A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Vaclav Klaus.
The Czech Republic has a problem, which has become a European embarrassment. His name is Vaclav Klaus, and he was elected for a second term as President in 2008 by the Czech Parliament. According to the Wikipedia article on Vaclav Klaus, his term ends on 6 March 2013.
Klaus defies overwhelming scientific and political opinion on global warming, and he wants to dismantle the European Union.
The Treaty of Lisbon has been agreed by 27 member state governments and approved by 26 national parliaments including the Czech one, but Klaus stubbornly refuses to sign the ratification instrument. His arguments are rubbish, but he has signalled that in reality he waits for a British referendum to sink the Lisbon Treaty.
The consequences of multiple unanimity rules and ratification by all member states are clearly visible, but the member states have to think about damage limitation and the future of European integration.
The first question goes to the Czech government, because the Czech President and the Czech Constitution are Czech-made problems: What can the Czech government and parliament do and what will they do to break the deadlock in order to secure the timely formal ratification?
If the Czech constitutional and political machinery is unable or unwilling to conclude the ratification procedure, their European embarrassment becomes a serious European problem.
Option 1: Do nothing
The EU member states can conclude that the European Union they have built is beyond reform. Even if they reach timid unanimous agreements on treaty reform, sheer numbers in an enlarged union will practically guarantee that there is perverse opposition in at least one member state, probably more. The Treaty of Nice would remain the crowning achievement of European integration. Politically, the enlargement process could be halted in perpetuity, but it would not improve the existing EU.
Option 2: New union
Old stumbling blocks: In a week we are going to know if the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has ruled that the Lisbon Treaty is compatible with the Constitution. In less than four months Ireland has voted for the amending treaty having received assurances from all member states. Soon after that it will be clear if the Polish President Lech Kaczynski has completed formal ratification.
New hurdles: We will also know the results of the general election in the United Kingdom and the colour of its new government. The British parliament will probably have started the debate on the Tory government’s referendum bill.
If the rest of the member states are not content to continue on the basis of the Nice Treaty, they have to consider other options.
The only realistic alternative seems to be a new union, leaving the rejectionists behind. There are least two different scenarios.
The new European Union could be formed quickly by the member states, which approve the Lisbon Treaty without the requirement for ratification by all. This closer union could then convene a convention to prepare further reform towards a more effective and democratic union.
A second scenario would be to start by calling a new convention, but it would be encumbered by the rejectionists and in the end they would not agree on and ratify a true reform treaty anyway. In practice, this alternative would be a waste of time, as shown by the tortuous reform road since the Nice Treaty.
***
If the core member states of the European Union stand up to Vaclav Klaus and the other rejectionists, he has (unintentionally) set in motion a process leading to a more effective and democratic European Union, without the Czech Republic and Britian, perhaps a few more.
The next months will tell if the European leaders have the resolve to separate the wheat from the chaff, or if they opt for immobility.
For the rejectionists, the proposed path should come as a blessing. They would be able to negotiate the looser relationship they want, but they would not harm the rest of Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Monday, 22 June 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty: “Meaningless” Irish guarantees?
Yesterday’s blog post, EU Lisbon Treaty: Vaclav Klaus is wrong, showed that Czech President Vaclav Klaus did not quite attain the standards of "every normal human being, a first form pupil” in his understanding of the guarantees to Ireland. He can hardly have been caught unawares, because the assurances were outlined by the European Council in December 2008, and Klaus has missed few opportunities to pontificate on Lisbon Treaty matters.
***
“Meaningless guarantees” to Ireland
The lobby group Open Europe has attacked the assurances given to Ireland on different grounds: Irish to vote on exactly the same text of Lisbon Treaty – EU admits that nothing has changed (19 June 2009).
The core argument of Open Europe – which seems to contradict Klaus’ statements – is that the deal makes no change whatsoever to the text of the Treaty, meaning Irish voters will be voting on exactly the same text they rejected last year.
If the Lisbon Treaty remains the same, are the guarantees meaningless?
We are in agreement with Open Europe that the European Council can retain a Commissioner from each member state and that the rest of the Treaty remains unchanged.
The Irish government has asked for the assurances based on the distorted claims of No campaigners ahead of the first referendum. Many Irish voters were confused by forceful, but erroneous assertions, and they felt that they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty.
Thus, it is only logical that the government of Ireland has sought correct interpretations on some issues, which confused the electorate. The assurances are shorter to read and easier to understand than a presentation of the whole amending treaty. The other EU member states have given these clarifications their seal of approval.
***
Neutrality
Open Europe has found one expert opinion to support the assertion that Irish military neutrality is at risk.
In my view, Dr Karen Devine’s interpretation is not correct. There is no need for a specific opt-out, because the Lisbon Treaty text on both defence policy in general and the mutual assistance clause already allows for each member state to define its own policy and action. Thus, Ireland does not need an opt-out.
The Presidency Conclusions of the June 2009 European Council seem to respond adequately to the concerns of Irish citizens with regard to neutrality, including the issue of mutual assistance, by clarifying the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Naturally, one can discuss if the lack of solidarity by Ireland is a desirable state of affairs in a political union such as the EU, but that is another story.
***
The guarantees are not meaningless, because they explain why major concerns in Ireland are groundless.
Open Europe has given No campaigners dud ammunition.
Ralf Grahn
***
“Meaningless guarantees” to Ireland
The lobby group Open Europe has attacked the assurances given to Ireland on different grounds: Irish to vote on exactly the same text of Lisbon Treaty – EU admits that nothing has changed (19 June 2009).
The core argument of Open Europe – which seems to contradict Klaus’ statements – is that the deal makes no change whatsoever to the text of the Treaty, meaning Irish voters will be voting on exactly the same text they rejected last year.
If the Lisbon Treaty remains the same, are the guarantees meaningless?
We are in agreement with Open Europe that the European Council can retain a Commissioner from each member state and that the rest of the Treaty remains unchanged.
The Irish government has asked for the assurances based on the distorted claims of No campaigners ahead of the first referendum. Many Irish voters were confused by forceful, but erroneous assertions, and they felt that they did not understand the Lisbon Treaty.
Thus, it is only logical that the government of Ireland has sought correct interpretations on some issues, which confused the electorate. The assurances are shorter to read and easier to understand than a presentation of the whole amending treaty. The other EU member states have given these clarifications their seal of approval.
***
Neutrality
Open Europe has found one expert opinion to support the assertion that Irish military neutrality is at risk.
In my view, Dr Karen Devine’s interpretation is not correct. There is no need for a specific opt-out, because the Lisbon Treaty text on both defence policy in general and the mutual assistance clause already allows for each member state to define its own policy and action. Thus, Ireland does not need an opt-out.
The Presidency Conclusions of the June 2009 European Council seem to respond adequately to the concerns of Irish citizens with regard to neutrality, including the issue of mutual assistance, by clarifying the text of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Naturally, one can discuss if the lack of solidarity by Ireland is a desirable state of affairs in a political union such as the EU, but that is another story.
