On Twitter #ACTA reflects - in almost real time - news and opinion about the anti-counterfeiting (and much more) trade agreement. Even if some of the exhortations and slogans are over the top, there are reality based news items and knowledge based critical analyses among the tweets.
Access.org
The ACTA Action Center of Access offers a variety of information, such as a petition to sign, arguments against the treaty and videos from the demonstrations. You can follow @accessnow on Twitter.
Naturally, you have to be as critical when you read claims from campaigners, as when you encounter arguments put forward by the EU Commission and the governments of the member states of the European Union.
Stopacta.info
Stopacta.info and @StopActaNow offer you both campaign material and links to critical studies about the anti-piracy treaty. The latest tweets linked to the anti-ACTA action day demonstrations.
Stopp ACTA!
Stopp ACTA! offers information about the action day demonstrations 11 February 2012 and @Stopp_ACTA tweets in both German and English, including a link to photos and videos from the events.
La Quadrature, EDRi, 10comm and EFF
For those who want to look deeper at the issues, there are a few networks or organisations with detailed analyses and arguments on offer. You find their web pages, with more information, through their Twitter accounts.
Both in English and in French: @laquadrature. In English: @EDRi_org and @10comm as well as the American @EFF.
Avaaz petition - 2.2 million signatures!
The Avaaz petition for the European Parliament (and the national parliaments) to reject ACTA keeps rolling. It has passed the two million mark and a few moments ago 2,200,370 citizens had already signed the global appeal.
Political anti-ACTA parties
The Greens in the European Parliament have worked tirelessly for Internet and digital rights and copyright themes.
The Green group includes two Swedish Pirate Party MEPs. After the birth in Sweden, the Pirate Party movement has spread to most of the developed countries, with the Pirate Parties International (PPI) (website) as the umbrella organisation.
The oldest sister in the family, @piratpartiet tweets in Swedish. The web page Piratpartiet live aggregates blog entries from activists and on the web in both Swedish and English.
As we saw earlier, the Party of European Socialists (PES) and the second largest EP political group, the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), practically sent ACTA to the scrapheap of history with regard to the European Union and its member states.
We can follow @PES_PSE and @TheProgressives on Twitter for further developments. It remains to be seen if the national social democratic, socialist and labour parties, as well as their youth organisations, join the the European level political group and party in derailing ACTA.
After the massive protests, there is cause for the remaining political ACTA proponents to think how profoundly the want to stay out of touch with netizens in general and the young generations in particular.
Ralf Grahn
speaker on EU digital policy and law
P.S. For better or for worse, between the global issues and the national level, the European Union shapes our digital future and online freedoms. More than 900 euroblogs are aggregated by multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. Is your blog already listed among them? Are you following the debates which matter for your future?
Showing posts with label Greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greens. Show all posts
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Friday, 25 November 2011
PES candidate for EU Commission president through ”consultation”
The Party of European Socialists (PES) has taken a step forward with regard to the next elections to the European Parliament, by adopting a resolution on the selection of the PES candidate for president of the European Commission:
PES Resolution: Selecting our common candidate in 2014; Adopted by the PES Council on 24 November 2011
The procedure set out from the second page of the resolution is described as open and transparent, and the process is divided into nomination, verification and decision-making.
The PES member parties can consult their members either directly or indirectly, which means that regular primaries won't necessarily be arranged in every country.
Comments
The PES actually fields a candidate for the Commission top job in 2014 and the selection process becomes more open.
The woolly consultation alternatives hardly promise the propaganda victory the Campaign for a PES Primary was aiming for. In the end, much will depend on the national parties.
Even if the PES advances somewhat cautiously, it is enough to challenge the other constructive Europarties: the European People's Party EPP, the European Liberal and Reform Party ELDR and the European Green Party. How are they going to respond?
Ralf Grahn
PES Resolution: Selecting our common candidate in 2014; Adopted by the PES Council on 24 November 2011
The procedure set out from the second page of the resolution is described as open and transparent, and the process is divided into nomination, verification and decision-making.
The PES member parties can consult their members either directly or indirectly, which means that regular primaries won't necessarily be arranged in every country.
Comments
The PES actually fields a candidate for the Commission top job in 2014 and the selection process becomes more open.
