Finland joining EU: Committed leaders Esko Aho and Paavo Lipponen

Finland applied for EU membership in 1992 and joined the European Economic Area (EEA) from the beginning of 1994, but was not content to stay at that level. Thus, Finland pursued full membership and became a full member of the European Union on 1 January 1995, together with Austria and Sweden. In a 1994 referendum, 57 per cent of Finnish voters had approved joining the EU.

(The integration process was not easy for the so called neutral or non-aligned countries. The Swiss derailed the EEA membership and further EU integration in late 1992, leading to a jungle of bilateral treaties on individual issues. The Norwegians rejected accession to the European Communities/European Union for the second time in 1994, remaining at EEA and EFTA level.)

The relations between the acceding Austria, Finland and Sweden (and Norway) with the EU are documented in the 1994 accession treaty.

Finnish EU accession and the formative early years were marked by two prime ministers.


PM Esko Aho

During his time as prime minister of Finland (1991-1995), the young Esko Aho grew into a statesman facing down two historic challenges. His government turned the tide on the deep economic depression of the early 1990s, even if the impopular budget cuts led to election defeat in 1995. In 1992 Finland applied for EU membership and joinded the European Union from 1 January 1995, despite vocal opposition within Aho's own rurally based Centre Party.


PM Paavo Lipponen

The social democratic prime minister for two periods (1995-2003) Paavo Lipponen continued the tight economic policies of the Aho government, which enabled Finland to adopt the euro in 1999. Lipponen was a committed European statesman, as illustrated by his 2000 speech in Bruges, at the College of Europe, where he spoke of the need for a constitutionalisation process.

Before the Treaty of Nice was finalised, Lipponen proposed a broadly based Convention in order to prepare a basic constitution, after naming these crucial reform aims:

For any institutional structure we need a decision-making system that is as simple as possible, democratic, efficient and transparent. Fundamentally, our institutions must enjoy democratic legitimacy.

From Sweden to Finland

A few days ago, I wrote a short series in Swedish about the role of Sweden in the European union, collected in: Svensk EU-politik diskuteras. Then I covered the same ground and some more in English, compiled in: Sweden in European integration (recap).

The op-ed column by the Swedish minister of foreign affairs Carl Bildt and the minister of finance Anders Borg opens up fascinating questions about two-speed, one-speed, slow-speed or no-speed Europe, but perhaps these issues will have to wait.

Namely, we have a more astonishing phenomenon to look at: changing European perceptions of Finland in EU affairs. The essentials about the two dedicated prime ministers, Aho and Lipponen, offer historical background to current events. It is a story of vision and hard work, but what is taking place?



Ralf Grahn

EU view of EFTA and EEA country Iceland (not excluding controversy)

Iceland has been getting a lot of attention in Brussels lately. The EU Commission presented its progress report and conclusions regarding the process of Iceland to become a member of the European Union:

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU enlargement: Iceland (20 December 2010)

The General Affairs Council (GAC) adopted conclusions on enlargement, including Iceland, on 14 December 2010:

Grahnlaw: EU Council on enlargement: Iceland (20 December 2010)

But the same day, the General Affairs Council also adopted conclusions about the relations between the European Union and the members of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), as described on Grahnblawg (in Swedish): EU-relationerna med Norge (19 December 2010).

Naturally Iceland, an EFTA member and a participant in the European Economic Area (EEA) was dealt with in these GAC conclusions as well:

Council conclusions on EU relations with EFTA countries; 3060th GENERAL AFFAIRS Council meeting Brussels, 14 December 2010


EEA remarks

The Council was satisfied with the contributions from Iceland, Liechtenstein and especially Norway to poorer EU member states (point 2):

The Council appreciates the financial contributions of the EFTA countries to the economic and social cohesion in the European Economic Area (EEA). Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland (the "EEA EFTA States") recently committed themselves to a substantial increase of their continued contributions.

In practice the EEA states pay for access to the internal market, although it differs somewhat from the membership contributions from EU countries.

The Council was happy to note the excellent transposition record of the EEA EFTA states (point 3):

Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are integrated in the internal market through the EEA Agreement of 1994. This Agreement functions properly so long as all Contracting Parties incorporate the full body of the relevant EU acquis relating to the internal market into their national law. The Council welcomes that the EEA countries have demonstrated an excellent record of proper and regular incorporation of the acquis into their own legislation and encourages them to maintain this good record to ensure the continued homogeneity of the internal market.

The GAC remarks about homogenous implementation of EU law and the smooth functioning of the special institutions are directed at all EFTA countries (point 7):

Though EU relations with the EFTA countries were extended over the years to many areas not covered by the internal market, these relations are mainly based on the progressive integration of the EFTA countries' economies into the EU internal market. In view of the need for a level playing field for all economic operators of the parties concerned and the continued development of internal market relevant acquis, the EU and the EFTA States should ensure homogeneity in the implementation of the acquis and the good functioning of the institutions.

Icelandic accession negotiations

Officially, Iceland conducts negotiations to become a member of the European Union, which puts it in a different category from the other EEA states, Liechtenstein and Norway, with the remaining EFTA member, non-EEA Switzerland even farther apart. The GAC stated the position of Iceland (point 5):

The Council welcomes the opening, in July 2010, of accession negotiations with Iceland, which conserves its status as EEA EFTA State while negotiations are ongoing.

Specifically Iceland

The GAC conclusions contained a number of points specifically related to the EU's relationship with Iceland (10-16):

ICELAND

10. The Council welcomes the launching of accession negotiations with Iceland in July 2010, takes note of the findings presented by the Commission on 9 November 2010 to the Council and the European Parliament in its Progress Report on Iceland and refers to the Council conclusions on enlargement - Iceland - to be adopted by the General Affairs Council on 14 December 2010.

11. The opening of an EU delegation in Reykjavik in 2010 will contribute to the rapprochement of Iceland and the EU in this dynamic phase of relations.

12. The Council appreciates the solidarity shown by the Icelandic people when committing to renew their contribution to the reduction of social and economic disparities in the EEA for the period 2009-2014.

13. While accession negotiations are ongoing, the EEA Agreement remains the key contractual basis for EU-Iceland relations. In the past two years, Iceland continued to be an active and constructive partner in that framework as well as in the Schengen area, with a good record of implementation of the evolving EU acquis. The Council encourages Iceland to maintain the same good record also in the future.

