Friday 29 April 2011

Hungarian EU Council presidency: Innovation (Future Perfect)

Third time lucky? Our third informal ministerial ”competitiveness” meeting arranged by the Hungarian EU Council presidency seems to unearth a rich vein of precious ore, especially for those who are interested in research, development and innovation (RDI).


Europe 2020 growth strategy

Competitiveness in and of Europe depends on growth-enhancing reforms in line with the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (although we still hope for updates) and the relaunch of the Single Market (link to all Single Market Act SMA language versions).


Informal Council meetings

Therefore, we looked at how the Hungarian presidency of the Council of the European Union communicated on relevant informal meetings of the Council. First, we searched for the press releases related to the 16 to 18 January 2011 meeting of employment ministers (Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affaris EPSCO). Then, we found richer and better structured pickings from the gathering of ministers for transport (Transport, Telecommunications and Energy TTE) on 7 and 8 February 2011.


Competitiveness Council

Our third informal meeting brings us into contact with the Competitiveness Council (internal market, industry, research and space). As usual, the related press releases on the Consilium website contain official Council conclusions.


Hungarian EU Council presidency

If we use the search functions on the Hungarian presidency page News and events, filtering down between 11 and 13 April 2011, as well as the Council formation Competitiveness (COMP), we find some interesting items.


Innovation (RDI)

The press release 'Ministerial debate on innovation reform' gives us an account of efforts to intensify European efforts in the areas of research, development and innovation (RDI), including the need to simplify the European research framework programme(s). The new member states in Central Europe lag far behind as recipients of EU research funding.

In the margin of the web page, we find a number of helpful links to additional resources, reminding us of the well structured and high quality web communications of the Swedish EU Council presidency in 2009.


Future Perfect

We find a solid introductory presentation of RDI policies in the European Union:

Future Perfect – Discussion Paper for the Informal Meeting of Ministers of Research (Competitiveness Council); Budapest – Gödöllö, Hungary, 12 April 2011 (45 pages)

Future Perfect contains four interesting chapters on the RDI challenges facing Europe:

1. Introduction
2. Research, development and innovation in the EU
3. New directions for EU research, development and innovation funding
4. The contribution and potential of Hungarian innovation

The aims of the discussion paper are presented like this:

The purpose of this document is to set out an agenda for discussion and to provide an overview of the most recent offi cial papers and draft reports concerning the fi elds of research, development and innovation in the EU. The four themes which have been identifi ed are:

• Unleashing Innovation
• Addressing the Grand Challenges
• Strengthening Europe’s Science Base
• Spreading Excellence

Future Perfect is highly recommended as an overview for everyone engaged in RDI issues in Europe.

***

We return to the informal EU meeting(s) of research and industry ministers in future blog entries.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The Spanish journalist Macarena Rodríguez writes one of the top Euroblogs: La Oreja de Europa. Follow her on Twitter as well @MacarenaRG.

Wednesday 27 April 2011

Sharing informal EU Council meetings (Employment)

Let us look at how informal meetings of the EU Council inform and enlighten citizens, choosing the first example offered this year by the Hungarian presidency and relevant to the competitiveness challenges important to us all. This leads us to the nourishing gathering of employment ministers, relevant in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (EU2020).


Background

Beyond the official Council conclusions reflected on the Consilium website, we noted the informal Council meetings arranged by the presidencies of the Council of the European Union.

The Hungarian presidency programme acted as a GPS navigation device (Wikipedia) offering a clear picture of the main roads and destinations regarding EU efforts to improve competitiveness.

Rereading the first priority of the Strategic framework of the presidency programme 'Growth, jobs and social inclusion' offered me a general roadmap. The following sections of the Operational programme gave more detail about the main challenges for the different Council configurations with regard to European competitiveness: 5. Transport, Telecommunications and Energy (TTE; from page 32), 6. Competitiveness (COMP; from page 37) and 7. Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO; from page 41).


HU news and events

If we want to follow the most recent activities, we can study the homepage of the Hungarian presidency, or we can move on to News and events, where we find press releases ordered chronologically, with the events of today on top.


HU presidency calendar

This time we are interested in information and materials regarding informal meetings of the three Council formations most directly concerned with competitiveness challenges (EU2020): TTE, COMP and EPSCO.

With these limitations, through the Hungarian presidency calendar January – June 2011 we find three relevant informal Council meetings and one just around the corner:

16-18 January EPSCO (employment)
7-8 February TTE (transport)
11-13 April COMP (research and development; industry)
2-3 May TTE (energy)

Nowadays, the formal Council meetings are arranged in Brussels or Luxembourg, but the informal meetings offer the rotating presidencies opportunities to act as hosts to ministers, officials and journalists, as well as to make the presidency visible to the home crowd.


Employment ministers

I decided to look for information based on the specific dates of the informal Council gatherings. There must be more to life than meetings, so the item to turn up on top 'Gala dinner at the Museum of Fine Arts', shared the culinary delights on 17 January 2011 with us EU citizens, in detail equal to an EU legislative act.

If you scroll deep enough, you find that the ministers and state secretaries for Employment were going to discuss in the framework of two workshops: youth employment, and employment friendly growth-recovery and more and better jobs.

We are able to share in on one related document: the Menu of the gala dinner.

After the event, we find the press release 'EU ministers discuss employment in Gödöllö', much less detailed than the culinary exposition.

The summary offered some generalities about the Europe 2020 goal of raising the employment level to 75 per cent, the Commission's flagship initiative Youth in Motion, contributions by the other members of the presidency trio, the use of the European Social Fund (ESF) and other structural funds to improve employment, as well as discussions with the social partners and non-governmental organisations.

The menu excepted, I found no illuminating documents, with a bearing on the workshops or employment issues generally, shared through the web pages of the informal meeting of employment ministers.

Those who remember the Hungarian media law wonder if this is balanced enough reporting.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Joe Litobarski has littered his basket with comments about blogging versus Facebook, opening and shutting down his new Facebook comment system within a few hours due to critical comments. Interesting questions for all and sundry.

Monday 25 April 2011

EU Council: Official and informal meetings (Competitiveness)

The official meetings of the Council of the European Union are the tip of the iceberg, although EU citizens in general are not well informed about how the Council works. Even less known among the wider public are the informal (unofficial) gatherings of ministers from the EU member states.


EU Council functions

According to Article 16(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.
Resembling both a second chamber of parliament and a government, the Council as a whole is an institution of the European Union.


Council configurations

Because of the unitary structure, a formal Council decision can be taken by any configuration.

