tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76206524385008497182024-03-14T05:34:27.592+00:00The European CitizenThoughts on the state(s) of the Old Continent.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.comBlogger592125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-15932508865844790092019-05-29T00:10:00.000+01:002019-05-29T00:10:58.536+01:00European Elections 2019 - Greens, Liberals and Nationalists stay afloat in churning electoral watersAfter the last five years, it's not surprising that the old centrist parties of left and right faced a slip in support - to the extent that the big two of the EPP and S&D can no longer command a majority on their own - but their votes held up a bit more than might be expected. The nationalists and far right had a very mixed night, advancing in Italy and Germany while falling back in Denmark and the Netherlands. The big winners were the Greens and the liberals, winning an extra 57 seats between them and giving them a strong position in the upcoming coalition horsetrading.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Results</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The results are still to be fully confirmed, and some of the national parties may still switch between the European blocs (Orban's Fidesz party is currently suspended by the EPP and may decide to switch to the ECR), but at the time of writing the <a href="https://election-results.eu/">results </a>are:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
European People's Party 178 seats (-35)<br />Socialists & Democrats 153 (-34)<br />Alliance of Liberals and Democrats - 105 (+30)<br />Greens / EFA - 69 (+17)<br />European Conservatives and Reformists - 63 (-13)<br />Europe of Nations and Freedom - 58 (+22)<br />Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy - 54 (+13)<br />European United Left / Nordic Green Left - 38 (-14)<br />Non-Attached Members - 8<br />New Members (yet to join one of the blocs) - 25</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="https://election-results.eu/turnout/">Turnout </a>across the EU was up for the first time after years of continuous decline from 43% to 51%, giving a huge boost to the legitimacy of the Parliament, but the <i>Spitzenkandidat </i>process seems to have made less of an impact than in its first outing in 2014 - except perhaps in the Netherlands, where <a href="https://www.eureporter.co/frontpage/2019/05/26/ep2019-timmermans-effect-helps-social-democrats-surge-in-netherlands/">Timmermans</a> led a revival in S&D fortunes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>What's the Story?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The election brought such differing results that no Europe-wide narrative could really be drawn from them. The Greens, Liberals and nationalists had good nights in certain areas, though the nationalist right will be disappointed that it hasn't done as well as expected. The Greens made great progress in Germany, France, Finland and Ireland, while the far right scored successes in Italy and Britain (making modest gains in Germany and Spain, where they underperformed their previous national support, and standing still in France). The Liberals did well in France, Britain, Czech Republic, Romania and the Nordic countries. Meanwhile, the centre-left managed to hold on or revive itself in Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Proportional representation means that there is always going to be a certain kaleidoscopic quality to the results, but the electoral churn this year is particularly perplexing. It seems that the liberal/far right populist divide has polarised pro- and anti-European feeling, leading to mirroring support for those movements in certain countries, and that the Greens are stepping in as an alternative to the old centre-left in countries where the established left is struggling to revive itself. Both developments will have a big impact on politics at a European level, as MEPs more self-consciously pitch themselves to these audiences, and nationally, as Green issues are taken ever more seriously and certain countries are absorbed in culture wars (particularly France, Italy and the UK).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Tilting left: where now for the Parliament?</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Overall the Parliament has started to tilt ever-so-slightly leftwards. Now the big two have lost their majority, the Liberals and the Greens are increasingly important in forming a stable coalition. Coalitions aren't as important as at the national level as they can be formed more easily on issue-to-issue votes, but there needs to be a sufficient level of stability and cohesion to elect a college of commissioners and help pick the top EU jobs.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Parliament website has a useful tool for calculating <a href="https://election-results.eu/tools/majority-calculator/">potential majorities</a>. The main ones are:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EPP + S&D + ALDE - 436 seats</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EPP + S&D + Greens - 400 seats</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EPP + S&D + ALDE + Greens - 505 seats</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF - 404 seats</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The last of these potential coalitions, EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF, is highly unlikely as ENF houses France's National Rally party and would be considered unacceptable as a coalition partner. However, it illustrates how difficult it is constructing a coalition on the right as the ENF and EFDD are not only difficult partners politically, but they have very low levels of voting cohesion (this also applies to the far-left EUL/NGL bloc).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The weakness of both the EPP and S&D, coupled with the shift towards the Liberals and Greens, means that the political balance has started to shift leftwards, which may impact on the shape of future Eurozone and other economic legislation. It would also add weight to arguments on civil liberties. The four-bloc pro-EU coalition has a very large majority, showing that on issue-to-issue votes, <i>ad hoc</i> coalitions necessary to get amendments and legislation through can afford to err more on the left of an argument. The ability of the EPP to maintain its own cohesion on votes and the economic positioning of the Liberals will be key in determining how far the leftward shift can actually go. The left is, after all, very divided and will need to have a clearer idea of where it wants to go to make an impact.</div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-42685189445248339172019-05-26T17:51:00.000+01:002019-05-26T18:11:15.188+01:00#EU09vsEU19 - What's changed in EU politics and social media?<a href="https://europasionaria.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/eu09vs19-what-has-changed-in-the-eu-blogosphere-since-2009/">EuroPasionaria </a>has made a welcome return to EU blogging, and has asked old EU bloggers: what's changed? How has EU politics and communication changed online and how does it live up to the idealistic outlook of EU bloggers from a decade ago? <span 15px="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" imes="" new="" quot="" roman="" serif="" times=""><i><a href="http://www.laorejadeeuropa.eu/2019/05/elecciones-la-ue-2009-vs-elecciones-2019.html">La Oreja de Europa</a></i>, <a href="https://medium.com/@mathewlowry/from-ep2009-to-ep2019-a-lost-decade-ccba4205ebbc">Mathew Lowry</a> and <i><a href="https://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eu/2019/05/22/eu09vs19-what-has-changed-in-the-eu-social-media-sphere-since-2009/">Polscieu </a></i>have already posted their views under the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EU09vs19?src=hash">#EU09vs19</a>, and it's got me thinking about what has changed over the last decade.</span><br />
<span 15px="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" imes="" new="" quot="" roman="" serif="" times=""><br /></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:="">I was mainly active from 2009-2014, actively reading up on and following the last two European elections, but as work commitments increased, I had less time to blog and haven't returned since the last election. My interest in EU politics hasn't fallen away, however - after I moved back to the UK, I volunteered for some local campaigning in the Remain campaign, and Brexit has pretty much dominated the political concerns around me ever since (particularly as someone who grew up on the Irish border).</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:="">So what's changed? And how do things compare to the aims of Eurobloggers?</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><b>EU politics, then and now</b></span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">Back in 2009, EU affairs were rarely discussed in the national media - and even when they were discussed, it was with little detail and from a(n understandably) fairly narrow national perspective. EU bloggers were largely people with some academic, work or life experience of the EU, who wanted to open up the EU institutions, politics and issues for wider debate. It was a lot of fun and it was exciting to be part of an evolving debate and the small successes that the community had in gaining access to the EU Bubble and debating the issues </span></span><span 15px="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" imes="" new="" quot="" roman="" serif="" times="">(hey, reading government and parliamentary documents was big in 2009 - there was no Netflix and we had to make our own entertainment!)</span><span 15px="" color:="" font-family:="" font-size:="" georgia="" imes="" new="" quot="" roman="" serif="" times="">.</span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">The 2009 European elections saw a lot of </span><a href="https://jonworth.eu/tag/anyone-but-barroso/" style="font-size: 15px;">anti-Barroso sentiment</a><span style="font-size: 15px;"> online, but a lacklustre campaign saw little change in the parliamentary arithmetic and he returned to lead the Commission. The <a href="https://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.com/search/label/economic%20crisis">Eurocrisis</a>, however, saw European issues merge with national issues in a major way not only in Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, but also in other Member States faced severe economic circumstances and the big question: how much economic and social solidarity should there be in the EU? "Europe" loomed larger in the national media, and encouraged more people to join the debate on social media, though often sticking to national silos.</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">At the 2014 elections, the Europarties tried to bring the debate to life by picking <i><a href="https://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.com/search/label/Commission%20candidates">Spitzenkandidaten </a></i>for the Commission presidency. It did little to stimulate much of a debate outside some circles, and by then the Euroblogosphere community had shrunk (I myself stopped blogging around this time). Blogging can be time-intensive, so it's not surprising that people dropped out, but it was sad to see that new people weren't joining at quite the same rate. Discussions moved on to other social media platforms (primarily Twitter), and the interested citizen-activist community of bloggers that lived in the curious middle ground between the media and academia was hollowed out.</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">What's different in 2019? Things seem to be the same, only more so. Brexit, the growth of anti-EU populism, the refugee crisis, and unfinished Eurozone reforms mean that European issues are even more at the forefront of national politics than ever before. People are more energised on European issues and the debates are much more mainstream. So many more take to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc., to make their views known. But the debate is now on the level of the fundamental direction of Europe and its nations in a way that doesn't fully air the key questions or truly hold people and institutions to account. The Eurosceptic European conservatives and reformists may now have a Spitzenkandidat, but it's hard to claim there's much of a policy debate taking place.</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><b>Reasons to be Pessimistic, and causes for optimism</b></span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span 15px="" font-size:=""><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">So the kind of long-form, institution-focused blogging that made up the early Euroblogosphere has diminished and, to a certain extent, been dissolved into a broader short-form social media conversation that's much more open. It's a great thing that much more people are involved and active in the debate.</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">The fault-line of a pro-EU coalition versus anti-EU populism means, however, that such debates have not yet shifted in the direction we may have wished for. The <i>Spitzenkandidaten </i>are not under much scrutiny and campaigns are largely Europeanised national campaigns rather than campaigns on European issues, such as the Euro, with national characteristics and flavour. Rather than building a community that bridges the gaps between citizens, institutions and national media, citizens and national media have begun to engage more with "Europe". While the increase in support of EU membership and (potential) mobilisation in defence of the basic ideals of the EU and its institutions is welcome, I worry that without the creativity of conservatives, liberals, social democrats and Greens putting forward new ideas in a way that captures the public imagination and fashions real change, the rallying cry in defence of Europe could fade away without generating anything constructive of its own (as the institutions themselves rarely figure in these debates). That said, with so many new people joining the debate in new ways and taking another look at the world and continent around them, I think we can be optimistic that new and better debates and ideas will emerge.</span></span><br />
