I have suggested that federal decision-making or the “federal method” could replace the obsolete “Community method”, when the European Commission proposes, the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose, and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) interprets the acts and actions.
This far the only contribution regarding the ‘cosmetic part of the question’ I have seen is by The European Citizen, who suggests the use of the “Union method”, as opposed to the “Council method” or “Special method”.
Naturally, the “Union method” in an EU context cannot be wrong, because it takes into consideration the peculiarities of the European Union (‘sui generis’). It seamlessly marks the shift from the era of the various European Communities to the verbal monolith European Union.
My reason for putting forward the “federal method” was to describe one part of the European Union more bluntly for what it is, a federal system, using terms in general use around the world, even if there are many variations between different federal systems.
In my humble opinion, political correctness should not prevent us from describing the European Union as it is, though only in part.
‘Cosmetics’, especially make-up, has been used for thousands of years both to accentuate and to conceal. Political terms aren’t that different.
The Lisbon Treaty has created a ‘verbal monolith’, but structurally and operationally the European Union is still fragmented.
In my view, “intergovernmental” still covers the rest of the areas, from decisions (predominantly) by the European Council and the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) to agreements made between all or some EU member states as such.
How would Herman Van Rompuy, José Manuel Barroso, Yves Leterme and Didier Reynders and and Olivier Chastel (provisionally), Jerzy Buzek, Joseph Daul, Martin Schulz, Guy Verhofstadt, Daniel Cohn-Bendit and about 501 million other Europeans (including the readers of this blog) act as make-up artists in a European Union where the Lisbon Treaty is in force?
Union method or Federal method? Something else?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Politics, policies, economics and law at a European level are becoming more important in a globalising world. So does the multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs. There are now 669 Euroblogs, or blogs related to European Union (and Council of Europe) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Van Rompuy’s European Council: EU institution or workshop?
There is an interesting dichotomy between how president Herman Van Rompuy presents the European Council and how he tries to get this EU institution to meet the challenges facing Europe.
Earlier we have looked at his speeches plus some reports and reactions (here, here, here and here).
Official institution
The European Council had arguably been the most influential body of the European Union, the main responsible for the EU’s advances and shortcomings. However, the Treaty of Lisbon turned the European Council into an official EU institution and gave it a full time president.
The European Council consists of the heads of state or government of the member states. Its president (Herman Van Rompuy) and Commission president (José Manuel Barroso) are also members, although without a vote. The High Representative/Vice-President (Catherine Ashton) takes part in its work (Article 15 TEU).
Herman Van Rompuy has referred to the European Council as a now official institution of the European Union, not a “summit” like the G20 and others.
Officially, the main task of the European Council is – or at least, should be – to give the EU “impetus”, strategic guidelines and priorities. It does not exercise legislative functions, but it makes certain crucial decisions officially.
Workshop?
In practice, the role of the European Council as the most important official institution for “deep integration” benefiting 501 million citizens is in sharp contrast with its transparency standards way below those of a municipal board somewhere in the boondocks of my country.
In addition, the participants in the European Council meetings make unofficial and unrecorded ‘de facto’ decisions, which short-circuit public debate and decent standards of transparency, even if the formal decisions are later rubber-stamped by the Council (of Ministers).
The ‘official institution’ is almost as intergovernmental as it gets, and president Van Rompuy has been careful not to improve openness and accountability.
Instead, he tries team-building, by engaging the heads of state or government in more frequent informal strategy “workshops” to create “ownership” and improve outcomes.
There have been mixed responses to Van Rompuy’s idea to hold frequent meetings. National political leaders feel important and are busy, and media have commented on lack of preparation, thin agendas and empty conclusions.
Strategy processes and “ownership” require time and effort, but they ill fit the ‘official institution’ role or outside expectations.
The latest European Council meeting was hijacked by a tempestuous Nicolas Sarkozy, so we remain in the dark with regard to Van Rompuy’s effort to infuse team spirit.
Questions
The conflicting roles and expectations leave us with some important questions.
What kind of a European Council do we need to tackle Europe’s main challenges?
How much can an official institution, especially the most influential one, dispense with decent standards of transparency, open debate and accountability?
If Van Rompuy’s vision is correct, are the national leaders willing to be guided even by the chair they selected themselves?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Earlier we have looked at his speeches plus some reports and reactions (here, here, here and here).
Official institution
The European Council had arguably been the most influential body of the European Union, the main responsible for the EU’s advances and shortcomings. However, the Treaty of Lisbon turned the European Council into an official EU institution and gave it a full time president.
The European Council consists of the heads of state or government of the member states. Its president (Herman Van Rompuy) and Commission president (José Manuel Barroso) are also members, although without a vote. The High Representative/Vice-President (Catherine Ashton) takes part in its work (Article 15 TEU).
Herman Van Rompuy has referred to the European Council as a now official institution of the European Union, not a “summit” like the G20 and others.
Officially, the main task of the European Council is – or at least, should be – to give the EU “impetus”, strategic guidelines and priorities. It does not exercise legislative functions, but it makes certain crucial decisions officially.
Workshop?
In practice, the role of the European Council as the most important official institution for “deep integration” benefiting 501 million citizens is in sharp contrast with its transparency standards way below those of a municipal board somewhere in the boondocks of my country.
In addition, the participants in the European Council meetings make unofficial and unrecorded ‘de facto’ decisions, which short-circuit public debate and decent standards of transparency, even if the formal decisions are later rubber-stamped by the Council (of Ministers).
The ‘official institution’ is almost as intergovernmental as it gets, and president Van Rompuy has been careful not to improve openness and accountability.
Instead, he tries team-building, by engaging the heads of state or government in more frequent informal strategy “workshops” to create “ownership” and improve outcomes.
There have been mixed responses to Van Rompuy’s idea to hold frequent meetings. National political leaders feel important and are busy, and media have commented on lack of preparation, thin agendas and empty conclusions.
Strategy processes and “ownership” require time and effort, but they ill fit the ‘official institution’ role or outside expectations.
The latest European Council meeting was hijacked by a tempestuous Nicolas Sarkozy, so we remain in the dark with regard to Van Rompuy’s effort to infuse team spirit.
Questions
The conflicting roles and expectations leave us with some important questions.
What kind of a European Council do we need to tackle Europe’s main challenges?
How much can an official institution, especially the most influential one, dispense with decent standards of transparency, open debate and accountability?
If Van Rompuy’s vision is correct, are the national leaders willing to be guided even by the chair they selected themselves?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not increase your understanding of European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
EU politics and law: Part federation, part something else? What?
Yesterday’s blog post “EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?” found that the European Union has “parliamentary” traits, but because of the structure of the EU it still feels artificial to try to cram even co-decision (the ordinary legislative procedure) under such a heading, now that the term “Community method” is obsolete.
I still hope for teachers, researchers and students of European Union politics and law, as well as others, to offer their views, but in the meanwhile I will continue the soliloqui.
Federal?
By the structure of the European Union I mean that its powers are basically derived from its constituent parts, the member states, not from the people, although democracy is one of the founding values of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and the functioning of the union is said to be founded on representative democracy (Article 10 TEU).
When the directly elected European Parliament acts at eyelevel with the Council, we can describe the system and the decision making as federal, although the term seems to lack precision.
Should we try that: federal decision making or the federal method?
Does it satisfy sense and sensibility?
What about the rest?
If part of EU decision making is described as federal, we are still left with a few problems.
Are we to exclude the term “federal” when we discuss EU politics, policies or issues, where the European Parliament plays a lesser role than the governments of the member states?
I have a hard time imagining that a 21st century political system in Europe could be called federal, if not also democratic: based on legitimate representative democracy at federal level (with powers at least equal to those of the states).
This leaves outside a number of matters on a sliding scale of intergovernmentalism, from more limited participation by the European Parliament and the Commission to inexistent.
On the flip side of the coin, there are special legislative procedures where the European Council and the Council decide as EU institutions, within the EU framework and its powers (competences), but in principle everything outside the attributed powers is left to purely intergovernmental decisions.
Actually, the existential questions for the European Union are in the hands of the member states, each of them sovereign enough on its own to prevent a decision (liberum veto). Only unanimous agreement by all governments (possibly requiring ratification by all parliaments, or even some national electorates) can reform the structures and powers.
This means that the future development of the European Union could be held hostage by first the government, then the parliament and possibly (if national constitutional requirements so say) the voters as well, even in the smallest member state; at present Malta with about 416,000 people, something like 0.083 per cent of the total EU population of 501 million. Big or small, is this legitimate?
Despite my reticence, should anything on this sliding scale of intergovernmental decision making be included under the concept “federal”?
If not federal, which terms should we employ for the various modes?
Intergovernmental? Confederal? International?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
I still hope for teachers, researchers and students of European Union politics and law, as well as others, to offer their views, but in the meanwhile I will continue the soliloqui.
Federal?
By the structure of the European Union I mean that its powers are basically derived from its constituent parts, the member states, not from the people, although democracy is one of the founding values of the EU (Article 2 TEU) and the functioning of the union is said to be founded on representative democracy (Article 10 TEU).
When the directly elected European Parliament acts at eyelevel with the Council, we can describe the system and the decision making as federal, although the term seems to lack precision.
Should we try that: federal decision making or the federal method?
Does it satisfy sense and sensibility?
What about the rest?
If part of EU decision making is described as federal, we are still left with a few problems.
Are we to exclude the term “federal” when we discuss EU politics, policies or issues, where the European Parliament plays a lesser role than the governments of the member states?
I have a hard time imagining that a 21st century political system in Europe could be called federal, if not also democratic: based on legitimate representative democracy at federal level (with powers at least equal to those of the states).
This leaves outside a number of matters on a sliding scale of intergovernmentalism, from more limited participation by the European Parliament and the Commission to inexistent.
On the flip side of the coin, there are special legislative procedures where the European Council and the Council decide as EU institutions, within the EU framework and its powers (competences), but in principle everything outside the attributed powers is left to purely intergovernmental decisions.
Actually, the existential questions for the European Union are in the hands of the member states, each of them sovereign enough on its own to prevent a decision (liberum veto). Only unanimous agreement by all governments (possibly requiring ratification by all parliaments, or even some national electorates) can reform the structures and powers.
This means that the future development of the European Union could be held hostage by first the government, then the parliament and possibly (if national constitutional requirements so say) the voters as well, even in the smallest member state; at present Malta with about 416,000 people, something like 0.083 per cent of the total EU population of 501 million. Big or small, is this legitimate?
Despite my reticence, should anything on this sliding scale of intergovernmental decision making be included under the concept “federal”?
If not federal, which terms should we employ for the various modes?
Intergovernmental? Confederal? International?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across linguistic and national borders. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Monday, 27 September 2010
EU politics and law: “Community method” dead and reburied – What instead?
Almost two decades ago, from 1 November 1993, the Treaty on European Union (TEU; Maastricht Treaty, 1992) established the European Union (EU) as the overall term and as the framework for intergovernmental second pillar foreign and security policy, as well as third pillar justice and home affairs.
However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.
Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.
Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.
Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.
At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?
Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.
But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.
There is need for a wider, more political term.
The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.
Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?
The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.
The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.
In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.
Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)
Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?
Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?
Your help is needed.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
However, the European Community (EC) carried on the activities of the European Economic Community (EEC), and these manifold policy areas were lumped together under the so called first pillar.