However, the ministers of the EU member states meet officially in different Council configurations to exercise the functions of the Council, not unlike ministries or departments (or parliamentary committees) in the member states.

We have different Council configurations, such as the General Affairs Council (GAC) entrusted with preparation, coordination and follow-up of European Council meetings (summits), the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) dealing with all aspects of EU external action, the Economic and Financial Affaris Council (ECOFIN) coordinating economic policies and monitoring public finances, the Competitiveness Council (COMP) responsible for the internal market, industry, research and space, etc.

The press releases of the Competitiveness Council, available on the Council website, reflect the official functions.


Informal Council meetings

Even less known are the regularly occurring informal (unofficial) meetings of Council configurations, or parts of them. The informal meetings remain under the radar screen at Council level (Consilium).

If you want a fuller picture, you have to turn to the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union; Hungary during the first six months of 2011.


Competitiveness Council

As an example, in future blog posts I am going to look at Competitiveness through the prism of the web pages of the Hungarian EU Council presidency, especially with a view towards issues unreported at the Consilum website, but important to us Europeans in the context of the Europe 2020 growth strategy (EU2020) and the relaunch of the Single Market.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. Kosmopolito, the blog with a European perspective, could be updated more frequently, but it is always thought-provoking and interesting when it does. Don't miss @kosmopolit on Twitter.

Saturday 23 April 2011

Europe 2020: National Reform Programmes posted

Yesterday we noted that the Stability or Convergance programmes and National Reform Programmes 2011 from Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland had been posted on the web pages of DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) of the European Commission. In addition, there was the Stability programme of Slovenia.


EUROPE 2020

In this blog post we look for possible updates on the website of the Europe 2020 strategy. No updates are visible on the EU2020 front page.

You do not find them even under latest documents, but if you are inspired enough to search for member states' documents, you can find the first national programmes stashed away on the Europe 2020 website.

I do not know why the presentation has to be as discreet as this.

I do not understand why we find a slightly different set of documents on the EU2020 pages than the ones posted on the Ecfin pages.

Anyway, here are the six programmes you find if you look for member states' documents through the Europe 2020 pages right now.


Germany

The German National Reform Programme, in German:

Nationales Reformprogramm Deutschland 2011; Berlin 6. April 2011 (about 46 pages)


Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Convergence Programme and National Reform Programme, in Bulgarian:

(Bulgaria: Convergence Programme 2011-2014)

(Bulgaria: National Reform Programme 2011-2015)


Belgium

Belgium's National Reform Programme has been posted on the EU2020 website in French and in Dutch:

Programme national de réforme Belgique 2011; 15 avril 2011 (128 pages)

Nationaal Hervormingsprogramma België 2011; 15 april 2011 (121 pages)


Hungary

Both the Hungarian Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme have been posted on the Europe 2020 web pages, in English:

Convergence Programme of Hungary 2011 – 2015 Based on the Széll Kálmán plan; Budapest, April 2011

National Reform Programme of Hungary Based on the Széll Kálmán Plan; April 2011 (86 pages)


ECFIN

Nine programmes in all have been posted on the Ecfin website (DG Economic and Financial Affairs).

Let us just fill in the missing programmes and versions.


Belgium

The Stability Programme from Belgium is not yet available in English, but we have versions in the national languages, Dutch and French:

Het Stabiliteitsprogramma van België (2011-2014); version 14 April 2011

Le programme de stabilité de la Belgique; version 14 April 2011


Slovenia

The Stability Programme of Slovenia is available, in Slovenian:

Program stabilnosti Dopolnitev 2011; Ljubljana, april 2011


Finland

SP

The Stability Programme of Finland is available in English, Finnish and Swedish:

Stability programme update for Finland 2011

Suomen vakausohjelman tarkistus 2011

Uppdatering av Finlands stabilitetsprogram

NRP

The National Reform Programme (NRP) of Finland has been given another heading, with the English and Finnish versions posted on the Ecfin page:

Europe 2020 Strategy – Finland's National Programme Spring 2011

Eurooppa 2020 -strategia – Suomen kansallinen ohjelma, kevät 2011

We can find the missing Swedish version through the web pages of the Finnish Ministry of Finance, concluding a full set:

Europa 2020-strategin – Finlands nationella program, våren 2011


Missing links

Even after combining the EU2020 and Ecfin websites, we still have no programmes from 21 out of 27 EU member states, and only one programme each from two of the six countries posted on the websites of the European Commission. Only Hungary and Finland offer both programmes in English.

A few working days remain until the end of April, when the programmes are due at the latest.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Jon Worth, one of the best known and most widely read Eurobloggers, has returned with a number of interesting blog posts within a few days. Highly recommended.

Wednesday 20 April 2011

Finland: Eurozone shockwaves

The epicentre of the devastating 1755 Lisbon earthquake was much closer to Portugal than Helsinki, but how shattering are the shockwaves from Finland going to be? .

The pro-European PM-elect Jyrki Katainen is determined to shoulder responsibility in defence of the eurozone, but two out of the three likely main coalition partners are not.

Katainen will probably have to form a government with the Social Democrats who demurred on a Portuguese bailout in the election campaign and the True Finns who rode to a historic victory on outright rejection of everything which smacks of European integration.

Thus, participation by Finland in the eurozone bailout is no foregone conclusion. Finnish participation without changes is highly unlikely.

The unanimity requirement exposes how brittle eurozone structures are, indeed the state of European solidarity.

We mix media reports available in English with our own comments.


Election result

In the 17 April 2011 general election distributed the 200 seats of the Parliament of Finland, according to a proportional system of representation. The three political parties to come out on top:

National Coalition Party (European People's Party EPP) 44 (party leader Jyrki Katainen)
Social Democratic Party (Party of European Socialists PES) 42 (Jutta Urpilainen)
True Finns (EFD Group) 39 (Timo Soini)

The populist and nationalist True Finns sensationally added 34 MPs to their group of five.

Helsingin Sanomat depicted the astounding election victory of the True Finns, translated for the International Edition: Editorial: Timo Soini rewrote the electoral history books.

We note that the Centre Party (European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party ELDR) led by outgoing prime minister Mari Kiviniemi suffered heavy losses, bringing it down to 35 seats, as did the Green League (European Green Party EGP) led by Anni Sinnemäki, reducing the current government party to 10 parliamentarians. Both leaders have stated that they head for the opposition.


Consensus politics

On Left Foot Forward, Taneli Heikka discusses Finnish consensus politics in wider and more personal terms: What really happened in the Finnish elections.


New government

The will of the electorate and the mathematics leave few options for a majority government.

Reuters provides a schedule for the government negotiations: Factbox: How Finland's next coalition govt will be formed.

