Greens challenge ACTA legality

The European Commission has made two connected ACTA proposals:

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final

The Council needs the consent of the European Parliament before the conclusion of the the agreement. See Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU. You can follow the procedure on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the EP, under the reference 2011/0167 (NLE).


Commission asserts

The European Commission knows that the less than open negotiating process leading to ACTA increased mistrust in many quarters. Some of the issues and proposals discussed during the negotiations have been criticised on Constitutional and civil rights grounds, as well as for being slanted in favour of big business interests – holders of intellectual property rights (IPR) - against the wider public (citizens, consumers, other users).

In the superficial and brief explanatory memorandum, which seems to be identical in the signing and the conslusion proposals, the Commission tries to sell the benefits of stricter IPR enforcement in international trade. It also makes assertions intended to eliminate obstacles, calm doubts and to promote the smooth passage of the proposal. Here a few picks:

* ACTA does not modify the EU acquis, because EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards

* ACTA is a balanced agreement, because it fully respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of important stakeholders such as consumers, internet providers and partners in developing countries

* It has never been the intention, as regards the negotiation of ACTA to modify the EU acquis or to harmonise EU legislation as regards criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights

Fundamental Rights

The Green group in the European Parliament has constantly scrutinised supposedly illiberal proposals from the Commission or member states in relation to the digital environment and the Internet.

This time the Greens/EFA have commissioned a legal study of the compatibility of ACTA with civil rights. The press release offers the conclusions in a nutshell: New study underlines rights concerns with ACTA, strengthens calls for deal to be scrapped.

Yesterday, the Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said that the ACTA agreement violates binding fundamental rights, and that the EU and its member states have a duty to scrap the ACTA agreement as it stands.

Those who are interested in the individual arguments, can read the full study, or at least the Summary and Conclusions (page 58-61):

Douwe Korff & Ian Brown: OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with the European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The experts conclude:

Our analysis shows that ACTA, as currently drafted, seriously threatens fundamental rights in the EU and in other countries, at various levels.

***

The assertions by the European Commission are not enough. The European Parliament and national parliaments need to look closely at the legal implications of ACTA, however keen they might be to promote the interests of IPR holders in international trade and the internal market.



Ralf Grahn

Are EU founding values effective? (Hungarian media law)

In the Social Europe Journal, Gabor Gyori explained that the tribulations of democracy in Hungary could not be framed in the terms of dictatorship or its opposite. There were many other problems besides the new media law. For the sake of Hungary and the whole EU, the union must start taking democracy and the rule of law as seriously as economic issues: For Hungary, the Issue is not Dictatorship but the Quality of Democracy (10 January 2011).

The 47 member states of the pan-European Council of Europe have committed themselves to the European values enshrined in many treaties, most notably the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

There are at least three lines of defence. First, the member states are supposed to live up to their promises voluntarily. Second, the CoE officials and intergovernmental bodies try to deal with emerging problems politically. Third, ultimately the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules on applications ”after all domestic remedies have been exhausted”, so it is a slow and laborious road, but the member states have undertaken to abide by the final judgment of the Court. Abidance is monitored by the CoE.

As I tried to explain yesterday, there are pan-European values, common to all CoE members, not Western European, Central European or Eastern European values and norms designed to give people in Central or Eastern Europe less protection than their more fortunate counterparts in the older CoE members in the West: European values and Hungarian media law: ECHR (10 January 2011).


European Union values

The European Union (EU) is a tight and deep political union, as opposed to the intergovernmental Council of Europe, so it would be natural to expect the EU to be better equipped to deal with deviant behaviour against the freedoms and rights of its citizens.

In addition, the Lisbon Treaty was marketed as an improvement for citizens in many respects: more democratic, fundamental rights, citizens' initiative etc.


EU founding values

Let us look at the bright side of life. In my view, the founding values of the European Union are admirable (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83/17):

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

(You can notice the inclusion among the founding values of ”the rights of persons belonging to minorities”, treasured by a Hungary solicitous about 3.5 million ethnic Hungarians outside its borders.)


Outsiders

As long as states remain candidates for EU accession, they have to convince all the member states that they respect these founding values and that they are committed to promoting them (Article 49 TEU).


Insiders

Once inside, a member state is less at risk legally, because the hurdles against sanctions are still quite high. According to Article 7 TEU, the Council needs to determine by a four fifths majority that there is a ”clear risk of a serious breach” of the founding values by a member state.

The process can be initiated by a third of the member states, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission. The procedure can lead to recommendations.

Real legal sanctions are possible only when a unanimous European Council determines a ”serious and persistent breach” by a member state.

Legally, we have a blunt weapon, not especially well adapted to minor but important infringements by member states' governments.

Politically, already serious discussion about the commencement of proceedings is an embarrassment for a wayward government, despite the slender risk of condemnation.

However, it requires a degree of moral courage from the institutional players involved to get even a principled discussion going.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Daniel Mason writes The Endless Track, a British Euroblog refreshingly interested in actual EU policies and the place of South Yorkshire within the European Union. You can follow @danmason21 on Twitter when he hopefully returns with new tweets.

Hungary: Is free speech a socialist issue?