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;"><br /></span></span>
<span font-family:="" georgia="" new="" roman="" serif="" times=""><span style="font-size: 15px;">Personally, I blogged because I was interested in the subject, liked writing, and was proud to be part of such an active and thoughtful community. It's something that I've learned a lot from and that gave me the opportunity to meet may fantastic people - and I still believe there's a certain value in engaging with people in a long-form format that (hopefully) stretches your thinking. With European issues so mainstream and with little time to invest in writing amount more niche European issues, I don't feel as great as need to write about the EU as I once did, but I hope to blog more again in the future from time-to-time.</span></span>Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-82207000788698192762014-02-27T08:00:00.000+00:002015-01-23T02:39:14.808+00:00Are the European Conservatives passing up a great political opportunity?The <a href="http://www.aecr.eu/">Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists</a> have announced that they will <a href="http://www.aecr.eu/aecr-to-not-field-candidate-for-commission-presidency/">not be putting forward a candidate</a> for the Commission presidency in the 2014 elections. As an anti-federalist party, the main reason being given is that participating in the presidency contest will play into the hands of the more federalist parties. But are they giving up an electoral opportunity by giving the "federalist" candidates a free run? And does their main argument fit in with the AECR's general political position? <br />
<br />
Obviously the AECR must consider it a good tactical and electoral move. Presumably the AECR is setting itself up to oppose any move by the European Parliament to prevent the European Council from ignoring the contest when it nominates the next Commission president, but their support of a nominee will probably be more dependent on how closely he or she reflects their free market and anti-federalist positions. The biggest advantage is probably the freedom of movement it gives the AECR's member parties, such as the UK Conservatives, in the elections. European elections have typically been viewed through a national lens, and AECR parties will be free to highlight the any embarrassing policies that their opponents may be connected with through their European political families.<br />
<br />
The common decision to not run a candidate gives the national parties a good Eurosceptic response to any questions over why they're not supporting a candidate, which could help protect them on their Eurosceptic flank. Finally, the AECR is unlikely to go from fifth to first place in the European Parliament so they are not going to miss out on a chance to actually win the office of Commission President for themselves. Therefore it probably seems to be a small sacrifice for a potential tactical advantage.<br />
<br />
Despite these advantages, I think that the AECR have missed an opportunity. While it was left to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hannan">Daniel Hannan</a> to give the Europarty's <a href="http://www.aecr.eu/aecr-to-not-field-candidate-for-commission-presidency/">reasoning for the decision</a> (that the EU doesn't have a common <i>demos</i> and therefore the contest cannot be democratically legitimate), unlike Hannan the AECR is not for withdrawal from the EU but for a looser, more free trade orientated Union. This means that it's not necessarily ideologically inconsistent to take part in the contest: votes for a common candidate espousing a more decentralised EU wouldn't by definition contradict the demos argument (agreement on an anti-federalist message should logically indicate an unwillingness to identify as a pan-European <i>demos</i>). It's not as if the European Conservatives don't want the European Parliament to have a stronger say over the Commission - they called for <a href="http://ecrgroup.eu/news/ecr-group-abstains-on-new-european-commission-and-calls-for-reform-of-the-confirmation-procedure/">reform of the confirmation process</a> of nominated commissioners back in 2010!<br />
<br />
Politically, it is a missed opportunity to promote an <a href="http://ecrgroup.eu/news/ecr-meps-propose-red-card-system-to-block-bad-eu-laws/">anti-federalist</a> but pro-free trade <a href="http://ecrgroup.eu/policy/the-prague-declaration/">message</a>. If the European Conservatives want to revise the <a href="http://ecrgroup.eu/news/kirkhope-free-movement-in-the-eu-is-a-beneficial-principle-but-serious-debate-about-reform-is-needed/">free movement of people</a>, then a common candidate will be able to put that opposing viewpoint to the other candidates in the televised debate, and the national parties could draw on their alliance - and perhaps the opinion polls - to argue that their proposals for changing the EU are possible and have support. The European Conservatives don't have a member party in each Member State, but the campaign could raise those issues where they haven't been raised before and it would help set the AECR up as an alternative political home for the more Eurosceptic member parties of the centre-right European People's Party, or put pressure on the EPP to move closer to them politically. When it comes to the <a href="http://tinyurl.com/klmm2lx">televised debates</a>, the AECR is probably betting that they won't attract much attention, but there is a risk that they might, and that the conservative viewpoint doesn't get that air time.<br />
<br />
The European Conservatives believe in the single market and the EU as a market (though they are <a href="http://ecrgroup.eu/news/kirkhope-free-movement-in-the-eu-is-a-beneficial-principle-but-serious-debate-about-reform-is-needed/">increasingly questioning</a> the free movement of people) but want to return some powers to the national level, so the question is if they can advance that view within the EU. A common candidate could be a valuable tool in campaigning for that version of the EU, while surrendering that political space to more federalist parties actually makes it harder for the AECR to differentiate itself from the out-and-out anti-EU Eurosceptics. Without a credible voice for a more decentralised Union, the European Conservative position will lose support to parties like UKIP. After all, if the EU appears to be captured by the other Europarties, then the supporters of the AECR may increasingly wonder if their approach is worthwhile or if they should just abandon the hope of changing the EU. Not running a candidate is a political move that is more likely to benefit the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hannan">Hannanite</a> position than the Cameronite one.<br />
<br />
I may not be a supporter of the European Conservatives, but their decision not to run a common candidate could be a loss to the quality of the public debate as well as a missed opportunity for the AECR itself.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-61947019420648570142014-02-26T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-26T08:00:01.426+00:00The Campaign will be TelevisedThe European elections will have <a href="http://eurovision.com/cms/sites/ebu/contents/events/2014/05/telleurope--two-eurovision-debat.html">televised debates</a> between the Europarties for the first time. The European Broadcasting Union, which works on the Eurovision Song Contest, will be organising debates between the candidates for the presidency of the Commission. Screening the debate live is optional for the public broadcaster members of the EBU, so the event is unlikely to get equal coverage across the Member States, but it's a big step forward in giving the elections a "European" flavour. There will be two debates: one between the candidates of each of the political groups in the European Parliament (on the 15th of May) and one between the two main candidates (on the 20th of May).<br />
<br />
<i>European Voice</i> <a href="http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2014/january/televised-commission-president-debate-set-for-14-may/79442.aspx">reports that the first debate</a> will be between the candidates of each of the Europarties (which are made up of like-minded national parties), rather than just between the candidates of the largest Europarties that are more likely to take the presidency. This means that the debate will need to be very well managed. With five or more candidates debating, the moderator will have to have a firm grasp of proceedings to make the most of the opportunity. The second debate between two candidates can develop more naturally, but here the moderator will have to ask good questions designed to highlight the differing positions of all the candidates and draw out the main policies as well as policing speaking time. 90 minutes isn't a lot when divided between 5 speakers!<br />
<br />
The language of the debate will be an interesting issue. Apparently, the EBU wants the candidates to debate in English to prevent awkward translation delays that will break the flow of the debate, but candidates have the choice of speaking in their native language. Will the candidates plump for English in the hopes that they can reach a wider audience (and perhaps avoid potential translation errors from tripping them up), decide to debate in their own language (showcasing linguistic diversity - or simply being a more natural way to debate for a candidate), or a mix of English and their native language? There will probably be a mix in practice - if candidates can communicate well to voters in different languages, then they will probably try to make that connection.<br />
<br />
Who will debate is another topic. The European Greens have two "top candidates" to choose from: <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/keller-and-bove-to-lead-european-greens.html">Bové and Keller</a>. Fielding Bové may be a good way of boosting the Green vote in France, and as an anti-globalisation campaigner he may have a bit more name recognition (though Keller may appeal to a broader swathe of voters in practice). Since there will only be one televised debate with a Green representative (unless they poll very strongly), the Greens will have to make the choice. Apart from the Greens, the European Conservatives and the Euroskeptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group aren't fielding any candidates for the Commission presidency - will they put forward one for the debate?<br />
<br />
The debates will take place one week before the elections on the 22-25th of May. Given the traditional low interest in the European elections, it's probably a good idea to stage the debates close to the election date, though this might leave little time for the second debate to have much of an impact. The impact the debates make will be a factor in deciding whether selecting candidates for the Commission presidency really is the potential political bonus that most Europarties think it could be. But they should give the media big ticket events to report on (as long as they are interesting debates!). They should certainly put the parliamentary orientation of the national parties in the spotlight, as journalists can ask the awkward question: so, do you agree with your pan-European candidate on...?<br />
<br />
Forget 2014 being Europe's Twitter election - the more interesting question is could it be a TV election?Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-44867361115705040782014-02-24T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-24T08:00:15.830+00:00Scottish Independence and the EU<div class="MsoNormal">
The debate on Scottish independence is heating up: within
