How should EU fundamental rights and justice crack nuts?

When should the legislator use a sledgehammer to crack a nut (in more senses than one)?

When we advance from the existential importance of fundamental rights to a few lines about the colloquium, I have to admit to a lingering doubt about how intrusive criminal law should become.

I hope that bright thinkers contribute to the cross-border discussion in Europe, since similar problems confront the European and the national level.

Věra Jourová

- It is high time that member states fully implemented EU law to combat racism and xenophobia. I intend to take decisive actions to monitor this implementation and will focus on three points. First of all, member states must firmly and immediately investigate and prosecute racist hatred and violence. Second, I find it disgraceful that Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in only 13 member states. Last but not least, member states must decisively address hate speech, said the EU justice commissioner Věra Jourová in her closing remarks at the Commission's first colloquium on fundamental rights.

Hopefully her openness about the Commission's aims serves the purpose of a wider and improved discussion about the merits of justice policy and criminal law to advance societal aims. Commissioner Jourová promised a number of other actions to counter antisemitism and islamophobia, as well, some more and some less controversial.

Fundamental rights colloquium

Through the web page of the European Commission's first annual fundamental rights colloquium 1-2 October 2015 you can access material, including the thematic discussion notes to steer the discussions. The notes offer you a fairly detailed view of the issues at the colloquium, but worth continued discussion in Europe more widely:

Stepping up action to prevent and combat antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate crimes (Session I.a)

The role of local authorities, education and grass-root projects (Session I.b)

Tackling hate speech in a connected world (Session II.a)

Fostering equality legislation and promoting non-discrimination policies (Session II.b)

Ergo 

As you see, there are quite a number of related but separate issues demanding individual treatment.

You can follow, dig for material or participate under the Twitter hashtag #NoPlace4Hate

Ralf Grahn 

Regards-citoyens: Quality Euroblog

Here is a recommendation to those who want to read quality posts (in French) on European, international and French political and legal issues: Regards-citoyens.



The blog is run by a collective and frequently updated. The posts are well documented.

Here is a sample of the latest posts:

• "Les Européens peuvent-ils encore imprimer leur marque au nouveau concept stratégique de l’OTAN ?", par Olivier Jehin (Agence Europe)
• Puissance et intelligence, par Pierre Lacoste
• Vers une nouvelle architecture institutionnelle transatlantique ? par Jolyon Howorth
• Comment les européens et les partenaires internationaux de la France vont-ils interprêter la nomination de Pierre Lellouche au poste de secrétaire d'Etat aux affaires européennes ?
• France / Remaniement ministériel
• Considérations sur les questions que le Conseil européen n'a pas tranchée, par Ferdinando Riccardi
• Communauté européenne : Rapport 2009 sur les finances publiques: une relance budgétaire était nécessaire pour soutenir l'économie, mais son succès dépend d'une stratégie crédible de sortie d
• La compétence de l’Union en matière d'action extérieure (y inclus la PESC) selon le Traité de Lisbonne
• Les coopérations " spécialisées " : une voie de progrès pour la construction européenne (2)
• Les coopérations " spécialisées " : une voie de progrès pour la construction européenne (1)



***

The only disturbing aspect is the lack of description of the aims of the blog and the team behind it (impressum). There is no reason to be ashamed or even modest about either.


Ralf Grahn

EU cutting red tape (fisheries)

It may not be the world record setting exercise in cutting red tape, but a small step to repeal outdated EU legislation.

If you want to see it with your own eyes, look at the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 12.6.2009 L 149 to see 25 legislative acts become history at one fell swoop.



First, there is (page 1):

Council Regulation (EC) No 492/2009 of 25 May 2009 repealing 14 obsolete Regulations in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy.



Then there is (page 62):

Council Decision 2009/447/EC of 25 May 2009 repealing Directive 83/515/EEC and 11 obsolete Decisions in the field of the Common Fisheries Policy.


***

If this continues, my fellow EU law bloggers and I may run out of things to write about in a few thousand years.

:-)


Ralf Grahn

How much law is EU law?

A while ago Nosemonkey sparked off a lengthy discussion by asking: What percentage of laws come from the EU? (2 June 2009)



***

Over at the French think tank Notre Europe, Yves Bertoncini has published an assessment of the proportion of EU legislation: La législation nationale d’origine communautaire : briser le mythe des 80% (Les Brefs de Notre Europe No 13, mai 2009).




Bertoncini notes that the 80 per cent figure has caught on rapidly among both anti-Europeans and Euro-enthusiasts. It is difficult to reach a reliable figure, when assessing two different legal systems, but many have not been especially diligent in explaining that.

On 1 July 2008 the acquis communautaire comprised 28,031 legal acts (secondary acts, based on the treaties). Of these, 9,685 were Directives or Regulations.

Each year, the European Community produced between 2,181 (from 1978 to 2007) and 2,744 (from 1998 to 2007) Directives and Regulations.