***
The guarantees are not meaningless, because they explain why major concerns in Ireland are groundless.
Open Europe has given No campaigners dud ammunition.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 21 June 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty: Vaclav Klaus is wrong
If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it will affect the size of the Commission. But Czech President Vaclav Klaus is wrong about the need for renewed ratification.
Lisbon Treaty
Let us start with the Treaty of Lisbon, intended to streamline the institutions of the European Union.
Originally, one of the intended Lisbon Treaty reforms was to shrink the Commission after 1 November 2014. Article 17(4) and (5) of the amended Treaty on European Union states (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/25):
Article 17(4) and (5) TEU
4. The Commission appointed between the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and 31 October 2014, shall consist of one national of each Member State, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who shall be one of its Vice-Presidents.
5. As from 1 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.
The members of the Commission shall be chosen from among the nationals of the Member States on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. This system shall be established unanimously by the European Council in accordance with Article 244 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
December 2008 European Council
Point 2 of the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council 11 to 12 December 2008 (Council document 17271/1/08 REV 1 CONCL 5) contains a political decision to scrap the reform, following the negative outcome of the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon:
2. On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that the Treaties currently in force require that the number of Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision will be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.
***
June 2009 European Council
Under the heading I. Institutional issues, Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon, the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 reiterate the undertaking of the heads of state or government (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2):
2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.
***
President Vaclav Klaus
Reuters quotes the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, demanding renewed approval of the Lisbon Treaty by the Czech Parliament: Czechs concerned about changes to Lisbon treaty (20 June 2009):
"Although it is written in the treaty that not all countries ... will have their own commissioner, now suddenly it is promised that they will," news Web site novinky.cz quoted Klaus as saying.
"Every normal human being, a first form pupil, would know that it is a change and that somebody is promising it. So it is a change," he said.
Klaus, a staunch opponent of the EU charter, said earlier this week the guarantees would need to win parliamentary approval in the Czech Republic to comply with the constitution.
***
Within the Lisbon Treaty
Klaus is right about the original intention with the Lisbon Treaty, to reduce the size of the Commission (which has swollen following enlargement).
But Klaus “forgot” to mention the proviso “unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number”.
This is in effect, what two unanimous European Council meetings have promised to do, if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. The decision is compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon, and it is within the powers of the European Council. The formal decision can be taken when the Lisbon Treaty is in force. (Under the Treaty of Nice, the Commission has to be reduced this autumn.)
Klaus is not only wrongheaded – he is plain wrong.
Ralf Grahn
Lisbon Treaty
Let us start with the Treaty of Lisbon, intended to streamline the institutions of the European Union.
Originally, one of the intended Lisbon Treaty reforms was to shrink the Commission after 1 November 2014. Article 17(4) and (5) of the amended Treaty on European Union states (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/25):
Article 17(4) and (5) TEU
4. The Commission appointed between the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and 31 October 2014, shall consist of one national of each Member State, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy who shall be one of its Vice-Presidents.
5. As from 1 November 2014, the Commission shall consist of a number of members, including its President and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, corresponding to two thirds of the number of Member States, unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number.
The members of the Commission shall be chosen from among the nationals of the Member States on the basis of a system of strictly equal rotation between the Member States, reflecting the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States. This system shall be established unanimously by the European Council in accordance with Article 244 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
***
December 2008 European Council
Point 2 of the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council 11 to 12 December 2008 (Council document 17271/1/08 REV 1 CONCL 5) contains a political decision to scrap the reform, following the negative outcome of the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon:
2. On the composition of the Commission, the European Council recalls that the Treaties currently in force require that the number of Commissioners be reduced in 2009. The European Council agrees that provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision will be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.
***
June 2009 European Council
Under the heading I. Institutional issues, Ireland and the Treaty of Lisbon, the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 reiterate the undertaking of the heads of state or government (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2):
2. Having carefully noted the concerns of the Irish people as set out by the Taoiseach, the European Council, at its meeting of 11-12 December 2008, agreed that, provided the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, a decision would be taken, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, to the effect that the Commission shall continue to include one national of each Member State.
***
President Vaclav Klaus
Reuters quotes the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, demanding renewed approval of the Lisbon Treaty by the Czech Parliament: Czechs concerned about changes to Lisbon treaty (20 June 2009):
"Although it is written in the treaty that not all countries ... will have their own commissioner, now suddenly it is promised that they will," news Web site novinky.cz quoted Klaus as saying.
"Every normal human being, a first form pupil, would know that it is a change and that somebody is promising it. So it is a change," he said.
Klaus, a staunch opponent of the EU charter, said earlier this week the guarantees would need to win parliamentary approval in the Czech Republic to comply with the constitution.
***
Within the Lisbon Treaty
Klaus is right about the original intention with the Lisbon Treaty, to reduce the size of the Commission (which has swollen following enlargement).
But Klaus “forgot” to mention the proviso “unless the European Council, acting unanimously, decides to alter this number”.
This is in effect, what two unanimous European Council meetings have promised to do, if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. The decision is compatible with the Treaty of Lisbon, and it is within the powers of the European Council. The formal decision can be taken when the Lisbon Treaty is in force. (Under the Treaty of Nice, the Commission has to be reduced this autumn.)
Klaus is not only wrongheaded – he is plain wrong.
Ralf Grahn
Lisbon Treaty: Åland Islands
Fourteen months have now passed since the Åland Parliament registered the request from the President of Finland, Tarja Halonen, to approve the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon (on 21 April 2008).
The matter is still lingering in the Legal Committee of the Åland Parliament, which has failed to issue a report for the plenary. (Earlier posts have dealt with the background.)
National parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the reform treaty. Finland has completed its ratification procedure, but the Åland Islands have not resolved if they want the Lisbon Treaty to apply, if it becomes the primary law of the European Union.
A positive vote requires a two thirds majority in the regional parliament, if the matter advances that far.
Ralf Grahn
The matter is still lingering in the Legal Committee of the Åland Parliament, which has failed to issue a report for the plenary. (Earlier posts have dealt with the background.)
National parliaments in 26 EU member states have approved the reform treaty. Finland has completed its ratification procedure, but the Åland Islands have not resolved if they want the Lisbon Treaty to apply, if it becomes the primary law of the European Union.
A positive vote requires a two thirds majority in the regional parliament, if the matter advances that far.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Did the European Council nominate Barroso?
The European Council giveth and the European Council taketh away?
Yes, I have to admit that I find the antics of the European Council disturbing. The media have reported that José Manuel Barroso has been nominated as the intended President of the Commission, but read the Presidency Conclusions carefully:
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Point 6 tells the same story as the media reports, but point 8 of the Presidency Conclusions makes the nomination conditional. There will be a formal nomination only at a later date.
How can the European Parliament (and the newly elected EP convenes and constitutes the political groups only on 14 July 2009) respond formally to an informal inquiry?