The biggest Finnish daily, Helsingin Sanomat, discusses the options in its International Edition: Government of three largest parties envisioned.

YLE (Finnish public broadcasting corporation) news in English: Urpilainen: SDP To Join Government Negotiations.

The SDP is going to participate in government negotiations, but they know that they are practically indispensable if the Centre Party and the Greens stay on the sidelines.

Under long time party chairman and prime minister Paavo Lipponen, the Social Democratic Party was a staunchly pro-EU party. Under the second leader since then, Jutta Urpilainen, it is hard to foretell the future of the SDP as a European party.


Eurozone

Few international pundits are interested in Finland as such, but the repercussions for the eurozone and the European Union have turned the Finnish election result into a notable event in European and financial capitals.

NCP leader Jyrki Katainen wants to prevent panic, but his party is not going to form a majority in the next government. The coalition agreement is going to be a tough nut to crack, without scuppering euro area unanimity for stability actions.

See, for instance:

Helsingin Sanomat International Edition: Finnish election has implications for euro crisis.

YLE (Finnish broadcasting corporation) news in English: Katainen Believes in Finnish Support for Portugal Bail-out Package.

Reuters: Finnish PM-elect seeks to soothe EU bailout fears.

***

If events in Finland can influence the fate of the eurozone and the EU, mismanagement in Ireland, Greece and Portugal has caused a political tsunami in Finland.

Interdependence is stronger than ever, however voters act.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. The Internet-Law blog, written by Thomas Stadler, is an active source of fact and opinion in German on IT and intellectual property law.

Monday 18 April 2011

Finis Finlandiae?

The anti-EU and anti-immigration True Finns made spectacular progress in the election to the Parliament of Finland, gaining 34 new seats. Just 0.1% behind the vote share of the Social Democrats, the True Finns have the third largest parliamentary group, with 39 seats (out of 200).

This is a sensational outcome in a country known for stability, consensus politics and small shifts.


True Finns – EFD

In the European Parliament, the True Finns are represented in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), together with the UK Independence Party, the Italian Lega Nord, the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally and others.

The election victory of the True Finns is a strong reaction by a large part of the public against the challenges of globalisation, the increasing need for internationalism and the requirements to show European solidarity.


Split country

The country is split. The other side of the coin is that for the first time ever, the pro-European National Coalition Party became the largest party in the Finnish Parliament.

Until the election campaign, the Social Democratic Party, which came in second, was known as a pro-European force in Finnish politics. Now its future role is in doubt.

Piecing together a government coalition may prove difficult for other reasons as well. Two of the current government parties suffered huge losses: the Centre Party of prime minister Mari Kiviniemi and the Green League led by Anni Sinnemäki. The fourth coalition partner, the Swedish People's Party, held its positions.

MEP and True Finns' chairman Timo Soini received the largest number of personal votes in the whole country (43,212). The dichotomy is illustrated by the fact that he was followed by two representatives of the pro-European National Coalition Party: foreign minister Alexander Stubb (41,766) and chairman and finance minister Jyrki Katainen (23,941).


Election results

These are the final results of the parliamentary elections in Finland:


National Coalition Party (EPP Group): 20.4%, 44 seats (-6)
Social Democratic Party (S&D): 19.1%, 42 seats (-3)
True Finns (EFD): 19.0%, 39 seats (+34)
Centre Party (ALDE): 15.8%, 35 seats (-16)
Left Alliance (GUE/NGL): 8.1%, 14 seats (-3)
Green League (Greens/EFA): 7.2%, 10 seats (-5)
Swedish People’s Party (ALDE): 4.3%, 9 seats (0)
Christian Democrats (EPP): 4.0%, 6 seats (-1)
Pirate Party: 0.4%
Others: 1.6%

Source: YLE.fi 'NCP Biggets Party, True Finns Make Huge Gains' and 'Tulospalvelu' (Results)

This morning the euro currency is weaker in Asian trading. Although not the end of Finland (”Finis Finlandiae”) or the EU, Sunday's vote made it harder to sort out the problems in the eurozone and to improve the European Union.



Ralf Grahn

Saturday 16 April 2011

EU publication update: Single Market Act in English, French and German

Yesterday morning, the final version of communication from the European Commission on the Single Market Act (SMA) COM(2011) 206 had not yet been posted in any language.

We can now bring the glass-half-full people some good news.


English

The final English version has now been posted on the EU's legal portal Eur-Lex, under preparatory documents. Search by year and number, if needed, but here is the link:

Single Market Act Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth”; Brussels, 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final (26 pages)


French

In the same manner, we now have the final French language version:

L'Acte pour le marché unique Douze leviers pour stimuler la croissance et renforcer la confiance "Ensemble pour une nouvelle croissance”; Bruxelles, le 13.4.2011 COM(2011) 206 final


German

We now have the communication in German, one of the three working languages of the Commission, and the version is designated as final:

Binnenmarktakte Zwölf Hebel zur Förderung von Wachstum und Vertrauen „Gemeinsam für neues Wachstum”; Brüssel, den 13.4.2011 KOM(2011) 206 endgültig


Glass-half-empty

Remembering the allegiance of sixteen EU member states to the motto 'United in diversity' (Lisbon Treaty declaration 52), it is fitting to offer something to the glass-half-empty crowd as well.

Although the three working languages of the Commission are now covered, we still have to wait for the communication COM(2011) 206 in twenty official EU languages, namely Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish and Swedish.


Commission Staff Working Paper

In many cases Commission Staff Working Papers (SWP) are much lengthier than the communications. They are targeted mainly at officials and stakeholder representatives at EU level and in the national capitals, as well as researchers, teachers and students.

While the communications (the official proposals and main findings) are usually translated into 23 or 22 languages, i.a. in order to enable the national administrations and parliaments to deal with them, the SWPs are usually published in only one to three languages, often only in English.

Thus, I only checked to see that no French or German version was available, at least right now, before establishing that the accompanying SEC(2011) 467 has now been posted in English on Eur-Lex. Exceptionally, I'll give you the full name:

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Overview of responses to the public consultation on the Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act’ Accompanying document to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Single Market Act Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth"; Brussels, 13.4.2011 SEC(2011) 467 final (32 pages)

***

In other words, we now have the SMA communication in English, French and German final versions, as well as the consultation summary SWP in English.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. On the Polscieu blog, Ronny Patz dissected the Brussels jungle in a sharp and entertaining post 'The Advanced User Polity or: Why the EU is like a primeval forest'. The blog platform Ideas on Europe is administered by UACES (the University Association for Contemporary European Studies). On Ideas on Europe you can find other interesting Euroblogs as well, written by academics, researchers and advanced students. (Why not start a blog there, if you fit the bill?)