the last few weeks we’ve gone from <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/cameron-world-would-lose-something-very-powerful-and-precious-if-uk-broken-.1391778477">emotional appeals</a> to keep Scotland in the UK
to declarations that if Scotland leaves the UK it will <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26251277">lose the pound</a> and EU
membership. Commission President Barroso made a surprisingly strong intervention
into the debate on the <i><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03wc5qk">Andrew Marr Show</a></i>, saying that it would be “difficult, if
not impossible” for Scotland to be accepted back into the EU.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Although there are some <a href="http://www.verfassungsblog.de/en/warum-eu-und-mitgliedsstaaten-verpflichtet-sind-eine-schottische-eu-mitgliedschaft-zu-foerdern/#.UwprVhB_trM">interesting arguments</a> on the legal
obligations of the Member States in this area, and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-25856657">assertion is</a> <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26278237">disputed</a>, it probably will be difficult
politically for Scotland to re-join the Union. Still, an agreed referendum on
independence is different from a unilateral declaration of independence (which
is Spain’s real fear), and it shouldn’t be “impossible” for Scotland to gain
membership. The 2016 deadline of the Scottish National Party is another story:
Scotland may be up-to-date on EU law, but the negotiations would probably drag
on.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
What’s strange about the debate is that there’s little
discussion about the UK union as a whole. (As noted in <i>The Guardian</i>, 100 years ago the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/05/solutions-governing-disunited-kingdom-break-up-uk-ireland">situation was different</a>). The polls
on independence <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/independence-support-rises-in-wake-of-pound-row-1-3313112">may be narrowing</a>, but a vote against is still the likely
outcome. But even if Scotland stays in the UK, further devolution of powers is
on the cards. Without a debate on how the UK should be run – whether there
should be devolution to England or the English regions, and if power should be
devolved more equally with the central government holding on to limited and
clear powers – there is a sense of drift. If devolution is just about the
nations and regions claiming opt outs from the central government, rather than
part of a broader discussion about how the UK should be run, then the direction
of the political narrative is towards exit: maybe not today, but perhaps
tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-36766738208467275202014-02-14T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-14T08:00:00.964+00:00Swiss vote puts EU to the test on Free MovementThe Swiss referendum on immigration restrictions for EEA nationals - effectively a vote on ending the free movement of people in the single market for Switzerland - was passed by a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26108597">very narrow majority of 50.3%</a>, but it has big consequences. The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU form a dense and developed relationship; there are some 120 individual treaties. But the treaties are inter-related: should Switzerland breach one of the free movements, then the other single market provisions will be brought to an end. So Switzerland could potentially be <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/10/switzerland-talks-eu-immigration-referendum">exiting the single market</a>.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As <i>The Economist</i> notes, this <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21596567-referendum-europes-freedom-movement-will-have-big-consequences-switzerlands-crossbow">puts the EU in a bind</a>: does it bring these agreements to an end and uphold the single market, or does it try to accommodate Switzerland for fear of inflating the Swiss vote? The Commission is quick to highlight the <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/schweiz-volksabstimmung108.html">sanctity of free movement</a> at every opportunity, but it is a delicate situation: the referendum doesn't have immediate effect, as the quota system needs to be drawn up and implemented. So when and how should the EU approach the question of bringing the single market agreements to an end? The EU should not come across as heavy handed - above all the decision of the Swiss electorate must be respected. But the relationship runs in two directions, and the Swiss should not be allowed to benefit from the single market without extending the same rights to the rest of the EU.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In the end, the issue will have to be confronted. Accommodation of the dilution of the single market unpicks the EU and the commitments Member States, and in this case also Switzerland, have made. If Switzerland chooses to opt out, then that's their choice, but it entails opting out of the single market, not just the parts they don't like. The EU should wait for the Swiss proposals, while making clear that they will stick by the treaties with Switzerland.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For Eurosceptics, the Swiss result is a victory, but the real question is if it is accommodated by the EU system. If it is, then the question will be: why not restrict free movement within the EU? It is one thing to say that the free movement rights are key to the single market, it's another to stand up politically for the benefits they bring and for the integrity of the single market as a whole. In the referendum, the impact of the result on Swiss access to the single market was debated. If Switzerland breaches its EU treaties and brings them to an end, that is their decision.</div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-58153391226262997292014-02-06T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-06T08:00:01.270+00:00First Thoughts on the First World War<div class="MsoNormal">
This decade is going to see a lot of centenaries – the
beginning and end of the First World War, the Spanish Influenza that killed so
many afterwards, the rebellions and independence of so many European countries,
the Russian revolution, the suffragette movement – and the commemorations will
probably not only be about what we remember but how we remember it. Already
there’s a debate in the UK over how the First World War is remembered: a <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/goves-bashing-of-left-wing-historians.html">time of patriotism</a>, a disaster, a war that Britain <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/britain-first-world-war-biggest-error-niall-ferguson">never should have got involved</a> in…<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ve <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/goves-bashing-of-left-wing-historians.html">not had much patience</a> with Michael Gove’s emphasis on
patriotism (which seems to be more about deference to authority and the
government of the day than anything), but I’ve been wondering if the debates
and commemorations this year will change my view of the war. Like many people
the First World War is an immense tragedy, and the horrors of trench warfare
are unimaginable. The war need not have happened: sabre-rattling had been going
on for a long time without war, and it did not necessarily have to break out in
1914.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However I have some understanding for how and why the war
broke out. In a Europe ruled by the logic of the balance of power and bound up
in alliance blocs, once the situation got out of hand and war started, it was
hard to stop. Geopolitical and tactical considerations – whether Britain’s need
to keep the Low Countries free to protect its coastline, or Germany’s aim to
knock France out first via Belgium to prevent a war on two fronts – propelled the
war forward, making it harder and harder to back down.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
From today’s standards, it’s hard to see the First World War
as just. We just don’t act like that in Europe anymore – our borders are
virtually undisputed (and where they are disputed, war is unlikely), and it is
not the empire-driven dog-eat-dog world out there anymore. Expansion and
geopolitical positioning no longer drive our thoughts on our place in Europe,
so it’s harder to think of going to war in the same circumstances. The shock of
what the First World War actually cost pushed us away from the culture and
assumptions of pre-war Europe, so it has become more of an alien concept to us
today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Before the First World War periodic Great Power wars were
simply part of the balance of Europe: they happened when the other states felt
that one country or another was getting too strong and threatening their
strategic position, so there was a war to contain the growing power of other
countries. The shock of the World Wars and the end of the age of imperialism
has moved us to a stage where “just wars” are wars of defence or maybe of
humanitarian intervention. So we should probably be a bit wary of projecting
our values back on to the people of the time.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wonder if our view of the war is not only coloured by the
Second World War, but because the First may have straddled a shift in
attitudes. The War of Spanish Succession, the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War,
the Franco-German War – we don’t seem to single out these wars out for being
wasteful in the same way as the First World War, despite being similar Great
Power wars in many ways. But the First World War did popularise the concept and phrase “never again”. The League of Nations was set up.
Though the Second World War swept it away, the United Nations replaced it and
the attitudes to war continued to shift from the pre-WWI outlook.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is simply my impression at the moment and I wonder if
this year of commemorations will bring new viewpoints and change my own. But
there’s no question that it was a war that changed us.<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-46476780145504708152014-02-05T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-05T08:00:00.839+00:00Liberal candidate Guy Verhofstadt and the “Federalist Cause”<div class="MsoNormal">
Guy Verhofstadt, who has led the liberal ALDE group in the
European Parliament for the last few years, will be the Liberals’ <a href="http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/verhofstadt-proposed-as-candidate-for-european-commission-president-rehn-candidate-for-other-senior-1/">candidate forthe Commission Presidency</a> in the May elections. He has fended off Olli Rehn,
the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs for the candidacy. It was unlikely that Rehn
would have much appeal across Europe – he is the face of Eurozone austerity in
the bailed-out countries and would represent a very fiscally hawkish face for
the liberals – but he had a lot of support among the ALDE member-parties. The
<a href="http://cosmopublic.eu/report/verhofstadt-vs-rehn-mr-europe-candidates-again/">two will run together</a> on a the same “ticket”, with Rehn proposed for another “senior
post”. Perhaps the thinking is that if Verhofstadt doesn’t get the Presidency,
he might stay as leader of the parliamentary group…?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Verhofstadt is probably a better bet than Rehn in that he’s
a former Prime Minister (or Belgium) and has experience in both the European
Parliament and in the European Council. He failed in his last attempt to become
Commission President when Barroso first got the job in 2004… and I can’t see
him having much hope this time around. Though some in his party have noted that
he’s more centrist (and therefore more likely to be able to deal with either a
right- or left- leaning Parliament), the liberals are probably going to have a
very tough election. Two of the biggest liberal contingents – the Liberal
Democrats in the UK and the FDP in Germany – are battered, with the FDP <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/bundestagswahl-2013-merkel-stays-in.html">thrown out of the <i>Bundestag</i></a><i> </i>last year and the Lib Dems predicted to come 4<sup>th</sup>
in the UK in the May poll.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Verhofstadt is an interesting choice given his very
outspoken federalism. Having written a federalist book – <i>The United States of
Europe</i> – and given tub-thumping federalist speeches in the European Parliament,
I’ve come to think of him as the federalist Farage. He has tried to set out his
vision of federalism as more democratic:<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="265" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/iWoWSwpD1aY" width="510"></iframe><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
However, I can’t see a more nuanced version reaching people.