Only the 2007 Treaty of Lisbon sent the European Community to kingdom come, when the reform treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. The pillar structure was formally abolished, although many intergovernmental traits remain, under two distinct Treaties.
Therefore, the easy part was the Coroner’s renewed verdict on the death of the EC and ordering the reburial, when leading EU politicians had recently exhumed the body of the “Community method”, which had become a historical term. This was done in the blog post “EU: Community method RIP – or a stake through its heart!” (25 September 2010), because the first pronouncement had not been heeded.
Now the more difficult part remains. We need to settle the succession and we need a Baptist for the newborn.
At present, we have only the European Union, as in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). What should we call the process when the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament jointly dispose?
Officially, we have the “ordinary legislative procedure”, which can be boiled down to “EU legislation” or “EU lawmaking” in everyday speech.
But the scope of decisions and processes is wider (formally: regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions; Article 288 TFEU). There are budgetary issues and a host of administrative matters, such as plans, reports, duties to inform, comitology procedures and scrutiny processes.
There is need for a wider, more political term.
The directly elected European Parliament represents the citizens of the European Union and the Council represents the (special interests of the) member states. When the EP and the Council decide on an equal basis, on a proposal from the Commission (duty bound to promote the general interest), they act as a first chamber and a second chamber of representatives in a federal system.
Should we stretch the term “parliamentary” to encompass at least this part of the EU political system?
The president of the Commission is, in practice, appointed by the European Council, although taking into account the elections to the European Parliament. Formally, the candidate is elected by the European Parliament, even if I consider the term “elected” in Article 17(7) TEU to be a misnomer for the right of refusal.
The other members of the Commission are, effectively, nominated by the governments of the member states, although by common accord with the president-elect. The Commission as a body needs the consent of the EP and it can be deposed by a vote of censure.
In other words, there are elements of normal parliamentary political accountability in play, but not rule by a simple majority in Parliament.
Where the Commission makes formal proposals, it is difficult for the EP and the Council to vote them down or amend them, if the Commission does not change its opinion. (In intergovernmental matters the role of the Commission varies from recommendations to almost non-existent.)
Does this mean that we have to discard the “parliamentary method” as well? If the EU is ‘sui generis’ enough to escape existing terms in this respect as well, which concept should we adopt to replace the outdated “Community method”?
Are you going to be our Baptist? How would you name the baby?
Your help is needed.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 668 Euroblogs, or blogs related to EU (and CoE) affairs, listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the editors’ choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams (all or highlighted) and the newsletters (daily or weekly) without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors for the daily tagging of posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Blogging in tongues
The bridge between the ‘Biblical’ headline and the Day of Multilingual Blogging is finding the key to a richer life.
Day of Multilingual Blogging
At a deeper level the aims of the Day of Multilingual Blogging are to promote language education and to entice you to learn a foreign language and to explore other cultures. The practical objective is to motivate you to write a blog post this Sunday, 26 September 2010, in another language than your mother tongue.
Facebook
You can find more information on the Facebook page, and there you can link to your blog entry.
Twitter #babel
You can announce your contribution under the Twitter hashtag #babel, or you can post a short message if a full blog post feels too laborious.
Open 26 September 2010
The Day of Multilingual Blogging takes place on the Internet, and it is open to all netizens and languages. In real life, it is arranged by the European Commission representation in the United Kingdom. Therefore, most of the information is in English, so spreading the word in other languages is much appreciated.
Bloggingportal.eu
Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs, has joined the event, as have many bloggers in Europe and beyond. (See the confirmed and possible participants on the Facebook page.)
There are now 668 Euroblogs listed on growing Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the entries highlighted by the editors. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
By the way, Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills daily and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Grahnlaw and sister blogs
I have written about the event earlier. My latest Grahnlaw blog post on the subject appeared yesterday: ”Brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever: Day of Multilingual Blogging” (with links to entries with suggestions).
Today I have posted in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus “Kielillä bloggaamaan” and in Swedish on Grahnblawg “Tungomålsbloggande”, both posts with ‘blogging in tongues’ connotations.
Give it a shot - try blogging in tongues!
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Day of Multilingual Blogging
At a deeper level the aims of the Day of Multilingual Blogging are to promote language education and to entice you to learn a foreign language and to explore other cultures. The practical objective is to motivate you to write a blog post this Sunday, 26 September 2010, in another language than your mother tongue.
You can find more information on the Facebook page, and there you can link to your blog entry.
Twitter #babel
You can announce your contribution under the Twitter hashtag #babel, or you can post a short message if a full blog post feels too laborious.
Open 26 September 2010
The Day of Multilingual Blogging takes place on the Internet, and it is open to all netizens and languages. In real life, it is arranged by the European Commission representation in the United Kingdom. Therefore, most of the information is in English, so spreading the word in other languages is much appreciated.
Bloggingportal.eu
Bloggingportal.eu, the multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs, has joined the event, as have many bloggers in Europe and beyond. (See the confirmed and possible participants on the Facebook page.)
There are now 668 Euroblogs listed on growing Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the entries highlighted by the editors. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
By the way, Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills daily and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Grahnlaw and sister blogs
I have written about the event earlier. My latest Grahnlaw blog post on the subject appeared yesterday: ”Brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever: Day of Multilingual Blogging” (with links to entries with suggestions).
Today I have posted in Finnish on Eurooppaoikeus “Kielillä bloggaamaan” and in Swedish on Grahnblawg “Tungomålsbloggande”, both posts with ‘blogging in tongues’ connotations.
Give it a shot - try blogging in tongues!
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments keeps skyrocketing. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. We can link to blogs and other sources in foreign languages and share different viewpoints with our readers, perhaps explaining the gist of the arguments.
Another opportunity is to invite comments in different languages, those we are able to read or by using machine translation to understand the essentials.
Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever: Day of Multilingual Blogging
Yes, brush up your Shakespeare, Goethe, Molière, Dante, Cervantes or whoever, or start learning a new language.
Tomorrow, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event on the Internet tomorrow: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers some suggestions how you can participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. Because the event is arranged by the Commission Representation in London, and the information is in English, it is especially important that bloggers spread the word in other languages too.
For a richer life, knock aside a few linguistic or national borders and join the blogging carnival!
Ralf Grahn
Tomorrow, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event on the Internet tomorrow: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers some suggestions how you can participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. Because the event is arranged by the Commission Representation in London, and the information is in English, it is especially important that bloggers spread the word in other languages too.
For a richer life, knock aside a few linguistic or national borders and join the blogging carnival!
Ralf Grahn
EU: "Community method" RIP – or a stake through its heart!
Why on Earth did they start a debate about the “Community method” now? (Opening shots here and more discussion here; ‘they’ meaning leading EU politicians)
At 50, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) met its preordained fate and passed away (23 July 2002).
"Nobody" ever talks about the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), although there is now a consolidated (updated) version of the Euratom Treaty.
When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, the European Community disappeared into the mist of history, succeeded by the European Union. (In everyday speech the EU had taken over from the EC long before that, with only official documents and meticulous lawyers fighting a rearguard battle.)
In short, there is no (European) Community, if we take a practical view.
Requiescat in pace
“Old habits die hard”, we know, but this blog post argues that we should escort the term “Community method” back to its mausoleum, with full historical honours, the Ode to Joy playing.
RIP = Requiescat in pace (Rest in peace), or I’ll drive a stake through your heart!
To be really smug, we could ask: Why don’t 'they' read this blog and live longer, happier lives in the present?
In a December 2009 blog post, when the Treaty of Lisbon was fresh, I published a few notes on how the European Union makes laws:
The somewhat antiquated Europa Glossary page on the Community and intergovernmental methods is still there, and there is continued need for an explanation of this historically important political term, just as we visit the graves of our loved ones to connect with our past.
After the Coroner’s verdict and solemn reburial, we need a Baptist for the newborn.
Ralf Grahn
At 50, the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) met its preordained fate and passed away (23 July 2002).
"Nobody" ever talks about the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom), although there is now a consolidated (updated) version of the Euratom Treaty.
When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009, the European Community disappeared into the mist of history, succeeded by the European Union. (In everyday speech the EU had taken over from the EC long before that, with only official documents and meticulous lawyers fighting a rearguard battle.)
In short, there is no (European) Community, if we take a practical view.
Requiescat in pace
“Old habits die hard”, we know, but this blog post argues that we should escort the term “Community method” back to its mausoleum, with full historical honours, the Ode to Joy playing.
RIP = Requiescat in pace (Rest in peace), or I’ll drive a stake through your heart!
To be really smug, we could ask: Why don’t 'they' read this blog and live longer, happier lives in the present?
In a December 2009 blog post, when the Treaty of Lisbon was fresh, I published a few notes on how the European Union makes laws:
Ordinary legislative procedure
In principle, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. Article 289(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/172) defines the ordinary legislative procedure, referring to more detailed provisions in Article 294 TFEU:
Article 289(1) TFEU
1. The ordinary legislative procedure shall consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on a proposal from the Commission. This procedure is defined in Article 294.
Historically, the “Community method” has been the shorthand expression for a triangle, where the Commission proposes and the Council and the European Parliament adopt the laws.
Here is how the Europa Glossary describes the Community method with a bit more detail:
The Community method is the expression used for the institutional operating mode set up in the first pillar of the European Union. It proceeds from an integration logic with due respect for the subsidiarity principle, and has the following salient features:
Commission monopoly of the right of initiative;
widespread use of qualified majority voting in the Council;
an active role for the European Parliament;
uniform interpretation of Community law by the Court of Justice.
In my view, the term “Community method” should be heading for the scrap-heap of history, replaced by “the ordinary legislative procedure”, when we have to be exact. In daily use “EU legislation”, “EU lawmaking” and other shorter expressions can be used, because the ordinary legislative procedure is the default mode.
Clarifications are needed mainly when the “special legislative procedure” is used (with a smaller role for the European Parliament) for lawmaking, or when we discuss intergovernmental decision making, as in the areas of foreign, security and defence policy.
Partly this methodological detour was caused by reflections on the future use of EU terms, partly by the fact that we are still seeing the tail end of new legislation approved under the Treaty of Nice, with the European Community still in existence.
The somewhat antiquated Europa Glossary page on the Community and intergovernmental methods is still there, and there is continued need for an explanation of this historically important political term, just as we visit the graves of our loved ones to connect with our past.
After the Coroner’s verdict and solemn reburial, we need a Baptist for the newborn.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 24 September 2010
EU future: Member states boon or bane?
The previous blog post covered the opening shots in the renewed, mainly inter-institutional debate about a more parliamentary or an intergovernmental European Union.
Even if the protagonists seem to address each other, the future solutions are far from arcane irrelevancies. They will determine our security and prosperity, the fate of 501 million Europeans in a globalising world.
We have reason to listen to what some protagonists had to say in the European Parliament Wednesday: Herman Van Rompuy, Martin Schulz and Rebecca Harms.
How should we interpret the silence of the European People’s Party (EPP)?
Can a look outside this one EP debate shed more light on Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn Bendit, and what does the commentator Stanley Crossick add?
Herman Van Rompuy
Two days after his speech in Paris, on 22 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, reported on the 16 September European Council meeting to the European Parliament. He presented his efforts to get the national governments to cooperate more effectively.