In 2008 there were 2,249 Regulations and 247 Directives published in the Official Journal of the European Union (total 2,496).

The proportion of Community norms to French norms was a little less than 15 per cent.

The most heavily regulated areas were agriculture with about 42.6 per cent of all Regulations and Directives, the internal market including free movement with about 20 per cent and external relations (technical, economic and financial) with about 10 per cent.

The proportion of Community norms among legal norms applicable in France vary hugely between different sectors:

• Almost half in the agricultural sector
• About 20 per cent in the field of the economy and “foreign affairs”
• A little less than 5 per cent in “ecology”
• Less than 2 per cent in ten other sectors studied

Even given the methodological difficulties, Bertoncini concludes that the proportion of Community norms is closer to 20 than to 80 per cent.


Ralf Grahn

EU law basics: European Parliamentary elections 2009?

Yesterday I tried to find easily accessible information about the upcoming European Parliamentary elections, to be held in June 2009. My chosen prism was that of an EU citizen politically interested enough to find out or a student with an assigned task to present the basics of the electoral system.

In other words, I imagine that I was more diligent than the usual reader, but not rigorous enough to unearth every buried nugget. The information had to be accessible.


***

What did I find?

In short, the Commission web pages refer to the newly launched portal of the European Parliament ‘European Elections ─ It’s your choice!’.

The Council links to the same web page, but if you look for ‘elections 2009’ with the general search function you end up with a lot of valuable information about elections elsewhere than in the European Union.

Clearly, among the EU institutions the directly elected European Parliament is the place to go if you want tangible information. At first appearances, it seemed right. The EP has just launched web pages aimed at informing the public (but when I retried a moment ago, the pages were down).

Anyway, yesterday there were pages with short texts about the upcoming European elections and links to pages on the elections in the individual member states.

For the more serious students there was little to find on two fundamental aspects: 1) the European level rules on the EP elections and 2) the rights and obligations of the members of the European Parliament we are about to elect.

I have little against hoopla ─ light snippets and visual entertainment ─ if public information still covers the basics. But without at least referrals to the laws, regulations and administrative decisions public information becomes mere infotainment.


***

EP ─ It’s your choice!

There is no need for my criticism to blacken the EP election page makers’ day for too long. First of all, the launch of the election pages is a huge step. All the needed knowledge is readily available in-house. Now it is just a question of making some serious additional information available to the public.


***

Wikipedia

In my view, the EU institutions did less well than Wikipedia in covering the basics of the European elections 2009. This said with some reservations.

I believe that I found articles in ten EU languages (out of 23 official ones and a host of regional and minority languages).


Wikipedia was all right if you read the English or the Spanish version (if I remember correctly), but in many languages the articles were mere stubs, in dire need of writing and editing.

But even the best articles were somewhat short on the harder legal basics. As a fan of Wikipedia, I hope for continued efforts, especially with regard to the ‘smaller’ languages.


***

National sites

I worked through basic Google searches on the European Parliamentary elections 2009 in just a few EU languages.

There were, of course, discussions by and about candidates, but my primary interest was to see what governments and scholars had to offer on the (European) rules concerning the EP elections 2009 as well as the rights and duties of MEPs.

The United Kingdom offered clear official information about national election law, but I think that the only exact reference to an EU document was in Spanish (referring to the status of the voting rights of residents who are citizens of other EU countries). A Maltese page referred to an EU web page on the status of such intra-EU ex-pats.

The search was far from extensive, but it tends to support the view that there is a missing link between the European level and national government information.

If the European Parliament does not fill this void, who will?


Ralf Grahn

EU development cooperation legislation

The general objectives of European Community (European Union) external action are beautiful, but they need to be put into practice.

In the area of development cooperation the Treaty establishing the European Community spells out how the legislative measures are taken.

The EU Treaty of Lisbon modifies and modernises the current treaty level provisions.

In addition, we present some of the existing secondary legislation for readers interested in EU development cooperation law and policies.


***

Current treaty

Article 179 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) deals with how the development cooperation objectives are put into practice.

These measures include, but are not restricted to, multiannual programmes. The co-decision procedure applies, so the European Parliament participates on an equal basis as co-legislator.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) contributes to implementation by making funds available.

The special role of cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries ACPs) within the framework of the ACP-EC Convention is emphasised treating it separately.

The current Article 179 TEC, as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/126:

Article 179 TEC

1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall adopt the measures necessary to further the objectives referred to in Article 177. Such measures may take the form of multiannual programmes.

2. The European Investment Bank shall contribute, under the terms laid down in its Statute, to the implementation of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.

3. The provisions of this Article shall not affect cooperation with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries in the framework of the ACP-EC Convention.


***


Original Lisbon Treaty

Article 2, point 162 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) amended Article 179 and made it into Article 188e (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/94):

162) An Article 188 E shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 179; it shall be amended as follows:

(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:

‘1. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of development cooperation policy, which may relate to multiannual cooperation programmes with developing countries or programmes with a thematic approach.’;

(b) the following new paragraph 2 shall be inserted:

‘2. The Union may conclude with third countries and competent international organisations any agreement helping to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 10 A of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 188 D of this Treaty.