Are the heads of state or government going to formalise their nomination before the EP’s inaugural session, if the informal discussions with the EP indicate that a majority would be prepared to back Barroso?
Has the European Council scored an own goal, by being too clever by half? If not, what does it expect to gain during the coming three weeks?
Ralf Grahn
Yes, I have to admit that I find the antics of the European Council disturbing. The media have reported that José Manuel Barroso has been nominated as the intended President of the Commission, but read the Presidency Conclusions carefully:
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Point 6 tells the same story as the media reports, but point 8 of the Presidency Conclusions makes the nomination conditional. There will be a formal nomination only at a later date.
How can the European Parliament (and the newly elected EP convenes and constitutes the political groups only on 14 July 2009) respond formally to an informal inquiry?
Are the heads of state or government going to formalise their nomination before the EP’s inaugural session, if the informal discussions with the EP indicate that a majority would be prepared to back Barroso?
Has the European Council scored an own goal, by being too clever by half? If not, what does it expect to gain during the coming three weeks?
Ralf Grahn
Instant Barroso ─ delayed Commission?
The European Council moved quickly after the European elections to name José Manuel Durão Barroso as the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission. According to Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
But the formal nomination of the chastened Barroso will be confirmed later, subject to discussions with the European Parliament.
***
EP approval
The nomination has now been placed in the in-tray of the new European Parliament, which convenes to its inaugural session on 14 July 2009. According to the Treaty of Nice, a majority of the votes is enough, but under the Treaty of Lisbon a majority of the component members is required (376).
The Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) cannot secure the approval of Barroso on its own, so it needs support from other political groups.
Ahead of and formally at its first session, the European Parliament has to make up its mind on procedural issues and possibly on the approval.
If there is a majority for Barroso, the EP may decide to approve the nomination during the first few days, which is what the Czech and Swedish Council Presidencies have been tasked to find out. But the European Parliament will hardly take a decision without a formal nomination from the Council, in the composition of heads of state or government (by written procedure).
The office of the President of the Commission is the most important nomination the EP is allowed to approve or reject. The European Parliament can hardly dispense with some sort of public hearing of the nominee. It is possible that a majority argues that both Barroso and the rest of the Commission are in office until 31 October 2009, and that they should all be approved at the same time and according to the same procedure (possibly the Lisbon Treaty).
Despite unanimous backing by heads of state or government, Barroso is far from universally acclaimed, and the Greens, parts of the socialists and some other MEPs can hardly fail to capitalise on his relative unpopularity. In other words, some will most probably vote to slow down the procedure and against approval.
***
New Commission
We know that there is going to be a President of the Commission, although it is not absolutely clear under which treaty the ‘election’ procedure is going to be brought to an end.
With regard to the rest of the Commission, there are material differences depending on the treaty in force at the time and the decisions to be taken by the European Council.
If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Council has promised to disregard its system of rotation between the member states and to opt for an exceptional decision, requiring unanimity. The Commission would continue to have one national from each member state.
If the Nice Treaty remains in force, the Commission has to be reduced.
But is there a compelling reason to separate the appointment of the Commission President and the Commission as a body?
***
Presidency Conclusions
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Even if the financial crisis and economic downturn is used as a reason, how convincing is it to have a President in place, without the new Commissioners?
Ralf Grahn
But the formal nomination of the chastened Barroso will be confirmed later, subject to discussions with the European Parliament.
***
EP approval
The nomination has now been placed in the in-tray of the new European Parliament, which convenes to its inaugural session on 14 July 2009. According to the Treaty of Nice, a majority of the votes is enough, but under the Treaty of Lisbon a majority of the component members is required (376).
The Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) cannot secure the approval of Barroso on its own, so it needs support from other political groups.
Ahead of and formally at its first session, the European Parliament has to make up its mind on procedural issues and possibly on the approval.
If there is a majority for Barroso, the EP may decide to approve the nomination during the first few days, which is what the Czech and Swedish Council Presidencies have been tasked to find out. But the European Parliament will hardly take a decision without a formal nomination from the Council, in the composition of heads of state or government (by written procedure).
The office of the President of the Commission is the most important nomination the EP is allowed to approve or reject. The European Parliament can hardly dispense with some sort of public hearing of the nominee. It is possible that a majority argues that both Barroso and the rest of the Commission are in office until 31 October 2009, and that they should all be approved at the same time and according to the same procedure (possibly the Lisbon Treaty).
Despite unanimous backing by heads of state or government, Barroso is far from universally acclaimed, and the Greens, parts of the socialists and some other MEPs can hardly fail to capitalise on his relative unpopularity. In other words, some will most probably vote to slow down the procedure and against approval.
***
New Commission
We know that there is going to be a President of the Commission, although it is not absolutely clear under which treaty the ‘election’ procedure is going to be brought to an end.
With regard to the rest of the Commission, there are material differences depending on the treaty in force at the time and the decisions to be taken by the European Council.
If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, the European Council has promised to disregard its system of rotation between the member states and to opt for an exceptional decision, requiring unanimity. The Commission would continue to have one national from each member state.
If the Nice Treaty remains in force, the Commission has to be reduced.
But is there a compelling reason to separate the appointment of the Commission President and the Commission as a body?
***
Presidency Conclusions
European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 – Presidency Conclusions (Council document 11225/09 CONCL 2)
“Nomination of the President of the Commission
6. The Heads of State or Government agreed unanimously on the name of Mr. José Manuel DURÃO BARROSO as the person they intend to nominate as President of the European Commission for the period 2009-2014.
7. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic and the Prime Minister of Sweden, as the present and the incoming Presidents of the European Council, will have discussions with the European Parliament in order to determine whether the Parliament is in a position to approve that nomination at its July plenary session.
8. In the light of these discussions, the Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, will, on the basis of Article 214(2), 1st subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, formalise its decision on the nomination of the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission.
9. The process of nomination of the other persons who will be appointed as members of the Commission can only be initiated when the legal basis for the nomination procedure has become clear.”
***
Even if the financial crisis and economic downturn is used as a reason, how convincing is it to have a President in place, without the new Commissioners?
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Barroso: Our opinion counts?
I owe this post to Jean Quatremer’s Coulisses de Bruxelles: Toi aussi hacke le site de la présidence tchèque de l’UE ! (17 June 2009)
Instead of convening to anoint José Manuel Barroso as chief of the European Commission, the European Council should study the outcome of the survey of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The Czech government asked, in three languages: Should José Manuel Barroso be re-appointed as President of the European Commission?
The results against Barroso (No-votes) were (per 8 June 2009, according to the web page; when I checked a little while ago):
• English 75%
• Czech 82%
• French 89%
Such polls are not especially reliable, but if the acting Council Presidency asks the citizens of the European Union, one would expect their opinion to be taken into account.
We live in a union where decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen, don’t we?
Ralf Grahn
Instead of convening to anoint José Manuel Barroso as chief of the European Commission, the European Council should study the outcome of the survey of the Czech Presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The Czech government asked, in three languages: Should José Manuel Barroso be re-appointed as President of the European Commission?