Friday 15 April 2011

State of EUnion: Wide ownership of Europe 2020?

Can we hope for more ambitious economic policy reforms from the EU member states? How did the European Council and the European Parliament endorse Single Market reform? What did the Commission's Single Market Act (SMA) look like the morning after having been provisionally launched? How did the General Affairs Council (GAC) practice open and fair dealing in its follow-up of the meetings of the Europan Council meetings on 4 February, 11 March and 24-25 March 2011, including the questions we have followed: sustainable public finances, growth-enhancing reforms (Europe 2020) and the Single Market Act?

These blog posts tell us something about the real state of the union – the EU institutions and the member states – subject to later updates and improvements.


Updates and improvements?

This morning we were waiting for the first Stability Programme or Convergence Programme from a member state to appear on the web pages of the Commission's DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin).

This morning we were waiting for the first National Reform Programme (NRP) of an EU country to be posted on the Commission's website for the Europe 2020 growth strategy (or any new item under latest documents and reports).

This morning we were waiting for the the language versions after Italian on the Commission's website about the Single Market Act to be made accessible, as well as for updates of the visible ones : Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, German, Estonian, Greek, Spanish and Italian (notably the communication in the national language). The final versions of the communication in English and French have yet to appear. .

This morning we were waiting for the final version of the communication COM(2011) 206 to appear in any language on Eur-Lex under preparatory documents, as well as the accompanying SEC(2011) 467 (in English?).

This morning we were waiting for any new public documents (among the 200 latest ones) regarding economic policy implementation, the Europe 2020 strategy, the Single Market Act or a meaningful follow-up to the European Council meetings 2011 (concerning economic reform) to appear on the Council website.

***

If the European Council is serious about wide EU2020 ownership and economic policy cooperation engaging all stakeholders, improvements and updates are needed.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Dave Keating, and American journalist in Brussels, writes the Gulf Stream Blues blog, well worth following.

Thursday 14 April 2011

EU Single Market Act launched (provisionally)

Yesterday, we looked at the background, the endorsement from the European Council, the advance information from the Commission, as well as the NPthinking blog, EurActiv, the letter from nine European leaders and the recent resolutions by the European Parliament, in 'European Council: Single Market – time to act?'


Single Market priority projects

Later in the day, Commissioner Michel Barnier was in turn. The Commission launched the Single Market Act (SMA) by publishing a customary press release with the main points, available in 22 official EU languages: Twelve projects for the 2012 Single Market: together for new growth; Brussels, 13 April 2011, IP/11/469.

The European Commission promises concrete proposals in twelve priority areas:

1. Access to finance for SMEs
2. Worker mobility in the Single Market
3. Intellectual property rights
4. Consumers: Single Market players
5. Services: strengthening standardisation
6. Stronger European networks
7. Digital Single Market
8. Social entrepreneurship
9. Taxation
10. More social cohesion in the Single Market
11. Regulatory environment for business
12. Public procurement

Also in customary fashion, the Commission released a memo putting things into perspective: Single Market Act – Frequently Asked Questions; Brussels, 13 April 2011, MEMO/11/239. It is available in English only.

The memo answers seven hypothetical questions, with background and explanations:

1. What is the Single Market?
2. Why are you proposing a Single Market Act?
3. How will the Single Market Act meet these challenges and restore confidence?
4. What are the key proposals of the Single Market Act?
5. Is there a deadline for adopting these measures?
6. Why did you not include all 50 proposals put forward in the October 2010 Communication 'Towards a Single Market Act'
7. What are the next steps?

The memo contains useful links to documents from EU institutions and advisory bodies.


EU2020 website

The memo offers a link to the Europe 2020 website.

The Single Market Act and the Europe 2020 growth strategy are kindred spirits, but separate projects. Thus, the memo link to the EU2020 web pages does not turn up any updates or new documents. (By the way, there are still no National Reform Programmes or other documents from the EU member states posted on the Europe 2020 website.)


Single Market Act website

The 'pièce de résistance' is, of course, the communication from the European Commission.

The website dedicated to the Single Market Act has been updated with links to the press release and memo mentioned above, as well as the provisional communication from the Commission in English:

Single Market Act: Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence: "Working together to create new growth"; Brussels, ??, COM(2011) 206/4 (26 pages).

At this point, there is also a French provisional version of the communication:

L'Acte pour le marché unique : Douze leviers pour stimuler la croissance et renforcer la confiance : "Ensemble pour une nouvelle croissance ; Bruxelles, le ??, COM(2011) 206/4

After Italian, all the language versions of the Single Market Act website were hidden behind a posted video and thus inaccessible, but between Bulgarian and Italian some language versions of the web page had still not been updated at all.

There was no German version of the communication yet, although it is one of the three working languages of the Commission; neither did I find the communication in other languages.

The communication is accompanied by SEC(2011) 467.

COM(2011) 206 final and SEC(2011) 467 have not yet been posted on Eur-Lex, under preparatory documents, in any language, but let us hope for improvements within the next few days.



Ralf Grahn

P.S. Even if you do not understand Swedish, Europaportalen.se is worth a look. It is a national website dedicated to EU affairs, with news and interviews, thematic pages, debate and links to outside sources. Run by a surprisingly small team, Europaportalen.se is owned by the main trade unions and the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise. Could this model be applied elsewhere? See also @europaportalen on Twitter.

Tuesday 12 April 2011

European Council: More ambitious reforms from EU member states?

In a series of blog posts I corralled the latest entries published on my four blogs and in three languages: Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

The practices of the European Council and possible reform of this (now) official EU institution, as well as the conclusions of the spring summit regarding economic policy, sustainable public finances and growth-enhancing Europe 2020 reforms were discussed in the articles mentioned. This latest compilation, divided into five parts, covered blog posts published between 25 March and 9 April 2011: One, Two, Three, Four and Five.


Inspiration from spring European Council?

Guidance from the spring European Council was intended to inspire possible improvements in the final versions of the Stability Programme or Convergence Programme and in the National Reform Programme (NPR) of each member state.

However, the economic policy paragraphs (2 to 5) we have looked at in the conclusions were sketchy enough to add no new substance to earlier Integrated Guidelines, EU2020 headline targets, the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission, or conclusions from different Council configurations (summarised in the synthesis report by the Hungarian Council presidency):

European Council 24/25 March 2011; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)

If the paragraphs concerning the implementation of the European Semester contained no added value, they did not visbly detract from the goals, proposals and conclusions mentioned.