The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude agreements.’;

(c) the current paragraph 2 shall be renumbered ‘3’ and the current paragraph 3 shall be deleted.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

A few months after the signing ceremony the age of private, semi-private, semi-governmental, governmental and parliamentary consolidations came to an end. The Council had picked up the necessary courage to publish the treaties in a readable form, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, and on Europe Day 9 May 2008 the consolidated version was even published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Had the Council’s initial refusal to publish a consolidation before the new treaty was in force prevailed, we would still be waiting for an ‘official’ consolidation in all official EU languages and a common reference for all EU citizens until the beginning of 2010 at the earliest and possibly eternally.

With joy and gratitude we present Article 188e of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU ToL), renumbered and reassembled in the consolidated version as Article 209 TFEU, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/141:

Article 209 TFEU
(ex Article 179 TEC)

1. The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of development cooperation policy, which may relate to multiannual cooperation programmes with developing countries or programmes with a thematic approach.

2. The Union may conclude with third countries and competent international organisations any agreement helping to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union and in Article 208 of this Treaty.

The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to Member States' competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude agreements.

3. The European Investment Bank shall contribute, under the terms laid down in its Statute, to the implementation of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.


***

Lisbon Treaty changes

Here as elsewhere in the Lisbon Treaty the terminology would be improved. The ordinary legislative procedure would take over from the unnamed procedure referred to in Article 251 (generally called co-decision). The formal abolishment of the pillar structure would leave us with just the European Union, instead of the distinction between the EU and the European Community (EC) hardly anyone makes nowadays. These horizontal amendments apply to Article 209 TFEU as well.

The terminology of the Constitutional Treaty would have been even better (‘European laws or framework laws’), but only the citizens of Spain and Luxembourg approved in referenda, whereas the French and the Dutch voters preferred the contents and wording of the Treaty of Nice in 2005.

In substance Article 209 TFEU is the same as Article III-317 of the Constitutional Treaty, although the Lisbon Treaty achieves this in a convoluted way by amending Article 179 TEC.

The first paragraph adds the important category of thematic programmes.

Deleting the third paragraph exception concerning African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in the framework of the ACP-EC Convention may contribute to a more global view of development cooperation if the European Development Fund (EDF) is finally integrated into the general budget of the European Union.


***


ACP-EC Partnership Agreement: Cotonou Agreement

The ACP-EC Partnership Agreement was signed in 2000 in Cotonou and it entered into force in 2003. In 2005 the Cotonou Agreement was revised and the revision entered into force on 1 July 2008.

The text of the revised Cotonou Agreement is available here:

http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/Cotonou_EN_2006_en.pdf


The Cotonou Agreement is not a development aid programme in a narrow sense, but based on three pillars:

· Development cooperation
· Economic and trade cooperation
· Political cooperation

***

10th European Development Fund (EDF)

The Tenth European Development Fund (EDF) is the main instrument for development cooperation with the ACP countries (as well as the associated overseas countries and territories, OCTs).

The EDF is based on an intergovernmental agreement between the EU member states and it still remains outside the general budget of the European Union.

A presentation of the 10th EDF, allocated 22.7 billion euros for the period 2008 to 2013, is available here:

http://ec.europa.eu/development/how/source-funding/10edf_en.cfm


The Tenth EDF is based on the revised Cotonou Agreement and the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on the financing of Community aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008 to 2013 in accordance with the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the EC Treaty.

The Council has issued an implementing Regulation, officially Council Regulation (EC) No 617/2007 of 14 May 2007 on the implementation of the 10th European Development Fund under the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, published OJEU 13.6.2007 L 152/1, available here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:152:0001:0013:EN:PDF


***

European Investment Bank (EIB)

The current treaty and the Lisbon Treaty refer to the contribution of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to the implementation of development cooperation programmes.

From the home page of the EIB you can access information about the bank’s activities and publications:

http://www.eib.org/


The Statute of the European Investment Bank is annexed as a Protocol to the current TEC as No 11. Although the Lisbon Treaty is not in force, the latest version (and consistent with the Lisbon Treaty numbering of provisions) is Protocol (No 5) on the Statute of the European Investment Bank, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/251.

The general treaty level provisions on the EIB are Articles 308 and 309 TFEU.



Ralf Grahn

Finland: Competition proposal published

A working group has prepared a reformed Act on Competition Restrictions for the Ministry of Employment and the Economy of Finland. The report is in Finnish, but there is a press release and abstract in Swedish and an abstract in English. Here is the available English text:


On 13 June 2007, the Ministry of Trade and Industry appointed a working group to identify the need to reform the Act on Competition Restrictions and to prepare proposals for the required amendments.

The Government Programme of Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen’s second Cabinet states that the Government will assess the need to amend the Act on Competition Restrictions and implement the necessary changes. According to the appointment letter of the working group, an effective competition policy requires the availability of functioning and up-to-date tools for addressing harmful restraints on competition.