14. The Council welcomes the good cooperation with Iceland in many areas of common interest, in particular on environmental and energy issues, as well as in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy, with Iceland frequently supporting EU declarations and voting together with the EU in the UN. The Council is looking forward to further strengthening cooperation with Iceland on issues such as Arctic policy, the Northern Dimension, fisheries, renewable energy and climate change.

15. Regarding fisheries, the Council continues to call for a constructive approach of all Coastal States (EU, Norway, Faeroe Islands and Iceland) on the joint management of mackerel fisheries, and encourages Iceland to resume negotiations on this issue, in particular as regards a reasonable long term sustainable quota sharing arrangement, taking into account the track records of all relevant actors.

16. The Council welcomes Iceland's continued commitment to move toward economic stabilization and to address all issues deriving from the 2008 banking collapse. In this context, the Council recalls the need for Iceland to address existing obligations, such as those identified by the EFTA Surveillance Authority under the EEA Agreement, as well as weaknesses in the area of financial services, identified in the Opinion of the Commission on Iceland's application for EU-membership.

”Mackerel War”

As we saw, the last two points referred to controversial issues. In point 15 the GAC called for the resumption of negotiations in the ”Mackerel War”. Se for instance:

FISHupdate.com: Iceland and Faroes set to announce new mackerel quotas (20 December 2010)

FISHupdate.com: Lochhead comments on Iceland's 'irresponsible' mackerel quota action (20 December 2010)

BBC Scotland: Scottish fishermen condemn Iceland mackerel quota move (18 December 2010)

Fishnewseu.com: Iceland warns that Norway and EU will overfish mackerel next year (20 December 2010)

Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, press release: Decision on Iceland's Share in Mackerel Fisheries in 2011 (20 December 2010)


Icesave / Landsbanki

The catastrophic fallout from the Icelandic banking collapse has haunted the people of Iceland and its government, but also relations with the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (point 16). See for instance:

Reuters: Iceland finance minister presents new Icesave bill to parliament (16 December 2010)

Eygló Svala Arnarsdóttir in Iceland Review Online: Icesave: Not my headache (ESA) (17 December 2010)

Bloomberg: Grimsson Says He'll Decide by February on Icesave Referendum (20 December 2010)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. In the blog post Not losing sight of the basics, Mathew Lowry calls on the EU institutions to do some serious work on Europa and other websites to serve a huge array of audiences. Read the discussion as well.

EU and eurozone membership paradoxes

The Copenhagen criteria for accession to the European Union require, among other things, democracy. Thus, the EU would not qualify for membership.



According to Eurostat, in 2009 the government deficit in the euro area was 6.3 per cent and government debt at 78.7 per cent of GDP.

Following the financial crisis and the economic downturn, which led to huge bail-outs and high unemployment, the eurozone as a whole wildly overshoots the reference values of 3 per cent and 60 per cent of GDP.

Thus, the eurozone as a whole would fail the convergence criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact for euro introduction, based on the figures for last year.

Here are the main Eurostat findings:

In 2009 the largest government deficits in percentage of GDP were recorded by Ireland (-14.3%), Greece (-13.6%) the United Kingdom (-11.5%), Spain (-11.2%), Portugal (-9.4%), Latvia (-9.0%), Lithuania (-8.9%), Romania (-8.3%), France (-7.5%) and Poland (-7.1%). No Member State registered a government surplus in 2009. The lowest deficits were recorded by Sweden (-0.5%), Luxembourg (-0.7%) and Estonia (-1.7%). In all, 25 Member States recorded a worsening in their government balance relative to GDP in 2009 compared with 2008, and two (Estonia and Malta) an improvement.

At the end of 2009, the lowest ratios of government debt to GDP were recorded in Estonia (7.2%), Luxembourg (14.5%), Bulgaria (14.8%), Romania (23.7%), Lithuania (29.3%) and the Czech Republic (35.4%). Twelve Member States had government debt ratios higher than 60% of GDP in 2009: Italy (115.8%), Greece (115.1%), Belgium (96.7%), Hungary (78.3%), France (77.6%), Portugal (76.8%), Germany (73.2%), Malta (69.1%), the United Kingdom (68.1%), Austria (66.5%), Ireland (64.0%) and the Netherlands (60.9%).

Is there any correlation between both sets of membership criteria?




Ralf Grahn

Let Britain leave the EU

The most remarkable outcome in the Angus Reid poll, published 10 November 2009, is not that almost half (46 per cent) of Britons still want an undoable referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, despite David Cameron’s recent climb-down and diversionary proposals.

The fundamental question is the view of Britons on their country’s relationship with the European Union. Only 13 per cent think that the United Kingdom should become more integrated with the EU and adopt the euro.

The rest of the respondents want to put integration into reverse gear, ranging between further opt-outs and outright withdrawal:

“A third of respondents (32%) think the UK should stay in the EU, but regain control of some social and employment policies; roughly a fifth of Britons (19%) say the UK’s relationship with the EU should be limited to having free trade agreements, and 15 per cent advocate for a full withdrawal from the EU.”

Purpose of the EU

From the 1950 Schuman declaration onwards, European integration is a continuing process towards an ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. The Lisbon Treaty is but the latest major step in the evolving project the UK joined in 1973.

Like all organisations, the European Union needs constructive and contributing members, who ask not what the EU can do for them, but what they can do for their EU.


EU referendum needed

If, after three and a half decades, only 13 per cent of the Britons are prepared to share the values and the aims of the European Union, to give their fair share to building our common European future, and to express solidarity with other EU citizens, the UK should leave the EU and let the rest of Europe get on with the work, slow and wobbly as it is.

The Liberal Democrats already proposed a referendum on the UK’s membership, during the Lisbon Treaty debate. Let them renew the call and be joined by the other political parties.


A clear outcome would be healthier for the political atmosphere in Britain, and it would be better for Europe.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

Iceland not joining the European Union?

Love’s Labour’s Lost?

Iceland has applied for EU membership and answered the detailed questions posed by the Commission, which is preparing its opinion for the Council on starting membership negotiations.

On the face of it, matters have advanced at lightning speed (according to European Union enlargement standards), but somehow the feeling surrounding the membership application is surreal: The government has applied to become a member and appointed its chief negotiator, but the population of Iceland will probably reject accession, if matters ever advance that far.

