Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who chaired the European Convention, has given his views on the grand opt-out by the United Kingdom at a conference titled ‘Britain with the EU: a special status’. How much of a loss would it be for the citizens of the European Union if Britain, already outside core areas and a consistent brake on institutional reform, opted for a special status roughly corresponding to a second-tier membership?
Is VGE just stating the obvious: Britain’s accentuated estrangement from Europe under a coming Conservative government?
***
As the father of the draft Constitution, VGE has repeatedly pointed out the substantial similarities between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, although the later stages have each diluted proposals by the European Convention.
But ‘Le blog de Valéry Giscard d’Estaing pour la démocratie en Europe’ has failed to live up to its motto ‘for democracy in Europe’. If VGE wants a strong and coherent Europe on the international scene, he should rethink the premises of the European project. Without democratic legitimacy the European Union is going to remain a soft power in a world of assertive hard powers.
The way forward lies well beyond the Lisbon Treaty: Security and prosperity, based on government of the EU citizens, by the EU citizens, and for the EU citizens.
With or without the United Kingdom, at least an advance group has to embrace the EU’s membership criteria for the European Union itself.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. 9 September 2008: Global Vision has the text of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's speech available at http://www.global-vision.net/files/downloads/download547.pdf (in French).
An English version is promised soon.
Tuesday, 9 September 2008
Sunday, 10 August 2008
Human Rights: UK exceptionalism
The Joint Committee on Human Rights of the House of Lords and the House of Commons has published a report called ’A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007–08’ (HL Paper 165-I, HC 150-I; published 10 August 2008):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf
The report outlines a future UK Bill of Rights.
***
Browsing the report, you would have to be a genius to detect that the United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union, or that its government has politically signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, or that the United Kingdom has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, or taken the trouble to opt out of the Charter, as adapted on 12 December 2007.
I have no desire to deprive UK residents of modern human rights protection, but even by British standards the presentation seems to reach new heights of tunnel vision.
Ralf Grahn
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf
The report outlines a future UK Bill of Rights.
***
Browsing the report, you would have to be a genius to detect that the United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union, or that its government has politically signed up to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, or that the United Kingdom has ratified the Treaty of Lisbon, or taken the trouble to opt out of the Charter, as adapted on 12 December 2007.
I have no desire to deprive UK residents of modern human rights protection, but even by British standards the presentation seems to reach new heights of tunnel vision.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 9 August 2008
Elected EU President 2009?
With the Lisbon Treaty in the doldrums, the next five years for the European Union look set to begin under the auspices of the unreformed Nice Treaty. The European elections in June 2009 will take place without the timid Lisbon Treaty reforms, although few have spoken out against a ‘more democratic’ EU.
Can anything be done to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, even marginally?
Since the Maastricht Treaty every person holding the nationality of a member state is an EU citizen, according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).
The European Parliament is elected by direct universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 190(1) TEC.
These provisions offer an objective base for some citizens’ influence in EU governance, although the European Union falls far short of a functioning democracy.
***
The limited powers of the European Parliament and the slow emergence of a ‘European consciousness’ have resulted in the low intensity of European election campaigns and low participation. The electoral campaigns have been fought primarily on national issues, not pan-European ones.
Article 191 TEC offers a germ ‘to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union’ in the form of political parties at European level.
In practice, the European level parties are still in their infancy. Funding for European parties (and foundations) has recently been provided, but they still resemble loose coalitions of national parties more than effective shapers of pan-European programmes.
There are, however, some promising signs. In the 2004 elections the European Green Party campaigned on a common programme, and the Party of European Socialists has conducted a long public web based consultation for its 2009 election manifesto.
The European elections 2009 offer the European parties an opportunity to inform the public about the political choices facing the European Union, but their success is still dependent on the contributions of the national parties, which – in general – have done little to enhance the knowledge of the public or the participation of their activists at the European level.
***
In addition to programmes, politics is about personalities, and democracy is about the citizens’ power to elect the office holders and to set the course for government.
The real President, since the Rome Treaties, is the President of the (EEC/EC) Commission, and the Commission still forms the executive in its areas of competence, as far as the European Union can be said to have an operative government (although the superimposed European Council has increasingly morphed into a ‘transitional government’ with a distinctly intergovernmental flavour).
Neither is democratically accountable in a satisfactory way.
***
The President of the Commission and the Commission are appointed by the Council by a qualified majority, but the preceding nomination of Commission President and the list of the Commission as a block are subject to votes of approval by the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 214 TEC.
Even without the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has the possibility to make the European election results count, when it approves or rejects the person nominated by the heads of state or government.