The woolly consultation alternatives hardly promise the propaganda victory the Campaign for a PES Primary was aiming for. In the end, much will depend on the national parties.
Even if the PES advances somewhat cautiously, it is enough to challenge the other constructive Europarties: the European People's Party EPP, the European Liberal and Reform Party ELDR and the European Green Party. How are they going to respond?
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Greens challenge ACTA legality
The European Commission has made two connected ACTA proposals:
Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final
Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final
The Council needs the consent of the European Parliament before the conclusion of the the agreement. See Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU. You can follow the procedure on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the EP, under the reference 2011/0167 (NLE).
Commission asserts
The European Commission knows that the less than open negotiating process leading to ACTA increased mistrust in many quarters. Some of the issues and proposals discussed during the negotiations have been criticised on Constitutional and civil rights grounds, as well as for being slanted in favour of big business interests – holders of intellectual property rights (IPR) - against the wider public (citizens, consumers, other users).
In the superficial and brief explanatory memorandum, which seems to be identical in the signing and the conslusion proposals, the Commission tries to sell the benefits of stricter IPR enforcement in international trade. It also makes assertions intended to eliminate obstacles, calm doubts and to promote the smooth passage of the proposal. Here a few picks:
Fundamental Rights
The Green group in the European Parliament has constantly scrutinised supposedly illiberal proposals from the Commission or member states in relation to the digital environment and the Internet.
This time the Greens/EFA have commissioned a legal study of the compatibility of ACTA with civil rights. The press release offers the conclusions in a nutshell: New study underlines rights concerns with ACTA, strengthens calls for deal to be scrapped.
Yesterday, the Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said that the ACTA agreement violates binding fundamental rights, and that the EU and its member states have a duty to scrap the ACTA agreement as it stands.
Those who are interested in the individual arguments, can read the full study, or at least the Summary and Conclusions (page 58-61):
Douwe Korff & Ian Brown: OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with the European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The experts conclude:
***
The assertions by the European Commission are not enough. The European Parliament and national parliaments need to look closely at the legal implications of ACTA, however keen they might be to promote the interests of IPR holders in international trade and the internal market.
Ralf Grahn
Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 379 final
Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America; Brussels, 24.6.2011 COM(2011) 380 final
The Council needs the consent of the European Parliament before the conclusion of the the agreement. See Article 218(6)(a)(v) TFEU. You can follow the procedure on Oeil, the Legislative Observatory of the EP, under the reference 2011/0167 (NLE).
Commission asserts
The European Commission knows that the less than open negotiating process leading to ACTA increased mistrust in many quarters. Some of the issues and proposals discussed during the negotiations have been criticised on Constitutional and civil rights grounds, as well as for being slanted in favour of big business interests – holders of intellectual property rights (IPR) - against the wider public (citizens, consumers, other users).
In the superficial and brief explanatory memorandum, which seems to be identical in the signing and the conslusion proposals, the Commission tries to sell the benefits of stricter IPR enforcement in international trade. It also makes assertions intended to eliminate obstacles, calm doubts and to promote the smooth passage of the proposal. Here a few picks:
* ACTA does not modify the EU acquis, because EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards
* ACTA is a balanced agreement, because it fully respects the rights of citizens and the concerns of important stakeholders such as consumers, internet providers and partners in developing countries
* It has never been the intention, as regards the negotiation of ACTA to modify the EU acquis or to harmonise EU legislation as regards criminal enforcement of intellectual property rights
Fundamental Rights
The Green group in the European Parliament has constantly scrutinised supposedly illiberal proposals from the Commission or member states in relation to the digital environment and the Internet.
This time the Greens/EFA have commissioned a legal study of the compatibility of ACTA with civil rights. The press release offers the conclusions in a nutshell: New study underlines rights concerns with ACTA, strengthens calls for deal to be scrapped.
Yesterday, the Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht said that the ACTA agreement violates binding fundamental rights, and that the EU and its member states have a duty to scrap the ACTA agreement as it stands.
Those who are interested in the individual arguments, can read the full study, or at least the Summary and Conclusions (page 58-61):
Douwe Korff & Ian Brown: OPINION on the compatibility of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) with the European Convention on Human Rights & the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights
The experts conclude:
Our analysis shows that ACTA, as currently drafted, seriously threatens fundamental rights in the EU and in other countries, at various levels.
