Europe in 2010

The 14th December symbolised Europe in 2010 for me. Berlusconi, despite all the scandals, won two confidence votes (in the lower house by just 3 votes!), and outside the protesters took to rioting. A few days later there would be a European Council summit where it was decided to dig in: there will be a Treaty amendment to make the Eurozone's bail-out facility permanent, but no increase in the facility's funds, nor any moves towards closer fiscal union through Eurobonds. Outside rages anger and uncertainty about the future, but inside there is little vision, and fear for the alternatives.

European solidarity now has a figure: €750 billion, and a few interest rate percentage points. At the heart of the matter lie questions of blame and responsibility as well as solidarity. Why should the German taxpayer - or Dutch, or Finnish - pay for the poor economic management of other Eurozone states? Or, from the other point of view, why should Greek and Irish taxpayers support a harsh austerity programme that bails out German, British and other private banks; why should these taxpayers pick up the tab for the reckless private sectors in other countries? Both are understandable viewpoints and have good arguments, but they reveal the extent of the "European integration" of the private sphere, and the need for a strong, coherent Eurozone response. I agree that countries like Ireland have mismanaged their economies and a great deal of the responsibility lies with them. But does it make sense to aim to penalise these countries' economies and demand penance, while at the same time advocating their rescue by the very same measures to ensure that their economies revive and cease to threaten the stability of the European economy?

The Eurozone needs a vision for how it will be run to benefit the whole, yet we hardly hear the arguments on Eurozone governance, and we don't debate the different viewpoints across borders. How can we be in a position - how can our leaders even be in the position - to make the rules for living together in the Eurozone when we are intent on having conversations with ourselves in fragmented groups, and trying to extract short-term advantage at each summit instead of trying to build a consensus on how to proceed together?

Though the economic crisis dominated 2010, there was much more to the year than that.

It was the first year of the Lisbon Treaty, which changed EU politics - you might even say it was the year the European Parliament. Whether it was the EU-US SWIFT Agreement on terrorist financing being shot down for a lack of safeguards, with US Vice President Biden imploring Parliament to accept it before a modified form was adopted, or the battle over the budget, the Parliament has been exerting its influence constantly. Victories weren't total, and I didn't always agree with the legislation passed, but the Parliament managed to make its mark on 2010. For me the greatest Parliamentary victory was over the formation of the European External Action Service, were it got a lot of its proposals accepted and heavily shaped the new institution despite only having the right of consultation under article 27(3) TEU - if anything symbolises the Parliament's new-found power, it should be this.

Politics of government and opposition strengthened in the Parliament this year, with the EPP generally supporting the Commission and Council with the help of the Liberals (where the right are in the majority), and a motley alliance of the PES, Greens and Liberals managing to upset the EPP's plurality on occasion. Though voting alliances remain fluid, the increasing coherence and importance of European parties with clearer policy platforms begs the question: why aren't we doing more to hold them to account and to use them to make a difference?

Barroso's second Commission was formally installed early in the year, and he tried to inject some vision into his second term in his hyped "State of the Union" speech. Generally the Commission was the least visible of the institutional triangle, though it did have a moment of glory when it temporarily grew a backbone to speak out over the Roma crisis in France.

Rights were very much an issue - civil liberties in SWIFT, citizenship and human rights for the Roma, human rights and elections in Belarus, and freedom of speech and the media in Hungary. If this is any indication, we will need to remain vigilant at home and across Europe for the next year and beyond.

Like Jon Worth, I'm not so optimistic for the future: there are too many narrow interests pulling in too many different directions. In September I heard a speech on the development of the EU. Europe, it was proclaimed, advanced through crises and managed to muddle through; we should not be worried or optimistic. I can't see that way of doing business working in the future. We need to make greater use of what is there to make the EU more inclusive and representative so that clearer arguments and vision can form and shape the Europe we live in. But it won't happen just through institutional reform and more information campaigns. It's a long road, but promoting debate between people and not just governments is essential if the EU is to become more democratic and joined-up. But this would require people to actively participate, rather than just being passive subjects.

Blogging about Cancún

An agreement has just been reached in Cancún, which has produced another political agreement, but with no legally binding force over emissions. It's not an event I have been following closely over the last few days - I've been caught up in JHA and the excellent Bloggingportal.eu conferences/events - but I've noticed that one of my local MEP's Twitter account lit up.