Gianni Bonvicini, in his article ‘Elezione “diretta” del Presidente della Commissione europea?’, notes that the conservative European People’s Party has nominated Manuel Barroso for a second term. Bonvicini suggests that the Socialists field Pascal Lamy or Giuliano Amato, and that the European liberals put forward their own candidate.
In Bonvicini’s view this would lead to two positive outcomes. It would give weight to the Commission President and it would give a minimum of power and credibility to the European level parties.
See:
http://www.affarinternazionali.it/
***
In my view, it would enhance the credibility of the European election campaign if the European Council states well in advance that it intends to be bound by the election result, by nominating the candidate of the largest group as President of the European Commission.
This could be one small but important result of the French Council Presidency, at the December 2008 European Council.
Ralf Grahn
Can anything be done to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union, even marginally?
Since the Maastricht Treaty every person holding the nationality of a member state is an EU citizen, according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC).
The European Parliament is elected by direct universal suffrage, as provided for in Article 190(1) TEC.
These provisions offer an objective base for some citizens’ influence in EU governance, although the European Union falls far short of a functioning democracy.
***
The limited powers of the European Parliament and the slow emergence of a ‘European consciousness’ have resulted in the low intensity of European election campaigns and low participation. The electoral campaigns have been fought primarily on national issues, not pan-European ones.
Article 191 TEC offers a germ ‘to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union’ in the form of political parties at European level.
In practice, the European level parties are still in their infancy. Funding for European parties (and foundations) has recently been provided, but they still resemble loose coalitions of national parties more than effective shapers of pan-European programmes.
There are, however, some promising signs. In the 2004 elections the European Green Party campaigned on a common programme, and the Party of European Socialists has conducted a long public web based consultation for its 2009 election manifesto.
The European elections 2009 offer the European parties an opportunity to inform the public about the political choices facing the European Union, but their success is still dependent on the contributions of the national parties, which – in general – have done little to enhance the knowledge of the public or the participation of their activists at the European level.
***
In addition to programmes, politics is about personalities, and democracy is about the citizens’ power to elect the office holders and to set the course for government.
The real President, since the Rome Treaties, is the President of the (EEC/EC) Commission, and the Commission still forms the executive in its areas of competence, as far as the European Union can be said to have an operative government (although the superimposed European Council has increasingly morphed into a ‘transitional government’ with a distinctly intergovernmental flavour).
Neither is democratically accountable in a satisfactory way.
***
The President of the Commission and the Commission are appointed by the Council by a qualified majority, but the preceding nomination of Commission President and the list of the Commission as a block are subject to votes of approval by the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 214 TEC.
Even without the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament has the possibility to make the European election results count, when it approves or rejects the person nominated by the heads of state or government.
Gianni Bonvicini, in his article ‘Elezione “diretta” del Presidente della Commissione europea?’, notes that the conservative European People’s Party has nominated Manuel Barroso for a second term. Bonvicini suggests that the Socialists field Pascal Lamy or Giuliano Amato, and that the European liberals put forward their own candidate.
In Bonvicini’s view this would lead to two positive outcomes. It would give weight to the Commission President and it would give a minimum of power and credibility to the European level parties.
See:
http://www.affarinternazionali.it/
***
In my view, it would enhance the credibility of the European election campaign if the European Council states well in advance that it intends to be bound by the election result, by nominating the candidate of the largest group as President of the European Commission.
This could be one small but important result of the French Council Presidency, at the December 2008 European Council.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 8 August 2008
EU Lisbon Treaty ratifications for purists
The media and this blog have usually concentrated on the parliamentary ratification stage of the EU Treaty of Lisbon. This is natural, because we live in parliamentary democracies. Approval by parliament is seen as politically decisive, which it normally is. Currently 24 member states’ parliaments out of a total of 27 have already given their approval.
One country, Ireland, has rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum, and in two member states, the Czech Republic and Sweden, the parliamentary process has hardly begun.
This blog has employed expressions like parliamentary approval or ratification, the parliamentary ratification stage and other words to that effect to remind readers of the difference between the main political decision and final ratification.
***
As with other international treaties, the Lisbon Treaty needs the additional signature of the president or royal assent in most member states to comply with their internal procedures (constitutional requirements). In parliamentary democracies functioning normally, this stage is ordinarily a formality.
There may, however, exist ‘benign’ reasons for delaying the signature.
Administrative delays are normal. In principle, there is no hurry before the end of 2008.
In Germany the president awaits the outcome of the judicial challenges filed with the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
In Finland – although I have seen no official confirmation of the reasons – the president may be waiting (within a three month time limit) for the autonomous Åland Islands to approve or reject the Lisbon Treaty concerning their own territory.