***
The assertions by the European Commission are not enough. The European Parliament and national parliaments need to look closely at the legal implications of ACTA, however keen they might be to promote the interests of IPR holders in international trade and the internal market.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 11 June 2009
European Parliament: Two mainstream majorities
The overall results of the European Parliament election results shifted only marginally yesterday, with the recount awarding one MEP to the Greens at the expense of the PES (provisional results 10 June 2009 12:20 CEST).
The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).
The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.
Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.
Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).
Indispensable EPP
In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.
Grand coalition
The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.
This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.
Non-socialist coalition
It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).
The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).
The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.
But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.
Jokers in the pack?
The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.
Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.
Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.
We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.
Ralf Grahn
The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).
The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.
Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.
Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).
Indispensable EPP
In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.
Grand coalition
The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.
This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.
Non-socialist coalition
It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).
The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).
The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.
But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.
Jokers in the pack?
The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.
Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.
Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.
We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 4 June 2009
European elections: Four constructive choices
Most of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) we vote into office in the European elections 4 to 7 June 2009 are going to work in and with the political groups, which form the backbone of EP work.
Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.
The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.
The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).
In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).
Here are the four responsible political groups:
EPP
The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.
One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.
PES
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.
In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).
ALDE
Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.
For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).
The Greens/European Free Alliance
The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.
In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.
***
You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?
Ralf Grahn
Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.
The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.
The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).
In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).
Here are the four responsible political groups:
EPP
The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.
One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.
PES
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.
In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).
ALDE
Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.
For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).
The Greens/European Free Alliance
The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.
In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.
***
You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?
Ralf Grahn
European elections in Britain: In or out?
The European elections today in Britain mark the break-up of the Conservative Partys’s civil union with the European mainstream right and moving in with the right-far right in the European Parliament. The European elections will be an indication of the UK’s future position in Europe.
David Cameron wants to put European integration in reverse gear, but keep the United Kingdom inside the EU. Blocking the Lisbon Treaty and repatriating powers, using Britain’s veto on the EU’s next long term budget, are telling signs of a trajectory towards the fringes.
Social Europe Journal
In the Social Europe Journal, Henning Meyer takes a more principled stand. He sees that the ambiguity of the UK’s attitude towards European integration can only be resolved by a referendum on the membership question: “The Union is far from perfect but becoming better and it is the best hope for Europe to play a leading role in the politics of the 21st century. Britain should decide whether to stay in warts-and-all or leave.”
Britain’s Future in the European Union – Stay in warts-and-all of Leave (3 June 2009) is worth reading before the ballots are cast.
***
Federal Union
Richard Laming on the Federal Union blog has posted: Conservative policy on Europe becomes clearer (3 June 2009).
Laming does not see that a new intergovernmental conference under a veto threat concerning the long term budget would succeed or make Britain more influential.
***
Holding Europe hostage
If the latest UK governments have been fairly unconstructive, the probable future government party has chosen a style even more abrasive and confrontational. This calls for an assessment of their threats.
The advantages of the European Union, including the internal market, are naturally much wider than the “membership fees”, but anti-Europeans are usually obsessed by them.
In addition, it makes sense to evaluate the stranglehold the British contribution has on the European Union financially.
Nosemonkey’s EUtopia referred to the HM Treasury Report: European Community Finances Statement on the 2008 EC Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement (Cm 7462, September 2008), which showed the following net contributions of the United Kingdom (£ billion):
(2006) 3.9
(2007) 4.6
(2008) 3.6 (estimated)
The UK net contribution is roughly £4 billion annually, which translates into something like €4.6 billion.
Switzerland and the non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, with access to the internal market, contribute to the EU budget.
***
Voters in the European elections in Britain send a signal on their country’s future relations with Europe. A vote for one of the parties in or near the European mainstream – the Liberal Democrats, the Greens or Labour – is a voice for some sort of constructive engagement.
Ralf Grahn
David Cameron wants to put European integration in reverse gear, but keep the United Kingdom inside the EU. Blocking the Lisbon Treaty and repatriating powers, using Britain’s veto on the EU’s next long term budget, are telling signs of a trajectory towards the fringes.
