The Party of European Socialists intends to field a candidate for the presidency of the EU Commission in the elections to the European Parliament in 2014. The nomination and selection procedure is going to be based on ”consultation” of the members of the national PES parties, although not necessarily one or more regular primaries.
In the 2009 elections the European social democrats lacked a coherent and clear message, according to Marita Ulvskog MEP. Just resisting Barroso was not enough to make voters enthusiastic.
The European Citizen, who covered the PES Re:New convention as a euroblogger, saw the selection procedure as a good step for European democracy. It commits the PES to a more European campaign.
Europarty response?
Ahead of the EP elections 2014 the PES challenges the other Europarties: the European People's Party EPP, the European Liberal and Reform Party ELDR and the European Green Party. Are they going to field top candidates selected through open procedures?
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Saturday, 26 November 2011
Sunday, 13 November 2011
More Europe Manifesto calls for European Electoral Act
After my latest post about a single seat for the European Parliament, we return to More Europe. In order to overcome the crises in the eurozone and the wider European Union, a group of Spanish eurobloggers has launched an appeal for More Europe.
You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.
The initiators act as EU citizens. Hence they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.
After stating the need for greater European integration, their seventh proposal aims at an electoral Act for the European Parliament.
European Parliament
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) already had a consultative assembly from 1952, drawn from national parliaments, as a democratic embellishment, later shared with the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
Despite some progress, it took until 1979 for the first directly elected European Parliament to emerge.
Existing electoral rules
The (consolidated) contents of the common electoral rules have not been conveniently available to EU citizens, as I found out ahead of the EP election 2009 (but also got help).
Since the legal portal Eur-Lex still does not seem to offer (easy) access to the Act in force (consolidated), the best resource available is probably again the consolidated version in a Duff report, this time the one we discuss below. See ANNEX I – Consolidated version of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976, and of the subsequent amendments thereto (pages 9-13).
AFCO report
If we jump to more current events, we find that Andrew Duff MEP has drafted a report adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) of the European Parliament, but not voted on yet by the plenary.
The proposal would attribute an added 25 seats in the EP to candidates proposed by the European political parties (Europarties) throughout the 27 member states. These members would be elected in a pan-EU constituency from transnational lists.
Every elector would have two votes - one for the national or regional list and one for the transnational, pan-European list:
Committee on Constitutional Affairs: DRAFT SECOND REPORT on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 20.9.2011, rapporteur: Andrew Duff
You can follow the next steps of the procedure under 2009/2134(INI).
Weaknessess
The descriptive part highlights some of the existing weaknesses worth mentioning:
The low proportion of women candidates is mentioned.
The Duff report offers an introductory view of the state of EP electoral rules and a number of proposed amendments and points to negotiate with the member states. I invite my readers to evaluate and to discuss these issues as well.
European Electoral Act
The More Europe Manifesto seems to have set its sight slightly higher, by calling for a European Electoral Act, more than some ad hoc amendments and principles.
The shorter name would be an improvement in itself.
The initiators want to make the European Parliament election campaigns more European, make the work of the European Parliament better known, foster public debate and participation among citizens, and promote the visibility and understanding of policies that are decided and implemented at a European level.
In a union based on its citizens, the vote of each elector should have roughly the same weight. However, the existing rule of ”degressive proportionality” may prove a hard nut to crack, both within the European Parliament and especially among the member states (unanimity twice).
Even the cautious step of an extra EU-wide vote is seen by some as diluting national representation, instead of as a step forward towards real and lively participation by EU citizens at the European level.
Here, progressive member states need to show leadership by forming a reform group.
More Europe proposals
I have mentioned the positive More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone, EU-wide constituencies and the next Commission president to emerge with a clear political mandate from the voters in the elections to the European Parliament, as well as the call for a single seat for the European Parliament.
The More Europe proposals are worth discussion among citizens and politicians. Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope. Read, think and share in Europe 2.0 mode.
Ralf Grahn
You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.
The initiators act as EU citizens. Hence they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.
After stating the need for greater European integration, their seventh proposal aims at an electoral Act for the European Parliament.
“More Europe” Statement
Given the dramatic social situation in many Member States caused by the economical crisis and the anti-European voices predicting the breakup of the Economic and Monetary Union, the undersigned ask for More Europe.
We consider it is necessary to move to a greater European integration in order to address the current situation of social and economic crisis affecting Europe and for this reason we will join our forces as European citizens. To achieve our goal we claim that:
-----
7) We propose the creation of a European Electoral Act to regulate European Parliament elections. This measure will prevent European Parliament elections campaigns to develop in national key. It would also help citizens to learn about the work of their representatives in the European Parliament, it will foster public debate and participation among citizens, and promote the visibility and understanding of policies that are decided and implemented at a European level.
The platform More Europe calls citizens to support and join the defense of a greater European integration. We appeal citizens to join forces and contribute to build a bottom-up project, which will allow all of us to feel a greater identification with the common project of the European Union. This is necessary to preserve the current unity of our continent, that has historically been fragmented, and that is currently possible thanks to the process of European integration and the institutional design created by all of us.
European Parliament
The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) already had a consultative assembly from 1952, drawn from national parliaments, as a democratic embellishment, later shared with the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom).
Despite some progress, it took until 1979 for the first directly elected European Parliament to emerge.
Existing electoral rules
The (consolidated) contents of the common electoral rules have not been conveniently available to EU citizens, as I found out ahead of the EP election 2009 (but also got help).
Since the legal portal Eur-Lex still does not seem to offer (easy) access to the Act in force (consolidated), the best resource available is probably again the consolidated version in a Duff report, this time the one we discuss below. See ANNEX I – Consolidated version of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976, and of the subsequent amendments thereto (pages 9-13).
AFCO report
If we jump to more current events, we find that Andrew Duff MEP has drafted a report adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) of the European Parliament, but not voted on yet by the plenary.
The proposal would attribute an added 25 seats in the EP to candidates proposed by the European political parties (Europarties) throughout the 27 member states. These members would be elected in a pan-EU constituency from transnational lists.
Every elector would have two votes - one for the national or regional list and one for the transnational, pan-European list:
Committee on Constitutional Affairs: DRAFT SECOND REPORT on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 20.9.2011, rapporteur: Andrew Duff
You can follow the next steps of the procedure under 2009/2134(INI).
Weaknessess
The descriptive part highlights some of the existing weaknesses worth mentioning:
H. popular recognition of Parliament's democratic function remains limited, political parties at European level are still in the early stages of development, electoral campaigning remains more national than European, and media reporting of Parliament's proceedings is irregular,
I. overall turnout in the elections to Parliament has fallen steadily from 63 per cent in 1979 to 43 per cent in 2009,
The low proportion of women candidates is mentioned.
The Duff report offers an introductory view of the state of EP electoral rules and a number of proposed amendments and points to negotiate with the member states. I invite my readers to evaluate and to discuss these issues as well.
European Electoral Act
The More Europe Manifesto seems to have set its sight slightly higher, by calling for a European Electoral Act, more than some ad hoc amendments and principles.
The shorter name would be an improvement in itself.
The initiators want to make the European Parliament election campaigns more European, make the work of the European Parliament better known, foster public debate and participation among citizens, and promote the visibility and understanding of policies that are decided and implemented at a European level.
In a union based on its citizens, the vote of each elector should have roughly the same weight. However, the existing rule of ”degressive proportionality” may prove a hard nut to crack, both within the European Parliament and especially among the member states (unanimity twice).
Even the cautious step of an extra EU-wide vote is seen by some as diluting national representation, instead of as a step forward towards real and lively participation by EU citizens at the European level.
Here, progressive member states need to show leadership by forming a reform group.
More Europe proposals
I have mentioned the positive More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone, EU-wide constituencies and the next Commission president to emerge with a clear political mandate from the voters in the elections to the European Parliament, as well as the call for a single seat for the European Parliament.
The More Europe proposals are worth discussion among citizens and politicians. Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope. Read, think and share in Europe 2.0 mode.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 12 November 2011
More Europe Manifesto: pan-European lists and elected Commission president
In order to overcome the crises in the eurozone and the wider European Union, a group of Spanish eurobloggers has launched an appeal for More Europe.
You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.
The initiators act as EU citizens. Thus they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.
After stating the need for greater European integration, their fifth proposal aims at bringing real democracy a step closer at the European level.
Pan-European lists
Andrew Duff MEP has drafted a report adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, but not voted on yet by the plenary.
The proposal would attribute an added 25 seats in the EP to candidates proposed by the European political parties (Europarties) throughout the 27 member states. These members would be elected in a pan-EU constituency from transnational lists.
Every elector would have two votes - one for the national or regional list and one for the transnational, pan-European list:
Committee on Constitutional Affairs: DRAFT SECOND REPORT on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 20.9.2011, rapporteur: Andrew Duff
You can follow the next steps of the procedure under 2009/2134(INI).
The election procedure is one of the rare legislative issues where the right of initiative belongs to the European Parliament. However, the dismal progress of EP electoral law during more than 30 years is due to the lack of political will and the unanimity requirement in the Council (government representatives) and at member state level (ratification by every national parliament).
The proposal means that the political parties at European level would finally have to do what they are meant to do: become active in the election campaign, putting forward their best candidate for president of the European Commission and their political programme for the next five years.
PES primary
Activists in the Party of European Socialists (PES) have proposed that the top candidate, the possible president of the European Commission, should be elected through a primary.
This would set activists going earlier, engender publicity and possible adherents and give the chosen front runner a firmer claim on democratic legitimacy.
The PES has promised to study the proposal (and the practical implications).
It is going to be interesting to see how the EPP, the Liberals, the Greens and the other Europarties are going to take up the challenge.
President of the Commission
Through pan-European debates and media coverage, the election campaign would bring European issues to the fore, instead of the comatose Europarties and 27 national campaigns on mainly domestic issues we have seen this far.
We have to assume that the European Council would not only take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but actually carry out the will of the people when proposing the Commission president to the European Parliament.
The reform would be one step forward on the road towards a functioning representative democracy at EU level, which should entail a parliamentary system of accountable government based on the votes of the citizens.
However, it falls short of truly representative government, if the rest of the commissioners are still essentially nominated by the governments of the member states, not as a coalition government resulting from the EP election.
Even if only a step in the right direction, the More Europe Manifesto calls for electoral reform to give the EU citizens more voice in union affairs.
Democratic European Union?
About sixty years into European integration (Council of Europe, Schuman declaration, European Coal and Steel Community ECSC) the institutions of the European Union have democratic embellishments, but democracy has not arrived at the European level.
With political leaders half paralysed and citizens increasingly despairing, I think we have reached the point of no return. Either the failures continue to pile up, or we establish democracy and sufficient powers where the issues and challenges are: at the level of the European Union or the eurozone.
I recommend reading the following two articles thoughtfully.
Stefan Collignon wrote a column for the Social Europe Journal, where he discusses European level democracy in plain words. Citizens are the sovereign, not states, and they have a common interest in controlling their government, he says in European Catharsis.
A democratic union (eurozone) or disintegration? Ulrike Guérot of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) discusses the crisis in the eurozone and the need for democracy: Germany in Europe: the politics of disintegration.
More ”comprehensive solution” failures, or a new beginning? Our leaders owe us some answers, but citizens need to raise the questions as well.
More Europe proposals
I have mentioned the refreshing More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, as well as fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone.
Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope, hashtag #moreurope, and help to spread the word.
***
Popular sovereignty is the essence of citizenship; so it should be for the EU citizenship we have in name. We have to start claiming our rights.
Ralf Grahn
You can read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog. You can participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope and under the hashtag #moreurope, and you can help to spread the word among citizens of the European Union.
The initiators act as EU citizens. Thus they want to build on European achievements important for ordinary people. Their appeal is now available in eight languages.
After stating the need for greater European integration, their fifth proposal aims at bringing real democracy a step closer at the European level.
