‘Energetic’ is the first world that comes to my mind, when I look at France’s newly installed president Nicolas Sarkozy less than a fortnight into his five years in office. He has promised the French people a first wave of reforms in just a hundred days.
Two thirds of the French voters are satisfied with their new head of state, reports Le Figaro on 26 May 2007.
More important, however, than honeymoon polls and an energetic image is if Mr Sarkozy is going to do the right things for France, Europe and the world.
For an eminent background story, turn to “In Sarkoland”, by William Pfaff in the New York Review of Books. Here, just a snippet on economic reform:
“He is not really an economic liberal in the European sense either, pro-business and a free-trade advocate – as in the liberal parties across Europe. He advocates some deregulation of the French labor market, cuts in bureaucracy, and reduction of debt, but he also believes in “economic patriotism” and government interventions in industries important to the French economy.”
Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform wrote a piece called “Nicolas Sarkozy: Turkophobe and protectionist?” where he reasoned:
“The other worry about Sarkozy is the apparent contradiction in his thinking. He supports Thatcherite policies at home – he promises to slim the state, cut taxes and liberalise the labour markets – but attacks the Commission’s trade and competition policies, as well as the monetary policy of the European Central Bank. In his first speech as president-elect, he asked France’s partners “to hear the voice of the peoples who want to be protected”. In his recent book, I was struck by his vehement opposition to foreign ownership of French companies.”
“If Sarkozy does try to combine economic liberalism at home with protectionism at EU level, he will be heading for a big clash with his EU partners – most of whom support the EU’s broadly liberal trade and competition policies.”
Then we have the delicate question of world trade negotiations (WTO) and their linkage to the common agricultural policy (CAP) of the European Union. Charles Grant assumed that “Sarkozy is unlikely to share Chirac’s visceral hostility to reform of EU farm policy”, but during his visit in Brussels Sarkozy said that “he would refuse to sell off the interests of French agriculture in WTO negotiations”. He would not risk Europe’s agricultural independence in exchange for a better opening-up of services. Mr Sarkozy expected Europe to take a much tougher stance in global trade talks (as reported by EurActiv, Le Monde, the Financial Times).
There have been mixed signals on agricultural reform. Philippe Ricard wrote in Le Monde that the government doesn’t look “hermetically closed” to CAP reform, but without haste. In the same newspaper Eric Le Boucher predicted that the ones who expected a liberal opening are going to be disappointed.
Other controversial statements by president Sarkozy include “a protective Europe”, plans to increase French government ownership in the ailing aerospace giant EADS, a veritable economic and fiscal shock for France (taking leave of budgetary restraint within the Eurogroup), while at the same time announcing coming initiatives on the Eurozone’s economic governance, which might include measures to harmonise indirect and company taxation.
Pessimistic assessments speak of coming clashes on economic policy with Mrs Merkel, Mr Brown and Mr Barroso.
If president Sarkozy breaks with the Lisbon agenda, the stability pact, vital internal market rules and main tenets of EC competition policy he is going to have a hard time forging alliances among the EU leaders. His stance on these things and world trade won’t endear him to Europe’s and France’s emerging trading partners.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Monday, 28 May 2007
Estonians Support the EU
The Estonian government reports that a record 85 per cent of its citizens of voting age supported membership in the European Union in May 2007.
Ralf Grahn
Ralf Grahn
Debating the Constitution
The current revival … is based on realism rather than idealism. Still, it does at least provide an opportunity to address the shortcomings of the current arrangements and to equip the EU for the expected (and unexpected) challenges that lie ahead, say Sara Hagemann and Antonio Missiroli of the European Policy Centre.
Their policy brief “Debating the Constitution: between realism and revival” examines the background, the state of play and the prospects for treaty reform for the European Union.
In their view, the main challenge still lies in rapidly forging a deal that is sufficiently incisive to ensure that the enlarged EU functions efficiently, but is also capable of being accepted and ratified by all 27 Member States. EU governments must not forget to canvass public opinion and build support for the emerging deal during the negotiations.
Ralf Grahn
Their policy brief “Debating the Constitution: between realism and revival” examines the background, the state of play and the prospects for treaty reform for the European Union.
In their view, the main challenge still lies in rapidly forging a deal that is sufficiently incisive to ensure that the enlarged EU functions efficiently, but is also capable of being accepted and ratified by all 27 Member States. EU governments must not forget to canvass public opinion and build support for the emerging deal during the negotiations.
Ralf Grahn
”Europe needs a deal”
To move on, Europe needs a deal, is the conclusion of Hugo Brady and Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform.