The current Act on Competition Restrictions (480/1992) entered into force on 1 September 1992 and has, subsequently, seen many amendments. In the main, the regulations in force can be considered functional, but the high number of amendments has weakened the systematic structure of the Act. Reform needs also pertain to the content-related regulations, resulting from experiences gained from applying the Act, the development of Community legislation, and changes in the competitive operating environment.

The aim of the Competition Act is to ensure healthy and well-functioning competition, the key goal being to secure a well-functioning competition mechanism. Such an operating environment would serve companies and benefit customers and consumers alike. As concerns the objectives of the Act, it is essential that the Finnish Competition Authority is able to handle matters with sufficient speed and efficiency.

The working group has examined the needs related to developing regulations pertaining to the procedure followed in competition restriction issues. In this respect, the goal is to achieve a balance between efficiency and the legal protection of enterprises. More rapid processing, regulation of the publicising of documents, and development of the Competition Authority’s powers of investigation have emerged as key development targets.

Separate regulations concerning enterprises’ rights to defend themselves would also be introduced into the Act. Moreover, it is proposed that the so called leniency system concerning discharge from fines from infringements, and the mitigation of the fine, should be made more predictable than at present.

The competition infringement sanction system has been assessed from the viewpoints of an administrative infringement fine, the penal system and the application of a business prohibition. In the working group’s opinion, the competition infringement sanction system should continue to be based on an administrative infringement fine.

However, it is proposed that the regulations pertaining to the infringement fine be developed so that the pre-emptive nature and foreseeability of sanctions be implemented more effectively than at present. The working group does not propose the criminalisation of activities contrary to the Act on Competition Restrictions nor the establishment of a separate business prohibition system for matters related to competition restriction.

The regulations in force concerning merger control have proven to be well-functioning in the main. Correspondingly, a significant proportion of the working group’s proposals clarify and update the current regulations. However, the working group also proposes certain reforms of the Act, such as modifying the test used in the assessment of mergers and acquisitions, the elimination of the deadline set for compulsory notification, and the possibility to extend processing time limits.

The regulations in the Competition Act concerning the claiming of damages would remain based on the principles of the Act in force. Here, the aim is to eliminate defects related to the current provisions, clarify the regulations concerning compensation for damage, and enhance legal certainty.


Source: Ministry of Employment and the Economy Julkaisut: Kilpailulaki 2010 (29 January 2009)
http://www.tem.fi/?s=2086

***

When Minister Tarja Cronberg received the report, she emphasised the need for competition policy in the present economic situation. Cronberg welcomed the working group’s clear line against the profitability of cartels.

Source: Ministry of Employment and the Economy press release: Työryhmä esittää: Uusi laki tehostamaan kilpailuvalvontaa (29 January 2009)
http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/fi.jsp?oid=252206

The press release in Swedish: Arbetsgruppens förslag: Effektivisering av konkurrensövervakningen genom en ny lag
http://www.valtioneuvosto.fi/ajankohtaista/tiedotteet/tiedote/fi.jsp?oid=252208


Ralf Grahn

EU in Finnish

Lately, I have been active on my Finnish blog, covering the methods, history and future of European integration:


http://grahnlaw.blogs.fi


The posts are called
:

Hallitusten välinen yhteistyö

Yhteisömenetelmä

Liittovaltiopiirteet

Ranskalainen paradoksi I

Ranskalainen paradoksi II

Ranskalainen paradoksi III

Ranskalainen paradoksi IV

Suoraan valittu parlamentti

Spinellin ehdotus 1984 I

Spinellin ehdotus 1984 II

Spinellin ehdotus 1984 III

Kenen joukoissa seisot?

Blogikeskustelua

Kansanvaltaiseen Eurooppaan


Regards
Ralf Grahn

Gemenskapens system (in Swedish)

Inledningsvis skulle Europeiska gemenskapen verka i Strasbourg, men inom ett år skulle parlamentet besluta om säte för Europeiska gemenskapens (1953) institutioner. Institutionernas säte(n) hade underkastats gemenskapens exklusiva jurisdiktion (ett europeiskt Washington, D. C.) (artikel 100).


Inre ordning

Medlemsländerna kunde begära hjälp av europeiska verkställande rådet för att trygga landets samhällsordning och demokratiska institutioner. Genom gemenskapslag, som krävde enhälligt förord av ministerrådet, kunde gemenskapen fastställa grunderna för ingripanden på eget initiativ (artikel 104).


Tillämpningen av gemenskapslagstiftningen

Medlemsstaterna åtog sig att vidta behövliga åtgärder för att trygga tillämpningen av gemenskapens lagar och beslut samt att avhålla sig från alla åtgärder i strid med stadgan (artikel 105).

Verkställande rådets och domstolens beslut var verkställbara i medlemsstaterna enligt nationellt förfarande men utan prövning av innehållet (artikel 106).