Van Rompuy remarked that the heads of state or government want more ownership by the European Council (themselves) in EU foreign policy.
With regard to economic governance, all heads of state or government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. Van Rompuy will submit a draft of the global report to the Task Force consisting of the ministers of finance on September 27, with the aim to reach an understanding in the middle of October, so that the European Council can conclude in its meeting of the 28th and 29th October.
Later Van Rompuy returned to the discussion about the “Community method” versus “intergovernmental” coordination:
Stanley Crossick
Van Rompuy rallied at least one enthusiastic supporter.
According to Stanley Crossick, on Stanley’s blog yesterday, there is no longer any space for an ideological confrontation between the Community method and intergovernmentalism. ‘Our’ approach should be pragmatic and there should be a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances. Herman Van Rompuy rightly seeks to bring cohesion within the European Council and between the EU institutions.
Crossick also supported Van Rompuy’s idea of downgrading the European Council summits, with EU leaders meeting more regularly in dialogue as an excellent one.
EPP group dilemma
I failed to find anything immediately relevant in group leader Joseph Daul’s or other press releases on the news page of the largest political group in the European Parliament: the 265 member EPP group.
As the centre-right European People’s Party likes to point out in its press releases:
Actually, they forgot to mention the president of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy).
Mentioning the Council is more complicated: The prime minister of the caretaker government in Belgium, the current EU Council presidency, is the Christian Democratic and Flemish (EPP) Yves Leterme, although it is a coalition government, so representatives of different parties could be expected to chair various Council ‘configurations’.
In other words, it is somewhat uncomfortable for the EPP to come out strongly in public for or against one of the EU institutions, or most of member states’ governments for that matter.
Socialists and Democrats
I failed to find anything in the newsroom of the second largest political group: the Socialists and Democrats.
However, the S&D group leader Martin Schulz has few of the inhibitions of his EPP counterpart. The summary of the debate published by the EP press service tells us:
Other political groups
The EP press summary was written mostly from the viewpoint of economic governance and the Roma issue, so the extracts concerning Guy Verhofstadt (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ALDE), Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA), Timothy Kirkhope (European Conservatives and Reformists ECR), Patrick Le Hyaric(leftist GUE/NGL) and Niki Tzavela (nationalist Europe of Freedom and Democracy EFD) do not enlighten us much in this respect.
I found no press release with more details from ALDE, but co-chair Rebecca Harms for the Green group clearly warned against the growing influence of member states in ‘very European’ issues, while it is the task of the Commission to defend the general interest of Europeans.
We do know that the ALDE group leader Guy Verhofstadt and co-chair Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens) are among the members of the Spinelli Group for a federal Europe. The Spinelli Group network consists of the signatories of the manifesto, 1052 by now.
Are the member states indispensable for or the bane of an ever closer union?
We are still far from a definitive answer.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how to participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. For a richer life, please join!
Even if the protagonists seem to address each other, the future solutions are far from arcane irrelevancies. They will determine our security and prosperity, the fate of 501 million Europeans in a globalising world.
We have reason to listen to what some protagonists had to say in the European Parliament Wednesday: Herman Van Rompuy, Martin Schulz and Rebecca Harms.
How should we interpret the silence of the European People’s Party (EPP)?
Can a look outside this one EP debate shed more light on Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn Bendit, and what does the commentator Stanley Crossick add?
Herman Van Rompuy
Two days after his speech in Paris, on 22 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, reported on the 16 September European Council meeting to the European Parliament. He presented his efforts to get the national governments to cooperate more effectively.
Van Rompuy remarked that the heads of state or government want more ownership by the European Council (themselves) in EU foreign policy.
With regard to economic governance, all heads of state or government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. Van Rompuy will submit a draft of the global report to the Task Force consisting of the ministers of finance on September 27, with the aim to reach an understanding in the middle of October, so that the European Council can conclude in its meeting of the 28th and 29th October.
Later Van Rompuy returned to the discussion about the “Community method” versus “intergovernmental” coordination:
Dear colleagues, Mr President, meetings of the European Council should not be considered as "summits" but as regular -- even routine -- meetings of a Union institution.
Indeed, allow me to emphasise -- at this time of renewed debate in your Parliament about the "Community method" -- that the European Council is an institution of our Union and not a summit in the manner of the G8 or the G20. It is embedded in the institutional framework of the Union, but it brings to the Union inputs from the highest political level in the member states, and it gives to the member states a sense of ownership and participation in the Union and reinforces their commitment to its success.
Stanley Crossick
Van Rompuy rallied at least one enthusiastic supporter.
According to Stanley Crossick, on Stanley’s blog yesterday, there is no longer any space for an ideological confrontation between the Community method and intergovernmentalism. ‘Our’ approach should be pragmatic and there should be a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances. Herman Van Rompuy rightly seeks to bring cohesion within the European Council and between the EU institutions.
Crossick also supported Van Rompuy’s idea of downgrading the European Council summits, with EU leaders meeting more regularly in dialogue as an excellent one.
EPP group dilemma
I failed to find anything immediately relevant in group leader Joseph Daul’s or other press releases on the news page of the largest political group in the European Parliament: the 265 member EPP group.
As the centre-right European People’s Party likes to point out in its press releases:
The EPP is the largest and most influential European-level political party of the centre-right, which currently includes 73 member-parties from 39 countries, the Presidents of the Commission, Council, and Parliament, 15 EU and 6 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 members of the European Commission and the largest Group in the European Parliament.
Actually, they forgot to mention the president of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy).
Mentioning the Council is more complicated: The prime minister of the caretaker government in Belgium, the current EU Council presidency, is the Christian Democratic and Flemish (EPP) Yves Leterme, although it is a coalition government, so representatives of different parties could be expected to chair various Council ‘configurations’.
In other words, it is somewhat uncomfortable for the EPP to come out strongly in public for or against one of the EU institutions, or most of member states’ governments for that matter.
Socialists and Democrats
I failed to find anything in the newsroom of the second largest political group: the Socialists and Democrats.
However, the S&D group leader Martin Schulz has few of the inhibitions of his EPP counterpart. The summary of the debate published by the EP press service tells us:
Socialist Martin Schulz said that…
…the Parliament is calling for the community method in terms of resolving problems. He said his group wanted it to be done at EU level in a community way and that the task of EP is to get the community method through.
Other political groups
The EP press summary was written mostly from the viewpoint of economic governance and the Roma issue, so the extracts concerning Guy Verhofstadt (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ALDE), Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA), Timothy Kirkhope (European Conservatives and Reformists ECR), Patrick Le Hyaric(leftist GUE/NGL) and Niki Tzavela (nationalist Europe of Freedom and Democracy EFD) do not enlighten us much in this respect.
I found no press release with more details from ALDE, but co-chair Rebecca Harms for the Green group clearly warned against the growing influence of member states in ‘very European’ issues, while it is the task of the Commission to defend the general interest of Europeans.
We do know that the ALDE group leader Guy Verhofstadt and co-chair Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens) are among the members of the Spinelli Group for a federal Europe. The Spinelli Group network consists of the signatories of the manifesto, 1052 by now.
Are the member states indispensable for or the bane of an ever closer union?
We are still far from a definitive answer.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how to participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. For a richer life, please join!
European Union challenges: Parliament or governments? Opening shots
This September 2010 has been a fertile month for a renewed debate about the fundamental traits of the European Union, although the discussion takes place between the institutions, unnoticed by most EU citizens and with scant reference to them (us). Is this the “Brussels bubble” at its best or its worst?
Here is an introduction to positions taken by a few protagonists: José Manuel Barroso, Martin Schulz, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Michał Tomasz Kamiński and Herman Van Rompuy.
José Manuel Barroso
The president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, outlined the “State of the Union” in the European Parliament 7 September 2010. He wanted to strengthen the bonds between the Commission, which promotes the general interest, and the directly elected Parliament, which represents the citizens of the EU:
EP group leaders
According to the EP press release with a summary of the debate, the Socialist and Democrat group leader Martin Schulz promised to support the European Commission in efforts to defend the "community method" against "intergovernmentalism".
For the Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit asked whether the EU is headed towards "an intergovernmental Europe or a Community".
Using the same terms, but heading in the opposite direction, Michał Tomasz Kamiński for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group told the House that: "The 27 member states are going to stay there, they are elected by citizens. We want balance between community and what is intergovernmental in Europe."
Herman Van Rompuy
On 20 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy spoke about Europe’s great challenges at the Sciences-Po in Paris (blog post one here, post two here, speech in French here). Before explaining why the member states are necessary in his view, Van Rompuy laid out the two models of governance (page 5-6):
“A false debate” - is it really that simple?
Where do the citizens of the European Union fit in?
These were just the opening shots. There is more to explore.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how you can participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. Make the most of your opportunities - start by joining!
Here is an introduction to positions taken by a few protagonists: José Manuel Barroso, Martin Schulz, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Michał Tomasz Kamiński and Herman Van Rompuy.
José Manuel Barroso
The president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, outlined the “State of the Union” in the European Parliament 7 September 2010. He wanted to strengthen the bonds between the Commission, which promotes the general interest, and the directly elected Parliament, which represents the citizens of the EU:
The secret of Europe's success is its unique Community model. More than ever, the Commission must drive the political agenda with its vision and proposals.
I have called for a special relationship between the Commission and Parliament, the two Community institutions par excellence. I am intensifying my political cooperation with you.
EP group leaders
According to the EP press release with a summary of the debate, the Socialist and Democrat group leader Martin Schulz promised to support the European Commission in efforts to defend the "community method" against "intergovernmentalism".
For the Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit asked whether the EU is headed towards "an intergovernmental Europe or a Community".
Using the same terms, but heading in the opposite direction, Michał Tomasz Kamiński for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group told the House that: "The 27 member states are going to stay there, they are elected by citizens. We want balance between community and what is intergovernmental in Europe."
Herman Van Rompuy
On 20 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy spoke about Europe’s great challenges at the Sciences-Po in Paris (blog post one here, post two here, speech in French here). Before explaining why the member states are necessary in his view, Van Rompuy laid out the two models of governance (page 5-6):
Avant l’été, des voix se sont élevées pour critiquer ce rôle de l’institution que je préside. Un vieux schéma (que les étudiants connaissent sans doute de leurs manuels de droit européen) a fait sa réapparition : la « Méthode Communautaire » serait menacée par l’irruption de l’« intergouvernemental », sous la forme notamment du Conseil européen.
(Pour les non-initiés (s’il y en a ici !) : on appelle Méthode Communautaire la méthode spécifique qu’a développée la Communauté européenne pour prendre des décisions. Dans la forme pure, la Commission fait une proposition, le Conseil vote à la majorité, le Parlement co-légifère, la Cour est compétente pour juger l’application de la règle par les Etats ; un système d’équilibres qui garantirait tant l’efficacité que la légitimité.
L’intergouvernemental, à l’inverse, est une méthode de coopération où les gouvernements nationaux et non pas des institutions communes ont le premier rang, tels qu’aux sommets du G8 ou G20.)
J’ai entendu parler de ce schéma binaire, opposant le bien et le mal, au Parlement européen et ailleurs.
À mon avis, c’est un faux débat.
“A false debate” - is it really that simple?
Where do the citizens of the European Union fit in?