Their policy brief “Why treaty change matters for business and for Britain” looks at the treaty reform the European Council is going to discuss in June.
Brady and Grant state that business should feel broadly satisfied with the way the EU is developing. However, treaty change is not an unnecessary distraction. Business in general, and the British in particular, have a strong interest in Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, striking a deal on a new treaty at the Brussels summit on June 22nd 2007.
British businesses have a clear interest in efficient EU institutions and procedures.
Outside direct business interests, the authors point out two areas where European Union institutions and procedures work poorly: foreign policy, and justice and home affairs.
Among the EU’s interior ministries, there is a growing realisation that international co-operation is essential in the fight against organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism, but decision-making is hampered by unanimity.
A second area is the Common Foreign and Security Policy, where the rotating presidency and the split between the High Representative and the Commission pose serious problems.
If there is no treaty change, the authors see serious strategic damage for the EU, in three ways:
· For many countries treaty change and enlargement go hand in hand, because further enlargement without reform would weaken EU institutions, so they might block the enlargement process.
· A British veto on treaty change would lead to a loss of British influence. The creation of vanguard groups would gain momentum, and Britain would be marginalised.
· The Union would become less able to deal with its external challenges, and it would become more introspective.
The Union needs to strike a compromise on treaty change, and then move on to deal with the issues that matter, is the message of Brady and Grant.
Ralf Grahn
Their policy brief “Why treaty change matters for business and for Britain” looks at the treaty reform the European Council is going to discuss in June.
Brady and Grant state that business should feel broadly satisfied with the way the EU is developing. However, treaty change is not an unnecessary distraction. Business in general, and the British in particular, have a strong interest in Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, striking a deal on a new treaty at the Brussels summit on June 22nd 2007.
British businesses have a clear interest in efficient EU institutions and procedures.
Outside direct business interests, the authors point out two areas where European Union institutions and procedures work poorly: foreign policy, and justice and home affairs.
Among the EU’s interior ministries, there is a growing realisation that international co-operation is essential in the fight against organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism, but decision-making is hampered by unanimity.
A second area is the Common Foreign and Security Policy, where the rotating presidency and the split between the High Representative and the Commission pose serious problems.
If there is no treaty change, the authors see serious strategic damage for the EU, in three ways:
· For many countries treaty change and enlargement go hand in hand, because further enlargement without reform would weaken EU institutions, so they might block the enlargement process.
· A British veto on treaty change would lead to a loss of British influence. The creation of vanguard groups would gain momentum, and Britain would be marginalised.
· The Union would become less able to deal with its external challenges, and it would become more introspective.
The Union needs to strike a compromise on treaty change, and then move on to deal with the issues that matter, is the message of Brady and Grant.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 27 May 2007
Spoilsports
Every working day Open Europe monitors the European press to fault the European Union. Sometimes the organisation publishes a longer piece like its recent “The New Treaty: What will it mean and do we need a referendum?”.
This paper deals with most of the questions on the table of European Union leaders ahead of the June European Council.
Open Europe discusses what is likely to be in the new treaty:
· An EU President
· An EU Foreign Minister, and more powers for the EU over foreign policy
· Reducing British ability to block legislation
· More majority voting?
Open Europe does not find a kind word to say about any of the reforms being discussed. It then moves on to demand a referendum.
For a European citizen it is fascinating to read arguments that totally ignore the interests of Europeans, the European Union and the good the EU could achieve in the world, given the tools.
In the end, it is difficult to avoid the impression that everything British is superior, anything European is inferior and every proposal from Brussels is a curse. Only thus can the real underpinning of the arguments be understood.
But is it really an ethical position to be member of a union only to maximise one’s chances to fly solo, to obstruct progress and to sabotage decision-making? Or is the purpose of Open Europe to beat a retreat behind the moat and to restart an era of “splendid isolation”?
Ralf Grahn
This paper deals with most of the questions on the table of European Union leaders ahead of the June European Council.
Open Europe discusses what is likely to be in the new treaty:
· An EU President
· An EU Foreign Minister, and more powers for the EU over foreign policy
· Reducing British ability to block legislation
· More majority voting?
Open Europe does not find a kind word to say about any of the reforms being discussed. It then moves on to demand a referendum.
For a European citizen it is fascinating to read arguments that totally ignore the interests of Europeans, the European Union and the good the EU could achieve in the world, given the tools.
In the end, it is difficult to avoid the impression that everything British is superior, anything European is inferior and every proposal from Brussels is a curse. Only thus can the real underpinning of the arguments be understood.