Social Europe Journal
In the Social Europe Journal, Henning Meyer takes a more principled stand. He sees that the ambiguity of the UK’s attitude towards European integration can only be resolved by a referendum on the membership question: “The Union is far from perfect but becoming better and it is the best hope for Europe to play a leading role in the politics of the 21st century. Britain should decide whether to stay in warts-and-all or leave.”
Britain’s Future in the European Union – Stay in warts-and-all of Leave (3 June 2009) is worth reading before the ballots are cast.
***
Federal Union
Richard Laming on the Federal Union blog has posted: Conservative policy on Europe becomes clearer (3 June 2009).
Laming does not see that a new intergovernmental conference under a veto threat concerning the long term budget would succeed or make Britain more influential.
***
Holding Europe hostage
If the latest UK governments have been fairly unconstructive, the probable future government party has chosen a style even more abrasive and confrontational. This calls for an assessment of their threats.
The advantages of the European Union, including the internal market, are naturally much wider than the “membership fees”, but anti-Europeans are usually obsessed by them.
In addition, it makes sense to evaluate the stranglehold the British contribution has on the European Union financially.
Nosemonkey’s EUtopia referred to the HM Treasury Report: European Community Finances Statement on the 2008 EC Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement (Cm 7462, September 2008), which showed the following net contributions of the United Kingdom (£ billion):
(2006) 3.9
(2007) 4.6
(2008) 3.6 (estimated)
The UK net contribution is roughly £4 billion annually, which translates into something like €4.6 billion.
Switzerland and the non-EU members of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, with access to the internal market, contribute to the EU budget.
***
Voters in the European elections in Britain send a signal on their country’s future relations with Europe. A vote for one of the parties in or near the European mainstream – the Liberal Democrats, the Greens or Labour – is a voice for some sort of constructive engagement.
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 1 June 2009
European elections: Voting for Europe
Plan A
When the heads of state or government signed the Treaty of Lisbon, they promised to take into account the elections to the European Parliament and to hold appropriate consultations before proposing a candidate for President of the Commission (Article 17(7) TEU).
Thinking that they were honourable ladies and gentlemen, I decided to vote for the (Euro)party launching the best candidate to head the Commission.
Long before most EU citizens were even aware of the upcoming European Parliament elections, a bunch of these heads of state or government (and national party leaders) had backed a new term for José Manuel Barroso and reduced their European level parties to impotence.
Actions speak louder than words, and our political leaders showed their disregard for one of the few concessions the Lisbon Treaty offered directly to the citizens of the European Union, and consequently for European level democracy.
In the end, only the European People’s Party (EPP) dutifully endorsed its candidate for the Commission Presidency, José Manuel Barroso backed in advance by a great portion of the electoral college of 27.
As a voter, I have been robbed of a choice.
***
Plan B
With Plan A on the scrap heap, the time has come to resort to a Plan B.
Despite the minimal impact of my one vote, it is still important for me. How should I decide?
I feel a moral obligation to use my limited vote in a constructive manner. The European Parliament has been growing in importance, and the Lisbon Treaty would improve its position, despite the overwhelming union of heads of state or government and their governments.
Even if I vote in a national election, my choice has European implications. I vote for an individual or a party, which will join one of the political groups in the European Parliament.
***
Admittedly, the EP is far from perfect. It has actively suppressed information on abuse of MEPs’ expenses and its late-coming reforms have been half-hearted. It should openly publish detailed information on expenses and audits. It should also automatically publish the meeting documents of its internal bodies (Bureau, Conference of Presidents).
But where the European Parliament has powers, it does a decent job to co-legislate and to debate, and its information is more readily available than the Council’s.
Lacking powers, the absence of accountable government with distinct government and opposition alternatives, sometimes required oversized majorities leading to fuzzy consensus, as well as the trend to agree on legislative acts between the institutions in advance tend to dampen the EP’s role as a vibrant arena.
***
The European Parliament should embrace real openness, transparency and accountability in its internal affairs. Hopefully the Westminster “duck-house scandal” propels the EP and national parliaments to mend their ways. The dominant political groups could do a lot to enhance the respect of their institution by embarking on a course of decisive reform.