“More Europe” Statement
Given the dramatic social situation in many Member States caused by the economical crisis and the anti-European voices predicting the breakup of the Economic and Monetary Union, the undersigned ask for More Europe.
We consider it is necessary to move to a greater European integration in order to address the current situation of social and economic crisis affecting Europe and for this reason we will join our forces as European citizens. To achieve our goal we claim that:
-----
5) We believe it is very important to increase the participation of citizens in the European decision making process. With that aim we suggest the direct election of the European Commission’s President through the creation of supranational European Parliament electoral slates.
Pan-European lists
Andrew Duff MEP has drafted a report adopted by the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, but not voted on yet by the plenary.
The proposal would attribute an added 25 seats in the EP to candidates proposed by the European political parties (Europarties) throughout the 27 member states. These members would be elected in a pan-EU constituency from transnational lists.
Every elector would have two votes - one for the national or regional list and one for the transnational, pan-European list:
Committee on Constitutional Affairs: DRAFT SECOND REPORT on a proposal for a modification of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage of 20 September 1976; 20.9.2011, rapporteur: Andrew Duff
You can follow the next steps of the procedure under 2009/2134(INI).
The election procedure is one of the rare legislative issues where the right of initiative belongs to the European Parliament. However, the dismal progress of EP electoral law during more than 30 years is due to the lack of political will and the unanimity requirement in the Council (government representatives) and at member state level (ratification by every national parliament).
The proposal means that the political parties at European level would finally have to do what they are meant to do: become active in the election campaign, putting forward their best candidate for president of the European Commission and their political programme for the next five years.
PES primary
Activists in the Party of European Socialists (PES) have proposed that the top candidate, the possible president of the European Commission, should be elected through a primary.
This would set activists going earlier, engender publicity and possible adherents and give the chosen front runner a firmer claim on democratic legitimacy.
The PES has promised to study the proposal (and the practical implications).
It is going to be interesting to see how the EPP, the Liberals, the Greens and the other Europarties are going to take up the challenge.
President of the Commission
Through pan-European debates and media coverage, the election campaign would bring European issues to the fore, instead of the comatose Europarties and 27 national campaigns on mainly domestic issues we have seen this far.
We have to assume that the European Council would not only take into account the elections to the European Parliament, but actually carry out the will of the people when proposing the Commission president to the European Parliament.
The reform would be one step forward on the road towards a functioning representative democracy at EU level, which should entail a parliamentary system of accountable government based on the votes of the citizens.
However, it falls short of truly representative government, if the rest of the commissioners are still essentially nominated by the governments of the member states, not as a coalition government resulting from the EP election.
Even if only a step in the right direction, the More Europe Manifesto calls for electoral reform to give the EU citizens more voice in union affairs.
Democratic European Union?
About sixty years into European integration (Council of Europe, Schuman declaration, European Coal and Steel Community ECSC) the institutions of the European Union have democratic embellishments, but democracy has not arrived at the European level.
With political leaders half paralysed and citizens increasingly despairing, I think we have reached the point of no return. Either the failures continue to pile up, or we establish democracy and sufficient powers where the issues and challenges are: at the level of the European Union or the eurozone.
I recommend reading the following two articles thoughtfully.
Stefan Collignon wrote a column for the Social Europe Journal, where he discusses European level democracy in plain words. Citizens are the sovereign, not states, and they have a common interest in controlling their government, he says in European Catharsis.
A democratic union (eurozone) or disintegration? Ulrike Guérot of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) discusses the crisis in the eurozone and the need for democracy: Germany in Europe: the politics of disintegration.
More ”comprehensive solution” failures, or a new beginning? Our leaders owe us some answers, but citizens need to raise the questions as well.
More Europe proposals
I have mentioned the refreshing More Europe initiative of the Spanish eurobloggers in earlier posts: announcement, free movement, EU symbols and education about European integration, as well as fiscal and social harmonisation in the eurozone.
Read and sign the appeal on the More Europe blog, participate in the Twitter discussion @moreurope, hashtag #moreurope, and help to spread the word.
***
Popular sovereignty is the essence of citizenship; so it should be for the EU citizenship we have in name. We have to start claiming our rights.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Finland: Eurozone shockwaves
The epicentre of the devastating 1755 Lisbon earthquake was much closer to Portugal than Helsinki, but how shattering are the shockwaves from Finland going to be? .
The pro-European PM-elect Jyrki Katainen is determined to shoulder responsibility in defence of the eurozone, but two out of the three likely main coalition partners are not.
Katainen will probably have to form a government with the Social Democrats who demurred on a Portuguese bailout in the election campaign and the True Finns who rode to a historic victory on outright rejection of everything which smacks of European integration.
Thus, participation by Finland in the eurozone bailout is no foregone conclusion. Finnish participation without changes is highly unlikely.
The unanimity requirement exposes how brittle eurozone structures are, indeed the state of European solidarity.
We mix media reports available in English with our own comments.
Election result
In the 17 April 2011 general election distributed the 200 seats of the Parliament of Finland, according to a proportional system of representation. The three political parties to come out on top:
National Coalition Party (European People's Party EPP) 44 (party leader Jyrki Katainen)
Social Democratic Party (Party of European Socialists PES) 42 (Jutta Urpilainen)
True Finns (EFD Group) 39 (Timo Soini)
The populist and nationalist True Finns sensationally added 34 MPs to their group of five.
Helsingin Sanomat depicted the astounding election victory of the True Finns, translated for the International Edition: Editorial: Timo Soini rewrote the electoral history books.
We note that the Centre Party (European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party ELDR) led by outgoing prime minister Mari Kiviniemi suffered heavy losses, bringing it down to 35 seats, as did the Green League (European Green Party EGP) led by Anni Sinnemäki, reducing the current government party to 10 parliamentarians. Both leaders have stated that they head for the opposition.
Consensus politics
On Left Foot Forward, Taneli Heikka discusses Finnish consensus politics in wider and more personal terms: What really happened in the Finnish elections.
New government
The will of the electorate and the mathematics leave few options for a majority government.
Reuters provides a schedule for the government negotiations: Factbox: How Finland's next coalition govt will be formed.
The biggest Finnish daily, Helsingin Sanomat, discusses the options in its International Edition: Government of three largest parties envisioned.
YLE (Finnish public broadcasting corporation) news in English: Urpilainen: SDP To Join Government Negotiations.
The SDP is going to participate in government negotiations, but they know that they are practically indispensable if the Centre Party and the Greens stay on the sidelines.
Under long time party chairman and prime minister Paavo Lipponen, the Social Democratic Party was a staunchly pro-EU party. Under the second leader since then, Jutta Urpilainen, it is hard to foretell the future of the SDP as a European party.
Eurozone
Few international pundits are interested in Finland as such, but the repercussions for the eurozone and the European Union have turned the Finnish election result into a notable event in European and financial capitals.
NCP leader Jyrki Katainen wants to prevent panic, but his party is not going to form a majority in the next government. The coalition agreement is going to be a tough nut to crack, without scuppering euro area unanimity for stability actions.
See, for instance:
Helsingin Sanomat International Edition: Finnish election has implications for euro crisis.
YLE (Finnish broadcasting corporation) news in English: Katainen Believes in Finnish Support for Portugal Bail-out Package.
Reuters: Finnish PM-elect seeks to soothe EU bailout fears.
***
If events in Finland can influence the fate of the eurozone and the EU, mismanagement in Ireland, Greece and Portugal has caused a political tsunami in Finland.
Interdependence is stronger than ever, however voters act.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The Internet-Law blog, written by Thomas Stadler, is an active source of fact and opinion in German on IT and intellectual property law.
The pro-European PM-elect Jyrki Katainen is determined to shoulder responsibility in defence of the eurozone, but two out of the three likely main coalition partners are not.
Katainen will probably have to form a government with the Social Democrats who demurred on a Portuguese bailout in the election campaign and the True Finns who rode to a historic victory on outright rejection of everything which smacks of European integration.
Thus, participation by Finland in the eurozone bailout is no foregone conclusion. Finnish participation without changes is highly unlikely.
The unanimity requirement exposes how brittle eurozone structures are, indeed the state of European solidarity.
We mix media reports available in English with our own comments.
Election result
In the 17 April 2011 general election distributed the 200 seats of the Parliament of Finland, according to a proportional system of representation. The three political parties to come out on top:
National Coalition Party (European People's Party EPP) 44 (party leader Jyrki Katainen)
Social Democratic Party (Party of European Socialists PES) 42 (Jutta Urpilainen)
True Finns (EFD Group) 39 (Timo Soini)
The populist and nationalist True Finns sensationally added 34 MPs to their group of five.
Helsingin Sanomat depicted the astounding election victory of the True Finns, translated for the International Edition: Editorial: Timo Soini rewrote the electoral history books.
We note that the Centre Party (European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party ELDR) led by outgoing prime minister Mari Kiviniemi suffered heavy losses, bringing it down to 35 seats, as did the Green League (European Green Party EGP) led by Anni Sinnemäki, reducing the current government party to 10 parliamentarians. Both leaders have stated that they head for the opposition.
Consensus politics
On Left Foot Forward, Taneli Heikka discusses Finnish consensus politics in wider and more personal terms: What really happened in the Finnish elections.
New government
The will of the electorate and the mathematics leave few options for a majority government.
Reuters provides a schedule for the government negotiations: Factbox: How Finland's next coalition govt will be formed.
The biggest Finnish daily, Helsingin Sanomat, discusses the options in its International Edition: Government of three largest parties envisioned.
YLE (Finnish public broadcasting corporation) news in English: Urpilainen: SDP To Join Government Negotiations.
The SDP is going to participate in government negotiations, but they know that they are practically indispensable if the Centre Party and the Greens stay on the sidelines.
Under long time party chairman and prime minister Paavo Lipponen, the Social Democratic Party was a staunchly pro-EU party. Under the second leader since then, Jutta Urpilainen, it is hard to foretell the future of the SDP as a European party.
Eurozone
Few international pundits are interested in Finland as such, but the repercussions for the eurozone and the European Union have turned the Finnish election result into a notable event in European and financial capitals.
NCP leader Jyrki Katainen wants to prevent panic, but his party is not going to form a majority in the next government. The coalition agreement is going to be a tough nut to crack, without scuppering euro area unanimity for stability actions.
See, for instance:
Helsingin Sanomat International Edition: Finnish election has implications for euro crisis.
YLE (Finnish broadcasting corporation) news in English: Katainen Believes in Finnish Support for Portugal Bail-out Package.
Reuters: Finnish PM-elect seeks to soothe EU bailout fears.
***
If events in Finland can influence the fate of the eurozone and the EU, mismanagement in Ireland, Greece and Portugal has caused a political tsunami in Finland.
Interdependence is stronger than ever, however voters act.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The Internet-Law blog, written by Thomas Stadler, is an active source of fact and opinion in German on IT and intellectual property law.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Finis Finlandiae?
The anti-EU and anti-immigration True Finns made spectacular progress in the election to the Parliament of Finland, gaining 34 new seats. Just 0.1% behind the vote share of the Social Democrats, the True Finns have the third largest parliamentary group, with 39 seats (out of 200).
This is a sensational outcome in a country known for stability, consensus politics and small shifts.
True Finns – EFD
In the European Parliament, the True Finns are represented in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), together with the UK Independence Party, the Italian Lega Nord, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and others.
The election victory of the True Finns is a strong reaction by a large part of the public against the challenges of globalisation, the increasing need for internationalism and the requirements to show European solidarity.
Split country
The country is split. The other side of the coin is that for the first time ever, the pro-European National Coalition Party became the largest party in the Finnish Parliament.
Until the election campaign, the Social Democratic Party, which came in second, was known as a pro-European force in Finnish politics. Now its future role is in doubt.