Geographically (and mentally?) Iceland is situated between Norway, which has twice rejected a final accession agreement, Greenland, the only territory to leave the European Union, the United Kingdom, where public hostility to and ignorance of European integration reign, and Ireland with its patchy record of referenda.

The latest opinion polls show that Iceland will probably continue as a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and the European Economic Area (EEA), which guarantees access to the internal market of 30 states, but excludes agriculture and fisheries.


“Fax democracy”

The EEA agreement is in effect since 1994, which explains the antiquated term “fax democracy” for the adoption of the EU’s internal market legislation, without much say over its contents. The EEA countries also contribute to the EU budget.

Paradoxically, defenders of national sovereignty prefer quasi-automatic reception of EU law on the grounds that membership means loss of self-determination. Admittedly, the voting weight of a state with 320,000 inhabitants is limited among (now) 27 member states with a total population of 500,000,000. But smallest states are actually over-represented in the EU institutions and they sit at the tables where the decisions are hammered out. Still, noises about demanding extra representation are ill-boding.



The fishing industry still provides almost 40 per cent of Icelandic export earnings and it employs 8 per cent of the work force, so the common fisheries policy of the European Union is going to be a crucial question during the negotiations. A protectionist population will most probably reject any deal seen as disadvantageous (giving fishing rights to “foreigners”), but one may ask why the European Union should concede membership rights to a country, which sees contributions as a one way street.


Further reading

Here are some suggestions for further reading for those, who want to take a closer look at the Icelandic EU prospects.



Mats Engström: Progress on Enlargement (8 November 2009)



Reykjavik Grapevine, Paul Nikolov: Poll: EU Referendum Would Fail if Voted On Today (6 November 2009)



Jón Frímann Bloggar: Smear campaign against EU in Iceland (8 November 2009)



Vanderbilt Business, Ólafur Arnarson: Iceland meltdown (November 2009)



Iceland Review: Iceland’s EU Negotiation Committee Appointed (5 November 2009)



Iceland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Iceland’s negotiation committee appointed (4 November 2009)



Iceland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs: The Icelandic Government submits answers to a Questionnaire from the European Commission (22 October 2009)



Wikipedia: Accession of Iceland to the European Union



Leigh Phillips on EUobserver: Concern over Iceland EU bid as public support tanks (6 November 2009)




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Read about the real EUSSR through the good, the better and the best Euroblogs on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Propose an interesting blog post or a whole new blog (click Contribute).

Is Sweden becoming a normal EU country?

Almost fifteen years have passed since Sweden joined the European Union together with Austria and Finland, on 1 January 1995. Neutrality and national sovereignty have deep roots in Sweden, one of the few corners of Europe to have stayed outside the European armed conflicts since the Napeolonic Wars.

Officially, joining the European Union and the supranational decision-making within the European Community was a major step for Sweden, but despite the positive referendum, basic Swedish attitudes did not change much.

Many Swedes saw European public services, public administrations and environmental norms as inferior to their own (unlike the situation in the former Communist countries).

They may have felt that they had more to teach the European Union than they had to learn from it.


***

Euro referendum

Despite the treaty obligation to adopt the common currency, Sweden arranged a referendum in 2003 on the adoption of the euro. After the negative outcome, Sweden and the European Union have connived to regard Sweden as technically falling foul of the Maastricht convergence criteria.

Slowly, Swedish acceptance of the euro currency has been on the increase. In May 2009 SR International – Sveriges Radio reported the first opinion poll with a more respondents in favour of adopting the euro (47 per cent; 44 per cent against).



Even if a referendum about a clear treaty obligation is as absurd in the future as it was in 2003, Swedish politicians dare not take the decision without a plebiscite. The Liberals (Folkpartiet) have clearly come out in favour of a new referendum in 2011.

It is possible that a new government following the September 2010 elections agrees to offer the Swedes a second chance during the following four years to join the Eurozone.

In case of a positive outcome, Sweden would become more of a normal EU member state.

***


Green Party


In October 2008, after an internal poll, the Green Party (Miljöpartiet de gröna) decided to drop their demand for Sweden to secede from the European Union.

Almost 13 years after Swedish EU accession, they became able to work in a realistic setting of Swedish EU membership and to cooperate more naturally within the European Green Party, although the party’s international information is rudimentary.

In Swedish politics the Greens are building an opposition block together with the Social Democrats and the Left Party.


***

Left Party

Even the ex-Communist Left Party leader Lars Ohly has now proposed abandoning the EU secession demand (Sveriges Radio, 26 September 2009).



When the ex-Communists are beginning to adapt after a decade and a half of Swedish EU membership, Sweden starts to look like a (more) normal EU member state.


***

Swedish EU Council Presidency

Swedish governments have been fairly low key in European Union affairs. Politically they have not been that far from British viewpoints about free trade and intergovernmental cooperation, but they have acted in a less contrarian manner. They are also less averse to fundamental and social rights, taxation or business regulation.

The Lisbon Treaty caused the usual popular demands for a referendum with the customary horrors painted, but after a long gestation period and much talk about the “Swedish labour market model”, the Parliament approved the amending treaty by a huge majority.

On the other hand, the Government (regeringen) and the Parliament (riksdagen) communicate openly about EU affairs (as about other matters), and they make continuing efforts to educate their citizens about the European Union and its policies. Parliamentary EU scrutiny is well ingrained, although possibly not as well documented as in Denmark and Finland.




Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s centre-right party Moderaterna did not emigrate to form the anti-European political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), in the European Parliament, with the UK Conservative Party, the Czech Civic Democrats (ODS) and the Polish Law and Justice. The Swedish Moderaterna sits in the largest EP group, the mainstream European People’s Party (EPP).



The Swedish Presidency of the EU Council, from July to the end of this year, has certainly kept the key Ministers and civil servants busy. From a netizen’s point of view, they have produced the best Presidency communications ever, and their professionalism has given practically no cause for public criticism.

It is hard to tell how interested ordinary Swedes are in the activities of the Council Presidency, but at least until now they could take pride in how their representatives are doing.

Difficult issues lie ahead during the coming months, but it is possible that the Swedes feel a shade more like stakeholders in Europe after the second Presidency.


***

One of these days, is it possible that Sweden wakes up to find that it has become a normal EU member state, and just possibly that the European Union is as much a learning experience as a teaching mission?



