The Council of the European Union has published a five page document with questions and answers on the so called SWIFT agreement on the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), concluded for nine months one day before the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page or concentrate on the editors’ choice of articles on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Monday, 30 November 2009
Ethics and law of Swiss minaret ban
First, a few thoughts on how we should try to approach difficult questions concerning freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The general understanding in Europe has been that there are universal rights. In Europe the secular state does its best to guarantee that the rights of all are respected, as long as they do not harm the freedom of others to practice their beliefs. Outside Europe we try to promote human rights.
The Council of Europe and the European Union are built on the premises of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Membership requires respect for fundamental rights.
Switzerland is still a member of the Council of Europe, party to the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. The Swiss can contravene the European Convention only by renouncing their membership.
The exact scope for different rights is a difficult issue, where we need discussion at European level to find satisfactory solutions. It is not easy, and we will probably see trial and error.
If we want to find principles applicable to all on issues concerning religious symbols (headscarves or crucifixes in secular state schools, for instance), we have to look towards ethical rules:
The Golden Rule, reciprocity, Kant’s categorical imperative.
Did the Swiss ban church towers and belfries as well? If not, then their vote is discriminatory.
Legal analysis
Here are a few examples of lawyers who have analysed the Swiss minaret ban on their blogs:
Actualités du droit, Gilles Devers: Minarets: C’est illégal, et la Suisse devra renoncer (30 November 2009)
Verfassungsblog, Max Steinbeis: Schweiz: Diktatur der Mehrheit (30 November 2009)
European Union Law, Vihar Georgiev: The Swiss Ban on Minarets: Legal implications (30 November 2009)
***
The blogs discuss the matters from different angles (Swiss, European and international law; referendums and minority rights), but their conclusions are clear. There is a contradiction between the Swiss referendum result and the international obligations of Switzerland.
Let the corrective mechanisms take over. They can at least right the wrong in a legal sense, although they can do little to improve the image of Switzerland and the Swiss.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
The Council of Europe and the European Union are built on the premises of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Membership requires respect for fundamental rights.
Switzerland is still a member of the Council of Europe, party to the European Convention on Human Rights and subject to the European Court of Human Rights. The Swiss can contravene the European Convention only by renouncing their membership.
The exact scope for different rights is a difficult issue, where we need discussion at European level to find satisfactory solutions. It is not easy, and we will probably see trial and error.
If we want to find principles applicable to all on issues concerning religious symbols (headscarves or crucifixes in secular state schools, for instance), we have to look towards ethical rules:
The Golden Rule, reciprocity, Kant’s categorical imperative.
Did the Swiss ban church towers and belfries as well? If not, then their vote is discriminatory.
Legal analysis
Here are a few examples of lawyers who have analysed the Swiss minaret ban on their blogs:
Actualités du droit, Gilles Devers: Minarets: C’est illégal, et la Suisse devra renoncer (30 November 2009)
Verfassungsblog, Max Steinbeis: Schweiz: Diktatur der Mehrheit (30 November 2009)
European Union Law, Vihar Georgiev: The Swiss Ban on Minarets: Legal implications (30 November 2009)
***
The blogs discuss the matters from different angles (Swiss, European and international law; referendums and minority rights), but their conclusions are clear. There is a contradiction between the Swiss referendum result and the international obligations of Switzerland.
Let the corrective mechanisms take over. They can at least right the wrong in a legal sense, although they can do little to improve the image of Switzerland and the Swiss.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU Lisbon Treaty into force 1 December 2009
The Lisbon Treaty enters into force Tuesday, 1 December 2009. The consolidated (readable and updated ) versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), were published in the Official Journal of the European Union 9 May 2008 (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115), and they are available in 23 treaty languages.
The EU Charter was declared politically binding on the EU institutions in December 2000 in Nice, but it becomes legally binding when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the explanations relating to it, were published OJEU 14 December 2007 C 303.
***
For EU citizens the world will look pretty much the same after tomorrow morning, but in the areas where the European Parliament gains more equal powers as a law-maker the procedures will become a bit more open for the public.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
The EU Charter was declared politically binding on the EU institutions in December 2000 in Nice, but it becomes legally binding when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force: The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the explanations relating to it, were published OJEU 14 December 2007 C 303.
***
For EU citizens the world will look pretty much the same after tomorrow morning, but in the areas where the European Parliament gains more equal powers as a law-maker the procedures will become a bit more open for the public.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
European Parliament: New sloth habitat?
There was not very much the institutions of the European Union could do, when the Lisbon Treaty agreed by the EU member states went on its ratification tour of 27 capitals, but once it became clear that the amending treaty finally enters into force, all the institutions have a responsibility to get the EU up and running under the new rules.
The European Council appointed its president and the high representative before 1 December 2009. José Manuel Barroso unveiled his new Commission on Friday, 27 November 2009. Well done!
The European Parliament has rejoiced in its new powers under the Lisbon Treaty. But what does it do?
The European Parliament's Conference of Presidents (EP President Jerzy Buzek and the political group leaders) decided on Thursday that the hearings should last three hours each and take place on 11-15 January in Brussels and on 18 and 19 January in Strasbourg. To enable a final vote to be taken before the end of January, a special mini-session is scheduled for Tuesday 26 January 2010.
Can the European Parliament be serious about this?
We have a caretaker Commission in place in an irregular position, well past its “go by” date, and the European Parliament shamelessly tells us that it needs two months to do its duty!
Further, the EP sanctimoniously tries to create the impression that it moves with haste, holding “a special mini-session”.
Sancta simplicitas!
The sloth must have found a new habitat in Europe: the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
The European Council appointed its president and the high representative before 1 December 2009. José Manuel Barroso unveiled his new Commission on Friday, 27 November 2009. Well done!
The European Parliament has rejoiced in its new powers under the Lisbon Treaty. But what does it do?
The European Parliament's Conference of Presidents (EP President Jerzy Buzek and the political group leaders) decided on Thursday that the hearings should last three hours each and take place on 11-15 January in Brussels and on 18 and 19 January in Strasbourg. To enable a final vote to be taken before the end of January, a special mini-session is scheduled for Tuesday 26 January 2010.
Can the European Parliament be serious about this?
We have a caretaker Commission in place in an irregular position, well past its “go by” date, and the European Parliament shamelessly tells us that it needs two months to do its duty!
Further, the EP sanctimoniously tries to create the impression that it moves with haste, holding “a special mini-session”.
Sancta simplicitas!
The sloth must have found a new habitat in Europe: the European Parliament.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
Swiss No to minarets ─Yes to what?
Among eurobloggers at least Julien Frisch and Gulf Stream Blues have already reacted clearly against the Swiss referendum banning minarets. Erkan’s Field Diary says it at least as forcefully in a blog post he has promised to update soon: In Switzerland, Fascism seems to be getting ground…
I wrote a comment on Julien’s blog, but thought that I might post it on Grahnlaw as well:
***
In Europe as a whole and in the European Union, we cannot turn the clock back. Cultural diversity and different beliefs need to be protected, as long as they cause no real harm to the rights of others. These difficult issues are common concerns, and we need to discuss them at European level.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
I wrote a comment on Julien’s blog, but thought that I might post it on Grahnlaw as well:
Julien,
I agree with much of what you say. This is a sad day for Europe, of which Switzerland is a part, although somewhat apart.
A cynical campaign to sow discord has "succeeded" to do that. When we think of the disproportionate reactions to an individual Danish cartoonist and a newspaper acting within the rules of free speech, this manifestation of the will of a nation will cause feelings of humiliation and anger, easy to exploit for hate-preachers, putting Swiss diplomatic missions, firms and expats at risk (and perhaps others).
This is once again an example of the effects of referendums. Women's suffrage at the federal level was approved only in 1971 in Switzerland.
Representative democracy is to a large extent majority rule, but combined with provisions for the protection of freedoms (unalienable rights, respect for human dignity) it can help build more tolerant societies.
As you say, these questions are difficult:
I would not be comfortable with muezzins calling the faithful to prayer six times a day if using loudspeakers to overpower everything else in the vicinity, but I do not mind church bells ringing at times.
I feel split about crucifixes in secular state schools; should they be abolished through the courts, or should we tolerate different customs?
How about clothing and other symbols? Can you study, work and interact as a free citizen, if you wear a burqa? Can anyone condone genital mutilation?
Somehow we need to look for answers together, at a European level, learning from mistakes, but somehow we should preserve a sense of humanity in our efforts.
Prejudices and referendums are a lethal combination. The Swiss have shown us that.
***
In Europe as a whole and in the European Union, we cannot turn the clock back. Cultural diversity and different beliefs need to be protected, as long as they cause no real harm to the rights of others. These difficult issues are common concerns, and we need to discuss them at European level.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU Stockholm Programme background: Area of freedom, security and justice
The 2979th session of the Council of the European Union ─ Justice and Home Affairs configuration ─ starts in Brussels on Monday, 30 November 2009, under the Treaty of Nice, and continues on Tuesday, 1 December 2009, when the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force.
Although much of the Lisbon Treaty (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115) tweaks the institutions, without affecting citizens directly, justice and home affairs (JHA), the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ), is a policy area where the reforms will have impact on individuals (through secondary legislation).
Detailed view
For a more detailed view of the treaty provisions in force from 1 December 2009, you can look at Part three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Articles 67 to 89 (pages 73 to 84 in the consolidated, readable version of the treaty).
The legislative history of each Article has been presented on this blog, with further references to relevant materials.
Essential background
For the reader, who wants an introduction or a quick recap of the Lisbon Treaty reforms, the Fondation Robert Schuman prepared ten fact sheets available in French and English (December 2007). Here the relevant one is Sheet 6: The Lisbon Treaty and the area of freedom, security and justice (2 pages).
The Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union has published a brochure for the general public (available in Swedish and English): A more secure and open Europe ─ The priorities of the Swedish Presidency for the Justice and Home Affairs Council (8 pages).
Barroso II Commission
On Friday, 27 November 2009, president-elect José Manuel Barroso allocated the portfolios for the commissioners proposed by the member states. Subject to the approval of the Commission as a body by the European Parliament, Cecilia Malmström will be responsible for home affairs in the Barroso II Commission and Viviane Reding will be in charge of justice, fundamental rights and citizenship during the next five years.
Most countries have separate ministers of the interior and ministers of justice. The responsibilities of the European Commission are both expanding and evolving. Politically, these issues are delicate; they concern individuals and striking the right balance between rights and repression is one of the most demanding tasks in modern government. The expected creation of two Commission portfolios has been favourably received.
JHA Council
Some progress has been made in opening up EU Council proceedings to the public. Generally, the Swedish presidency has been the best to date in presenting meetings and materials in a comprehensive manner to the public, as well as in its more open attitude with regard to publishing documents.
Public deliberations and debates are slowly making inroads into closed, smoke-free rooms. The press briefing for the JHA Council tells us that there is going to be a public deliberation (general debate) on the Stockholm Programme on Monday, under home affairs (page 2). On Tuesday, under justice, there is going to be a public debate (presumably on these parts of the draft programme).
Press conferences and public deliberations can be followed by video streaming on the Council’s audiovisual web page.
On the EU Council’s website, you can find background material for the 2979th JHA Council meeting 30 November to 1 December 2009: revised presidency briefing, agenda, background note, audiovisual note, public debates and deliberations 30 November, and public debates and deliberations 1 December.
Stockholm Programme
After the Tampere programme and the Hague programme, the European Union is about to adopt its third long term framework for its work in the area of freedom, security and justice: the Stockholm programme 2010-2014.
The JHA Council prepares the ground for the 10 to 11 December 2009 European Council, where the heads of state or government will adopt this framework of strategic value.
The Swedish presidency has published a second draft of the Stockholm Programme ─ An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens (23 November 2009, document 16484/09; 73 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Although much of the Lisbon Treaty (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115) tweaks the institutions, without affecting citizens directly, justice and home affairs (JHA), the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ), is a policy area where the reforms will have impact on individuals (through secondary legislation).
Detailed view
For a more detailed view of the treaty provisions in force from 1 December 2009, you can look at Part three, Title V of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Articles 67 to 89 (pages 73 to 84 in the consolidated, readable version of the treaty).
The legislative history of each Article has been presented on this blog, with further references to relevant materials.
Essential background
For the reader, who wants an introduction or a quick recap of the Lisbon Treaty reforms, the Fondation Robert Schuman prepared ten fact sheets available in French and English (December 2007). Here the relevant one is Sheet 6: The Lisbon Treaty and the area of freedom, security and justice (2 pages).
The Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union has published a brochure for the general public (available in Swedish and English): A more secure and open Europe ─ The priorities of the Swedish Presidency for the Justice and Home Affairs Council (8 pages).
Barroso II Commission
On Friday, 27 November 2009, president-elect José Manuel Barroso allocated the portfolios for the commissioners proposed by the member states. Subject to the approval of the Commission as a body by the European Parliament, Cecilia Malmström will be responsible for home affairs in the Barroso II Commission and Viviane Reding will be in charge of justice, fundamental rights and citizenship during the next five years.