But is it really an ethical position to be member of a union only to maximise one’s chances to fly solo, to obstruct progress and to sabotage decision-making? Or is the purpose of Open Europe to beat a retreat behind the moat and to restart an era of “splendid isolation”?
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 26 May 2007
Pro Europeans?
Compare this end-note of Ed Balls, MP and Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with some English tabloids and lobby groups:
“So we should reject ideological approaches to Europe, in favour of a pragmatic and hard-headed approach that reflects the reality of Britain, Europe and the world in the 21st century: a successful Britain strengthened by its membership of the EU, and an outward-looking globally-focussed EU strengthened by the UK’s active engagement.”
In “Britain and Europe: A City minister’s perspective” (published by the Centre for European Reform) Ed Balls presents his reasoning for constructive engagement for the United Kingdom within the European Union.
His essay deals with:
Financial services
The single market and beyond
Energy, climate change and the single market
Reforming the EU budget
Europe needs to take steps to ensure more outward-looking financial and other markets, ensuring Europe’s ability to compete in global markets.
The Lisbon Agenda should lead to a commitment to structural reforms matched with social policies to equip people for change: flexibility combined with fairness.
Full opening of European energy markets would lead to total savings running to tens of billions of euros.
The 2007 EU budget is outdated: 40 per cent of the total expenditure is still allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy, while more than 60 per cent of structural and cohesion fund expenditure is still transferred to rich member states.
For a European citizen interested in jobs, growth and prosperity, the economic reform agenda of Ed Balls sounds a lot more promising than a lot of what the “dynamic reformer”, the new French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said in the first days of his tenure.
But, European integration is more than enlargement and an ever wider internal market. The European Union needs effective institutions to enhance external and internal security, transparency, union level democracy for union level decisions, as well as legal protection for companies and individuals.
Hopefully the reform programme of Messrs Balls and Brown extends to overdue institutional reform of the European Union.
From a European citizen’s perspective each government defining its own “national interests” looks less convincing than the ones which would learn to ask: What is good for Europeans?
Ralf Grahn
“So we should reject ideological approaches to Europe, in favour of a pragmatic and hard-headed approach that reflects the reality of Britain, Europe and the world in the 21st century: a successful Britain strengthened by its membership of the EU, and an outward-looking globally-focussed EU strengthened by the UK’s active engagement.”
In “Britain and Europe: A City minister’s perspective” (published by the Centre for European Reform) Ed Balls presents his reasoning for constructive engagement for the United Kingdom within the European Union.
His essay deals with:
Financial services
The single market and beyond
Energy, climate change and the single market
Reforming the EU budget
Europe needs to take steps to ensure more outward-looking financial and other markets, ensuring Europe’s ability to compete in global markets.
The Lisbon Agenda should lead to a commitment to structural reforms matched with social policies to equip people for change: flexibility combined with fairness.
Full opening of European energy markets would lead to total savings running to tens of billions of euros.
The 2007 EU budget is outdated: 40 per cent of the total expenditure is still allocated to the Common Agricultural Policy, while more than 60 per cent of structural and cohesion fund expenditure is still transferred to rich member states.
For a European citizen interested in jobs, growth and prosperity, the economic reform agenda of Ed Balls sounds a lot more promising than a lot of what the “dynamic reformer”, the new French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said in the first days of his tenure.
But, European integration is more than enlargement and an ever wider internal market. The European Union needs effective institutions to enhance external and internal security, transparency, union level democracy for union level decisions, as well as legal protection for companies and individuals.
Hopefully the reform programme of Messrs Balls and Brown extends to overdue institutional reform of the European Union.
From a European citizen’s perspective each government defining its own “national interests” looks less convincing than the ones which would learn to ask: What is good for Europeans?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 25 May 2007
Next EU Treaty?
It is not going to be a constitution, but neither is it going to be a mini treaty. A simplified treaty seems to be the formula for an emerging consensus for the next treaty revision.
How little or how much is the European Union going to get? How much should it get?
Institutional changes already agreed upon are widely seen as necessary to give a Union with 27 member states some coherence in the world:
Less vetoes and more qualified majority voting.
A foreign minister for the Union.
A stable presidency for the Council.
A Union with legal personality within one pillar.
The citizens of the Union should at least preserve the improvements introduced by the Constitutional Treaty, including scrutiny by the European Parliament.
Even if it may be tempting to strive for a slimmer version than the Constitutional Treaty, the world has moved on since the revision process started in Nice in 2001. Should the Union be given the tools to tackle increasingly serious cross-border problems?
How about the environment and climate change, energy, immigration and terrorism?
Should countries willing and able to move ahead give themselves the means to advance, and let the recalcitrant few opt in at a later stage if they begin to see the advantages of more effective common action?