Bairbre de Brún is a United Left MEP (Sinn Féin) who was part of the EP's delegation to COP 16, and was part of last year's delegation to COP 15 in Copenhagen. Normally Northern Ireland's MEPs' (and candidates') Twitter accounts are fairly inactive, only showing some life around election times, though I've seen some more activity from NI political figures recently. For the trip, de Brún also started to write a blog on the negotiations, talking about some of the issues and the negotiating styles at Cancún.

Environment is an area that is frequently mentioned as something that impacts at local, national, European and international levels, and it's a policy area particularly important in the EU - as Gawain Towler pointed out in the Bloggingportal conference yesterday, the EU affects the light bulbs you can buy, so it does effect people's lives. While lightbulbs might be too small an issue to hold much political or media attention, COP 16 is an example of important events were the EU's politics and position matters, and could be newsworthy. But then perhaps reporting on the negotiations of delegates and the differing positions of other countries and regions is too detailed to be newsworthy. Is blogging a better medium for covering these kinds of big negotiations?

Back from RIO

It's been pretty quiet on the blog recently because life has been very busy lately. Apart from exams, papers, and general work, I've just been on a RIO Trip. Unfortuneately it isn't as glamourous as it sounds, as RIO stands for "Recht der internationale organisaties", which is Dutch for "Law of the international institutions".

The trip consisted of visiting a lot of European organisations in Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels, and entailed an exhausting amount of presentations and travelling, and, as was pointed out, an unknown number of bars. The EU and the Council of Europe naturally featured on the list, but so did other less well known organisations and institutions within the EU and outside of the EU umbrella. The lasting impression is of a Europe that has embraced an extrodinary depth of co-operation and integration, the scale of which rarely strikes you until you've seen the many different forms of co-operation - and I'm sure we only saw a quick overview. The commitment of the people involved in these institutions is also impressive: again and again, we met people who were genuinely enthusiastic about their subject area, whether it was the prevention of torture or the regulation and safety of the skies.

The positions of the other, non-EU, organisations was interesting as well. In a continent full of international co-operation, the EU looms large as the Europe, and the other organisations are adjusting their roles in the face of the EU's success. From conflicted self-assertion and resignation (Council of Europe), to a vision of providing expert advice (Commission on Navigation of the Rhine), to that of enthusiastic service provider (EuroControl).

Notable exceptions from the trip were the Council and the EP. The Council was dropped because of the European Council summit which occured while we were in Brussels (so ironically I was close by but didn't know what exactly had happened until I got back home). The EP was dropped because, apparently, they're just bad at handling visitors and left a bad immpression on the last RIO trip - which is a shame, because the EP is, for me, the institution that communicates best online.

So to get back into the swing of blogging, I think I will cover some of the institutions and organisations and my impressions of them.

US organisation funds groups in Europe to destabilise governments

Well, not really, but an article in the Guardian about the Washington-based Freedom Works, which is advising the Taxpayers' Alliance on Tea Party-style tactics has a great line:

"The Taxpayers' Alliance, an influential campaign group that calls for tax cuts and low government spending, is being advised by Freedom Works, a powerful Washington organisation credited with helping to destabilise the Obama administration through its mobilisation of 800,000 grassroots activists."

I couldn't resist.

So will Tea Partying catch on in Europe? I doubt it: Europeans are wedded to our welfare states, as we are often reminded, and tend to hang on to the simple equation "taxes go in, public services come out". And public services are still popular. In fact, I think that public services in Europe help add a lot to national and local identity - it is quite a surreal situation when the Tories, who seem to like the idea of privatising the Royal Mail, float the idea of the "Big Society", Cameron suggests that communities run their own post office.

I'll run that by you again. Cameron, who has talked about "Broken Britain", sees the post office as a creature of the community, but I doubt the Royal Mail will get much Conservative sympathy. Sometimes I wonder how people underestimate the value of public institutions in community and national identity. They are a show of solidarity between different parts of the country, mean that people have similar experiences and have a joint commitment to institutions that form a part of a community's past, present and future. Naturally it can be argued that the Royal Mail just isn't that relevant or central to life anymore, but when there are more faith schools, and free schools or academies, it's hard to see how integration or cohesion can work effectively. But enough of that aside.

