European Parliament: New sloth habitat?

There was not very much the institutions of the European Union could do, when the Lisbon Treaty agreed by the EU member states went on its ratification tour of 27 capitals, but once it became clear that the amending treaty finally enters into force, all the institutions have a responsibility to get the EU up and running under the new rules.

The European Council appointed its president and the high representative before 1 December 2009. José Manuel Barroso unveiled his new Commission on Friday, 27 November 2009. Well done!

The European Parliament has rejoiced in its new powers under the Lisbon Treaty. But what does it do?


The European Parliament's Conference of Presidents (EP President Jerzy Buzek and the political group leaders) decided on Thursday that the hearings should last three hours each and take place on 11-15 January in Brussels and on 18 and 19 January in Strasbourg. To enable a final vote to be taken before the end of January, a special mini-session is scheduled for Tuesday 26 January 2010.

Can the European Parliament be serious about this?

We have a caretaker Commission in place in an irregular position, well past its “go by” date, and the European Parliament shamelessly tells us that it needs two months to do its duty!

Further, the EP sanctimoniously tries to create the impression that it moves with haste, holding “a special mini-session”.

Sancta simplicitas!



The sloth must have found a new habitat in Europe: the European Parliament.




Ralf Grahn



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

President of the European Council vote

Eurobloggers have actively spread the word about the vote arranged by Fondation Robert Schuman between some of the personalities officially in the running or presumed to be candidates for the new post of president of the European Council, to be decided by the heads of government or state on 19 November 2009.

Here are some of the blog posts about the vote on the president of the European Council:



Eurosocialist(e): The best of the web: vote for the European Council President (11 November 2009)



European Union Law, Vihar Georgiev: Now You Can Choose the President of the European Council (13 November 2009)



Grahnlaw, Ralf Grahn: Final ratification of EU Lisbon Treaty – finally (14 November 2009)



Grahnlaw, Ralf Grahn: Your vote for the(ir) President of the European Council! (14 November 2009)



The European Citizen, Conor Slowey: You shouldn’t get to vote for the President of the European Council (14 November 2009)


***

The European Citizen

Most of the blog posts mentioned encourage EU citizens to express their opinion, by voting between the candidates on offer (NB Not all candidates are there).

The European Citizen discusses the new post in terms of principles: The chairman of the European Council should not be directly elected, but open election procedures are called for. Arguing for opaqueness is ridiculous.


Openness

I broadly agree with The European Citizen, although I see the (s)election procedures as a sad illustration of intergovernmental cooperation. This is what you get, if you want a European Union of “freely cooperating, sovereign nation states”.

But for those, like The European Citizen, who want a (more) democratic European Union, the official black-out concerning candidates and most member states’ preferences, as well as the priority given to the sensitivities of our national leaders are a disgrace. The secrecy makes a mockery out of the basic Lisbon Treaty principle of a union “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

The first acts under the Lisbon Treaty run contrary to its basic aims.

At national level, politicians have to endure the rigours of election campaigns. How can it be right that at European level their feelings should be spared?

It is as if the winner of the national football cup should be allowed to participate in the European cup without publicity, in order not to hurt the team’s feelings, if it happens to lose. Why is it impossible to continue playing at national level, come Monday?


Wrong model

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s presidential ambitions for this post make it an anomaly, as if we needed a French presidential democracy in the EU. France is the exception, not the rule, in European traditions of representative democracy.

Anything beyond a chairman complicates the structure of the European Union, potentially leading to turf wars between the president of the European Council, the high representative and the president of the Commission.

When the time for reform comes, it is not a presidential democracy, but a parliamentary system, built on proportional representation, which is the right model. In this I agree with The European Citizen.

The Commission is the germ of the future government, based on the results of the European Parliament elections.


***

Participate in the poll


Even if there is little reason to enhance the role of the president of the European Council, the poll arranged by the Fondation Robert Schuman is important in its own way.

Lively participation shows that EU citizens are interested and engaged, and that is a sign of health.