Most countries have separate ministers of the interior and ministers of justice. The responsibilities of the European Commission are both expanding and evolving. Politically, these issues are delicate; they concern individuals and striking the right balance between rights and repression is one of the most demanding tasks in modern government. The expected creation of two Commission portfolios has been favourably received.
JHA Council
Some progress has been made in opening up EU Council proceedings to the public. Generally, the Swedish presidency has been the best to date in presenting meetings and materials in a comprehensive manner to the public, as well as in its more open attitude with regard to publishing documents.
Public deliberations and debates are slowly making inroads into closed, smoke-free rooms. The press briefing for the JHA Council tells us that there is going to be a public deliberation (general debate) on the Stockholm Programme on Monday, under home affairs (page 2). On Tuesday, under justice, there is going to be a public debate (presumably on these parts of the draft programme).
Press conferences and public deliberations can be followed by video streaming on the Council’s audiovisual web page.
On the EU Council’s website, you can find background material for the 2979th JHA Council meeting 30 November to 1 December 2009: revised presidency briefing, agenda, background note, audiovisual note, public debates and deliberations 30 November, and public debates and deliberations 1 December.
Stockholm Programme
After the Tampere programme and the Hague programme, the European Union is about to adopt its third long term framework for its work in the area of freedom, security and justice: the Stockholm programme 2010-2014.
The JHA Council prepares the ground for the 10 to 11 December 2009 European Council, where the heads of state or government will adopt this framework of strategic value.
The Swedish presidency has published a second draft of the Stockholm Programme ─ An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens (23 November 2009, document 16484/09; 73 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts on the Posts page, or concentrate on the editors’ choices on the Home page. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Mainstream media and EU-USA SWIFT agreement
Have civil society and blogging communities put the EU-US SWIFT agreement on the pages of the mainstream media, or is it the other way around?
Without possessing the philosopher’s stone on that question, I am able to report that at least some mainstream media do report on the problems associated with the “free flow” of Europeans’ financial data to the US intelligence community.
Do the results of my haphazard searches add to my confidence in mainstream media?
In the news
Is the signing of the SWIFT agreement just a formality? Not if you believe the AFP report: Austria, Germany blocking EU-US data deal: officials (27 November 2009). According to the report, Austria and Germany were still blocking the accord on Friday. Discussions were expected during the weekend, but it looks like the choice is about the duration of the agreement: six, nine or twelve months.
Europolitics, Brian Beary: Parliament pushes to delay SWIFT bank records agreement (27 November 2009). The European Parliament, in a letter by EP president Jerzy Buzek, has made a last minute appeal to the Swedish EU Council presidency to pull the agreement off the agenda. The EP wants to be fully involved under the Lisbon Treaty, which enters into force on 1 December 2009.
Spiegel Online, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp: Spying on Terrorist Cash Flows ─ EU to Allow US Access to Bank Transaction Data (27 November 2009) says that it looks like the EU is going to agree to the controversial SWIFT deal, referring to massive US pressure. According to this report, both Germany and Austria have given in and the EU Council is expected to sign an agreement “politically divisive and of dubious legality”.
Deutsche Welle: Datenschutz – Erlaubt Europa US-Konto-Spionage? (27 November 2009) presents the member state governments railroading the EU-US agreement while bypassing the European Parliament.
EUobserver, Valentina Pop: MEPs flex legal muscles over police reforms ahead of new treaty (25 November 2009) noted that an initiative by the Green group to thwart the EU-US bank data transfer deal fell through, and member states’ ministers were likely to adopt the SWIFT banking agreement on Monday. According to diplomatic sources, the prospect of having to start from scratch was incentive enough for the member states to adopt the deal on Monday.
Baltic Review, by eurotopics: Brussels too soft on the US (26 November 2009) publishes an opinion by Die Presse: The SWIFT deal is a further example of Washington not taking the EU seriously.
Tagesschau: Länder stemmen sich gegen SWIFT-Abkommen (27 November 2009) notes that the Bundesrat (where the Länder are represented) has demanded better data protection, but that the resolution is not legally binding on the German federal government. German politicians and the banking sector have criticised the low data protection standards. The German data protection supervisor Peter Schaar had criticised the SWIFT deal as a massive breach of fundamental rights, and signing the agreement would lead to would lead to legal challenges in the German federal constitutional court and the European Court of Justice. Schaar could not see the agreement as constitutional. Politically it was still unclear if Germany with abstain or vote against on Monday, although CDU spokesman Hans-Peter Uhl considered an agreement necessary in the fight against terrorism.
Heise Online, Stefan Krempl: Bundesrat warnt vor Wirtschaftsspionage durch SWIFT-Abkommen (28 November 2008) is quality reporting with useful links, i.a. to the decision by the Bundesrat (Drucksache 788/09; 27 November 2009), which details the concerns of the German Länder.
Romandie News has published an AFP bulletin: Terrorisme : les Européens divisés sur l’accès aux données bancaires (27 November 2009).
There are a number of newspaper articles in German quality media such as Die Zeit, Die Welt and others (but I only have one life).
***
Watchdogs?
During my somewhat random search, I have noticed that there has been serious and continuing discussion about the SWIFT agreement issues in German(y).
By the way, to cut a few historical corners, the Federal Republic of Germany was essentially an American creation, endowed with a Basic Law designed to respect parliamentary procedures and enshrining human rights. Right now it looks like the lessons have succeeded, with Germany just about the only place where fundamental rights are taken seriously, and the old US teachers in need of enlisting as pupils.
In addition to German media, there are also some fairly ‘non-national’ reports by news agencies or media with an EU focus or international readership, but traditional national media seem to have been fast asleep, unworried by their governments and politicians, too placid to dig on their own.
Naturally, I may be completely mistaken, having missed journalistic feats in languages unknown by me (and unrepresented in my web searches), but this is my first impression. Pray, tell me that I’m wrong.
Are social media, such as blogs, responsible for this decline, too?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Without possessing the philosopher’s stone on that question, I am able to report that at least some mainstream media do report on the problems associated with the “free flow” of Europeans’ financial data to the US intelligence community.
Do the results of my haphazard searches add to my confidence in mainstream media?
In the news
Is the signing of the SWIFT agreement just a formality? Not if you believe the AFP report: Austria, Germany blocking EU-US data deal: officials (27 November 2009). According to the report, Austria and Germany were still blocking the accord on Friday. Discussions were expected during the weekend, but it looks like the choice is about the duration of the agreement: six, nine or twelve months.
Europolitics, Brian Beary: Parliament pushes to delay SWIFT bank records agreement (27 November 2009). The European Parliament, in a letter by EP president Jerzy Buzek, has made a last minute appeal to the Swedish EU Council presidency to pull the agreement off the agenda. The EP wants to be fully involved under the Lisbon Treaty, which enters into force on 1 December 2009.
Spiegel Online, Hans-Jürgen Schlamp: Spying on Terrorist Cash Flows ─ EU to Allow US Access to Bank Transaction Data (27 November 2009) says that it looks like the EU is going to agree to the controversial SWIFT deal, referring to massive US pressure. According to this report, both Germany and Austria have given in and the EU Council is expected to sign an agreement “politically divisive and of dubious legality”.
Deutsche Welle: Datenschutz – Erlaubt Europa US-Konto-Spionage? (27 November 2009) presents the member state governments railroading the EU-US agreement while bypassing the European Parliament.
EUobserver, Valentina Pop: MEPs flex legal muscles over police reforms ahead of new treaty (25 November 2009) noted that an initiative by the Green group to thwart the EU-US bank data transfer deal fell through, and member states’ ministers were likely to adopt the SWIFT banking agreement on Monday. According to diplomatic sources, the prospect of having to start from scratch was incentive enough for the member states to adopt the deal on Monday.
Baltic Review, by eurotopics: Brussels too soft on the US (26 November 2009) publishes an opinion by Die Presse: The SWIFT deal is a further example of Washington not taking the EU seriously.
Tagesschau: Länder stemmen sich gegen SWIFT-Abkommen (27 November 2009) notes that the Bundesrat (where the Länder are represented) has demanded better data protection, but that the resolution is not legally binding on the German federal government. German politicians and the banking sector have criticised the low data protection standards. The German data protection supervisor Peter Schaar had criticised the SWIFT deal as a massive breach of fundamental rights, and signing the agreement would lead to would lead to legal challenges in the German federal constitutional court and the European Court of Justice. Schaar could not see the agreement as constitutional. Politically it was still unclear if Germany with abstain or vote against on Monday, although CDU spokesman Hans-Peter Uhl considered an agreement necessary in the fight against terrorism.
Heise Online, Stefan Krempl: Bundesrat warnt vor Wirtschaftsspionage durch SWIFT-Abkommen (28 November 2008) is quality reporting with useful links, i.a. to the decision by the Bundesrat (Drucksache 788/09; 27 November 2009), which details the concerns of the German Länder.
Romandie News has published an AFP bulletin: Terrorisme : les Européens divisés sur l’accès aux données bancaires (27 November 2009).
There are a number of newspaper articles in German quality media such as Die Zeit, Die Welt and others (but I only have one life).
***
Watchdogs?
During my somewhat random search, I have noticed that there has been serious and continuing discussion about the SWIFT agreement issues in German(y).
By the way, to cut a few historical corners, the Federal Republic of Germany was essentially an American creation, endowed with a Basic Law designed to respect parliamentary procedures and enshrining human rights. Right now it looks like the lessons have succeeded, with Germany just about the only place where fundamental rights are taken seriously, and the old US teachers in need of enlisting as pupils.
In addition to German media, there are also some fairly ‘non-national’ reports by news agencies or media with an EU focus or international readership, but traditional national media seem to have been fast asleep, unworried by their governments and politicians, too placid to dig on their own.
Naturally, I may be completely mistaken, having missed journalistic feats in languages unknown by me (and unrepresented in my web searches), but this is my first impression. Pray, tell me that I’m wrong.
Are social media, such as blogs, responsible for this decline, too?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU & USA: SWIFT agreement ─ Euroblogs and civil society
Is the proposed SWIFT financial data transfer agreement between the European Union and the United States of America an example of how civil society and Euroblogs take up important societal issues, where our governments are less than forthcoming?
I have not traced the matters to their roots, but I suspect that without active citizens and bloggers neither main stream media nor governments would have reacted. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Before we see what happens Monday on the Swedish EU Council presidency watch, here are some examples of active Euroblogs, which at least have contributed to raising public awareness of privacy, data protection and fundamental rights concerns in relation to the SWIFT agreement.
Euroblogs
Netzpolitik.org
As far as I understand, Netzpolitik.org – a blog and platform for freedom and openness in the digital age – has been active in making the secretive SWIFT deal public. See, under the tag “swift”, for instance the following blog posts (in German). Without going back the whole way, here are some examples, including leaked documents and assessments of their quality:
SWIFT: Bundesregierung ist umgekippt (25 November 2009)
Geheimes Dokument zeigt die schmutzigen Tricks bei den SWIFT-Verhandlungen (24 November 2009)
Bundesregierung kippt bei SWIFT (24 November 2009)
Einigung bei Bankdatenübermittlung an die USA? (11 November 2009)
SWIFT-Debatte im EU-Parlament (16 September 2009)
Brussels Blogger
I was only vaguely aware of the SWIFT agreement preparations, until i read Brussels Blogger: SWIFT – EU to grant USA nearly unlimited access to all EU banking data (26 November 2009) and 5 reasons why the SWIFT deal is very bad for Europe (27 November 2009).
Julien Frisch took up the issue in EU to hand all banking details of Europeans to the US. A rapidly growing Facebook group demands that the deal is stopped.
Blogosphere
Now that I have noticed the shady procedure and less than forthright official communication about the proposed SWIFT deal, I have stumbled across other blog posts about the issue. Here are a few examples:
Zero Hedge, Marla Singer: Pull a SWIFT one (27 November 2009) refers to Brussels Blogger and notes that for the United States there is all take and no give.
Der Spiegelfechter: SWIFT-Abkommen – Showdown in Berlin (27 November 2009) alleges that the German federal government wanted to adopt the SWIFT agreement “soundlessly”, but unexpectedly the Bundesrat – the second chamber representing the Länder – has vetoed the accord, which requires unanimity between EU member state governments.
Ralphs Piratenblog: [PM] Geheime Tricks bei der Durchsetzung des SWIFT-Abkommens (26 November 2009) notes that the German Pirate Party is opposed to the agreement. As it is, through US based servers the United States have wider powers in Germany than the German security services. There are document references to Netzpolitik.
***
We have seen active citizens stand up for open and democratic procedures and Euroblogs championing fundamental rights across national borders and language barriers.