Ralf Grahn
How little or how much is the European Union going to get? How much should it get?
Institutional changes already agreed upon are widely seen as necessary to give a Union with 27 member states some coherence in the world:
Less vetoes and more qualified majority voting.
A foreign minister for the Union.
A stable presidency for the Council.
A Union with legal personality within one pillar.
The citizens of the Union should at least preserve the improvements introduced by the Constitutional Treaty, including scrutiny by the European Parliament.
Even if it may be tempting to strive for a slimmer version than the Constitutional Treaty, the world has moved on since the revision process started in Nice in 2001. Should the Union be given the tools to tackle increasingly serious cross-border problems?
How about the environment and climate change, energy, immigration and terrorism?
Should countries willing and able to move ahead give themselves the means to advance, and let the recalcitrant few opt in at a later stage if they begin to see the advantages of more effective common action?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Treaty in, Turkey out
There is no discourse on Europe and it is impossible, anyway, goes the standard argument of those who regret that the European Union exists.
There are national languages and national newspapers, but for anyone interested in Europe there is at least reporting on common themes, as a quick and selective online look on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Brussels shows.
Sarkozy – Wunderheiler für die gelähmte EU? Neue Zürcher Zeitung 24 May 2007
Henri Bresson et Philippe Ridet: Bruxelles attend les choix de M. Sarkozy sur la Turquie. Le Monde 24 May 2007
Alain Bockel et Ariane Bonzon: Turquie, le retour des vieux démons. Le Monde 24 May 2007
A Bruxelles, le gouvernement français laisse planer le doute sur ses intentions à l’égard de la Turquie. Le Monde 21 May 2007
Hannelore Crolly: Sarkozy will EU-Verfassung retten. Die Welt 24 May 2007
Katrin Bennhold: Sarkozy trip to Brussels gives a push to EU goals. International Herald Tribune 23 May 2007
Jean Quatremer: A Bruxelles, Sarkozy séduit avec son projet de mini-traité. Libération 24 May 2007
Charles Jaigu: Sarkozy donne la priorité au nouveau traité européen. Le Figaro 24 May 2007
Alexandrine Bouilhet: l’idée d’un texte institutionnel “simplifié” fait son chemin en Europe. Le Figaro 24 May 2007
M. Barroso estime qu’un “consensus” se forme autour du traité simplifié du president français. Le Monde 23 May 2007
Philippe Ricard: Les milieux européens attendant des assurances. Le Monde 23 May 2007
Sarkozy rejects Turkish EU place. BBC News 23 May 2007
Honor Mahony: Sarkozy to push for Turkey debate. EU Observer 24 May 2007
The list could be continued in different languages, but the main point is that it is possible to follow and to participate in the debate on Europe. All it takes is a bit of interest.
Ralf Grahn
There are national languages and national newspapers, but for anyone interested in Europe there is at least reporting on common themes, as a quick and selective online look on President Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit to Brussels shows.
Sarkozy – Wunderheiler für die gelähmte EU? Neue Zürcher Zeitung 24 May 2007
Henri Bresson et Philippe Ridet: Bruxelles attend les choix de M. Sarkozy sur la Turquie. Le Monde 24 May 2007
Alain Bockel et Ariane Bonzon: Turquie, le retour des vieux démons. Le Monde 24 May 2007
A Bruxelles, le gouvernement français laisse planer le doute sur ses intentions à l’égard de la Turquie. Le Monde 21 May 2007
Hannelore Crolly: Sarkozy will EU-Verfassung retten. Die Welt 24 May 2007
Katrin Bennhold: Sarkozy trip to Brussels gives a push to EU goals. International Herald Tribune 23 May 2007
Jean Quatremer: A Bruxelles, Sarkozy séduit avec son projet de mini-traité. Libération 24 May 2007
Charles Jaigu: Sarkozy donne la priorité au nouveau traité européen. Le Figaro 24 May 2007
Alexandrine Bouilhet: l’idée d’un texte institutionnel “simplifié” fait son chemin en Europe. Le Figaro 24 May 2007
M. Barroso estime qu’un “consensus” se forme autour du traité simplifié du president français. Le Monde 23 May 2007
Philippe Ricard: Les milieux européens attendant des assurances. Le Monde 23 May 2007
Sarkozy rejects Turkish EU place. BBC News 23 May 2007
Honor Mahony: Sarkozy to push for Turkey debate. EU Observer 24 May 2007
The list could be continued in different languages, but the main point is that it is possible to follow and to participate in the debate on Europe. All it takes is a bit of interest.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
Two visions for Europe
Tuesday and Wednesday the European Parliament was presented with two different, but perhaps converging, visions on the way forward for the European Union.