Piecing together a government coalition may prove difficult for other reasons as well. Two of the current government parties suffered huge losses: the Centre Party of prime minister Mari Kiviniemi and the Green League led by Anni Sinnemäki. The fourth coalition partner, the Swedish People's Party, held its positions.
MEP and True Finns' chairman Timo Soini received the largest number of personal votes in the whole country (43,212). The dichotomy is illustrated by the fact that he was followed by two representatives of the pro-European National Coalition Party: foreign minister Alexander Stubb (41,766) and chairman and finance minister Jyrki Katainen (23,941).
Election results
These are the final results of the parliamentary elections in Finland:
National Coalition Party (EPP Group): 20.4%, 44 seats (-6)
Social Democratic Party (S&D): 19.1%, 42 seats (-3)
True Finns (EFD): 19.0%, 39 seats (+34)
Centre Party (ALDE): 15.8%, 35 seats (-16)
Left Alliance (GUE/NGL): 8.1%, 14 seats (-3)
Green League (Greens/EFA): 7.2%, 10 seats (-5)
Swedish People’s Party (ALDE): 4.3%, 9 seats (0)
Christian Democrats (EPP): 4.0%, 6 seats (-1)
Pirate Party: 0.4%
Others: 1.6%
Source: YLE.fi 'NCP Biggets Party, True Finns Make Huge Gains' and 'Tulospalvelu' (Results)
This morning the euro currency is weaker in Asian trading. Although not the end of Finland (”Finis Finlandiae”) or the EU, Sunday's vote made it harder to sort out the problems in the eurozone and to improve the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
This is a sensational outcome in a country known for stability, consensus politics and small shifts.
True Finns – EFD
In the European Parliament, the True Finns are represented in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), together with the UK Independence Party, the Italian Lega Nord, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and others.
The election victory of the True Finns is a strong reaction by a large part of the public against the challenges of globalisation, the increasing need for internationalism and the requirements to show European solidarity.
Split country
The country is split. The other side of the coin is that for the first time ever, the pro-European National Coalition Party became the largest party in the Finnish Parliament.
Until the election campaign, the Social Democratic Party, which came in second, was known as a pro-European force in Finnish politics. Now its future role is in doubt.
Piecing together a government coalition may prove difficult for other reasons as well. Two of the current government parties suffered huge losses: the Centre Party of prime minister Mari Kiviniemi and the Green League led by Anni Sinnemäki. The fourth coalition partner, the Swedish People's Party, held its positions.
MEP and True Finns' chairman Timo Soini received the largest number of personal votes in the whole country (43,212). The dichotomy is illustrated by the fact that he was followed by two representatives of the pro-European National Coalition Party: foreign minister Alexander Stubb (41,766) and chairman and finance minister Jyrki Katainen (23,941).
Election results
These are the final results of the parliamentary elections in Finland:
National Coalition Party (EPP Group): 20.4%, 44 seats (-6)
Social Democratic Party (S&D): 19.1%, 42 seats (-3)
True Finns (EFD): 19.0%, 39 seats (+34)
Centre Party (ALDE): 15.8%, 35 seats (-16)
Left Alliance (GUE/NGL): 8.1%, 14 seats (-3)
Green League (Greens/EFA): 7.2%, 10 seats (-5)
Swedish People’s Party (ALDE): 4.3%, 9 seats (0)
Christian Democrats (EPP): 4.0%, 6 seats (-1)
Pirate Party: 0.4%
Others: 1.6%
Source: YLE.fi 'NCP Biggets Party, True Finns Make Huge Gains' and 'Tulospalvelu' (Results)
This morning the euro currency is weaker in Asian trading. Although not the end of Finland (”Finis Finlandiae”) or the EU, Sunday's vote made it harder to sort out the problems in the eurozone and to improve the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Herman Van Rompuy President of the European Council (official decision)
Here is the official version of one of the implementing decisions regarding the Lisbon Treaty, taken under the Swedish presidency of the EU Council.
EUROPEAN COUNCIL DECISION of 1 December 2009 electing the President of the European Council (2009/879/EU) has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU 2.12.2009 L 315/48).
Mr Herman Van Rompuy has been elected, and his term in office is from 1 December 2009 to 31 May 2012.
***
President’s tasks
According to the Lisbon Treaty, Article 15(5) TEU the term is two and a half years, renewable once.
The tasks of the President of the European Council are outlined in Article 15(6) TEU:
6. The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;
(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.
The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.
***
More information on the new institutional arrangements (implementing decisions) will follow on Grahnlaw.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 488 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page or concentrate on the editors’ choice of articles on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Principles regarding President of the European Council
Our previous post “Charlemagne and President of the European Council” mentioned the question on Charlemagne’s notebook, “Is any Briton suitable for Europe’s top job?”(21 October 2009).
We looked at some early observations on the need for open election procedures and “objective” criteria concerning countries and candidates.
***
Written declaration
I found the issue intriguing enough to locate the written declaration by the five MEPs. Here is the text of the written declaration, in French:
« A l'initiative de Robert Goebbels, cinq députés européens viennent de déposer au Parlement européen une déclaration écrite sur la nomination du futur président du Conseil européen.
Le Traité de Lisbonne confère aux seuls Chefs d'Etat et de Gouvernement, réunis au Conseil européen, le droit de désigner le futur président permanent du Conseil européen. Or, selon les cinq députés (outre Robert Goebbels on note Klaus-Heiner Lehne, président de la Commission Juridique; Herbert Reul, président de la Commission de l'Industrie; Jo Leinen, président de la Commission de l'Environnement et Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, coordinateur au Groupe libéral), le Parlement européen ne peut pas simplement enregistrer ce futur président du Conseil, qui sera le visage et la voix de l'Europe.
Pour cette raison les députés dressent un profil du futur président, qui devrait venir d'un pays qui a adopté ou a la volonté d'adopter l'Euro, un pays faisant partie de l'espace Schengen et ne refusant pas l'application de la Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux. Faut-il souligner que ce profil ne correspond absolument pas au candidat préféré de quelques grands pays, à savoir l'ancien Premier ministre du Royaume-Uni Tony Blair?
Si la moitié des députés européens devaient signer cette déclaration écrite, elle aurait valeur de résolution adoptée par le Parlement européen et serait publiée au journal officiel de l'Union européenne.
DÉCLARATION ÉCRITE
déposée conformément à l'article 123 du règlement
par Jorgo CHATZIMARKAKIS, Robert GOEBBELS, Jo LEINEN, Klaus-Heiner LEHNE, Herbert REUL
sur la nomination du futur président ou de la future présidente du Conseil européen
Déclaration écrite sur la nomination du futur président ou de la future présidente du Conseil européen
Le Parlement européen,
– vu l'article 123 de son règlement,
A. considérant que le Traité de Lisbonne confère au seul Conseil européen le droit de nommer un président permanent du Conseil,
B. considérant que le futur président ou la future présidente du Conseil européen deviendra la voix de toute l’Union européenne,
C. considérant que le Parlement européen directement élu par les peuples d’Europe ne peut pas simplement enregistrer le choix des Chefs d’Etat et de Gouvernement,
1. exige du Conseil européen de nommer comme président permanent une personnalité avec laquelle les peuples d’Europe puissent s'identifier,
2. estime qu’une telle personnalité doit avoir fait preuve de sa capacité de faire avancer l’Union européenne vers une "union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples de l'Europe",
3. est convaincu que cette personnalité
- ne peut venir que d’un Etat membre qui a adopté ou reste déterminé à adopter la monnaie commune européenne,
- doit être issue d’un Etat membre faisant partie ou voulant faire partie de l’espace Schengen garantissant la libre circulation des citoyens,
- doit provenir d’un Etat membre ne refusant pas l’application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne sur son territoire,
4. charge son Président de transmettre la présente déclaration, accompagnée du nom des signataires, à la Commission, au Conseil et aux parlements des États membres. »
***
Grahnlaw
This blog has discussed the election of the new President of the European Council (and the High Representative/Vice-President) in numerous posts. The election procedures should be open and they should engage the EU citizens. The merits of the country and of the individual candidates have to be taken into account.
Here are some of the blog posts dealing with the election of the President of the European Council:
President of the European Council (10 February 2008)
Heavyweight president for the European Council? (19 March 2008)
Lisbon Treaty& European Council: “Presidential elections” (23 March 2009)
Lisbon Treaty & European Council: President’s job (24 March 2009)
Gordon Brown’s European mainstream (29 March 2009)
Tony Blair new “EU President”? (8 April 2009)
NATO & EU: Rewarding freeloading? (11 April 2009)
European Council President: Eliminating unwilling countries (11 April 2009)
Gordon Brown as President of the European Council? (16 June 2009)
Ever closer union (28 June 2009)
“EU President” Tony Blair? (17 July 2009)
Why President Blair? (3 October 2009)
EU capitals: Time to nominate candidates for President & High Representative (5 October 2009)
No EU President (5 October 2009)
USA & EU: Comparing Presidents (6 October 2009)
Tony Blair wrong choice for Europe (7 October 2009)
New EU High Representative – the most important job (8 October 2009)
If Britons do not support Tony Blair? (16 October 2009)
Why support Mary Robinson for President of the European Council? (21 October 2009)
Charlemagne and President of the European Council (22 October 2009)
***
If I remember correctly, 17 EU member states fulfil all the criteria. In other words, there is a considerable talent pool available, and one can always discuss if every requirement is necessary, because the individual engagement is just as important.
It is at least as important that the European Council opens up the election procedures to the citizens of the European Union. Openness is the first test of the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
We looked at some early observations on the need for open election procedures and “objective” criteria concerning countries and candidates.
***
Written declaration
I found the issue intriguing enough to locate the written declaration by the five MEPs. Here is the text of the written declaration, in French:
« A l'initiative de Robert Goebbels, cinq députés européens viennent de déposer au Parlement européen une déclaration écrite sur la nomination du futur président du Conseil européen.
Le Traité de Lisbonne confère aux seuls Chefs d'Etat et de Gouvernement, réunis au Conseil européen, le droit de désigner le futur président permanent du Conseil européen. Or, selon les cinq députés (outre Robert Goebbels on note Klaus-Heiner Lehne, président de la Commission Juridique; Herbert Reul, président de la Commission de l'Industrie; Jo Leinen, président de la Commission de l'Environnement et Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, coordinateur au Groupe libéral), le Parlement européen ne peut pas simplement enregistrer ce futur président du Conseil, qui sera le visage et la voix de l'Europe.
Pour cette raison les députés dressent un profil du futur président, qui devrait venir d'un pays qui a adopté ou a la volonté d'adopter l'Euro, un pays faisant partie de l'espace Schengen et ne refusant pas l'application de la Charte européenne des droits fondamentaux. Faut-il souligner que ce profil ne correspond absolument pas au candidat préféré de quelques grands pays, à savoir l'ancien Premier ministre du Royaume-Uni Tony Blair?
Si la moitié des députés européens devaient signer cette déclaration écrite, elle aurait valeur de résolution adoptée par le Parlement européen et serait publiée au journal officiel de l'Union européenne.
DÉCLARATION ÉCRITE
déposée conformément à l'article 123 du règlement
par Jorgo CHATZIMARKAKIS, Robert GOEBBELS, Jo LEINEN, Klaus-Heiner LEHNE, Herbert REUL
sur la nomination du futur président ou de la future présidente du Conseil européen
Déclaration écrite sur la nomination du futur président ou de la future présidente du Conseil européen
Le Parlement européen,
– vu l'article 123 de son règlement,
A. considérant que le Traité de Lisbonne confère au seul Conseil européen le droit de nommer un président permanent du Conseil,
B. considérant que le futur président ou la future présidente du Conseil européen deviendra la voix de toute l’Union européenne,
C. considérant que le Parlement européen directement élu par les peuples d’Europe ne peut pas simplement enregistrer le choix des Chefs d’Etat et de Gouvernement,
1. exige du Conseil européen de nommer comme président permanent une personnalité avec laquelle les peuples d’Europe puissent s'identifier,
2. estime qu’une telle personnalité doit avoir fait preuve de sa capacité de faire avancer l’Union européenne vers une "union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples de l'Europe",
3. est convaincu que cette personnalité
- ne peut venir que d’un Etat membre qui a adopté ou reste déterminé à adopter la monnaie commune européenne,
- doit être issue d’un Etat membre faisant partie ou voulant faire partie de l’espace Schengen garantissant la libre circulation des citoyens,
- doit provenir d’un Etat membre ne refusant pas l’application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne sur son territoire,
4. charge son Président de transmettre la présente déclaration, accompagnée du nom des signataires, à la Commission, au Conseil et aux parlements des États membres. »
***
Grahnlaw
This blog has discussed the election of the new President of the European Council (and the High Representative/Vice-President) in numerous posts. The election procedures should be open and they should engage the EU citizens. The merits of the country and of the individual candidates have to be taken into account.