In my humble view, there is an emerging Eurosphere, or European public sphere, despite the national media traditions and perspectives, and the pesky Euroblogosphere is a small, but growing part of it.
My own conclusion from the SWIFT agreement debacle would be the following wish to the EU institutions and public administrations in the member states: Be open to us and deal fairly; we will be more reasonable and trustful in return.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
I have not traced the matters to their roots, but I suspect that without active citizens and bloggers neither main stream media nor governments would have reacted. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Before we see what happens Monday on the Swedish EU Council presidency watch, here are some examples of active Euroblogs, which at least have contributed to raising public awareness of privacy, data protection and fundamental rights concerns in relation to the SWIFT agreement.
Euroblogs
Netzpolitik.org
As far as I understand, Netzpolitik.org – a blog and platform for freedom and openness in the digital age – has been active in making the secretive SWIFT deal public. See, under the tag “swift”, for instance the following blog posts (in German). Without going back the whole way, here are some examples, including leaked documents and assessments of their quality:
SWIFT: Bundesregierung ist umgekippt (25 November 2009)
Geheimes Dokument zeigt die schmutzigen Tricks bei den SWIFT-Verhandlungen (24 November 2009)
Bundesregierung kippt bei SWIFT (24 November 2009)
Einigung bei Bankdatenübermittlung an die USA? (11 November 2009)
SWIFT-Debatte im EU-Parlament (16 September 2009)
Brussels Blogger
I was only vaguely aware of the SWIFT agreement preparations, until i read Brussels Blogger: SWIFT – EU to grant USA nearly unlimited access to all EU banking data (26 November 2009) and 5 reasons why the SWIFT deal is very bad for Europe (27 November 2009).
Julien Frisch took up the issue in EU to hand all banking details of Europeans to the US. A rapidly growing Facebook group demands that the deal is stopped.
Blogosphere
Now that I have noticed the shady procedure and less than forthright official communication about the proposed SWIFT deal, I have stumbled across other blog posts about the issue. Here are a few examples:
Zero Hedge, Marla Singer: Pull a SWIFT one (27 November 2009) refers to Brussels Blogger and notes that for the United States there is all take and no give.
Der Spiegelfechter: SWIFT-Abkommen – Showdown in Berlin (27 November 2009) alleges that the German federal government wanted to adopt the SWIFT agreement “soundlessly”, but unexpectedly the Bundesrat – the second chamber representing the Länder – has vetoed the accord, which requires unanimity between EU member state governments.
Ralphs Piratenblog: [PM] Geheime Tricks bei der Durchsetzung des SWIFT-Abkommens (26 November 2009) notes that the German Pirate Party is opposed to the agreement. As it is, through US based servers the United States have wider powers in Germany than the German security services. There are document references to Netzpolitik.
***
We have seen active citizens stand up for open and democratic procedures and Euroblogs championing fundamental rights across national borders and language barriers.
In my humble view, there is an emerging Eurosphere, or European public sphere, despite the national media traditions and perspectives, and the pesky Euroblogosphere is a small, but growing part of it.
My own conclusion from the SWIFT agreement debacle would be the following wish to the EU institutions and public administrations in the member states: Be open to us and deal fairly; we will be more reasonable and trustful in return.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU & USA: SWIFT agreement ─ Sweden “informs”
Yesterday, in the blog post SWIFTly signed – Long term damage? (Updated), I criticised the Swedish EU Council presidency for acting against its proclaimed principles of openness, transparency and accessibility with regard to the proposed bank data transfer deal with the United States of America.
Important as the fight against terrorism is, expediency should not override democratic scrutiny and open debate, when fundamental rights are at stake.
Have matters improved since early Friday afternoon?
Actually, Friday brought some improvements, but left the fate of the SWIFT agreement between the EU and the US hanging in the air.
Presidency and Council information
During Friday, the Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union published information about the Council meeting Monday 30 November 2009, Justice and Home Affairs configuration: Stockholm Programme and work to combat human trafficking at Council meeting. The general press release highlights “some of the issues”, but not the SWIFT agreement.
The provisional agenda of the JHA Council meeting (dated 13 November 2009; document CM 4735/09) still mentions the bank data transfer agreement, without any reference to documents of substantive value:
Understandably, the short pre-meeting video with ambassador Christian Danielsson on preparation in Coreper II concentrates on the strategically important five year Stockholm Programme, which covers the whole of the evolving area of freedom, security and justice, but the interview makes no mention of the SWIFT deal.
The Background note on the Justice and Home Affairs Council 30 November to 1 December 2009, by the Council Press service (dated 27 November 2009), breaks the silence by mentioning the US agreement among the highlighted questions (front page):
Under Home Affairs (Monday, 30 November), the background note presents the following general information about the financial data transfer agreement (page 5):
***
Where do we stand?
We note that the background note Friday says “discuss a draft”, not “sign” or “approve”. Does this mean that concluding the agreement is off the agenda Monday, and that the governments are going to give the EU’s data protection rules and parliamentary procedures some serious thought?
We also note that the information on offer – although a huge improvement on past practice – is bland, incomplete and one-sided. Privacy, data protection or fundamental rights are not mentioned, but valuable intelligence is. There are no documentary references to enlighten debate.
The SWIFT agreement is not among the issues debated publicly on the JHA webcast Monday 30 November 2009.
The fight against terrorism is too important to spoil by shady dealings and sowing mistrust in an EU on the threshold of becoming a union, “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.
Admittedly, proceedings behind closed doors have created a problem with the end of the year approaching fast. Still, I am reasonably optimistic that, given the opportunity, the European Parliament would do its bit to look for temporary solution if the Council agrees to trust our system of representative democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Important as the fight against terrorism is, expediency should not override democratic scrutiny and open debate, when fundamental rights are at stake.
Have matters improved since early Friday afternoon?
Actually, Friday brought some improvements, but left the fate of the SWIFT agreement between the EU and the US hanging in the air.
Presidency and Council information
During Friday, the Swedish presidency of the Council of the European Union published information about the Council meeting Monday 30 November 2009, Justice and Home Affairs configuration: Stockholm Programme and work to combat human trafficking at Council meeting. The general press release highlights “some of the issues”, but not the SWIFT agreement.
The provisional agenda of the JHA Council meeting (dated 13 November 2009; document CM 4735/09) still mentions the bank data transfer agreement, without any reference to documents of substantive value:
“Council Decision authorising the signing of an Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme
- Adoption”
Understandably, the short pre-meeting video with ambassador Christian Danielsson on preparation in Coreper II concentrates on the strategically important five year Stockholm Programme, which covers the whole of the evolving area of freedom, security and justice, but the interview makes no mention of the SWIFT deal.
The Background note on the Justice and Home Affairs Council 30 November to 1 December 2009, by the Council Press service (dated 27 November 2009), breaks the silence by mentioning the US agreement among the highlighted questions (front page):
“Ministers will also discuss a draft EU-US agreement on financial messaging data for counterterrorism investigations.”
Under Home Affairs (Monday, 30 November), the background note presents the following general information about the financial data transfer agreement (page 5):
“EU-US agreement on financial messaging data for counter-terrorism investigations
The Council will discuss an EU-US agreement on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data for purposes of the US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP).
The negotiations on the agreement started in July 2009 and responded to a decision by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) to store its European financial messaging data no longer in a database located in the US, but only in Europe. The agreement aims to continue to allow the US Department of the Treasury to receive European financial messaging data for counter-terrorism investigations, while ensuring an adequate level of data protection.
Under the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP), the US Department of the Treasury seeks to identify, track and pursue suspected terrorists and their providers of finance. It was set up shortly after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.
Relevant results of the US analysis have been and will, under the draft agreement, continue to be shared with EU member states. A report by the former French investigating judge Jean-Luis Brugière, commissioned by the Commission, concluded in December 2008 that the TFTP had generated considerable intelligence value also to the EU member states.
SWIFT is a Belgium-based company which operates a worldwide messaging system used to transmit, inter alia, bank transaction information. It has been estimated that SWIFT handles 80% of the worldwide traffic for electronic value transfers.”
***
Where do we stand?
We note that the background note Friday says “discuss a draft”, not “sign” or “approve”. Does this mean that concluding the agreement is off the agenda Monday, and that the governments are going to give the EU’s data protection rules and parliamentary procedures some serious thought?
We also note that the information on offer – although a huge improvement on past practice – is bland, incomplete and one-sided. Privacy, data protection or fundamental rights are not mentioned, but valuable intelligence is. There are no documentary references to enlighten debate.
The SWIFT agreement is not among the issues debated publicly on the JHA webcast Monday 30 November 2009.
The fight against terrorism is too important to spoil by shady dealings and sowing mistrust in an EU on the threshold of becoming a union, “in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.
Admittedly, proceedings behind closed doors have created a problem with the end of the year approaching fast. Still, I am reasonably optimistic that, given the opportunity, the European Parliament would do its bit to look for temporary solution if the Council agrees to trust our system of representative democracy.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. You can access all the posts or concentrate on the editors’ choice. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Barroso II Commission proposed
President-elect José Manuel Barroso has proposed his second Commission, including the posts:
IP/09/1837
Brussels, 27 November 2009
President Barroso unveils his new team
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, today announced the portfolios responsibilities for the next Commission. The President has held detailed consultations with all the Commissioners-designate in order to assign the right jobs to the right people. The President believes that this team can deliver the agenda for change he set out in the political guidelines he presented in September, following his nomination by all 27 Member States and before his approval as President of the next Commission by the European Parliament.
President Barroso said: "We have a European programme, and now we have a European team. On the basis of the nominations by the Member States, I have sought to design a College which can generate fresh ideas and new momentum on the biggest challenges we face in Europe today. This College will implement the political guidelines that I presented to the European Parliament. I am confident that this College will be decisive in steering Europe towards recovery and a sustainable social market economy that works for the people. I have put together a strong Commission to fill the enhanced role of Europe, including on the world stage, provided by the Lisbon Treaty. One of the key tasks of this College will be to give life to the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Commissioners-designate will present themselves in the hearings before the European Parliament in January. After the vote of consent of the Parliament, it will be time to start to work and to produce results for our citizens."
The new College will have 7 Vice-Presidents, including Vice-President Baroness Catherine Ashton who will, at the same time, be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December next. Three of the Vice-Presidents will be women. The new College will have 27 members, including President Barroso, one from each Member State. It includes 9 women. The members of the College come from different political families, notably the European People's Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S & D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). 14 members, including the President, were already members of the outgoing College.
President Barroso has given a new look to the College of his second mandate. He has announced a number of new portfolios: Climate Action; Home Affairs; Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. He has reconfigured a number of other portfolios: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth; Health and Consumer Policy; Industry and Entrepreneurship; Research and Innovation; International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response. There will be a new emphasis on inclusion in the Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion portfolio, and a renewed focus with the Digital Agenda portfolio.
Responsibilities of the Commissioners-designate
- Joaqu ín ALMUNIA: Competition. Vice-President of the Commission.
- László ANDOR: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
- Baroness Catherine ASHTON: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the Commission.
- Michel BARNIER: Internal Market and Services.
- Dacian CIOLOS: Agriculture and Rural Development.
- John DALLI: Health and Consumer Policy.
- Maria DAMANAKI: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
- Karel DE GUCHT: Trade.
- Š tefan FÜLE: Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. *
- Johannes HAHN: Regional Policy.
- Connie HEDEGAARD: Climate Action.
- Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN: Research and Innovation.
- Rumiana JELEVA: International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response. *
- Siim KALLAS: Transport. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Neelie KROES: Digital Agenda. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Janusz LEWANDOWSKI: Budget and Financial Programming.
- Cecilia MALMSTRÖM: Home Affairs.
- Günter OETTINGER: Energy.
- Andris PIEBALGS: Development.*
- Janez POTO Č NIK: Environment.
- Viviane REDING: Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Olli REHN: Economic and Monetary Affairs.
- Maro š Š EF Č OVI Č : Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.
- Algirdas Š EMETA: Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.
- Antonio TAJANI: Industry and Entrepreneurship. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Androulla VASSILIOU: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.
* In close cooperation with the High Representative/Vice-President in accordance with the treaties.
A table with a more detailed description of the portfolio responsibilities is attached.
Baroness Ashton will be the 1 st Vice-President. However, having regard to her specific functions, notably in the Council, the replacement of the President in his absence will be assured by the other Vice-Presidents, in the order of precedence defined by the President. The order of precedence is: Viviane Reding, Joaquín Almunia, Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Antonio Tajani, Maro š Š ef č ovi č .
Next steps
The new Commission must gain approval from the European Parliament before it takes office for a term of office running until 31 October 2014. Commissioners-designate will appear in individual hearings before Parliamentary committees from 11-19 January. The vote of consent on the new Commission as a whole is foreseen to take place on 26 January. On the basis of the vote of consent, the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council. Then it can start working.