And, as I said at the start of the last Parliament, a focus on federalism and pro-Europeanism
is <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/europe-doesnt-need-pro-european.html">not the way to go</a>. Federalism is a concept for organising things rather than
a proper ideology that sets out values and priorities. Really, competing ideas
for the Eurozone, economic growth, the CAP, etc., need to be put to people and
then the decision is make on how much to do at the European level, and how to
do it.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Liberals, and Verhofstadt, will need to come out with
credible policies to make their brand more bankable. It strikes me that civil
liberties and data protection could be a good issue for them if they tap into
it – certainly it would chime with a lot more people than vague sermons on “federalism”.<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-64733762037065888042014-02-04T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-04T08:00:02.002+00:00Stripping Citizenship<div class="MsoNormal">
Last week the UK House of Commons voted on an amendment to
the <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/immigration/documents.html">Immigration Bill</a> that would empower the Home Secretary to strip foreign-born
terrorist suspects of their UK citizenship, even if it would render them
stateless. (Those with dual citizenship can already be stripped of their
British citizenship). The amendment reads (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0128/amend/pbc1282801a.pdf">p.3</a>):<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from
making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship
status if—<br />(a) the citizenship status results from the person’s
naturalisation, and<br />(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation
is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that
citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously
prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands,
or any British overseas territory.”</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The decision doesn’t have to be made following a court
ruling and it isn’t made by a court – it’s made by the Secretary of State
herself. The amendment was proposed by the Home Office Secretary of State,
Theresa May, and was reportedly aimed at drawing Tory back-benchers <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/30/tory-mps-told-abstain-foreign-criminal-deportation-vote">away from an amendment</a> that would have limited criminals up for deportation’s ability to
rely on the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. That amendment was defeated with
the help of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The vote is another example of how difficult it is for
Cameron to control his back bench, which will be worrying for him come the
European elections. At the moment the Conservatives are expecting to come
behind UKIP in the May poll, but even with that factored into their
calculations, the back benches may take the result as a spur to become even
more rebellious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Disappointingly, the anti-immigration rhetoric has meant
that the other parties have failed to take a firm stand on the issue of taking
away citizenship. On <i><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03t7f4n">Question Time</a></i> on Thursday, the Labour and Lib Dem
representatives weren’t able to give a clear “yes” or “no” on whether or not
they supported the idea. UK politics seems to be stuck on an illiberal course…<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-79292824209542979552014-02-03T08:00:00.000+00:002014-02-03T08:00:04.473+00:00Keller and Bové to lead the European Greens in the elections<div class="MsoNormal">
The online European Greens primaries ended with
anti-globalisation campaigner and French Green MEP José Bové and German Green
youth leader and MEP Ska Keller <a href="http://europeangreens.eu/news/press-release-greens-select-leading-candidates">heading the election campaign</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
22,676 people voted in the online primaries, and the four
candidates debated in ten different cities. The turnout for the vote is
disappointing, but as an <a href="http://kielspratineurope.eu/?p=1702">exercise in democracy</a> it was a good effort – with all
the primary campaign hype in the Social Democratic camp, the Greens are the
ones that actually held a competitive election.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The challenge for the winners now is to really add a
European dimension to the campaign – visiting campaign events across the
continent and explaining Green positions can not only add that dimension, but
give extra credibility to the value of a vote for the Greens if they can show
that they are an engaged and active parliamentary group worth supporting.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The idea of common candidates is becoming normalised now,
with the main Europarty groups planning to run (at least) one. It’s unclear how
much influence they have on the common platforms of their respective parties –
the Green candidates appear to be campaign leaders, rather than being picked as
parliamentary group leaders or potential Commission candidates – but there will
be an incentive there for the candidates to promote themselves and their party
platform.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
It’s very much open whether the media and electorate will be
attracted to these common candidates, but already the election is looking to be
a more engaging prospect than last time around.<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-24803213331258069772014-01-27T18:11:00.000+00:002014-01-27T18:11:59.254+00:005 Years of Bloggingportal!<div class="MsoNormal">
Today is the 5<sup>th</sup> birthday of <a href="http://bloggingportal.eu/">Bloggingportal</a>! In
the years that Bloggingportal has been linking Euroblogs and trying to make
discussions more accessible, the number of blogs has ballooned from barely 100
to <a href="http://bloggingportal.eu/reader/blogs">over 1000</a>. The Euroblogosphere is still relatively small, but the Eurocrisis
and <a href="http://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eu/2014/01/05/the-genesis-of-a-european-public-sphere-economic-crisis-and-lampedusa-european-elections-and-cross-border-migration/">Europeanisation of national politics</a> has spurred the increased debate on
the EU.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bloggingportal has been around for almost as long as <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/welcome.html">this blog</a>, and I’ve found it useful in following different opinions and news. But 5
years is a long time and the site is definitely showing its age. Editors have
drifted off as work and life have become more demanding, but the people at
Bloggingportal towers have been planning and working on a <a href="http://mathew.blogactiv.eu/2014/01/25/getting-into-gear-or-false-dawn/">renewal and relaunch</a>
of the site. With the <a href="http://www.bloggingportal.eu/reader/topic/284">2014 European elections</a> coming up in May, it’s important
to keep up with the debate across the continent, and hopefully Bloggingportal
will soon be able to make it easier to do so.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
So here’s to another 5 years!<o:p></o:p></div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-70726660643184084582014-01-13T08:00:00.000+00:002014-01-13T08:00:02.700+00:00No Free Movement Rights for the Working Class?The debate over the free movement of people is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-25701195">continuing to grow</a>. It's worth remembering that EU citizens currently have the right to reside in another Member State for 3 months to look for work, with no obligation on the host Member State to provide benefits (Citizen's Directive, <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF">PDF</a>). They can stay longer than 3 months if they are employed, self-employed, or have the resources to support themselves. When they're a worker (an employee), then they have access to the same social and tax advantages as the host country's nationals (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31968R1612:en:HTML">Directive 1612/68</a>).<br />
<br />
In the UK, some Tories are calling for a <a href="http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Society/article1362086.ece">2 year period</a> before EU citizens will have access to the welfare system. That's 2 years of living, working and contributing in a country without being able to draw on the same support open to other citizens. Given that so many supported by the welfare system are in work (an indication of how <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/08/wages-stagnate-uk-now-in-the-euro-relegation-zone/">wages have stagnated</a> and the worrying necessity to support those in work to ensure that they can actually make a living), such a long period would greatly disadvantage poorer people from exercising their Treaty rights in practice.<br />
<br />
Labour appears to be thinking of controlling intra-EU migration for the skill levels of the migrant, as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/10/stop-eu-citizens-travelling-uk-work-labour?CMP=twt_gu">Chuka Umunna said</a> on the BBC's Question Time last Thursday:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Umunna said the EU should change its rules to prevent citizens from travelling to other member states in search of work, with a focus on banning highly skilled workers from less affluent EU members taking low-skilled jobs in richer member states.<br />[...]<br />He said this would revive the spirit of the EU's founding fathers, who wanted to encourage freedom of movement for highly skilled workers to highly skilled jobs."</blockquote>
<br />
I'm not sure what founding father he's talking about; he didn't quote any and I can't remember any famous quotes about Europe only being for graduates. Labour's position is very confusing. They seem to be talking about preventing movement to other countries to find work (so you'd already need to have a job before you move), preventing highly skilled workers from the new accession countries from taking lower-skilled jobs in the older Member States (which sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to define and enforce, never mind getting all the Member States to sign off on it), and limiting the free movement rights to the highly skilled.<br />
<br />
This last point, which seems to be the most likely, is an odd position for the Labour party. So the highly skilled (presumably also those from more privileged backgrounds) should have these rights but the less well skilled shouldn't (which is hard to define and probably just means "poor")? It's a sad state of affairs when the Labour party is for disenfranchising the poor in Europe rather than opening up more opportunity and creating work and security...<br />
<br />
Even the Liberal Democrats have <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25703577">voiced support</a> for limited access to benefits. Perhaps someone can explain the electoral rationale behind this move, because I can't see it. Nobody who wants a tough stance on immigration is going to vote for the Lib Dems over the Tories because of this. The net result is that there's no real political voice that is speaking out in defence of free movement rights.<br />
<br />
It's <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25703577">widely reported</a>, and accepted by supporters for tougher immigration controls such as Migration Watch, that EEA migrants claim less than locals, and contribute more to society and the economy than they receive in social welfare. The political weather has changed so much that even the politicians that make this argument are supporting a dilution of free movement rights. This political cowardice just lets the panic over immigration to grow. Without dissenting voices, the political culture as a whole shifts in an ever more anti-immigrant direction - you could say that it's a microcosm of the overall EU debate in the UK.<br />
<br />
Political attitudes of the <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/zuwanderer-sozialleistungen104.html">CSU in Germany</a> are also hardening on this, though <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend2140.html">opinion polls</a> suggest that a majority thinks that Germany has benefited from immigration and that it has benefited from EU membership overall.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-55205773712417595602014-01-10T07:30:00.000+00:002014-01-10T12:11:27.396+00:00European Parliament wants to question SnowdenThe European Parliament's LIBE Committee's <i>Inquiry into the Electronic Mass Surveillance of European Citizens</i> is not due to be published in March, and the Committee has <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/edward-snowden-invited-testify-video-european-parliament-nsa-surveillance">voted to question the whistle-blower</a> Edward Snowden via video-link. However <i>The Guardian</i> has ran a story on the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/nsa-gchq-illegal-european-parliamentary-inquiry">draft of the report</a> in which the Inquiry says the actions of the NSA and the UK's GCHQ "appear illegal".<br />
<br />
The draft report states (<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-526.085+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN">PDF</a>; main findings start at p.16):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"[The Inquiry] Condemns in the strongest possible terms the vast, systemic, blanket collection of the personal data of innocent people, often comprising intimate personal information; emphasises that the systems of mass, indiscriminate surveillance by intelligence services constitute a serious interference with the fundamental rights of citizens; stresses that privacy is not a luxury right, but that it is the foundation stone of a free and democratic society; points out, furthermore, that mass surveillance has potentially severe effects on the freedom of the press, thought and speech, as well as a significant potential for abuse of the information gathered against political adversaries; emphasises that these mass surveillance activities appear also to entail illegal actions by intelligence services and raise questions regarding the extra-territoriality of national laws</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[...]</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[The Inquiry] Stresses that, despite the fact that oversight of intelligence services’ activities should be based on both democratic legitimacy (strong legal framework, ex ante authorisation and ex post verification) and an adequate technical capability and expertise, the majority of current EU and US oversight bodies dramatically lack both, in particular the technical capabilities."</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(Points 9,and 60 of the main findings).</blockquote>