Freedom of opinion is an ideal too important to be swept under the rug by vague promises by high officials, or limited to purely legal scrutiny of a patchwork of minimum standards, so we continue to look at the Euroblog discussion, as in: Hungarian media law and EU Council presidency: Evolving European opinion (8 January 2011).


Mathew Lowry

One of the earlier blog posts against the authoritarian media law in Hungary was Mathew Lowry: Censoring Hungarian Blogs during the Hungarian EU Presidency (originally 22 December 2010, but now updated four times).

Among the updates is a link to the text of Act CLXXXV of 2010 on media services and mass media in English on Politics.hu as well as a lot of comments discussing the law (48 by now).

Some among the 51 comments to Lowry's blog post are chilling reading for anyone who, like Gandhi, thinks that Western civilisation would be a good idea. Imposing legal sanctions on other than impartial reporting, as defined by a politically nominated authority of party hacks, is a far cry from freedom of speech, even if restricted to important events. There seems to be little protection against arbitrariness.

If commitments to democracy, freedom of speech and rule of law are luxuries of wealthy western states Hungarians (and other Central Europeans) can ill afford, their country should not have joined the Council of Europe or the European Union, which embody the continuing quest for higher standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

If official Hungary is opposed to improving fundamental rights of EU citizens, including free speech, the government should not have assumed the responsibility to represent the EU to its 501 million citizens or to champion human rights in the wider world.

As Mathew said, media freedom is not a left/right issue, it is a democracy/authoritarianism issue.

Mathew punctured the allegations that criticism of the media law came from socialists only or mainly, by mentioning in addition to The Economist known for its free market views:

- the French Govt (quite right wing, many would say)
- the German Govt (centre right)
- the UK Gov’t (a centre right coalition led by the UK’s Conservative Party)
- the Luxembourg Govt (centre-right)

The ones who proclaim that free speech is a socialist issue are offering socialist Europarties undeserved kudos. Free media becomes a socialist issue only if others betray our trust. Since appearances matter as well as substance, this puts the other political parties at European level under pressure to come out resoundingly in favour of improving media freedom, in Hungary, in Europe and universally.

A return to darker times is not an option EU citizens should have to contemplate.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Does ”Onward and upward in 2011” mean Talking about the EU on the blog, on the official website of the European Commission in the United Kingdom, on Facebook or on Twitter? Antonia is not the only (social) media user and producer to wonder.

EU: Preventing human rights infringements – CEPS proposal

In a research paper from the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) on the French Roma affair, the authors made an interesting proposal to strengthen human rights monitoring in the European Union. See:



Sergio Carrera and Anaïs Faure Atger: L’Affaire des Roms - A Challenge to the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe, September 2010; 20 pages).

The researchers demonstrated the weakness and slowness of the existing ‘ex post’ enforcement procedures. In order to prevent further damage, the authors proposed a new mechanism to stop suspected violations (page 17):

The EU should therefore develop a new (preventive) enforcement mechanism that would complement the existing ones (the infringement and the fundamental rights proceedings). This procedure would be primarily destined to ensure that contested national policies and practices falling within the remits of EU law and fundamental rights (and applying exceptions and/or derogations to European rights and freedoms) would be immediately ‘frozen’ while the formal opening of infringement or fundamental rights proceedings would be still be considered and/or under study by the relevant services of the European institutions. For such an ex ante procedure to ensure its full effectiveness, careful attention should be paid at times of ensuring its overall objectivity, impartiality and accountability. It would also be necessary that the opening of the procedure would not only lie in the hands of the Commission, but that the latter could be also launched on the initiative of the European Parliament.

On page 18 Carrera and Faure Atger added some thoughts about this injunction-like freezing procedure, which would build on documented violations of citizens’ rights:

The new freezing enforcement procedure would be activated through the existence of ‘evidence’ provided (for instance) by the European Agency of Fundamental Rights (FRA) along with its Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) of Non-Governmental Organizations, which could be also tasked ‘to alert’ any suspected breaches of EU law and fundamental rights by EU member states. The next step would be the revision by the FRA of the pertinence of such allegations before a formal activation is put to the EU institutions. The existence of this EU-wide network for cooperation and information exchange set to act as the main channel for the FRA to engage civil society would enable an EU-wide coverage of the implementation of EU law in an enlarged EU. They could thus be responsible for informing/alerting if a violation of fundamental rights or EU law is suspected. The involvement of a network of independent experts who can be consulted quickly to present a report in relevant member states should also be another initiative to be considered in the implementation of such a procedure.

I noted this interesting proposal in a blog post yesterday: EU citizenship: France’s Roma expulsions documented by CEPS (11 October 2010).



There have been positive reactions from two Eurobloggers I value.


The writer of The European Citizen blog, Eurocentric (Conor Slowey) commented on my blog post. According to him, giving the European Parliament resolutions more force when it comes to breaching EU citizen rights could be a good step to ensure that EU citizenship rights are more effectively enforced (and in a timely manner).

However, how to improve enforcement caused Eurocentric some concern. Perhaps an independent Citizenship Ombudsman for monitoring citizenship rights across the EU might be a better way to ensure independent action.



In the blog post CEPS Proposes Freezing Enforcement Procedure (11 October 2010), Vihar Georgiev on the European Union Law blog presented a favourable initial reaction to the preventive mechanism.