Ralf Grahn

Ever closer union

Right after the dignitaries, the first words of the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome) read like this:

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, …


***

The United Kingdom refused to join at the beginning, then applied for membership in 1961, and was finally accepted as a member from 1973.

Time enough to read the first two lines of the treaty, I would think.


Ralf Grahn

British referendum on EU membership

One of the sad things about the British EU debate is how self-centred it is.

Let us take the Treaty of Lisbon. It has been agreed unanimously between 27 governments and approved by 26 national parliaments. It is the expression of what our governments and parliaments want the European Union to be. With Ireland pending, the reform treaty is fully legitimate.

If a new government changes tack in a country, which has already formally ratified the Lisbon Treaty, I expect the government to act in a responsible manner.

Wrecking the Lisbon Treaty, against the will of the other EU member states, is callous and abrasive in the extreme.

If the British want to change course, they should act in the manner least destructive to their European partners and to themselves.

The fundamental question is if Britain wants to be a member of the European Union, or if it wants to withdraw. If that requires a referendum, so be it. The question is simple: In or out?

The UK government of the day would then have a clear mandate either way, without wreaking havoc among the countries which see European integration as a constructive team effort.

The Conservative Party has tabled the wrong Referendum Bill.


Ralf Grahn

European Union: What to do with Britain?

In the short term there are two problems of strategic importance with regard to the European Union itself. In the case of Britain, they are intertwined.

***

After tying the knot with ultra-conservative homophobes and other Europhobes, David Cameron and William Hague have continued their quest to cut a United Kingdom under a Conservative government even further adrift from Europe.

The latest demonstration is their


B I L L

TO Make provision for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007 for the suspension of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 until the result of that referendum; and for its repeal if the Treaty is not approved in the referendum.


***

The reader is reminded of the fact that the United Kingdom has already completed formal ratification of the EU Treaty of Lisbon, after approval by both Houses of Parliament.

The Lisbon Treaty has been approved by the parliaments in 26 out of 27 member states. Ireland has announced a referendum on the “better deal”.


***


Britain’s options

If the next general election brings in a Conservative government, the suspension and rejection of approval would either

a) frustrate the treaty reform process of the EU member states since 2000, leaving the European Union with the unsatisfactory Treaty of Nice (minus further UK repatriation of common policies), in case the Lisbon Treaty has not entered into force; or

b) lay the foundations for substantial renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with Europe, if the Lisbon Treaty is already in force.


The problem with the Conservatives’ attitude is that they seemingly want to eat the cake and have it too.

The straightforward policy would be to make a decision for or against withdrawal, with or without a referendum (in the country of “parliamentary sovereignty”).

If the United Kingdom wants to secede from the European Union, nobody will stop them. It would require detailed negotiations to deconstruct the manifold relationships, and to erect new structures, but it’s up to the British to start the negotiations.

However, it looks as if the Tories want even less responsibilities and show no team spirit, but wish to stay on the inside, in order to block progress between the EU member states.

Under the Nice Treaty their goals would be more limited, but if the Lisbon Treaty is in force, it is the foundation of the European Union, which means that a rejection would be tantamount to secession.

Cameron has announced that the following (long term) budget negotiations will give the United Kingdom needed leverage to ram through its demands. Veto power is generally the weapon of the rejectionists and obstructionists.

The political, media and popular discourse on Europe is such that secession would be a natural solution for Britain. The European Union would count its losses and go on with life, and the UK would search for its own role in world affairs and commercial relations.

***

What to do with Britain?

The insular British discussion tends to forget that their moods and actions have consequences for others.

The ability to take an outside view seems to be an even more scarce commodity in contemporary Britain than a tolerably accurate picture of what the EU is and isn’t.

The twofold strategy of the Conservatives will make Britain one of the main strategic short term headaches for the European Union (the other one is the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty).

In about a year’s time, the new Conservative government is going to demand a renegotiation of the UK’s relationship with Europe, smaller changes under the Nice Treaty or larger under the Lisbon Treaty.

(The Lisbon Treaty would either have crashed, or the UK would repudiate major parts of it.)

It is easy to imagine the annoyance felt by European leaders in both cases.

Their timid and consensual treaty reforms would come to nought, or at least provide the UK with even greater exceptions from common rules, while being able to halt progress almost at will.

Cameron has already promised to hold the next long term budget hostage to his demands (naturally shrinking the relative size of the EU budget and keeping the UK rebate at the same time).


With regard to the Lisbon Treaty, the political leaders can mainly watch things unfold in the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland and Poland, so they are more or less reduced to passive bystanders.

But renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s membership terms requires treaty amendments. Here the national leaders have a real choice. This is actually one of the few instances, when veto powers favour a constructive policy.

***

Britain may feel that it has a problem with Europe, but Britain can cause a disproportionate amount of harm to Europe as a whole.

It is already clear, where a road paved with concessions would lead the EU’s member states and the European Union. Paralysis, palsy, impotence, immobility and erosion of team spirit offer a hint.

When approached, the member states should politely tell David Cameron and William Hague where to find the door. If the other EU leaders are quick about it, they might be able to agree on the next long term budget in a less poisoned atmosphere than promised by Cameron.


Ralf Grahn

UK Conservative Party’s European Election Manifesto

With national mentioned 36 times, UK 33 times, British 32 times and Britain 23 times the UK Conservative Party’s European Election Manifesto (2009) is hardly an inspiration to fellow-Europeans for its broader visions.


From a European perspective the relevance of the Manifesto is limited to what it augurs for European integration and the European Union, when a Tory government is in power in the United Kingdom.


Here is an effort to bundle the different promises in a slightly more systematic manner, with a limited number of shortcuts and explanations in the bullet points.



FUTURE OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION


• A referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon and a reversal of Britain’s ratification. [In his recent speech, party leader David Cameron promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty without qualification.]
• Alternatively, rolling back political integration if the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force. Details to be set out later.
• No further powers for the European Union. Introducing a legal requirement to arrange a referendum on each future proposal to develop EU powers.
• No adoption of the euro currency.
• Repatriation of social and employment policies to Britain (under Nice Treaty rules).
• Defending the British opt-out from the Working Time Directive.
• Specifically a rejection of (Lisbon Treaty powers concerning?) EU criminal justice, including the fight against terrorism.
• Opposition to Eurojust and Europol.
• Opposition to a European Public Prosecutor.
• Opposition to extended protection by the European Court of Justice in criminal law matters.
• Opposing harmonisation of asylum, visa and immigration policies (but some exceptions possible).
• National control of Britain’s borders.
• Continued EU enlargement, including the Balkan countries, Belarus, Georgia, Ukraine and Turkey. No final borders for the EU.