The vagaries of politics being what they are, other reasons may enter into play. For instance, seen from the outside the Polish president Lech Kaczynski seems to be engaged in populist politicking and a power struggle with Poland’s government and parliament. Perhaps one of the Polish readers of this blog could present an expert comment on the constitutional matters and the political questions involved.
***
Externally, states finalize their approval by notification of their intent to be bound by a treaty. According to Article 54 of the consolidated Lisbon Treaty version of the Treaty on European Union provides that ‘The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic’.
The EU Council web site tells us that thirteen ratifications have been deposited:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_Applications/applications/Accords/details.asp?cmsid=297&id=2007133&lang=EN&doclang=EN
The group of finalized ratifications includes the following member states: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
***
Eleven member states have parliamentary approval, but their ratification instruments have still to be deposited. They are: Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain,
Source: Wikipeadia: Treaty of Lisbon (8 August 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
***
By the way, there is a misconception in the Wikipedia article about the Åland Islands (Finland). Currently there is no Åland Islands MEP.
With a population of 28,000 Åland has lobbied for a member of the European Parliament since the beginning of Finnish EU membership, but the chances to succeed are slim, given almost 408,000 inhabitants for each of the 13 future Finnish mandates (presently 14).
Åland has a guaranteed member in the Finnish parliament, which is close to proportional representation given the size of the Finnish population (5.3 million) and 200 MPs.
If the regional parliament of the Åland Islands rejects the Lisbon Treaty, the legal situation would become unclear, leaving part of Finland’s territory outside the geographical scope of the amending treaty and the relations between Åland and the EU to be determined.
***
The UK territory Gibraltar (28,750) has about the same population size as Åland, but I could find no information on its government’s London web site about the approval of the Lisbon Treaty:
http://www.gibraltar.gov.uk/int/index.asp
Another 8 km2 to watch, for purists.
Ralf Grahn
One country, Ireland, has rejected the Lisbon Treaty in a referendum, and in two member states, the Czech Republic and Sweden, the parliamentary process has hardly begun.
This blog has employed expressions like parliamentary approval or ratification, the parliamentary ratification stage and other words to that effect to remind readers of the difference between the main political decision and final ratification.
***
As with other international treaties, the Lisbon Treaty needs the additional signature of the president or royal assent in most member states to comply with their internal procedures (constitutional requirements). In parliamentary democracies functioning normally, this stage is ordinarily a formality.
There may, however, exist ‘benign’ reasons for delaying the signature.
Administrative delays are normal. In principle, there is no hurry before the end of 2008.
In Germany the president awaits the outcome of the judicial challenges filed with the Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).
In Finland – although I have seen no official confirmation of the reasons – the president may be waiting (within a three month time limit) for the autonomous Åland Islands to approve or reject the Lisbon Treaty concerning their own territory.
The vagaries of politics being what they are, other reasons may enter into play. For instance, seen from the outside the Polish president Lech Kaczynski seems to be engaged in populist politicking and a power struggle with Poland’s government and parliament. Perhaps one of the Polish readers of this blog could present an expert comment on the constitutional matters and the political questions involved.
***
Externally, states finalize their approval by notification of their intent to be bound by a treaty. According to Article 54 of the consolidated Lisbon Treaty version of the Treaty on European Union provides that ‘The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Government of the Italian Republic’.
The EU Council web site tells us that thirteen ratifications have been deposited:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_Applications/applications/Accords/details.asp?cmsid=297&id=2007133&lang=EN&doclang=EN
The group of finalized ratifications includes the following member states: Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
***
Eleven member states have parliamentary approval, but their ratification instruments have still to be deposited. They are: Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain,
Source: Wikipeadia: Treaty of Lisbon (8 August 2008)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
***
By the way, there is a misconception in the Wikipedia article about the Åland Islands (Finland). Currently there is no Åland Islands MEP.
With a population of 28,000 Åland has lobbied for a member of the European Parliament since the beginning of Finnish EU membership, but the chances to succeed are slim, given almost 408,000 inhabitants for each of the 13 future Finnish mandates (presently 14).
Åland has a guaranteed member in the Finnish parliament, which is close to proportional representation given the size of the Finnish population (5.3 million) and 200 MPs.
If the regional parliament of the Åland Islands rejects the Lisbon Treaty, the legal situation would become unclear, leaving part of Finland’s territory outside the geographical scope of the amending treaty and the relations between Åland and the EU to be determined.
***
The UK territory Gibraltar (28,750) has about the same population size as Åland, but I could find no information on its government’s London web site about the approval of the Lisbon Treaty:
http://www.gibraltar.gov.uk/int/index.asp
Another 8 km2 to watch, for purists.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Lisbon Treaty ratification count 24 states and 471 million
Both Houses of Parliament in Italy (population 59.1 million) have now unanimously approved the EU Treaty of Lisbon. This means that the parliamentary ratification stage is concluded in 24 member states, which account for 471.4 million Europeans (about 95 per cent of the total EU population of 495.1 million).