<br />
Along with <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/nsa-gchq-illegal-european-parliamentary-inquiry">calling for</a> the US and EU Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and demanding that the UK, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany revise their national intelligence laws in line with the European Convention on Human Rights, the rapporteur, S&D MEP Claude Moraes (UK), called for the SWIFT Agreement with the US to be <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/nsa-abschlussbericht100.html">put on ice</a>.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/swift-ii-european-data-protection.html">SWIFT Agreement</a> allows for the transfer of financial transaction data to the US, and has come in for a <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/i-feel-that-weve-been-had-report-on.html">lot of criticism</a>. The first attempt at agreement failed, but the European Parliament voted through a second renegotiated SWIFT deal earlier during this parliament.<br />
<br />
<i>Tagesschau</i> <a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/nsa-abschlussbericht100.html">reports</a> that the inquiry may show that French and German intelligence agencies have also been carrying out similar surveillance programmes. This is probably widely suspected anyway, but for a parliamentary inquiry to finger France and Germany after the outrage expressed by those two countries would be very embarrassing. It would be particularly uncomfortable for Merkel, who is seen to have <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/eu-reaction-to-nsa-affair.html">reacted to the NSA Affair slowly</a>, and due to the controversial nature of the EU's own <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/data-retention-puts-german-coali-news-532626">data retention laws</a> in the country.<br />
<br />
The European Parliament report won't have any binding effect, but the Inquiry is a strong political statement. As well as being a fundamental issue that needs investigation, this is a ticket to the central political stage. Questioning Snowden would be a major coup and turn the Inquiry into an international event. Though the Inquiry overwhelmingly wants to question Snowden (only 2 UK Conservatives on the Committee <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/09/nsa-gchq-illegal-european-parliamentary-inquiry">voted against</a> the proposal), it is depending on Snowden wanting to use the platform - something that the US Congress fears and has warned against. It's hard to see why Snowden wouldn't take this opportunity to state his case personally and publicly.<br />
<br />
<br />
EDIT: <a href="http://twitter.com/RalfGrahn/status/421552264654761984">Ralf Grahn</a> drew my attention to the draft report online, so I've changed the blog to include links and some extracts to it.<br />
<br />Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-29845836116029564782014-01-09T10:45:00.000+00:002014-01-09T10:45:00.185+00:00Poland says No to watering down Free MovementThe Polish government has made it clear that it will <a href="http://euobserver.com/political/122649">veto changes to the free movement</a> of people in the EU Treaties. Since the EU Treaties can only be changed by unanimity, this is a blow to calls from Cameron's UK government (and from the Bavarian CSU) for changes to the system.<br />
<br />
I've written before about how the UK debate seems to frame the single market as the only good thing about the EU when the social elements are such a big part of the bargain. This is desire for the single market to respect national social protections gives rise to a kind of <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/uk-renegotiation-and-european-social.html">European social contract</a> - a kind of minimum (and from the left's point of view it is very minimum) level of protection that limits the single market in undercutting national welfare and social systems (though the single market has had a big impact on these). But now the debate has shifted to <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/cameron-eurozone-budgets-and-single.html">reviewing and limiting one</a> of the fundamental freedoms of the single market.<br />
<br />
The fears over EU immigration in the UK (with the ending of the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens) has been the main spark for this, and the idea of being tough on immigration is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25634088">popular</a>. And because a "market" is seen as just goods you buy in a shop, rather than an economy people live in, the free movement of people is perhaps seen as not really being part of the single market. Despite this, there are polls indicating that Britain would be welcoming of <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/free-movement-nights-eve.html">immigrants who play by the rules</a>, so the panic may be more linked to the rhetoric over benefits and <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/which-generation-are-we-saving-here.html">the young</a> than might be seen at first glance.<br />
<br />
Watering down free movement rights is likely to come up against fierce opposition from many Member States - not just Poland, but also Spain, Ireland, Greece, and other countries afraid to see their citizens treated as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25656429">second-class EU citizens</a> - so it's unlikely to work. But watering down further the social side of the EU will make everyone more economically insecure and could further undermine support for free movement rights and solidarity in the wealthier Member States, and ultimately support for the single market.<br />
<br />
For Cameron to be able to claim victory through renegotiation, he will have to get something big in the area of social policy now that so many other areas are sealed off (the UK is outside of Schengen, the Euro and has an opt in to justice legislation). The undermining of social rules and standards needs to be resisted.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-54362883247716778312014-01-09T07:30:00.000+00:002014-01-09T07:30:00.715+00:00Gove's bashing of "left wing" historians is a sad indication on how he views historyThe UK's Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, has been <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25612369">in the news lately</a> for complaining about left wing academics and their insufficiently "patriotic" version of the First World War, which feed into a likewise <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532923/Michael-Gove-blasts-Blackadder-myths-First-World-War-spread-television-sit-coms-left-wing-academics.html">unhappy media image</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles - a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths."</blockquote>
<br />
It's interesting that pointing out the failures of the military leadership of the war is equated with denigrating the courage of those who fought - the very phrase <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys">lions led by donkeys</a></i> is meant to highlight their courage in contrast to the leadership - and it almost seems like Gove's definition of "patriotism" is loyalty to the elite. Question the soundness of General Haig's strategy of repeatedly making soldiers walk slowly across open ground towards machine-gun fire? Clearly you have little love for the troops or Britain.<br />
<br />
More worrying is the approach taken to academia. Debating the history and the merits of generals or the justness of the war is a good thing - and critical thinking and discussion needs to be encouraged. But using politics as a shorthand to exclude arguments is sloppy and wrong. This is the man responsible for the education system calling academics "left wing" to imply that they and their academic work is untrustworthy and biased. Are papers on history published in academic journals by authors with left wing political views less reliable or worthwhile simply because of their political views? Of course, this "left wing" view of history isn't necessarily reserved to the left. Notably, <i>Oh! What a Lovely War</i> is inspired by a book by a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Clark">Conservative MP</a>.<br />
<br />
If Gove personally distrusts the work of historians simply because it appears to have, in his opinion, a left wing bias or because it finds itself at odds with the government's aims (or the war propaganda at the time), then that's his business. But it's a poor basis for teaching history or commemorating the war.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10px;"><br /></span>Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-12750560929391692122014-01-07T07:30:00.000+00:002014-01-07T07:30:00.099+00:00Which Generation are we saving here?British Chancellor George Osborne said yesterday that another <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25617844">£25 billion in welfare cuts</a> are needed to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/cabinet-split-george-osborne-welfare-cuts">close the deficit</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Do we say: the worst is over; back we go to our bad habits of borrowing and spending and living beyond our means - and let the next generation pay the bill? Or do we say to ourselves: yes, because of our plan, things are getting better. But there is still a long way to go - and there are big, underlying problems we have to fix in our economy."</blockquote>
<br />
With the pensions part of the welfare budget protected under the Conservative promise of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/george-osborne-britain-cuts-austerity">the triple lock</a> - that pensions will increase in line with average earnings, inflation or by 2.5%, whichever is the largest - and the under-25s the targets of most of the cuts, it's an odd rhetorical direction to take. It's traditional austerity rhetoric to insist that the costs of borrowing mean that the next generation is being weighted down by debt instead of the current generation dealing with their own problems.<br />
<br />
But the under=25s are the main target of these austerity policies, be it an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/06/george-osborne-britain-cuts-austerity">end to housing benefits</a> or <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-young-people-under-25-would-not-be-able-to-claim-employment-or-housing-benefits-under-tory-government-8853560.html">employment benefits</a>. It's difficult to claim that the generation that finds itself under the 25 year threshold played a part in causing the current deficit or economic crisis. When did they speculate on house prices or recklessly run financial institutions? Are these people not the "Next Generation"? Even if they're not, presumably the benefits will still remain withdrawn for whoever this Next Generation turns out to be until they are 25.<br />
<br />
This raises a few questions about what the morals behind the Tories' version of austerity. Why should the under-25s have access to fewer benefits than the rest of the population? At 25 you can vote, serve in the army, pay taxes, are entitled to the full minimum wage... but you can't be trusted with housing benefit? Which implies that you won't be seen as a full citizen in the eyes of the British state until you're over 25, and that you're really expected to live with your parents in tough times.<br />
<br />
Protecting pensioners - a key voting group for the Conservatives - might be seen as a cynical political ploy (and to an extent it is), but I think you can see the basis of the Tory view of the state in the targeting of the young to close the deficit. The state, or the welfare part of it, it really a giant insurance vehicle in the Conservative view: benefits should really only be paid out to those who pay in. Pensioners have paid in, so their contribution must be protected; under-25s cannot safely be assumed to have paid much tax yet, so they should not have access to the same range of benefits as other citizens. Taxpayer payment to (or investment in) the state should be prioritised.<br />
<br />
The problem with this view is that young people start off with nothing or not-very-much (unless they have a generous family) because they are just starting off in life and have yet to establish themselves in work and the world at large. Generally there is a redistribution of resources to the young (education, etc.) to equip them with the skills to establish themselves (and to give the state higher earning workers who will pay higher taxes). People established in careers are expected to pay not only because they have benefited from the system in the past, but also because they want their children to have a good start in life and they want later generations to continue to be able to pay for the state (including eventually their pensions).<br />
<br />
By focusing so much on who <i>pays in</i> as a taxpayer, and that on an individual level they broadly get what they paid in <i>back out</i> in the end, it misses the point that the state acts as an investor. Taxpayers matter more than citizens, so if you can't be assumed to have paid much in, then it's not that big of a deal to withdraw benefits. So if you are in (university) education, you're expected to pay tuition fees and to take on debt to do so because you're investing in yourself, and if you're under 25, you don't deserve access to the same benefits as anyone else because we can't assume that you've paid in yet. Of course this kind of thinking means that the welfare state becomes more about those who can or have been able to pay at some point, leading to more inequality.<br />
<br />
This attack on the young is an extremely clear sign that we aren't "all in this together", particularly as <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/24726792">youth unemployment remains high</a>.<br />
<br />