EXTERNAL SECURITY

Foreign, security and defence policy


• UK independence (from Europe) on foreign policy and defence.
• Using the British veto on proposed EU foreign policy actions and positions.
• Opposition to the new role of the High Representative/Vice President and the European External Action Service.
• Commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of European defence, against development of an EU defence role.
• Strong transatlantic relationship; a capable EU seen as a threat.
• An EU role in the fight against global poverty, promoting good governance, democracy and human rights.



COMMERCE


Internal market and world trade


• Defend the Single Market against economic nationalism and protectionism.
• Proper enforcement of Single Market rules and deregulation by 25 per cent by 2012.
• In favour of free trade with the rest of the world.
• For a global trade deal (WTO). For a transatlantic market by 2015.
• Resist all tax harmonisation.
• Reject European level financial regulation.
• Resist European level telecoms regulation.
• Fight against climate change and promote a low carbon economy.
• Liberalising energy markets, communicatins, financial services and public procurement, if needed through “enhanced cooperation”.
• More opportunities for British people in the European jobs market.
• Extended patients’ rights in Europe.



Agriculture and fisheries


• Less spending on agricultural and regional policy. Simplify the common agricultural policy (CAP) and overhaul the common fisheries policy (CFP) to make it sustainable. Ending fish discards.
• Higher animal welfare standards.




BUDGET


• A firm cap on the EU budget at a maximum of 1 per cent of GNP, saving Britain €1 billion a year, and to defend the UK rebate. More funding for science and technology.




EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT


• Forming a new anti-Federalist group in the European Parliament.
• Forcing a vote in the European Parliament to scrap meetings in Strasbourg (the legal set of the EP).
• Force a vote to make Brussels the home of the EP [a matter agreed and changeable at treaty level between the EU member states].
• A review of the system for the European elections.
• Greater transparency, access to documents and freedom of information in relation to the EU institutions.
• Rigorous disclosure regime on MEPs’ expenses.
• Maximum transparency on financial matters (Commissioners).
• Improved domestic scrutiny of EU legislation.


***


Comments


The Tories seem to be keen to promote two transnational aspects of the European Union, for they can hardly believe that ad hoc cooperation (between free nation states) would suffice: to improve the internal market and to achieve a WTO deal on world trade.


In practically all other respects their Manifesto rejects the goals or the means for the European Union to rise to the global foreign policy and security challenges or to enhance the internal security of EU citizens.


In general, they reject the basic ideas of developing integration and a constructive role.


In the economic field they want to promote liberalised markets in important sectors, but they reject all attempts to regulate the European behemots at the same level.


They reject the single currency, and as a consequence improved economic policy coordination.


The Conservative Party looks set to use Britain’s veto powers to block European integration, while promoting EU enlargement without limits.


It seems to be of little concern to David Cameron and William Hague if they lose influence in the European Parliament or the European capitals, as long as they can veto progress on the inside.


This means that UK membership in the European Union is turning from a constant headache to a grave problem for the more constructive EU countries and for the European Union.


It has been said that Britain is necessary for the development of a European defence. Militarily, the United Kingdom is the most advanced of the current EU member states, but since it will reject common progress on the inside, the prospects would still be better with the UK on the outside.


On balance, it would probably be better for the rest of Europe if Britain leaves the European Union and joins the European Economic Area (EEA) or negotiates some other arrangement, where its veto does not block progress.


With or without the Lisbon Treaty, the Conservative Party has promised to renegotiate its EU relations. Its proposals to tear up the Lisbon Treaty or to repatriate EU powers should be rejected, politely but firmly.


David Cameron would then have few options but to arrange a referendum on Britain’s membership, and his empty handed government could hardly contemplate recommending continued membership.


This would end in the rest of the European Union being able to live somewhat less unhappily ever after.



Ralf Grahn

Iceland starts EU membership talks?

Today, 28 May 2009 the government of Iceland is going to put forward a proposal for authority to start negotiations on membership of the European Union.



If the Althingi (Parliament) grants the authority, Iceland is in “pole position” for accession due to its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA). Despite its severe economic crisis, Iceland is a stable democracy. Its Parliament, Althingi, evokes the longest parliamentary tradition in the world. It was established as a legislature and judiciary in 930. Iceland became a member of the Council of Europe in 1950.

Acquis communautaire

The internal market legislation of the European Community (European Union) is already in force. In addition, as an EEA country Iceland participates in a number of other policy areas and EU programmes.

Iceland participates in the Schengen area abolishing internal border controls and improving controls on the external borders, and it is a member of the NATO alliance in common with the mainstream members of the European Union.

In other words, Iceland already fulfils most of the EU membership criteria, although internal political differences and the difficulties concerning fisheries and agriculture should not be underestimated.

We can compare the situation with the EFTA countries Austria, Finland and Sweden. They had negotiated the EEA Agreement, which entered into force at the beginning of 1994. But they went on to upgrade their relationship with the European Union through full membership, which entered into force exactly a year later, in 1995.


***

Membership application: Yes or no?

Today, 28 May 2009 the new Icelandic government is going to propose that the Althingi (Parliament) grants it powers to apply for membership in the European Union.

Iceland’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs offers the following overview in English:



Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution on Application for Accession to the European Union

(Submitted to the 137th session of Parliament 2009)


The Parliament resolves to empower the Government to submit an application for membership of the European Union and upon the completion of negotiations with the Union to hold a national referendum on a prospective membership agreement.


Comments on the Proposal for a Parliamentary Resolution

The proposal on application for membership of the European Union is submitted in order to give the Icelandic people an opportunity to reject or accept an agreement on accession to the EU once negotiations have been concluded.

The application to the European Union is thus not equivalent to membership, upon which, indeed, it is for the Icelandic nation to take the final decision. In addition, a legislative proposal will be submitted on the holding of national referendums on important matters that the Government or Parliament decides to submit to the nation.