The group of slow, undecided or negative member states has now shrunk to three out of 27, with the following population numbers (millions):
The Czech Republic 10.3
Sweden 9.1
---
Ireland 4.3
Ralf Grahn
The group of slow, undecided or negative member states has now shrunk to three out of 27, with the following population numbers (millions):
The Czech Republic 10.3
Sweden 9.1
---
Ireland 4.3
Ralf Grahn
Italian Chamber of Deputies approved Lisbon Treaty
Today the Italian Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei deputati) unanimously voted to approve the EU Treaty of Lisbon:
“Seguito della discussione del disegno di legge:
S. 759 - Ratifica ed esecuzione del Trattato di Lisbona che modifica il Trattato sull’Unione europea e il Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea e alcuni atti connessi, con atto finale, protocolli e dichiarazioni, fatto a Lisbona il 13 dicembre 2007 (Approvato dal Senato). (1519)”
Source: www.camera.it
The Italian Senate (Senato della Repubblica) earlier voted unanimously for approval, 286 against 0.
The Deputies’ vote concludes the parliamentary stage of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Italy.
Ralf Grahn
“Seguito della discussione del disegno di legge:
S. 759 - Ratifica ed esecuzione del Trattato di Lisbona che modifica il Trattato sull’Unione europea e il Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea e alcuni atti connessi, con atto finale, protocolli e dichiarazioni, fatto a Lisbona il 13 dicembre 2007 (Approvato dal Senato). (1519)”
Source: www.camera.it
The Italian Senate (Senato della Repubblica) earlier voted unanimously for approval, 286 against 0.
The Deputies’ vote concludes the parliamentary stage of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Italy.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 25 July 2008
Unelected Lords support unelected Brussels bureaucrats
During the last weeks there have been lively exchanges on this blog about the reasons for the European Union and its future nature. I want to thank the commentators for many valuable remarks from various viewpoints.
Time to glance at the European as it is, for a change.
Let us now present an outside contribution with regard to European Union legislation, one of the main areas of EU activity. Specifically, it looks at the process to initiate EU legislation.
The European Union Committee of the UK House of Lords has published a report ‘Initiation of EU Legislation – Report with Evidence’ (22nd Report of Session 2007–08, published 24 July 2008, HL Paper 150), available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/150/150.pdf
The 216 page report continues the tradition of thematic analysis not only of British interest, but generally within the European Union, by the Committee. At the centre, naturally, is the European Commission’s right of legislative initiative concerning Community law, with the Lords largely supportive of the monopoly of initiative of the Commission within the present institutional set-up.
Ergo, the headline of this blog post is true.
Ralf Grahn
Time to glance at the European as it is, for a change.
Let us now present an outside contribution with regard to European Union legislation, one of the main areas of EU activity. Specifically, it looks at the process to initiate EU legislation.
The European Union Committee of the UK House of Lords has published a report ‘Initiation of EU Legislation – Report with Evidence’ (22nd Report of Session 2007–08, published 24 July 2008, HL Paper 150), available at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/150/150.pdf
The 216 page report continues the tradition of thematic analysis not only of British interest, but generally within the European Union, by the Committee. At the centre, naturally, is the European Commission’s right of legislative initiative concerning Community law, with the Lords largely supportive of the monopoly of initiative of the Commission within the present institutional set-up.
Ergo, the headline of this blog post is true.
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Italian Senate approved Lisbon Treaty
Wednesday evening the Italian Senate (Senato della Repubblica) debated the government bill on ratification of the EU Lisbon Treaty:
“2. Ratifica ed esecuzione del Trattato di Lisbona che modifica il Trattato sull'Unione europea e il Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea e alcuni atti connessi, con atto finale, protocolli e dichiarazioni, fatto a Lisbona il 13 dicembre 2007 - Relatore DINI (759)”
The Senate voted unanimously for approval (286) against 0.
Source: Mercoledì 23 luglio 2008, Ratifiaca del Trattato di Lisbona : via libera all’unanimità
http://www.senato.it/notizie/index.htm
The Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei deputati) still has to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
“2. Ratifica ed esecuzione del Trattato di Lisbona che modifica il Trattato sull'Unione europea e il Trattato che istituisce la Comunità europea e alcuni atti connessi, con atto finale, protocolli e dichiarazioni, fatto a Lisbona il 13 dicembre 2007 - Relatore DINI (759)”
The Senate voted unanimously for approval (286) against 0.