The results against Barroso (No-votes) were (per 8 June 2009, according to the web page; when I checked a little while ago):
• English 75%
• Czech 82%
• French 89%
Such polls are not especially reliable, but if the acting Council Presidency asks the citizens of the European Union, one would expect their opinion to be taken into account.
We live in a union where decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen, don’t we?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Shrinking the Commission?
EurActiv reported that Germany will opt for a 12 to 18 member Commission, if the Treaty of Nice remains in force, implying the “problem countries” would not be represented in the college. See: Ireland to re-vote to weigh on new Commission’s appointment (15 June 2009).
“Ominous noises”
On The European Citizen blog, Eurocentric noted the EurActiv article with the question about the size of the Commission: The Irish (Provisional) Guarantees (16 June 2009):
“The most important part of the guarantee will be that of one commissioner per member state, as the other guarantees really just restate and clarify the situation under the Lisbon Treaty. There have been some ominous noises out of Germany that it could push for a drastically reduced Commission if the Lisbon Treaty isn't passed - from 27 to between 12 and 18 commissioners. Under the Nice Treaty the number of commissioners must be reduced for the next Commission to be lower than that of the number of member states.”
***
Name speculation
On the other hand, some information and speculation is emerging with regard to possible names to fill Commissioners’ jobs.
Jon Worth’s Euroblog has collected a number of comments with information about possible proposals from the member states and interested citizens: Think European Commission (since 15 June 2009).
/
EurActiv: Poland kicks off race for EU commissioner jobs (17 June 2009)
***
Problem
A new Commission is needed after 31 October 2009, and a number of posts have to be filled. What we do not know, at this stage, is the applicable treaty, procedure and number of Commissioners.
If the European Council is prepared to play with open cards, it should publicly agree on two alternative scenarios, one for the Treaty of Nice and another for the Lisbon Treaty, before the discussion starts in earnest.
Ralf Grahn
“Ominous noises”
On The European Citizen blog, Eurocentric noted the EurActiv article with the question about the size of the Commission: The Irish (Provisional) Guarantees (16 June 2009):
“The most important part of the guarantee will be that of one commissioner per member state, as the other guarantees really just restate and clarify the situation under the Lisbon Treaty. There have been some ominous noises out of Germany that it could push for a drastically reduced Commission if the Lisbon Treaty isn't passed - from 27 to between 12 and 18 commissioners. Under the Nice Treaty the number of commissioners must be reduced for the next Commission to be lower than that of the number of member states.”
***
Name speculation
On the other hand, some information and speculation is emerging with regard to possible names to fill Commissioners’ jobs.
Jon Worth’s Euroblog has collected a number of comments with information about possible proposals from the member states and interested citizens: Think European Commission (since 15 June 2009).
/
EurActiv: Poland kicks off race for EU commissioner jobs (17 June 2009)
***
Problem
A new Commission is needed after 31 October 2009, and a number of posts have to be filled. What we do not know, at this stage, is the applicable treaty, procedure and number of Commissioners.
If the European Council is prepared to play with open cards, it should publicly agree on two alternative scenarios, one for the Treaty of Nice and another for the Lisbon Treaty, before the discussion starts in earnest.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
Gordon Brown as President of the European Council?
The European level parties, which could have offered alternatives, failed before the European elections, contributed to their defeat at the elections, and they look set to fail in the newly elected European Parliament.
Without a coalition in the European Parliament with the necessary votes behind a better candidate, how much point is there in discussing the second term for José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?
Show me a realistic alternative, and I will gladly continue the discussion, but Barroso is practically anointed, by an electoral college of 27.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is time to look ahead.
***
Two top jobs
If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, two top jobs will be filled: the new semi-permanent President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative/Vice-President.
This is why I presented the framework in the mock jobs advertisement: European Council recruitment: President and High Representative (14 June 2009).
Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog added a concrete element to the discussion by speculating: Food For Thought: Gordon Brown as the EU’s First Full-Time President? (15 June 2009)
By adding a known personality, Barber does the discussion a service. For or against, he helps to ignite a forward-looking discussion.
***
Personality test or objective criteria?
Admittedly, at least one of the three top spots should go to a national of one of the big member states. What I find less convincing is that the President of the European Council would be a much greater asset for the European Union if he or she is an internationally known ex-leader (such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown).
First of all, the Treaty of Lisbon seems to be written with a more ceremonial European Council President in mind; the member states have not presented a detailed job description even for public discussion. Secondly, the High Representative (not the President) is the one designed to run the foreign policy of the European Union. Thirdly, an ex-leader has no special muscle; other world leaders coolly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the European Union based on the force and cohesion of the EU, or the lack thereof; personalities come a distant second.
In my view, the candidates should be evaluated with a view their coming tasks: the whole panoply of EU affairs for the President of the European Council and foreign, security and defence policy for the High Representative.
***
More objective criteria
Gordon Brown and any other candidate should be judged on the merits – of country and person.
A European defence has to be the long term goal of the European Union, with NATO as an important military alliance.
In my opinion, due to their ambiguous relation to an EU defence and the transatlantic NATO relationship, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden had disqualified themselves from filling the posts of President of the European Council and double-hatted High Representative.
Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
The remaining countries and persons should be evaluated on their contributions.
***
The President of the European Council is supposed to chair and drive forward the work of the European Council. Therefore, the other evolving core areas of the European Union are important, when assessing the track record.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside, but for new member states a firm intent should be enough.
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet. The commitment should suffice at this stage.
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Democratic reform
As long as the Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Polish President Lexh Kaczynski prolong the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, their countries should be excluded from consideration for the top jobs.
Long term, a commitment to an effective and democratic European Union, beyond the Lisbon Treaty, should be the hallmarks of the contenders for the top offices.
***
Talent pool
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or any other candidate for the office of President of the European Council or empowered High Representative comes from a member state engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
***
Election procedure
The heads of state or government have granted themselves the right to appoint the President of the European Council and the new High Representative, but nothing prevents them from seeking open debate and the backing of the citizens of the European Union.
Public nominations of candidates within set deadlines and open campaigns with media debates are easy to arrange, if the political will is there.
Ralf Grahn
Without a coalition in the European Parliament with the necessary votes behind a better candidate, how much point is there in discussing the second term for José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission?
Show me a realistic alternative, and I will gladly continue the discussion, but Barroso is practically anointed, by an electoral college of 27.
Politics is the art of the possible. It is time to look ahead.
***
Two top jobs
If the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, two top jobs will be filled: the new semi-permanent President of the European Council and the empowered High Representative/Vice-President.
This is why I presented the framework in the mock jobs advertisement: European Council recruitment: President and High Representative (14 June 2009).
Tony Barber on the FT Brussels blog added a concrete element to the discussion by speculating: Food For Thought: Gordon Brown as the EU’s First Full-Time President? (15 June 2009)
By adding a known personality, Barber does the discussion a service. For or against, he helps to ignite a forward-looking discussion.