Tea Party-ers ("Partiers" doesn't look quite right) will likely remain thin on the ground. The mood of austerity is in the air, and governments are cutting services to help pay off debt. Arguing for more cuts to services in this atmosphere just to cut taxes would signal that the state was in full retreat, and effectively abondoning people to the recession after asking taxpayers to pay for the mess the banks made. Saying that the government would be seen as "abondoning people" might seem a very strange thing to say, and is unlikely to make much sense to people who just want the government out of their lives. But I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration - even if it's a very crude generalisation - to say that European history has a long and rich theme of trying to integrate and cope with different sections of society, to become more inclusive. This has been true of the US, of course, with civil rights, and also with a lot of societies. But I think that government in Europe is seen as a way of including people in society, if used properly, and as a part of the community (even if the idea is badly battered).

After all, in an era of popular sovereignty, does it make sense to talk of the state as an alien force simply to be resisted?

Even the Tea Party Movement isn't myopic over the usefulness of the state; they want to use it like any other political movement - to achieve their ends. The only policy I'm aware of, is their support for ID cards for immigrants in Arizona. As Gulf Stream Blues convincingly argues, this is more government - in that, logically, more people will need to carry ID papers for it to work. The Tea Party Movement might not have a strict agenda, which might make it hard to combat, but I doubt that it will be truly popular on this side of the Atlantic. It may still end up being an influential part of the debate though, like the Taxpayers' Alliance who are a rent-a-quote for outrage on public taxation and spending.

So that's my two eurocents, and I hope that I'll never find myself writing about Tea Parties again. We've our own home-grown right-wingers to worry about.


Edit: I wrote Freedom House instead of Freedom Works, which was what the article was actually about; it's been changed now.

No National European Vision

In the EUobserver today, there's an article on Barroso's response to the Eurobarometer results. Barroso says that the member state governments have failed to defend the European project during the crisis:

""I admit that we should do more together in order to give confidence to citizens and consumers. But I also want to tell the truth: We won't solve the problems unless each nation sees the European project as its own," the Portuguese politician said.

"In fact this is not the case now. When things go well it's their merit and when they go wrong it's Brussels' fault," he added."

It's a tough position for the EU institutions, because it is hard for them to communicate with the public - hard to get information and debate on what's going on in the institutions into the mass media. The long process of passing legislation that is often technical does not help win column space in the newspapers. So I appreciate the difficulty that the institutions have in informing people about what the EU does, and the dependence of the EU on the member states to inform their citizens about the EU. However, I agree with Gawain Towler that it's not really the member states' role to promote the EU (though I don't agree with his other conclusions).

It would be nice if the national governments were candid about the good and bad work they do around the Council table, but it is unlikely to happen. Member state governments don't fall or get re-elected based on their Council voting record. Apart from that, national parties aren't designed for European politics and issues - quite simply, national parties are designed to get members elected to national office. A conflict negotiation lecturer I had in university highlighted this through referendums - generally civil society is better at running referendum campaigns because parties are more suited to getting people elected on broad policy platforms. Which is another reason why I support the PES Primaries Campaign: because making executive elections matter forces the issues of policy more clearly, and the transnational party bodies (and their national member-parties) have a clearer interest in explaining their voting records and policies. Though it is, in a way, simplistic to target institutional conditions, if these aren't changed, there will remain an in-built disincentive for explanation and debate over policy.

That's one way of promoting a "national European vision" and encouraging people to discuss what kind of policies and cooperation they want, if indeed they want it. It's all very well saying that national parties need to promote the European project - but, let's face it, it hasn't happened yet, and if things stay the same it will remain unlikely. Less blame, more ideas, please.

The Moral Authority of Europe

Despite the rhetoric of the EU as the "EUSSR", a neo-liberal project or as some sort of Papist plot, Europe holds an - at times, surprising - amount of moral authority, even in the more Eurosceptic member states. This is probably because of the practice of using "Europe" as a continental yardstick (e.g. highest cancer death rate in Europe; lowest teenage pregnancy in Europe), and because of the legal certainty the EU and ECHR can lend to policies (if the European Court of Human Rights rules on something, it carries a lot of legal and moral authority, even if legal academics continue to argue and debate the reasoning).

Which is why I wrote an open letter to President Barroso, Commissioner Reding and European Council President Van Rompuy on the Roma issue, urging them to speak out (NOTE: the refusal of the Commission website to relay my email to Barroso, and the chore of moving house have meant that I only managed to send a paper version to Barroso earlier this week). While the EU has issued statements that they will monitor the legal status and treatment of the Roma, there is an important role for the Europarties and EU institutions to speak out for equality and rights (though they obviously need to be held to account on this score as well). So it was good to see Commissioner Reding finally making the wider argument for tolerance (hat tip @dicknieuwenhuis and @Anna_EU_webteam).