These were just the opening shots. There is more to explore.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.
For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how you can participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. Make the most of your opportunities - start by joining!
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Herman Van Rompuy: Europe’s great challenges and small steps (II)
The first part, Herman Van Rompuy: Europe’s great challenges and small steps (I), offered a summary of the president’s speech in Paris 20 September 2010, as well as a link to the full speech and reactions in online media: Sciences-Po, The New York Times and EurActiv.fr.
We continue with two more reactions and some reports on the discussions in the European Parliament yesterday.
There is now an English version of the French EurActiv report on EurActiv.com: Van Rompuy hails ‘flexibility’ of his job.
Talpa brusseliensis christiana offers a summary of Van Rompuy’s main messages: M. Van Rompuy se veut rassurant: « Le projet européen n’est pas mort ! »
European Parliament
Yesterday, president Van Rompuy discussed economic governance with the presidents of the political groups and reported on the European Council to the European Parliament.
Toute l’Europe offers a good summary of the discussions in the European Parliament.
GroenLinks.nl is sceptic with regard to Van Rompuy’s ability to achieve economic governance: Met Van Rompuy redden we de euro niet.
Valentina Pop, on EUobserver, reports about the expectations or deceptions in the European Parliament regarding economic governance, as well as other questions relating to the European Summit: Van Rompuy defends economic taskforce against critics.
Naturally, president Herman Van Rompuy’s report on the outcome of the European Council meeting 16 September 2010 at the European Parliament remains the primary source on his reasoning.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the entries on the front page, the editors' choices. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
We continue with two more reactions and some reports on the discussions in the European Parliament yesterday.
There is now an English version of the French EurActiv report on EurActiv.com: Van Rompuy hails ‘flexibility’ of his job.
Talpa brusseliensis christiana offers a summary of Van Rompuy’s main messages: M. Van Rompuy se veut rassurant: « Le projet européen n’est pas mort ! »
European Parliament
Yesterday, president Van Rompuy discussed economic governance with the presidents of the political groups and reported on the European Council to the European Parliament.
Toute l’Europe offers a good summary of the discussions in the European Parliament.
GroenLinks.nl is sceptic with regard to Van Rompuy’s ability to achieve economic governance: Met Van Rompuy redden we de euro niet.
Valentina Pop, on EUobserver, reports about the expectations or deceptions in the European Parliament regarding economic governance, as well as other questions relating to the European Summit: Van Rompuy defends economic taskforce against critics.
Naturally, president Herman Van Rompuy’s report on the outcome of the European Council meeting 16 September 2010 at the European Parliament remains the primary source on his reasoning.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the entries on the front page, the editors' choices. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Herman Van Rompuy: Europe’s great challenges and small steps (I)
When the fundamental values and rules of the European Union are defiantly rejected by government ministers, irrelevance is seen as the future prospect for an increasingly intergovernmental and impotent EU, or – alternatively – an undemocratic and oppressive EUSSR is described as a straitjacket for the nations in Europe, what does the president of the European Council make of this?
This week, president Herman Van Rompuy made one of his rare appearances outside the immediate institutional framework, when he spoke about the great challenges for Europe, as the guest of the think-tank Nôtre Europe, at the Sciences-Po in Paris.
Europe is a work in progress. Despite exasperating slowness, Europe is tough.
Instead of the renationalisation of European politics Charles Kupchan sees, Van Rompuy offered the perspective of Europeanisation of national politics.
Europe has become a fact of life, daily weaving ties between our economies, our civil societies, between the various interests and values, covering a space of 500 million Europeans.
The resilience was shown, when the defence of the eurozone and the European Union led to unprecedented decisions last spring to establish a package of €750 billion together with the IMF, and later to conduct bank stress tests.
The Task force on economic governance is not going to make a great leap to budgetary union, but several small steps in the right direction. They concern both the prevention of future crises and the ability to handle potential crises in the future.
Monetary union without budgetary union is a structural handicap, but the euro can survive in spite of this.
If the warnings of the European Central Bank had been heeded, we could have evaded the crisis. What we need now, is to improve budget surveillance, but especially apply the rules.
According to Van Rompuy the role of the European Council did not mean that the EU descended into intergovernmentalism, but that the heads of state or government formed the link between decisions at EU and national level. The decisions concerning the “Special Purpose Vehicle” were taken in a coordinated manner at national level.
Europe needs both transferral of power to the EU level and the participation of all levels.
If the economic turtle has advanced painstakingly, the international challenges often require quicker answers. It is not acceptable for 500 million Europeans, who produce 22 per cent of world GDP, to stay marginalised. Globalisation is not only about the economy, but about politics and power. If we want to defend our interests and values, we have to realise this. If we want to promote our interests, our small internal differences pale into insignificance.
Online media
You can, of course, read Van Rompuy’s speech in full, or watch the video. Another option is to broaden the view by studying outside reports and comments online.
On Sciences-Po, École de jounalisme, Daphnée Denis summarises the sppech of a Van Rompuy much livelier and funnier than rumoured: Herman Van Rompuy, le « charismatique Président du Conseil européen » (including video excerpts).
Starting from Van Rompuy’s speech, Matthew Saltmarsh and Stephen Castle discuss the state of play concerning EU economic governance in The New York Times: Europe Debates How to Avoid Another Debt Crisis.
The EurActiv.fr report by Clémentine Forissier and Loup Besmond de Senneville offers a good summary of the main points as well as some additional questions of interest: Van Rompuy, les navires et la tortue.
Ralf Grahn
This week, president Herman Van Rompuy made one of his rare appearances outside the immediate institutional framework, when he spoke about the great challenges for Europe, as the guest of the think-tank Nôtre Europe, at the Sciences-Po in Paris.
Europe is a work in progress. Despite exasperating slowness, Europe is tough.
Instead of the renationalisation of European politics Charles Kupchan sees, Van Rompuy offered the perspective of Europeanisation of national politics.
Europe has become a fact of life, daily weaving ties between our economies, our civil societies, between the various interests and values, covering a space of 500 million Europeans.
The resilience was shown, when the defence of the eurozone and the European Union led to unprecedented decisions last spring to establish a package of €750 billion together with the IMF, and later to conduct bank stress tests.
The Task force on economic governance is not going to make a great leap to budgetary union, but several small steps in the right direction. They concern both the prevention of future crises and the ability to handle potential crises in the future.
Monetary union without budgetary union is a structural handicap, but the euro can survive in spite of this.
If the warnings of the European Central Bank had been heeded, we could have evaded the crisis. What we need now, is to improve budget surveillance, but especially apply the rules.
According to Van Rompuy the role of the European Council did not mean that the EU descended into intergovernmentalism, but that the heads of state or government formed the link between decisions at EU and national level. The decisions concerning the “Special Purpose Vehicle” were taken in a coordinated manner at national level.
Europe needs both transferral of power to the EU level and the participation of all levels.
If the economic turtle has advanced painstakingly, the international challenges often require quicker answers. It is not acceptable for 500 million Europeans, who produce 22 per cent of world GDP, to stay marginalised. Globalisation is not only about the economy, but about politics and power. If we want to defend our interests and values, we have to realise this. If we want to promote our interests, our small internal differences pale into insignificance.
Online media
You can, of course, read Van Rompuy’s speech in full, or watch the video. Another option is to broaden the view by studying outside reports and comments online.
On Sciences-Po, École de jounalisme, Daphnée Denis summarises the sppech of a Van Rompuy much livelier and funnier than rumoured: Herman Van Rompuy, le « charismatique Président du Conseil européen » (including video excerpts).
Starting from Van Rompuy’s speech, Matthew Saltmarsh and Stephen Castle discuss the state of play concerning EU economic governance in The New York Times: Europe Debates How to Avoid Another Debt Crisis.
The EurActiv.fr report by Clémentine Forissier and Loup Besmond de Senneville offers a good summary of the main points as well as some additional questions of interest: Van Rompuy, les navires et la tortue.
Ralf Grahn
EU: From expulsions to justice and integration for Roma
The French “Romagate” affair was highlighted dramatically before and during the summit of EU leaders, but the official conclusions were as if from another planet.
The Spanish journalist and Euroblogger Daniel Basteiro gave a vivid description of the disconnect between the prepared conclusions and the Roma issue, which captured the discussions among the press corps (and the meeting room): Contra Sarkozy… ¡nada por escrito!
Nicolas Gros-Verheyde on the security and defence oriented Euroblog Bruxelles2 found the Roma debate enlivening, because it broke with the EU tradition to seek consensus at any price. President Nicolas Sarkozy attacked violently on the insult front, but did not present a reasoned case of or a view of the real issue: the integration of Roma and their place in Europe; in Les Rom : un sujet de la politique étrangère... eh oui !
According to Gros-Verheyde several European leaders called France to order, with Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi the major exception. France talked much, convinced little and irritated much. Later, in front of the journalists, the president Herman Van Rompuy summarised the understanding between the leaders in five points, which did not figure in the official conclusions. The Commission seems set to initiate two legal proceedings against France.
Herman Van Rompuy
Yesterday, president Herman Van Rompuy spoke about the “unscheduled discussion about the Roma situation”, when he reported on the outcome of the European Council meeting 16 September 2010 at the European Parliament.
On this third topic, the Roma, Van Rompuy reiterated his remarks at the post-meeting press conference (page 4):
Points 1, 2 and 5, at least, put the real issues in view, despite the emotional charges.
Next steps
In The Irish Times, Marie O’Halloran sums up the debate in the European Parliament yesterday: Dispute over Roma dominates parliament debate. Two tracks are discernible: infringement procedures against France and the integration of Roma.
Scales of justice
According to Euronews, Commission president José Manuel Barroso says that the Commission has a duty to make European law respected. The Commission is making an assessment in a very objective and professional manner.
The French government seems to have digested the reality of imminent legal proceedings. According to Expatica (originally AFP), France has supplied an additional document arguing its case ahead of the Commission’s expected decision.
Romania’s president Traian Basescu has asked president Sarkozy to stop Roma expulsions, but did not receive an immediate answer. The Romanian parliament yesterday condemned France for a "serious violation" of its citizens' rights over its crackdown the Roma (sources: EUbusiness).
The actions of the French government will be weighed on the scales of justice with regard to discrimination. In the case of implementation of the so called Citizenship Directive 2004/38 on free movement rights, Paris is one of 15 or 16 capitals the Commission is studying. Both questions, as well as French statements contesting the EU legal order, concern fundamental values and rules of the European Union.
Roma integration
Despite different viewpoints about where the burden should lie, views are converging on the necessity to do something about the abject poverty and exclusion of Roma in Europe.
On 7 September 2010 the European Commission established a Roma Task Force to assess Member States' use of European Union funds for Roma integration. For those who want background information, the Commission published a memo on 25 August 2010.
The Associated Press reports that French prime minister François Fillon has urged the development of a Europe-wide plan to deal with illegal Gypsy camps and to improve living conditions for Gypsies in eastern Europe.
The EU consultative body, the European Economic and Social Committee has called for a participatory EU level strategy for Roma integration, although the resolution acknowledges that the member states bear the main responsibilities.
The integration of 10 to 12 million Roma, mostly in the poor new and prospective member states in Eastern Europe, is a herculean task. Hopefully, the heated exchanges will lead to more resolute action.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010 is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, as well as individual European bloggers from different parts of our Continent.