Tuesday’s speaker took the high road.
The Prime Minister of Italy, Romano Prodi, spoke for the 18 countries which have approved the Constitution.
He stressed that it is to achieve results that the EU needs stronger and more effective common institutions. Italy could not accept radical changes to the Constitutional Treaty of 2004. The only true realism is to build a Europe able to keep up with challenges.
Key points to be preserved were the strengthening of foreign policy and common security by means of a European Foreign Minister, a stable Presidency of the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting, the abolition of the three-pillar structure, and the Union’s legal personality.
If the resulting agreement is unconvincing, a vanguard of countries could advance towards a more integrated union, always keeping the door open to those countries willing to join later.
Wednesday’s guest speaker took the low road.
Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, spoke for one of the two countries where a national referendum in 2005 caused a constitutional crisis for the European Union. He noted that enlargement and deepening had advanced rapidly and that the citizens of the Netherlands needed time to adjust.
Calling the new treaty a constitution may have given voters the feeling of loss of say. EU intervention and regulation may have contributed to the negative reception of the treaty.
Mr Balkenende said that the last two years had seen improvements in how the European Union handled affairs, and he thought that it would be possible to find a solution for Europe, based on common ground and a constructive attitude.
The Prime Minister laid his foundations for an agreement: Treaty reform as one more step, not a Constitution. The democratic functioning of the EU, including subsidiarity and a voice for national parliaments. A more effective Union, able to tackle climate change, immigration and terrorism. Clear criteria for further enlargement.
Time will tell if the high road and the low road will join on common ground.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday’s speaker took the high road.
The Prime Minister of Italy, Romano Prodi, spoke for the 18 countries which have approved the Constitution.
He stressed that it is to achieve results that the EU needs stronger and more effective common institutions. Italy could not accept radical changes to the Constitutional Treaty of 2004. The only true realism is to build a Europe able to keep up with challenges.
Key points to be preserved were the strengthening of foreign policy and common security by means of a European Foreign Minister, a stable Presidency of the Council, the extension of qualified majority voting, the abolition of the three-pillar structure, and the Union’s legal personality.
If the resulting agreement is unconvincing, a vanguard of countries could advance towards a more integrated union, always keeping the door open to those countries willing to join later.
Wednesday’s guest speaker took the low road.
Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, spoke for one of the two countries where a national referendum in 2005 caused a constitutional crisis for the European Union. He noted that enlargement and deepening had advanced rapidly and that the citizens of the Netherlands needed time to adjust.
Calling the new treaty a constitution may have given voters the feeling of loss of say. EU intervention and regulation may have contributed to the negative reception of the treaty.
Mr Balkenende said that the last two years had seen improvements in how the European Union handled affairs, and he thought that it would be possible to find a solution for Europe, based on common ground and a constructive attitude.
The Prime Minister laid his foundations for an agreement: Treaty reform as one more step, not a Constitution. The democratic functioning of the EU, including subsidiarity and a voice for national parliaments. A more effective Union, able to tackle climate change, immigration and terrorism. Clear criteria for further enlargement.
Time will tell if the high road and the low road will join on common ground.
Ralf Grahn
Save the Charter, says EP
The Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament wants an Intergovernmental Conference to convene soon to reach a settlement on institutional reforms for the European Union.
According to a press release from the EP, the committee said that it would reject any outcome which, if compared to the Constitutional Treaty, would lead to a diminution of the protection of the rights of citizens or to less democracy, transparency and efficiency in the functioning of the Union.
The committee called for the preservation of the basic principles of Part I of the Constitutional Treaty in the future agreement on the institutional reforms.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose inclusion in the new treaty is still being debated by governments, is one of the reforms the committee deems indispensable.
In addition, the report lists the recognition of the Union’s values, the clarification of respective competencies at national and EU level, the respect of subsidiarity and an increased involvement of citizens in the EU’s political life among the crucial achievements of the draft Constitution to be upheld.
The plenary is going to debate and vote on the report on 5 and 6 June 2007.
The citizens of the Union have at least some friends in high places, namely in the European Parliament, but it is hard to know how much of a consolation that is going to be, when the governments of the member states start wrangling in earnest behind closed doors, each according to its perceived national interest.
Ralf Grahn
According to a press release from the EP, the committee said that it would reject any outcome which, if compared to the Constitutional Treaty, would lead to a diminution of the protection of the rights of citizens or to less democracy, transparency and efficiency in the functioning of the Union.