I t will do so on the basis of the political guidelines for the next Commission set out by President Barroso in September last. He highlighted the need for EU leadership, shaping globalisation on the basis of its values and interests. Taking global interdependence as the starting point, he set out a transformational agenda for the EU, a Europe that puts people at the heart of its agenda. He emphasized five key challenges facing Europe:
• Restarting economic growth today and ensuring long–term sustainability and competitiveness for the future
• Fighting unemployment and reinforcing our social cohesion
• Turning the challenge of a sustainable Europe to our competitive advantage
• Ensuring the security of Europeans
• Reinforcing EU citizenship and participation.
Priorities for tackling these challenges will be set in a ten year framework to deliver a vision for the EU in 2020, reinvigorating the inclusive social market economy that is the hallmark of the European way of life. The allocation of portfolios has been structured to deliver this ambitious agenda.
In his letters to each Commissioner setting out their new responsibilities, President Barroso has underlined the essential role of the Commission as the motor for the EU's efforts to address tomorrow's challenges, as well as the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty. He repeated his commitment to a smart regulation agenda, respecting subsidiarity and proportionality, focused on clear added value at EU level; paying particular attention to sound financial management; and full respect for the Code of Conduct of the Members of the European Commission. He has also stressed the need for a successful partnership with the Member States and the other institutions, in particular with the European Parliament.
Background note to editors
The CVs with pictures of the 26 Commissioners-designate are now available on :
http://www.ec.europa.eu/commission_designate_2009-2014/index_en.htm
There are more details in the press release.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
IP/09/1837
Brussels, 27 November 2009
President Barroso unveils his new team
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, today announced the portfolios responsibilities for the next Commission. The President has held detailed consultations with all the Commissioners-designate in order to assign the right jobs to the right people. The President believes that this team can deliver the agenda for change he set out in the political guidelines he presented in September, following his nomination by all 27 Member States and before his approval as President of the next Commission by the European Parliament.
President Barroso said: "We have a European programme, and now we have a European team. On the basis of the nominations by the Member States, I have sought to design a College which can generate fresh ideas and new momentum on the biggest challenges we face in Europe today. This College will implement the political guidelines that I presented to the European Parliament. I am confident that this College will be decisive in steering Europe towards recovery and a sustainable social market economy that works for the people. I have put together a strong Commission to fill the enhanced role of Europe, including on the world stage, provided by the Lisbon Treaty. One of the key tasks of this College will be to give life to the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty. The Commissioners-designate will present themselves in the hearings before the European Parliament in January. After the vote of consent of the Parliament, it will be time to start to work and to produce results for our citizens."
The new College will have 7 Vice-Presidents, including Vice-President Baroness Catherine Ashton who will, at the same time, be the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December next. Three of the Vice-Presidents will be women. The new College will have 27 members, including President Barroso, one from each Member State. It includes 9 women. The members of the College come from different political families, notably the European People's Party (EPP), the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S & D), and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE). 14 members, including the President, were already members of the outgoing College.
President Barroso has given a new look to the College of his second mandate. He has announced a number of new portfolios: Climate Action; Home Affairs; Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. He has reconfigured a number of other portfolios: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth; Health and Consumer Policy; Industry and Entrepreneurship; Research and Innovation; International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response. There will be a new emphasis on inclusion in the Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion portfolio, and a renewed focus with the Digital Agenda portfolio.
Responsibilities of the Commissioners-designate
- Joaqu ín ALMUNIA: Competition. Vice-President of the Commission.
- László ANDOR: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
- Baroness Catherine ASHTON: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the Commission.
- Michel BARNIER: Internal Market and Services.
- Dacian CIOLOS: Agriculture and Rural Development.
- John DALLI: Health and Consumer Policy.
- Maria DAMANAKI: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
- Karel DE GUCHT: Trade.
- Š tefan FÜLE: Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. *
- Johannes HAHN: Regional Policy.
- Connie HEDEGAARD: Climate Action.
- Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN: Research and Innovation.
- Rumiana JELEVA: International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response. *
- Siim KALLAS: Transport. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Neelie KROES: Digital Agenda. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Janusz LEWANDOWSKI: Budget and Financial Programming.
- Cecilia MALMSTRÖM: Home Affairs.
- Günter OETTINGER: Energy.
- Andris PIEBALGS: Development.*
- Janez POTO Č NIK: Environment.
- Viviane REDING: Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Olli REHN: Economic and Monetary Affairs.
- Maro š Š EF Č OVI Č : Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.
- Algirdas Š EMETA: Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.
- Antonio TAJANI: Industry and Entrepreneurship. Vice-President of the Commission.
- Androulla VASSILIOU: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.
* In close cooperation with the High Representative/Vice-President in accordance with the treaties.
A table with a more detailed description of the portfolio responsibilities is attached.
Baroness Ashton will be the 1 st Vice-President. However, having regard to her specific functions, notably in the Council, the replacement of the President in his absence will be assured by the other Vice-Presidents, in the order of precedence defined by the President. The order of precedence is: Viviane Reding, Joaquín Almunia, Siim Kallas, Neelie Kroes, Antonio Tajani, Maro š Š ef č ovi č .
Next steps
The new Commission must gain approval from the European Parliament before it takes office for a term of office running until 31 October 2014. Commissioners-designate will appear in individual hearings before Parliamentary committees from 11-19 January. The vote of consent on the new Commission as a whole is foreseen to take place on 26 January. On the basis of the vote of consent, the Commission shall be appointed by the European Council. Then it can start working.
I t will do so on the basis of the political guidelines for the next Commission set out by President Barroso in September last. He highlighted the need for EU leadership, shaping globalisation on the basis of its values and interests. Taking global interdependence as the starting point, he set out a transformational agenda for the EU, a Europe that puts people at the heart of its agenda. He emphasized five key challenges facing Europe:
• Restarting economic growth today and ensuring long–term sustainability and competitiveness for the future
• Fighting unemployment and reinforcing our social cohesion
• Turning the challenge of a sustainable Europe to our competitive advantage
• Ensuring the security of Europeans
• Reinforcing EU citizenship and participation.
Priorities for tackling these challenges will be set in a ten year framework to deliver a vision for the EU in 2020, reinvigorating the inclusive social market economy that is the hallmark of the European way of life. The allocation of portfolios has been structured to deliver this ambitious agenda.
In his letters to each Commissioner setting out their new responsibilities, President Barroso has underlined the essential role of the Commission as the motor for the EU's efforts to address tomorrow's challenges, as well as the new opportunities provided by the Lisbon Treaty. He repeated his commitment to a smart regulation agenda, respecting subsidiarity and proportionality, focused on clear added value at EU level; paying particular attention to sound financial management; and full respect for the Code of Conduct of the Members of the European Commission. He has also stressed the need for a successful partnership with the Member States and the other institutions, in particular with the European Parliament.
Background note to editors
The CVs with pictures of the 26 Commissioners-designate are now available on :
http://www.ec.europa.eu/commission_designate_2009-2014/index_en.htm
There are more details in the press release.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
SWIFTly signed ─ Long term damage? (Updated)
The “war on terror” has been a sorry saga of expediency overriding truth and the rule of law. Have the governments of the EU member states learnt anything? Perhaps not, if we look at the Council agenda for Monday.
Brussels Blogger has sounded the alarm regarding the plan of EU member state governments to sign an agreement with the US administration on the massive transfer of financial data; in SWIFT – EU to grant USA nearly unlimited access to all EU banking data (26 November 2009) and 5 reasons why the SWIFT deal is very bad for Europe (27 November 2009).
Julien Frisch has taken up the issue in EU to hand all banking details of Europeans to the US. A rapidly growing Facebook group demands that the deal is stopped.
***
JHA Council
On the provisional agenda of the EU Council (Justice and Home Affairs) 30 November 2009, prepared under the Swedish EU Council presidency, is the so called SWIFT agreement:
When have the texts been published for open debate? Where are the results of the public deliberations? What have the European Parliament and the national parliaments said?
***
Openness and tranparency?
Who still remembers the promising tones of the Swedish work programme for the EU Council presidency about openness, transparency and accessibility?
***
Democratic procedures and rule of law
The fight against terrorism and for the security of EU citizens is important, and it is beyond me to present an instant reasoned view on the necessity and proportionality of the privacy (data protection) breaches in the proposed SWIFT agreement, but signing such an agreement on the last day before the Lisbon Treaty enters into force is a sure-fire way for governments to cause distrust among EU citizens.
Taking the expedient course in the short term is often a guarantee of less credibility and more problems in the long term.
The EU Council is too limited and opaque to legitimise important decisions concerning fundamental rights.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Update 27 November 2009 about 14:40 EET
I have just read the EU Council’s Main topics for the coming fortnight, 30 November to 13 December 2009. Nowhere on the 15 pages is the SWIFT agreement mentioned. So much for openness, transparency and closeness to citizens.
Brussels Blogger has sounded the alarm regarding the plan of EU member state governments to sign an agreement with the US administration on the massive transfer of financial data; in SWIFT – EU to grant USA nearly unlimited access to all EU banking data (26 November 2009) and 5 reasons why the SWIFT deal is very bad for Europe (27 November 2009).
Julien Frisch has taken up the issue in EU to hand all banking details of Europeans to the US. A rapidly growing Facebook group demands that the deal is stopped.
***
JHA Council
On the provisional agenda of the EU Council (Justice and Home Affairs) 30 November 2009, prepared under the Swedish EU Council presidency, is the so called SWIFT agreement:
“Council Decision authorising the signing of an Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme
- Adoption”
When have the texts been published for open debate? Where are the results of the public deliberations? What have the European Parliament and the national parliaments said?
***
Openness and tranparency?
Who still remembers the promising tones of the Swedish work programme for the EU Council presidency about openness, transparency and accessibility?
“Europe is facing two overriding challenges: the global economic crisis and efforts to halt climate change. During its Presidency, Sweden will work hard to make progress on these and other important issues. The day-to-day EU work must be open, effective and results-oriented: open through transparency and accessibility, effective by moving these issues forward and results-oriented by taking action so that objectives are fulfilled and unexpected events are dealt with.” (Page 11)
***
Democratic procedures and rule of law
The fight against terrorism and for the security of EU citizens is important, and it is beyond me to present an instant reasoned view on the necessity and proportionality of the privacy (data protection) breaches in the proposed SWIFT agreement, but signing such an agreement on the last day before the Lisbon Treaty enters into force is a sure-fire way for governments to cause distrust among EU citizens.
Taking the expedient course in the short term is often a guarantee of less credibility and more problems in the long term.
The EU Council is too limited and opaque to legitimise important decisions concerning fundamental rights.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself! There are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Update 27 November 2009 about 14:40 EET
I have just read the EU Council’s Main topics for the coming fortnight, 30 November to 13 December 2009. Nowhere on the 15 pages is the SWIFT agreement mentioned. So much for openness, transparency and closeness to citizens.
Giant Panda and Eurosphere
Does the Giant Panda exist? It may be a conservation reliant endangered species, but few would doubt its existence.
How about the Eurosphere, aka European public sphere, or a small part of it, the Euroblogs?
Euroblogs exist: Bloggingportal.eu aggregates 487 of them.
Joe Litobarski does not doubt that there are Euroblogs, he just asks Where is the European Blogosphere? (26 November 2009). A key phrase from the discussion is "Can we look beyond our national audience?”.
***
The Giant Panda needs conservation, the Euroblogs conversation. Both exist, but we need more of them.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself; there are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
How about the Eurosphere, aka European public sphere, or a small part of it, the Euroblogs?
Euroblogs exist: Bloggingportal.eu aggregates 487 of them.
Joe Litobarski does not doubt that there are Euroblogs, he just asks Where is the European Blogosphere? (26 November 2009). A key phrase from the discussion is "Can we look beyond our national audience?”.
***
The Giant Panda needs conservation, the Euroblogs conversation. Both exist, but we need more of them.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself; there are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Van Rompuy and Ashton jobs: State of the European Union?
Few questions have attracted as much comment in the Eurosphere as the (s)election of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton to the new top jobs of the European Union under the Lisbon Treaty. Between deep despair, vitriol and angelic official optimism, few emotional notes have been missed. Is there any sense in adding to the virtual deforestation the nominations have caused on the web?
Perhaps.
The proof of the pudding will come in two and a half years for the president of the European Council, Van Rompuy, and in five years for the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Baroness Ashton, who will also be vice-president of the EU Commission.
However, not content to wait that long, we may want to take a glimpse at the future through the eyes of a few cooler heads, experts in European affairs.
Antonio Missiroli
Two cheers and one lesson for the EU, by Antonio Missiroli (European Policy Centre EPC, 23 November 2009; 2 pages) is a short commentary, which starts by saying that the choice of Van Rompuy is fully in line with the profile drawn (albeit vaguely) in the treaty.
The appointment of Ashton was more unexpected, but despite her relative inexperience she could grow in and on the job.
The European Union does not achieve a single telephone number, but rather has a Brussels-based switchboard, a new system which may need some time to take root and shape.