Here are some of the blog posts dealing with the election of the President of the European Council:
President of the European Council (10 February 2008)
Heavyweight president for the European Council? (19 March 2008)
Lisbon Treaty& European Council: “Presidential elections” (23 March 2009)
Lisbon Treaty & European Council: President’s job (24 March 2009)
Gordon Brown’s European mainstream (29 March 2009)
Tony Blair new “EU President”? (8 April 2009)
NATO & EU: Rewarding freeloading? (11 April 2009)
European Council President: Eliminating unwilling countries (11 April 2009)
Gordon Brown as President of the European Council? (16 June 2009)
Ever closer union (28 June 2009)
“EU President” Tony Blair? (17 July 2009)
Why President Blair? (3 October 2009)
EU capitals: Time to nominate candidates for President & High Representative (5 October 2009)
No EU President (5 October 2009)
USA & EU: Comparing Presidents (6 October 2009)
Tony Blair wrong choice for Europe (7 October 2009)
New EU High Representative – the most important job (8 October 2009)
If Britons do not support Tony Blair? (16 October 2009)
Why support Mary Robinson for President of the European Council? (21 October 2009)
Charlemagne and President of the European Council (22 October 2009)
***
If I remember correctly, 17 EU member states fulfil all the criteria. In other words, there is a considerable talent pool available, and one can always discuss if every requirement is necessary, because the individual engagement is just as important.
It is at least as important that the European Council opens up the election procedures to the citizens of the European Union. Openness is the first test of the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Tony Blair wrong choice for Europe
“Tony Blair would be a good choice for Europe”, writes Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform in the Financial Times (6 October 2009). Because the President of the European Council lacks formal powers, his influence will depend on his force of personality, powers of persuasion and contact book.
According to Grant, Blair has a track record as a successful politician, he would give the European Union credibility in other parts of the world, he is a great salesman and he could help the EU to deal with a new Conservative government from 2010.
***
World stage
The sad reality is that the European Union will still lack a real foreign and security policy when the Lisbon Treaty is in force, although the treaty improves the input and output mechanisms.
Nearly all of Grant’s arguments boil down to psychology. Are world powers going to be taken in by band-aid solutions, essentially built on “personality”? Are the players on the world stage that unsophisticated and unconcerned about real credentials?
The (s)election of Blair would be yet another example of the French paradox in EU politics: the will to attain “gloire” without the commensurate means.
Why choose a European Council President almost guaranteed to try to upstage the High Representative/Vice-President in international affairs, instead of promoting progress in the other policy areas covered by the European Council?
***
Britain
Why make a future choice as a gift to a Labour government, which seems to be on its way to retirement?
Would Blair would be a real help with the probable next Conservative government, when the Tories oppose his nomination?
If a Conservative government starts the process to repatriate powers, the United Kingdom may be heading for withdrawal before the first term of a European Council President is ended.
Why hand-pick a candidate the British public does not want?
***
Europe
The governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy have expressed support for Blair. The media have spread rumours about French support and weakening of German resistance.
Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have set the stage for a more limited role, in line with the Lisbon Treaty provisions.
The selection of the President of the European Council is in the hands of 27 electors. There are no procedures in place for open nominations and competition. The European Parliament and EU citizens are outside the loop. The legitimacy of the appointee does not extend beyond the caucus of the heads of state or government.
The EU leaders cannot count on a favourable public opinion in Europe, if they select Blair. On the contrary, they can be sure of considerable opposition. Would it be wise to widen the chasm between themselves and the public by acting in an authoritarian manner?
In the long run it could be better to opt for a strategic mind and a steady pair of hands to facilitate the substance of the directions and priorities the European Union needs, if it wants to play a constructive role in the world and in the lives of its citizens.
Here are some of the worthy persons who have been mentioned:
Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands
François Fillon, Prime Minister of France
Felipe González, former Prime Minister of Spain
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
Paavo Lipponen, former Prime Minister of Finland
Chris Patten, former UK Government Minister, EU Commissioner for External Relations and last Governor of Hong Kong
Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Herman Van Rompuy. Prime Minister of Belgium
***
High Representative/Vice-President
The painstaking process of shaping convergent European views on foreign and security policy might be better served by giving the new High Representative/Vice-President the backing to serve without too much interference from an overzealous President of the European Council.
There has been speculation about at least the following few worthy names:
Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister of Sweden
Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany
Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy and former EU Commissioner
Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Minister of France
Olli Rehn, Commissioner in charge of EU enlargement
Frank Walter Steinmeier, outgoing German Foreign Minister
There are certainly other good names out there, but it is important that EU citizens start the discussion without waiting for the white smoke to rise from the European Council.
Ralf Grahn
According to Grant, Blair has a track record as a successful politician, he would give the European Union credibility in other parts of the world, he is a great salesman and he could help the EU to deal with a new Conservative government from 2010.
***
World stage
The sad reality is that the European Union will still lack a real foreign and security policy when the Lisbon Treaty is in force, although the treaty improves the input and output mechanisms.
Nearly all of Grant’s arguments boil down to psychology. Are world powers going to be taken in by band-aid solutions, essentially built on “personality”? Are the players on the world stage that unsophisticated and unconcerned about real credentials?
The (s)election of Blair would be yet another example of the French paradox in EU politics: the will to attain “gloire” without the commensurate means.
Why choose a European Council President almost guaranteed to try to upstage the High Representative/Vice-President in international affairs, instead of promoting progress in the other policy areas covered by the European Council?
***
Britain
Why make a future choice as a gift to a Labour government, which seems to be on its way to retirement?
Would Blair would be a real help with the probable next Conservative government, when the Tories oppose his nomination?
If a Conservative government starts the process to repatriate powers, the United Kingdom may be heading for withdrawal before the first term of a European Council President is ended.
Why hand-pick a candidate the British public does not want?
***
Europe
The governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy have expressed support for Blair. The media have spread rumours about French support and weakening of German resistance.
Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have set the stage for a more limited role, in line with the Lisbon Treaty provisions.
The selection of the President of the European Council is in the hands of 27 electors. There are no procedures in place for open nominations and competition. The European Parliament and EU citizens are outside the loop. The legitimacy of the appointee does not extend beyond the caucus of the heads of state or government.
The EU leaders cannot count on a favourable public opinion in Europe, if they select Blair. On the contrary, they can be sure of considerable opposition. Would it be wise to widen the chasm between themselves and the public by acting in an authoritarian manner?
In the long run it could be better to opt for a strategic mind and a steady pair of hands to facilitate the substance of the directions and priorities the European Union needs, if it wants to play a constructive role in the world and in the lives of its citizens.
Here are some of the worthy persons who have been mentioned:
Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands
François Fillon, Prime Minister of France
Felipe González, former Prime Minister of Spain
Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg
Paavo Lipponen, former Prime Minister of Finland
Chris Patten, former UK Government Minister, EU Commissioner for External Relations and last Governor of Hong Kong
Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Herman Van Rompuy. Prime Minister of Belgium
***
High Representative/Vice-President
The painstaking process of shaping convergent European views on foreign and security policy might be better served by giving the new High Representative/Vice-President the backing to serve without too much interference from an overzealous President of the European Council.
There has been speculation about at least the following few worthy names:
Carl Bildt, Foreign Minister of Sweden
Joschka Fischer, former Foreign Minister of Germany
Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy and former EU Commissioner
Bernard Kouchner, Foreign Minister of France
Olli Rehn, Commissioner in charge of EU enlargement
Frank Walter Steinmeier, outgoing German Foreign Minister
There are certainly other good names out there, but it is important that EU citizens start the discussion without waiting for the white smoke to rise from the European Council.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Gordon Brown as President of the European Council?
The European level parties, which could have offered alternatives, failed before the European elections, contributed to their defeat at the elections, and they look set to fail in the newly elected European Parliament.
Without a coalition in the European Parliament with the necessary votes behind a better candidate, how much point is there in discussing the second term for José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?
Show me a realistic alternative, and I will gladly continue the discussion, but Barroso is practically anointed, by an electoral college of 27.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is time to look ahead.
***
Two top jobs
If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, two top jobs will be filled: the new semi-permanent President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative/Vice-President.
This is why I presented the framework in the mock jobs advertisement: European Council recruitment: President and High Representative (14 June 2009).
Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog added a concrete element to the discussion by speculating: Food For Thought: Gordon Brown as the EU’s First Full-Time President? (15 June 2009)
By adding a known personality, Barber does the discussion a service. For or against, he helps to ignite a forward-looking discussion.
***
Personality test or objective criteria?
Admittedly, at least one of the three top spots should go to a national of one of the big member states. What I find less convincing is that the President of the European Council would be a much greater asset for the European Union if he or she is an internationally known ex-leader (such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown).
First of all, the Treaty of Lisbon seems to be written with a more ceremonial European Council President in mind; the member states have not presented a detailed job description even for public discussion. Secondly, the High Representative (not the President) is the one designed to run the foreign policy of the European Union. Thirdly, an ex-leader has no special muscle; other world leaders coolly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the European Union based on the force and cohesion of the EU, or the lack thereof; personalities come a distant second.
In my view, the candidates should be evaluated with a view their coming tasks: the whole panoply of EU affairs for the President of the European Council and foreign, security and defence policy for the High Representative.
***
More objective criteria
Gordon Brown and any other candidate should be judged on the merits – of country and person.
A European defence has to be the long term goal of the European Union, with NATO as an important military alliance.
In my opinion, due to their ambiguous relation to an EU defence and the transatlantic NATO relationship, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden had disqualified themselves from filling the posts of President of the European Council and double-hatted High Representative.
Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
The remaining countries and persons should be evaluated on their contributions.
***
The President of the European Council is supposed to chair and drive forward the work of the European Council. Therefore, the other evolving core areas of the European Union are important, when assessing the track record.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside, but for new member states a firm intent should be enough.
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet. The commitment should suffice at this stage.
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Democratic reform
As long as the Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Polish President Lexh Kaczynski prolong the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, their countries should be excluded from consideration for the top jobs.
Long term, a commitment to an effective and democratic European Union, beyond the Lisbon Treaty, should be the hallmarks of the contenders for the top offices.
***
Talent pool
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or any other candidate for the office of President of the European Council or empowered High Representative comes from a member state engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
***
Election procedure
The heads of state or government have granted themselves the right to appoint the President of the European Council and the new High Representative, but nothing prevents them from seeking open debate and the backing of the citizens of the European Union.
Public nominations of candidates within set deadlines and open campaigns with media debates are easy to arrange, if the political will is there.
Ralf Grahn
Without a coalition in the European Parliament with the necessary votes behind a better candidate, how much point is there in discussing the second term for José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?
Show me a realistic alternative, and I will gladly continue the discussion, but Barroso is practically anointed, by an electoral college of 27.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is time to look ahead.
***
Two top jobs
If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, two top jobs will be filled: the new semi-permanent President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative/Vice-President.
This is why I presented the framework in the mock jobs advertisement: European Council recruitment: President and High Representative (14 June 2009).
Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog added a concrete element to the discussion by speculating: Food For Thought: Gordon Brown as the EU’s First Full-Time President? (15 June 2009)
By adding a known personality, Barber does the discussion a service. For or against, he helps to ignite a forward-looking discussion.
***
Personality test or objective criteria?
Admittedly, at least one of the three top spots should go to a national of one of the big member states. What I find less convincing is that the President of the European Council would be a much greater asset for the European Union if he or she is an internationally known ex-leader (such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown).
First of all, the Treaty of Lisbon seems to be written with a more ceremonial European Council President in mind; the member states have not presented a detailed job description even for public discussion. Secondly, the High Representative (not the President) is the one designed to run the foreign policy of the European Union. Thirdly, an ex-leader has no special muscle; other world leaders coolly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the European Union based on the force and cohesion of the EU, or the lack thereof; personalities come a distant second.
In my view, the candidates should be evaluated with a view their coming tasks: the whole panoply of EU affairs for the President of the European Council and foreign, security and defence policy for the High Representative.
***
More objective criteria
Gordon Brown and any other candidate should be judged on the merits – of country and person.
A European defence has to be the long term goal of the European Union, with NATO as an important military alliance.
In my opinion, due to their ambiguous relation to an EU defence and the transatlantic NATO relationship, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden had disqualified themselves from filling the posts of President of the European Council and double-hatted High Representative.
Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
The remaining countries and persons should be evaluated on their contributions.
***
The President of the European Council is supposed to chair and drive forward the work of the European Council. Therefore, the other evolving core areas of the European Union are important, when assessing the track record.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside, but for new member states a firm intent should be enough.
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet. The commitment should suffice at this stage.
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Democratic reform
As long as the Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Polish President Lexh Kaczynski prolong the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, their countries should be excluded from consideration for the top jobs.
Long term, a commitment to an effective and democratic European Union, beyond the Lisbon Treaty, should be the hallmarks of the contenders for the top offices.
***
Talent pool
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or any other candidate for the office of President of the European Council or empowered High Representative comes from a member state engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
***
Election procedure
The heads of state or government have granted themselves the right to appoint the President of the European Council and the new High Representative, but nothing prevents them from seeking open debate and the backing of the citizens of the European Union.
Public nominations of candidates within set deadlines and open campaigns with media debates are easy to arrange, if the political will is there.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Tony Blair new ”EU President”?
Because the Independent has relaunched Tony Blair’s candidacy for the post of President of the European Council, Re:Europa discusses the Properties of a President and concludes that a British President (Tony Blair) is out of the question, if Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are serious about regulating financial markets.
There is more discussion on the Independent’s campaign on the European Tribune.
***
Principled approach
In my view, three aspects need to be discussed before we turn to Tony Blair or any other candidate for the new post.
President of what?
The Treaty of Lisbon, if it enters into force, does not create a “President of the EU”. It does create the job of a President of the European Council, for someone to chair four annual meetings and to facilitate progress in between. International representative duties are not to be conducted at the expense of the High Representative.
Despite the limitations, the post is too important to be left solely to our national leaders.
Track record
When electing the person, thought should be given to the contribution by the country of origin and the personal role of the candidate.
The evolving core areas of EU action are crucial.
1) A European Union speaking with one voice in the world. Moves to achieve a coherent and consistent European common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and common security and defence policy (CSDP), away from solo flying by individual member states (including the UN Security Council, international orgnisations and relations with the USA). A proven commitment to a common European defence, in alliance with NATO.
2) The Schengen agreement abolishing border controls between the member states.
3) Adoption or at least the clear commitment to adopt the common currency (euro).
4) Justice and home affairs: Full participation in the area of freedom, security and justice.
5) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
6) Institutional reform: A driving force during the European Convention, the intergovernmental conference leading to the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and the IGC 2007 leading to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Future reform
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Union will continue to be a “hobbled giant”. Effective action and democratic legitimacy require further institutional reform.
The candidates have to prove not only their credentials, but their visions to the EU citizens they are willing to serve.
Election procedure
The European Council needs to arrange the election procedures in an open and transparent manner, inviting public discussion and campaigning.
Deals behind closed doors are possible only if the members of the European Council feel that EU citizens are not alienated enough from their project.
Candidate Blair
I invite readers to analyse the past actions of the United Kingdom and its long serving prime minister Tony Blair.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Ponder criteria and candidates from an EU perspective. It is unfair to blame Blair for not achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, when the God of three religions has failed.
There is more discussion on the Independent’s campaign on the European Tribune.
***
Principled approach
In my view, three aspects need to be discussed before we turn to Tony Blair or any other candidate for the new post.
President of what?
The Treaty of Lisbon, if it enters into force, does not create a “President of the EU”. It does create the job of a President of the European Council, for someone to chair four annual meetings and to facilitate progress in between. International representative duties are not to be conducted at the expense of the High Representative.
Despite the limitations, the post is too important to be left solely to our national leaders.
Track record
When electing the person, thought should be given to the contribution by the country of origin and the personal role of the candidate.
The evolving core areas of EU action are crucial.
1) A European Union speaking with one voice in the world. Moves to achieve a coherent and consistent European common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and common security and defence policy (CSDP), away from solo flying by individual member states (including the UN Security Council, international orgnisations and relations with the USA). A proven commitment to a common European defence, in alliance with NATO.
2) The Schengen agreement abolishing border controls between the member states.
3) Adoption or at least the clear commitment to adopt the common currency (euro).
4) Justice and home affairs: Full participation in the area of freedom, security and justice.
5) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
6) Institutional reform: A driving force during the European Convention, the intergovernmental conference leading to the 2004 Constitutional Treaty and the IGC 2007 leading to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Future reform
Even if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Union will continue to be a “hobbled giant”. Effective action and democratic legitimacy require further institutional reform.
The candidates have to prove not only their credentials, but their visions to the EU citizens they are willing to serve.
Election procedure
The European Council needs to arrange the election procedures in an open and transparent manner, inviting public discussion and campaigning.
Deals behind closed doors are possible only if the members of the European Council feel that EU citizens are not alienated enough from their project.
Candidate Blair
I invite readers to analyse the past actions of the United Kingdom and its long serving prime minister Tony Blair.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Ponder criteria and candidates from an EU perspective. It is unfair to blame Blair for not achieving lasting peace in the Middle East, when the God of three religions has failed.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Lisbon Treaty & European Council: “Presidential elections”
The Treaty of Lisbon would endow the European Union with a new office-holder: the President of the European Council.
The new President would be elected by the European Council, by a qualified majority.
The President’s term in office would be two and a half years, renewable once.
The relevant provision is Article 15(5) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/23:
Article 15(5) TEU
5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
***
Declaration 6
In Declaration 6 the heads of state or government (intergovernmental conference) agreed on the following guidance for the election of the President of the European Council (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/338):
6. Declaration on Article 15(5) and (6), Article 17(6) and (7) and Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union
In choosing the persons called upon to hold the offices of President of the European Council, President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States.
***
Development of Council Presidency
In The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations (joint study by CEPS, EGMONT and EPC, November 2007), the chapter The Presidency of the Council: The paradox of the new presidency (from page 39) paints a background picture of how the Council Presidency has evolved, and presents an analysis of weaknesses of and the requirements for the potential success of the proposed system.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council Presidency will be split up into no less than five different and somewhat unconnected levels of responsibility namely (page 46):
(1) the President of the European Council,
(2) the group of three Member States in the eighteen-month Presidency Team,
(3) the Member State in the team holding the six-month Presidency,
(4) the High Representative for foreign policy, President of the Foreign Aff airs Council, and
(5) the President of the euro group.
***
Pros and cons
Another discussion of the pros and cons of the permanent President of the European Council is presented in the UK House of Lords report The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report (HL Paper 62-I, 13 March 2008), from page 41.
The witnesses presented quite different views on how difficult the coordination between the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council, the High Representative and the member state holding the rotating Council Presidency would turn out to be.
Conclusion 4.34 acknowledged the significance of the post and the disputed role of the President of the European Council (page 48):
“The creation of a full-time European Council President, in place of a six-monthly rotation among heads of government, is a significant move, and is likely to make the European Council more effective at creating direction and action. This could mean a more active/activist European Council—a consequence which would be welcomed in some quarters but not in others.”
***
European elections
In Think global, act European (published by Notre Europe), thirteen European think tanks gave their views to the upcoming trio, the EU Council Presidencies of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, against the background of the planned entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul and Elvire Fabry advised against including the President of the Commission in a crude package deal within the European Council (page 19):
“The troika must also take care to ensure that the European Council does not agree to any upstream intergovernmental deal concerning the nominations of the Council president, the Commission president and the High Representative. The appointment of the new President of the Commission should depend upon the outcome of the European elections of June 2009. More than ever these elections need a genuine political agenda in order to mobilise voters, since turnout has been declining since 1979.”
***
Interinstitutional agreement
The thirteen think-tanks made further recommendations on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The trio of Council Presidencies should negotiate an interinstitutional agreement with the Commission and the European Parliament (page 25):
“To negotiate with the Commission and the European Parliament a sort of “code of conduct” (Europeum), an inter-institutional agreement to define the principles that should prevail not just in the choice of individuals to fill key posts, but also in the way these new functions will be incorporated into the existing institutional framework (impact on COREPER, working groups, rotating Presidencies, role of the General Affairs Council, conciliation of co-decision, etc.) (SIEPS, DemosEuropa).”
***
Selection of President
The think tanks made the following recommendation for the selection of the President of the European Council (page 26):
“To select a President of the European Council who does not become, in any form whatsoever, a rival to the President of the European Commission. The Council President should be a prominent European figure respected by all member states, capable of having authority vis-à-vis the exterior and, at the same time, of building a consensus within the community. This implies someone from the heart of the current European integration process, that is from a member of the euro-zone and of the Schengen Agreement (CEPS, Eliamep, Notre Europe).”
***
Interinstitutional relations
The post of the President of the Commission and the new posts of President of the European Council and the double-hatted High Representative are linked, as shown by Declaration 6 (above). It is possible that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty coincides more or less exactly with the start of the next Commission’s term of office, and the Treaty of Lisbon creates the two other posts.
On 9 March 2009 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) of the European Parliament voted on the draft report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (2008/2073(INI)).
The AFCO report proposes a procedure and a timetable for the nominations, with a wish to see them applied already after the June 2009 European elections:
“42. In this context, proposes as a possible model the following procedure and timetable for the nominations, which could be agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council:
– weeks 1 and 2 after the European elections: installation of the political groups in the European Parliament;
– week 3 after the elections: consultations between the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament, followed by separate meetings between the President of the European Council and the Presidents of the political groups (possibly also with the Presidents of the European political families or restricted delegations);
– week 4 after the elections: indication by the European Council, taking into account the results of the consultations mentioned in the previous indent, of the candidate for President of the Commission;
– weeks 5 and 6 after the elections: contacts between the candidate for President of the Commission and the political groups; statements by that candidate and presentation of his/her political guidelines to the European Parliament; vote in the European Parliament on the candidate for President of the Commission;
– July/August/September: the elected President of the Commission agrees with the European Council on the nomination of the High Representative and proposes the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September: the European Council adopts the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September/October: hearings of the Commissioners-designate and of the High Representative/Vice-President-designate by the European Parliament;
– October: presentation of the college of Commissioners and their programme to the European Parliament; vote on the entire college (including the High Representative/Vice-President); the European Council approves the new Commission; the new Commission takes up its duties;
– November: the European Council nominates the President of the European Council;
***
EP President
Against the background of the link between the posts and the Deahaene report, at the spring European Council the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering spoke about the nomination and the election of the next President of the Commission, but with implications for the whole “package”:
“What we need in this difficult situation is a clear timetable. On 14 July the newly-elected European Parliament will hold its constitutative part-session.