Source: Mercoledì 23 luglio 2008, Ratifiaca del Trattato di Lisbona : via libera all’unanimità
http://www.senato.it/notizie/index.htm
The Chamber of Deputies (Camera dei deputati) still has to vote on the Lisbon Treaty.
Ralf Grahn
Tuesday, 22 July 2008
European elections 2009: Investing in Libertas?
NDN has now posted a transcript of Declan Ganley’s appearance 17 July 2008. NDN describes itself as a (Democratic) ‘progressive think tank and advocacy organization’, and the transcript called ‘Conversation on the Future of Europe with Declan Ganley’ can be accessed here:
http://www.ndn.org/transcripts/071708.html
Although Ganley has later floated the idea to launch 400 Libertas candidates in the European elections 2009, this is the latest comprehensive information we have about his ideas for the future of Europe.
Dear reader, I ask you to read and reflect.
Is this a credible outline for a programme aiming to raise 75 million British pounds in campaign contributions, mobilise 400 candidates to vie for support and millions of voters to cast their ballots?
While I am trying to digest the contents, I would be happy to read your comments on how you perceive the message of Ganley and Libertas with a view to the next five year legislative mandate of the European Parliament, starting with the June 2009 elections.
Ralf Grahn
Update 23 July 2008: There is now a video available on the NDN web site with Declan Ganley's presentation: http://www.ndn.org/
Update II, 23 July 2008: There is now a new item on Libertas' web site 'Ganley tells Sarkozy that the Lisbon Treaty is dead: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/308/1/
http://www.ndn.org/transcripts/071708.html
Although Ganley has later floated the idea to launch 400 Libertas candidates in the European elections 2009, this is the latest comprehensive information we have about his ideas for the future of Europe.
Dear reader, I ask you to read and reflect.
Is this a credible outline for a programme aiming to raise 75 million British pounds in campaign contributions, mobilise 400 candidates to vie for support and millions of voters to cast their ballots?
While I am trying to digest the contents, I would be happy to read your comments on how you perceive the message of Ganley and Libertas with a view to the next five year legislative mandate of the European Parliament, starting with the June 2009 elections.
Ralf Grahn
Update 23 July 2008: There is now a video available on the NDN web site with Declan Ganley's presentation: http://www.ndn.org/
Update II, 23 July 2008: There is now a new item on Libertas' web site 'Ganley tells Sarkozy that the Lisbon Treaty is dead: http://www.libertas.org/content/view/308/1/
Sunday, 20 July 2008
EU: Invest 75 million pounds in the Nice Treaty!
Declan Ganley seems to be planning to field more than 400 candidates in the June 2009 European elections. He is starting to raise £75 million from online donations to run candidates for the European Parliament throughout the European Union.
See the Telegraph article by Tim Shipman “Irish ‘No’ vote architect plans Europe-wide ‘referendum’ on Lisbon Treaty” (20 July 2008):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2308990/Irish-%27No%27-vote-architect-plans-Europe-wide-%27referendum%27-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html
According to the article, the message will be to give people a referendum with a chance to say ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Ganley hopes to win more than 80 seats in the European Parliament, creating a Europe-wide voting bloc with a strong mandate to block passage of the treaty.
***
At this point in time, Shipman’s interview seems to be closest thing we have to a prospectus for the initial public offering of the Libertas European level party.
Let us take a closer look at what we can surmise of the offer from the viewpoint of potential donors, candidates and voters.
Given my modest circumstances, 75 million British pounds looks like a hefty investment even for a good cause.
The only message of the Libertas party seems to be an opportunity to vote ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty.
Consequently, 75 million pounds could lead to a protest vote, just possibly massive enough to save the Nice Treaty for the foreseeable future. A lot of money to remain stuck where we already are.
Given the simplicity of the message, the already proven capacity to market forceful simplifications in one test market and popular disillusionment with the EU project, we cannot exclude the possibility of some electoral success.
We could end up with a number of anti-Lisbon MEPs in the next European Parliament, possibly enough toform a new parliamentary group (according to the new rules).
Before the five year mandate comes to a close, at least part of the voters would have realised that the European Parliament has no voice in treaty change. Even if this can be seen as undemocratic, amending the EU treaties is in the hands of the member states’ governments and ultimately parliaments. The European Parliament is only consulted on calling an intergovernmental conference.
Even if a successful electoral campaign could be launched on a protest against the Lisbon Treaty, the Europarliamentarians are in fact elected to act as co-legislators for five years. What would the Libertas MEPs do during their mandate?
There is no programme, as far as we know, and if the campaign is solely about protesting against the Lisbon Treaty, we cannot be sure that there is going to be any platform of substance before the elections.