The nomination debate, kicked off by the ‘spin’ offensive launching Tony Blair, and the procedure left much to be desired.
Next time, in 2014, the institutional profiles, the political rationale and the procedure must be thought out in advance. Personalities matter and public opinion has shown great interest. The European Council can still appoint its ‘chairman’, but the main Europarties should publicly nominate candidates for Commission president and HR/VP. This would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the choices.
***
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski and Peadar o Broin
Piotr Maciej Kaczyński & Peadar ó Broin have written an analysis, Two new leaders in search of a job description (Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS Policy Brief No. 200/25 November 2009; 4 pages), where they describe the posts of the president of the European Council and the high representative/vice-president as outlined by the Lisbon Treaty.
The authors note the risk that the president and the rotating Council presidency may clash, but the permanent president is also supposed to drive forward the work of the European Council. The prerogatives of the permanent president need to be more precisely defined in the Rules of Procedure of the European Council, due to be adopted in December.
The new powers of the “double-hatted” HR/VP and the sharing of responsibilities for EU external relations raise a number of critical institutional questions.
The discussion of the points to be settled offers a good background to the decisions to be taken by the European Council 10 to 11 December 2009. The table at the end presents a clear overview of a muddy situation: the external representation of the European Union. (‘differ’ in point 6 should be read ‘defer’, I presume)
***
European integration is not a mausoleum, but a building site. Both papers have the merit of preparing the ground for future debate and decisions.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself; there are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Perhaps.
The proof of the pudding will come in two and a half years for the president of the European Council, Van Rompuy, and in five years for the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Baroness Ashton, who will also be vice-president of the EU Commission.
However, not content to wait that long, we may want to take a glimpse at the future through the eyes of a few cooler heads, experts in European affairs.
Antonio Missiroli
Two cheers and one lesson for the EU, by Antonio Missiroli (European Policy Centre EPC, 23 November 2009; 2 pages) is a short commentary, which starts by saying that the choice of Van Rompuy is fully in line with the profile drawn (albeit vaguely) in the treaty.
The appointment of Ashton was more unexpected, but despite her relative inexperience she could grow in and on the job.
The European Union does not achieve a single telephone number, but rather has a Brussels-based switchboard, a new system which may need some time to take root and shape.
The nomination debate, kicked off by the ‘spin’ offensive launching Tony Blair, and the procedure left much to be desired.
Next time, in 2014, the institutional profiles, the political rationale and the procedure must be thought out in advance. Personalities matter and public opinion has shown great interest. The European Council can still appoint its ‘chairman’, but the main Europarties should publicly nominate candidates for Commission president and HR/VP. This would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the choices.
***
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski and Peadar o Broin
Piotr Maciej Kaczyński & Peadar ó Broin have written an analysis, Two new leaders in search of a job description (Centre for European Policy Studies, CEPS Policy Brief No. 200/25 November 2009; 4 pages), where they describe the posts of the president of the European Council and the high representative/vice-president as outlined by the Lisbon Treaty.
The authors note the risk that the president and the rotating Council presidency may clash, but the permanent president is also supposed to drive forward the work of the European Council. The prerogatives of the permanent president need to be more precisely defined in the Rules of Procedure of the European Council, due to be adopted in December.
The new powers of the “double-hatted” HR/VP and the sharing of responsibilities for EU external relations raise a number of critical institutional questions.
The discussion of the points to be settled offers a good background to the decisions to be taken by the European Council 10 to 11 December 2009. The table at the end presents a clear overview of a muddy situation: the external representation of the European Union. (‘differ’ in point 6 should be read ‘defer’, I presume)
***
European integration is not a mausoleum, but a building site. Both papers have the merit of preparing the ground for future debate and decisions.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Educate yourself; there are already 487 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Thanksgiving from EU
Thanksgiving is an opportunity to express gratitude. From the perspective of a citizen of the European Union, there are a few things I would like to thank the United States for:
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Educating future EU Council Presidencies ─ Czech example
Today and tomorrow the Trans European Policy Studies Association TEPSA and the Real Instituto Elcano arrange a conference on the Spanish EU Council presidency 2010, which starts the 18 month trio presidency Spain-Belgium-Hungary. See Spain: Presidency of the EU Council 2010 (Grahnlaw, 25 November 2009).
In addition to the ongoing Swedish presidency, past presidency experiences are valuable for the politicians and the administrations in the member states preparing to take on the responsibilities.
Czech EU Council presidency
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski
Piotr Maciej Kazcynski wrote Lessons from the Czech EU Presidency (CEPS Commentary, 4 September 2009; 2 pages), in the first six months of 2009. Kaczynski lists five major errors:
• The presidency was politically (but not administratively) terminated when the Topolanek government was toppled without being immediately replaced.
• Neglecting unofficial contacts in Brussels, including lack of interaction by Czech civil society actors.
• The mix of national and European politics, with lack of domestic political peace, including uncertainty about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
• Promoting national instead of European issues (or at least arguments).
• Not tailoring the presidency to the real capabilities of the Czech Republic, leading to flawed delivery.
From these filures, Kazcynski draws lessons for future EU Council presidencies.
***
Daniel Esparza
Daniel Esparza evaluated the Czech EU Council presidency in Reflexiones sobre la Presidencia checa en la UE: ¿la “peor de toda la historia” o crisis de identidad generalizada? (Real Instituto Elcano, ARI 157/2009, 17 November 2009).
The circumstances were difficult: the economic and financial crisis, the EU’s institutional and Lisbon Treaty difficulties, the Gaza crisis and the Russian gas crisis.
The lecturing of Europe by the Topolanek government during the “first presidency” was not well received by the bigger EU member states. In Europe, the activities of president Vaclav Klaus and the ODS party in government labeled the Czech Republic much more “eurosceptic” than it is.
During Jan Fischer’s caretaker government, the “second presidency” was seen as serene, calm, diplomatic and professional.
According to Esparza the Czech EU Council presidency made certain progress in its substantial priority areas ─ economy, energy and EU in the world ─ but the arrogance shown by president Klaus lecturing the European Parliament and to some extent by prime minister Topolanek made few friends among the EU institutions, although Topolanek worked hard for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Czech presidency occurred during a period of general identity crisis in the European Union, post the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism and EU enlargement. Some have hankered back to the halcyon days of the EEC, especially “eurosceptics” in Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic (who rejected the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Others have tried to adapt to new challenges and circumstances in a globalised world, by strengthening the EU’s ability to act and compete in the world (eurofederalists).
The Czech presidency of the Council of the European Union will be unforgettable, despite substantive progress during these six months. Still, the europhobic reputation of the Czech Republic caused by Vaclav Klaus and some anti-EU politicians is unfair to the majority of the Czech political parties and the population. Jan Fischer’s caretaker government had time to repair some damage with professionalism and diplomatic tact, and it later contributed to the solution of the political and institutional crisis of the European Union.
***
Sieps midterm assessment
A third and detailed reference to the Czech EU Council presidency is a mid-term assessment, published before the end of the presidency, namely David Král, Vladimir Bartovic and Vera Rihackova: The 2009 Czech EU Presidency: Contested Leadership at a Time of Crisis (Swedish Institute for European Policy Sudies, occasional papers, SIEPS 2009:2op; 91 pages).
***
Czech EU relations
Those who are interested in the relations between the Czech Republic and the European Union in general, can read the blog post Czech EU mysteries explained (Grahnlaw, 26 November 2009), which refers to the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
In addition to the ongoing Swedish presidency, past presidency experiences are valuable for the politicians and the administrations in the member states preparing to take on the responsibilities.
Czech EU Council presidency
Piotr Maciej Kaczynski
Piotr Maciej Kazcynski wrote Lessons from the Czech EU Presidency (CEPS Commentary, 4 September 2009; 2 pages), in the first six months of 2009. Kaczynski lists five major errors:
• The presidency was politically (but not administratively) terminated when the Topolanek government was toppled without being immediately replaced.
• Neglecting unofficial contacts in Brussels, including lack of interaction by Czech civil society actors.
• The mix of national and European politics, with lack of domestic political peace, including uncertainty about the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
• Promoting national instead of European issues (or at least arguments).
• Not tailoring the presidency to the real capabilities of the Czech Republic, leading to flawed delivery.
From these filures, Kazcynski draws lessons for future EU Council presidencies.
***
Daniel Esparza
Daniel Esparza evaluated the Czech EU Council presidency in Reflexiones sobre la Presidencia checa en la UE: ¿la “peor de toda la historia” o crisis de identidad generalizada? (Real Instituto Elcano, ARI 157/2009, 17 November 2009).
The circumstances were difficult: the economic and financial crisis, the EU’s institutional and Lisbon Treaty difficulties, the Gaza crisis and the Russian gas crisis.
The lecturing of Europe by the Topolanek government during the “first presidency” was not well received by the bigger EU member states. In Europe, the activities of president Vaclav Klaus and the ODS party in government labeled the Czech Republic much more “eurosceptic” than it is.
During Jan Fischer’s caretaker government, the “second presidency” was seen as serene, calm, diplomatic and professional.
According to Esparza the Czech EU Council presidency made certain progress in its substantial priority areas ─ economy, energy and EU in the world ─ but the arrogance shown by president Klaus lecturing the European Parliament and to some extent by prime minister Topolanek made few friends among the EU institutions, although Topolanek worked hard for the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
The Czech presidency occurred during a period of general identity crisis in the European Union, post the fall of the Soviet Union and Communism and EU enlargement. Some have hankered back to the halcyon days of the EEC, especially “eurosceptics” in Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic (who rejected the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights). Others have tried to adapt to new challenges and circumstances in a globalised world, by strengthening the EU’s ability to act and compete in the world (eurofederalists).
The Czech presidency of the Council of the European Union will be unforgettable, despite substantive progress during these six months. Still, the europhobic reputation of the Czech Republic caused by Vaclav Klaus and some anti-EU politicians is unfair to the majority of the Czech political parties and the population. Jan Fischer’s caretaker government had time to repair some damage with professionalism and diplomatic tact, and it later contributed to the solution of the political and institutional crisis of the European Union.
***
Sieps midterm assessment
A third and detailed reference to the Czech EU Council presidency is a mid-term assessment, published before the end of the presidency, namely David Král, Vladimir Bartovic and Vera Rihackova: The 2009 Czech EU Presidency: Contested Leadership at a Time of Crisis (Swedish Institute for European Policy Sudies, occasional papers, SIEPS 2009:2op; 91 pages).
***
Czech EU relations
Those who are interested in the relations between the Czech Republic and the European Union in general, can read the blog post Czech EU mysteries explained (Grahnlaw, 26 November 2009), which refers to the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Czech EU mysteries explained
Is the Czech Republic a constructive and contributing member of the European Union, or still lost in Europe after prolonged Soviet occupation and Communist rule?
EU citizens have been mystified by Czech happenings in 2009.
Czech president Vaclav Klaus long resisted signing the ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) joined the anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament and the Czech presidency of the EU Council during the first half of 2009 left a mixed record, including the fall of the government.
A caretaker government is fairly steadily led by Jan Fischer is in charge until the general election in May 2010, but outside government party political fragmentation undermines the picture of a mature democracy.
EPIN
The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) has published a paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Vaclav Klaus and ODS
Braun notes that the Czech population is less “eurosceptic” than members of the political elite, especially within the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), and even the ODS voters are more positive to the EU than the party. The ideological “eurorealism” of the ODS, founded by Vaclav Klaus, is based on fears of domination of the European Union institutions by big countries, and it seeks refuge in Czech sovereignty. In addition to ODS reticence on the right, the Communist Party opposes the EU on the left.
The ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic was slow, and some ODS senators loyal to Vaclav Klaus put up stiff resistance during the parliamentary debate and later. Vaclav Klaus’ view of intergovernmental cooperation is far outside the mainstream in Europe and the Czech Republic, but he signed the ratification instrument in order to evade a constitutional complaint for failing to fulfil his constitutional duties.
Europeanisation – slowly
Braun sees an ongoing process of Europeanisation of the ODS and its leader, ex prime minister Mirek Topolanek through interaction within the European Union, but the party is still split. On the other hand, joining the ECR group in the European Parliament together with the UK Conservative Party and the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) may conserve “eurosceptic” attitudes.
Braun draws the conclusion that the hard core of Czech eurosceptics is becoming more and more isolated, although the ODS party discourse is sticky.
According to Braun, the ratification problems of the Lisbon Treaty can be seen as an attempt by an ever-shrinking part of the political elite who resist socialisation (into Europe) to make a final effort to make an imprint on Europe. He even describes them as a dying breed, although he does not expect the ODS to leave the ECR group within a foreseeable future.
Klaus’ opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights clearly exceeded the mandate of his office, but it remains to be seen if there will be a domestic debate on the legitimacy of this op-out in the Czech Republic.
***
Braun’s clear and well written working paper sheds light on events which have mystified Europeans A.D. 2009.