As part of the Brussels Festival des libertés, the think tank CEPS and the ENACT research project (Enacting European citizenship) arrange a public debate On the margins of European citizenship, on 27 October 2010. This discussion may present an opportunity to address the weakness and lack of timeliness of existing procedures for monitoring the fundamental rights of EU citizens. Hopefully, we will see other reactions to the proposed freezing procedure by then.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Nowadays it is increasingly hard to find European enterprises, public authorities or interest groups without an active social media presence, or a stake in European Union affairs. Politics, policies, economics and law at a EU level are becoming more important in a globalising world, at least if Europeans still want to weigh in.

EU-related blogs are a significant aspect of the emerging European online public space. There are now 672 673 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator.



You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.



Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?

“Romagate”: Did French government target Roma? And now?

We have seen an extraordinary war of words between the European Commission and a highly strung government of France. This has tended to obscure the real issues. Let us return to some of them.

Yes, historically France has made important contributions to human rights. With its universal values, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789) remains a milestone. The motto of the French Republic – Liberty, equality, fraternity – is also universal.

However, the Declaration did not prevent heads from rolling during the reign of Terror. Nor have later events always been free from attempts to corrupt these principles.

Through the European Convention on Human Rights and the founding values of the European Union, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the member states have assumed responsibilities – values and rules - to protect the rights of all people from the excesses of politicians.



Against this background, let us return to the speech by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, which Vivien Sierens referred to on the Euros du Village blog for Les Européens du Grand Lille. (The date is wrong, but the link is genuine. I checked by going through the Elysée website directly.)



In Grenoble, 30 July 2010, after incidents concerning the public order, president Sarkozy announced a crackdown against criminals and unrest. Sarkozy announced the appointment of a new ‘préfet’ in the department to combat crime. The president listed a great number of security measures, but I have picked out only a few.

Sarkozy proposed that French citizenship be divided into two categories: irrevocable for citizens by birth and revocable for naturalised citizens. The speech did not elucidate what would happen with the stateless persons thus created:

De même nous allons réévaluer les motifs pouvant donner lieu à la déchéance de la nationalité française. Je prends mes responsabilités. La nationalité française doit pouvoir être retirée à toute personne d'origine étrangère qui aurait volontairement porté atteinte à la vie d'un fonctionnaire de police ou d'un militaire de la gendarmerie ou de toute autre personne dépositaire de l'autorité publique.

Controlled immigration of non-EU persons is naturally on the list, but also cutting public benefits and repatriation of illegal immigrants (excerpts):

Pour réussir ce processus d'intégration, il faut impérativement maîtriser le flux migratoire. Avec un taux de chômage des étrangers non communautaires qui a atteint 24% en 2009.

Nous allons donc évaluer les droits et les prestations auxquelles ont aujourd'hui accès les étrangers en situation irrégulière.

Je demande à Eric le Douaron, qui connaît bien le sujet en tant qu'ancien directeur de la PAF, de faire preuve d'une fermeté absolue dans la lutte contre l'immigration illégale. La règle générale est claire : les clandestins doivent être reconduits dans leur pays.

Against the background of cracking down on crime and illegal (non-EU) immigration, president Sarkozy went on to target illegal Roma camps and “abuse of the freedom of movement”, calling the return of migrants repatriated at state expense illegal:

Et c'est dans cet esprit d'ailleurs que j'ai demandé au ministre de l'Intérieur de mettre un terme aux implantations sauvages de campements de Roms. Ce sont des zones de non-droit qu'on ne peut pas tolérer en France. Il ne s'agit pas de stigmatiser les Roms, en aucun cas. Nous avons fait depuis la loi Besson de grands progrès pour les aires mises à leur disposition. Lorsque je suis devenu ministre de l'Intérieur en 2002, moins de 20% des aires de stationnement étaient prévues. J'ai fait le point avec le ministre. Aujourd'hui plus de 60% des aires de stationnement légales sont prévues. Les Roms qui viendraient en France pour s'installer sur des emplacements légaux sont les bienvenus. Mais en tant que chef de l'Etat, puis-je accepter qu'il y ait 539 campements illégaux en 2010 en France ? Qui peut l'accepter ?
J'ai vu que tel ou tel responsable politique disait : « mais pourquoi vous vous occupez de cela, le problème ne se pose pas ». Il ne se pose pas pour un responsable politique dont le domicile ne se trouve pas à côté d'un campement. Peut-être son opinion serait-elle différente s'il était lui-même concerné ?

Nous allons procéder d'ici fin septembre au démantèlement de l'ensemble des camps qui font l'objet d'une décision de justice. Là où cette décision de justice n'a pas encore été prise, nous engagerons des démarches pour qu'elle intervienne le plus rapidement possible. Dans les trois mois, la moitié de ces implantations sauvages auront disparu du territoire français.

Je souhaite également que dès l'automne prochain, nous réformions la loi applicable à ce type de situations. La décision d'évacuer les campements sera prise sous la seule responsabilité des préfets et leur destruction interviendra par référé du tribunal de grande instance, dans un délai bref. Nos compatriotes attendent que nous assumions nos responsabilités.