I see this vote as a wake-up call for a better union, where the citizens set the course for government.

The Holy Alliance is not the model for the future European Union in the 21st century, and our leaders should finally begin to accept that.



I strongly urge all EU citizens to participate in the Fondation Robert Schuman poll.


***

The candidates

The candidates on offer in the Fondation Robert Schuman poll are, in alphabetical order: Jan Peter Balkenende, Tony Blair, Jean-Claude Juncker, Herman Van Rompuy and Vaira Vike-Freiberga.



The president of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, has openly declared that he is in the running to become either president of the European Council or high representative, but he is not among the listed candidates.


According to Javno, the president of the European Parliament, Poland’s Jerzy Buzek, yesterday called for José Maria Aznar, the conservative former prime minister of Spain, to become the new president of the European Council.


***

My suggestion is: Show the engagement of civil society by voting for one of the candidates on offer, or show your support for another candidate by commenting on blogs or using other suitable means.

Participation does not preclude you from advocating a sounder structure for the future union.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common future.

Your vote for the(ir) President of the European Council!

Despite the official black-out concerning candidates and the member states’ preferences, the French think tank Fondation Robert Schuman offers EU citizens a vote on a selection of personalities, officially in the running or presumed to be candidates for the new post of president of the European Council, to be decided by the heads of government or state on 19 November 2009, in a union “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

They are, in alphabetical order: Jan Peter Balkenende, Tony Blair, Jean-Claude Juncker, Herman Van Rompuy and Vaira Vike-Freiberga.

Even if the information has been spread by a few Euroblogs, the number of participants is rising rapidly. A few moments ago, 9,165 had participated in the poll. At the time I wrote my previous post, there were 8,733, so more than 400 new voters had expressed their opinion since early morning.

You don’t need to be much of a demagogue to conclude that our leaders have missed a great opportunity to connect with the citizens of the European Union.



UPDATE 14 November 2009 about 18:00 EET: The vote count is growing rapidly. During the last twelve hours 1,539 persons have voted, bringing the total from 8,733 to 10,272 votes. Have your say!



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read the Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, and discuss our common future.

EU Council: Voting on behalf of another member

A member of the Council of the European Union can transfer his vote to another member.


***

Current TEC

Article 206 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) offers a Council member the opportunity to be represented by another member of the Council of the European Union (consolidated version of the treaties in force, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/137):


Article 206 TEC

Where a vote is taken, any Member of the Council may also act on behalf of not more than one other member.


***

Original Lisbon Treaty

Point 191 of the original Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) amended Article 205 TEC and point 192 replaced the wording of Article 207 TEC, so no specific amendments were made to Article 206 TEC (OJEU 17.12.2007 C 306/104-105.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

There were no horizontal amendments either, so the wording of the provision is unchanged. After renumbering it became Article 239 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/154):


Article 239 TFEU
(ex Article 206 TEC)

Where a vote is taken, any Member of the Council may also act on behalf of not more than one other member.


***

Does it matter?

Article 11(3) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (consolidated version of 1 January 2009) reiterates the wording of Article 206 TEC, without adding anything.

According to Article 203 TEC, the Council shall consist of a representative of each member state at ministerial level, authorised to commit the government of that member state.

The contents of Article 16(2) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU), in the consolidated Lisbon Treaty, are practically the same:

“The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may
commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.”

In other words, a representative at ministerial level may transfer his vote to another member of the Council.

The procedure offers the possibility to reach a unanimous decision, if a member is unable to attend, or to reach the needed majority for a decision.

The maximum possible would be 13 member states transferring their votes to as many other members.

***

Participation

Sometimes a government minister is absent, and a high-ranking official, such as a Secretary of State or the EU ambassador (permanent representative) participates in the deliberations, but the wording of the provisions seems to exclude the right to vote.


Article 4 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure provides for representation:


Article 4
Representation of a Council member unable to attend

Subject to the provisions of Article 11 on the delegation of voting rights, a member of the Council who is prevented from attending a meeting may arrange to be represented.