Europarådet

Förhållandet mellan Europeiska gemenskapen och det mellanstatliga Europarådet skulle fastställas i ett protokoll till stadgan (artikel 107).


Ändring av stadgan

Europeiska verkställande rådet, en av parlamentets kammare eller en medlemsstat kunde föreslå en ändring av stadgan. Verkställande rådet skulle då inleda ändringsförfarandet (artikel 110).

Det fanns tre olika procedurer för en reform av stadgan:

1. En ändring av gemenskapens behörighet i förhållande till medlemsstaterna eller en ändring av individens rättigheter och de grundläggande friheterna krävde ett enhälligt förord av ministerrådet samt godkännande av både gemenskapens och medlemsstaternas parlament (artikel 111).

2. Om förhållandet mellan gemenskapens institutioner eller fördelningen av behörighet mellan dem eller garantierna åt medlemsstaterna rörande institutionernas sammansättning eller verksamhet ändrades, krävde verkställande rådets lagförslag enhälligt förord av ministerrådet och godkännande av parlamentet (artikel 112).

3. Övriga ändringar av stadgan förutsatte att verkställande rådets lagförslag godkändes av parlamentet (artikel 113).

Domstolen skulle avgöra tvister om rätt förfarande för att ändra stadgan (artikel 114).


Ändringar rörande försvarsgemenskapen

Om fördraget om Europeiska försvarsgemenskapen ändrades rörande förpliktelserna om ömsesidigt bistånd skulle ändringarna träda i kraft först efter avtal med Storbritannien eller de berörda medlemmarna i Atlantpakten (artikel 115).


Utvidgning

Europeiska gemenskapen var öppen för medlemmar i Europarådet och andra europeiska stater som tryggade de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. Verkställande rådet skulle fastställa författningen efter förord från ministerrådet och parlamentets godkännande. Anslutningsakten skulle ratificeras av den nya medlemsstaten (artikel 116).


Fördragsform

Stadgan var ett internationellt fördrag som skulle ratificeras av alla medlemsstater för att träda i kraft.


---
Förslaget till stadga för Europeiska gemenskapen 1953 har kallats den första grundlagen för Europa. I fortsättningen analyserar jag de mellanstatliga och övernationella (federala) dragen i förslaget till konstitution och behandlar det mottagande stadgan fick.


Ralf Grahn

Sarkozy’s economic reforms

‘Energetic’ is the first world that comes to my mind, when I look at France’s newly installed president Nicolas Sarkozy less than a fortnight into his five years in office. He has promised the French people a first wave of reforms in just a hundred days.

Two thirds of the French voters are satisfied with their new head of state, reports Le Figaro on 26 May 2007.

More important, however, than honeymoon polls and an energetic image is if Mr Sarkozy is going to do the right things for France, Europe and the world.

For an eminent background story, turn to “In Sarkoland”, by William Pfaff in the New York Review of Books. Here, just a snippet on economic reform:

“He is not really an economic liberal in the European sense either, pro-business and a free-trade advocate – as in the liberal parties across Europe. He advocates some deregulation of the French labor market, cuts in bureaucracy, and reduction of debt, but he also believes in “economic patriotism” and government interventions in industries important to the French economy.”

Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform wrote a piece called “Nicolas Sarkozy: Turkophobe and protectionist?” where he reasoned:

“The other worry about Sarkozy is the apparent contradiction in his thinking. He supports Thatcherite policies at home – he promises to slim the state, cut taxes and liberalise the labour markets – but attacks the Commission’s trade and competition policies, as well as the monetary policy of the European Central Bank. In his first speech as president-elect, he asked France’s partners “to hear the voice of the peoples who want to be protected”. In his recent book, I was struck by his vehement opposition to foreign ownership of French companies.”

“If Sarkozy does try to combine economic liberalism at home with protectionism at EU level, he will be heading for a big clash with his EU partners – most of whom support the EU’s broadly liberal trade and competition policies.”

Then we have the delicate question of world trade negotiations (WTO) and their linkage to the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Union. Charles Grant assumed that “Sarkozy is unlikely to share Chirac’s visceral hostility to reform of EU farm policy”, but during his visit in Brussels Sarkozy said that “he would refuse to sell off the interests of French agriculture in WTO negotiations”. He would not risk Europe’s agricultural independence in exchange for a better opening-up of services. Mr Sarkozy expected Europe to take a much tougher stance in global trade talks (as reported by EurActiv, Le Monde, the Financial Times).

There have been mixed signals on agricultural reform. Philippe Ricard wrote in Le Monde that the government doesn’t look “hermetically closed” to CAP reform, but without haste. In the same newspaper Eric Le Boucher predicted that the ones who expected a liberal opening are going to be disappointed.

Other controversial statements by president Sarkozy include “a protective Europe”, plans to increase French government ownership in the ailing aerospace giant EADS, a veritable economic and fiscal shock for France (taking leave of budgetary restraint within the Eurogroup), while at the same time announcing coming initiatives on the Eurozone’s economic governance, which might include measures to harmonise indirect and company taxation.