Prior to the start of negotiations, extensive consultations will take place with interest groups on agreement objectives in various sectors, such as fisheries, agriculture and regional issues, in the field of public services, the environment, equal rights and currency matters, and the broadest possible consensus will be sought on the basis for negotiations. The possibility of closer monetary cooperation will be explored in parallel to the negotiations on possible accession in order to support the Icelandic krona. Emphasis is placed on an open and transparent process and regular information sharing with the general public and interest groups.

A Committee of professionals will be appointed by the Government of Iceland to carry out the negotiations with the European Union. The Committee will be supported by a broad-based consultative body representing different interest groups, from which the Committee will seek advice and which the Committee will keep informed on the ongoing progress of negotiations. Iceland as a European nation wishes to take an active part in the development of a democratic Europe built on the foundations of social justice, equality and the respect for human dignity and the environment. Europe is the cornerstone of human rights in the world, and an advocate for stability, sustainable development, justice and prosperity throughout the world.
Parties concerned reserve the right to advocate for or against any final agreement, bearing in mind that possible support is contingent upon various provisos.

Iceland’s vital interests include:

• ensuring the sovereign control of water and energy resources and their utilization.

• ensuring the sovereign control of the fisheries resources, the sustainable utilization of these resources, and a share of straddling stocks and as much representation of national interests in international agreements on fisheries as possible.

• ensuring thriving Icelandic agriculture based on food security and safety.

• ensuring the democratic right to manage public services based on social principles.

• defending the rights of workers and labour.

• achieving a favourable and growth based competitive environment for business in Iceland while at the same time taking account of unique factors owing to specific circumstances.

It is foreseen that Parliament will establish a special European Parliamentary Committee, in which all the political parties will be represented, to consult with the Negotiating Committee to the European Union.


***


Iceland’s international relations


The (previous) Government of Iceland presented a report on Iceland’s international relations to the Althingi in March 2009. (The link is to an 11 page excerpt available in English.)





Ralf Grahn

United Kingdom: European elections and EU membership

The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the EU member states. It is an important trading nation and financial centre. A constructive UK could be important for the foreign and security policies and defence of the European Union.

But Britain has been an awkward partner in Europe for three and a half decades, and the next general election seems destined to bring in a Conservative government with even less consideration for its European partners. The Tories have promised to put European integration in reverse, and they would most probably use the UK’s factual importance and veto powers to block EU progress for a long time.

***

CAP München

Ahead of the European Parliament elections the Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung (CAP; Center for Applied Policy Research) in Munich has published an impressive amount of analysis and comment on its web pages dedicated to the issues and campaigns (Themendossier zur Europawahl 2009).



***

Great Britain and Europe

Almut Möller: Europawahl 2009 in Großbritannien ─ Zwischen Desinteresse und Protest (European elections 2009 in Great Britain ─ Between lack of interest and protest; 18 May 2009; 4 pages) is a competent description of the British electoral scene and the intellectual climate with regard to Europe.


From a continental perspective, Möller describes a Britain where the European Parliament elections will make little European impact and where Europe is seen as unimportant. Even the elites show scant knowledge about Europe and the British way of handling the idea of Europe causes one to shake one’s head:


„Großbritannien und die EU: Man kennt sie nicht, man mag sie nicht – aber offenbar will man dabei sein

Die Europawahlen werden auch 2009 an Großbritannien vorbeiziehen, ohne „europäische“ Spuren zu hinterlassen. Die Briten werden entweder mit ähnlich geringem Interesse wählen wie in der Vergangenheit, und die Wahlbeteiligung wird erneut unter dem EU-weiten Durchschnitt liegen. Oder aber die Wähler gehen an die Urnen, um den Politikern in Westminster die rote Karte zu zeigen – in diesem Fall wäre zwar die Wahlbeteiligung höher, aber die Wahlentscheidung wäre eine national motivierte.

Aus britischer Perspektive bleibt die Europäische Union weiterhin ein Fremdkörper. Für das ehemalige Empire gibt es viele andere Referenzpunkte, die mehr zählen als Europa: Zunächst das eigene Land mit seiner großen Geschichte und seinen ungebrochenen Traditionslinien. Die USA, mit denen man eine ganz eigene Verbundenheit hat. Die Welt, mit der die Briten nicht nur durch eine koloniale Geschichte verbunden sind, sondern die sie auch durch ihre Sprache geprägt und sich für die Zukunft erschließbar gemacht haben. Und Europa, Europa ist, wenn überhaupt, nur ein Referenzpunkt von vielen. Als Kontinentaleuropäer reibt man sich nicht selten die Augen über die britische Sicht auf Europa. Ist erstaunt über mangelndes Wissen selbst unter den Eliten und schüttelt den Kopf über den „törichten“ Umgang der Briten mit der europäischen Idee. Vielleicht ist man als Deutscher oder Franzose aber auch nur ein wenig verärgert darüber, dass der für uns so wichtige Referenzpunkt „Europa“ auf der Insel so wenig zählt.“


***

UK membership in the European Union

Given the Euroskepticism of large parts of the population, the political elites and the media, as well as the lack of recognition for European parliamentary life, Möller finds it astonishing that there is no serious (European) debate on the membership of the United Kingdom in the European Union:




„Eines ist allerdings erstaunlich: Wenn so große Teile der Bevölkerung, der politischen Elite und der Medien europaskeptisch sind, wenn ein Land mit so großer parlamentarischer Tradition der Entwicklung des europäischen Parlamentarismus so wenig Beachtung schenkt – warum gibt es dann nicht längst eine ernsthafte Debatte über die Zukunft der Mitgliedschaft des Vereinigten Königreichs in der Europäischen Union?“


***


In a few days the UK Conservative Party will leave the European mainstream EPP-ED group in the European Parliament in order to sit with hard-line nationalists.

If we take into account the latest announcements of party leader David Cameron and look beyond the European Parliament elections to the next general election in Great Britain, Almut Möller’s question becomes even more pressing.

Why should the member states of the European Union accept continued membership for the United Kingdom if it acts according to Cameron’s hints to further diminish its attachment to the Council of Europe and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, preliminary requirements for every EU member?

If the UK repudiates the basic tenets of the European Union, ever closer union and loyal cooperation, and the next government launches renegotiations to reverse its responsibilities, why should the other member states accept?

The European Union is difficult enough without Trojan horses.