Still, as elected representatives, Libertas’ MEPs would be supposed to vote on all ‘Community pillar’ questions within the European Parliament’s powers.
Donors would not know what they invest in.
Candidates would be unaware of what they stake their reputation on.
Voters would be clueless as to the future policies beyond the initial protest.
***
How about this as a return on investment?
***
Democracy, legitimacy and accountability are key demands on any political group, especially one campaigning on these issues.
More – much more – is needed if Libertas wants to become a credible EU level political party.
Ralf Grahn
See the Telegraph article by Tim Shipman “Irish ‘No’ vote architect plans Europe-wide ‘referendum’ on Lisbon Treaty” (20 July 2008):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/2308990/Irish-%27No%27-vote-architect-plans-Europe-wide-%27referendum%27-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html
According to the article, the message will be to give people a referendum with a chance to say ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Ganley hopes to win more than 80 seats in the European Parliament, creating a Europe-wide voting bloc with a strong mandate to block passage of the treaty.
***
At this point in time, Shipman’s interview seems to be closest thing we have to a prospectus for the initial public offering of the Libertas European level party.
Let us take a closer look at what we can surmise of the offer from the viewpoint of potential donors, candidates and voters.
Given my modest circumstances, 75 million British pounds looks like a hefty investment even for a good cause.
The only message of the Libertas party seems to be an opportunity to vote ‘no’ to the Lisbon Treaty.
Consequently, 75 million pounds could lead to a protest vote, just possibly massive enough to save the Nice Treaty for the foreseeable future. A lot of money to remain stuck where we already are.
Given the simplicity of the message, the already proven capacity to market forceful simplifications in one test market and popular disillusionment with the EU project, we cannot exclude the possibility of some electoral success.
We could end up with a number of anti-Lisbon MEPs in the next European Parliament, possibly enough toform a new parliamentary group (according to the new rules).
Before the five year mandate comes to a close, at least part of the voters would have realised that the European Parliament has no voice in treaty change. Even if this can be seen as undemocratic, amending the EU treaties is in the hands of the member states’ governments and ultimately parliaments. The European Parliament is only consulted on calling an intergovernmental conference.
Even if a successful electoral campaign could be launched on a protest against the Lisbon Treaty, the Europarliamentarians are in fact elected to act as co-legislators for five years. What would the Libertas MEPs do during their mandate?
There is no programme, as far as we know, and if the campaign is solely about protesting against the Lisbon Treaty, we cannot be sure that there is going to be any platform of substance before the elections.
Still, as elected representatives, Libertas’ MEPs would be supposed to vote on all ‘Community pillar’ questions within the European Parliament’s powers.
Donors would not know what they invest in.
Candidates would be unaware of what they stake their reputation on.
Voters would be clueless as to the future policies beyond the initial protest.
***
How about this as a return on investment?
***
Democracy, legitimacy and accountability are key demands on any political group, especially one campaigning on these issues.
More – much more – is needed if Libertas wants to become a credible EU level political party.
Ralf Grahn
Declan Ganley still short on specifics
The Sunday Tribune runs a story ”Ganley slams Sarkozy’s ‘arrogance’”:
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jul/20/ganley-slams-sarkozys-arrogance/
The report is long on comment about the three minutes allotted to each of the sixteen organisations invited to the French Embassy to meet with president Nicolas Sarkozy.
According to the story, Declan Ganley would support a new European constitution “that is built on democracy, is legible and runs to no more than 20 to 25 pages that everyone can read”.
Ganley would insist on a reference to Europe’s Christian roots, but there are no other clarifications as to the required contents of this Constitution.
Ralf Grahn
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/jul/20/ganley-slams-sarkozys-arrogance/
The report is long on comment about the three minutes allotted to each of the sixteen organisations invited to the French Embassy to meet with president Nicolas Sarkozy.
According to the story, Declan Ganley would support a new European constitution “that is built on democracy, is legible and runs to no more than 20 to 25 pages that everyone can read”.
Ganley would insist on a reference to Europe’s Christian roots, but there are no other clarifications as to the required contents of this Constitution.
Ralf Grahn
EU reform without the Lisbon Treaty? Justice and Home Affairs
What if the Treaty of Nice remains the foundation of the European Union in the foreseeable future? Can reforms of the Lisbon Treaty be salvaged on the basis of the existing treaties?
Professor Steve Peers has written a new Statewatch Analysis on one of the important fields of the amending treaty, the area of freedom, security and justice as it is known in EU parlance, but with the British more accustomed to call it justice and home affairs (JHA).