The committee called for the preservation of the basic principles of Part I of the Constitutional Treaty in the future agreement on the institutional reforms.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, whose inclusion in the new treaty is still being debated by governments, is one of the reforms the committee deems indispensable.
In addition, the report lists the recognition of the Union’s values, the clarification of respective competencies at national and EU level, the respect of subsidiarity and an increased involvement of citizens in the EU’s political life among the crucial achievements of the draft Constitution to be upheld.
The plenary is going to debate and vote on the report on 5 and 6 June 2007.
The citizens of the Union have at least some friends in high places, namely in the European Parliament, but it is hard to know how much of a consolation that is going to be, when the governments of the member states start wrangling in earnest behind closed doors, each according to its perceived national interest.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Hague Programme
The European Council in Tampere (Finland) was a significant step towards strengthening the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice. In October 1999 the European Council adopted its first work programme, which ran until 2004.
On 5 November 2004 the European Council approved the “Hague Programme : strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”. This multi-annual programme (2005 – 2010) – responding to a central concern of the peoples of the States brought together in the Union – is intended to build on past achievements and to meet the new challenges:
"The objective of the Hague programme is to improve the common capability of the Union and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights, minimum procedural safeguards and access to justice, to provide protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other international treaties to persons in need, to regulate migration flows and to control the external borders of the Union, to fight organised cross-border crime and repress the threat of terrorism, to realise the potential of Europol and Eurojust, to carry further the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and certificates both in civil and in criminal matters, and to eliminate legal and judicial obstacles in litigation in civil and family matters with cross-border implications. This is an objective that has to be achieved in the interests of our citizens by the development of a Common Asylum System and by improving access to the courts, practical police and judicial cooperation, the approximation of laws and the development of common policies. "
An overview of the 33 page Hague Programme (16054/04), which presents the guidelines for the improvements to be made, gives a picture of the problems to be tackled:
I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL ORIENTATIONS
1. General principles
2. Protection of fundamental rights
3. Implementation and evaluation
4. Review
III. SPECIFIC ORIENTATIONS
1. STRENGTHENING FREEDOM
1.1. Citizenship of the Union
1.2. Asylum, migration and border policy
1.3. A Common European Asylum System
1.4. Legal migration and the fight against illegal employment
1.5. Integration of third-country nationals
1.6. The external dimension of asylum and migration
1.6.1. Partnership with third countries
1.6.2. Partnership with countries and regions of origin
1.6.3. Partnership with countries and regions of transit
1.6.4. Return and re-admission policy
1.7 Management of migration flows
1.7.1. Border checks and the fight against illegal immigration
1.7.2. Biometrics and information systems
1.7.3. Visa policy
2. STRENGTHENING SECURITY
2.1. Improving the exchange of information
2.2. Terrorism
2.3. Police cooperation
2.4. Management of crises within the European Union with cross-border effects
2.5. Operational cooperation
2.6. Crime prevention
2.7. Organised crime and corruption
2.8. European strategy on drugs
3. STRENGTHENING JUSTICE
3.1. European Court of Justice
3.2. Confidence-building and mutual trust
3.3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
3.3.1. Mutual recognition
3.3.2. Approximation of law
3.3.3. Eurojust
3.4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters
3.4.1. Facilitating civil law procedure across borders
3.4.2. Mutual recognition of decisions
3.4.3. Enhancing cooperation
3.4.4. Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation
3.4.5. International legal order
4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Detailed measures under the different headings are set out in the “Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”, adopted by the Council on 2 June 2005 (9778/2/05).
The objective of the Action Plan is to translate the Hague Programme into specific measures. The Council and the Commission reiterated the importance which they attach to the correct and timely transposition of legislative acts adopted, to the effective implementation of measures agreed, and to their evaluation in practice.
The Action Plan is a detailed “to do” list with deadlines, specifying the concrete proposals to be made.
The Commission presents annual reports on the implementation of the Action Plan. The Commission’s first assessment of progress in implementing the Hague Programme was presented in 2006. The assessment package included four communications: an implementation report, an evaluation of policies, a communication on the way forward and a communication on providing more effective judicial protection.