The institutional limitations are harder to overcome, but the European Parliament is the citizens’ best hope for an effective and democratic European Union.
Luckily, the EP does not only vote on obligatory proposed laws, but it gains know-how in areas which the member states’ governments jealously guard as their prerogatives, such as foreign, security and defence policy, long term budget, economic and monetary policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and agriculture.
The European Union can debate any issue on its own initiative, and although its formal powers to propose laws are limited, it can call for legislation or action.
***
Four constructive choices
Despite the internal shortcomings and the external limitations, I see four constructive alternatives for the European voter. It is to vote for a candidate or party, which would join one of the responsible political groups in the EP. Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.
EPP
The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.
One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.
PES
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.
In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, with a probable Conservative government around the corner).
ALDE
Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.
For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the dubious right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).
The Greens/European Free Alliance
The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force.
In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.
***
Vote for Europe
My vote is going to one of these four groups, which I see as responsible forces for a better Europe. I hope that increasing numbers of my fellow-Europeans decide to vote and that they, cast their votes for a responsible candidate. To reject sterile protest is a sign of civic duty and maturity.
A better Europe starts within ourselves.
Vote for Europe in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
When the heads of state or government signed the Treaty of Lisbon, they promised to take into account the elections to the European Parliament and to hold appropriate consultations before proposing a candidate for President of the Commission (Article 17(7) TEU).
Thinking that they were honourable ladies and gentlemen, I decided to vote for the (Euro)party launching the best candidate to head the Commission.
Long before most EU citizens were even aware of the upcoming European Parliament elections, a bunch of these heads of state or government (and national party leaders) had backed a new term for José Manuel Barroso and reduced their European level parties to impotence.
Actions speak louder than words, and our political leaders showed their disregard for one of the few concessions the Lisbon Treaty offered directly to the citizens of the European Union, and consequently for European level democracy.
In the end, only the European People’s Party (EPP) dutifully endorsed its candidate for the Commission Presidency, José Manuel Barroso backed in advance by a great portion of the electoral college of 27.
As a voter, I have been robbed of a choice.
***
Plan B
With Plan A on the scrap heap, the time has come to resort to a Plan B.
Despite the minimal impact of my one vote, it is still important for me. How should I decide?
I feel a moral obligation to use my limited vote in a constructive manner. The European Parliament has been growing in importance, and the Lisbon Treaty would improve its position, despite the overwhelming union of heads of state or government and their governments.
Even if I vote in a national election, my choice has European implications. I vote for an individual or a party, which will join one of the political groups in the European Parliament.
***
Admittedly, the EP is far from perfect. It has actively suppressed information on abuse of MEPs’ expenses and its late-coming reforms have been half-hearted. It should openly publish detailed information on expenses and audits. It should also automatically publish the meeting documents of its internal bodies (Bureau, Conference of Presidents).
But where the European Parliament has powers, it does a decent job to co-legislate and to debate, and its information is more readily available than the Council’s.
Lacking powers, the absence of accountable government with distinct government and opposition alternatives, sometimes required oversized majorities leading to fuzzy consensus, as well as the trend to agree on legislative acts between the institutions in advance tend to dampen the EP’s role as a vibrant arena.
***
The European Parliament should embrace real openness, transparency and accountability in its internal affairs. Hopefully the Westminster “duck-house scandal” propels the EP and national parliaments to mend their ways. The dominant political groups could do a lot to enhance the respect of their institution by embarking on a course of decisive reform.
The institutional limitations are harder to overcome, but the European Parliament is the citizens’ best hope for an effective and democratic European Union.
Luckily, the EP does not only vote on obligatory proposed laws, but it gains know-how in areas which the member states’ governments jealously guard as their prerogatives, such as foreign, security and defence policy, long term budget, economic and monetary policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and agriculture.
The European Union can debate any issue on its own initiative, and although its formal powers to propose laws are limited, it can call for legislation or action.
***
Four constructive choices
Despite the internal shortcomings and the external limitations, I see four constructive alternatives for the European voter. It is to vote for a candidate or party, which would join one of the responsible political groups in the EP. Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.
EPP
The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.
One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.
PES
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.
In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, with a probable Conservative government around the corner).