The European Council conclusions clearly endorsed public deficit reduction (paragraph 3) and they backed structural reforms in a number of wide areas (paragraph 4), plus they reiterated the next steps in accordance with European Semester procedures (paragraph 5).

In this respect, the conclusions by the spring European Council could be described as neutral.

Beside the EU level EU2020 Flagship initiatives and Single Market reform, the concrete actions to reduce public deficits and debt levels to tolerable levels and to reform product and labour markets are in the hands of the EU member states, and the previously agreed targets are general enough to offer as much room as national governments need (and much more than most of them are willing or able to contemplate).

In addition, higher levels of ambition are expressed elsewhere in the European Council conclusions.


Euro Plus Pact

Single Market reform, free trade agreements, the proposed ”six-pack” legislation on economic governance and (more rigorous) new stress tests of banks received complementary backing from the European Council.

The European Council also took a step towards establishing the new and permanent European Stability Mechanism (ESM), intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) in providing external financial assistance to euro-area Member States after June 2013. (See EUCO 10/11 Annex II.)

However, the higher reform ambitions we spoke about were expressed in the Euro Plus Pact, with Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania joining the 17 euro area states in order to enhance competitiveness and convergence. An annual cabal of heads of state or government is supposed to bring additional national commitments to the table. (See EUCO 10/11 Annex I.)

The goals are wide enough to house almost any economic reform plans and pledges:

§ Foster competitiveness
§ Foster employment
§ Contribute further to the sustainability of public finances
§ Reinforce financial stability

Concrete new reform commitments?

The first batch of more ambitious commitments is supposed to find its way into the national programmes due in April (EUCO 10/11 paragraph 12):

12. The Member States that have signed up to the Pact are committed, on the basis of the indicators and principles it contains, to announce a set of concrete actions to be achieved within the next twelve months. A number of Member States have already announced first commitments. All participating Member States will present their commitments as soon as possible and in any event on time for their inclusion in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes to be submitted in April and for their assessment at the June European Council.


I have seen no EU level compilation of first commitments already announced. At least the National Reform Programmes (NRPs), if not the Stability and Convergence Programmes, should start appearing on the Commission's web pages for the Europe 2020 strategy, but this morning the search for member states' documents still returns zilch.

The DG Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecfin) pages with the Stability and convergence programmes concern the 2009-2010 round (last update 6 October 2010), so we remain in waiting mode at EU level with regard to final versions 2011.

Naturally, for more energetic souls there is the opportunity to scout for the programmes government by government (and a few updates have appeared during the last days), but I leave systematic search along this avenue to the more ardent researchers.



Ralf Grahn


P.S. Eva en Europa, by Eva Peña (on Twitter @evaeuropa), is one of the top Euroblogs and a fine representative of the lively Spanish scene of citizen-bloggers dedicated to European affairs. She writes reasoned posts with a long shelf-life, mainly in Spanish, but has published occasionally in English and Catalan.

Monday 11 April 2011

European Council blogging: Part Five (11042011)

Previous round-ups of my blog entries were published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March, and Part Two, which took us from 27 to 29 March 2011.

Part Three linked to blog posts published from 30 March to 1 April, and Part Four presented entries posted between 2 and 5 April 2011.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

The articles in Part Five were posted between 6 and 9 April 2011.

By the way, this is the 1,999th post on Grahnlaw (in English).


Europe 2020 strategy

Part Five collects articles concerning the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The blog entries were published between 6 and 9 April 2011 and they try to inform readers about the Europe 2020 strategy (EU2020) in the European Council, but including activities by the European Commission, Council configurations (Ecofin and EPSCO) and the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council.

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Deficit reduction 2012: European Council on goals and means (6 April 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: European Council: Europe 2020 reforms (7 April 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Next steps towards Europe 2020 headline targets (8 April 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Europe 2020: Integrated Guidelines and later add-ons (9 April 2011)

The latest blog post have been the European Council round-ups here on Grahnlaw.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Eurozine is a network of Europe's cultural journals, linking more than 75 partner journals and as many assoiciated magazines and institutions from almost all European countries. This is one European online public space you should not miss.

European Council blogging: Part Four (11042011)

Previous round-ups of my blog entries were published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March, and Part Two, which took us from 27 to 29 March 2011.

Part Three corralled the blog posts published from 30 March to 1 April 2011.

My blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

Part Four brings together the European Council and economic reform aims in the EU. The blog entries were published between 2 and 5 April 2011.


Describing and reforming the European Council

The procedures of European Council, the European Semester, the summit priorities and guidelines (if any), the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), the contributions by the Ecofin Council and the EPSCO Council, the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council and thoughts about improving the governance, transparency and closeness of the European Council were discussed in a series of entries on Grahnlaw.

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities I (2 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities II (3 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities III (4 April 2011)

Grahnlaw: European Council: Economic policy reform priorities IV (5 April 2011)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The five-language family of the Euros du Village in French, Gli Euros in Italian, Die Euros in German, The Euros in English and Los Euros in Spanish is a real fountain of European news and opinion, a treasure trove for interested EU citizens and language students alike.

European Council blogging: Part Three (11042011)

Previous round-ups of my blog entries were published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March, and Part Two, which took us from 27 to 29 March 2011.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

Part Three consists of the headlines of blog posts published from 30 March to 1 April 2011.


Economic policy

What did the spring summit say and do about economic policy and economic governance? The blog post looked at a few online comments.

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Commenting on European Council: Economic policy (30 March 2011)


European Stability Mechanism

This round-up concerned the new and permanent fund to prevent and to redress disruptions in the euro area. Here we took a tour of European press comments regarding the new bailout fund, intended to bring stability to the eurozone.

Grahnlaw: European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in media (30 March 2011)


Finnish rhapsody

A few remarks with regard to the Finnish rhapsody: Most documents are referenced referenced exactly enough to be found in other languages, blog posts and other online comments by others are in the original language and there is always the fall-back option to use Google translation.

The first post in Finnish is a summary of the economic policy decisions of the European Council and an outline of the next steps. It was followed by a presentation of the European Semester, including the preceding proposals from the Commission.

Eurooppaoikeus (in Finnish): EU-maiden talouspolitiikka: Seuraavat vaiheet (31 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Finnish): EU:n talouspolitiikan eurooppalainen ohjausjakso (European Semester) (1 April 2011)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. European Union Law is a noteworthy blog about EU law by Vihar Georgiev, who also writes a mirror blog in Bulgarian. Real treasures in a field where few have the stamina to keep going.