Parallèlement, je souhaite que nous engagions une importante réforme pour améliorer la lutte contre l'immigration irrégulière. Chaque année, une dizaine de milliers de migrants en situation irrégulière, dont des Roms, repartent volontairement avec une aide de l'Etat. Et l'année suivante, après avoir quitté le territoire avec une aide de l'Etat, ils reviennent en toute illégalité pour demander une autre aide de l'Etat pour repartir. Cela s'appelle « un abus du droit à la libre circulation ».

However, according to Simon Taylor writing for the European Voice, president Sarkozy yesterday made the following remarks about his government’s instructions and actions:

Referring to a internal memorandum leaked from France's interior ministry that instructed police to target Roma when clearing illegal camps, Sarkozy said the document “contained language which was likely to be misinterpreted”.

He said that as soon as he heard of it, it was replaced by a memo and that the new memo was already in circulation when Reding made her comments.

Did the French government target Roma? How is the new wording going to affect the actions on the ground?

You are the jury.




Ralf Grahn

UK versus USA and EU: Oceans apart on fundamental rights

After yesterday’s blog posts on a new pocket-sized version of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and basic information about the Council of Europe and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is time to turn to the odd man out among civilised nations: the United Kingdom.



In the Declaration of Independence (1776), by the Second Continental Congress, the thirteen united States of America turned the tables on King George III:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, ...

Principles of the English Bill of Rights (1689) and Enlightenment philosophy also flowed into the Constitution of the United States of America (1787), including the first ten amendments known as the United States Bill of Rights, which came into effect in 1791.



In the United Kingdom, absent the notion of citizenship and a codified constitution, subjects of the Crown enjoy certain rights based on a patchwork of domestic statutory provisions and common law rules.



The set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed form the uncodified constitution. According to the fundamental doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Parliament can change any law including the constitutional rules by a simple Act of Parliament, so domestically the rights of a British subject hang by a thread, subject to the whims of each Parliament in Westminster.



English nationalists seem to worship a ragtag bag of domestic documents from Magna Carta onwards with fervour, as if these parchments and papers somehow conferred superior protection for Englishmen compared to the human rights enshrined in other EU countries or the United States. Have these fervent Crown subjects even read the Magna Carta?



The Magna Carta is a historically important document, but so is the Code of Hammurabi.



The Conservative election manifesto 2010 still saw superior human rights and fundamental freedoms as an encroachment [on Parliamentary sovereignty] and pledged to replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights (page 79).



Intellectually and politically an unqualified statement like that would have placed the United Kingdom on par with Belarus with regard to European human rights standards.



The latest general election led to a coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, so the UK Coalition programme 2010 shows restraining influences on the government’s urge to gain the upper hand against judges and the people (page 11):

We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.

Thanks to the Liberal Democrats, rights under the ECHR will be given continued protection, and there is even talk of potentially extending the rights of British subjects.

It is still amazing: Where in the civilised world of today can you, as the Conservatives, emerge as the biggest party in free and fair elections on a promise to curtail human rights?


Without UK membership in the European Union (indirectly benefiting from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights despite opting out) and the Council of Europe, with the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) finally brought into force in 2000 by the UK Human Rights Act 1998, individuals in Britain would have few guarantees against excesses by government or parliament.

The media climate and the political atmosphere in the United Kingdom are still oceans apart from the fundamental rights traditions protecting citizens across the Atlantic Ocean and the English Channel.



I wonder why.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Grahnlaw blog invites comments relevant to the topics discussed, but the number and the variety of spam comments seems to be increasing steadily. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

Pocket-size European Human Rights

The Council of Europe (CoE) has published a small and convenient booklet with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as amended by the provisions of Protocol No. 14 which entered into force on 1 June 2010.



The Online Bookshop of the Council of Europe offers the new publication in English or French, but in each case it looks as if you have to order a set of five books (of 61 pages).

In Strasbourg the euro is strong, relatively speaking, since you get your five A6 sized booklets for EUR 5 (plus handling and postage), but the user of greenbacks has to fork out USD 10 for the same lot.



Given the smaller margins in forex markets generally, does anyone sniff opportunities for arbitrage?



The pocket-sized hard copy is easy to carry along and for quick reference, but you can still access more detailed information online for free at the CoE Treaty Office, which offers the text of all Council of Europe treaties, their explanatory reports, the status of signatures and ratifications, the declarations and reservations made by States, as well as the notifications issued by the Treaty Office since 2005.



Here you can access the text of the updated Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the official name; CETS No. 005), as well as additional information.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Grahnlaw blog invites comments relevant to the topics discussed, but the number and the variety of spam comments seems to be increasing steadily. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your pertinent comment appears.

It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:

I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.

My Europe Week: 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

Call it low key …


One line in The Week in Brief is what I found on the Council of Europe website by the time of writing:

5/05, Strasbourg - 61st anniversary of the Council of Europe

The latest Grahnlaw entries with remarks on the Council of Europe were the Trivium and Quadrivium blog posts yesterday.



Still, I think that the important and patient work of the 47 member Council of Europe is worth more attention and discussion by the CoE itself, in Europe in general and the Euroblog community in particular, especially during My Europe Week.

The rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal values, but they have made their home in Europe.




