peter Sain ley Berry said, quite correctly: For Europe’s President to emerge from some closed European Council meeting without any prior attempt to test the democratic will and without any requirement for the candidates to lay their credentials before the European public will be wrong, short-sighted, bad government and a disgrace.
***
President Nicolas Sarkozy, who will preside over the European Council later this year, has understood the power of political initiative. Some of his ideas seem half-baked, some are outright disastrous and part of them can be brilliant, but he is constantly on the move.
This week, Sarkozy more or less launched Tony Blair as a candidate for the office of President of the European Council. Initial reactions, especially in Great Britain, seemed to come from ingrained sympathies or antipathies concerning Blair as a person.
Few paused to think about the wider picture.
With one candidate (almost) in the open, could Sarkozy have stumbled on a winning formula, beyond the choice of persons. It would not take much to make the choice of leaders a European public affair.
Open nominations, televised debates and public discussion could bring Europe a step closer to a democracy worthy of the schoolmaster for the rest of the world.
Ralf Grahn
See:
Peter Sain ley Berry: Let EU citizens choose their president too; EUobserver 11.01.2008;
http://euobserver.com/7/25428
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