ALDE
Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.
For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the dubious right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).
The Greens/European Free Alliance
The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force.
In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.
***
Vote for Europe
My vote is going to one of these four groups, which I see as responsible forces for a better Europe. I hope that increasing numbers of my fellow-Europeans decide to vote and that they, cast their votes for a responsible candidate. To reject sterile protest is a sign of civic duty and maturity.
A better Europe starts within ourselves.
Vote for Europe in the European elections.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
European Union: Nobody but Barroso?
Even if José Manuel Barroso happened to be the best Commission President ever, the European political families should be hard at work competing for the next five year stint at the helm of the Commission. If political parties at European level, representing 500 million EU citizens, are unable to find one qualified candidate each, they betray both their calling and the voters.
However, progress has been slow and the preliminary discussions mainly confined to intergovernmental discussions brought to light by snippets of information to the public.
Consequently, blogger friend Jon Worth launched the campaign Anyone But Barroso on his Euroblog, in order to kick-start the democratic impulses among the European parties:
http://www.jonworth.eu/do-you-think-barroso-is-rubbish-if-so-then-help-us/
The aim is commendable, but the results are dismal.
***
European People’s Party
One of the few things we EU citizens have seen, is that José Manuel Barroso seems keen to take on another five years as Commission President.
But the latest news item from the European People’s Party is EPP President Wilfried Martens commending the Commission’s economic stimulus package under Barroso’s leadership (26 November 2008). But this still falls short of a public nomination or even an endorsement of Barroso’s candidacy:
http://www.epp.eu
In other words, even Barroso has not been nominated as yet, although a number of members of the nominating European Council from different political families have spoken out in favour of him.
***
Party of European Socialists
Yesterday the Party of European Socialists (PES) published its manifesto for the June 2009 European elections ‘People first. A new direction for Europe’. The election manifesto was adopted by the PES Council in Madrid (1 December 2008):
http://www.pes.org/content/view/1457/72
Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, is positively brimming with confidence in an EurActiv interview today:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/interview-socialists-confident-leading-parliament/article-177676
Schulz argues that the socialists are going to become bigger than the conservatives and the liberals combined after the June 2009 elections. He seems oblivious of the current predilection for centre-right parties in EU member states and of internecine warfare among French socialists, split three ways. But most of all, he fails to address how his boundless optimism is going to be transmitted to European electors by a faceless campaign without a top-drawer candidate for the Commission Presidency.
***
European Liberal Democrats Party
The great annual event for the European Liberal Democrats Party (ELDR) was the party congress on 30 and 31 October 2008 in Stockholm. The congress adopted resolutions with a view to the European elections, but not a word was communicated on the party’s candidate to take over the post as President of the European Commission:
http://www.eldr.eu/index.php?newlang=english
***
European Green Party
I tried to find a press release on the leading Green candidate on the web site of the European Green Party:
http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/rubrik/9/9034.htm
Hardly surprising by now, but I found nothing (nobody).
***
Election results
The Treaty of Lisbon is not going to be in force in time for the European Parliament elections in June, but Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the approval of the European Parliament for the President of the Commission:
Article 214(2) TEC
2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
***
Even under the current rules, a European Parliament with backbone could ensure open nominations in advance, public campaigns interacting with the citizens of the EU and respect for the outcome of the EP elections.
Nothing prevents the heads of state or government (European Council) to proclaim that they are going to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, because they already committed themselves politically when they signed the Constitutional Treaty in 2004.
***
Political parties
Still under the existing rules, Article 191 TEC sets out the important task for the European political parties, the one for which they and their foundations can draw funds from EU taxpayers:
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
-----
How can the political parties at European level even pretend to fulfil their basic tasks, if they fail to field candidates for the Commission Presidency?
***
Libertas
After this depressing perusal of the state of the union, I have to return to the Anyone But Barroso slogan.
Instead of ruminating about my preferred candidate, I don the cap of an independent political tactician.
If I happened to be in Declan Ganley’s shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate a moment before becoming or launching the Libertas candidate for President of the Commission.
The European level parties have, as it seems, rejected the voters and created a vacuum waiting to be filled. In the case of Libertas this gift from heaven would give them at least three aces on a silver tray: one positive campaign message instead of only negative ones, a face to project to millions of television and PC screens all over Europe and the potential for a real break-through in the EP elections.