***

If I remember correctly, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and President Jacques Chirac made a show of Franco-German amity at one meeting of the European Council, when Schröder left the meeting to attend to domestic politics and said that he would be represented by the French President.

(I failed in my modest efforts to find confirmation, but perhaps some reader of this blog can add a reference.)


Ralf Grahn

European election results 2009: Finland

I will just pass on the detailed information in the biggest Finnish daily, Helsingin Sanomat, for those interested: SUNDAY NIGHT: True Finns and Greens advance in European Parliament elections as big parties suffer.





Ralf Grahn

European elections 2009: What happens next?

The European Parliament election results are provisional, but almost final results can be expected during the day.

Four out of ten EU citizens voted in these elections (43.09%), continuing the downward trend in turnout.

***

Left failed

Politically, I find the weakening of the centre-left (PES) and left (GUE/NGL) parties most astounding for the long term. In the middle of a financial crisis and a deep economic recession, the mainly opposition left parties failed to put forward a candidate for the Commission Presidency and to convince voters on alternative economic and social policies.

Only one out of four (about 26.3%) voted left, although the PES will remain the second largest political group in the European Parliament (159 MEPs); GUE/NGL 33 seats.

Source: European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections (provisional 8 June 2009 03:07 CEST).



***

Governable EP

The mainstream centre-right group of the European People’s Party seems set to remain the dominant group in the EP, with 267 seats (36.3% of the total).

The new European Parliament is governable. Taken together, the “constructive” or mainstream groups – EPP, PES, ALDE, Greens – would total 558 seats, or more than three quarters of the MEPs (75.8%), based on historical affinities, but the gains were generally made by hard or extreme right parties.

***

New political groups

Before the new European Parliament convenes on 14 July 2009, intense negotiations are going to take place to form the political groups, which are the instruments for parliamentary work.

Changes will take place among the nationalist right.

Especially the large group Others (90 seats), which includes the UK Conservatives, and UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), with 35 seats, and IND/DEM (Independence/Democracy Group), with 20 MEPs, will see considerable movement.

The anti-federalist coalition announced by the UK Conservative Party (24 MEPs according to the BBC), the ultra-conservative Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS, Kaczynski twins) with 16 seats and the Czech ODS (Topolanek, ex Klaus) with 9 MEPs, already has 49 MEPs in the bag. It will encounter no problems with the minimum size of a political group (25), but it needs members from at least four additional member states.

The anti-federalists will have to find their new friends among the remaining 96 MEPs, who represent a wide variety of national populist and protest parties, some of them fascist and racist.

For the sake of propriety, the British Conservatives have to draw a line somewhere, but they will probably take on board enough allies to get the group formed.

For the UK Conservative Party the European Parliament is of secondary importance. They are doing all they can to expedite the demise of Gordon Brown’s Labour government, and to win the next general election.

In government, the Tories can start to put European integration in reverse gear, by demanding repatriation of powers, rejecting the Lisbon Treaty and blocking progress. Nobody seems to doubt the outcome of the next UK general election, but the timing of the election and the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon have profound consequences for Europe.

***

Barroso Commission

The EPP will have to look for support in order to secure a majority for José Manuel Barroso as the President of the Commission. Under the Treaty of Nice, a simple majority is enough, but the EPP is about 102 votes short if they want to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, it is difficult to know how many of the British, Portuguese and Spanish PES MEPs (and perhaps others) are going to vote for Barroso in line with their party leaders and members of the European Council, which will put forward Barroso, probably on 18 to 19 June 2009.

Even theoretically it would be difficult to build a sufficient anti-Barroso coalition, to say nothing about a constructive alliance for a specific alternative candidate, although Guy Verhofstadt and Mario Monti have been mentioned.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Diverted in unity

Julien Frisch has shown more desperation than euphoria in his reflections on the European Parliament elections, and it is easy to see a number of reasons why.