No matter what, we want that the election of the President of the Commission takes place on 15 July 2009. This election must reflect the outcome of the European elections. For this to happen, consultations between the Council Presidency and the European Parliament will be necessary.
This consultation procedure need not be exclusively related to the choice of person for Commission President, but must also include upcoming legal, political and personnel questions.
Parliament would be willing to conduct them after the elections and before the June meeting of the European Council. We must also make arrangements to ensure that the new Commission can still take office this year.”
***
Reflections
Instead of a European Union based on representative democracy, with a directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable executive built on the existing Commission, the leaders of the member states have opted for the strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council, where they direct union affairs.
A permanent President of the European Council serves this interest by bringing continuity to the post and by full-time employment.
As an internal choice of the European Council, without direct input from the EU’s citizens or the other institutions, the new President has little democratic legitimacy. He or she is selected behind closed doors by an electoral college of 27. These are “Presidential elections” European style.
Against this background, the President of the European Council is not and cannot be the President of Europe. Possibly, the new position will sow confusion outside and create complications inside.
If the six month rotating presidency is felt to be inadequate for the European Council, the post could be merged with the post of the President of the Commission, which would give it a modicum of democratic legitimacy at the current stage of development, as well as continuity. This has been proposed by the WhoDoICall.eu campaign.
A future directly elected President of the European Council, as some have speculated, would in my opinion be a wrong turn, leading to a presidential system alien to most of the EU member states, with the notable exception of France. The vast majority of the member states are parliamentary democracies, and there is reason to simplify the structures at EU level, not to add complications.
In the long run, if the European project is to survive and prosper, it has to be re-founded on its citizens, with a democratically legitimate government.
Ralf Grahn
The new President would be elected by the European Council, by a qualified majority.
The President’s term in office would be two and a half years, renewable once.
The relevant provision is Article 15(5) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), published in the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/23:
Article 15(5) TEU
5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
***
Declaration 6
In Declaration 6 the heads of state or government (intergovernmental conference) agreed on the following guidance for the election of the President of the European Council (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/338):
6. Declaration on Article 15(5) and (6), Article 17(6) and (7) and Article 18 of the Treaty on European Union
In choosing the persons called upon to hold the offices of President of the European Council, President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, due account is to be taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the Union and its Member States.
***
Development of Council Presidency
In The Treaty of Lisbon: Implementing the Institutional Innovations (joint study by CEPS, EGMONT and EPC, November 2007), the chapter The Presidency of the Council: The paradox of the new presidency (from page 39) paints a background picture of how the Council Presidency has evolved, and presents an analysis of weaknesses of and the requirements for the potential success of the proposed system.
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the Council Presidency will be split up into no less than five different and somewhat unconnected levels of responsibility namely (page 46):
(1) the President of the European Council,
(2) the group of three Member States in the eighteen-month Presidency Team,
(3) the Member State in the team holding the six-month Presidency,
(4) the High Representative for foreign policy, President of the Foreign Aff airs Council, and
(5) the President of the euro group.
***
Pros and cons
Another discussion of the pros and cons of the permanent President of the European Council is presented in the UK House of Lords report The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report (HL Paper 62-I, 13 March 2008), from page 41.
The witnesses presented quite different views on how difficult the coordination between the President of the Commission, the President of the European Council, the High Representative and the member state holding the rotating Council Presidency would turn out to be.
Conclusion 4.34 acknowledged the significance of the post and the disputed role of the President of the European Council (page 48):
“The creation of a full-time European Council President, in place of a six-monthly rotation among heads of government, is a significant move, and is likely to make the European Council more effective at creating direction and action. This could mean a more active/activist European Council—a consequence which would be welcomed in some quarters but not in others.”
***
European elections
In Think global, act European (published by Notre Europe), thirteen European think tanks gave their views to the upcoming trio, the EU Council Presidencies of France, the Czech Republic and Sweden, against the background of the planned entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul and Elvire Fabry advised against including the President of the Commission in a crude package deal within the European Council (page 19):
“The troika must also take care to ensure that the European Council does not agree to any upstream intergovernmental deal concerning the nominations of the Council president, the Commission president and the High Representative. The appointment of the new President of the Commission should depend upon the outcome of the European elections of June 2009. More than ever these elections need a genuine political agenda in order to mobilise voters, since turnout has been declining since 1979.”
***
Interinstitutional agreement
The thirteen think-tanks made further recommendations on the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. The trio of Council Presidencies should negotiate an interinstitutional agreement with the Commission and the European Parliament (page 25):
“To negotiate with the Commission and the European Parliament a sort of “code of conduct” (Europeum), an inter-institutional agreement to define the principles that should prevail not just in the choice of individuals to fill key posts, but also in the way these new functions will be incorporated into the existing institutional framework (impact on COREPER, working groups, rotating Presidencies, role of the General Affairs Council, conciliation of co-decision, etc.) (SIEPS, DemosEuropa).”
***
Selection of President
The think tanks made the following recommendation for the selection of the President of the European Council (page 26):
“To select a President of the European Council who does not become, in any form whatsoever, a rival to the President of the European Commission. The Council President should be a prominent European figure respected by all member states, capable of having authority vis-à-vis the exterior and, at the same time, of building a consensus within the community. This implies someone from the heart of the current European integration process, that is from a member of the euro-zone and of the Schengen Agreement (CEPS, Eliamep, Notre Europe).”
***
Interinstitutional relations
The post of the President of the Commission and the new posts of President of the European Council and the double-hatted High Representative are linked, as shown by Declaration 6 (above). It is possible that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty coincides more or less exactly with the start of the next Commission’s term of office, and the Treaty of Lisbon creates the two other posts.
On 9 March 2009 the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) of the European Parliament voted on the draft report by Jean-Luc Dehaene on the impact of the Treaty of Lisbon on the development of the institutional balance of the European Union (2008/2073(INI)).
The AFCO report proposes a procedure and a timetable for the nominations, with a wish to see them applied already after the June 2009 European elections:
“42. In this context, proposes as a possible model the following procedure and timetable for the nominations, which could be agreed by the European Parliament and the European Council:
– weeks 1 and 2 after the European elections: installation of the political groups in the European Parliament;
– week 3 after the elections: consultations between the President of the European Council and the President of the European Parliament, followed by separate meetings between the President of the European Council and the Presidents of the political groups (possibly also with the Presidents of the European political families or restricted delegations);
– week 4 after the elections: indication by the European Council, taking into account the results of the consultations mentioned in the previous indent, of the candidate for President of the Commission;
– weeks 5 and 6 after the elections: contacts between the candidate for President of the Commission and the political groups; statements by that candidate and presentation of his/her political guidelines to the European Parliament; vote in the European Parliament on the candidate for President of the Commission;
– July/August/September: the elected President of the Commission agrees with the European Council on the nomination of the High Representative and proposes the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September: the European Council adopts the list of Commissioners-designate (including the High Representative/Vice-President);
– September/October: hearings of the Commissioners-designate and of the High Representative/Vice-President-designate by the European Parliament;
– October: presentation of the college of Commissioners and their programme to the European Parliament; vote on the entire college (including the High Representative/Vice-President); the European Council approves the new Commission; the new Commission takes up its duties;
– November: the European Council nominates the President of the European Council;
***
EP President
Against the background of the link between the posts and the Deahaene report, at the spring European Council the President of the European Parliament Hans-Gert Pöttering spoke about the nomination and the election of the next President of the Commission, but with implications for the whole “package”:
“What we need in this difficult situation is a clear timetable. On 14 July the newly-elected European Parliament will hold its constitutative part-session.
No matter what, we want that the election of the President of the Commission takes place on 15 July 2009. This election must reflect the outcome of the European elections. For this to happen, consultations between the Council Presidency and the European Parliament will be necessary.
This consultation procedure need not be exclusively related to the choice of person for Commission President, but must also include upcoming legal, political and personnel questions.
Parliament would be willing to conduct them after the elections and before the June meeting of the European Council. We must also make arrangements to ensure that the new Commission can still take office this year.”
***
Reflections
Instead of a European Union based on representative democracy, with a directly elected European Parliament and a politically accountable executive built on the existing Commission, the leaders of the member states have opted for the strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council, where they direct union affairs.
A permanent President of the European Council serves this interest by bringing continuity to the post and by full-time employment.
As an internal choice of the European Council, without direct input from the EU’s citizens or the other institutions, the new President has little democratic legitimacy. He or she is selected behind closed doors by an electoral college of 27. These are “Presidential elections” European style.
Against this background, the President of the European Council is not and cannot be the President of Europe. Possibly, the new position will sow confusion outside and create complications inside.
If the six month rotating presidency is felt to be inadequate for the European Council, the post could be merged with the post of the President of the Commission, which would give it a modicum of democratic legitimacy at the current stage of development, as well as continuity. This has been proposed by the WhoDoICall.eu campaign.
A future directly elected President of the European Council, as some have speculated, would in my opinion be a wrong turn, leading to a presidential system alien to most of the EU member states, with the notable exception of France. The vast majority of the member states are parliamentary democracies, and there is reason to simplify the structures at EU level, not to add complications.
In the long run, if the European project is to survive and prosper, it has to be re-founded on its citizens, with a democratically legitimate government.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 22 February 2009
European Parliament: Quaestors
After the blog posts on the President of the European Parliament and the fourteen Vice-Presidents, we turn to the five Quaestors (or six until the next Parliament).
The deliberate choice of an ancient Roman title for these EP officers invites us to take a look at what these earlier role models were up to.
The Wikipedia article Quaestor starts by telling us that Quaestor is a type of public official. In the Roman Republic a quaestor was an elected official who supervised the treasury and the financial affairs of the state, its armies and its officers.
For more information, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaestor
***
Electing Quaestors
The five Quaestors are elected by secret ballot (Rule 12) for two and a half years (Rule 16), by the same procedure as the Vice-Presidents:
Rule 15 Election of Quaestors
After the election of the Vice-Presidents, Parliament shall elect five Quaestors.
The Quaestors shall be elected by the same procedure as the Vice-Presidents.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph, for the period from January 2007 to July 2009 Parliament shall elect six Quaestors.
***
Duties of Quaestors
The duties of the Quaestors are laid down generally in Rule 25:
Rule 25 Duties of the Quaestors
The Quaestors shall be responsible for administrative and financial matters directly concerning Members, pursuant to guidelines laid down by the Bureau.
***
Financial interests
The Quaestors keep a record of the MEPs’ declarations of professional activities and financial interests, as laid down in Rule 9(1) and Annex I
***
Bureau meetings
The Quaestors form part of the Bureau in an advisory capacity, according to Rule 21(2), and thus they participate in the duties of the Bureau, mentioned in Rule 22.
***
Passes for lobbyists
Under Rule 9(4) and Annex IX the Quaestors issue passes to registered lobbyists.
***
Members’ questions to Quaestors
MEPs can ask questions of Questors and other officers according to Rule 28(2):
2. Any Member may ask questions related to the work of the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents and the Quaestors. Such questions shall be submitted to the President in writing and published in the Bulletin of Parliament within thirty days of tabling, together with the answers given.
***
Accessible information?
According to the EP Rules of Procedure, Rule 28(1), the minutes of the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents shall be translated into the official languages, printed and distributed to all Members of Parliament and shall be accessible to the public, unless the Bureau or the Conference of Presidents exceptionally, for reasons of confidentiality, as laid down in Article 4(1) to (4) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, decides otherwise with regard to certain items of the minutes.
*
I am not quite sure about the accessibility of this information. I found a list of members of the Bureau, but failed to find other detailed information such as its minutes. I failed to find other Bureau guidelines to the Quaestors than those mentioned above.
What does the European Parliament mean by accessible to the public?
Ralf Grahn
The deliberate choice of an ancient Roman title for these EP officers invites us to take a look at what these earlier role models were up to.