Sunday 10 April 2011

European Council blogging: Part Two (10042011)

Previous round-up of my blog entries was published in Part One, with articles posted 25 and 26 March 2011.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).

Part Two takes us from 27 to 29 March 2011.


European Council practices and in Euroblogs

After the previous batch followed a Swedish rhapsody, although most documents referenced can be found in other languages, blog posts by others are in the original language and there is always the fall-back option to use Google translation.

Observations about the lack of transparency were followed by a peek at translation issues and the available materials, followed by three round-ups of Euroblog posts in different languages about the European Council issues with regard to economic policies.

Grahnblawg (in Swedish): Europeiska rådets slutsatser: Konsensus och ogenomskinlighet (27 March 2011)

Grahnblawg (in Swedish): Europeiska rådet: Status och slutsatser på 23 språk (27 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Swedish): Europeiska rådet om ekonomin i Europabloggar I (28 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Swedish): Europeiska rådet om ekonomin i Europabloggar II (28 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (in Swedish): Europeiska rådet om ekonomin i Europabloggar III (28 March 2011)


Euro Plus Pact

We looked at media reports and reactions to the 24 and 25 March 2011 European Council adoption of the Euro Plus Pact, which joins the 17 eurozone countries with Bulgaria, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania, leaving only the Czech Republic, Hungary, Sweden and the United Kingdom outside.

Grahnlaw: Euro Plus Pact in the media I (29 March 2011)

Grahnlaw: Euro Plus Pact in the media II (29 March 2011)



Ralf Grahn



P.S. The European Tribune offers both a daily review of international media and a community which discusses interesting topics concerning the EU, economics, finance etc. Lurk or join.

European Council blogging: Part One (10042011)

My latest collection of blog posts was presented on Grahnlaw (in English) a little more than two weeks ago: European Council blogging (24032011).

It is easier to find the relevant subject, if I offer myself and others an overview of the later blog entries on the economic policy theme at the spring European Council.

The blog posts appear on four blogs and in three languages: on Grahnlaw (EN), Grahnblawg (SV), Eurooppaoikeus (FI) and Grahnlaw Suomi Finland (EN, FI, SV).


Tripartite Social Summit

After an earlier introduction, a few blog entries presented the public statements of the participants in the Tripartite Social Summit, the social partners (employers, employees and EU institutions).

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit: Unions and PES (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Reform camp leaders ahead of Tripartite Social Summit and European Council (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit and European Council: EU views (25 March 2011)

Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: Tripartite Social Summit and European Council: Business views (25 March 2011)


Spring summit in a nutshell

After the spring European Council, I looked at the available links and materials, as well as the brief economic messages from the European leaders.

Grahnlaw: Spring European Council summary (26 March 2011)



Ralf Grahn




P.S. After an interesting ranking of top European media in French on Europe 27etc, ”Jamel de L'or” returned with a useful top ten of the European affairs media to follow in English (plus ten others, although the wrong link was offered for Grahnlaw).

Tuesday 5 April 2011

European Council: Economic policy reform priorities IV

We continue looking at the governance and practices of the most important official institution of the EU, the European Council, with regard to fiscal consolidation and structural reform.

Having studied the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission in Part One, and EU 2020 macroeconomic and fiscal guidance offered by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) in Part Two, we turned to the contributions by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) in Part Three, which dealt with employment, poverty and social exclusion.

It was possible to arrive this far in deciphering which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform the European Council broadly endorsed (”In line with”), because someone was graceful enough to insert footnote 1 to paragraph 2, clumsily acknowledging the submerged parts of the iceberg:

In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.

Source:

European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)


Hungarian synthesis report

The European Council did not exactly adopt (”See also”) the synthesis report from the Hungarian presidency of the EU Council, but it is well worth a closer look. Here the Hungarian presidency made a helpful contribution, by offering an overview and by including contributions from other Council configurations besides Ecofin and EPSCO.

There is, however, some ambiguity regarding the right version of the synthesis report and the differences between the various versions. The European Council footnote refers to a document dated 16 March, but if we search more diligently we find both a first revision, dated 16 March, and a second revised version, dated 18 March 2011.

The most obvious difference is that the two later papers are six pages shorter, but no explicit explanation is given in the introductory paragraph on the cover page:

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/11; 21 pages)

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 16 March 2011 (document 7745/1/11 REV 1; 15 pages)

Implementation of the European Semester - Synthesis report; Brussels, 18 March 2011 (document 7745/2/11 REV 2; 15 pages)

The shorter versions speak about an annexed Commission report about meetings with member states concerning their national reform programmes (NPR), but they fail to include the annex. The interesting Commission summary of discussions is found only in the original version.


Contents

As a rough indication of the contents of the synthesis report, I quote the introductory paragraph on the cover sheet (here from the original version, 7745/11):

Delegations will find attached the synthesis report prepared by the Presidency, summarising the discussions and the main political messages of the different Council formations in relation to the Annual Growth Survey, in the framework of the European Semester. The report together with the ECOFIN and EPSCO Council conclusions, will be submitted to the Spring European Council on 24/25 March 2011, which is expected to give guidance to the Member States for the finalisation of their Stability and Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes in April. This report is accompanied by a Commission report (see Annex) on the bilateral discussions with Member States carried out during February and March. The Hungarian Presidency’s aim is to close the first European Semester by the time of the European Council in June 2011.

The synthesis report is a clear exposition of the framework: the Integrated guidelines the EU and the member states are committed to, as well as the stages within the new planning cycle called the European Semester.

In addition to the Ecofin and EPSCO Council contributions (acknowledged by the European Council), the synthesis report summarised the contributions by the Competitiveness Council, the Education Council, the TTE Council (Energy) and the Environment Council, constantly reminding the readers of the commonly agreed Europe 2020 (EU2020) and other goals.

The report noted the difficulties in reaching the ambitious goals, mentioned the next steps and expected the spring European Council to give strategic guidance on policies. Each member state would take this guidance into account in its final Stability or Convergence Programme and National Reform Programme (NRP).

Although quite general in tone, the annexed Commission report highlighted questions of interest to the central administrations in the EU member states, including consistency between different processes and programmes, as well as to all ”stakeholders” (regions, local administrations, social partners) engaged in planning and implementing reform programmes.

Good work by the Hungarian presidency!


Submitted documents

Do we find the Hungarian synthesis report among the documents submitted to the European Council?

Nope. Only the annotated draft agenda and the provisional agenda are acknowledged, despite the multitude of submissions we have observed along our route.


Improving the European Council

Which priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform did the European Council endorse?