Ralf Grahn
On 5 November 2004 the European Council approved the “Hague Programme : strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”. This multi-annual programme (2005 – 2010) – responding to a central concern of the peoples of the States brought together in the Union – is intended to build on past achievements and to meet the new challenges:
"The objective of the Hague programme is to improve the common capability of the Union and its Member States to guarantee fundamental rights, minimum procedural safeguards and access to justice, to provide protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention on Refugees and other international treaties to persons in need, to regulate migration flows and to control the external borders of the Union, to fight organised cross-border crime and repress the threat of terrorism, to realise the potential of Europol and Eurojust, to carry further the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and certificates both in civil and in criminal matters, and to eliminate legal and judicial obstacles in litigation in civil and family matters with cross-border implications. This is an objective that has to be achieved in the interests of our citizens by the development of a Common Asylum System and by improving access to the courts, practical police and judicial cooperation, the approximation of laws and the development of common policies. "
An overview of the 33 page Hague Programme (16054/04), which presents the guidelines for the improvements to be made, gives a picture of the problems to be tackled:
I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL ORIENTATIONS
1. General principles
2. Protection of fundamental rights
3. Implementation and evaluation
4. Review
III. SPECIFIC ORIENTATIONS
1. STRENGTHENING FREEDOM
1.1. Citizenship of the Union
1.2. Asylum, migration and border policy
1.3. A Common European Asylum System
1.4. Legal migration and the fight against illegal employment
1.5. Integration of third-country nationals
1.6. The external dimension of asylum and migration
1.6.1. Partnership with third countries
1.6.2. Partnership with countries and regions of origin
1.6.3. Partnership with countries and regions of transit
1.6.4. Return and re-admission policy
1.7 Management of migration flows
1.7.1. Border checks and the fight against illegal immigration
1.7.2. Biometrics and information systems
1.7.3. Visa policy
2. STRENGTHENING SECURITY
2.1. Improving the exchange of information
2.2. Terrorism
2.3. Police cooperation
2.4. Management of crises within the European Union with cross-border effects
2.5. Operational cooperation
2.6. Crime prevention
2.7. Organised crime and corruption
2.8. European strategy on drugs
3. STRENGTHENING JUSTICE
3.1. European Court of Justice
3.2. Confidence-building and mutual trust
3.3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
3.3.1. Mutual recognition
3.3.2. Approximation of law
3.3.3. Eurojust
3.4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters
3.4.1. Facilitating civil law procedure across borders
3.4.2. Mutual recognition of decisions
3.4.3. Enhancing cooperation
3.4.4. Ensuring coherence and upgrading the quality of EU legislation
3.4.5. International legal order
4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS
Detailed measures under the different headings are set out in the “Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union”, adopted by the Council on 2 June 2005 (9778/2/05).
The objective of the Action Plan is to translate the Hague Programme into specific measures. The Council and the Commission reiterated the importance which they attach to the correct and timely transposition of legislative acts adopted, to the effective implementation of measures agreed, and to their evaluation in practice.
The Action Plan is a detailed “to do” list with deadlines, specifying the concrete proposals to be made.
The Commission presents annual reports on the implementation of the Action Plan. The Commission’s first assessment of progress in implementing the Hague Programme was presented in 2006. The assessment package included four communications: an implementation report, an evaluation of policies, a communication on the way forward and a communication on providing more effective judicial protection.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 21 May 2007
Freedom, security and justice
One example of the evolution from an economic community towards a union for Europeans is the resolve, as expressed in the preamble, of the member states to facilitate the free movement of persons, while ensuring the safety and security of their peoples, by establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the provisions of the EU treaty.
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union mentions the objectives of the Union, among which “to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime”.
Title IV (Articles 61 – 69) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community confers specified powers on the EC in the following fields, in addition to the free movement of persons:
abolition of internal border controls
external border controls
rules on visas
immigration policy
residence and travel of third country nationals within the Union
illegal immigration
asylum
measures to prevent and combat crime
judicial cooperation in civil matters
administrative cooperation
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not participate fully.
Title VI (Articles 29 – 42) of the Treaty on European Union contains the provisions on the mainly inter-governmental fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (third pillar).
The Union’s objective is to develop common action among the member states in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating crime, or otherwise.
The crimes specially mentioned in Article 29 are:
terrorism
trafficking in persons
offences against children
illicit drug trafficking
illicit arms trafficking
corruption
fraud
Europeans in general support more effective EU measures to prevent and combat serious crime.
Ralf Grahn
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union mentions the objectives of the Union, among which “to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime”.
Title IV (Articles 61 – 69) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community confers specified powers on the EC in the following fields, in addition to the free movement of persons:
abolition of internal border controls
external border controls
rules on visas
immigration policy
residence and travel of third country nationals within the Union
illegal immigration
asylum
measures to prevent and combat crime
judicial cooperation in civil matters
administrative cooperation
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not participate fully.
Title VI (Articles 29 – 42) of the Treaty on European Union contains the provisions on the mainly inter-governmental fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (third pillar).