Ralf Grahn

My Europe Week: Trivium of European integration: Council of Europe at 61

In the 5th century the seven liberal arts were set as the basis for the new school curriculum. First came Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric (later known as the Trivium). (Source: Keith Sidwell: Reading Medieval Latin; Cambridge University Press)



Council of Europe

The Council of Europe was established on 5 May 1949 by Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.



According to the Statute of the Council of Europe, every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 3).

Each member must collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council:

Article 1

a. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.
b. This aim shall be pursued through the organs of the Council by discussion of questions of common concern and by agreements and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administrative matters and in the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
c. Participation in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collaboration of its members in the work of the United Nations and of other international organisations or unions to which they are parties.
d. Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.

The United Kingdom and the Nordic countries fended off attempts to endow the Council of Europe with supranational powers, so it remained an expression of primary level international cooperation, an intergovernmental organisation.

The Committee of Ministers makes the decisions, regarding all important matters by unanimity.

The Consultative Assembly, nowadays called the Parliamentary Assembly, is allowed to discuss matters and to make recommendations to the Committee of Ministers. The members of the Parliamentary Assembly are elected indirectly, by the national parliaments among their members.



In the area of human rights, the Council of Europe has become a pioneer internationally. The groundbreaking 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) has been developed further by amending protocols, and especially the establishment in 1959 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), now issuing binding judgments, has offered Europeans an important and evolving instrument for the protection of the rule of law.

The CoE has widened into a pan-European organisation, with 47 members hosting about 800 million people. Some of the members were admitted on fairly optimistic assumptions about future progress. The ECtHR has become the victim of deep-rooted structural human rights problems in a number of CoE member states, leading to a huge backlog of cases.


A great number of treaties have been concluded within the European Council.

There are reasons to take note of the Council of Europe during My Europe Week. Tomorrow, 5 May 2010, the Council of Europe turns 61. It is worthy of our respect and felicitations, but the limits of intergovernmental cooperation have left its academic achievements at primary level.


My European vision is on the lookout for more: Is there a Quadrivium out there?




Ralf Grahn



P.S. I noticed that the website of the European Council had succumbed to multimedia temptations, making it harder to find solid and useable material without being dragged into picture shows.

Trust is good, control is better? US & EU at a crossroads

In the Lisbon Treaty preamble the member states of the European Union confirmed their attachment to the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law. The EU shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice, according to Article 3(2) TEU.

“Trust is good, control is better”, has been ascribed to V. I. Lenin, not our first choice among icons of liberty. However, these words seem to encapsulate the purported defence of our freedoms, by elected governments on both shores of the Atlantic.



From data retention of all electronic communications and nudie pics at airports to spying on bank data, nothing is to be left unseen by the US administration and the European Union, in the name of our security.

Security is important, but are our administrations driven by fear? Is any level of control ever sufficient to eliminate all threats?

What happened to liberty, human rights and fundamental freedoms?

“We have nothing to fear but fear itself” would be a better motto for our leaders than the vain pursuit of total control.




Ralf Grahn

Minaret-banning Switzerland chairing the Council of Europe

Twittering Julien Frisch was the first to make me aware of the matter, and later I saw Carl Bildt mention it on his blog, Alla dessa dagar. I decided to take a look at the web pages of the Council of Europe:

Switzerland has taken over the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, the principal decision-making body of the Council of Europe, for a period of 6 months. From 18 November 2009 to 11 May 2010, Switzerland will focus on 3 main areas: protection of human rights and the primacy of law, strengthening of democratic institutions, and increasing the transparency and the effectiveness of the Council of Europe.

The priorities of the Swiss chairmanship are introduced in the following terms:

Switzerland attaches paramount importance to respect for the values underlying the European identity. Continuing the previous Chairmanships’ efforts, Switzerland will maintain the emphasis on respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, identified at the Warsaw Summit in 2005 as the Council of Europe’s core objective.

It must be pretty embarrassing for representatives of the Swiss government to chair the decision-making body of the CoE, when the government’s good intentions have been disavowed by its own people.

The other member states may think twice when they hear suggestions along these lines:

Switzerland, a country which possesses a long experience of participatory democracy, undertakes to strengthen democratic structures for citizen participation.

A pretty helvetic confederation, if I may say so.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Ethics and law of Swiss minaret ban

First, a few thoughts on how we should try to approach difficult questions concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The general understanding in Europe has been that there are universal rights. In Europe the secular state does its best to guarantee that the rights of all are respected, as long as they do not harm the freedom of others to practice their beliefs. Outside Europe we try to promote human rights.

The Council of Europe and the European Union are built on the premises of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Membership requires respect for fundamental rights.

Switzerland is still a member of the Council of Europe, party to the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. The Swiss can contravene the European Convention only by renouncing their membership.

The exact scope for different rights is a difficult issue, where we need discussion at European level to find satisfactory solutions. It is not easy, and we will probably see trial and error.

If we want to find principles applicable to all on issues concerning religious symbols (headscarves or crucifixes in secular state schools, for instance), we have to look towards ethical rules:

The Golden Rule, reciprocity, Kant’s categorical imperative.


Did the Swiss ban church towers and belfries as well? If not, then their vote is discriminatory.