Without the fortunate use of a footnote, we would have been totally lost. We now know that the European Council is more or less in agreement with the conclusions of two Council meetings (”In line with”). It acknowledged the synthesis report from the Hungarian Council presidency as useful information, because it was worth mentioning.

Based on paragraph 2 and footnote 1 of the European Council conclusions, we have been able to unearth the relevant documents on our excavation tour extending to four blog posts.

***

What if the European Council became interested in good governance, better communication, openess and closeness to the citizen?

In my humble opinion, this would require a transparent chain of proposals and decisions.

Instead of continuing to hide non-public (Coreper, Van Rompuy) draft conclusions behind meaningless phrases, the General Affairs Council (GAC) could become an important coordinator and a promoter of improved public discussion ahead of European Council meetings, by tabling concrete proposals, based on Council conclusions.

To these, the European Council would reply seriously, at this stage without becoming a legislative body.

The GAC could also follow up the implementation of European Council decisions in an open manner, through public reports and transparent decisions.

Now the GAC potential is wasted by its self-effacing role, and the public is deprived of the opportunity for a better informed discussion about real issues, before and after European Council meetings.

Positive practices are possible: We saw that the EPSCO Council conclusions linked and gave references to documents in their final form, and they also acknowledged the authors. The Hungarian synthesis report is also worth notice. Kudos!

***

This still leaves us with a few problems relating to the current form of government through European Council conclusions.

Many documents of varying kinds are submitted to the European Council. It cannot pronounce on every paragraph or suggestion in the present format.

On the other hand, if the European Council wants to be known as a Delphic Oracle hovering above mere mortals, by replying to large and complex questions by a few paragraphs, the conclusions easily turn into meaningless commonplaces, serving few needs of guidance or enlightenment.

***

Having studied the submitted texts, how much wiser do we become, if we turn to what the economic spring summit of the European Council itself said about economic policy reform in its conclusions?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. On the bilingual (French and English) EU Weekly blog, the nuclear physicist and citizen blogger Greg Henning follows the euro currency and political events in France and the European Union. Recommended reading.

Monday 4 April 2011

European Council: Economic policy reform priorities III

Having looked at the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission in Part One and EU 2020 macroeconomic and fiscal guidance offered by the Ecofin Council in Part Two, we turn to another submerged part of the iceberg, awkwardly acknowledged by the Europan Council, in footnote 1 to paragraph 2:

In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.

Source:

European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)


EPSCO Council 7 March 2011

EPSO Council, I presume? (Cf Sir Henry Morton Stanley)

Only the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) seems to have convened on 7 March 2011.

Having identified the Council configuration, we head for its conclusions, by now available in 22 official EU languages; here English:

3073rd Council meeting Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (Employment and Social Policy); Brussels, 7 March 2011 (Council document 7360/11)

See also Grahnlaw: EU Council (EPSCO): EU2020 and March European Council.

Although the EPSCO Council discussed European Council issues under several subheadings in the conclusions and in a number of separate documents, mentioned on the pages from 7 to 12, the first paragraph on page 7 gives us a rough indication of the meeting:

The Council held a policy debate on issues relevant to the annual growth survey (AGS) and to the European Semester, namely the joint employment report (JER) and guidelines for the employment policies of the member states, and on items linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, i.e. the "European platform against poverty and social exclusion" and the main messages of the report on the social dimension of the strategy. The results of this debate and the joint employment report are to be submitted to the European Council of 24/25 March as part of EPSCO's Council contribution.


Joint Employment Report

The Council adopted the Joint Employment Report (JER), required annually by the Treaty:

Joint Employment Report; Brussels, 8 March 2011 (as adopted by the Council (EPSCO) at its session on 7 March 2011) (Council document 7396/11; 26 pages)

See also Grahnlaw: EU Joint Employment Report (JER) heading for spring summit.


Employment policy guidance

Praiseworthy, as in the case of the JER, the link in the EPSCO general conclusions now leads to the final version of the document, as adopted by EPSCO on 7 March 2011:

The Joint Employment Report in the context of the Annual Growth Survey 2011: political guidance on employment policies - Council Conclusions; Brussels, 8 March 2011 (Council document 7397/11; 7 pages)

Worryingly, already the first evaluation of the Europe 2020 strategy indicated that the draft National Reform Programmes (NPR) collectively fell short of the EU2020 targets for a 75 per cent employment rate as well as for lifting 20 million people out of the risk of poverty and exclusion by 2020.


Employment guidelines

The employment guidelines for 2011, to be formally adopted soon after the European Council, will be substantially the same as in 2010. Actually they said in the 2010 guidelines that they wanted minimal changes until the end of 2014:

Proposal for a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States - General approach; Brussels, 2 March 2011 (Council document 6192/2/11 REV 2)

Interinstitutional File: 2011/0007 (CNS)

See also Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU employment policy guidelines 2011: How annual can you get? (includes link to the existing guidelines, Council decision 2010/707/EU)


Platform against poverty and social exclusion


The EPSCO Council adopted conclusions on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion (7434/1/11), establishing its position on the key elements of the Commission flagship initiative. Again we find that the offered link leads to the final version of the document, as adopted by the EPSCO Council on 7 March 2011:

The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: a European framework for social and territorial cohesion - Council Conclusions; Brussels, 9 March 2011 (Council document 7434/1/11 REV 1; 8 pages)

In addition, the EPSCO Council endorsed the opinion of the Social Protection Committee (SPC):

Contribution to the European Council (24-25 March 2011): - The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion Flagship Initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy = Opinion of the Social Protection Committee; Brussels, 15 February 2011 (Council document 6491/11; 5 pages)


Social dimension of EU2020

The EPSCO Council also endorsed the main messages of the report about the social dimension of the Europe 2020 strategy, drafted by the SPC:

Contribution to the European Council (24-25 March 2011): - Assessment of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy: 2011 report of the Social Protection Committee = Main messages of the report; Brussels, 18 February 2011 (Council document 6624/11; 4 pages)

The full report from which these main messages are drawn is:

SPC Assessment of the social dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy (2011) - Full report; Brussels, 18 February 2011 (Council document 6624/11 ADD 1; 50 pages)


Comments

The European Council fails to make clear choices based on public proposals, leaves submitted documents without acknowledgement, avoids linking to relevant conclusions and documents, and does not even identify the important documents clearly. Low points for user-friendliness, as well as communication skills and motivation to engage citizens.

Three blog posts down, but we do not know for sure what the official EU institution called the European Council endorses and – more importantly – where it omits its support.

Management by osmosis?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Advance voting starts in two days and polling day is only two weeks away, but well governed, competitive and fairly social Finland looks different. Suddenly, one out of five Finns want to make a mental return trip to the 1950's by voting for the True Finns. Helsingin Sanomat International tries to explain.