The Spanish journalist and Euroblogger Daniel Basteiro gave a vivid description of the disconnect between the prepared conclusions and the Roma issue, which captured the discussions among the press corps (and the meeting room): Contra Sarkozy… ¡nada por escrito!
Nicolas Gros-Verheyde on the security and defence oriented Euroblog Bruxelles2 found the Roma debate enlivening, because it broke with the EU tradition to seek consensus at any price. President Nicolas Sarkozy attacked violently on the insult front, but did not present a reasoned case of or a view of the real issue: the integration of Roma and their place in Europe; in Les Rom : un sujet de la politique étrangère... eh oui !
According to Gros-Verheyde several European leaders called France to order, with Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi the major exception. France talked much, convinced little and irritated much. Later, in front of the journalists, the president Herman Van Rompuy summarised the understanding between the leaders in five points, which did not figure in the official conclusions. The Commission seems set to initiate two legal proceedings against France.
Herman Van Rompuy
Yesterday, president Herman Van Rompuy spoke about the “unscheduled discussion about the Roma situation”, when he reported on the outcome of the European Council meeting 16 September 2010 at the European Parliament.
On this third topic, the Roma, Van Rompuy reiterated his remarks at the post-meeting press conference (page 4):
During lunch we discussed a topic that interests you particularly. Around the table, there was consensus on five points which was not interpreted as a formal conclusion of the Council
1. A member state has the right and the duty to take action to uphold the rule of law within its territory.
2. The Commission has the right, and indeed the duty, to ensure compliance with Union law by Member States and has the right - and indeed the duty - to conduct investigations.
3. We took note of the declaration that the Commission President made on the eve of the European Council.
4. Respect is the essential rule in the relationship between the Member States and the Commission.
5. In a future meeting of the European Council, we will discuss the issue of the integration of the Roma.
The prohibition of all forms of discrimination based on nationality or ethnicity is a founding principle of the European Union. Respect for human dignity is one of our core values.
Points 1, 2 and 5, at least, put the real issues in view, despite the emotional charges.
Next steps
In The Irish Times, Marie O’Halloran sums up the debate in the European Parliament yesterday: Dispute over Roma dominates parliament debate. Two tracks are discernible: infringement procedures against France and the integration of Roma.
Scales of justice
According to Euronews, Commission president José Manuel Barroso says that the Commission has a duty to make European law respected. The Commission is making an assessment in a very objective and professional manner.
The French government seems to have digested the reality of imminent legal proceedings. According to Expatica (originally AFP), France has supplied an additional document arguing its case ahead of the Commission’s expected decision.
Romania’s president Traian Basescu has asked president Sarkozy to stop Roma expulsions, but did not receive an immediate answer. The Romanian parliament yesterday condemned France for a "serious violation" of its citizens' rights over its crackdown the Roma (sources: EUbusiness).
The actions of the French government will be weighed on the scales of justice with regard to discrimination. In the case of implementation of the so called Citizenship Directive 2004/38 on free movement rights, Paris is one of 15 or 16 capitals the Commission is studying. Both questions, as well as French statements contesting the EU legal order, concern fundamental values and rules of the European Union.
Roma integration
Despite different viewpoints about where the burden should lie, views are converging on the necessity to do something about the abject poverty and exclusion of Roma in Europe.
On 7 September 2010 the European Commission established a Roma Task Force to assess Member States' use of European Union funds for Roma integration. For those who want background information, the Commission published a memo on 25 August 2010.
The Associated Press reports that French prime minister François Fillon has urged the development of a Europe-wide plan to deal with illegal Gypsy camps and to improve living conditions for Gypsies in eastern Europe.
The EU consultative body, the European Economic and Social Committee has called for a participatory EU level strategy for Roma integration, although the resolution acknowledges that the member states bear the main responsibilities.
The integration of 10 to 12 million Roma, mostly in the poor new and prospective member states in Eastern Europe, is a herculean task. Hopefully, the heated exchanges will lead to more resolute action.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010 is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, as well as individual European bloggers from different parts of our Continent.
Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Sarkozy and Berlusconi: Helping or hurting their countries?
One of the questions in the wake of the French “Romagate” affair is how it affects the international standing of France. Regards citoyens republished an article by Christian Lequesne in Le Monde: L’attitude du pouvoir vis-à-vis de l’Europe isole la France au lieu de renforcer son rôle.
Lequesne, who is director of CERI (Centre for International Studies and Research), identifies four different elements in president Nicolas Sarkozy’s intergovernmental view of the European Union. This view is counter-productive, and it leads to isolation.
Thomas Friang and Solène Meissonnier speak about an insolent sovereignty in Le Taurillon, when they predict that the Roma policy of the French government will affect the building of Europe, as well as France’s international standing: Une souveraineté insolente.
The only other major EU member state to give the French government clamorous support is Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy. Therefore it is interesting to see how Ferruccio Pastore deals with Paris and Rome in Affari Internazionali: L’asse Parigi-Roma scuote le fondamenta dell’Ue.
According to Pastore the split at the European Council concerned a fundamental question about EU citizenship: does it belong to the poor. The axis between Paris and Rome looks like a precarious alliance between two leaders in crisis. The opened crack concerns the very foundations of the community project.
Also in Affari Internazionali, Bruno Nascimbene writes about the Roma and EU citizenship: La disputa dei rom e i diritti dei cittadini dell’Ue.
Nascimbene discusses EU citizenship, discrimination, free movement, ‘voluntary’ repatriation and the requirement to decide on a case by case basis.
All in all, it looks like Sarkozy and Berlusconi have harmed their countries much more than they have helped.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the editors' choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Lequesne, who is director of CERI (Centre for International Studies and Research), identifies four different elements in president Nicolas Sarkozy’s intergovernmental view of the European Union. This view is counter-productive, and it leads to isolation.
Thomas Friang and Solène Meissonnier speak about an insolent sovereignty in Le Taurillon, when they predict that the Roma policy of the French government will affect the building of Europe, as well as France’s international standing: Une souveraineté insolente.
The only other major EU member state to give the French government clamorous support is Silvio Berlusconi’s Italy. Therefore it is interesting to see how Ferruccio Pastore deals with Paris and Rome in Affari Internazionali: L’asse Parigi-Roma scuote le fondamenta dell’Ue.
According to Pastore the split at the European Council concerned a fundamental question about EU citizenship: does it belong to the poor. The axis between Paris and Rome looks like a precarious alliance between two leaders in crisis. The opened crack concerns the very foundations of the community project.
Also in Affari Internazionali, Bruno Nascimbene writes about the Roma and EU citizenship: La disputa dei rom e i diritti dei cittadini dell’Ue.
Nascimbene discusses EU citizenship, discrimination, free movement, ‘voluntary’ repatriation and the requirement to decide on a case by case basis.
All in all, it looks like Sarkozy and Berlusconi have harmed their countries much more than they have helped.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or following the editors' choices on the front page. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Should we save ‘sovereignty’ or the Europeans?
On the blog Se former à la communication européenne, Michael Malherbe opined that the Roma crisis has mobilised pro and anti-Europeans more than it has improved understanding of the European Union, in: Quels sont les effets d’opinion de la crise européenne autour des Roms ?
Lessons for the European Union are the aim of the “Romagate” series of blog posts, but Malherbe’s lack of optimism tells us that the mission is far from accomplished.
On his Coulisses de Bruxelles blog, Jean Quatremer points to one example of anti-European activism masked as pro-Europeanism, an article written by the French former foreign minister Hubert Védrine. What Védrine wants is an intergovernmental Europe, which daily proves its lack of effectiveness, says Quatremer, in: Le coming out souverainiste d’Hubert Védrine.
Luckily, some citizens are concerned enough to act, when they see the leadership vacuum among the heads of state or government, and the constant failures in the intergovernmental areas.
Jean-Pierre Bobichon recalls Viviane Reding’s defence of fundamental rights in the EU. The writer deplores that the conclusions of the European Council 16 September 2010 do not contain a single line about the treatment of European minorities in Europe. Why not draft a charter of rights and obligations for these populations, building on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? Practical action is needed as well, in: Roms: l’Europe fait entendre sa voix.
The movement Sauvons l’Europe, which wants to save the European Union from descending into ineffective intergovernmentalism, has noted the likeminded Spinelli Group, established to promote the European general interest and a citizens’ Europe: Naissance du Groupe Spinelli.
Already 949 persons have signed the pro-European Spinelli Group manifesto, which states:
The movement Sauvons l’Europe meets today, 22 September 2010, to discuss 52 pro-European and progressive proposals. They are in the form of short sentences, and they have been sorted under three major headlines:
1. For a prosperous Europe
2. For a social Europe
3. For a European civil society
The merits of the individual proposals are open to discussion, but as a whole they remind us of a fundamental question:
Is it meaningful to try to save the ‘sovereignty’ of each European state, or better to promote the best outcomes for European citizens?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010 is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, as well as individual European bloggers.
Lessons for the European Union are the aim of the “Romagate” series of blog posts, but Malherbe’s lack of optimism tells us that the mission is far from accomplished.
On his Coulisses de Bruxelles blog, Jean Quatremer points to one example of anti-European activism masked as pro-Europeanism, an article written by the French former foreign minister Hubert Védrine. What Védrine wants is an intergovernmental Europe, which daily proves its lack of effectiveness, says Quatremer, in: Le coming out souverainiste d’Hubert Védrine.
Luckily, some citizens are concerned enough to act, when they see the leadership vacuum among the heads of state or government, and the constant failures in the intergovernmental areas.
Jean-Pierre Bobichon recalls Viviane Reding’s defence of fundamental rights in the EU. The writer deplores that the conclusions of the European Council 16 September 2010 do not contain a single line about the treatment of European minorities in Europe. Why not draft a charter of rights and obligations for these populations, building on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? Practical action is needed as well, in: Roms: l’Europe fait entendre sa voix.
The movement Sauvons l’Europe, which wants to save the European Union from descending into ineffective intergovernmentalism, has noted the likeminded Spinelli Group, established to promote the European general interest and a citizens’ Europe: Naissance du Groupe Spinelli.
Already 949 persons have signed the pro-European Spinelli Group manifesto, which states:
Only with European solutions and a renewed European spirit will we be able to tackle the worldwide challenges.
The movement Sauvons l’Europe meets today, 22 September 2010, to discuss 52 pro-European and progressive proposals. They are in the form of short sentences, and they have been sorted under three major headlines:
1. For a prosperous Europe
2. For a social Europe
3. For a European civil society
The merits of the individual proposals are open to discussion, but as a whole they remind us of a fundamental question:
Is it meaningful to try to save the ‘sovereignty’ of each European state, or better to promote the best outcomes for European citizens?
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Comments relevant to the topic discussed in each Grahnlaw blog post are most welcome. However, the number of spam comments has skyrocketed. This is the sad reason for comment moderation, so it may take a while before your valued comment appears.
It is easier to understand a language than to use it correctly. As Eurobloggers we could and should promote interaction among Europeans across borders and between linguistic communities. Grahnlaw has adopted a multilingual comment policy:
I do my best to read comments in Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish, even if the Grahnlaw blog and my possible replies are in English.
The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010 is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu, as well as individual European bloggers.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Sarkozy’s “Romagate”: Berlusconi or Mugabe?