However, the argument against mass explusions and for equal treatment needs to be made continuously, and, in the future, the response should be faster. France's calls for a exclusive immigration summit and calls that the EU decide a "coordinated response" on how to "deal" with the Roma's deportation show that national politicians and leaders who support discrimination against the Roma as a group know that the nation-state is a badly tarnished vehicle for carrying out their prejudices. These summits and immigration meetings are attempts to legitimise Roma explusions as "the norm" and "legally acceptable".

So we need to keep making the case for tolerance and equal treatment at the European level. If we don't, one day we'll find discrimination being legitimised in Europe's name.

EUSSR (Noun)

EUSSR (Noun):

used as an alternative to the EU, usually as a means of depicting the European Union as a organisation that produces oppressive regulation, by drawing a comparison to the USSR, a communist dictatorship in Eastern Europe and Asia during the 20th Century. This is achieved by placing an "E" in front of the acronym "USSR". Users of this word tend to believe that EU regulations restrict trade and damage the European economy, as evidenced by the disappearance of Brie cheese from supermarkets across the European Union; Brie only being available to those with the requisite food tokens and correctly stamped forms in triplicate.

See also: Supreme Soviet (used to denote the predetermined nature of a decision that was already taken by another body; on occasion these bodies, or institutions, are believed to take decisions for each other); Eurocrat (a civil servant [or class of civil servant] working in the institutions of the European Union. By regulation, they may only work in sinister, darkened rooms on floors not less than 5 floors above ground level, preferably overlooking grandiose views of Brussels [smoke-filled rooms having been removed by the amending Council Decision 35/1998]); and Anglo-Saxon/Neo-Liberal Project [see below]


Anglo-Saxon/Neo-Liberal Project (Noun):

used as an alternative to the EU, although it is generally used as a description subsequent to the European Union's identification, usually as a means of depicting the European Union as a organisation that is bent on excessive deregulation that threaten workers' rights and the welfare state. Proponents of this view frequently cite the successful pressure to abolish the minimum wage in the member states that had won this right, and are generally supported by the American press in this regard, through long editorials on the lack of medical coverage for large sections of the European population.

"Anglo-Saxon" is generally used as part of this term when the user wishes to draw attention to denote the malign and ever-present influence of the British government in the European institutions, which has been successful in pursuing its agenda of deregulation in order that the City of London can reap the benefits of globalisation, at the expense of the social fabric of its own and other European countries. No other EU member states ever subscribe to the economic policies dreamt up in London, yet Whitehall has recently succeeded in rigging elections across Europe to ensure that the Council, Commission and European Parliament have a right-wing majority.


See also: Margin of Berlusconi (the margin of error within with a politician can survive politically, despite major gaffes, insults, and legal issues. Since the margin is sensitive to the political circumstances and the political capital [or media ownership] of the politican in question, the Margin of Berlusconi is notoriously volatile. However, some experts believe it is theoretically possible to survive within it for extended periods of time, though at serve risk to the subject's reputation and the dignity of those associated with him/her).

European Theology Season opens early on Euroblogs

Is it yet another sign of climate change? Usually Eurobloggers hang on for another week or so before they start musing on identity crises and the meaning of European integration, but today 4 bloggers started to ponder the purpose and direction of European integration: Charlemagne, Jason O Mahony, Eurogoblin, and Grahnlaw.

Grahnlaw ended his post with this line (and perhaps I'm just imagining the weariness):

"There is no end in sight for blogging on the high politics of EU fundamentals."

Integration Doctrine?

No doubt some people do see European integration in somewhat doctrinal terms, but it's not something I've seen a lot of Eurobloggers do (indeed, it's noteworthy that Open Europe recently seemed to advocate greater discussion on the "Integrate or not to Integrate" question rather than focusing on policy*). Charlemagne is right to say that doctrinal thinking on integration - to see opponents as nationalists and integration as a higher goal - is wrong. But it's important to note that there are many shades of integrationalism and that being for integration is no indication of being against subsidiarity and healthy local government. For example, I don't think even the most ardent federalist would support a single European social security system (the clue's in the name "federalist" - federalists believe in political power at several levels).