‘Changing the institutional framework for EU Justice and Home Affairs law without the Lisbon Treaty’ (July 2008; 9 pages) looks at the possibilities to amend the existing treaty rules on JHA decision-making rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, without a fully-fledged amendment to the treaties:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/sw-analysis-jha-transfer-july-2008.pdf
Peers concludes that the member states – acting unanimously – could achieve similar, but not identical results as under the Treaty of Lisbon through the existing ‘passerelle’ or enabling clauses.
***
Peers has made a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Treaty of Lisbon through a number of Statewatch Analyses covering both treaties, available at the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution-Reform-Lisbon Treaty.
Readers interested in justice and home affairs law are advised to look at ‘Analysis no 1.3: JHA provisions’ concerning the general framework.
If relevant to the reader, ‘Analysis no 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law’ sorts out the complications.
Peers has described the general possibilities to ratify the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish rejection, or at least to implement the reforms in practice, in ‘Can the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified or implemented? A legal analysis’ (19 June 2008).
***
Individual JHA Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have also been compared with the current treaty provisions, the draft Constitution and the Constitution in posts on this blog, with references to additional sources.
Ralf Grahn
Professor Steve Peers has written a new Statewatch Analysis on one of the important fields of the amending treaty, the area of freedom, security and justice as it is known in EU parlance, but with the British more accustomed to call it justice and home affairs (JHA).
‘Changing the institutional framework for EU Justice and Home Affairs law without the Lisbon Treaty’ (July 2008; 9 pages) looks at the possibilities to amend the existing treaty rules on JHA decision-making rules and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, without a fully-fledged amendment to the treaties:
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/jul/sw-analysis-jha-transfer-july-2008.pdf
Peers concludes that the member states – acting unanimously – could achieve similar, but not identical results as under the Treaty of Lisbon through the existing ‘passerelle’ or enabling clauses.
***
Peers has made a valuable contribution to the understanding of the Treaty of Lisbon through a number of Statewatch Analyses covering both treaties, available at the Statewatch Observatory on the EU Constitution-Reform-Lisbon Treaty.
Readers interested in justice and home affairs law are advised to look at ‘Analysis no 1.3: JHA provisions’ concerning the general framework.
If relevant to the reader, ‘Analysis no 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law’ sorts out the complications.
Peers has described the general possibilities to ratify the Lisbon Treaty after the Irish rejection, or at least to implement the reforms in practice, in ‘Can the Treaty of Lisbon be ratified or implemented? A legal analysis’ (19 June 2008).
***
Individual JHA Articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) have also been compared with the current treaty provisions, the draft Constitution and the Constitution in posts on this blog, with references to additional sources.
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 19 July 2008
Will the real Mr Ganley please stand up?
If you try to describe the messages of Declan Ganley of the Libertas Institute in US American terms, you would end up with two different versions.
Before the Irish referendum to reject the EU Lisbon Treaty, Mr Ganley sounded like the Anti-Federalists or the secessionist Confederate States.
One month later, at the Heritage Foundation in the USA, Mr Ganley resembled Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist Papers or Abraham Lincoln in face of the rebellion.
***
There is finally an update on Libertas’ home page ‘Libertas accepts invitation to meet Sarkozy’ (18 July 2008):
http://www.libertas.org/
The message seems to straddle these contradictory positions.
On the one hand: Declan Ganley is offended by the prospect of Ireland having to vote again. Sarkozy has a democratic responsibility to respect the will of the Irish people. The Lisbon Treaty is dead. He will be asking Sarkozy to accept that the Irish people have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.
On the other hand: Declan Ganley wants Europe to be strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate.
***
With the post ending with the statement that Libertas will not participate in any debate on the Lisbon Treaty, Libertas leaves everything hanging in the air.
More – much more – is needed on how to bridge the gap.
What does a strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate Europe look like?
How is it going to be accomplished?
How is Libertas going to contribute?
Where is Ganley’s blueprint?
***
It is time for the real Mr Ganley to stand up.
Ralf Grahn
Before the Irish referendum to reject the EU Lisbon Treaty, Mr Ganley sounded like the Anti-Federalists or the secessionist Confederate States.
One month later, at the Heritage Foundation in the USA, Mr Ganley resembled Madison, Hamilton and Jay in the Federalist Papers or Abraham Lincoln in face of the rebellion.
***
There is finally an update on Libertas’ home page ‘Libertas accepts invitation to meet Sarkozy’ (18 July 2008):
http://www.libertas.org/
The message seems to straddle these contradictory positions.
On the one hand: Declan Ganley is offended by the prospect of Ireland having to vote again. Sarkozy has a democratic responsibility to respect the will of the Irish people. The Lisbon Treaty is dead. He will be asking Sarkozy to accept that the Irish people have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.