Legal analysis

Here are a few examples of lawyers who have analysed the Swiss minaret ban on their blogs:



Actualités du droit, Gilles Devers: Minarets: C’est illégal, et la Suisse devra renoncer (30 November 2009)



Verfassungsblog, Max Steinbeis: Schweiz: Diktatur der Mehrheit (30 November 2009)




European Union Law, Vihar Georgiev: The Swiss Ban on Minarets: Legal implications (30 November 2009)


***


The blogs discuss the matters from different angles (Swiss, European and international law; referendums and minority rights), but their conclusions are clear. There is a contradiction between the Swiss referendum result and the international obligations of Switzerland.

Let the corrective mechanisms take over. They can at least right the wrong in a legal sense, although they can do little to improve the image of Switzerland and the Swiss.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.

Freedom from religion and crucifixes in the classroom

Sometimes you are confronted with a dilemma, and you find that you lack firm answers.



The Vatican regards the Strasbourg court’s ruling as short-sighted and wrong-headed, reports Corriere della Sera (4 November 2009).

The Catholic Church would hardly have reacted as clearly, if the crucifix was only a state symbol (in Italy).

***

Lautsi v Italy

Many have reacted without reading the judgment.



European Court of Human Rights, press release on Lautsi v Italy, 3 November 2009. The whole judgment is available in French (application 30814/06), in doc format.

(Note to English media: The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. They are not European Union institutions.)




For a comment, see the ECHR blog: Crucifix in the Classroom Judgment (4 November 2009).

***

Feelings, not law

The Lautsi v Italy case has caused uproar, from the Vatican, from Italian politicians and many believers.

On the other hand, there is satisfaction for the defenders of the secular state (“laïcité” as they say in France).

I have to admit that I feel torn, and I have no desire to analyse the judgment from a legal standpoint, but it makes me ask something about how humans are meant to live side by side.

Generally, I prefer the state and the public sector more broadly to be secular and non-discriminatory, but I think that tolerance is sometimes more valuable than a stubborn application of principle.

The judgment raises questions about Nativity plays, Christmas, hymns, carols, state funerals, national flags with crosses, as well as headscarves etc. if enforcement of unitary standards is sought from above.

The Council of Europe joins 47 countries, with vastly varying cultural and religious traditions. I wonder if it would not be better to let individuals and (local) societies evolve at their own pace, as long as they avoid real discrimination.

Religious symbols might be an area, where the principle of subsidiarity, originally from Catholic social teaching (and adopted by the European Union) could be applied, in a spirit of tolerance, allowing room for individuals and local communities.

Often the best politics is not to meddle, but are there any good universal solutions?

What do you think?


Ralf Grahn




P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu.

Europe against the death penalty

The Council of Europe and the European Union work to eradicate the death penalty, elsewhere as already in Europe.

As a reminder this Saturday, 10 October 2009, the World Day Against the Death Penalty, the joint statement by these European organisations:



Joint Statement by the Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe


Recognising the importance of the "World Day Against the Death Penalty", which has taken place on 10 October every year since 2003, the Swedish Presidency of the European Union and the Slovenian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe welcome the celebration of the third European Day Against the Death Penalty.

The Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recall that the death penalty is contrary to the fundamental rights on which the European Union and the Council of Europe are founded.

The abolition of the death penalty is enshrined in Protocols Nos 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and reflected in Article 2 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Abolition is a condition which States are required to meet in order to become members of the Council of Europe or the European Union.

The Presidency of the European Union and the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe share the vision of a death penalty-free European continent as a further step towards global abolition and stress the importance of persevering in the pursuit of actions aimed at abolishing the death penalty throughout the world, by making representations to third countries, acting within multilateral arenas and supporting the action of civil society towards this end.

***

Council of Europe


Here are two extracts from the Council of Europe’s Factsheet on the death penalty:


The Council of Europe was created to unite Europe around the shared principles of the rule of law, respect for human rights and democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950, states that everyone’s life shall be protected by law and no one shall be deprived of life. However, the Convention did allow the death penalty to be imposed when it was provided for by law.

In the early 1980s, the Council of Europe became a pioneer for the abolition of capital punishment, considering it to be a grave violation of human rights. The organisation’s Parliamentary Assembly gradually persuaded governments to help Europe become the first region in the world to permanently outlaw the death penalty. In 1982, the Council of Europe adopted Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which became the first legally-binding instrument abolishing the death penalty in peacetime. The protocol has today been ratified by 46 of the Council’s 47 member states; the one exception – Russia – has committed itself to ratification.

In 1989, abolition of the death penalty was made a condition of accession for all new member states. Since then, all countries are committed to introducing an immediate moratorium on executions and ratifying Protocol No. 6 when joining the organisation. A number of mechanisms have been set up to monitor the respect of those commitments while assisting governments with their implementation.

In 2002, an important step was taken by the Council to ban the death penalty in all circumstances with the adoption of Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires the complete abolition of capital punishment - even for acts committed in time of war.

As a result, there has not been a single execution in any of the member states of the Council of Europe for 10 years. Across Europe, only Belarus - which is not a member of the organisation - still uses capital punishment. The Parliamentary Assembly now wishes to extend prohibition to countries enjoying observer status with the Council, including Japan and the United States.

A resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions will be introduced at the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, which begins on 18 September 2007. Its adoption would be a milestone towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

-----------


What are the main points of Protocols No. 6 and No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights?