Ironically it seems to be the "pro-business" Conservatives that don't know much about investment - after all, the Royal Mail was <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25018535">sold off at a bargain basement price</a> while the government guaranteed its returns for a year, and the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25084744">oldest student debt was sold off at a loss</a> rather than the government even bothering to maximise the returns on even the loan system. No wonder the Tories think the private sector can do it better when they do it so badly.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-85745759338249193892014-01-01T07:49:00.000+00:002014-01-01T16:03:47.182+00:00Yet More Widening and Deepening2014 dawns and the EU continues to widen and deepen. Latvia is now part of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro">Eurozone</a>, bringing the total to 18. What has Latvia got itself into, you might ask, until you realise that it has pushed itself through a harsh austerity regime just to get into the club. Trepidation might be the right word for Latvia's entry into the Euro; that troubled zone where predecessors have encountered price rises. But with the trial by fire that was the last few years of austerity and Eurozone entry, the country is likely to prize its membership and look unkindly on the periphery's pleas for (debt) forgiveness.<br />
<br />
Another event to be marked is Mayotte's move into the category of Outermost Region of the EU. 5 years after it voted to become a <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/republican-aspirations.html">department of France</a>, it's been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Member_State_territories_and_the_European_Union#Outermost_regions">added to the "outermost" category</a> (and being of the coast of Madagascar it is fairly outermost from Europe's perspective), which is an enlargement of sorts. As an outermost region, Mayotte will be in the Customs Union and have the Euro as its currency. It remains outside of the Schengen zone, however. And of course, the restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria have <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/free-movement-nights-eve.html">expired today</a>, giving their citizens the full rights of European citizens.<br />
<br />
This is after a year where Croatia joined the Union and Ukraine saw huge protests for closer relations with the EU (though it's important to remember that the EU is not promising membership and may not be willing to offer more than the agreement that was on the table). But 2014 will be remembered (in EU circles) as a moment of truth in the European elections. It's a challenge to offer a proper choice when citizens go to the polls, and, as always, it partly depends on citizens demanding that choice. The <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/in-search-of-citizen-european-year-of.html">European Year of Citizens</a> may be rolling on, but we'll not get much in terms of primaries, and for the candidates to make themselves known there'll need to be some key policies to catch the public's attention.<br />
<br />
A tough call - but a vital challenge. The 2014 elections will shape the EU for the next 5 years to come. It's not just that the European Parliament is a co-legislator now (the Member States in the Council need its agreement for most EU legislation), but the coherence and impact of the campaign will determine how the next Commission President will be elected and how European politics and the Eurocrisis will proceed. If there's a strong verdict delivered for a more social or less united Eurozone at the election that will influence the outcomes of the political wranglings for the next half a decade. Now we have a new year, can we make the most of it?Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-73935268186866783102013-12-31T15:39:00.000+00:002013-12-31T15:39:33.742+00:00Free Movement Night's Eve?"<a href="http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/csu-im-wahljahr-mit-vollgas-in-den-anti-bruessel-wahlkampf-1.1852675">Who cheats, flies</a>", runs the campaign of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria. Fear of an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians seems to be at fever pitch, with Tory activists in the UK petitioning the Prime Minister to use an <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25546241">emergency clause to limit immigration</a> and the new CSU campaign, which has angered its coalition partners (the CSU is part of Merkel's governing coalition). From tomorrow, the transitional restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens from enjoying the full rights of EU citizenship will expire and they will be able to work across the EU under the same conditions as other citizens.<br />
<br />
Counter arguments, that Germany and others <a href="http://derstandard.at/1385172361597/EU-Kommissar-Deutschland-profitiert-vom-Zuzug-auslaendischer-Arbeitnehmer">benefit from migration</a>, that migrants <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/migration-target-useless-experts">contribute more than they receive</a> in benefits and that the freedom of movement is a two-way street, don't seem to have broken through. However that doesn't mean that anti-immigration arguments and rhetoric are necessarily well-received. The "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24624383">Go Home</a>" campaign piloted in Britain - where a van pulling a billboard urged illegal immigrants to contact the Home Office and "go home" - was a laughing stock, with people cheekily trying to use the contact number to ask the Home Office to <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/28/willesden-green-twitter-wind-up-immigrants">arrange for their trip home</a> across London. Similarly, the "Who cheats, flies" - <i>Wer betruegt, der fliegt!</i> - campaign was <a href="http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/csu-vorstoss-wer-betruegt-der-fliegt-wie-das-netz-die-csu-verspottet-1.1852323">mercilessly ridiculed online</a>, with pictures of prominent CSU ministers on planes appearing under the slogan.<br />
<br />
And a recent poll in Britain suggests that integration rather than immigration is the crux of the concern, with a majority of people <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/bulgaria-romania-migrants-uk-poll">accepting of immigration if people play by the rules</a>. This is probably why the clumsy attempts to tar groups of immigrants - actual or potential - with the same brush has struck such a hollow ring with people. In this day and age <a href="http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/02/problems_with_poles_report_the.php">scapegoating a group of people</a> is simply not acceptable. The concern is more over pressure on the welfare state, public services and integration into the local community. These are issues - and it's sad that evidence of migrants' contributions haven't had much traction yet - and they also seem to be tied up with the wider debate over the welfare state and who deserves help: the old concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classifications_of_poor_used_in_the_Poor_Law_system">the deserving poor</a>.<br />
<br />
The image of people flying in just to cheat the system may be ridiculous, but in tougher economic times there is <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20431729">a fear of cheaters</a>. Announcements to reduce and cut away at the welfare state are not just about austerity, but also tinged with suspicions that some are milking the system, even as demand for charitable services like food banks rise. But as the welfare system is made tougher, it's made tougher on everyone... The political battles over immigration and welfare will continue into the new year, with parties bidding to be tougher on immigrants and welfare "scroungers". Past experience with populist campaigns may have jaded the public to these stunts, but we are drifting towards a tougher society.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-24257087489083217972013-12-18T07:30:00.000+00:002013-12-18T07:30:00.440+00:00In Search of the Citizen - European Year of CitizensIt was, Commissioner Viviane Reding declared, "A <a href="https://twitter.com/EuropeanCitizen/status/411392931460050944">fight against indifference</a>". Speaking at the closing conference of the European Year of Citizens, she correctly noted that the EU is "<a href="https://twitter.com/EuropeanCitizen/status/411397304013570049">more than a market</a>", but the story of "<a href="https://twitter.com/EuropeanCitizen/status/411399610981416960">freedom, prosperity and stability</a>" no longer worked as a European narrative. Europe certainly doesn't feel so prosperous anymore. From citizen dialogues to reaching out to civil society, the EU is not just trying to reach out to be closer to citizens, but you get the sense that if they could just deliver what people wanted, hopefully a new narrative will spontaneously emerge. Reding didn't say what Europe's <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/new-narrative/index_en.htm">new story</a> was - she had to leave quickly for another <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/debate-future-europe/citizens-dialogues/">Citizens' Dialogue</a> in Lithuania.<br />
<br />
<i>How to make Every Year a Year for Citizens</i> was the <a href="http://www.eu2013.lt/en/news/pressreleases/lithuania-having-presided-during-the-european-year-of-citizens-has-aimed-at-strengthening-dialogue-between-government-and-citizens">conference's theme</a>, with discussions running from civil society organisation's at EU level to freedom of movement to the upcoming European elections. Hosted by the <a href="http://www.eu2013.lt/en/">Lithuanian Presidency</a> in Vilnius with the help of the <a href="http://ey2013-alliance.eu/">European Year of Citizens Alliance</a> ("EYCA" - an alliance of national civil society organisations), the conference was very much about how civil society can influence and interact with the EU - and above all the Commission.<br />
<br />
And they do have something to say. Organising against the discrimination of the vulnerable in society, speaking out and even intervening in court cases in defense of the marginalised who try to exercise their free movement rights, and advocating giving a voice to 3rd country nationals who come to the EU. <i>Proper consultation!</i> was the cry, <i>not "Insultations"!</i> "<i>Insultation</i>" - shorthand for consulting with civil society groups just to tick boxes without really listening to them - was definitely the word of the conference. EYCA took the opportunity to hand Reding <a href="http://ey2013-alliance.eu/itsaboutusitsabouteurope/">their recommendations</a> for making the EU more open and democratic for citizens.<br />
<br />
Here is the public the Commission yearns for - it's active, wants to participate and it has learnt the jargon, from your Charter of Fundamental Rights to your institutional triangles (even if this still proves a barrier to civil society organisations when it comes to knowing who to talk to). They can be disappointed, pleased, listened to or ignored. Most importantly, <i>they talk</i>.<br />
<br />
It's a public, but are we talking about European citizens here? At times it felt more like a year of civil society organisations rather than a year of citizens. It's understandable - who else to you invite to this kind of event if not them? Apart from the bloggers, pretty much everyone present represented a civil society organisation (which went some way to slowing down the Q&A sessions, with each audience member taking the chance to explain what their organisation does). But though civil society makes a valuable link between the EU and citizens, you will probably only get that sense of a European public if and when the European elections start to feel European.<br />
<br />
One of the most surprising speakers was the new head of the European Movement, Diogo Pinto, who - surprisingly for the EM - said that while the European Parliament does have new powers, it's still rational for citizens not to vote at European elections, because it's hard to see what changes in terms of power. Hopefully having candidates for the Commission Presidency in the election will change this, but it would be a slow process. The political drama of parliaments and elections is where you'll find citizens and a sense of citizenship emerging rather than targets and outcomes.<br />
<br />
In future - the theme of citizens will unofficially continue because they couldn't think of a theme for 2014 - it would be good to have a citizens' dialogue as part of the conference (I assume that they were held separately due to falling under different institutions - the Council and the Commission). Having the chance to watch ordinary citizens put their questions to the Commission would bring up interesting issues and would actually <i>be citizens participating</i>.<br />
<br />
So was the conference and the Year of Citizens a success? It depends on who you wanted to engage, but there is a sense that a wider public rather than simply campaigning civil society organisations was desired. At the opening of the conference it was admitted that it was "a mistake" to involve PR companies so much because it led to more of a broadcasting campaign than more engagement. After the European election promotion campaign in 2009, I hope the Parliament was listening!Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-45497445246539122272013-12-16T07:30:00.000+00:002013-12-16T07:30:01.543+00:00Ireland exits the Bailout, but not AusterityToday Ireland has exited the EU bail-out programme - the first country to do so - but it doesn't mean an end to austerity. Appearing on TV last night in a <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/full-text-of-the-taoiseach-s-speech-1.1628907">State of the Nation Address</a>, Taoiseach Enda Kenny praised the sacrifices of the public and said that Ireland had regained its international standing. However, "<a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-stick-to-prudent-budgetary-policies-1.1628928">prudent budgetary policies</a>" will continue, meaning that there will be further austerity. The transport minister has also <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-cautions-against-giveaway-pre-election-budget-1.1628722">cautioned against</a> any "giveaway budgets" on the basis that the public will be skeptical of them.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="265" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZimCU8LCggM" width="460"></iframe><br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Ireland still needs to repay the bail-out loans and reduce its debt, and monitoring of the national finances will continue at the EU level (although now it will be based on the semester system in line with other Eurozone states, rather than the more controlling Troika process). The senior coalition partner, Fine Gael (EPP), is hoping that exiting the bail-out will generate enough satisfaction that things are slowly going in the right direction, even if people aren't feeling any benefit in their lives or in their communities.<br />