Pessimistic assessments speak of coming clashes on economic policy with Mrs Merkel, Mr Brown and Mr Barroso.

If president Sarkozy breaks with the Lisbon agenda, the stability pact, vital internal market rules and main tenets of EC competition policy he is going to have a hard time forging alliances among the EU leaders. His stance on these things and world trade won’t endear him to Europe’s and France’s emerging trading partners.

Ralf Grahn

Estonians Support the EU

The Estonian government reports that a record 85 per cent of its citizens of voting age supported membership in the European Union in May 2007.

Ralf Grahn

Debating the Constitution

The current revival … is based on realism rather than idealism. Still, it does at least provide an opportunity to address the shortcomings of the current arrangements and to equip the EU for the expected (and unexpected) challenges that lie ahead, say Sara Hagemann and Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre.

Their policy brief “Debating the Constitution: between realism and revival” examines the background, the state of play and the prospects for treaty reform for the European Union.

In their view, the main challenge still lies in rapidly forging a deal that is sufficiently incisive to ensure that the enlarged EU functions efficiently, but is also capable of being accepted and ratified by all 27 Member States. EU governments must not forget to canvass public opinion and build support for the emerging deal during the negotiations.

Ralf Grahn

”Europe needs a deal”

To move on, Europe needs a deal, is the conclusion of Hugo Brady and Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform.

Their policy brief “Why treaty change matters for business and for Britain” looks at the treaty reform the European Council is going to discuss in June.

Brady and Grant state that business should feel broadly satisfied with the way the EU is developing. However, treaty change is not an unnecessary distraction. Business in general, and the British in particular, have a strong interest in Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, striking a deal on a new treaty at the Brussels summit on June 22nd 2007.

British businesses have a clear interest in efficient EU institutions and procedures.

Outside direct business interests, the authors point out two areas where European Union institutions and procedures work poorly: foreign policy, and justice and home affairs.

Among the EU’s interior ministries, there is a growing realisation that international co-operation is essential in the fight against organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism, but decision-making is hampered by unanimity.

A second area is the Common Foreign and Security Policy, where the rotating presidency and the split between the High Representative and the Commission pose serious problems.

If there is no treaty change, the authors see serious strategic damage for the EU, in three ways:

· For many countries treaty change and enlargement go hand in hand, because further enlargement without reform would weaken EU institutions, so they might block the enlargement process.
· A British veto on treaty change would lead to a loss of British influence. The creation of vanguard groups would gain momentum, and Britain would be marginalised.
· The Union would become less able to deal with its external challenges, and it would become more introspective.

The Union needs to strike a compromise on treaty change, and then move on to deal with the issues that matter, is the message of Brady and Grant.

Ralf Grahn

Spoilsports

Every working day Open Europe monitors the European press to fault the European Union. Sometimes the organisation publishes a longer piece like its recent “The New Treaty: What will it mean and do we need a referendum?”.

This paper deals with most of the questions on the table of European Union leaders ahead of the June European Council.

Open Europe discusses what is likely to be in the new treaty:

· An EU President
· An EU Foreign Minister, and more powers for the EU over foreign policy
· Reducing British ability to block legislation
· More majority voting?

Open Europe does not find a kind word to say about any of the reforms being discussed. It then moves on to demand a referendum.

For a European citizen it is fascinating to read arguments that totally ignore the interests of Europeans, the European Union and the good the EU could achieve in the world, given the tools.

In the end, it is difficult to avoid the impression that everything British is superior, anything European is inferior and every proposal from Brussels is a curse. Only thus can the real underpinning of the arguments be understood.

But is it really an ethical position to be member of a union only to maximise one’s chances to fly solo, to obstruct progress and to sabotage decision-making? Or is the purpose of Open Europe to beat a retreat behind the moat and to restart an era of “splendid isolation”?

Ralf Grahn

Pro Europeans?

Compare this end-note of Ed Balls, MP and Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with some English tabloids and lobby groups:

“So we should reject ideological approaches to Europe, in favour of a pragmatic and hard-headed approach that reflects the reality of Britain, Europe and the world in the 21st century: a successful Britain strengthened by its membership of the EU, and an outward-looking globally-focussed EU strengthened by the UK’s active engagement.”

In “Britain and Europe: A City minister’s perspective” (published by the Centre for European Reform) Ed Balls presents his reasoning for constructive engagement for the United Kingdom within the European Union.

His essay deals with:

Financial services
The single market and beyond
Energy, climate change and the single market
Reforming the EU budget

Europe needs to take steps to ensure more outward-looking financial and other markets, ensuring Europe’s ability to compete in global markets.

The Lisbon Agenda should lead to a commitment to structural reforms matched with social policies to equip people for change: flexibility combined with fairness.

Full opening of European energy markets would lead to total savings running to tens of billions of euros.