The Union’s objective is to develop common action among the member states in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in the fields of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and by preventing and combating crime, or otherwise.
The crimes specially mentioned in Article 29 are:
terrorism
trafficking in persons
offences against children
illicit drug trafficking
illicit arms trafficking
corruption
fraud
Europeans in general support more effective EU measures to prevent and combat serious crime.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 19 May 2007
European of the year
My humble felicitations go to the European of 2007, Javier Solana, who received the prestigious “Karlspreis” in Aachen.
Dr. Solana Madariaga, is Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the common foreign and security policy of the European Union.
At the reception ceremony Dr. Solana stressed the importance of the European project: unity in freedom, peace through openness and integration and a community of law.
Ralf Grahn
Dr. Solana Madariaga, is Secretary-General of the Council and High Representative for the common foreign and security policy of the European Union.
At the reception ceremony Dr. Solana stressed the importance of the European project: unity in freedom, peace through openness and integration and a community of law.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Chucking out the Charter?
European leaders try to reach agreement on a restricted treaty revision, which would improve the decision making of the European Union.
We seem to be heading towards a more minimalist text than the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, already agreed between all the 27 member states.
Most reports on the ongoing discussions the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union is going to be chucked out of the new treaty.
But why on earth do the rights of individual Europeans have to be among the first victims, as now looks highly probable?
The United Kingdom, once again, as well as some other governments even expend prestige and energy in order to restrict the freedoms and rights of their own and other European citizens. How can this be sold to reflecting parts of the public?
Ralf Grahn
We seem to be heading towards a more minimalist text than the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, already agreed between all the 27 member states.
Most reports on the ongoing discussions the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union is going to be chucked out of the new treaty.
But why on earth do the rights of individual Europeans have to be among the first victims, as now looks highly probable?
The United Kingdom, once again, as well as some other governments even expend prestige and energy in order to restrict the freedoms and rights of their own and other European citizens. How can this be sold to reflecting parts of the public?
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Fundamental rights monitoring: European Parliament
From modest beginnings to a better future has been the history of the Assembly. Today the European Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens and a real co-legislator in many areas of European Community law.
Since the European Parliament represents us Europeans, it is only natural that it shows concern for our fundamental rights.
One example of this primary task is the European Parliament resolution of 15 March 2007 on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission’s legislative proposals. The resolution was based on a report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (rapporteur: Johannes Voggenhuber; Green, Austria).
The EP notes that a genuine “fundamental rights culture” should include the Council and decisions in the field of intergovernmental cooperation.
The EP wants to establish the Charter of Fundamental Rights as legally binding.
The EP calls on the Commission to create a specific category entitled ‘Effects on fundamental rights’ in its impact assessments and it calls on the Commission to make more extensive use of independent external human rights bodies.
The EP contemplates the possibility to amend its own procedures to make its own monitoring more effective.
The Parliament calls on the Council to strengthen the systematic monitoring of fundamental rights also in areas covered by intergovernmental cooperation, to publish the results and likewise to secure the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
The European Parliament requests Member State parliaments, in particular in the fields of police and judicial cooperation and the common foreign and security policy, to verify the compatibility of all decisions and measures with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The European Parliament’s and the individual citizen’s viewpoint are more or less the same: more transparency, better protection of individuals’ rights and, especially, shedding light on the murkier corners of intergovernmental cooperation, which remain outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review.
Ralf Grahn
Since the European Parliament represents us Europeans, it is only natural that it shows concern for our fundamental rights.
One example of this primary task is the European Parliament resolution of 15 March 2007 on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission’s legislative proposals. The resolution was based on a report by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (rapporteur: Johannes Voggenhuber; Green, Austria).
The EP notes that a genuine “fundamental rights culture” should include the Council and decisions in the field of intergovernmental cooperation.
The EP wants to establish the Charter of Fundamental Rights as legally binding.
The EP calls on the Commission to create a specific category entitled ‘Effects on fundamental rights’ in its impact assessments and it calls on the Commission to make more extensive use of independent external human rights bodies.
The EP contemplates the possibility to amend its own procedures to make its own monitoring more effective.
The Parliament calls on the Council to strengthen the systematic monitoring of fundamental rights also in areas covered by intergovernmental cooperation, to publish the results and likewise to secure the support of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
The European Parliament requests Member State parliaments, in particular in the fields of police and judicial cooperation and the common foreign and security policy, to verify the compatibility of all decisions and measures with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The European Parliament’s and the individual citizen’s viewpoint are more or less the same: more transparency, better protection of individuals’ rights and, especially, shedding light on the murkier corners of intergovernmental cooperation, which remain outside the scope of parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