<br />
For the junior partner, Labour (PES), this strategy is unlikely to work. Having campaigned in the election on a platform of "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpr2zaXvb4M">Labour's way or Frankfurt's way</a>", there is little gain for Labour in a slow recovery (<a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bailout-exit-is-labour-s-way-says-gilmore-1.1581319">despite its attempts</a> to capitalise on it). And not only is the economy bad for Labour, but when it comes to popular, more liberal, stances on social policy (abortion and same sex marriage, for example), it <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/poll-reveals-thriving-fg-but-little-joy-for-listless-labour-1.1627248">doesn't seem to boost</a> Labour's position.<br />
<br />
Whatever the position of the governing parties, there is really little to be excited about on the Irish economy. The stronger export sector has been an advantage, but with the general economic malaise in Europe and high levels of private debt in Ireland, it's hard to see where the growth is coming from. The bail-out and banking debts that the public have been saddled with results in continuing austerity with Kenny aiming for 2020 as the year recovery will be complete.<br />
<br />
Ireland may be the star pupil of austerity, but it hardly demonstrates that austerity is a star policy.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-74157642609033562702013-11-28T08:20:00.000+00:002013-11-28T08:24:54.942+00:00A Strong Europe?: What the Grand Coalition has in storeTwo months after the <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/bundestagswahl-2013-merkel-stays-in.html">German elections</a> the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25116115">Grand Coalition deal</a> between Merkel's CDU (and their sister party, the CSU) and the SPD has been signed. It's not a done deal until the SPD membership has endorsed the coalition treaty, and there is some resistance to it given their anti-Merkel election campaign and the frequency with which Merkel's coalition partners have the political life sucked from them. Still, the SPD leadership are likely to have their way, and with a membership vote on the deal the coalition will have a firm foundation for the next 4 years.<br />
<br />
The headline policies, such as the minimum wage and reduced pension age (SPD) and road tolls for foreigners (CSU) have tended to be driven by the junior partners of the coalition. It's been suggested that the leadership style of Merkel's CDU (focusing on her leadership rather than policy) may have worked well in the campaign, but was a <a href="http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kanzlerin-merkel-und-die-cdu-wer-nicht-kaempft-erreicht-nichts-1.1815416">weakness when it came to coalition negotiations</a>. So how is Germany's Europe policy shaping up?<br />
<br />
The coalition agreement can be read here (<a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/inland/koalitionsvertrag136.pdf">PDF - in German</a>), with the European policy at pp.15, 156-167.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Eurozone and the Single Market</b><br />
<br />
The big one and, despite the hopes that the SPD may have moderated the austerity-centric policy, there is really no change here. In fact the strongly conservative tone is startling - there's plenty of talk about reducing debt and deficits and working on competitiveness, but when you turn to the "social Europe" section the rhetoric is pretty much repeated: <i>austerity is the only way to ensure a social Europe</i> seems to be the message.<br />
<br />
On banking union there is little new. Yes, there must be banking union, and, yes, private banking debt must be separated from public debt (with banks taking the hit first). However the deal underlines that releasing funds under the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) or otherwise will remain subject to a vote by the Bundestag and emergency credit lines are a last resort only. The agreement both stresses that <b>there will be no common liability at the European level since budgets are a national competence</b>, <i>and</i> that <b>budgets must be effectively overseen and co-ordinated at the European level</b>. (It appears that the joined-up thinking demanded of Brussels has not similarly been applied here...). The SPD's leanings towards Eurobonds have apparently been stamped out altogether for the purposes of coalition.<br />
<br />
On the future of emergency credit and the "reform contracts" that are supposed to accompany them, the German government supports the contract idea, though such deals must be "democratically legitimised". Presumably this means that the national parliament of the bail-outee will have to ratify the contract before being lent money.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the agreement states that there will have to be changes to the treaty basis of the currency union - a bit hint in favour of treaty change.<br />
<br />
The new German government will support the completion of the single market, to which you can add the usual talk of both requiring further harmonisation to help create a level playing field and also ensuring the reduction of red tape, etc., etc., that always bolted on statements about the single market these days (and apparently copy-pasted here for emphasis). The stand out policy here is on posted workers, which should be "developed" to ensure that posted workers work under the same pay and conditions as nationals of the host country would.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Social Europe</b><br />
<br />
Not much here at all. Under this heading the austerity rhetoric is repeated, perhaps on the basis that since times are tough austerity will have to stand in to reduce the number of policies, ironically causing a policy deficit in the process. There's not much here that isn't already long-standing policy at the EU level. Youth unemployment is bemoaned (the answer is held out to be structural reform and making free movement of this young educated workforce easier). Social and wage dumping are to be fought, and the new government will be supportive of tax harmonisation, which will have the alarm bells ringing from Dublin to Helsinki.<br />
<br />
Money from the European Investment Bank has been promised for several types of projects and policy. Honestly, so many people have promised EIB money for so many things at this point that I'm starting to wonder if the next financial crisis will be when it collapses. It seems that when the EU budget is so small and you're cutting it, the answer is to promise to get the EIB to lend money for it. Just wait til the Europarty manifestos come out....<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>EU Democracy and foreign Policy</b><br />
<br />
Enlargement, while supported, will face a tougher Germany: criteria must be more strictly applied, and Turkey's accession process won't "automatically" end in membership. Berlin also wants to beef up EU foreign policy through its humanitarian and development aid policies - and even military planning. It foresees a close cooperation between the EU and NATO here, which is probably something that would happen to a certain degree, directly or indirectly, though the neutral Member States may not be so happy with this.<br />
<br />
When it comes to EU Democracy, there is nothing new: more education about Europe and supporting a more uniform electoral code seems to be the extent of the coalition's thinking here. There's not even a mention about how the 2014 elections can be used, never mind how they might affect the <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/merkel-automaticity-and-commission.html">formation of the next Commission</a>. Berlin will, however, want to see German on a more equal footing with French and English as a working language of the EU - it will be interesting to see how it pushes for this in practice.<br />
<br />
<br />
Overall, very disappointing, if not entirely unexpected. For those of us on the left, the agreement's European paragraphs appear to contain no "social democratic handwriting". For those hoping for a change to Germany's Eurozone policy there is not only nothing, but a vigorous restatement of that nothing. For those looking for renegotiation there is an encouraging hint here, though the passage on social standards and the attitude towards the posting of workers will - or should - worry some British politicians who perhaps project too much of themselves into Germany's pro-single market outlook.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-90959662620246041092013-11-27T18:48:00.000+00:002013-11-27T18:48:17.361+00:00EU Budget: a victory for the CouncilThe <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25001658">passing of the EU budget</a> last week by the European Parliament was definitely a win for the Council and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303985504579207762415249916">the fiscal hawks</a> amongst the Member States. For the first time the EU budget will be cut, and cut by €35 billion (3.5%) over the next 7 year period (this "<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBudget_of_the_European_Union&ei=sTKWUuPsAoOEhQfJvIEI&usg=AFQjCNFAz_T1uDG_5j_uR1KIVEi0Ncpl6g&sig2=DIZ0ekoci3TIthlRbYTG0Q&bvm=bv.57155469,d.ZG4">Multi-annual Financial Framework</a>" allocates the budgets for 2014-2020).<br />
<br />
While the European Parliament was able to wring a few concessions from the Council, given that it supported an increase, it's hardly a sign of parliamentary muscle. The centrist alliance of the European People's Party, the Liberals and the Socialists and Democrats bloc were key to passing the budget (537 to 126 votes), with the Greens, United Left and the Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Democracy group being the main opponents. The centrist alliance <a href="http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/joint-declaration-epp-group-sd-group-and-alde-group-multi-annual-financial-framework">made a few demands</a> that were mostly reflected in the concessions.<br />
<br />
In return for its support, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25001658">the Parliament got</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Protection of EU funds for research, humanitarian aid and border controls from cuts;<br />- Retention of unspent funds by the EU, so that these can be used elsewhere (instead of returning to Member States);<br />- Agreement to ensure the payment of <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131118IPR25540/html/Parliament-approves-EU%E2%80%99s-2014-budget-and-plugs-2013-payment-gaps">existing commitments</a> under the 2013 budget;*<br />- Review of the EU's own resources (money directly received by the EU rather than given by the Member States).</blockquote>
<br />
The cut in the budget was also reduced from the level demanded by countries such as the UK.<br />
<br />
The rationale behind the cuts is that the EU budget needs to reflect the austerity of the Member States - a bizarre idea if the austerity currently practised is supposed to be a policy of necessity rather than ideology, since the EU as an organisation has no debt or deficit. This is because the EU cannot borrow money. The "need" for the EU to reduce spending for the same reason as the Member States is therefore an ideological position rather than an actual attempt to balance a budget or EU public finances. The end result is a reduction in the already low fiscal transfers from the EU in investing in the poorer regions of the EU - taking away an important, if small, support at a time when money is being sucked out of vulnerable economies. So much for solidarity.<br />
<br />
It is even more perplexing when a supposedly centre-left party <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/labour-and-commons-vote-on-eu-budget.html">takes this approach</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
* The EU budget in 2013 seems to be in a <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/an-emergency-eu-budget.html">similar position</a> as in 2012, with Member States ironically happy to sign up to spending commitments and then not budget properly for it...Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-68393162442399612812013-11-12T07:30:00.000+00:002013-11-12T07:30:04.581+00:00The European Cloud - Europe's Response to the NSA Scandal?Negotiations over the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24895482">EU-US trade deal</a> reopened yesterday, demonstrating that the NSA affair has not halted progress here despite the <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/eu-reaction-to-nsa-affair.html">calls from the European Parliament</a> for talks to be suspended. At the same time the Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee (<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.europarl.europa.eu%2Fcommittees%2Fen%2Flibe%2Fhome.html&ei=e2mBUoOcIYHMhAerkIHADg&usg=AFQjCNHbEsFVSgWhcumzbyZ17vOz-SQzlQ&sig2=KbPjGMYvoL-iQNqT6OSqzA&bvm=bv.56146854,d.ZG4">LIBE</a>) continues to <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20131111IPR24355/html/NSA-has-no-direct-access-to-customers'-data-IT-firms-tell-MEPs">hold sessions on its inquiry</a> into the spying allegations. <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/kroes/">Neelie Kroes</a>, the Commissioner that heads the Digital Agenda policy, has said that while the spying revelations are shocking and unacceptable, the spying will probably continue - "<a href="http://www.nu.nl/tech/3625635/kroes-waarschuwt-naiviteit-rond-spionage.html">Let's not be naive</a>". Instead Kroes argues that Europe should focus on building its digital infrastructure and single market in the internet.<br />
<br />
In the EU the spying scandal does not look like it will produce any sharp changes in policy direction, but rather an acceleration of existing policies as the Commission and others capitalise on the political fallout from the affair. For the Data Protection Regulation this has already meant a <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2013%2Foct%2F22%2Fbreakthrough-data-privacy-rules-europe&ei=v2mBUqixOo-AhAfzn4GwAw&usg=AFQjCNHmOI2Fua3GVyDodSg_7dfoEam3qg&sig2=fTbN6EndFwbE61rJKqftvw&bvm=bv.56146854,d.ZG4">reversal of the bill's dilution</a> that had been brought about under the influence of lobbyists, and for Kroes it means pushing the European Cloud.<br />