***
Personality test or objective criteria?
Admittedly, at least one of the three top spots should go to a national of one of the big member states. What I find less convincing is that the President of the European Council would be a much greater asset for the European Union if he or she is an internationally known ex-leader (such as Tony Blair or Gordon Brown).
First of all, the Treaty of Lisbon seems to be written with a more ceremonial European Council President in mind; the member states have not presented a detailed job description even for public discussion. Secondly, the High Representative (not the President) is the one designed to run the foreign policy of the European Union. Thirdly, an ex-leader has no special muscle; other world leaders coolly assess the strengths and weaknesses of the European Union based on the force and cohesion of the EU, or the lack thereof; personalities come a distant second.
In my view, the candidates should be evaluated with a view their coming tasks: the whole panoply of EU affairs for the President of the European Council and foreign, security and defence policy for the High Representative.
***
More objective criteria
Gordon Brown and any other candidate should be judged on the merits – of country and person.
A European defence has to be the long term goal of the European Union, with NATO as an important military alliance.
In my opinion, due to their ambiguous relation to an EU defence and the transatlantic NATO relationship, Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta and Sweden had disqualified themselves from filling the posts of President of the European Council and double-hatted High Representative.
Denmark has an opt-out in place concerning the common security and defence policy, although it is a NATO member.
The remaining countries and persons should be evaluated on their contributions.
***
The President of the European Council is supposed to chair and drive forward the work of the European Council. Therefore, the other evolving core areas of the European Union are important, when assessing the track record.
Schengen agreement
The Schengen agreement abolishes border controls between the member states. Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania are not yet inside, but for new member states a firm intent should be enough.
***
Eurozone
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opted out of the common currency. Sweden has not bothered to join, despite its treaty obligation to adopt the euro.
Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania have committed themselves to entry, but have not made it yet. The commitment should suffice at this stage.
***
Justice and home affairs
Ireland and the United Kingdom have opted out of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the Treaty of Lisbon. Denmark has opted out of justice and home affairs (JHA) as well as EU citizenship (de iure).
***
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – politically binding since December 2000 – would become legally binding. Poland and the United Kingdom have opted out.
***
Democratic reform
As long as the Czech President Vaclav Klaus and the Polish President Lexh Kaczynski prolong the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty, their countries should be excluded from consideration for the top jobs.
Long term, a commitment to an effective and democratic European Union, beyond the Lisbon Treaty, should be the hallmarks of the contenders for the top offices.
***
Talent pool
If we strike the unwilling or negligent countries, we are left with the talent pool coming from 17 EU member states: Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
According to these criteria, the EU member states outside one or more core areas at this point are: Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
***
Is it unreasonable to expect that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or any other candidate for the office of President of the European Council or empowered High Representative comes from a member state engaged in all the core areas of EU policy (or committed to joining)?
***
Election procedure
The heads of state or government have granted themselves the right to appoint the President of the European Council and the new High Representative, but nothing prevents them from seeking open debate and the backing of the citizens of the European Union.
Public nominations of candidates within set deadlines and open campaigns with media debates are easy to arrange, if the political will is there.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 15 June 2009
European Union Legal Materials (Columbia Law School)
Students of politics, law or economics need guidance on how to access material about the European Union as soon as they have to write or present something on their own.
One of the guides on offer is the Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. Diamond Law Library Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials, written by Duncan Alford and updated by Karin Johnsrud (latest update 30 January 2008).
Here are a few comments based on a cursory reading of the Research Guide on the resources:
• Under Brief overview, the words and the acronym for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) are presented in inverted order.
• The pillar structure has evolved, with justice and home affairs (JHA) migrating to the first (Community pillar), with the exception of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which remain within the intergovernmental third pillar.
• Enlargement: There may be better definitions than mine, but since the big EU enlargement 2004 and 2007 I have tended to use the term Central Europe for the new member states (sometimes including historic ‘Mitteleuropa’ Germany and Austria), while leaving Eastern Europe for the countries between the EU and Russia. – But I am glad for comments and reasons.
• The enlargement process needs an update. Fresh information is available on the Commission’s website.
• Euro currency: There are now 16 Eurozone countries, with Slovakia the latest entrant. Sweden has no opt-out, but is de facto outside the Eurozone. I would recommend the web pages of the European Central Bank (ECB) for information to the general public (brochures etc.) and for serious information about the euro area.
• Constitution: The guide is in need of an update for the time since the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty petered out. This includes the 2007 intergovernmental conference, the December 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (May 2008) and the state of the ratification processes.
• European Council and Council: Although the European Council (heads of state and government) would formally become an EU institution through the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be natural to admit its leadership role and treat it in tandem with the Council of the European Union.
• European Parliament: The EP has 736 directly elected members under the modified Treaty of Nice, still in force. The latest elections were held on 4 to 7 June 2009. The EP has powers to amend (not only approve; co-decision) legislative proposals, and if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, these powers would increase.
• European Council: See above. Heads of state (in practice Presidents, since Kings or Queens are nominal heads of state) or government (Prime Ministers) currently meet four times each year, but extraordinary meetings can be convened.
• European Court of Justice: The Civil Service Tribunal could be mentioned for staff cases.
• Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee: The current membership is 344.
• Treaties: The most convenient link would be to the Treaties web page of Eur-Lex, with the consolidated version (2006) of the current treaties, including an Annex with the modifications through the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania; the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon (May 2008) as well as a selection of earlier treaties and accession treaties. – Generally, the improved Eur-Lex portal could be underlined as the primary source for EU law.
• Pre-Lex and the legislative Observatory could have been highlighted more as primary tools for following legislative procedures.
• The Eur-Lex Preparatory acts and the new Directory of Community legislation in preparation are worth mentioning.
• MEPs: The number of MEPs is 736, but grows if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
• Languages: Irish (Gaelic) has been added.
***
Conclusions
I scanned the contents and tested some of the links on offer, without rigorous checking.
The Columbia Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials is still a useful tool for the budding researcher, but an update of the contents and the links would be in order.
Personally, I would structure the materials around the general Europa portal and the legal Eur-Lex portal (starting from the index page). [I did not look into the print resources, the library’s collections or the commercial databases.]
Ralf Grahn
One of the guides on offer is the Columbia Law School’s Arthur W. Diamond Law Library Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials, written by Duncan Alford and updated by Karin Johnsrud (latest update 30 January 2008).
Here are a few comments based on a cursory reading of the Research Guide on the resources:
• Under Brief overview, the words and the acronym for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) are presented in inverted order.
• The pillar structure has evolved, with justice and home affairs (JHA) migrating to the first (Community pillar), with the exception of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which remain within the intergovernmental third pillar.
• Enlargement: There may be better definitions than mine, but since the big EU enlargement 2004 and 2007 I have tended to use the term Central Europe for the new member states (sometimes including historic ‘Mitteleuropa’ Germany and Austria), while leaving Eastern Europe for the countries between the EU and Russia. – But I am glad for comments and reasons.