The 2007 EU budget is outdated: 40 per cent of the total expenditure is still allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy, while more than 60 per cent of structural and cohesion fund expenditure is still transferred to rich member states.

For a European citizen interested in jobs, growth and prosperity, the economic reform agenda of Ed Balls sounds a lot more promising than a lot of what the “dynamic reformer”, the new French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said in the first days of his tenure.

But, European integration is more than enlargement and an ever wider internal market. The European Union needs effective institutions to enhance external and internal security, transparency, union level democracy for union level decisions, as well as legal protection for companies and individuals.

Hopefully the reform programme of Messrs Balls and Brown extends to overdue institutional reform of the European Union.

From a European citizen’s perspective each government defining its own “national interests” looks less convincing than the ones which would learn to ask: What is good for Europeans?

Ralf Grahn

Next EU Treaty?

It is not going to be a constitution, but neither is it going to be a mini treaty. A simplified treaty seems to be the formula for an emerging consensus for the next treaty revision.

How little or how much is the European Union going to get? How much should it get?

Institutional changes already agreed upon are widely seen as necessary to give a Union with 27 member states some coherence in the world:

Less vetoes and more qualified majority voting.

A foreign minister for the Union.

A stable presidency for the Council.

A Union with legal personality within one pillar.

The citizens of the Union should at least preserve the improvements introduced by the Constitutional Treaty, including scrutiny by the European Parliament.

Even if it may be tempting to strive for a slimmer version than the Constitutional Treaty, the world has moved on since the revision process started in Nice in 2001. Should the Union be given the tools to tackle increasingly serious cross-border problems?

How about the environment and climate change, energy, immigration and terrorism?

Should countries willing and able to move ahead give themselves the means to advance, and let the recalcitrant few opt in at a later stage if they begin to see the advantages of more effective common action?

Ralf Grahn

Treaty in, Turkey out

There is no discourse on Europe and it is impossible, anyway, goes the standard argument of those who regret that the European Union exists.

There are national languages and national newspapers, but for anyone interested in Europe there is at least reporting on common themes, as a quick and selective online look on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Brussels shows.

Sarkozy – Wunderheiler für die gelähmte EU? Neue Zürcher Zeitung 24 May 2007

Henri Bresson et Philippe Ridet: Bruxelles attend les choix de M. Sarkozy sur la Turquie. Le Monde 24 May 2007

Alain Bockel et Ariane Bonzon: Turquie, le retour des vieux démons. Le Monde 24 May 2007

A Bruxelles, le gouvernement français laisse planer le doute sur ses intentions à l’égard de la Turquie. Le Monde 21 May 2007

Hannelore Crolly: Sarkozy will EU-Verfassung retten. Die Welt 24 May 2007

Katrin Bennhold: Sarkozy trip to Brussels gives a push to EU goals. International Herald Tribune 23 May 2007

Jean Quatremer: A Bruxelles, Sarkozy séduit avec son projet de mini-traité. Libération 24 May 2007

Charles Jaigu: Sarkozy donne la priorité au nouveau traité européen. Le Figaro 24 May 2007

Alexandrine Bouilhet: l’idée d’un texte institutionnel “simplifié” fait son chemin en Europe. Le Figaro 24 May 2007

M. Barroso estime qu’un “consensus” se forme autour du traité simplifié du president français. Le Monde 23 May 2007

Philippe Ricard: Les milieux européens attendant des assurances. Le Monde 23 May 2007

Sarkozy rejects Turkish EU place. BBC News 23 May 2007

Honor Mahony: Sarkozy to push for Turkey debate. EU Observer 24 May 2007

The list could be continued in different languages, but the main point is that it is possible to follow and to participate in the debate on Europe. All it takes is a bit of interest.

Ralf Grahn

Two visions for Europe

Tuesday and Wednesday the European Parliament was presented with two different, but perhaps converging, visions on the way forward for the European Union.

Tuesday’s speaker took the high road.

The Prime Minister of Italy, Romano Prodi, spoke for the 18 countries which have approved the Constitution.

He stressed that it is to achieve results that the EU needs stronger and more effective common institutions. Italy could not accept radical changes to the Constitutional Treaty of 2004. The only true realism is to build a Europe able to keep up with challenges.

Key points to be preserved were the strengthening of foreign policy and common security by means of a European Foreign Minister, a stable Presidency of the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting, the abolition of the three-pillar structure, and the Union’s legal personality.

If the resulting agreement is unconvincing, a vanguard of countries could advance towards a more integrated union, always keeping the door open to those countries willing to join later.

Wednesday’s guest speaker took the low road.

Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, spoke for one of the two countries where a national referendum in 2005 caused a constitutional crisis for the European Union. He noted that enlargement and deepening had advanced rapidly and that the citizens of the Netherlands needed time to adjust.

Calling the new treaty a constitution may have given voters the feeling of loss of say. EU intervention and regulation may have contributed to the negative reception of the treaty.