On the other hand, this Sunday is the big day. On the BBC’s web page (European) Elections 2009 we find the 19 member states, where people are voting for their representatives in the European Parliament:



Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

The political parties at European level have remained on the sidelines, the choices are limited and the campaigns have been mainly national in scope.

The motto “United in diversity” is like a pale shadow of “E pluribus unum”, and today European Union citizens will probably be more diverted than united.

Despite the shortcomings, these are the most European elections we have at this point in history. The 40 per cent or whatever proportion of EU citizens who bother to vote will vote for a candidate or a party aiming for one of the institutions of the European Union, of growing importance at that.

It is true that national elections lead to the formation of governments, and that the Prime Ministers and other Ministers in the Council of the European Union have more of a say in what the EU becomes or isn’t allowed to become. But the weight of European affairs is even less in general elections.

There is something to be said for smooth interaction between national governments and parliaments in EU affairs, but scrutiny through 27 national prisms will never compensate for the lack of real parliamentary democracy and accountable government at EU level.

What would it look like, if national affairs were run by representatives of local Boards, and the important decisions had to be ratified by the local Councils, with a Parliament allowed to have a say on part of the issues?

***

Whatever the outcome of today’s European elections (and the earlier votes), the EU institutions will work the next four years, eleven months and 20-something days.

How well or badly will depend in part on today’s vote. Even when the choices and the impact are limited, some alternatives are more constructive than others.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Four constructive choices

Most of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) we vote into office in the European elections 4 to 7 June 2009 are going to work in and with the political groups, which form the backbone of EP work.

Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.


The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.

The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).

In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).

Here are the four responsible political groups:



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.






PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).






ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).






The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.




***

You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?


Ralf Grahn

European elections in Britain: In or out?

The European elections today in Britain mark the break-up of the Conservative Partys’s civil union with the European mainstream right and moving in with the right-far right in the European Parliament. The European elections will be an indication of the UK’s future position in Europe.

David Cameron wants to put European integration in reverse gear, but keep the United Kingdom inside the EU. Blocking the Lisbon Treaty and repatriating powers, using Britain’s veto on the EU’s next long term budget, are telling signs of a trajectory towards the fringes.


Social Europe Journal

In the Social Europe Journal, Henning Meyer takes a more principled stand. He sees that the ambiguity of the UK’s attitude towards European integration can only be resolved by a referendum on the membership question: “The Union is far from perfect but becoming better and it is the best hope for Europe to play a leading role in the politics of the 21st century. Britain should decide whether to stay in warts-and-all or leave.”

Britain’s Future in the European Union – Stay in warts-and-all of Leave (3 June 2009) is worth reading before the ballots are cast.



***

Federal Union

Richard Laming on the Federal Union blog has posted: Conservative policy on Europe becomes clearer (3 June 2009).



Laming does not see that a new intergovernmental conference under a veto threat concerning the long term budget would succeed or make Britain more influential.

***

Holding Europe hostage

If the latest UK governments have been fairly unconstructive, the probable future government party has chosen a style even more abrasive and confrontational. This calls for an assessment of their threats.

The advantages of the European Union, including the internal market, are naturally much wider than the “membership fees”, but anti-Europeans are usually obsessed by them.

In addition, it makes sense to evaluate the stranglehold the British contribution has on the European Union financially.


Nosemonkey’s EUtopia referred to the HM Treasury Report: European Community Finances Statement on the 2008 EC Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement (Cm 7462, September 2008), which showed the following net contributions of the United Kingdom (£ billion):

(2006) 3.9
(2007) 4.6
(2008) 3.6 (estimated)





The UK net contribution is roughly £4 billion annually, which translates into something like €4.6 billion.

Switzerland and the non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, with access to the internal market, contribute to the EU budget.

***

Voters in the European elections in Britain send a signal on their country’s future relations with Europe. A vote for one of the parties in or near the European mainstream – the Liberal Democrats, the Greens or Labour – is a voice for some sort of constructive engagement.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: Voting for Europe

Plan A


When the heads of state or government signed the Treaty of Lisbon, they promised to take into account the elections to the European Parliament and to hold appropriate consultations before proposing a candidate for President of the Commission (Article 17(7) TEU).