• The enlargement process needs an update. Fresh information is available on the Commission’s website.
• Euro currency: There are now 16 Eurozone countries, with Slovakia the latest entrant. Sweden has no opt-out, but is de facto outside the Eurozone. I would recommend the web pages of the European Central Bank (ECB) for information to the general public (brochures etc.) and for serious information about the euro area.
• Constitution: The guide is in need of an update for the time since the ratification processes of the Constitutional Treaty petered out. This includes the 2007 intergovernmental conference, the December 2007 Treaty of Lisbon, the consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty (May 2008) and the state of the ratification processes.
• European Council and Council: Although the European Council (heads of state and government) would formally become an EU institution through the Treaty of Lisbon, it would be natural to admit its leadership role and treat it in tandem with the Council of the European Union.
• European Parliament: The EP has 736 directly elected members under the modified Treaty of Nice, still in force. The latest elections were held on 4 to 7 June 2009. The EP has powers to amend (not only approve; co-decision) legislative proposals, and if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force, these powers would increase.
• European Council: See above. Heads of state (in practice Presidents, since Kings or Queens are nominal heads of state) or government (Prime Ministers) currently meet four times each year, but extraordinary meetings can be convened.
• European Court of Justice: The Civil Service Tribunal could be mentioned for staff cases.
• Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee: The current membership is 344.
• Treaties: The most convenient link would be to the Treaties web page of Eur-Lex, with the consolidated version (2006) of the current treaties, including an Annex with the modifications through the 2007 accession of Bulgaria and Romania; the consolidated version of the Treaty of Lisbon (May 2008) as well as a selection of earlier treaties and accession treaties. – Generally, the improved Eur-Lex portal could be underlined as the primary source for EU law.
• Pre-Lex and the legislative Observatory could have been highlighted more as primary tools for following legislative procedures.
• The Eur-Lex Preparatory acts and the new Directory of Community legislation in preparation are worth mentioning.
• MEPs: The number of MEPs is 736, but grows if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
• Languages: Irish (Gaelic) has been added.
***
Conclusions
I scanned the contents and tested some of the links on offer, without rigorous checking.
The Columbia Research Guide: European Union Legal Materials is still a useful tool for the budding researcher, but an update of the contents and the links would be in order.
Personally, I would structure the materials around the general Europa portal and the legal Eur-Lex portal (starting from the index page). [I did not look into the print resources, the library’s collections or the commercial databases.]
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 14 June 2009
European Council recruitment: President and High Representative
The European Council has been tardy in preparing for the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, so I decided to lend them a helping hand by publishing this job advertisement (at no expense to the EU).
***
Senior EU positions
Subject to the ratification and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is hiring highly qualified individuals for the following posts:
• President of the European Council, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Relevant experience: Prime Minister or comparable.
• High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission. Relevant experience: Foreign Minister or comparable.
To check the general job description and your eligibility, be a sport and read the Treaty of Lisbon (at least the relevant Articles).
Detailed responsibilities, authority, staff, salary and fringe benefits have yet to be worked out by your employers, 27 member states governments of the European Union, but understand that this is not a football transfer.
General profile
The European Council attaches particular importance to candidates' ability to grasp problems that are often complex and varied in nature, to react rapidly to changing circumstances, and to communicate effectively. Candidates are expected to show initiative and imagination and to be highly motivated. They should be able to work both independently and in a team and should be able to adjust to a multicultural working environment. They will also be expected to develop their professional skills throughout their career. Recruitment aims to secure for the European Council the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the
broadest possible geographical basis from among the citizens of the Member States of the European Union. [Adapted from the European Personnel Selection Office’s General rules governing open competitions; OJEU 26.2.2009 C 47 A/1]
When appointing the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission (almost sealed) and the High Representative, due account is taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the EU and its member states. [See Lisbon Treaty Declaration 6.]
If you are unsure about if political affinities and gender are seen as geographical or demographic diversity factors, or if you have other questions, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is available for discreet inquiries from 1 July 2009.
Citizens of the European Union are requested not to meddle in the selection process, but are anyway to be ignored.
***
Is this your next career move?
Ralf Grahn
***
Senior EU positions
Subject to the ratification and entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is hiring highly qualified individuals for the following posts:
• President of the European Council, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once. Relevant experience: Prime Minister or comparable.
• High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission. Relevant experience: Foreign Minister or comparable.
To check the general job description and your eligibility, be a sport and read the Treaty of Lisbon (at least the relevant Articles).
Detailed responsibilities, authority, staff, salary and fringe benefits have yet to be worked out by your employers, 27 member states governments of the European Union, but understand that this is not a football transfer.
General profile
The European Council attaches particular importance to candidates' ability to grasp problems that are often complex and varied in nature, to react rapidly to changing circumstances, and to communicate effectively. Candidates are expected to show initiative and imagination and to be highly motivated. They should be able to work both independently and in a team and should be able to adjust to a multicultural working environment. They will also be expected to develop their professional skills throughout their career. Recruitment aims to secure for the European Council the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the
broadest possible geographical basis from among the citizens of the Member States of the European Union. [Adapted from the European Personnel Selection Office’s General rules governing open competitions; OJEU 26.2.2009 C 47 A/1]
When appointing the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission (almost sealed) and the High Representative, due account is taken of the need to respect the geographical and demographic diversity of the EU and its member states. [See Lisbon Treaty Declaration 6.]
If you are unsure about if political affinities and gender are seen as geographical or demographic diversity factors, or if you have other questions, the Swedish Presidency of the Council of the European Union is available for discreet inquiries from 1 July 2009.
Citizens of the European Union are requested not to meddle in the selection process, but are anyway to be ignored.
***
Is this your next career move?
Ralf Grahn
European Union: Rising Poland
In the European Voice, Peter S. Rashish mentions the emergence of Poland to complement the European heavyweights Germany and France, and he looks at the implications for the transatlantic relationship: A new balance of power emerges (12 June 2009).
European election results
The internal power balance in the European Union and the relationship with the USA are determined primarily on state level, but the European Parliament elections strengthen the position of Poland.
The Civic Platform (PO) of Prime Minister Donald Tusk was victorious, with 25 seats in the European Parliament and 44.3% of the vote. Together with 3 MEPs from the Polish People’s Party (PSL), the Polish representatives make up the fourth largest contingent in the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the biggest political group in the European Parliament, with 264 out of 736 seats.
Thus, they are anchored in the European political mainstream, which means that they are better able to influence policies both at government level (Council) and in the European Parliament.
Poland’s ex-Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek is one of the prime candidates to become President of the European Parliament, as reported by Dominika Pszczółkowska in the Gazeta Wyborcza: Poland's Buzek Closer to European Parliament Presidency (9 June 2009).
***
PiS
During the previous government, the Kaczynski twins became famous for their confrontational and obstructionist EU policies. The Kaczynskis watered down the Lisbon Treaty and opted out of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Despite approval of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Polish Parliaent, President Lech Kaczynski has refused to sign the ratification document.