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights abolishes the death penalty in peacetime. It came into force on 1 March 1985. With Protocol No. 6, Europe’s position changed from tolerating to prohibiting statutory killing. Protocol No. 13, which entered into force on 1 July 2003, bans the death penalty in all circumstances, including for crimes committed in times of war and imminent threat of war.

***


Fundamental rights in Europe


The Council of Europe has been a pioneer of human rights in Europe, most notably through the amended European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the European Court of Human Rights. .

The European Union has gradually adopted human rights principle, for instance by adopting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as a politically binding document on 7 December 2000.

The EU Treaty of Lisbon would make the EU Charter legally binding, and the European Union would accede to the pan-European Convention.



Ralf Grahn

Monitoring the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

The first Convention prepared the Charter of Fungamental Rights of the European Union, and it was solemnly adopted as politically binding at the European Council in Nice, in December 2000.

Later it was incorporated into the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, as Part II, and published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 16.12.2004 C 310.

When the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty had petered out, the Treaty of Lisbon proposed to make the Charter legally binding, but the text was published separately, OJEU 14.12.2007 C 303/1.

Cf. Article 6 of the amended Treaty on European Union, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/19.

In other words, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights enters into force if the Lisbon Treaty does, but one should bear in mind that the United Kingdom and Poland opted out of the Charter. (The UK has embarked upon a disconnected exercise to craft a national Bill of Rights.)


The differences between the versions are small, so if you have no need for a certain version, it is convenient to use the latest one.

***

Monitoring

The Commission, which drafts legislative proposals, systematically check them against fundamental rights.

The Commission has now published an appraisal of its monitoring activities: The Report on the practical operation of the methodology for a systematic and rigorous monitoring of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Brussels, 29.4.2009 COM(2009) 205 final).



The Commission stresses the growing importance of fundamental rights issues in the area of justice, freedom and security (page 3), and it names the so called asylum package as a case in point. The obligations are not only procedural, but substantive as well.

The Commission then goes on to discuss improvements to the monitoring process.

The Commission concludes by underlining the need to foster a fundamental rights culture and that the respect for fundamental rights must be a common goal of all the institutions involved in the legislative process.



Ralf Grahn

EU Guidelines: Human Rights & Humanitarian Law

The European Union publishes a lot of useful information for students of politics, law and economics, as well as other interested EU citizens.

Many of the publications are available at the EU Bookshop in printed or digital form (pdf):

http://bookshop.europa.eu

I would like to draw attention to a recent publication issued by the Council of the European Union (General Secretariat of the Council) ‘EU Guidelines Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law’ (March 2009; 89 pages).

The publication is downloadable for free in English and French (Lignes directrices Droits de l’homme et Droit International Humanitaire).

The Guidelines serve not only international EU missions, but they contain a wealth of information useful for students, teachers, researchers and others interested in the human rights and humanitarian law.

Here is a look at the contents:

1. Death Penalty (1998) (updated on 2008)

2. Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (2001) (updated on 2008)

3. Human Rights dialogues with third countries (2001) (updated on 2009)

4. Children and armed conflict (2003) (updated on 2008)

5. Human Rights Defenders (2004) (updated on 2008)

6. Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child (2007)

7. Violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them (2008)

8. Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) (2005)


***

Death penalty

Because misleading information about the European Union is continuously spread on the web, I recommend that everyone unsure about the EU’s position reads the Guideline on the death penalty.

The conspiracy theorists repeating the ‘footnote within a footnote’ distortions are, I presume, beyond redemption.



Ralf Grahn

Rights and freedoms for Russians

The BBC reports that EU spars with Russia over rights:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7874110.stm

Why put such a negative spin on it?

Surely, human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the rule of law for Russians must be advancing by bounds and leaps.

European Commission President José Manuel Barroso is promoting these causes in Russia and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for Russians elsewhere.

With these heavyweights behind them Russians are indeed a chosen people.


Ralf Grahn

Human Rights: UK exceptionalism

The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons has published a report called ’A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007–08’ (HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I; published 10 August 2008):

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf

The report outlines a future UK Bill of Rights.

***

Browsing the report, you would have to be a genius to detect that the United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union, or that its government has politically signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, or that the United Kingdom has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, or taken the trouble to opt out of the Charter, as adapted on 12 December 2007.

I have no desire to deprive UK residents of modern human rights protection, but even by British standards the presentation seems to reach new heights of tunnel vision.


Ralf Grahn

EU Treaty of Lisbon: Fundamental Rights

Slowly but surely the people, the citizens of the European Union, emerge with legal rights and obligations.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was prepared by the first broadly based Convention, encompassing members of the European Parliament and national parliaments. At the summit in Nice, in December 2000, the member states were not yet unanimously ready to incorporate the Charter into the Treaty of Nice.

The Charter was jointly proclaimed by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission on 7 December 2000, and it became politically but not legally binding (OJ 18.12.2000, C 364/1).

The second Convention incorporated the Charter into the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 (OJ 16.12.2004, C 310/1), where it became Part II.

Since the Constitutional Treaty was not ratified by all member states, the Charter has continued to live on as a solemn political proclamation.

***

The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) decided, in line with its June mandate, to make the Charter legally binding without incorporating the text into the Reform Treaty, now called the Treaty of Lisbon.