Thinking that they were honourable ladies and gentlemen, I decided to vote for the (Euro)party launching the best candidate to head the Commission.

Long before most EU citizens were even aware of the upcoming European Parliament elections, a bunch of these heads of state or government (and national party leaders) had backed a new term for José Manuel Barroso and reduced their European level parties to impotence.

Actions speak louder than words, and our political leaders showed their disregard for one of the few concessions the Lisbon Treaty offered directly to the citizens of the European Union, and consequently for European level democracy.

In the end, only the European People’s Party (EPP) dutifully endorsed its candidate for the Commission Presidency, José Manuel Barroso backed in advance by a great portion of the electoral college of 27.

As a voter, I have been robbed of a choice.


***

Plan B

With Plan A on the scrap heap, the time has come to resort to a Plan B.

Despite the minimal impact of my one vote, it is still important for me. How should I decide?

I feel a moral obligation to use my limited vote in a constructive manner. The European Parliament has been growing in importance, and the Lisbon Treaty would improve its position, despite the overwhelming union of heads of state or government and their governments.

Even if I vote in a national election, my choice has European implications. I vote for an individual or a party, which will join one of the political groups in the European Parliament.


***

Admittedly, the EP is far from perfect. It has actively suppressed information on abuse of MEPs’ expenses and its late-coming reforms have been half-hearted. It should openly publish detailed information on expenses and audits. It should also automatically publish the meeting documents of its internal bodies (Bureau, Conference of Presidents).

But where the European Parliament has powers, it does a decent job to co-legislate and to debate, and its information is more readily available than the Council’s.

Lacking powers, the absence of accountable government with distinct government and opposition alternatives, sometimes required oversized majorities leading to fuzzy consensus, as well as the trend to agree on legislative acts between the institutions in advance tend to dampen the EP’s role as a vibrant arena.


***

The European Parliament should embrace real openness, transparency and accountability in its internal affairs. Hopefully the Westminster “duck-house scandal” propels the EP and national parliaments to mend their ways. The dominant political groups could do a lot to enhance the respect of their institution by embarking on a course of decisive reform.

The institutional limitations are harder to overcome, but the European Parliament is the citizens’ best hope for an effective and democratic European Union.

Luckily, the EP does not only vote on obligatory proposed laws, but it gains know-how in areas which the member states’ governments jealously guard as their prerogatives, such as foreign, security and defence policy, long term budget, economic and monetary policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and agriculture.

The European Union can debate any issue on its own initiative, and although its formal powers to propose laws are limited, it can call for legislation or action.


***

Four constructive choices

Despite the internal shortcomings and the external limitations, I see four constructive alternatives for the European voter. It is to vote for a candidate or party, which would join one of the responsible political groups in the EP. Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.



PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, with a probable Conservative government around the corner).



ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the dubious right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).



The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.


***


Vote for Europe

My vote is going to one of these four groups, which I see as responsible forces for a better Europe. I hope that increasing numbers of my fellow-Europeans decide to vote and that they, cast their votes for a responsible candidate. To reject sterile protest is a sign of civic duty and maturity.

A better Europe starts within ourselves.

Vote for Europe in the European elections.



Ralf Grahn

European elections: Verhofstadt or Barroso?

On the web pages of the Union of European Federalists (UEF) Guido Montani writes Who is my candidate? (19 May 2009).



After discussing the post of the President of the Commission, Montani concludes:


“We can say something more. Verhofstadt is in favour of the United States of Europe. He is in favour of a federal budget, a federal foreign policy and the removal of the veto right. A public debate, in the European Parliament, on the choice of the President of the European Commission is also a debate on the federalist future of the European Union. Therefore, I have no doubt. If there is the possibility to choose between Barroso and Verhofstadt, I choose Verhofstadt and at the next European election I will vote for a European party supporting Verhosfstadt as the next President of the European Commission.”