The Kaczynskis were increasingly seen as an embarrassment for Poland, and they were swept from government power by the Civic Platform, but still hold on to the Presidency of Poland.
In the European elections the Law and Justice Party (PiS) of Jaroslaw Kaczynski (and his twin, the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski) took a beating, but got 15 MEPs elected on 27.4% of the vote.
The PiS exits the disparate EP political group UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), outside the political mainstream, in favour of the new political group (European Conservatives?), which will be formed around the UK Conservative Party, the Czech ODS (Civic Democrats) of former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek; ex-party of President Vaclav Klaus, with additions from other EU member states yet to be announced.
This means that the ultra-conservative Polish main opposition party will remain entrenched outside the European political mainstream, with presidential elections coming up in 2010.
Sources:
European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections: Distribution by member state: parties and political groups (provisional 11 June 2009 11:26 CEST).
Wikipedia: List of political parties in Poland
***
Germany has its parliamentary elections (Bundestag) scheduled for September, but already the composition of the European Parliament and the national governments are in sync in France, Italy and Poland through the preponderance of the European People’s Party (EPP) and its national parties.
Poland is well positioned to profit from its strategic positioning.
The treaties force the political groups to reach majorities of the component members of the European Parliament (369) in order to amend legislative proposals. The EPP is likely to continue to work closely with the second largest EP group, the socialists and democrats (ASDE, ex PES), with the two other mainstream groups, the liberals and democrats (ALDE) and the Greens in supporting roles.
Ralf Grahn
European election results
The internal power balance in the European Union and the relationship with the USA are determined primarily on state level, but the European Parliament elections strengthen the position of Poland.
The Civic Platform (PO) of Prime Minister Donald Tusk was victorious, with 25 seats in the European Parliament and 44.3% of the vote. Together with 3 MEPs from the Polish People’s Party (PSL), the Polish representatives make up the fourth largest contingent in the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the biggest political group in the European Parliament, with 264 out of 736 seats.
Thus, they are anchored in the European political mainstream, which means that they are better able to influence policies both at government level (Council) and in the European Parliament.
Poland’s ex-Prime Minister Jerzy Buzek is one of the prime candidates to become President of the European Parliament, as reported by Dominika Pszczółkowska in the Gazeta Wyborcza: Poland's Buzek Closer to European Parliament Presidency (9 June 2009).
***
PiS
During the previous government, the Kaczynski twins became famous for their confrontational and obstructionist EU policies. The Kaczynskis watered down the Lisbon Treaty and opted out of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Despite approval of the Treaty of Lisbon by the Polish Parliaent, President Lech Kaczynski has refused to sign the ratification document.
The Kaczynskis were increasingly seen as an embarrassment for Poland, and they were swept from government power by the Civic Platform, but still hold on to the Presidency of Poland.
In the European elections the Law and Justice Party (PiS) of Jaroslaw Kaczynski (and his twin, the President of Poland Lech Kaczynski) took a beating, but got 15 MEPs elected on 27.4% of the vote.
The PiS exits the disparate EP political group UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), outside the political mainstream, in favour of the new political group (European Conservatives?), which will be formed around the UK Conservative Party, the Czech ODS (Civic Democrats) of former Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek; ex-party of President Vaclav Klaus, with additions from other EU member states yet to be announced.
This means that the ultra-conservative Polish main opposition party will remain entrenched outside the European political mainstream, with presidential elections coming up in 2010.
Sources:
European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections: Distribution by member state: parties and political groups (provisional 11 June 2009 11:26 CEST).
Wikipedia: List of political parties in Poland
***
Germany has its parliamentary elections (Bundestag) scheduled for September, but already the composition of the European Parliament and the national governments are in sync in France, Italy and Poland through the preponderance of the European People’s Party (EPP) and its national parties.
Poland is well positioned to profit from its strategic positioning.
The treaties force the political groups to reach majorities of the component members of the European Parliament (369) in order to amend legislative proposals. The EPP is likely to continue to work closely with the second largest EP group, the socialists and democrats (ASDE, ex PES), with the two other mainstream groups, the liberals and democrats (ALDE) and the Greens in supporting roles.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 13 June 2009
Alain Lamassoure on the next challenges for the European Union
Euros du Village is an important provider of information, comment and analysis related to the European Union. In addition to the French web pages, they produce information in English (theEuros), German (dieEuros) and Italian (gliEuros). The Euros are well worth following.
This time, we recommend their French pages, where they have a long interview with Alain Lamassoure, a veteran of the European Parliament and EU politics. Lamassoure represents the French UMP (Sarkozy’s party) and the European People’s Party (EPP):
Alain Lamassoure : « Le front anti-Barroso n’existe que dans la tête de Daniel Cohn-Bendit »
Lamassoure presents partisan, but extremely well informed opinions on a host of themes, including:
• The European election campaign
• A grand coalition between the EPP and the Socialists (to be renamed ASDE) in the European Parliament
• The election of José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission
• The increasing homogeneity of the EPP group in the spirit of the founding fathers and the social market economy, when the UK Conservatives and the Czech ODS leave the EPP-ED
• The need for a real budget for the European Union and budgetary powers for the European Parliament
• The incredible lack of discussion about the (socialist) President of the European Council, even if the Lisbon Treaty might be in force in a few months time
Whatever you think about Lamassoure’s opinions, don’t miss the interview.
Ralf Grahn
This time, we recommend their French pages, where they have a long interview with Alain Lamassoure, a veteran of the European Parliament and EU politics. Lamassoure represents the French UMP (Sarkozy’s party) and the European People’s Party (EPP):
Alain Lamassoure : « Le front anti-Barroso n’existe que dans la tête de Daniel Cohn-Bendit »
Lamassoure presents partisan, but extremely well informed opinions on a host of themes, including:
• The European election campaign
• A grand coalition between the EPP and the Socialists (to be renamed ASDE) in the European Parliament
• The election of José Manuel Barroso as President of the European Commission
• The increasing homogeneity of the EPP group in the spirit of the founding fathers and the social market economy, when the UK Conservatives and the Czech ODS leave the EPP-ED
• The need for a real budget for the European Union and budgetary powers for the European Parliament
• The incredible lack of discussion about the (socialist) President of the European Council, even if the Lisbon Treaty might be in force in a few months time
Whatever you think about Lamassoure’s opinions, don’t miss the interview.
Ralf Grahn
To the Press service of the European Parliament
You have informed the public ahead of the European Parliament elections, and you continue to update the official results. I am grateful for your innovative and informative work.
We have now entered a new stage, where the political parties negotiate to establish the political groups. Officially, the formations are announced at the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.
There is still a month to go, and even longer before the announcements are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
I wonder, could you do something to bridge the gap, by collecting unofficial announcements of the political groups and parties, and by publishing them in one place?
Could you add an unofficial page on the election results, with the anticipated group sizes, because as it is, “known” changes are not reflected on the official results page?