One day before the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter was solemnly proclaimed in Strasbourg by the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 14.12.2007, C 303/1) with the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (C 303/17).

***

Since the solemn proclamation ceremony in Strasbourg was marred by unseemly protests in the European Parliament, it is appropriate to mention that the 27 member states’ governments and the European Commission have acted unanimously, and that the groupings against citizens’ rights had suffered a resounding defeat, 534 MEPs voting in favour of the Charter, 85 against and 21 abstentions.

This disgraceful tumult against the rights of EU citizens has been justly reprimanded, although friends of loutish behaviour have done their utmost to turn their soul buddies into champions of free speech for trying to disrupt a solemn and, for most Europeans, joyful occasion.

***

This is not the place for detailed analysis of the Charter, but a brief look at the headlines of the Articles gives an overview of the freedoms, rights and principles it contains:


TITLE I DIGNITY

Human dignity
Right to life
Right to the integrity of the person
Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Prohibition of slavery and forced labour


TITLE II FREEDOMS

Right to liberty and security
Respect for private and family life
Protection of personal data
Right to marry and right to found a family
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Freedom of expression and information
Freedom of assembly and of association
Freedom of the arts and sciences
Right to education
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work
Freedom to conduct a business
Right to property
Right to asylum
Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition


TITLE III EQUALITY

Equality before the law
Non-discrimination
Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity
Equality between women and men
The rights of the child
The rights of the elderly
Integration of persons with disabilities


TITLE IV SOLIDARITY

Workers’ right to information and consultation within the undertaking
Right of collective bargaining and action
Right of access to placement services
Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal
Fair and just working conditions
Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work
Family and professional life
Social security and social assistance
Health care
Access to services of general economic interest
Environmental protection
Consumer protection


TITLE V CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at the elections to the European Parliament
Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections
Right to good administration
Right of access to documents
European Ombudsman
Right to petition
Freedom of movement and of residence
Diplomatic and consular protection


TITLE VI JUSTICE

Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence


TITLE VII GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER

Field of application
Scope and interpretation of rights and principles
Level of protection
Prohibition of abuse of rights

***

Why is the Charter important?

Indeed, the Charter contains no new rights. They all exist in the EU Treaties, in the the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Council of Europe) and various other human rights documents.

But bringing these various rights together, and making them visible for the citizens of the Union, is a manifestation of shared European values. The result is the most up to date legally binding human rights document on earth, and it offers the citizens a basis for scrutiny of EU institutions and member states when they implement European Union law.

The political rights of the Union’s citizens are still underdeveloped, but otherwise the Charter is a step towards recognition of the interests of the citizens as the foundation for the European project.
The Charter is a source of pride for the EU citizens, and it is going to be a source of reference for human rights in the world.

Naturally, the Charter would have been more visible if it had become a part of the Lisbon Treaty (and of future consolidated versions of the Treaty).

***

The European Union is given leave to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Humans Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The constitutional traditions common to the Member States form part of the general principles of European Union law.

***

The Treaty of Lisbon (Official Journal of the European Union 17.12.2007, C 306/1) repeals Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (latest consolidated version OJ 29.12.2006, C 321 E/1). Consequently, the following Article is numbered 6, the present one being replaced by the following

Article 6

1. The Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties.

The provisions of the Charter shall not extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties.

The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted in accordance with the general provisions in Title VII of the Charter governing its interpretation and application and with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions.

2. The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.

3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.

***

Unanimity among the member states’ governments has come at a price. The unity of EU law is diminished by the opt-outs of the governments of the United Kingdom and Poland.

See Protocol Number 7 on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to Poland and the United Kingdom, as well as the Polish declarations 51 and 53 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The new Polish government has not been able to relinquish the opt-out, since it needs the support of the morally conservative opposition to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. But the new government wants Poland to become a constructive force in EU politics, so a future renouncement of the opt-out seems to be hanging in the air.

That would leave Great Britain as the only member state fundamentally out of tune with mainstream European values on human rights.


Ralf Grahn

Anti-Europeans showed their true ilk

The anti-European MEPs who launched their demonstration in the European Parliament yesterday really showed the stuff they are made of.

Trying to disrupt the proclamation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, endorsed by a vast majority of the Parliament, as well as the governments of the Member States and the European Commission, is in extremely bad taste.

Euphemistically calling themselves Eurosceptics, they have nothing philosophical about their manners or aims. Loutish behaviour seems to be pack and parcel with their anti-European ilk.

Choosing the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as the setting for their disruptive and childish behaviour must have emanated from a highly insular kind of genius.

Largely symbolic, the Charter is one of the signs that the citizens of the European Union were not totally forgotten in the process leading up to the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Charter embodies, in a coherent manner, freedoms as well as political, economic and social rights and principles concerning citizens. The Charter is the most comprehensive and up to date codification of legally binding human rights on this planet.

It is not the fault of 25 Member States that Poland and the United Kingdom chose to opt out of the Charter. There must be interesting reasons for these two countries to disenfranchise their own citizens, but the new Polish government seems to have understood that these reasons are unconvincing in the long run.

And Great Britain? But that is a story for grown-ups, said Kipling.


Ralf Grahn