Sunday 3 April 2011

European Council: Economic policy reform priorities II

The European Council referred ”further” to the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) from the Commission – in a footnote – when it endorsed ”the” (which?) priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform, as we saw in Part One.

If, for the European Council, the work of the Commission was the base of the iceberg somewhere deep down, the submerged Council configurations in the same footnote were placed only marginally higher, in footnote 1 to paragraph 2:

In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.

Source:

European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)


Ecofin 15 February 2011

Naturally, the European Council did not link to the relevant Council conclusions or documents, neither did it identify the documents in an exact manner.

However, if we search among Council meetings, only the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) seems to have convened on 15 February 2011.

Having identified the Council configuration, we need to retrieve the Ecofin conclusions in order to find out what the European Council aligned itself with (at least broadly):

3067th Council meeting Economic and Financial Affairs; Brussels, 15 February 2011 (Council document 6514/11)

On page 12, Ecofin dealt with preparation of the March European Council. Under the sub-heading 'EU 2020 strategy: Macroeconomic and fiscal guidance to the member states' we are able to read that the Council adopted conclusions to be found in a further document, 5991/11 [link in original, but did not work in my browser], and that Ecofin agreed to submit them to the European Council with a view to its meeting on 24 and 25 March.

Having verified Ecofin adoption, we can get acquainted with the substance in:

EU 2020: Macroeconomic and fiscal guidance – Draft Council Conclusions; Brussels, 7 February 2011 (Council document 5991/11; 7 pages)

Ecofin welcomes the Annual Growth Survey, treats the issues in the context of the European semester, and it refers to the Integrated Guidelines. The Council calls for ambitious country-specific recommendations from the Commission and ambitious measures by the EU member states.

Both the Commission's AGS and Ecofin's conclusions are written in a businesslike enough manner to be almost apolitical, but they are separate documents, difficult to compare, since no paper trail is created, no explicit choices made.

Likewise upwards in the hierarchy, the European Council creates its own ”masterpiece”, only vaguely acknowledging some sources of inspiration.

The discontinuity between the Council and the European Council, again, leaves readers wondering what the EU actually is committed to.

Is this good governance, openness, closeness to the citizen?



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Presseurop contributes to a European online public space, by offering a daily selection of quality press articles in ten languages to interested readers. Add to your reader, sign up to Presseurop's daily newletter or bookmark your language version.

Saturday 2 April 2011

European Council: Economic policy reform priorities I

What impetus, political directions and priorities did the spring European Council provide the EU and the member states with regard to economic policy?

The European Council speaks through its conclusions:

European Council 24/25 March 2011 Conclusions; Brussels, 25 March 2011 (EUCO 10/11; 34 pages)


Procedure

The European Council adheres to the improved policy planning cycle put into practice since the beginning of 2011 and known as the European semester. Each EU member state is going to present the final version of two programmes (by the end of April):

a) each euro area member a Stability Programme, and for a state which still has not adopted the euro currency a Convergence Programme, in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP);

b) a National Reform Programme (NPR) as a means towards the Europe 2020 strategy aims of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

The European Commission will then have a further chance to issue opinions and recommendations aimed at individual member states (end of May or beginning of June).

Different Council configurations can be expected to contribute with their grain of wisdom, before the June 2011 European Council concludes the first integrated planning cycle, laying the foundation for the ultimate success or failure of the policies for sustainable public finances and the EU2020 decade of growth reforms in the European Union.

The next steps are schematically outlined in paragraph 2 of the European Council conclusions:

2. Within the new framework of the European semester, the European Council endorsed the priorities for fiscal consolidation and structural reform (1). It underscored the need to give priority to restoring sound budgets and fiscal sustainability, reducing unemployment through labour market reforms and making new efforts to enhance growth. All Member States will translate these priorities into concrete measures to be included in their Stability or Convergence Programmes and National Reform Programmes. On this basis, the Commission will present its proposals for country-specific opinions and recommendations in good time for their adoption before the June European Council.

European semester

The clearest exposition of the European semester is probably the Commission memo (with links to relevant proposals):

European semester: a new architecture for the new EU Economic governance – Q&A; Brussels, 12 January 2011 (MEMO/11/14)

See also Grahnlaw Suomi Finland: EU EPSCO Council: Recalling the European semester.

In Finnish, for instance 'EU:n talouspolitiikan eurooppalainen ohjausjakso (European Semester)' or in Swedish 'Katekes och mässbok för EU-toppmötet'.


”The priorities”

Even if later paragraphs add some text, without the footnote (1) in paragraph 2 of the European Council conclusions we would have been even more ignorant with regard to what ”the priorities” for fiscal consolidation and structural reform are:

In line with the Council's conclusions of 15 February and 7 March 2011 and further to the Commission's Annual Growth Survey. See also the Presidency's synthesis report of 16 March 2011.

Without this footnote, readers would have been totally lost. However, the European Council seems to care little about offering readers convenient guidance through links to relevant documents or even exact references. ”In line with” is sibylline enough, but we are invited to embark on a search for four different documents.

Adding to opacity and poor governance, the European Council generally does not acknowledge even the documents specifically submitted to it by different Council configurations.


Annual Growth Survey (AGS)

Even if the European Council refers to the first Annual Growth Survey (AGS) in an off-hand manner, this is the logical place to start. This communication from the Commission is the synthesis or catechism of needed macro-economic and growth-enhancing reforms:

Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU's comprehensive response to the crisis; Brussels, 12.1.2010 COM(2011) 11 final (10 pages, plus three annexed reports)

Back in January, the reports annexed to the Annual Growth Survey were:

Annex 1: Progress report on Europe 2020 (16 pages)

Annex 2: Macro-economic report (23 pages)

Annex 3: Draft Joint Employment Report (13 pages)

The draft JER has since then become the Joint Employment Report, as adopted by the Council EPSCO) 7 March 2011.

See also Grahnlaw: EU EPSCO and Competitiveness Council: Annual Growth Survey is cornerstone.


The foundation

As we have seen, the off-hand remark by the European Council regarding the Annual Growth Survey from the Commission actually leads us to four documents (62 pages in all), instead of one.

Thanks to the proactive stance of the Commission, in the AGS we have a foundation on which later Council and European Council conclusions are built.

Part II is going to look at the Council documents the European Council referred to.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. What happens in Europe? With updates from media on European affairs and from 28 countries – more than 1000 newspapers - you can find out directly in a few instances through EUfeeds. Bookmark this great service from the European Journalism Centre.