Mr Balkenende said that the last two years had seen improvements in how the European Union handled affairs, and he thought that it would be possible to find a solution for Europe, based on common ground and a constructive attitude.

The Prime Minister laid his foundations for an agreement: Treaty reform as one more step, not a Constitution. The democratic functioning of the EU, including subsidiarity and a voice for national parliaments. A more effective Union, able to tackle climate change, immigration and terrorism. Clear criteria for further enlargement.

Time will tell if the high road and the low road will join on common ground.

Ralf Grahn

Save the Charter, says EP

The Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament wants an Intergovernmental Conference to convene soon to reach a settlement on institutional reforms for the European Union.

According to a press release from the EP, the committee said that it would reject any outcome which, if compared to the Constitutional Treaty, would lead to a diminution of the protection of the rights of citizens or to less democracy, transparency and efficiency in the functioning of the Union.

The committee called for the preservation of the basic principles of Part I of the Constitutional Treaty in the future agreement on the institutional reforms.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose inclusion in the new treaty is still being debated by governments, is one of the reforms the committee deems indispensable.

In addition, the report lists the recognition of the Union’s values, the clarification of respective competencies at national and EU level, the respect of subsidiarity and an increased involvement of citizens in the EU’s political life among the crucial achievements of the draft Constitution to be upheld.

The plenary is going to debate and vote on the report on 5 and 6 June 2007.

The citizens of the Union have at least some friends in high places, namely in the European Parliament, but it is hard to know how much of a consolation that is going to be, when the governments of the member states start wrangling in earnest behind closed doors, each according to its perceived national interest.

Ralf Grahn

Hague Programme

The European Council in Tampere (Finland) was a significant step towards strengthening the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. In October 1999 the European Council adopted its first work programme, which ran until 2004.

On 5 November 2004 the European Council approved the “Hague Programme : strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”. This multi-annual programme (2005 – 2010) – responding to a central concern of the peoples of the States brought together in the Union – is intended to build on past achievements and to meet the new challenges:

"The objective of the Hague programme is to improve the common capability of the Union and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights, minimum procedural safeguards and access to justice, to provide protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other international treaties to persons in need, to regulate migration flows and to control the external borders of the Union, to fight organised cross-border crime and repress the threat of terrorism, to realise the potential of Europol and Eurojust, to carry further the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and certificates both in civil and in criminal matters, and to eliminate legal and judicial obstacles in litigation in civil and family matters with cross-border implications. This is an objective that has to be achieved in the interests of our citizens by the development of a Common Asylum System and by improving access to the courts, practical police and judicial cooperation, the approximation of laws and the development of common policies. "

An overview of the 33 page Hague Programme (16054/04), which presents the guidelines for the improvements to be made, gives a picture of the problems to be tackled:

I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL ORIENTATIONS
1. General principles
2. Protection of fundamental rights
3. Implementation and evaluation
4. Review
III. SPECIFIC ORIENTATIONS
1. STRENGTHENING FREEDOM
1.1. Citizenship of the Union
1.2. Asylum, migration and border policy
1.3. A Common European Asylum System
1.4. Legal migration and the fight against illegal employment
1.5. Integration of third-country nationals
1.6. The external dimension of asylum and migration
1.6.1. Partnership with third countries
1.6.2. Partnership with countries and regions of origin
1.6.3. Partnership with countries and regions of transit
1.6.4. Return and re-admission policy
1.7 Management of migration flows
1.7.1. Border checks and the fight against illegal immigration
1.7.2. Biometrics and information systems
1.7.3. Visa policy
2. STRENGTHENING SECURITY
2.1. Improving the exchange of information
2.2. Terrorism
2.3. Police cooperation
2.4. Management of crises within the European Union with cross-border effects
2.5. Operational cooperation
2.6. Crime prevention
2.7. Organised crime and corruption
2.8. European strategy on drugs
3. STRENGTHENING JUSTICE
3.1. European Court of Justice
3.2. Confidence-building and mutual trust
3.3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
3.3.1. Mutual recognition
3.3.2. Approximation of law
3.3.3. Eurojust
3.4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters
3.4.1. Facilitating civil law procedure across borders
3.4.2. Mutual recognition of decisions
3.4.3. Enhancing cooperation
3.4.4. Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation
3.4.5. International legal order
4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS


Detailed measures under the different headings are set out in the “Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”, adopted by the Council on 2 June 2005 (9778/2/05).

The objective of the Action Plan is to translate the Hague Programme into specific measures. The Council and the Commission reiterated the importance which they attach to the correct and timely transposition of legislative acts adopted, to the effective implementation of measures agreed, and to their evaluation in practice.

The Action Plan is a detailed “to do” list with deadlines, specifying the concrete proposals to be made.

The Commission presents annual reports on the implementation of the Action Plan. The Commission’s first assessment of progress in implementing the Hague Programme was presented in 2006. The assessment package included four communications: an implementation report, an evaluation of policies, a communication on the way forward and a communication on providing more effective judicial protection.

Ralf Grahn