I understand that you cannot take responsibility for informal agreements or statements by players, but you could indicate the sources responsible.
Ralf Grahn
We have now entered a new stage, where the political parties negotiate to establish the political groups. Officially, the formations are announced at the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.
There is still a month to go, and even longer before the announcements are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
I wonder, could you do something to bridge the gap, by collecting unofficial announcements of the political groups and parties, and by publishing them in one place?
Could you add an unofficial page on the election results, with the anticipated group sizes, because as it is, “known” changes are not reflected on the official results page?
I understand that you cannot take responsibility for informal agreements or statements by players, but you could indicate the sources responsible.
Ralf Grahn
European Parliament: Rules on political groups (from July 2009)
During the coming days and weeks, the existing political groups in the European Parliament and various national parties with elected members of the EP negotiate to form the political groups, which are central to parliamentary work.
As always, knowledge of the rules is a key element for an appreciation of the game, is sports as well as in politics.
The European Parliament has amended its Rules of Procedure, with changes taking place from the beginning of the new parliamentary term (version: 7th parliamentary term, July 2009).
Here are the provisions on the political groups in the European Parliament for the new parliament:
POLITICAL GROUPS
Rule 30
Formation of political groups
1. Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities.
[Interpretation: Parliament need not normally evaluate the political affinity of members of a group. In forming a group together under this Rule, Members concerned accept by definition that they have political affinity. Only when this is denied by the Members concerned is it necessary for Parliament to evaluate whether the group has been constituted in conformity with the Rules.]
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.
3. Where a group falls below the required threshold, the President, with the agreement of the Conference of Presidents, may allow it to continue to exist until Parliament's next constitutive sitting, provided the following conditions are met:
- the members continue to represent at least one-fifth of the Member States;
- the group has been in existence for a period longer than one year.
The President shall not apply this derogation where there is sufficient evidence to suspect that it is being abused.
4. A Member may not belong to more than one political group.
5. The President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set up. This statement shall specify the name of the group, its members and its bureau.
6. The statement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Rule 31
Activities and legal situation of the political groups
1. The political groups shall carry out their duties as part of the activities of the Union, including the tasks allocated to them by the Rules of Procedure. The political groups shall be provided with a secretariat on the basis of the establishment plan of the Secretariat, administrative facilities and the appropriations entered for that purpose in Parliament's budget.
2. The Bureau shall lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and monitoring of those facilities and appropriations, as well as to the related delegations of budget implementation powers.
3. Those rules shall determine the administrative and financial consequences in the event of the dissolution of a political group.
Rule 32
Intergroups
1. Individual Members may form Intergroups or other unofficial groupings of Members, to hold informal exchanges of views on specific issues across different political groups, drawing on members of different parliamentary committees, and to promote contact between Members and civil society.
2. Such groupings may not engage in any activities which might result in confusion with the official activities of Parliament or of its bodies. Provided that the conditions laid down in rules governing their establishment adopted by the Bureau are respected, political groups may facilitate their activities by providing them with logistical support. Such groupings shall declare any external support in accordance with Annex I.
Rule 33
Non-attached Members
1. Members who do not belong to a political group shall be provided with a secretariat. The detailed arrangements shall be laid down by the Bureau on a proposal from the Secretary-General.
2. The Bureau shall also determine the status and parliamentary rights of such Members.
3. The Bureau shall also lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and auditing of appropriations entered in Parliament's budget to cover secretarial expenses and administrative facilities of non-attached Members.
Rule 34
Allocation of seats in the Chamber
The Conference of Presidents shall decide how seats in the Chamber are to be allocated among the political groups, the non-attached Members and the institutions of the European Union.
***
The significant thresholds for political groups have changed to at least 25 MEPs, elected in at least one-quarter of the member states (now 7).
The MEPs who fail to form or to join a political group, or who decide to stay on the sidelines, are called non-attached members (NI = non-inscrits).
Ralf Grahn
As always, knowledge of the rules is a key element for an appreciation of the game, is sports as well as in politics.
The European Parliament has amended its Rules of Procedure, with changes taking place from the beginning of the new parliamentary term (version: 7th parliamentary term, July 2009).
Here are the provisions on the political groups in the European Parliament for the new parliament:
POLITICAL GROUPS
Rule 30
Formation of political groups
1. Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities.
[Interpretation: Parliament need not normally evaluate the political affinity of members of a group. In forming a group together under this Rule, Members concerned accept by definition that they have political affinity. Only when this is denied by the Members concerned is it necessary for Parliament to evaluate whether the group has been constituted in conformity with the Rules.]
2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.
3. Where a group falls below the required threshold, the President, with the agreement of the Conference of Presidents, may allow it to continue to exist until Parliament's next constitutive sitting, provided the following conditions are met:
- the members continue to represent at least one-fifth of the Member States;
- the group has been in existence for a period longer than one year.
The President shall not apply this derogation where there is sufficient evidence to suspect that it is being abused.
4. A Member may not belong to more than one political group.
5. The President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set up. This statement shall specify the name of the group, its members and its bureau.
6. The statement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Rule 31
Activities and legal situation of the political groups
1. The political groups shall carry out their duties as part of the activities of the Union, including the tasks allocated to them by the Rules of Procedure. The political groups shall be provided with a secretariat on the basis of the establishment plan of the Secretariat, administrative facilities and the appropriations entered for that purpose in Parliament's budget.
2. The Bureau shall lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and monitoring of those facilities and appropriations, as well as to the related delegations of budget implementation powers.
3. Those rules shall determine the administrative and financial consequences in the event of the dissolution of a political group.
Rule 32
Intergroups
1. Individual Members may form Intergroups or other unofficial groupings of Members, to hold informal exchanges of views on specific issues across different political groups, drawing on members of different parliamentary committees, and to promote contact between Members and civil society.
2. Such groupings may not engage in any activities which might result in confusion with the official activities of Parliament or of its bodies. Provided that the conditions laid down in rules governing their establishment adopted by the Bureau are respected, political groups may facilitate their activities by providing them with logistical support. Such groupings shall declare any external support in accordance with Annex I.
Rule 33
Non-attached Members
1. Members who do not belong to a political group shall be provided with a secretariat. The detailed arrangements shall be laid down by the Bureau on a proposal from the Secretary-General.
2. The Bureau shall also determine the status and parliamentary rights of such Members.
3. The Bureau shall also lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and auditing of appropriations entered in Parliament's budget to cover secretarial expenses and administrative facilities of non-attached Members.
Rule 34
Allocation of seats in the Chamber
The Conference of Presidents shall decide how seats in the Chamber are to be allocated among the political groups, the non-attached Members and the institutions of the European Union.
***
The significant thresholds for political groups have changed to at least 25 MEPs, elected in at least one-quarter of the member states (now 7).
The MEPs who fail to form or to join a political group, or who decide to stay on the sidelines, are called non-attached members (NI = non-inscrits).
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