Ralf Grahn

David Cameron’s Horrorland speech

After reading David Cameron’s article in The Guardian, New politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power (25 May 2009), I could hardly wait to hear more about Britain under a Conservative government.




Since this is a blog about the European Union and European integration, I picked two items of interest ahead of today’s speech in the blog post Ailing United Kingdom: Proportional representation and EU membership:



1) People’s courts?

Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.

Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?


2) European Union

As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.

Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.

If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.

If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state

***


Horrorland speech

I have now read Davic Cameron’s Horroland speech, serving generous helpings of indignities of contemporary life in Britain. Did the speech, officially called Fixing Broken Politics (26 May 2009). offer additional information about my questions?


***

Fundamental rights?

To curb the protection given by courts to individuals, Cameron proposes the following:

“And we will introduce a British Bill of Rights to strengthen our liberties, spell out the extent and limit of rights more clearly, and ensure proper democratic accountability over the creation of any new rights.”

The reasoning looks disingenious. Cameron is clearly out to restrict the protection offered by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (UK: Human Rights Act), but he describes it as a strengthening of the liberties of the British people.

Naturally, he does not even mention the more modern Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which the United Kingdom has opted out of together with then Kaczynski Poland, hardly the best proponents of human rights among the 27 EU member states.

Cameron does not go into details, although he should. Does a watered-down domestic Bill of Rights mean that Britain is going to secede from the European Human Rights Convention and leave the Council of Europe?


***

Goodbye, European Union?

Cameron’s offers the following recipe for UK relations with the European Union:

“We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, pass a law requiring a referendum to approve any further transfers of power to the EU, negotiate the return of powers, and require far more detailed scrutiny in Parliament of EU legislation, regulation and spending.”


This time around, Cameron seems to promise a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon regardless of its entry into force.

Every future transfer of powers to the European Union would be bogged down by a national referendum.

A Conservative government would – so it seems – negotiate a return of unspecified powers from the EU to the United Kingdom. We are none the wiser as to my questions: Why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state.

The membership of the United Kingdom is already a severe problem for Europe.

I see little reason for the rest of the EU member states to accept reverse integration or permanent immobility in an organisation plagued by the unanimity rules and detailed treaties.

Let the coming UK government make its demands explicit before the European elections. Failure to bring about the tearing up of the Treaty of Nice leaves the option of secession.

A constructive UK would be a loss, but British membership under Cameron would be a greater calamity for Europe.


Ralf Grahn

Ethelred’s European manifesto (UK-EU)

After knocking on the door for twelve years, the United Kingdom was finally let into the European Economic Community in 1973. About three and a half decades later large parts of the media, the political elites and the population still treat European integration as an endeavour alien to the native spirit. The degree of estrangement from the European Union seems to be on the increase.

Perhaps a few mock historical texts are needed to liberate Europe from this sceptred isle, gliding towards Manhattan.

***

Ethelred

Despite the misfortunes of Ethelred the Unready, his doomed fight against continental invaders is as noble as his words: British serfdom for British serfs. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.


Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with the EU, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

We have jointly granted us the Laws, the most necessary and wholesome for the public Good …


***

If distortions are detected, you can rest assured that they serve a noble cause, the restitution of Ethelred’s glory.

Perhaps the rest of Europe could get back to business.


Ralf Grahn

Ailing United Kingdom: Proportional representation and EU membership

The United Kingdom has the third largest population among the member states of the European Union and a lot of power to shape EU affairs. With a responsible and constructive attitude, the UK could have even more influence. But the discourse on Europe among the elites, the media and the population is so strange that it has long ago become a common European concern.

***

Subjects treated as such

In the land of the unwritten and unknown constitution, the subjects of unlimited parliamentary discretion are singing the old tune:

It’s the same the whole world over,
It’s the poor wot gets the blame,
It’s the rich wot gets the gravy,
Ain’t it all a bleedin’ shame?

***

David Cameron

After reading David Cameron’s article in The Guardian, New politics: We need a massive, radical redistribution of power (25 May 2009), I can hardly wait to hear more about Britain under a Conservative government.


Let me just pick two items of interest ahead of today’s speech.


People’s courts?

Fundamental rights and the rule of law seem alien to Cameron, who believes in a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from judges to the people.

Does he want direct action by lynch mobs or does he prefer people’s courts to act as instruments in robbing individuals of protection against public authorities?


European Union

As Conservative leader Cameron demands a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from the EU to Britain.

Ahead of the European Parliament elections it is only fair to ask which powers under the existing Treaty of Nice he wants repatriated.

If Cameron wants the United Kingdom to secede from the European Union, he should say so, but he would need to indicate the shape of the future outside.

If Cameron wants Britain to stay on in the European Union, he should explain why he believes that the other EU member states are going to accept by unanimity every Tory demand for even less British responsibilities and still keep the UK as a member state



***

Jon Worth

Jon Worth called for radical electoral reform in Now is always the wrong time for opponents of electoral reform:



“The creaking British constitutional settlement - thankfully exposed by the expenses scandals - is ripe for reform. And if not now, when?”



Richard Laming

On the Federal Union blog Richard Laming comments on David Cameron in the post Somewhere else:




“You don’t need to talk about progressive politics to understand David Cameron’s attitude to Europe, you merely need to read that sentence. Europe is “somewhere else”.

If you look at a map, though, or if you look at our trading patterns, or our environmental problems, or our security interests, Europe is not somewhere else, it is where we are.”


Jon Worth and Richard Laming are right, but they are rare creatures in a country seemingly unfit for real reform or constructive EU membership.


Ralf Grahn

Eurovision: Norway and Iceland – Nordics in EU

The Eurovision Song Contest migrates from oil and gas producing Russia to similarly employed Norway, but let us not draw too many parallels.

The European Economic Area (EEA) did rather well in the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest in Moscow. Alexander Rybak of Norway came out on top with Fairytale, and Yohanna from Iceland came second with Is It True?


***

Norway

Today 17 May Norwegians have woken up to National Day (syttende mai), celebrated in an Independence Day atmosphere. Referendums have twice rejected membership in the European Union, and EFTA country Norway is a member of the internal market through the European Economic Area, the largest common market in the world with 500 million inhabitants. Norway participates in the Schengen Agreement on external border control and internal travel, as well as in various issues concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.

Norway is a wealthy and stable democracy, and it belongs to the top of the world in many international rankings.