The Bloggingportal.eu blog headlined its Week in Bloggingportal France vs. Europe, but more than yesterday’s news the French crackdown on illegal Roma camps is a fountain of learning about how the European Union (mal)functions.
Charles Forelle on the WSJ Real Time Brussels blog linked to a story in Le Point where the French senator Philippe Marini’s regrets at the existence of Luxembourg had led prime minister François Fillon to offer excuses to the Grand Duchy.
Forelle went on to instigate his readers to find (or invent) more extravagant ripostes.
What on earth should we think of?
Daniel Mason on The Endless Track saw that the discussion should be conducted without referring to the Nazis.
The advice of Charlemagne’s notebook was: Don’t mention the war.
Way back European Alternatives presented the “security package” of Silvio Berlusconi’s government in Italy after the 2008 elections, and the European Union’s lack of real action.
Massimo Merlino wrote a detailed analysis called: The Italian (In)Security Package – Security vs. Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in the EU (downloadable here).
According to Michael Day, in The Independent, Berlusconi has given his full support to France's controversial decision to forcibly repatriate thousands of Roma people to Eastern Europe.
If we play along, and leave Hitler outside, isn’t Berlusconi the obvious reference for Sarkozy’s ethnically motivated crackdown on Roma?
The French authorities have been at pains to explain that they have targeted only illegalRoma and Travellers settlements. So was, according to Robert Mugabe, the demolition of homes in Zimbabwe during the so called Operation Drive Out Trash (source: Wikipedia).
So how about Mugabe, if we look for role models beyond Europe?
President Sarkozy must have thought that the European Commission would roll over, since it had not confronted Berlusconi seriously, but regardless of the legal consequences Sarkozy has also chosen his company internationally.
Ralf Grahn
Charles Forelle on the WSJ Real Time Brussels blog linked to a story in Le Point where the French senator Philippe Marini’s regrets at the existence of Luxembourg had led prime minister François Fillon to offer excuses to the Grand Duchy.
Forelle went on to instigate his readers to find (or invent) more extravagant ripostes.
What on earth should we think of?
Daniel Mason on The Endless Track saw that the discussion should be conducted without referring to the Nazis.
The advice of Charlemagne’s notebook was: Don’t mention the war.
Way back European Alternatives presented the “security package” of Silvio Berlusconi’s government in Italy after the 2008 elections, and the European Union’s lack of real action.
Massimo Merlino wrote a detailed analysis called: The Italian (In)Security Package – Security vs. Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights in the EU (downloadable here).
According to Michael Day, in The Independent, Berlusconi has given his full support to France's controversial decision to forcibly repatriate thousands of Roma people to Eastern Europe.
If we play along, and leave Hitler outside, isn’t Berlusconi the obvious reference for Sarkozy’s ethnically motivated crackdown on Roma?
The French authorities have been at pains to explain that they have targeted only illegal
So how about Mugabe, if we look for role models beyond Europe?
President Sarkozy must have thought that the European Commission would roll over, since it had not confronted Berlusconi seriously, but regardless of the legal consequences Sarkozy has also chosen his company internationally.
Ralf Grahn
Exploiting France’s “Romagate” for party political ends? European Parliament
"I sincerely hope that following the deletion of any explicit reference to Roma in the circular in question, France will redress other legal and procedural shortcomings as well. I also hope that the European Commission will take the necessary actions if the French measures prove to be discriminative and the rights of Roma as European citizens are not fully guaranteed", said the Hungarian member of the European Parliament Lívia Járóka in a press release on the web pages of the EPP group.
So far, so good, but Járóka went on to say:
When the president of the European People’s Party Wilfried Martens welcomed the conclusions of the European Council, he said:
(I’ll leave the positive and constructive airing of differences aside, although it appeals to my sense of humour.)
EPP wrong-footed?
Our series on the French “Romagate” affair have stayed clear of party politics this far, but the government actors in Italy and France, the heads of state or government convening in the European Council, and the European Parliament (even the Commission, although tempered by the general interest) have their party political ties.
Do party politics explain some of the stances taken, such as the defensive posture of the European People’s Party?
Let us look at the European Parliament.
The summary of the Roma debate in the European Parliament showed marked differences between the political groups.
The resolution adopted by the EP plenary 9 September 2010 called for France to end all expulsions of Roma, as well as intervention by the Commission, the Council and the member states. The resolution as a whole was approved by 337 votes to 245 (with 51 abstentions).
According to the Legislative observatory Oeil, the text adopted in plenary was tabled as a joint resolution by the S&D (Socialists and Democrats), ALDE (Liberals and Democrats), Greens/ALE (Greens/European Free Alliance)and GUE/NGL (European United Left/Nordic Green Left).
This defeated the evasive or long grass motion for a resolution tabled by the centre-right EPP (European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)) group, with the lead government party in most EU member states, and the ECR group (European Conservatives and Reformists, which includes the UK Conservatives, the bigger coalition party) to wind up the discussion.
The Socialist-Liberal-Green-Left motion for a resolution also prevailed over the sovereignty oriented motion by the EFD group (Europe of Freedom and Democracy, which includes the UK Independence Party and the Italian Lega Nord).
The largest political group in the European Parliament is the EPP with 265 members. Of these, 29 (including the group leader Joseph Daul) come from France, whereas 35 are Italians, both contingents tied to the domestic government.
Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and president Nicolas Sarkozy have been the main leaders of government crackdowns on Roma, challenging what Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty called the benevolent self-image of Europe.
Even if the members of the European Parliament are joined in party political groups (Europarties), they have both their nationality and their domestic party political affiliation.
Sadly, I must say, the EP Roma resolution was not the finest hour for the European People’s Party as a defender of EU citizens’ rights. The EPP got wrong-footed by its government ties. This, in my view, explains the defensive posture. Accusations that others exploit the issue have a hollow ring to them.
Ralf Grahn
So far, so good, but Járóka went on to say:
It is vital, however, that the Roma issue is not taken hostage in a squabble between the Commission and a Member State, or abused by political groups for short-sighted and cheap political purposes.
When the president of the European People’s Party Wilfried Martens welcomed the conclusions of the European Council, he said:
Also the Roma issue was discussed at the EPP Summit and all parties involved were able to air their differences in a positive and constructive manner. It is very unfortunate that our political opponents tried – unsuccessfully – to exploit this delicate issue and to use it as a weapon against us.
(I’ll leave the positive and constructive airing of differences aside, although it appeals to my sense of humour.)
EPP wrong-footed?
Our series on the French “Romagate” affair have stayed clear of party politics this far, but the government actors in Italy and France, the heads of state or government convening in the European Council, and the European Parliament (even the Commission, although tempered by the general interest) have their party political ties.
Do party politics explain some of the stances taken, such as the defensive posture of the European People’s Party?
Let us look at the European Parliament.
The summary of the Roma debate in the European Parliament showed marked differences between the political groups.
The resolution adopted by the EP plenary 9 September 2010 called for France to end all expulsions of Roma, as well as intervention by the Commission, the Council and the member states. The resolution as a whole was approved by 337 votes to 245 (with 51 abstentions).
According to the Legislative observatory Oeil, the text adopted in plenary was tabled as a joint resolution by the S&D (Socialists and Democrats), ALDE (Liberals and Democrats), Greens/ALE (Greens/European Free Alliance)and GUE/NGL (European United Left/Nordic Green Left).
This defeated the evasive or long grass motion for a resolution tabled by the centre-right EPP (European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)) group, with the lead government party in most EU member states, and the ECR group (European Conservatives and Reformists, which includes the UK Conservatives, the bigger coalition party) to wind up the discussion.
The Socialist-Liberal-Green-Left motion for a resolution also prevailed over the sovereignty oriented motion by the EFD group (Europe of Freedom and Democracy, which includes the UK Independence Party and the Italian Lega Nord).
The largest political group in the European Parliament is the EPP with 265 members. Of these, 29 (including the group leader Joseph Daul) come from France, whereas 35 are Italians, both contingents tied to the domestic government.
Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy and president Nicolas Sarkozy have been the main leaders of government crackdowns on Roma, challenging what Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty called the benevolent self-image of Europe.
Even if the members of the European Parliament are joined in party political groups (Europarties), they have both their nationality and their domestic party political affiliation.
Sadly, I must say, the EP Roma resolution was not the finest hour for the European People’s Party as a defender of EU citizens’ rights. The EPP got wrong-footed by its government ties. This, in my view, explains the defensive posture. Accusations that others exploit the issue have a hollow ring to them.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 20 September 2010
Sweden: Reinfeldt wins but fails to gain majority
Sveriges Radio International reports that the centre-right party of prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt gained a historic 30 per cent of the vote in the Swedish parliamentary election. However, the three other parties of the governing Alliance – Liberals, Centre Party and Christian Democrats – lost seats, so the preliminary results point to 172 seats out of 349, three less than an outright majority.
The Social Democrats remained the largest party, with 30.9 per cent of the vote, but losing 4.4 percentage points since 2006.
The nationalistic and xenophobic Sweden Democrats cleared thefive [Correction] four per cent hurdle, and get 20 seats in the new parliament (Riksdag).
Reinfeldt has proposed cooperation with the Green Party, which campaigned against the government coalition together with the Social Democrats and the Left Party.
The Pirate Party failed to clear the hurdle.
Ralf Grahn
The Social Democrats remained the largest party, with 30.9 per cent of the vote, but losing 4.4 percentage points since 2006.
The nationalistic and xenophobic Sweden Democrats cleared the
Reinfeldt has proposed cooperation with the Green Party, which campaigned against the government coalition together with the Social Democrats and the Left Party.
The Pirate Party failed to clear the hurdle.
Ralf Grahn
“Romagate”: Out of sight, out of mind?
“Out of sight, out of mind” is a very human reaction to the appearance of Roma beggars and camps. It would be easiest, if the sight would kindly evaporate. However, we have to realise that this is not going to happen. Thus, we have to expect more from our governments, at local, regional, national and European level - and from ourselves.
Someone had to push the red button, was Basteiro’s comment (in Spanish) on Viviane Reding’s statement about the anti-Roma campaign and cover-up of the French government.
One step towards more constructive attitudes and sustainable solutions to seemingly intractable problems is the feeling of shame expressed by French Eurobloggers because of the plans and actions of the government in France.
Greg Henning on EU Weekly described statements emanating from the ruling majority as ‘stupidities’, but deplored the anti-European rhetoric as the worst fallout.
Cédric Puisney, on Un européen jamais content, asked if France is the new shame of Europe. Since the departure of François Mitterand and Jacques Delors, France in Europe is a botched affair.
Euros du Village spoke about the devastation brought by dishonour.
The French version of Presseurop is filled with European voices on France and the Roma question on the thematic page ‘Roms’.
According to Regards citoyens, France seems to be causing a split between the government and the nation, as well as breaking with its historical role in the European Union and Europe in general, by replacing the rule of law with intergovernmental power. If this is what the government wants, why not submit withdrawal from the European Union and the renouncement of EU citizenship to the electorate in a referendum?
Other European voices
I would also like to mention a few examples of European voices outside France.
J Peter Burgess takes a philosophical view of the interplay between discrimination, national and European citizenship, although it may take long for things to settle.