The Wikipedia article Quaestor starts by telling us that Quaestor is a type of public official. In the Roman Republic a quaestor was an elected official who supervised the treasury and the financial affairs of the state, its armies and its officers.
For more information, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaestor
***
Electing Quaestors
The five Quaestors are elected by secret ballot (Rule 12) for two and a half years (Rule 16), by the same procedure as the Vice-Presidents:
Rule 15 Election of Quaestors
After the election of the Vice-Presidents, Parliament shall elect five Quaestors.
The Quaestors shall be elected by the same procedure as the Vice-Presidents.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the first paragraph, for the period from January 2007 to July 2009 Parliament shall elect six Quaestors.
***
Duties of Quaestors
The duties of the Quaestors are laid down generally in Rule 25:
Rule 25 Duties of the Quaestors
The Quaestors shall be responsible for administrative and financial matters directly concerning Members, pursuant to guidelines laid down by the Bureau.
***
Financial interests
The Quaestors keep a record of the MEPs’ declarations of professional activities and financial interests, as laid down in Rule 9(1) and Annex I
***
Bureau meetings
The Quaestors form part of the Bureau in an advisory capacity, according to Rule 21(2), and thus they participate in the duties of the Bureau, mentioned in Rule 22.
***
Passes for lobbyists
Under Rule 9(4) and Annex IX the Quaestors issue passes to registered lobbyists.
***
Members’ questions to Quaestors
MEPs can ask questions of Questors and other officers according to Rule 28(2):
2. Any Member may ask questions related to the work of the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents and the Quaestors. Such questions shall be submitted to the President in writing and published in the Bulletin of Parliament within thirty days of tabling, together with the answers given.
***
Accessible information?
According to the EP Rules of Procedure, Rule 28(1), the minutes of the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents shall be translated into the official languages, printed and distributed to all Members of Parliament and shall be accessible to the public, unless the Bureau or the Conference of Presidents exceptionally, for reasons of confidentiality, as laid down in Article 4(1) to (4) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, decides otherwise with regard to certain items of the minutes.
*
I am not quite sure about the accessibility of this information. I found a list of members of the Bureau, but failed to find other detailed information such as its minutes. I failed to find other Bureau guidelines to the Quaestors than those mentioned above.
What does the European Parliament mean by accessible to the public?
Ralf Grahn
European Parliament: Vice-Presidents
In addition to the rare appearances of the oldest member (Rule 11) and the President we looked at earlier, Chapter 2 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure mentions the following officers: Vice-Presidents and Quaestors.
Rule 14 provides for the election of fourteen Vice-Presidents after the election of the President and his or her opening address.
(The official explanation added to Rule 14(1) allows nominations between the ballots: Although this Rule, unlike Rule 13(1), does not expressly provide for new nominations to be introduced between ballots during the election of Vice-Presidents, such action is permissible because Parliament, being a sovereign body, must be able to consider all possible candidates, especially since the absence of such an option might impede the smooth running of the election.)
The EP Rules of Procedure, 16th edition, October 2008, are available here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
***
Electing the Vice-Presidents
The election procedure is laid down in Rule 14:
Rule 14 Election of Vice-Presidents
1. The Vice-Presidents shall then be elected on a single ballot paper. Those who on the first ballot, up to the number of fourteen, obtain an absolute majority of the votes cast shall be declared elected in the numerical order of their votes. Should the number of candidates elected be less than the number of seats to be filled, a second ballot shall be held under the same conditions to fill the remaining seats. Should a third ballot be necessary, a relative majority shall suffice for election to the remaining seats. In the event of a tie the eldest candidates shall be declared elected.
2. Subject to the provisions of Rule 17(1), the Vice-Presidents shall take precedence in the order in which they were elected and, in the event of a tie, by age.
Where they are not elected by secret ballot, the order in which their names are read out to the House by the President shall determine the order of precedence.
***
Vacancies
Rule 14(2) relates the precedence of officers to Rule 17(1) on offices becoming vacant:
Rule 17 Vacancies
1. Should it be necessary for the President, a Vice-President or a Quaestor to be replaced, the successor shall be elected in accordance with the above rules.
A newly elected Vice-President shall take the place of the predecessor in the order of precedence.
2. Should the President's seat become vacant, the first Vice-President shall act as President until a new President is elected.
***
The duties of the Vice-Presidents, in order of precedenc, are laid down in Rule 20:
Rule 20 Duties of the Vice-Presidents
1. Should the President be absent or unable to discharge his duties, or wish to take part in a debate pursuant to Rule 19(3), he shall be replaced by one of the Vice-Presidents pursuant to Rule 14(2).
2. The Vice-Presidents shall also carry out the duties conferred upon them under Rules 22, 24(3) and 64(3).
3. The President may delegate to the Vice-Presidents any duties such as representing Parliament at specific ceremonies or acts. In particular, the President may designate a Vice-President to take charge of the responsibilities conferred on the President in Rules 109(3) and 110(2).
***
Chairman ad hoc
In addition to the general rule that the President is replaced by a Vice-President if he is absent or unable to discharge his duties, there are a number of specific tasks which can be allotted to Vice-Presidents.
Should the President abandon his role as chairman of the plenary debate to engage in the contents of an issue, he would be replaced by a Vice-President until the end of the debate according to Rule 19(3).
***
Bureau
The Vice-Presidents are members of the Bureau, and Rule 22 refers to the duties of the Bureau, which regulates the internal work of the European Parliament.
***
Conference of Presidents
Rule 24(3) deals with the Conference of Presidents, which cooperates with the other EU institutions with regard to legislative planning and relations with national parliaments.
Rule 24(3):
3. The Conference of Presidents shall be the authority responsible for matters relating to relations with the other institutions and bodies of the European Union and with the national parliaments of Member States. The Bureau shall name two Vice- Presidents who shall be entrusted with the implementation of the relations with national parliaments. They shall report back regularly to the Conference of Presidents on their activities in this regard.
***
Conciliation Committee
When the European Parliament and the Council try to reach agreement on a legislative proposal, delegations from these institutions meet in a Conciliation Committee. Rule 64(3) lays down that three Vice-Presidents are appointed to the shifting EP delegation as permanent members for twelve months.
***
Ruling on Questions
The President can delegate to a Vice-President the ruling on the admissibility and order of Questions put to the Commission and the Council at Question Time, according to Rule 109(3).
***
Written questions
The President can designate a Vice-President to rule on the admissibility of written questions to the Council or the Commission, according to Rule 110(2).
***
Comment
The European Parliament is still excluded from or in an inferior position with regard to a number of crucial areas and issues relating to the security and prosperity of European Union citizens, but the EP has become an important co-legislator and the Lisbon Treaty would improve the legitimacy of EU legislation.
In its areas of competence, the European Parliament is an important player, setting standards for nearly 500 million Europeans. Lobbyists have discovered the EP’s importance ages ago, but public awareness remains low. Both mainstream media and citizens seem to be stumped by the complexity European Union decision-making.
Every organisation needs an internal machinery to work. The Vice-Presidents of the directly elected European Parliament form part of the backbone of an institution of growing importance. Some day even the European voters may realise it.
Ralf Grahn
Rule 14 provides for the election of fourteen Vice-Presidents after the election of the President and his or her opening address.
(The official explanation added to Rule 14(1) allows nominations between the ballots: Although this Rule, unlike Rule 13(1), does not expressly provide for new nominations to be introduced between ballots during the election of Vice-Presidents, such action is permissible because Parliament, being a sovereign body, must be able to consider all possible candidates, especially since the absence of such an option might impede the smooth running of the election.)
The EP Rules of Procedure, 16th edition, October 2008, are available here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
***
Electing the Vice-Presidents
The election procedure is laid down in Rule 14:
Rule 14 Election of Vice-Presidents
1. The Vice-Presidents shall then be elected on a single ballot paper. Those who on the first ballot, up to the number of fourteen, obtain an absolute majority of the votes cast shall be declared elected in the numerical order of their votes. Should the number of candidates elected be less than the number of seats to be filled, a second ballot shall be held under the same conditions to fill the remaining seats. Should a third ballot be necessary, a relative majority shall suffice for election to the remaining seats. In the event of a tie the eldest candidates shall be declared elected.
2. Subject to the provisions of Rule 17(1), the Vice-Presidents shall take precedence in the order in which they were elected and, in the event of a tie, by age.
Where they are not elected by secret ballot, the order in which their names are read out to the House by the President shall determine the order of precedence.
***
Vacancies
Rule 14(2) relates the precedence of officers to Rule 17(1) on offices becoming vacant:
Rule 17 Vacancies
1. Should it be necessary for the President, a Vice-President or a Quaestor to be replaced, the successor shall be elected in accordance with the above rules.
A newly elected Vice-President shall take the place of the predecessor in the order of precedence.
2. Should the President's seat become vacant, the first Vice-President shall act as President until a new President is elected.
***
The duties of the Vice-Presidents, in order of precedenc, are laid down in Rule 20:
Rule 20 Duties of the Vice-Presidents
1. Should the President be absent or unable to discharge his duties, or wish to take part in a debate pursuant to Rule 19(3), he shall be replaced by one of the Vice-Presidents pursuant to Rule 14(2).
2. The Vice-Presidents shall also carry out the duties conferred upon them under Rules 22, 24(3) and 64(3).
3. The President may delegate to the Vice-Presidents any duties such as representing Parliament at specific ceremonies or acts. In particular, the President may designate a Vice-President to take charge of the responsibilities conferred on the President in Rules 109(3) and 110(2).
***
Chairman ad hoc
In addition to the general rule that the President is replaced by a Vice-President if he is absent or unable to discharge his duties, there are a number of specific tasks which can be allotted to Vice-Presidents.
Should the President abandon his role as chairman of the plenary debate to engage in the contents of an issue, he would be replaced by a Vice-President until the end of the debate according to Rule 19(3).
***
Bureau
The Vice-Presidents are members of the Bureau, and Rule 22 refers to the duties of the Bureau, which regulates the internal work of the European Parliament.
***
Conference of Presidents
Rule 24(3) deals with the Conference of Presidents, which cooperates with the other EU institutions with regard to legislative planning and relations with national parliaments.
Rule 24(3):
3. The Conference of Presidents shall be the authority responsible for matters relating to relations with the other institutions and bodies of the European Union and with the national parliaments of Member States. The Bureau shall name two Vice- Presidents who shall be entrusted with the implementation of the relations with national parliaments. They shall report back regularly to the Conference of Presidents on their activities in this regard.
***
Conciliation Committee
When the European Parliament and the Council try to reach agreement on a legislative proposal, delegations from these institutions meet in a Conciliation Committee. Rule 64(3) lays down that three Vice-Presidents are appointed to the shifting EP delegation as permanent members for twelve months.
***
Ruling on Questions
The President can delegate to a Vice-President the ruling on the admissibility and order of Questions put to the Commission and the Council at Question Time, according to Rule 109(3).
***
Written questions
The President can designate a Vice-President to rule on the admissibility of written questions to the Council or the Commission, according to Rule 110(2).
***
Comment
The European Parliament is still excluded from or in an inferior position with regard to a number of crucial areas and issues relating to the security and prosperity of European Union citizens, but the EP has become an important co-legislator and the Lisbon Treaty would improve the legitimacy of EU legislation.
In its areas of competence, the European Parliament is an important player, setting standards for nearly 500 million Europeans. Lobbyists have discovered the EP’s importance ages ago, but public awareness remains low. Both mainstream media and citizens seem to be stumped by the complexity European Union decision-making.
Every organisation needs an internal machinery to work. The Vice-Presidents of the directly elected European Parliament form part of the backbone of an institution of growing importance. Some day even the European voters may realise it.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 5 April 2008
EU presidents: Quatremer and Who do I call?