On the other hand: Declan Ganley wants Europe to be strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate.
***
With the post ending with the statement that Libertas will not participate in any debate on the Lisbon Treaty, Libertas leaves everything hanging in the air.
More – much more – is needed on how to bridge the gap.
What does a strong, prosperous and democratically legitimate Europe look like?
How is it going to be accomplished?
How is Libertas going to contribute?
Where is Ganley’s blueprint?
***
It is time for the real Mr Ganley to stand up.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 18 July 2008
European Union: Danish opt-outs
The Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) recently published a report ’De danske forbehold over den Europæiske Union: Udviklingen siden 2000’ (The Danish Opt Outs from the European Union: developments since 2000). Today the downloadable report has been published in book form, but for most international readers there is a handy four page executive summary in English:
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2008/EU_udredningen_08/Preversion/EU08_Executive_Summary%28en%29.pdf
As an appetizer I quote from the summary:
“Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The opt-out for Union citizenship has no practical significance today, but in the three other areas the consequences now are considerably greater than they were in 2000. The Lisbon Treaty will further increase the significance of the Danish opt-outs, especially in relation to JHA.”
***
The report, commissioned by the Danish Parliament (Folketinget), has the following background:
Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government has planned to let the Danes vote on the abolishment of at least some of the opt-outs, seen as more of an obstacle than a help to Denmark.
But the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has lead to the postponement of these plans.
See, for instance Information.dk ‘Irsk nej truer afskaffelse af danske forbehold’ (Irish no delays abolishing Danish opt-outs), 14 June 2008:
http://www.information.dk/160827
Ralf Grahn
http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Books2008/EU_udredningen_08/Preversion/EU08_Executive_Summary%28en%29.pdf
As an appetizer I quote from the summary:
“Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship, and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The opt-out for Union citizenship has no practical significance today, but in the three other areas the consequences now are considerably greater than they were in 2000. The Lisbon Treaty will further increase the significance of the Danish opt-outs, especially in relation to JHA.”
***
The report, commissioned by the Danish Parliament (Folketinget), has the following background:
Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s government has planned to let the Danes vote on the abolishment of at least some of the opt-outs, seen as more of an obstacle than a help to Denmark.
But the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty has lead to the postponement of these plans.
See, for instance Information.dk ‘Irsk nej truer afskaffelse af danske forbehold’ (Irish no delays abolishing Danish opt-outs), 14 June 2008:
http://www.information.dk/160827
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 17 July 2008
EU Lisbon Treaty: The incredible Mr Ganley
Do you remember the Libertas ‘no’ campaign spearheaded by Declan Ganley? Can you still recall the main reasons they put forward to vote ‘no’ on the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum?
Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/
***
Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.
Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.
What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:
Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.
You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:
http://www.heritage.org/
***
Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?
Ralf Grahn
Here is their ‘8 reasons to Vote No to Lisbon’ (with, in my view, distortive and manipulative reasons added):
1. Creates an unelected President and a Foreign Minister of Europe
2. Halves Ireland’s voting weight while doubling Germany’s
3. Abolishes Ireland’s Commissioner for five years at a time
4. Opens the door to interference in tax and other key economic interests
5. Hands over power in 60 areas of decision making to Brussels
6. Gives exclusive competence to Brussels over International Trade and Foreign Direct Investment
7. Enshrines EU law as superior to Irish law
8. The Treaty can be changed without another referendum
Incidentally, the latest on Libertas’ web site is still their thank you note from 17 June 2008. The eight reasons are accessible here:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/293/139/
***
Compare this with Declan Ganley’s appearance at the US Heritage Foundation, where he is introduced as a modern-day freedom fighter.
Yes, the Heritage Foundation, where the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom has been on a long crusade to drive a wedge between the US administration and its European allies.
What did Declan Ganley tell his hosts on 15 July 2008? Hardly anything to please his anti-European hostess:
Ireland and he are no Eurosceptics, but pro-European.
We need a strong and prosperous Europe.
The fundamental point of the ‘no’ campaign was democracy.
The European leaders have to offer Europe’s citizens democratic accountability and legitimacy.
The have to sell the vision of a democratic Europe to the people in order to succeed with the people.
Europe needs a 20 to 25 page Constitution, which can be read and understood by a 15 year old.
The Constitution has to be approved by the people.
If not, the politicians have to go back to the drawing-board.
A second referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty would result in a bigger ‘no’.
You can look up the hour long event on the Heritage Foundation’s web site:
http://www.heritage.org/
***
Which Declan Ganley are we supposed to believe? The one spreading nationalistic fears before the referendum? The apostle of European level democracy and a strong Europe after the plebiscite?
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