Anglo-Saxon Europeans

Eurogoblin has called himself an "Anglo-Saxon European": greater democracy at a European level is good, but the Council is and should remain the most powerful institution, and member states should remain the primary form of political organisation. In a lot of ways, I agree: member states do a lot of things better than the EU, and the subsidiarity principle needs to be strengthened and given greater practical effect. However, I don't think that the Council should remain ever-mighty forever: it needs reform to be made more transparent, open and responsive to national parliaments. It is the focus on the national and intergovernmental character of the Council that gives it political licence to work in the secrecy of diplomacy and intergovernmentalism.

"Rather than creating a centralised federal super-state, my support for the EU stems from my belief that the barriers between states should be melted away. I want a genuine European single market – with goods, services, capital, labour and knowledge swimming backwards and forwards across borders. Europe is working to reduce the arbitrary power of the state over the individual, and to let citizens travel, settle or conduct business wherever they want. The EU is a tool of decentralisation – encouraging devolution of powers to regions and local administrations and helping to settle (peacefully) nationalist conflicts."

Again, here I'd like to point out that federalism emphasises power being dispersed to different levels (though I think Eurogoblin was relying on "centralised federal super-state" as a turn of phrase - it is, after all, a cliché of European politics). It's hard to see, however, how the EU could be a tool for decentralisation without interfering in the make-up of member states, which would surely entail a massive centralisation of power in the first place. Unless it was only meant to be an example of federalism to be repeated within member states.

I actually think that integration is a flawed process and not a panacea - and, perhaps ironically, this leads me to the conclusion that a more politicised EU would be better. This would entail greater political prominence of the institutions and greater political competition within them (and also greater public participation). Especially if the dismantling of barriers is to make sense. Which leads me to the next point.


A political Union or a Union that's political?

People have argued against a more political EU because they say that the EU cannot get the support to decide on redistributionist policies, so therefore the EU should restrict itself to the internal market. Now the internal market will never be complete, in the same way that national markets aren't complete: economic and business innovation mean that regulations will always be evolving. Nevertheless the internal market has made remarkable progress and it pretty integrated. Further integration and barrier-breaking would necessarily entail a degree of redistribution: of chances and opportunities in the market, etc. As the conflict over the services directive show, further market integration is not a non-political question. Should we integrate further in the free movement of services and people, there will need to be choices on what level of European protections need to be set.

The EU is a lot more "redistributionist" in its decision-making than is realised. What about CAP and the Structural Funds? Are decisions of more or less regulation not increasingly about market protection, worker protection, etc., and do these decisions not affect the incomes and lives of people? The Euro, as we have seen, redistributes risk - not only in the sense that ratings agencies treated Greece the same as Germany, but the whole European economy is integrated: after all, Greek debt is owned by French and German banks.

Integration has brought economic development and growth, as well as greater freedom for citizens across the continent. But simply liberalising everything doesn't help everyone equally: there are losers in this process. Let's flip the question of greater democracy in the EU on its head: instead of "can a democratic EU retain the support of the people?" let's ask, "can an EU focused on a closed-off Council make these decisions and retain public support - or would a more democratic EU be better placed to make these decisions?"

I believe in further integration and democracy because I believe that not everyone benefits, even though integration and the internal market are necessary for our economy(ies). An integrated market provides the best guarantee for prosperity, but we need the scope for greater political involvement to decide how we run it, and to decide how we can make it work better for those who have lost out. This requires greater political integration; more pan-European elections that offer a choice in competing policies. This also necessarily means that the EU level will become more prominent versus the national egos in the Council, but the member states will remain in control of most of the areas that affect citizens lives. Put simply, we need greater integration and participation in the areas we are already "integrated" in, and more political control, because integration isn't perfect, and we all need to be involved in making sure it works for us.



*I disagree completely. The more the Euroblogosphere examines the policy questions, the more mature it is and the greater impact it can have, rather than just being an online club for discussions on integration theories. Discussing integration is good and necessary, but we shouldn't withdraw into a theoretical bubble.

UPDATE: Grahnlaw has written another article on the subject.

My Europe Day

My Europe Week has opened up a blog carnival for ideas, thoughts and opinions on Europe, to get a sense of what people hope, want and expect for the future of 500 million people - and counting. Over the last week it's been open to bloggers and non-bloggers alike, and I'd encourage everyone to make a contribution if you can and submit it.





What I'm celebrating

Europe Day should be a celebration, if nothing else! Europe is more to me than the politics that this blog deals with - through language learning (well, attempted language learning!), blogging, traveling and debating, I've met many great people both at home and across the continent, and I've had many brilliant experiences that I otherwise wouldn't have had. Like Julien Frisch, trains and railways symbolise Europe a lot to me. Standing in a train station in Germany, I feel the freedom of being able to travel to practically anywhere on the continent, across several countries and cultures.