***


Guy Verhofstadt

Here is Wikipedia’s article on three times Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt (last modified 10 May 2009).



***


“It’s your choice”


We citizens of the European Union have been told about the European elections that our votes matter and that the kind of Europe we want is our choice.

In my view, Guy Verhofstadt is the most credible candidate put forward to date as an alternative to José Manuel Barroso.

Heads of state or government may have trumpeted their preferences long before they listened to our voices or counted our votes, but political parties, MEP candidates and EU citizens are not bound by their deals.

What we need now is clear information about the possibilities to vote for parties or candidates who support Verhofstadt.

Please, comment in order to give citizens a choice.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: My vote matters?

Yesterday Commission President José Manuel Barroso launched an appeal to EU citizens to vote in the upcoming European elections. His message was that my vote matters, and that the course of the European Union is in my hands.

Yesterday I was only able to access the press release, but today I could see the recorded video message, and the text is available in additional languages.

***

The European Union today is much less responsive to the voice of its citizens than I would prefer. Official messages – including Barroso’s – tend to overemphasise the role of the European Parliament, especially ahead of the EP elections.

But as citizens we have a damned duty to cast our vote, limited as it may be, and to make the wisest choice possible for the future of our children and grandchildren in Europe.

We just have to find someone who is part of the solution, instead of the problem.


Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty & European Council: Composition

The composition of the European Council would undergo one change under the Treaty of Lisbon. The President of the European Council would become a member, according to Article 15(2) of the amended Treaty on European Union (TEU).

The head of state or government of each member state would still be a member, as would the President of the Commission, as under the current Article 4 TEU.

Article 15(2) TEU (Lisbon)

2. The European Council shall consist of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States, together with its President and the President of the Commission. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy shall take part in its work.

(OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/23)


***

Members first class

The heads of state or government would vote, if and when the European Council makes a decision by voting.


***

Members second class

The President of the European Council (chairman) and the President of the Commission do not have the vote, according to Article 235(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).


***


High Representative

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy would take part in the work of the European Council.

The Council meets in different configurations, of which the existing General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) mentioned in Article 2 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure is most closely linked to the European Council through its coordinating functions and its subject matter, external relations.

The Treaty of Lisbon splits the GAERC into two different Council configurations: the coordinating General Affairs Council (GAC) and the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) (Article 16(6) TEU Lisbon).

(Preparatory work is needed for the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty.)


The High Representative chairs the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), which means that it would be represented at the meetings of the European Council without the Foreign Ministers of the member states (Article 27(1) TEU Lisbon).

As we will see, this has immediate consequences, but it may have interesting long term implications as well.


Ralf Grahn

Lisbon Treaty ratification tally

For or against the EU Treaty of Lisbon? It does not matter, but facts on the ratification processes do.

One of the best sources is the Ratification section of the Wikipedia web page Treaty of Lisbon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Ratification

Quickly updated, with brief but sufficient remarks and exact parliamentary votes, Wikipedia serves an important information need.

Although parliamentary ratification is the essential requirement in political EU discourse, formally many member states provide for presidential signature, and the ratification instrument has to be deposited in Rome with the Italian government.

A short while ago the tally was: ratified 19 member states, not ratified 7 member states, rejected 1 member state. – The ratification instrument had been deposited by ten members.

***

Readers interested in EU politics may care to study the outcomes of the parliamentary votes. If the national heads of state or government or even the national governments can somehow be contrived to be a mysterious ‘EU elite’, what can be said about the national parliamentarians, who in almost devastating numbers have voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty?

Do the perceptions tally with the facts?


Ralf Grahn

Update 19 June 2008: European Union Law Blog is an excellent source of Lisbon Treaty ratification news and commentary in German. Plus there is a handy ratification list in chronological order at:

http://www.law-europe.eu/ratifikationsstand/

Especially during the last days I have noticed that EUbusiness.com has been very alert with news stories on the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in English. Go to:

http://www.eubusiness.com/