I checked Czech Happenings on the recent ODS party congress, but failed to find any news in English about the EU relations of the party. Mirek Topolanek is in charge until the elections, but there seem to be undercurrents of opposition.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU citizens have been mystified by Czech happenings in 2009.
Czech president Vaclav Klaus long resisted signing the ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty, the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) joined the anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group in the European Parliament and the Czech presidency of the EU Council during the first half of 2009 left a mixed record, including the fall of the government.
A caretaker government is fairly steadily led by Jan Fischer is in charge until the general election in May 2010, but outside government party political fragmentation undermines the picture of a mature democracy.
EPIN
The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) has published a paper by Mats Braun: Understanding Klaus – The Story of Czech Eurorealism (EPIN Working Paper No. 26 / November 2009; 11 pages).
Vaclav Klaus and ODS
Braun notes that the Czech population is less “eurosceptic” than members of the political elite, especially within the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), and even the ODS voters are more positive to the EU than the party. The ideological “eurorealism” of the ODS, founded by Vaclav Klaus, is based on fears of domination of the European Union institutions by big countries, and it seeks refuge in Czech sovereignty. In addition to ODS reticence on the right, the Communist Party opposes the EU on the left.
The ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty in the Czech Republic was slow, and some ODS senators loyal to Vaclav Klaus put up stiff resistance during the parliamentary debate and later. Vaclav Klaus’ view of intergovernmental cooperation is far outside the mainstream in Europe and the Czech Republic, but he signed the ratification instrument in order to evade a constitutional complaint for failing to fulfil his constitutional duties.
Europeanisation – slowly
Braun sees an ongoing process of Europeanisation of the ODS and its leader, ex prime minister Mirek Topolanek through interaction within the European Union, but the party is still split. On the other hand, joining the ECR group in the European Parliament together with the UK Conservative Party and the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) may conserve “eurosceptic” attitudes.
Braun draws the conclusion that the hard core of Czech eurosceptics is becoming more and more isolated, although the ODS party discourse is sticky.
According to Braun, the ratification problems of the Lisbon Treaty can be seen as an attempt by an ever-shrinking part of the political elite who resist socialisation (into Europe) to make a final effort to make an imprint on Europe. He even describes them as a dying breed, although he does not expect the ODS to leave the ECR group within a foreseeable future.
Klaus’ opt-out from the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights clearly exceeded the mandate of his office, but it remains to be seen if there will be a domestic debate on the legitimacy of this op-out in the Czech Republic.
***
Braun’s clear and well written working paper sheds light on events which have mystified Europeans A.D. 2009.
I checked Czech Happenings on the recent ODS party congress, but failed to find any news in English about the EU relations of the party. Mirek Topolanek is in charge until the elections, but there seem to be undercurrents of opposition.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Aland Parliament approves EU Lisbon Treaty
Today, a few days before the Lisbon Treaty enters into force in the European Union, the Åland Parliament (Ålands lagting) has approved the amending treaty with respect to the territory of the Aland Islands and the areas covered by the legislation of this autonomous province of Finland.
The press release, available through the home page of the Aland Parliament (in Swedish) states that the Lisbon Treaty was approved by 24 votes (out of a total of 30 local parliamentarians):
A two thirds majority was required for approval.
The decision means that the Åland Islands do not enter a legal grey zone when the Lisbon Treaty becomes law on 1 December 2009. Finland ratified the reform treaty in 2008.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
The press release, available through the home page of the Aland Parliament (in Swedish) states that the Lisbon Treaty was approved by 24 votes (out of a total of 30 local parliamentarians):
Ålands lagting röstade idag ja till Lissabonfördraget
Lagtingets behandling av Lissabonfördraget avslutades idag med en tredje behandling då en slutlig omröstning hölls. Lagtingets samtycke gavs med 24 röster. Obunden samlings, Ålands framtids ledamot samt en ledamot från Centern röstade nej. För samtycke krävs kvalificerad majoritet av de närvarande ledamöterna som såleddes uppnåddes.
Till grund för behandlingen låg republikens presidents framställning nr. 6/2007-2008. Samtidigt behandlades landskapsregeringens meddelande nr 4/2007-2008. De klämmar om bl.a. inflytandefrågor som lagutskottet fogat till sitt betänkande om presidentframställningen antogs samtigt av lagtinget.
För den som är intresserad av lagtingets hela behandling av ärendet hänvisas till lagtingets web-sida, www.lagtinget.ax. Klicka på "Dokument och ärenden och skriv Lissabonfördraget i sökformuläret.
A two thirds majority was required for approval.
The decision means that the Åland Islands do not enter a legal grey zone when the Lisbon Treaty becomes law on 1 December 2009. Finland ratified the reform treaty in 2008.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Spain: Presidency of the EU Council 2010
“The Presidency of Council configurations, other than of Foreign Affairs, shall be held by Member State representatives in the Council on the basis of equal rotation, …” says Article 16(9) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. The European Council, where the heads of state or government meet, has its own President – Herman Van Rompuy – under the Lisbon Treaty.
In other words, from the beginning of 2010 the formula “Presidency of the European Union” is even less correct than during the Swedish EU Council Presidency.
By the looks of it, Spain is not about to be more modest than the current presidency, or more exact. That is the impression one gets as a reader of the information material published by the Spanish prime minister’s office on the upcoming turn for Spain during the first half of 2010: Rodríguez Zapatero avanza que la Presidencia española de la UE va a ser "transformadora", "exigente y comprometida" (12 February 2009). The same press information (minus a few links) in English here.
Or should we forgive them because nobody was sure that the Lisbon Treaty would enter into force by the end of 2009?
Trio presidency
Actually, Spain is the first country of the presidency trio, to be followed by Belgium and Hungary during an 18 month period.
A draft programme from last summer of the presidency trio Spain-Belgium-Hungary has been posted on the web.
Real Instituto Elcano
Tomorrow and the day after TEPSA and the Spanish think tank Real Instituto Elcano arrange a conference on the Spanish presidency 2010: New Rules for a Closer Union in a Multipolar World, a Renewed Impetus for Sustainable Growth in a Globalised Economy; in Madrid 26 to 27 November 2009.
Growth and employment, enlargement, energy and the Mediterranean are on the programme of the conference.
Real Instituto Elcano has recently published several papers on previous EU Council presidencies and on themes of interest during the Spanish (and trio) presidency: the enlargement challenge of Iceland, the Czech and the Swedish presidencies, a European immigration policy, irregular immigration, Turkey’s accession, EU relations with Switzerland and Swiss participation in foreign policy missions.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
In other words, from the beginning of 2010 the formula “Presidency of the European Union” is even less correct than during the Swedish EU Council Presidency.
By the looks of it, Spain is not about to be more modest than the current presidency, or more exact. That is the impression one gets as a reader of the information material published by the Spanish prime minister’s office on the upcoming turn for Spain during the first half of 2010: Rodríguez Zapatero avanza que la Presidencia española de la UE va a ser "transformadora", "exigente y comprometida" (12 February 2009). The same press information (minus a few links) in English here.
Or should we forgive them because nobody was sure that the Lisbon Treaty would enter into force by the end of 2009?
Trio presidency
Actually, Spain is the first country of the presidency trio, to be followed by Belgium and Hungary during an 18 month period.
A draft programme from last summer of the presidency trio Spain-Belgium-Hungary has been posted on the web.
Real Instituto Elcano
Tomorrow and the day after TEPSA and the Spanish think tank Real Instituto Elcano arrange a conference on the Spanish presidency 2010: New Rules for a Closer Union in a Multipolar World, a Renewed Impetus for Sustainable Growth in a Globalised Economy; in Madrid 26 to 27 November 2009.
Growth and employment, enlargement, energy and the Mediterranean are on the programme of the conference.
Real Instituto Elcano has recently published several papers on previous EU Council presidencies and on themes of interest during the Spanish (and trio) presidency: the enlargement challenge of Iceland, the Czech and the Swedish presidencies, a European immigration policy, irregular immigration, Turkey’s accession, EU relations with Switzerland and Swiss participation in foreign policy missions.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU’s future ─ reflections to think about: Wolfgang Münchau & Felipe González
A weak Commission and egoistic member states, or something better? What has the future in store for the European Union?
The diverging trends of global challenges and national solutions confound Wolfgang Münchau in his column (in German) Europas Comeback (Financial Times Deutschland, 24 November 2009), but he optimistically concludes that the second decade of the 21st century may turn out better than the first.
***
On the Spanish BlogEuropa.eu, J. Ignacio Torreblanca writes about the reflection group on the future of the European Union, chaired by Felipe González: Reflexión para la acción (22 November 2009).
The European Council which nominated the “wise persons” to ponder the future of the EU with 2020 or 2030 as its horizon, placed absurd limits on the mandate of the reflection group. Fortunately, the discussion between Felipe González and Emma Bonino in El País shows that González “thinks European” and that the group’s report will present the challenges of the EU in clear terms for the political leaders to digest.
For more on the subject, you can read Felipe González: “La toma de decisiones en la UE es diabólicamente ineficaz” (El País, 22 November 2009), a fairly long extract from a discussion with representatives from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). Reflection is good, but action is better. Strategic questions such as foreign policy, immigration and energy require more Europe, hygienic standards for cheese less.
***
The mandate and the membership of the Reflection Group are available on its web pages, although the following version of the membership list comes from the web page of Vaira Vike-Freiberga:
Felipe González Márquez, former Prime Minister of Spain and former Secretary General of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (Spain)
Vaira Vīķe – Freiberga, former President of Latvia (Latvia)
Jorma Ollila, Non-Executive Chairman and former CEO of Nokia Corporation and Non-Executive Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell (Finland),
Lykke Friis, Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Copenhagen (Denmark),
Rem Koolhaas, architect, architectural theorist, urbanist and "Professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design" at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University (the Netherlands),
Richard Lambert, Director-General of the Confederation of the British Industry and the present Chancellor of the University of Warwick (United Kingdom),
Mario Monti, former European Commissioner for Internal Market, financial services and financial integration, Customs, Taxation (1995 – 1999) and Competition (1999 – 2004), President of the Bocconi University of Milan and the first Chairman of Bruegel, a European think tank founded in 2005 (Italy),
Rainer Münz, Head of Research at Erste Bank in Vienna and Senior Fellow at the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (Austria),
Kalypso Nicolaidis, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Studies Centre at Oxford University (Greece, France)
Nicole Notat, former General Secretary of Trade Union CFDT Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail) and Chairman of Vigeo, the leading European corporate social responsibility ratings agency (France)
Wolfgang Schuster, Mayor of Stuttgart, capital of the State of Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
Lech Walesa, former President of Poland (Poland).
Slovenian professor Žiga Turk, who blogs in English on BlogActiv, is secretary general of the Reflection Group.
***
Is Münchau’s optimism warranted for the European Union’s second decade of the 21st century? To an extent it will depend on how the European leaders receive the report from the Reflection Group chaired by González.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
The diverging trends of global challenges and national solutions confound Wolfgang Münchau in his column (in German) Europas Comeback (Financial Times Deutschland, 24 November 2009), but he optimistically concludes that the second decade of the 21st century may turn out better than the first.
***
On the Spanish BlogEuropa.eu, J. Ignacio Torreblanca writes about the reflection group on the future of the European Union, chaired by Felipe González: Reflexión para la acción (22 November 2009).
The European Council which nominated the “wise persons” to ponder the future of the EU with 2020 or 2030 as its horizon, placed absurd limits on the mandate of the reflection group. Fortunately, the discussion between Felipe González and Emma Bonino in El País shows that González “thinks European” and that the group’s report will present the challenges of the EU in clear terms for the political leaders to digest.
For more on the subject, you can read Felipe González: “La toma de decisiones en la UE es diabólicamente ineficaz” (El País, 22 November 2009), a fairly long extract from a discussion with representatives from the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). Reflection is good, but action is better. Strategic questions such as foreign policy, immigration and energy require more Europe, hygienic standards for cheese less.
***
The mandate and the membership of the Reflection Group are available on its web pages, although the following version of the membership list comes from the web page of Vaira Vike-Freiberga:
Felipe González Márquez, former Prime Minister of Spain and former Secretary General of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (Spain)
Vaira Vīķe – Freiberga, former President of Latvia (Latvia)
Jorma Ollila, Non-Executive Chairman and former CEO of Nokia Corporation and Non-Executive Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell (Finland),
Lykke Friis, Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Copenhagen (Denmark),
Rem Koolhaas, architect, architectural theorist, urbanist and "Professor in Practice of Architecture and Urban Design" at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University (the Netherlands),
Richard Lambert, Director-General of the Confederation of the British Industry and the present Chancellor of the University of Warwick (United Kingdom),
Mario Monti, former European Commissioner for Internal Market, financial services and financial integration, Customs, Taxation (1995 – 1999) and Competition (1999 – 2004), President of the Bocconi University of Milan and the first Chairman of Bruegel, a European think tank founded in 2005 (Italy),
Rainer Münz, Head of Research at Erste Bank in Vienna and Senior Fellow at the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (Austria),
Kalypso Nicolaidis, Professor of International Relations and Director of the European Studies Centre at Oxford University (Greece, France)
Nicole Notat, former General Secretary of Trade Union CFDT Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail) and Chairman of Vigeo, the leading European corporate social responsibility ratings agency (France)
Wolfgang Schuster, Mayor of Stuttgart, capital of the State of Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
Lech Walesa, former President of Poland (Poland).