Daniel Mason on The Endless Track sees it as a good thing that the Commission is prepared to take a principled stand against one of the most powerful EU member states, but it should be done without referring to the Nazis. The EU should be working with the French and other governments to find a workable solution to the problem.
Charlemagne’s notebook offers advice to all sides: Don’t mention the war. However, none of the leaders at the European Council seems to have questioned the commission’s prerogative in investigating possible breaches of European law, and president Nicolas Sarkozy may yet annoy the chancellor Angela Merkel.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the entries highlighted by the editors. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
Someone had to push the red button, was Basteiro’s comment (in Spanish) on Viviane Reding’s statement about the anti-Roma campaign and cover-up of the French government.
One step towards more constructive attitudes and sustainable solutions to seemingly intractable problems is the feeling of shame expressed by French Eurobloggers because of the plans and actions of the government in France.
Greg Henning on EU Weekly described statements emanating from the ruling majority as ‘stupidities’, but deplored the anti-European rhetoric as the worst fallout.
Cédric Puisney, on Un européen jamais content, asked if France is the new shame of Europe. Since the departure of François Mitterand and Jacques Delors, France in Europe is a botched affair.
Euros du Village spoke about the devastation brought by dishonour.
The French version of Presseurop is filled with European voices on France and the Roma question on the thematic page ‘Roms’.
According to Regards citoyens, France seems to be causing a split between the government and the nation, as well as breaking with its historical role in the European Union and Europe in general, by replacing the rule of law with intergovernmental power. If this is what the government wants, why not submit withdrawal from the European Union and the renouncement of EU citizenship to the electorate in a referendum?
Other European voices
I would also like to mention a few examples of European voices outside France.
J Peter Burgess takes a philosophical view of the interplay between discrimination, national and European citizenship, although it may take long for things to settle.
Daniel Mason on The Endless Track sees it as a good thing that the Commission is prepared to take a principled stand against one of the most powerful EU member states, but it should be done without referring to the Nazis. The EU should be working with the French and other governments to find a workable solution to the problem.
Charlemagne’s notebook offers advice to all sides: Don’t mention the war. However, none of the leaders at the European Council seems to have questioned the commission’s prerogative in investigating possible breaches of European law, and president Nicolas Sarkozy may yet annoy the chancellor Angela Merkel.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The multilingual aggregator for EU related blogs keeps growing. There are now 669 Euroblogs listed on Bloggingportal.eu. You can take a look at the stream of all new posts, or follow the entries highlighted by the editors. You can also subscribe to the streams and the newsletters without cost.
Bloggingportal.eu needs a few more voluntary editors to tag posts according to subjects. Why not keep informed by reading about European affairs, improve your language skills and do something useful by joining the team of editors?
“Romagate” is everywhere, including Brussels and Belgium
From a human rights perspective, Stijn Smet on the Strasbourg Observers describes the “utterly unacceptable treatment of Roma by Sarkozy’s government”. The discriminatory practice violates both the freedom of movement within the EU and the prohibition of collective expulsions. The blog post links to the resolution by the European Parliament and the 5 August 2010 missive containing further instructions on the ‘evacuation’ of Roma camps.
However, the blog post does not stop there. It notes the existence of cases which fall under the radar screen of international media, but reveal a poisonous attitude towards Roma. One such case concerns the Brussels area, where there is now no place to station caravans legally. The blog entry describes attempts to prevent Roma from stationing their vans illegally, and it goes on to discuss to which extent states (including Belgium) have a positive obligation to provide spaces for the ‘Gypsy way of life’.
The blog post is an introduction to complex questions facing not only the European Union and the Council of Europe, but national, regional and local authorities all over Europe. This blog post needs to be read in European public administrations.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu as well as individual Eurobloggers.
However, the blog post does not stop there. It notes the existence of cases which fall under the radar screen of international media, but reveal a poisonous attitude towards Roma. One such case concerns the Brussels area, where there is now no place to station caravans legally. The blog entry describes attempts to prevent Roma from stationing their vans illegally, and it goes on to discuss to which extent states (including Belgium) have a positive obligation to provide spaces for the ‘Gypsy way of life’.
The blog post is an introduction to complex questions facing not only the European Union and the Council of Europe, but national, regional and local authorities all over Europe. This blog post needs to be read in European public administrations.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. The Day of Multilingual Blogging 26 September 2010is drawing closer. It is arranged by the European Commission Representation in the UK and joined by the multilingual blog aggregator Bloggingportal.eu as well as individual Eurobloggers.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
“Romagate” teaching from Pierre Lellouche (Updated)
On the French government website, the interior minister Brice Hortefeux, immigration and integration minister Eric Besson and EU minister Pierre Lellouche jointly reported on 30 August 2010 that 128 illicit camps had already been ‘evacuated’ since 28 July, out of the 300 targeted for three months.
On Slate.fr Thomas Legrand assesses the 30 August appearance of Hortefeux as a betrayal of republican values.
The five point programme against the Roma and Travellers (and headlined as such) had been announced by Hortefeux, following a meeting with president Nicolas Sarkozy 28 July 2010: Gens du voyage et Roms : cinq mesures pour lutter contre les camps et les comportements illégaux.
Our “Romagate” learning experience continues to profit from statements made by French government representatives. Pierre Lellouche, Secretary of State for European Affairs, colloquially minister for Europe, is an indispensable acquaintance in this respect.
According to the news agency AFP, Lellouche lashed out at the threat of an infringement process because of the wording of an administrative letter:
It may be true that the leaked memorandum specifically targeting Roma combined with the French ministers’ assurances to the contrary in discussions with the commissioners Reding and Malmström was an important triggering factor for the Commission.
However, the French government’s whole plan seems to have been targeted at Roma and Travellers, and the ministers have been keen to exploit all gains in terms of public relations, so despite the ministers’ total ignorance of the missive, the directive seems to have worked according to plan.
Lellouche on Europe
According to AFP and for the benefit of his fellow-citizens, Lellouche also shed some light on the relationship between his country and the European Union:
The European Union shall respect the equality of the member states (Article 4 TEU), so the putative greatness or actual population figure for France is irrelevant in this context.
France has voluntarily pooled parts of its sovereignty with the other EU member states, which means that they have gained rights and assumed responsibilities under the Treaties. These questions are determined by EU law, so sovereignty is the wrong argument here.
EU law is – within the powers conferred to the EU – French law, but there is no separate French law applicable (at will?).
Having lied and having been caught, Lellouche resents being exposed for what he is. He invented the apt schoolboy parable.
The European Commission is the “guardian of the Treaties”. According to Article 17 TEU the Commission shall ensure the application of the Treaties and oversee the application of EU law, under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It is astounding that Lellouche is still minister for Europe after alleging that the French people is the guardian of the Treaties. (He may have intended it only for situations regarding France directly, but with his formula European integration would return to its state before 1951; no mean erasure in so few words.)
On Slate.fr Jean-Sébastien Lefebvre offers Europe minister Lellouche a basic EU law course, after the minister’s attacks on the Commission and commissioner Viviane Reding.
Mieux connaître vos droits en Europe sent minister Pierre Lellouche a quick remedial course on European law, starting with the principle of non-discrimination, part of the genetic code since the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
Eckart D Stratenschulte, on The European Circle (in German), spoke about dangerous nonsense (Gefährlicher Unsinn), when he referred to Lellouche’s statement that the guardian of the Treaties is not the Commission, but the French people. Professor Stratenschulte put it succinctly:
In other words, the expulsion of Roma is an infringement of European law. This sentence means abolishing it.
How can we hope that the citizens ever understand the European Union, if the ignorance of the French political elite is anything to go by?
Update 20 September 2010: On his Coulisses de Bruxelles blog, Jean Quatremer has just published a French perspective on the arguments of Pierre Lellouche.
Ralf Grahn
On Slate.fr Thomas Legrand assesses the 30 August appearance of Hortefeux as a betrayal of republican values.
The five point programme against the Roma and Travellers (and headlined as such) had been announced by Hortefeux, following a meeting with president Nicolas Sarkozy 28 July 2010: Gens du voyage et Roms : cinq mesures pour lutter contre les camps et les comportements illégaux.
Our “Romagate” learning experience continues to profit from statements made by French government representatives. Pierre Lellouche, Secretary of State for European Affairs, colloquially minister for Europe, is an indispensable acquaintance in this respect.
According to the news agency AFP, Lellouche lashed out at the threat of an infringement process because of the wording of an administrative letter:
"On est en train de dresser le procès européen de la France pour la façon dont une circulaire est rédigée".
It may be true that the leaked memorandum specifically targeting Roma combined with the French ministers’ assurances to the contrary in discussions with the commissioners Reding and Malmström was an important triggering factor for the Commission.
However, the French government’s whole plan seems to have been targeted at Roma and Travellers, and the ministers have been keen to exploit all gains in terms of public relations, so despite the ministers’ total ignorance of the missive, the directive seems to have worked according to plan.
Lellouche on Europe
According to AFP and for the benefit of his fellow-citizens, Lellouche also shed some light on the relationship between his country and the European Union:
"La France est un grand pays souverain. On n'est pas à l'école. Nous appliquons notre loi", a-t-il martelé en réponse à des questions sur les réactions européennes. "Je n'ai pas l'intention d'être traité, au nom de la France, comme un petit garçon", a-t-il ajouté.
Il a aussi contesté que la Commission européenne soit la gardienne des traités européens, ce qui est pourtant l'une de ses missions. "Le gardien des traités c'est le peuple français", a-t-il dit.
The European Union shall respect the equality of the member states (Article 4 TEU), so the putative greatness or actual population figure for France is irrelevant in this context.
France has voluntarily pooled parts of its sovereignty with the other EU member states, which means that they have gained rights and assumed responsibilities under the Treaties. These questions are determined by EU law, so sovereignty is the wrong argument here.
EU law is – within the powers conferred to the EU – French law, but there is no separate French law applicable (at will?).
Having lied and having been caught, Lellouche resents being exposed for what he is. He invented the apt schoolboy parable.
The European Commission is the “guardian of the Treaties”. According to Article 17 TEU the Commission shall ensure the application of the Treaties and oversee the application of EU law, under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
It is astounding that Lellouche is still minister for Europe after alleging that the French people is the guardian of the Treaties. (He may have intended it only for situations regarding France directly, but with his formula European integration would return to its state before 1951; no mean erasure in so few words.)
On Slate.fr Jean-Sébastien Lefebvre offers Europe minister Lellouche a basic EU law course, after the minister’s attacks on the Commission and commissioner Viviane Reding.
Mieux connaître vos droits en Europe sent minister Pierre Lellouche a quick remedial course on European law, starting with the principle of non-discrimination, part of the genetic code since the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
Eckart D Stratenschulte, on The European Circle (in German), spoke about dangerous nonsense (Gefährlicher Unsinn), when he referred to Lellouche’s statement that the guardian of the Treaties is not the Commission, but the French people. Professor Stratenschulte put it succinctly:
Die Abschiebung der Roma ist ein Verstoß gegen europäisches Recht. Dieser Satz ist jedoch seine Abschaffung.
In other words, the expulsion of Roma is an infringement of European law. This sentence means abolishing it.
How can we hope that the citizens ever understand the European Union, if the ignorance of the French political elite is anything to go by?
Update 20 September 2010: On his Coulisses de Bruxelles blog, Jean Quatremer has just published a French perspective on the arguments of Pierre Lellouche.