<br />
The European Cloud Strategy was adopted by the Commission last year, <a href="http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1025_en.htm">aiming to boost European cloud computing</a> by sorting through problems of technical standards, data portability, clear cloud computing contracts and user trust. The policy is mostly economically focused, noting that cloud computing can generate jobs and economic growth while providing opportunities for cost-cutting for small and medium businesses. However, cloud computing concerns issues of data protection as well as copyright issues. As the EU works through its data protection reforms, the fact that <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/infosociety/prism-cloud-european-silver-lini-news-530004">85% of cloud computing services</a> are US based will surely raise concerns not only over how much the EU needs to do to catch up in this market, but also over how effective European privacy rules will be in practice.<br />
<br />
With European <a href="http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-digital-single-mar/commission-establish-security-bu-news-531370">expert groups meeting</a> on how to approach cloud computing contracts and a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/european-cloud-partnership">European Cloud Partnership</a> mulling commercial strategy, the technical discussions seem removed from the headlines in the media, but the Commission <i>probably does</i> see this as part of the solution (as well as using the crisis to promote its policies). First, the Commission's strongest in the single market, so boosting European internet businesses so European consumers (and others) have an alternative to the US-based cloud is one of the few things they can actually <i>do</i>, so they would be naturally inclined to favour this policy. Second, the best way for Brussels to exert its regulatory power in an area (and one of the few ways it can exert any power) is to have a strong market in that area and then come up with high standards for it, setting the pace in the global marketplace.<br />
<br />
In a sense, Kroes makes a good point. It is hard to imagine that the <a href="http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1025/482564-us-spying/">Franco-German push</a> to put transatlantic spying on a "legal footing" will do much, if anything, to reduce actual levels of spying. Improving the market position of the EU would help provide an alternative and allow the EU to stamp its data protection philosophy on to the global economy more effectively - and the political impetus behind such an economic policy is unlikely to fizzle out as quickly as the focus on spying may do.<br />
<br />
However, this isn't enough - we should and need to push more forcefully to ensure that security services here and in the US are more politically accountable. It is not enough that what they do is legal: after all, it would hardly solve the problem to provide that legal backing wherever it's currently lacking. Rather we need to have a more critical approach to the demands of security for ever more information and resources, and to have a real debate over how we balance safety and security and civil liberties.<br />
<br />
Because while we can never have total security, we can run out of privacy.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-25328625060135574372013-11-11T07:30:00.000+00:002013-11-11T07:30:03.100+00:00The European Green Primaries OpenThe primaries of the European Greens <a href="http://europeangreens.eu/news/egp-launches-green-primary-select-two-leading-candidates-european-elections-2014">opened yesterday</a>, and anyone in the EU over 16 and who supports Green values can register and <a href="https://www.greenprimary.eu/">vote in them</a>. The primaries will be open until January 28th.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://europeangreens.eu/news/bov%C3%A9-frassoni-harms-and-keller-contend-green-primary">Four candidates</a> are running: José Bové, Monica Frassoni, Rebecca Harms and Ska Keller. They've already gone through two stages before the open primaries - first they have to be <a href="http://europeangreens.eu/blogs/jacquelinecremers/we-have-our-candidates">nominated by a national party</a> of the European Greens, and then get the support of at least <a href="http://europeangreens.eu/news/bov%C3%A9-frassoni-harms-and-keller-contend-green-primary">four member parties</a>. This threshold is lower than the PES's (of 6 member parties), and coupled with the maximum limit of 8 supporting member parties, probably encouraged more candidates to come forward and be selected.<br />
<br />
The primaries will select 2 leading candidates for the European Greens who will represent them in the election campaign and in debates with other Europarty leaders.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="265" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/e1NBkM01Oe0" width="510"></iframe>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>The Candidates</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Bov%C3%A9">José Bosé</a> is a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96744/JOSE_BOVE_home.html">French Green MEP</a> who has been in the European Parliament since 2009 and is Vice-Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. He got into the Green movement as a farmer in France and has campaigned against nuclear power and GMOs. He is against fracking. Bosé is anti-globalisation and campaigned for a No vote in the French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He has criminal convictions for destroying GMO crops and a McDonald's in France.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_Frassoni">Monica Frassoni</a> is the current co-president of the European Green party. In the last parliamentary term (2004-9) she was a co-leader of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, but did not retain her seat in the election. She supports a "Green New Deal" and is a European Federalist. There has been some controversy over Frassoni running in the Italian elections on a list that competed with the Italian Greens (the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Ecology_Freedom">Left Ecology Freedom</a> list), which caused the Young Italian Greens to <a href="http://monicafrassoni.it/la-mia-risposta-alla-richiesta-di-dimissioni-dai-verdi-europei/">demand her resignation</a> from the European Greens co-presidency.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Harms">Rebecca Harms</a> is a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28233/REBECCA_HARMS_home.html">German Green MEP</a> who currently leads the European Green/EFA group in the European Parliament in debates (along with Daniel Cohn-Bendit). Harms was a landscape gardener before becoming a politician, and has also led the Green group in the Lower Saxony state parliament between 1998-2004. She got into the Green movement through the anti-nuclear campaign in Germany (over the infamous nuclear waste dump in Gorleben) and has spoken on energy transition and climate change in the EP. Harms supports further EU integration. As co-chair of the European Parliamentary group, she'll probably top the primary.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ska_Keller">Ska Keller</a> is a <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96734/FRANZISKA_KELLER_home.html">German Green MEP</a> and the candidate nominated by the youth wing of the European Greens. She grew up behind the Iron Curtain and has worked on cross-border solidarity in her home on the Polish border. Keller is a member of the Committee on International Trade and a substitute on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Her specialisms in the EP are migration and EU-Turkey relations, and she is for better protection of refugees.<br />
<br />
<br />
It's great to see an open primary get off the ground. Probably inspired by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Socialist_Party_presidential_primary,_2011">French Socialist presidential primary</a> that engaged people from outside the party, the European Greens will hope to get people interested first in the primary, and then in supporting the member parties come election time. It will be interesting to see how many participate.<br />
<br />
If you're interested in voting, you can vote <a href="https://www.greenprimary.eu/">here</a>.Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7620652438500849718.post-20692320734236563932013-11-08T07:30:00.000+00:002013-11-08T07:30:00.378+00:00Merkel, Automaticity and Commission Independence"I <a href="http://euobserver.com/political/121906">don't see any automaticity</a> between top candidates and the filling of posts," says Merkel, pouring cold water over the idea that the winning Europarty's candidate will become Commission president. Apparently the Merkel who argued for a directly elected Commission president just a few years ago was merely exhibiting the naivety of youth (merely <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-chancellor-merkel-cools-on-european-integration-a-907339.html">CDU policy</a>?). The European People's Party <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-chancellor-merkel-cools-on-european-integration-a-907339.html">may be suffering</a> from Merkel's new-found reluctance to engage in candidate-selection or manifesto-building.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Article 14(1) of the Treaty on European Union (<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0013:0046:en:PDF">PDF</a>) states that the European Parliament "shall elect the President of the Commission". Digging deeper into the Treaty, the actual mechanism is that the European Council, acting by qualified majority and taking into account the results of the European elections, nominates a candidate, who the European Parliament can elect or reject (Article 17(7)). So Merkel's correct that the European Council isn't required by treaty law to nominate the winning party candidate, but that's not to say that a political convention of nominating the winning candidate cannot - or shouldn't - evolve. Just as it's now accepted in the British system that the Queen appoints the winning party leader Prime Minister (although it may get more complicated if coalitions start becoming a regular feature), it should become accepted practice for the European Council.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I can see why Angela Merkel has difficulties with this. The <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/martin-schulz-political-left-wing-and.html">PES candidate</a> is from across the political isle and would <a href="http://theeuropeancitizen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-primary-will-not-be-televised.html">cost her the ability</a> to nominate a friendly CDU/CSU candidate as a Commissioner, losing her power within the Commission and patronage within her own party. Other Member States may start to have difficulties with it as well, either simply because they don't like the winner or because they realise that their own power to nominate Commissioners could be undermined if a coalition is needed to elect the Commission and its president - a coalition that may include Commission portfolios as part of the deal...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It could be argued that this democratisation of the Commission leaves it too dependent and close to the European Parliament. Article 17(3) TEU states:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"In carrying out its responsibilities, the Commission shall be completely independent. Without prejudice to Article 18(2), the members of the Commission shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or other institution, body, office or entity. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties or the performance of their tasks."</blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The nomination of Commissioners (that can be rejected by the Commission President) is the only exception to this independence rule. So the argument is that giving the Parliament such a big role would damage the Commission's independence.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But the Commission is already, by treaty, responsible to the European Parliament and can be voted out of office by it (Article 17(8) TEU). Despite the complicated nomination-and-election procedure, there is clearly a tendency towards political accountability to the Parliament and the electorate. The means are there to make the Commission more democratic, and the opportunity should be seized. The concerns over the "independence" of the Commission are therefore more a defense of the <i>status quo</i> than anything.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The principle that the Commission consists of representative of all (or a representative rotation) of the Union's nationalities is a kind of <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FConsociationalism&ei=dGl8UovWM4GAhAfy5YDADA&usg=AFQjCNFH5XD0sb9RDcEvWybwC1n7-EwVKg&sig2=bqhXNHwq4-p40imyFzn4ug&bvm=bv.56146854,d.ZG4">consociationalism</a> - a way of making sure that all groups feel that they are represented. But why should the nominees to this office be so naturally assumed to have the political colour of the nominating Member State? Surely this ends up replicating the political balance of the Council, rather than the Parliament? It seems odd to stress the dangers to independence of the Commission from a Parliament that can hire and fire it, but not the political influence that comes from basically replicating a snapshot of the political balance of the Council in the Commission.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The Commission will always be sensitive to the political make up of the Council and Parliament, since it has to get their consent to pass legislation. Independence therefore should be seen more strictly, as concerning direct instructions from governments and outside bodies and propriety in office, rather than independence from the Parliament and the electorate. Political accountability matters, and we need more of it in the EU - so come the election the new Parliament should make a stand on the issue of who the European Council nominates. It should be the winning candidate.</div>
Eurocentrichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09439536905456080079noreply@blogger.com0