Slovenian professor Žiga Turk, who blogs in English on BlogActiv, is secretary general of the Reflection Group.
***
Is Münchau’s optimism warranted for the European Union’s second decade of the 21st century? To an extent it will depend on how the European leaders receive the report from the Reflection Group chaired by González.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Key word of European integration: Solidarity
If asked about the key word of European integration and the European Union, my answer is “solidarity”.
I don’t employ it as a term of social policy, or limit it to aid between richer and poorer member states or regions, or call for help in the face of terrorist attacks or natural or man-made disasters, or ask for mutual assistance in case of armed aggression, although they are all part of it.
Solidarity is in one word the main theme of the integration process, from the “de facto solidarity” of the 9 May 1950 Schuman declaration and the “real solidarity” evoked in the 18 April 1951 Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, to the “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” echoed in all the treaty versions since the 25 Mars 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community.
Solidarity is essentially about the peoples of Europe growing closer, in all their diversity, realising that they share a common destiny.
For this to happen, at some stage the leaders of the EU member states have to step back and let the citizens of the European Union take over, by electing their own leaders and by setting the course for government. National politicians with suitable skills can aspire to European level offices.
That day “intergovernmentalism”, “double legitimacy” and “supranationalism” become history, replaced by European level democracy and federation.
It is not the end of our languages, cultures and traditions, or even of our states, although their claim to “sovereignty” is replaced by a more adequate description of their powers.
In a democratic federation certain powers are exercised at federal level. The exact division of labour can take different forms, but the main purposes of the United States of America and the US Constitution were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
I think that the 21st century citizens of Europe would be as mature in steering their representative democracy as the 18th century Americans were in building theirs.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
I don’t employ it as a term of social policy, or limit it to aid between richer and poorer member states or regions, or call for help in the face of terrorist attacks or natural or man-made disasters, or ask for mutual assistance in case of armed aggression, although they are all part of it.
Solidarity is in one word the main theme of the integration process, from the “de facto solidarity” of the 9 May 1950 Schuman declaration and the “real solidarity” evoked in the 18 April 1951 Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, to the “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe” echoed in all the treaty versions since the 25 Mars 1957 Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community.
Solidarity is essentially about the peoples of Europe growing closer, in all their diversity, realising that they share a common destiny.
For this to happen, at some stage the leaders of the EU member states have to step back and let the citizens of the European Union take over, by electing their own leaders and by setting the course for government. National politicians with suitable skills can aspire to European level offices.
That day “intergovernmentalism”, “double legitimacy” and “supranationalism” become history, replaced by European level democracy and federation.
It is not the end of our languages, cultures and traditions, or even of our states, although their claim to “sovereignty” is replaced by a more adequate description of their powers.
In a democratic federation certain powers are exercised at federal level. The exact division of labour can take different forms, but the main purposes of the United States of America and the US Constitution were succinctly put by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, number XXIII:
“The necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union is the point at the examination of which we are now arrived.
The principal purposes to be answered by the union are these – the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.”
I think that the 21st century citizens of Europe would be as mature in steering their representative democracy as the 18th century Americans were in building theirs.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
BBC on ECR Group leader Michal Kaminski ─ Britain in EU
In Britain, the decision of the Conservative Party to leave the mainstream group of the European People’s Party (EPP) in the European Parliament in order to set up the anti-integrationist European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group continues to cause debate because of the Tories’ choice of political bedfellows.
BBC News has taken a closer look at the chairman of the ECR group, Polish MEP Michal Kaminski: Digging up the truth about Michal Kaminski (23 November 2009).
Kaminski has strenuously denied allegations that he is a homophobe, an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi.
At national level Kaminski represents the Law and Justice Party (PiS), established by Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
The third main component of the ECR group is the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS), established by Vaclav Klaus.
***
War crimes, moral conservatism, Catholic fundamentalism and homophobia offer a heady mix for public debate in 21st century Europe.
Political influence in European Union affairs is another matter, but at least as important.
The ECR group is anti-integrationist, although it describes it as opposition to EU federalism. This sets it against the European mainstream, represented by the EPP, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and the Greens, all of which see the EU as a common project and strive to make it work better.
The ECR group does not describe itself as nationalist, but that is the effect of its emphasis on the sovereign integrity of the nation state, when the European Union has been established to achieve effective sovereignty by pooling, i.e. joining forces.
The ECR group does not support the European consensus view of a highly competitive social market economy; its formula of minimal regulation, lower taxation and small government embodies a vision built on free market fundamentalism.
These fundamental contrarian choices have left the European Conservatives and Reformists politically isolated in the European Parliament (and more widely in EU affairs). The ECR group has only one committee chairman among 20 in the European Parliament.
There are few indications that the ECR group will make hay in the nominations for the next EU Commission, or the assignment of portfolios.
“Freely cooperating, sovereign nation states” may still bring the ECR (UK Conservatives) a revival of fortunes, if the Tories win the general election about half a year from now. Veto powers and obstruction in the most intergovernmental EU institution, the Council, with a long tradition of consensus seeking – advancing according to the convoy principle – can give a new UK government an amount of negative influence: the power to stop, to slow down and to water down proposals.
But David Cameron and William Hague have promised more than that: In part, they want to prevent future integration by domestic legislation, partly they want to put integration into reverse gear, by repatriating powers during the next Parliament. The formula goes some way to appease anti-EU opinion at home, but it is hardly a recipe for coalition building with other member state governments within the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
BBC News has taken a closer look at the chairman of the ECR group, Polish MEP Michal Kaminski: Digging up the truth about Michal Kaminski (23 November 2009).
Kaminski has strenuously denied allegations that he is a homophobe, an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi.
At national level Kaminski represents the Law and Justice Party (PiS), established by Lech and Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
The third main component of the ECR group is the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS), established by Vaclav Klaus.
***
War crimes, moral conservatism, Catholic fundamentalism and homophobia offer a heady mix for public debate in 21st century Europe.
Political influence in European Union affairs is another matter, but at least as important.
The ECR group is anti-integrationist, although it describes it as opposition to EU federalism. This sets it against the European mainstream, represented by the EPP, the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), the Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) and the Greens, all of which see the EU as a common project and strive to make it work better.
The ECR group does not describe itself as nationalist, but that is the effect of its emphasis on the sovereign integrity of the nation state, when the European Union has been established to achieve effective sovereignty by pooling, i.e. joining forces.
The ECR group does not support the European consensus view of a highly competitive social market economy; its formula of minimal regulation, lower taxation and small government embodies a vision built on free market fundamentalism.
These fundamental contrarian choices have left the European Conservatives and Reformists politically isolated in the European Parliament (and more widely in EU affairs). The ECR group has only one committee chairman among 20 in the European Parliament.
There are few indications that the ECR group will make hay in the nominations for the next EU Commission, or the assignment of portfolios.
“Freely cooperating, sovereign nation states” may still bring the ECR (UK Conservatives) a revival of fortunes, if the Tories win the general election about half a year from now. Veto powers and obstruction in the most intergovernmental EU institution, the Council, with a long tradition of consensus seeking – advancing according to the convoy principle – can give a new UK government an amount of negative influence: the power to stop, to slow down and to water down proposals.
But David Cameron and William Hague have promised more than that: In part, they want to prevent future integration by domestic legislation, partly they want to put integration into reverse gear, by repatriating powers during the next Parliament. The formula goes some way to appease anti-EU opinion at home, but it is hardly a recipe for coalition building with other member state governments within the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Monday, 23 November 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty implementation: European diplomatic service EEAS
At this stage, the second basic document regarding Lisbon Treaty implementation is the report on guidelines for the future European diplomatic service, more exactly the European External Action Service (EEAS). The member states started work on the EEAS without waiting for a proposal from the High Representative.
Now that the HR has been (s)elected, the invitation to present a formal (detailed) proposals lies waiting for Catherine Ashton.
The presidency conclusions of the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009 (document 15265/09) had this to say about the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (point 3, page 2):
***
EEAS report
The Presidency report to the European Council on the European External Action Service (23 October 2009, document 14930/09) comprises 34 points on 10 pages.
In this blog post, we are content to quote the last point (34) on the way forward, which offers an overview of the following stages of implementation:
***
Legal base
The legal base, which is mentioned in the presidency report, is Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), but we take the opportunity to quote the whole Article 27 TEU, which offers an outline of the tasks of the newly elected high representative (OJEU 9.5.2008 c 115/32):
***
Formidable challenges lie in wait for the EU’s chief diplomat, Catherine Ashton.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Now that the HR has been (s)elected, the invitation to present a formal (detailed) proposals lies waiting for Catherine Ashton.
The presidency conclusions of the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009 (document 15265/09) had this to say about the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (point 3, page 2):
“The European Council --- It endorses the Presidency's report on guidelines for the European External Action Service (doc. 14930/09) and invites the future High Representative to present a proposal for the organisation and functioning of the EEAS as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty with a view to its adoption by the Council at the latest by the end of April 2010. In this context, it also recognises the need, as underlined in the European Security Strategy, for the European Union to become more capable, more coherent and more strategic as a global actor, including in its relations with strategic partners, in its neighbourhood and in conflict-affected areas.”
***
EEAS report
The Presidency report to the European Council on the European External Action Service (23 October 2009, document 14930/09) comprises 34 points on 10 pages.
In this blog post, we are content to quote the last point (34) on the way forward, which offers an overview of the following stages of implementation:
WAY FORWARD
34. There will be several stages before reaching the final shape of the EEAS. The Council will be fully involved throughout the whole process.
• A first stage from the entry into force of the Treaty to the adoption of the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. The HR should submit his/her proposal with a view to it being adopted at the latest by the end of April 2010. For that reason it is of key importance that preparatory work should continue at full speed within the current format in the run up to the entry into force of the Treaty. From the start, as well as having the immediate support of the external relations structures of the Commission and of the GSC, he/she will be supported by a small preparatory team which should be composed of representatives of Member States, Commission and GSC. In parallel to preparations for that decision, work must be carried out to make the relevant adaptations in existing rules, such as the Staff and Financial Regulations with a view to their adoption at the same time as the Council decision on the organisation and functioning of the EEAS. Close contacts with the European Parliament should be continued during this stage.
• A second stage for setting up the EEAS, from the adoption of the Council decision to full cruising speed. A first status report should be made in 2012.
• When the EEAS has been functioning for some time at full speed, there should be a review of the functioning and organisation of the EEAS followed, if necessary, by a revision of the decision. This review should also cover the scope of the EEAS, including delegations' role in consular affairs. Such a review should take place in 2014.
***
Legal base
The legal base, which is mentioned in the presidency report, is Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), but we take the opportunity to quote the whole Article 27 TEU, which offers an outline of the tasks of the newly elected high representative (OJEU 9.5.2008 c 115/32):
Article 27 TEU
1. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who shall chair the Foreign Affairs Council, shall contribute through his proposals towards the preparation of the common foreign and security policy and shall ensure implementation of the decisions adopted by the European Council and the Council.
2. The High Representative shall represent the Union for matters relating to the common foreign and security policy. He shall conduct political dialogue with third parties on the Union's behalf and shall express the Union's position in international organisations and at international conferences.
3. In fulfilling his mandate, the High Representative shall be assisted by a European External Action Service. This service shall work in cooperation with the diplomatic services of the Member States and shall comprise officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council and of the Commission as well as staff seconded from national diplomatic services of the Member States. The organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service shall be established by a decision of the Council. The Council shall act on a proposal from the High Representative after consulting the European Parliament and after obtaining the consent of the Commission.
***
Formidable challenges lie in wait for the EU’s chief diplomat, Catherine Ashton.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
EU Lisbon Treaty implementation: Slowly into practice
By now, many Europeans know that the EU Treaty of Lisbon (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115) enters into force on 1 December 2009. However, the flurry of activities to take the first decisions to get the treaty up and running obscures the fact that many adjustments take effect only after transitional periods and that a number of new procedures have to be put into place before they become living law.
(At the end of this blog post we look at some French books on the Lisbon Treaty.)
Jean-Luc-Sauron offers us an opportune reminder of the gradual coming into effect of the Lisbon Treaty, on Diploweb, the French web site for geopolitics:
Jean-Luc Sauron: Le traité de Lisbonne : un traité à effet retardé ? (Diploweb.com, La revue géopolitique, 22 November 2009).