Ralf Grahn
“Romagate”: Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves – Lessons by Chantal Brunel
The French “Romagate” affair tells us more about the state of the European Union than the speech of Commission president José Manuel Barroso ever did.
The shouted and whispered words open a treasure cave, as in Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. They act as our “Open Sesame”, giving us access to most valuable insights.
Even if media attention has shifted to new subjects, it is worthwhile to recall the discussions and to assess their meaning for the EU, using “Romagate” as a learning experience.
Long before Grahnlaw showed president Nicolas Sarkozy a red card (or two), the Euroblog of Fabien l’Européen sent off the UMP spokesperson Chantal Brunel for the following remark:
If we start from the end, Fabien Cazenave points out that France has 65 million inhabitants.
I find it fascinating that the spokesperson for the government party in an EU member state is unaware of the size of the population in her own country. According to Eurostat figures for 2010, the French population is 64,713,762, which we can round off to the 65 million Cazenave mentions.
Proportionately, the error concerning Luxembourg was even greater, since Eurostat reports a population of 502,066.
However, these misstated facts are just minor imperfections compared to the legal and political ignorance Brunel managed to show in two short sentences.
Commissioner Viviane Reding is from Luxembourg, admittedly a small member state, but she does not represent her country.
On 3 May the members of the European Commission, including commissioner Reding, made the following solemn declaration before the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
Even if the solemn oath can be seen as an arcane detail, known only to EU buffs, I would expect those with major responsibilities among members of national parliaments to be reasonably aware of basics concerning the European Union.
According to Article 17 TEU, the Commission shall promote the general interest of the European Union. It shall also ensure the application of the Treaties and EU law, under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Member states shall respect the independence of the members of the Commission and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks (Article 245 TFEU).
If a member state fails to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the Commission can initiate an infringement procedure (Article 258 TFEU).
When Chantal Brunel defends a government caught red-handed and its ministers misrepresenting the facts, she forgets that France has voluntarily pooled parts of its sovereignty in favour of the rules based system of the European Union.
When Brunel attacks commissioner Reding, she seems to be unaware of the fact that the Commission speaks for the general interest of 501 million EU citizens, not the particular interests of the country of origin of each member of the college.
The European Union shall respect the equality of member states before the Treaties (Article 4 TEU), so the population size of the country does not even enter into the equation of adherence to the rules. Morally, one could argue, a founding member could be expected to lead by example.
In just two sentences, Chantal Brunel has taught us many valuable lessons.
Among the several reactions from the UMP government majority, the Euroblog of Euros du Village was even ready to declare Brunel the “winner”, in: France : les ravages du déshonneur.
Ralf Grahn
The shouted and whispered words open a treasure cave, as in Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves. They act as our “Open Sesame”, giving us access to most valuable insights.
Even if media attention has shifted to new subjects, it is worthwhile to recall the discussions and to assess their meaning for the EU, using “Romagate” as a learning experience.
Long before Grahnlaw showed president Nicolas Sarkozy a red card (or two), the Euroblog of Fabien l’Européen sent off the UMP spokesperson Chantal Brunel for the following remark:
« la France est une nation souveraine ; on n’a pas des leçons de morale à recevoir d’une commissaire qui représente un petit pays [le Luxembourg] de 350 000 habitants. Nous sommes un grand pays de 57 millions d’habitants ».
If we start from the end, Fabien Cazenave points out that France has 65 million inhabitants.
I find it fascinating that the spokesperson for the government party in an EU member state is unaware of the size of the population in her own country. According to Eurostat figures for 2010, the French population is 64,713,762, which we can round off to the 65 million Cazenave mentions.
Proportionately, the error concerning Luxembourg was even greater, since Eurostat reports a population of 502,066.
However, these misstated facts are just minor imperfections compared to the legal and political ignorance Brunel managed to show in two short sentences.
Commissioner Viviane Reding is from Luxembourg, admittedly a small member state, but she does not represent her country.
On 3 May the members of the European Commission, including commissioner Reding, made the following solemn declaration before the Court of Justice of the European Union, pursuant to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:
Having been appointed as a Member of the European Commission by the European Council, following the vote of consent by the European Parliament
I solemnly undertake:
• to respect the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the fulfilment of all my duties;
• to be completely independent in carrying out my responsibilities, in the general interest of the Union;
• in the performance of my tasks, neither to seek nor to take instructions from any Government or from any other institution, body, office or entity;
• to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties or the performance of my tasks.
I formally note the undertaking of each Member State to respect this principle and not to seek to influence Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.
I further undertake to respect, both during and after my term of office, the obligation arising therefrom, and in particular the duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after I have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits.
Even if the solemn oath can be seen as an arcane detail, known only to EU buffs, I would expect those with major responsibilities among members of national parliaments to be reasonably aware of basics concerning the European Union.
According to Article 17 TEU, the Commission shall promote the general interest of the European Union. It shall also ensure the application of the Treaties and EU law, under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Member states shall respect the independence of the members of the Commission and shall not seek to influence them in the performance of their tasks (Article 245 TFEU).
If a member state fails to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, the Commission can initiate an infringement procedure (Article 258 TFEU).
When Chantal Brunel defends a government caught red-handed and its ministers misrepresenting the facts, she forgets that France has voluntarily pooled parts of its sovereignty in favour of the rules based system of the European Union.
When Brunel attacks commissioner Reding, she seems to be unaware of the fact that the Commission speaks for the general interest of 501 million EU citizens, not the particular interests of the country of origin of each member of the college.
The European Union shall respect the equality of member states before the Treaties (Article 4 TEU), so the population size of the country does not even enter into the equation of adherence to the rules. Morally, one could argue, a founding member could be expected to lead by example.
In just two sentences, Chantal Brunel has taught us many valuable lessons.
Among the several reactions from the UMP government majority, the Euroblog of Euros du Village was even ready to declare Brunel the “winner”, in: France : les ravages du déshonneur.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 18 September 2010
“Romagate” red card: Sarkozy
The French Nouvel Observateur published a wide European press review with, in the main, highly critical reactions to president Nicolas Sarkozy’s anti-Roma policies and EU summit outbursts.
Aggressive, outspoken and selective in his use of facts, Mr. Sarkozy deployed attack as the best form of defense against charges that French deportations of Roma breached European law, said Stephen Castle in The New York Times. Castle sees negative fallout for the Commission, as well as for Sarkozy, who managed to upset German chancellor Angela Merkel.
According to Ben Hall and Peggy Hollinger, writing for the Financial Times, some analysts and commentators say Sarkozy is looking more and more like Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi: a scandal-hit leader of diminished stature and a divisive populist with authoritarian leanings.
On Regards citoyens we can read the call by SOS Racisme, La Libération and the Règle du Jeu to sign a petition against the government’s plan to make it possible to deprive naturalised citizens of their French citizenship.
A selection of Euroblog posts on Erkan’s Field Diary bears the headline: Sarkozy’s France: A Land of Intolerance – Roma policy, Burqa ban, Le Monde scandal. A later collection is headlined: Arrogant Sarkozy attacks Barroso.
The Gulf Stream Blues asks: Is Sarkozy losing it?
As Max Stienbeis writes on Verfassungsblog: Nationalism endures everything, except being laughable (in German): Der kleine Nick und die Lächerlichkeit.
René Wadlow writes on The New Federalist: Anti-Roma Measures Backfire.
In the French presidential system, Sarkozy is the main responsible for government policy. After the “Romagate” leak of the instructions on anti-Roma action, his ministers were caught misrepresenting the facts. His foul was called by the Commission.This made Sarkozy vent his anger at the referee.
Two red card performances (for the price of one).
Ralf Grahn
Aggressive, outspoken and selective in his use of facts, Mr. Sarkozy deployed attack as the best form of defense against charges that French deportations of Roma breached European law, said Stephen Castle in The New York Times. Castle sees negative fallout for the Commission, as well as for Sarkozy, who managed to upset German chancellor Angela Merkel.
According to Ben Hall and Peggy Hollinger, writing for the Financial Times, some analysts and commentators say Sarkozy is looking more and more like Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi: a scandal-hit leader of diminished stature and a divisive populist with authoritarian leanings.
On Regards citoyens we can read the call by SOS Racisme, La Libération and the Règle du Jeu to sign a petition against the government’s plan to make it possible to deprive naturalised citizens of their French citizenship.
A selection of Euroblog posts on Erkan’s Field Diary bears the headline: Sarkozy’s France: A Land of Intolerance – Roma policy, Burqa ban, Le Monde scandal. A later collection is headlined: Arrogant Sarkozy attacks Barroso.
The Gulf Stream Blues asks: Is Sarkozy losing it?
As Max Stienbeis writes on Verfassungsblog: Nationalism endures everything, except being laughable (in German): Der kleine Nick und die Lächerlichkeit.
René Wadlow writes on The New Federalist: Anti-Roma Measures Backfire.
In the French presidential system, Sarkozy is the main responsible for government policy. After the “Romagate” leak of the instructions on anti-Roma action, his ministers were caught misrepresenting the facts. His foul was called by the Commission.This made Sarkozy vent his anger at the referee.
Two red card performances (for the price of one).
Ralf Grahn
France’s “Romagate”: The blessings of humour
I don’t know if humour is a divine gift, but it makes life easier on Earth.
Despite the sad events, some Euroblog writers have been able to find comic aspects surrounding the French government’s demolition of Roma camps and mass repatriation of EU citizens.
The European Tribune community presented and translated into English a “news report” depicting France as a rogue state (état voyou) or “-stan”, with warring clans and corruption. It was originally written by Daniel Schneidermann and published on Arrêts sur images.
Berlaymonster imagined a new gravy train, this time repatriating Brits with second homes in France, leading to angry reactions from London and Brussels.
The Brussels Jungle purported to detect moves by 24 French UMP (EPP) members of the European Parliament to restore the ‘gloire’ of France by defecting to the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group, where they would join the British UKIP, the Italian Lega Nord and other interesting elements.
On L’expérience européenne, J S Lefebvre described the hard life of a freelance journalist, who has to find interesting stories and market them to editors in order to get money for the rent. Suddenly – thanks to the French government, Chantal Brunel and Viviane Reding – everything became so much easier. They changed his life (at least for a few days).
A “Romagate” with a silver lining.
Ralf Grahn
Despite the sad events, some Euroblog writers have been able to find comic aspects surrounding the French government’s demolition of Roma camps and mass repatriation of EU citizens.
The European Tribune community presented and translated into English a “news report” depicting France as a rogue state (état voyou) or “-stan”, with warring clans and corruption. It was originally written by Daniel Schneidermann and published on Arrêts sur images.
Berlaymonster imagined a new gravy train, this time repatriating Brits with second homes in France, leading to angry reactions from London and Brussels.
The Brussels Jungle purported to detect moves by 24 French UMP (EPP) members of the European Parliament to restore the ‘gloire’ of France by defecting to the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group, where they would join the British UKIP, the Italian Lega Nord and other interesting elements.
On L’expérience européenne, J S Lefebvre described the hard life of a freelance journalist, who has to find interesting stories and market them to editors in order to get money for the rent. Suddenly – thanks to the French government, Chantal Brunel and Viviane Reding – everything became so much easier. They changed his life (at least for a few days).
A “Romagate” with a silver lining.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