Jean Quatremer has an interesting post about the EU presidencies on his blog Coulisses de Bruxelles, UE, where he takes up a rumour that José Manuel Barroso might become the first semi-permanent president of the European Council. But besides, the posting discusses different priorities among the member states and takes up the possibility of a merger of the top jobs as Commission and European Council president. In addition, he mentions the election procedure. The post is followed by a lively discussion. See:
http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/coulisses/2008/04/barroso-prsiden.html
After a slow start, there seems to be a growing awareness of the need to discuss the future roles of the top office holders of the European Union, as well as the transparency of the election and the democratic legitimacy of the ones who are going to represent the EU internally and externally during the first five years of the Lisbon Treaty.
These are at least first steps towards serious debate about the issues at stake, and may lead to real discussion about the qualifications needed. We can be grateful to Jan Seifert and Jon Worth have launched a debate by calling for a merger of the presidencies on their web site and blog Who do I Call?
http://www.whodoicall.eu/
Personally, I have offered my own view of the issues at stake and the selection criteria in my blog post Heavyweight president for European Council?
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/heavyweight-president-for-european.html
In the long run a European Union, which teaches the world the virtues of democracy, can not continue to work in the footsteps of the Holy Alliance.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty are to be published 15 April 2008 and in book form on Europe day, 9 May 2008.
P.S. II: Can 'managed democracy' really be the way forward for the European Union?
http://bruxelles.blogs.liberation.fr/coulisses/2008/04/barroso-prsiden.html
After a slow start, there seems to be a growing awareness of the need to discuss the future roles of the top office holders of the European Union, as well as the transparency of the election and the democratic legitimacy of the ones who are going to represent the EU internally and externally during the first five years of the Lisbon Treaty.
These are at least first steps towards serious debate about the issues at stake, and may lead to real discussion about the qualifications needed. We can be grateful to Jan Seifert and Jon Worth have launched a debate by calling for a merger of the presidencies on their web site and blog Who do I Call?
http://www.whodoicall.eu/
Personally, I have offered my own view of the issues at stake and the selection criteria in my blog post Heavyweight president for European Council?
http://grahnlaw.blogspot.com/2008/03/heavyweight-president-for-european.html
In the long run a European Union, which teaches the world the virtues of democracy, can not continue to work in the footsteps of the Holy Alliance.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty are to be published 15 April 2008 and in book form on Europe day, 9 May 2008.
P.S. II: Can 'managed democracy' really be the way forward for the European Union?
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Heavyweight president for the European Council?
People love to talk about people, and read about them, too. So human interest stories sell newspapers, and circulation numbers sell advertising space, and the economy keeps humming, which is all very well.
But some matters deserve more thoughtful discussion and decision making than that. Let us take the coming president of the Commission, the president of the European Council and the high representative cum vice-president as a case in point.
Two aspects require special attention if Europe wants to bridge the current chasm between leaders dealing among themselves and citizens awarded the role of mere spectators:
1) EU as the world’s schoolmaster in democracy needs to start dismantling its own variety of ‘managed democracy’ in favour of real, representative democracy. A long term commitment to democratic reform, covering the whole of EU activities, is needed from the European leaders.
2) Whenever the existing treaties (including the Lisbon Treaty undergoing ratification) allow, these possibilities should be used consistently to improve EU level democracy, in the vein of the ‘Who do I call?’ initiative.
***
Election procedures
Returning to the one old, the one new and the third spiced up top job, it would, in my view, be more important to discuss the election procedures before speculating about the persons.
The all too probable worst case scenario is that an electoral college of 27 heads of state or government deal behind closed doors and that the citizens are only informed about the result, after the fact.
(Even the conclave of cardinals is larger, though the procedures look pretty equal at the present stage of evolution. On the other hand, the Catholic Church makes no claims to democratic accountability.)
The European Council has the powers, if the will is there, to arrange open nominations, public debate and transparent decision making for the top jobs.
Combining the posts of Commission and European Council president would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the new office holder.
‘Objective’ criteria
The second issue is to look at the qualifications needed. Different viewpoints are not only necessary, they are highly desirable.
My own heavily weighted main criteria would look at the candidate’s career and his/her country’s track record with the following in mind:
* Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and conduct during the reform process since Maastricht
* The Eurozone
* The Schengen area
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Commitment to develop a real CFSP and CSDP based on dual EU and NATO membership
* Commitment to a future democratic European Union
Personal qualifications
Then come the personal qualities of the candidates, when they have been publicly fielded and we get to know who they are and what they stand for.
***
The coming office holders are going to have clout only if the European Union gets its act together. One way to give the EU’s top representatives backing when dealing with world leaders is to give them the moral authority democratic legitimacy bestows on holders of political office. Surely, that is more important then the postal country code.
Therefore, both short term and long term improvements are called for.
Ralf Grahn
But some matters deserve more thoughtful discussion and decision making than that. Let us take the coming president of the Commission, the president of the European Council and the high representative cum vice-president as a case in point.
Two aspects require special attention if Europe wants to bridge the current chasm between leaders dealing among themselves and citizens awarded the role of mere spectators:
1) EU as the world’s schoolmaster in democracy needs to start dismantling its own variety of ‘managed democracy’ in favour of real, representative democracy. A long term commitment to democratic reform, covering the whole of EU activities, is needed from the European leaders.
2) Whenever the existing treaties (including the Lisbon Treaty undergoing ratification) allow, these possibilities should be used consistently to improve EU level democracy, in the vein of the ‘Who do I call?’ initiative.
***
Election procedures
Returning to the one old, the one new and the third spiced up top job, it would, in my view, be more important to discuss the election procedures before speculating about the persons.
The all too probable worst case scenario is that an electoral college of 27 heads of state or government deal behind closed doors and that the citizens are only informed about the result, after the fact.
(Even the conclave of cardinals is larger, though the procedures look pretty equal at the present stage of evolution. On the other hand, the Catholic Church makes no claims to democratic accountability.)
The European Council has the powers, if the will is there, to arrange open nominations, public debate and transparent decision making for the top jobs.
Combining the posts of Commission and European Council president would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the new office holder.
‘Objective’ criteria
The second issue is to look at the qualifications needed. Different viewpoints are not only necessary, they are highly desirable.
My own heavily weighted main criteria would look at the candidate’s career and his/her country’s track record with the following in mind:
* Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and conduct during the reform process since Maastricht
* The Eurozone
* The Schengen area
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Commitment to develop a real CFSP and CSDP based on dual EU and NATO membership
* Commitment to a future democratic European Union
Personal qualifications
Then come the personal qualities of the candidates, when they have been publicly fielded and we get to know who they are and what they stand for.
***
The coming office holders are going to have clout only if the European Union gets its act together. One way to give the EU’s top representatives backing when dealing with world leaders is to give them the moral authority democratic legitimacy bestows on holders of political office. Surely, that is more important then the postal country code.
Therefore, both short term and long term improvements are called for.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 10 February 2008
President of the European Council
Before rushing ahead to wreck one undeclared candidacy or advance another for the Presidency of the European Council, some principled discussion should take place regarding the framework, the procedures and the qualifications.
***
Let us start with the institutional setting for this post, as agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. The intergovernmental conference inserted a new Article 9b into the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which offers the framework (Official Journal 17.12.2007 C 306/16-17):
Article 9 B
1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not exercise legislative functions.
2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.
3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its President. When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council may decide each to be assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of the Commission, by a member of the Commission. When the situation so requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of the European Council.
4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus.
5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
6. The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;
(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.
The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.
***
The Lisbon Treaty forms the basis, but the details clearly need preparation and implementation. Preparatory discussions are ongoing, but the political decisions concerning the “job description”, administrative and other resources, as well as the election itself are expected to be made during the second half of this year, during the French Council Presidency.
This brings us to the procedure, which would be more important to discuss than the personalities at this stage.
The all too probable worst case scenario is that an electoral college of 27 heads of state or government deal behind closed doors and that the citizens are only offered the result.Even the conclave of cardinals is larger, though the procedures look pretty equal at the present stage. To leave the citizens of the European Union waiting for a puff or two of white smoke – after customary leaks, rumours and speculation – would be a sad state of affairs, irrespective of the outcome.
The European Council has the powers, if the will is there, to arrange open nominations, public debate and transparent decision making, with support and reasons given openly.
Let us apply pressure, in case our leaders do not automatically seize this opportunity to reconnect the citizens with the European project.
In the short run, let us not forget that most of the above applies to the empowered High Representative/Vice-President, too.
In the long run, the “President of Europe” should be given a clear democratic mandate, be it as the chief of a politically accountable executive or as a more symbolic figure-head.
***
The third issue is to look at the qualifications needed for the job. Different viewpoints are not only necessary, they are highly desirable. My own main substantial criteria would be weighted towards scrutinising the candidate and his/her country with the following in mind:
* Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and conduct during the reform process.
* The Eurozone
* The Schengen area
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Commitment to the CFSP and CSDP based on dual EU and NATO membership
* Commitment to a future democratic European Union
***
Finally there come the personal qualities of the candidates, like trustworthiness, vision, leadership, communication and negotiation skills.
They can be evaluated and discussed by the leaders and the citizens during the campaign, when we know who are running and get a chance to see them in action.
Ralf Grahn
***
Let us start with the institutional setting for this post, as agreed in the Treaty of Lisbon. The intergovernmental conference inserted a new Article 9b into the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which offers the framework (Official Journal 17.12.2007 C 306/16-17):
Article 9 B
1. The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political directions and priorities thereof. It shall not exercise legislative functions.
2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.
3. The European Council shall meet twice every six months, convened by its President. When the agenda so requires, the members of the European Council may decide each to be assisted by a minister and, in the case of the President of the Commission, by a member of the Commission. When the situation so requires, the President shall convene a special meeting of the European Council.
4. Except where the Treaties provide otherwise, decisions of the European Council shall be taken by consensus.
5. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. In the event of an impediment or serious misconduct, the European Council can end the President's term of office in accordance with the same procedure.
6. The President of the European Council:
(a) shall chair it and drive forward its work;
(b) shall ensure the preparation and continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, and on the basis of the work of the General Affairs Council;
(c) shall endeavour to facilitate cohesion and consensus within the European Council;
(d) shall present a report to the European Parliament after each of the meetings of the European Council.
The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.
The President of the European Council shall not hold a national office.
***
The Lisbon Treaty forms the basis, but the details clearly need preparation and implementation. Preparatory discussions are ongoing, but the political decisions concerning the “job description”, administrative and other resources, as well as the election itself are expected to be made during the second half of this year, during the French Council Presidency.
This brings us to the procedure, which would be more important to discuss than the personalities at this stage.
The all too probable worst case scenario is that an electoral college of 27 heads of state or government deal behind closed doors and that the citizens are only offered the result.Even the conclave of cardinals is larger, though the procedures look pretty equal at the present stage. To leave the citizens of the European Union waiting for a puff or two of white smoke – after customary leaks, rumours and speculation – would be a sad state of affairs, irrespective of the outcome.
The European Council has the powers, if the will is there, to arrange open nominations, public debate and transparent decision making, with support and reasons given openly.
Let us apply pressure, in case our leaders do not automatically seize this opportunity to reconnect the citizens with the European project.
In the short run, let us not forget that most of the above applies to the empowered High Representative/Vice-President, too.
In the long run, the “President of Europe” should be given a clear democratic mandate, be it as the chief of a politically accountable executive or as a more symbolic figure-head.
***
The third issue is to look at the qualifications needed for the job. Different viewpoints are not only necessary, they are highly desirable. My own main substantial criteria would be weighted towards scrutinising the candidate and his/her country with the following in mind:
* Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and conduct during the reform process.
* The Eurozone
* The Schengen area
* The Charter of Fundamental Rights
* Commitment to the CFSP and CSDP based on dual EU and NATO membership
* Commitment to a future democratic European Union
***
Finally there come the personal qualities of the candidates, like trustworthiness, vision, leadership, communication and negotiation skills.
They can be evaluated and discussed by the leaders and the citizens during the campaign, when we know who are running and get a chance to see them in action.
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