***
Sauron’s article is a detailed but short compilation of the Lisbon Treaty provisions with “delayed action”, a handy reference for serious students.
Books on the Lisbon Treaty (in French)
Since the literature on the Lisbon Treaty is still small and the standard books on EU law and politics have not yet fully integrated the amendments of the reform treaty, I take the opportunity to remind readers of the general introduction written by Jean-Luc Sauron: Comprendre le Traité de Lisbonne (Gualino éditeur, 2008). The book offers an overview of the changes as well as the preliminary consolidated texts of the provisions.
Another introduction for the (more) general reader is Étienne de Poncins: Le traité de Lisbonne en 27 clés (Éditions Lignes de Repères, 2008).
A more detailed book, for teachers and students, is François-Xavier Priollaud & David Siritzky : Le traité de Lisbonne (LaDocumentation française, 2008).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
(At the end of this blog post we look at some French books on the Lisbon Treaty.)
Jean-Luc-Sauron offers us an opportune reminder of the gradual coming into effect of the Lisbon Treaty, on Diploweb, the French web site for geopolitics:
Jean-Luc Sauron: Le traité de Lisbonne : un traité à effet retardé ? (Diploweb.com, La revue géopolitique, 22 November 2009).
***
Sauron’s article is a detailed but short compilation of the Lisbon Treaty provisions with “delayed action”, a handy reference for serious students.
Books on the Lisbon Treaty (in French)
Since the literature on the Lisbon Treaty is still small and the standard books on EU law and politics have not yet fully integrated the amendments of the reform treaty, I take the opportunity to remind readers of the general introduction written by Jean-Luc Sauron: Comprendre le Traité de Lisbonne (Gualino éditeur, 2008). The book offers an overview of the changes as well as the preliminary consolidated texts of the provisions.
Another introduction for the (more) general reader is Étienne de Poncins: Le traité de Lisbonne en 27 clés (Éditions Lignes de Repères, 2008).
A more detailed book, for teachers and students, is François-Xavier Priollaud & David Siritzky : Le traité de Lisbonne (LaDocumentation française, 2008).
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
EU Lisbon Treaty implementation: Progress report
The presidency conclusions of the European Council 29 to 30 October 2009 (document 15265/09) had this to say about the general implementation of the Lisbon Treaty (point 3, page 2):
The Progress report, dated 23 October 2009, has the following heading: Progress report from the Presidency to the European Council - Preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (document 14928/09). It is a short paper with an introduction and nine brief points on a total of five pages, summarising the state of play:
ANNEX
PROGRESS REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENCY TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
PREPARATORY WORK IN VIEW OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY OF LISBON
Introduction
1. During the European Council meeting on 18-19 June 2009, Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their wish to see the Treaty of Lisbon enter into force by the end of 2009, on the condition all the instruments of ratification have been deposited.
2. On that basis, the Swedish Presidency undertook, together with other Member States and the Commission, preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It has taken place against the background of the ratification process for the Treaty of Lisbon, which is still underway. It is clear that decisions can only be taken once the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force after ratification by all 27 Member States.
3. Over the last months, the Presidency has convened a series of meetings of Permanent Representatives (including a Commission representative) to examine the various issues linked to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon with a focus on most urgent issues which need to be settled before that date. This examination built on previous discussions, in particular during the Slovene Presidency, the results of which are summarised in document 10650/08. The present report contains a summary of the main points covered in the context of the 2009 discussions.
4. In view of the fact that a number of issues related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will require some form of agreement with the European Parliament (EP), the Presidency has had regular contacts with the EP. These have remained exploratory in nature, but have enabled the Parliament to provide useful information on the issues which are of particular interest to it, and which it considers will require a common understanding between the institutions.
Results and state of play
1. Delegated and Implementing Acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU)
As regards delegated acts (i.e. non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act), it would be useful for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to reach an understanding on standard language which would be inserted into legislative proposals (Article 290 TFEU). It would also be useful if the Commission could explain how it intends to proceed on the preparation of draft delegated acts.
As regards implementing acts (i.e. acts conferring implementing powers on the Commission, or in some cases, on the Council), all three institutions should reach agreement on the Commission's forthcoming proposal on the control of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Article 291 TFEU).
2. Transition to co-decision
As a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the procedure for adopting legislative acts will change in a certain number of areas. In order to ensure that legislative activity is not unduly disrupted as a consequence of the transition to the new Treaty, the European Parliament and the Council could agree that when the European Parliament has already delivered its opinion, it will be considered as a first reading under co-decision.
3. Committee structures in the area of JHA (Article 71 TFEU)
Delegations reached agreement on the draft decision setting up the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security (COSI) (doc. n° 14785/09) which will have to be adopted after entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
As for the overall working structure in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, delegations agreed that the Committee of the Article Thirty Six (CATS) and the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) should continue to meet until the end of 2011. Before that time, the necessity of having CATS and SCIFA should be re-evaluated by COREPER, taking into account the efficiency and coherence of Council working structures. In the meantime, CATS and SCIFA should focus their discussions on strategic issues where COSI would not be able to contribute and meet as necessary. The Committees could be involved, when deemed appropriate, in legislative work. COREPER remains solely responsible for preparing legislative acts.
Delegations discussed also a review of the other JHA working structures. Further work is needed on this issue.
The outcome of these discussions will serve as the basis for the future decision on JHA working structures in accordance with Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council.
4. Budget Procedure
Work is well advanced within the Council on a number of issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to allow for the smooth entry into force of the Treaty. These cover in particular : amending budgets, transfers of appropriations, provisional twelfths, pragmatic calendar. Discussions with the European Parliament on these issues are on-going in order to reach an agreement during the Conciliation meeting of November 2009 at the latest.
Discussions among delegations are ongoing on other issues, such as the rules of procedure of the Conciliation Committee. Close contacts with the European Parliament are undertaken also in this respect.
5. Rules of Procedure of the Council (Article 240 TFEU)
On the basis that the Council's Rules of Procedure should only be modified to the extent that this was needed as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, delegations reached broad agreement on most of the provisions of the preliminary draft amendments to the Council's Rules of Procedure as presented by the Presidency. (doc. n° 14853/09).
6. Rules of Procedure of European Council (Article 235 TFEU)
On the basis of the discussions that took place under the Slovene Presidency, delegations had a preliminary exchange of views on the new elements of draft Rules of Procedure of the European Council. Work on this issue will be continued with a view to its rapid finalisation.
7. Notification regarding Article 1, third subparagraph, of the TEU
The Treaty of Lisbon provides that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community". It will be necessary to inform third States and international organisations of this legal succession which will be effective at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty. Delegations reached broad agreement on a draft letter which would be sent for this purpose (doc. n° 14784/09). As regards Union Delegations, this draft letter will be adjusted in line with the Presidency report on the European External Action Service (doc. n°14930/09).
8. Chairmanship of preparatory bodies in the area of External Relations (Declaration n° 9)
Delegations discussed the principles for chairmanship of preparatory bodies in the area of external relations on the basis of a categorisation of working parties. The details of the arrangements proposed by the Presidency are set out in doc. n° 14852/09.
9. European External Action Service (Article 27 (3) TEU and Declaration n° 15 of the 2007 IGC)
Delegations agreed on the report (doc. n° 14930/09), which could serve as European Council
guidelines for the High Representative in the preparation of the draft Council decision on the
organisation and functioning of the EEAS.
***
Ahead of the European Council 10 to 11 December, the Swedish presidency of the EU Council could make an effort to communicate drafts and proposals in a comprehensive manner, including questions outside the October progress report.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
“The European Council takes note of the preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (doc. 14928/09).”
The Progress report, dated 23 October 2009, has the following heading: Progress report from the Presidency to the European Council - Preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (document 14928/09). It is a short paper with an introduction and nine brief points on a total of five pages, summarising the state of play:
ANNEX
PROGRESS REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENCY TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL
PREPARATORY WORK IN VIEW OF THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE TREATY OF LISBON
Introduction
1. During the European Council meeting on 18-19 June 2009, Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their wish to see the Treaty of Lisbon enter into force by the end of 2009, on the condition all the instruments of ratification have been deposited.
2. On that basis, the Swedish Presidency undertook, together with other Member States and the Commission, preparatory work in view of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It has taken place against the background of the ratification process for the Treaty of Lisbon, which is still underway. It is clear that decisions can only be taken once the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force after ratification by all 27 Member States.
3. Over the last months, the Presidency has convened a series of meetings of Permanent Representatives (including a Commission representative) to examine the various issues linked to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon with a focus on most urgent issues which need to be settled before that date. This examination built on previous discussions, in particular during the Slovene Presidency, the results of which are summarised in document 10650/08. The present report contains a summary of the main points covered in the context of the 2009 discussions.
4. In view of the fact that a number of issues related to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon will require some form of agreement with the European Parliament (EP), the Presidency has had regular contacts with the EP. These have remained exploratory in nature, but have enabled the Parliament to provide useful information on the issues which are of particular interest to it, and which it considers will require a common understanding between the institutions.
Results and state of play
1. Delegated and Implementing Acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU)
As regards delegated acts (i.e. non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act), it would be useful for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to reach an understanding on standard language which would be inserted into legislative proposals (Article 290 TFEU). It would also be useful if the Commission could explain how it intends to proceed on the preparation of draft delegated acts.
As regards implementing acts (i.e. acts conferring implementing powers on the Commission, or in some cases, on the Council), all three institutions should reach agreement on the Commission's forthcoming proposal on the control of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (Article 291 TFEU).
2. Transition to co-decision
As a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the procedure for adopting legislative acts will change in a certain number of areas. In order to ensure that legislative activity is not unduly disrupted as a consequence of the transition to the new Treaty, the European Parliament and the Council could agree that when the European Parliament has already delivered its opinion, it will be considered as a first reading under co-decision.
3. Committee structures in the area of JHA (Article 71 TFEU)
Delegations reached agreement on the draft decision setting up the Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security (COSI) (doc. n° 14785/09) which will have to be adopted after entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.
As for the overall working structure in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, delegations agreed that the Committee of the Article Thirty Six (CATS) and the Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) should continue to meet until the end of 2011. Before that time, the necessity of having CATS and SCIFA should be re-evaluated by COREPER, taking into account the efficiency and coherence of Council working structures. In the meantime, CATS and SCIFA should focus their discussions on strategic issues where COSI would not be able to contribute and meet as necessary. The Committees could be involved, when deemed appropriate, in legislative work. COREPER remains solely responsible for preparing legislative acts.
Delegations discussed also a review of the other JHA working structures. Further work is needed on this issue.
The outcome of these discussions will serve as the basis for the future decision on JHA working structures in accordance with Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Council.
4. Budget Procedure
Work is well advanced within the Council on a number of issues which need to be addressed as a matter of urgency in order to allow for the smooth entry into force of the Treaty. These cover in particular : amending budgets, transfers of appropriations, provisional twelfths, pragmatic calendar. Discussions with the European Parliament on these issues are on-going in order to reach an agreement during the Conciliation meeting of November 2009 at the latest.
Discussions among delegations are ongoing on other issues, such as the rules of procedure of the Conciliation Committee. Close contacts with the European Parliament are undertaken also in this respect.
5. Rules of Procedure of the Council (Article 240 TFEU)
On the basis that the Council's Rules of Procedure should only be modified to the extent that this was needed as a result of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, delegations reached broad agreement on most of the provisions of the preliminary draft amendments to the Council's Rules of Procedure as presented by the Presidency. (doc. n° 14853/09).
6. Rules of Procedure of European Council (Article 235 TFEU)
On the basis of the discussions that took place under the Slovene Presidency, delegations had a preliminary exchange of views on the new elements of draft Rules of Procedure of the European Council. Work on this issue will be continued with a view to its rapid finalisation.
7. Notification regarding Article 1, third subparagraph, of the TEU
The Treaty of Lisbon provides that "The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community". It will be necessary to inform third States and international organisations of this legal succession which will be effective at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty. Delegations reached broad agreement on a draft letter which would be sent for this purpose (doc. n° 14784/09). As regards Union Delegations, this draft letter will be adjusted in line with the Presidency report on the European External Action Service (doc. n°14930/09).
8. Chairmanship of preparatory bodies in the area of External Relations (Declaration n° 9)
Delegations discussed the principles for chairmanship of preparatory bodies in the area of external relations on the basis of a categorisation of working parties. The details of the arrangements proposed by the Presidency are set out in doc. n° 14852/09.
9. European External Action Service (Article 27 (3) TEU and Declaration n° 15 of the 2007 IGC)
Delegations agreed on the report (doc. n° 14930/09), which could serve as European Council
guidelines for the High Representative in the preparation of the draft Council decision on the
organisation and functioning of the EEAS.
***
Ahead of the European Council 10 to 11 December, the Swedish presidency of the EU Council could make an effort to communicate drafts and proposals in a comprehensive manner, including questions outside the October progress report.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