If this happens, the established European political parties have brought it upon themselves.
Ralf Grahn
However, progress has been slow and the preliminary discussions mainly confined to intergovernmental discussions brought to light by snippets of information to the public.
Consequently, blogger friend Jon Worth launched the campaign Anyone But Barroso on his Euroblog, in order to kick-start the democratic impulses among the European parties:
http://www.jonworth.eu/do-you-think-barroso-is-rubbish-if-so-then-help-us/
The aim is commendable, but the results are dismal.
***
European People’s Party
One of the few things we EU citizens have seen, is that José Manuel Barroso seems keen to take on another five years as Commission President.
But the latest news item from the European People’s Party is EPP President Wilfried Martens commending the Commission’s economic stimulus package under Barroso’s leadership (26 November 2008). But this still falls short of a public nomination or even an endorsement of Barroso’s candidacy:
http://www.epp.eu
In other words, even Barroso has not been nominated as yet, although a number of members of the nominating European Council from different political families have spoken out in favour of him.
***
Party of European Socialists
Yesterday the Party of European Socialists (PES) published its manifesto for the June 2009 European elections ‘People first. A new direction for Europe’. The election manifesto was adopted by the PES Council in Madrid (1 December 2008):
http://www.pes.org/content/view/1457/72
Martin Schulz, the leader of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, is positively brimming with confidence in an EurActiv interview today:
http://www.euractiv.com/en/eu-elections/interview-socialists-confident-leading-parliament/article-177676
Schulz argues that the socialists are going to become bigger than the conservatives and the liberals combined after the June 2009 elections. He seems oblivious of the current predilection for centre-right parties in EU member states and of internecine warfare among French socialists, split three ways. But most of all, he fails to address how his boundless optimism is going to be transmitted to European electors by a faceless campaign without a top-drawer candidate for the Commission Presidency.
***
European Liberal Democrats Party
The great annual event for the European Liberal Democrats Party (ELDR) was the party congress on 30 and 31 October 2008 in Stockholm. The congress adopted resolutions with a view to the European elections, but not a word was communicated on the party’s candidate to take over the post as President of the European Commission:
http://www.eldr.eu/index.php?newlang=english
***
European Green Party
I tried to find a press release on the leading Green candidate on the web site of the European Green Party:
http://www.europeangreens.org/cms/default/rubrik/9/9034.htm
Hardly surprising by now, but I found nothing (nobody).
***
Election results
The Treaty of Lisbon is not going to be in force in time for the European Parliament elections in June, but Article 214(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the approval of the European Parliament for the President of the Commission:
Article 214(2) TEC
2. The Council, meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government and acting by a qualified majority, shall nominate the person it intends to appoint as President of the Commission; the nomination shall be approved by the European Parliament.
***
Even under the current rules, a European Parliament with backbone could ensure open nominations in advance, public campaigns interacting with the citizens of the EU and respect for the outcome of the EP elections.
Nothing prevents the heads of state or government (European Council) to proclaim that they are going to take into account the elections to the European Parliament, because they already committed themselves politically when they signed the Constitutional Treaty in 2004.
***
Political parties
Still under the existing rules, Article 191 TEC sets out the important task for the European political parties, the one for which they and their foundations can draw funds from EU taxpayers:
Article 191 TEC
Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.
-----
How can the political parties at European level even pretend to fulfil their basic tasks, if they fail to field candidates for the Commission Presidency?
***
Libertas
After this depressing perusal of the state of the union, I have to return to the Anyone But Barroso slogan.
Instead of ruminating about my preferred candidate, I don the cap of an independent political tactician.
If I happened to be in Declan Ganley’s shoes, I wouldn’t hesitate a moment before becoming or launching the Libertas candidate for President of the Commission.
The European level parties have, as it seems, rejected the voters and created a vacuum waiting to be filled. In the case of Libertas this gift from heaven would give them at least three aces on a silver tray: one positive campaign message instead of only negative ones, a face to project to millions of television and PC screens all over Europe and the potential for a real break-through in the EP elections.
If this happens, the established European political parties have brought it upon themselves.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