Despite close cooperation, membership negotiations with the European Union are not part of Norway’s more serious Eurovision in the near future.


***

Iceland

According the Iceland Review Online the new government of Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurdadóttir is preparing a parliamentary resolution on launching EU membership talks, and has conducted advance discussions with the opposition parties.


***


The resolution will be presented to the Althingi parliament next week, but it remains to be seen if Sigurdadóttir’s plan to submit a membership application in July will be approved by a parliament where most of the parties have resisted joining the EU.

Like Norway, Iceland is part of the fifteen year old EEA and the Schengen Agreement. Despite the financial disaster, Iceland is a stable democracy (with the world’s oldest parliament), rule of law, as well as Nordic quality governance and public services.

If the difficult issues, such as fishing rights, can be solved, most of the Community legislation (acquis communautaire) could be ticked off at record speed.

If matters advance that far, Icelanders would most probably decide on the membership in a referendum, but it is difficult to predict the outcome.


***


Unenthusiastic Europeans?

People sometimes wonder that people in the Nordic countries inside the European Union are fairly unenthusiastic about the European project, and two still remain on the outside.

Denmark joined only in 1973, together with the United Kingdom and Ireland. Sweden and Finland became EU members even later, in 1995.

Norway and Iceland, as stated above, are still on the outside.

There are other causes, besides relatively short periods of EU membership. Despite high levels of taxation, Nordic citizens are justifiably proud of their economic and technological standards, quality of life, good governance, high quality public services and fairly equal societies.

EU (or continental) standards of governance are not necessarily perceived as improvements. Here the European Union has a lot to do, if it wants to be less of a let-down. On the other hand, only a constant willingness to learn and to improve will keep the Nordics in the top of the world leagues, so a degree of humility is not only becoming, it is a necessity.

The Eurovision of the Nordic EU members’ governments can hardly be described as enthusiastic, but generally as constructive and pragmatic.

Business interests hope for more decisive action by the EU to free world trade, to improve the internal market and to get the Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs moving.

Citizens, perhaps grudgingly, gradually acknowledge the need for more Europe with regard to climate change, the environment, energy, development policies and peace missions.


Ralf Grahn

Declan Ganley & Libertas: One big mess?

Declan Ganley + Libertas = 1 big mess?

Wasting Ganley’s money?

Making up claims?

When are we going to see a coherent programme for a better Europe?

Are Libertas’s calls for accountability and democracy a reactionary recipe for gridlock or a ticket to profound EU reform?


***


Ahead of the European elections, Libertas raises many questions, but offers few answers.


At this moment, very little in the way of credible policies has come out of Libertas’s first congress. This makes rational analysis difficult, which begs the question if it is the unintended result of amateurism or the chosen mode of operation for a disparate populist movement.



Despite the dearth of materials, I am going to dedicate a few blog posts to aspects of what Libertas is offering voters ahead of the European elections, to the extent that rational analysis is possible.

Sadly, I come to the conclusion that there is not enough material open to rational discussion. Don’t blame me, if voids have to be filled by speculation.


***

Venue

The chosen venue was Rome, officially where the EEC and Euratom Treaties of Rome were signed.

But Ganley’s recruitment drive and largesse seem to have attracted mostly nationalists, rejectionists and conservative Catholics from the hard line right of national politics. Thus, the seat of the Bishop of Rome may have resonated at a deeper level with many of the star performers and participants.


***

Membership

By the looks of it, there were hundreds of participants. Libertas, which has become known for presenting nice round figures, claims 1,000.

On Friday Declan Ganley made the following claim:

“Over a million of you have joined us through libertas.eu so far.”

A million Libertas members is an astonishing claim. It would be nice to see such an assertion substantiated with a suitable breakdown between national chapters.



Ralf Grahn

NATO & EU: Rewarding freeloading?

Since 1 April 2009 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has the following 28 members: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

In part, NATO is larger than the European Union. There are seven non-EU NATO members: Albania, Canada, Croatia, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and the United States.

The remaining 21 are members of both NATO and the European Union. Double membership clearly represents the European mainstream.

Out of a total of 27 current EU member states, only six have left themselves outside NATO: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden.

These countries represent a fringe within the EU in four respects:

1. Their total population is about 28.2 million, or 5.7 per cent of a total EU population of 495.1 million.
2. Geographically they are more or less on the outer rim of the EU (although Austria has been overtaken and embedded by later entrants).
3. Their definitions of (military) non-alignment or neutrality have kept them outside NATO.
4. Their status with regard to the security and defence aspects of the common foreign and security policy can be described as an opt-out (The policy of the Union in accordance with this Article shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States … ; Article 17 TEU).

To continue the discussion from my post Tony Blair new “EU President?” I ask: How could such a freeloading country (or a representative from one of them) be expected to drive forward a common defence policy and a common European defence?



This is, after all, one of the crucial areas for the European Council, and as such of its coming President.

Do the arguments look different, if we look at the double-hatted High Representative?

Am I being unreasonable or have these countries disqualified themselves from the top jobs under the Lisbon Treaty?

In my humble opinion, responsibilities and rewards should go hand in hand.


Ralf Grahn

Turkey and Mexico: Join the Union!

Why do Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy act so curmudgeonly about president Barack Obama’s strong support for Turkish membership in the European Union? Why not come up with innovative ideas of their own?

The best way to anchor Turkey firmly as a Western nation (and to serve American geostrategic interests) would be to accept it as a part of the Union.

Throw in Mexico for good measure. No more illegal immigration once the border is eliminated.

Why should the European Union have a monopoly on peaceful expansion, having grown from six to 27 since 1973? At the same time the USA has stagnated. The time has come for the United States of America to act responsibly by inviting two new states in need of anchoring. Adding two states to fifty shouldn’t be much of a challenge.

Send out the invitations from Europe, if the US government is too timid.


Ralf Grahn

Turkey ending its EU membership bid?

Is Turkey going to end its bid for accession to the European Union?

This is the way it looks after the opening of the NATO summit, where Turkey seems to have vetoed the candidacy of Danish premier Anders Fogh Rasmussen to become the next Secretary General.

The Turkish reforms were already down to snail’s pace, so perhaps Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has just decided to drive the last nail into the coffin of his country’s EU aspirations, without having to withdraw the bid formally.


Ralf Grahn