It's that feeling of freedom and possibility, along with all the people I've met that makes me so enthusiastic and passionate about Europe, and I'll be celebrating all of this today.


What I want

The flip side of Europe Week is what you want from Europe, and where you think Europe should go.

When politicians speak of Europe, they always seem to talk about the past - and they shouldn't. Speeches on Europe tend to focus on absence, and what isn't: Europe means that there's no war on the continent, etc. While this is obviously something to cherish and celebrate, what I want to see is a more positive vision of Europe, and the leadership to back it up. Lately environmentalism and fighting climate change became Europe's more positive crusade, but there needs to be a vision and a greater level of citizen involvement to make the European project more relevant to people today.

The Europe I want should be about citizen empowerment. Brussels is bureaucratic and distant, but its politics need to be opened up and people need to be drawn in. There's nothing new in saying this; most people in the Euroblogosphere want more interaction and better communication. But empowerment and participation could be part of an engaging vision and renewing narrative for Europe. If the member states are in the EU because they are stronger together than apart, the political parties at a European level need to start communicating and engaging with the public on what "Europe" can do for them. National governments may not be able to tackle these problems alone, but citizens should be empowered to debate the solutions and engage in solving the problems facing Europe today. It's a simple thing to say, but obviously be an arduous task to undertake. But I think it's the only way Europe can become relevant and closer to its citizens.

This requires the Europarties to get their acts together. In the last election, voters rewarded parties to had a relevant message for the European stage - for example, UKIP in the UK and the Greens in France. Explaining challenges, providing solutions, communicating with voters; all these things will pay off in elections, even though the Europarties seem resigned to dependency on national politics providing them with lucky electoral windfalls. So parties need to become more structured in their engagement with the national media and on the internet. Parties should pick MEPs as their spokesperson(s) in a member state, build up relationships with the main broadcasters and newspapers, and be ready to supply talking heads when European issues arise. Having party faces and connections available will help the news media report on European issues: party-point-of-view makes occasional mentions more interesting, detailed and involving, and familiarity with MEPs will open up the EU system to journalists more.

I'm likely to be disappointed in this, but I believe that Europe needs active leaders in Parliament, and Council, and active citizens in NGOs, locally and online to add to the debate and vision so citizenship can be enriched and Europe can move forward. There has recently been indication that electoral reform will be on the European Parliament's agenda. Let's hope that MEPs will be bolder and braver in engaging with the public. 60 years on from the Schuman Declaration, Europe needs a citizen-centred vision that can deliver for citizens and involve them in building a pan-continental future.



Happy Europe Day from The European Citizen blog!

My Europe Week

Today, May 5th, is the anniversary of the Treaty of London, which founded the Council of Europe in 1949. Though the Council of Europe isn't an EU institution, it contributed to the spread of human rights and democratic norms across the continent through the European Convention on Human Rights and the court it set up to aid enforcement in Strasbourg.

So May 5th is a Europe Day, but it's not the only one - there's also May 9th, the anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, proposing the European Coal and Steel Community (it no longer exists, but it was the starting point for what's now the European Union).

Usually these days largely go by without being commemorated on a large scale. This year, some Bloggingportal.eu editors have set up My Europe Week, to launch a blog carnival. You can write, video or photograph to express what you think about Europe Day, and what you think Europe is - or should be - about. Of course, bloggers can do this on their own sites, but non-Bloggers can get involved too (by submitting entries via this form). It doesn't have to be long, or in a certain format or strict theme (though being about Europe helps!).

Update: As Grahnlaw has reminded me, you can also follow and contribute on Twitter with the hashtags #MyEurope and #EuropeDay.

5 Years of European Reunification

Yes, it's late, but it would be strange if I didn't mention the 5 year anniversary of the Big Bang enlargement, since this is supposed to be a blog about Europe...

I remember the enlargement taking place, or at least the ceremony, which I watched live: Prime Ministers being received by the President and Taoiseach at a flag-raising ceremony in the gardens of Áras an Uachtaráin (the President's residence in Phoenix Park). The European Anthem was sung (high pitched and quite loud - possibly to obscure the lack of actual words) and a poem was composed and read out by Seamus Heaney. I was quite proud that Ireland was hosting the ceremony, and it did leave an impact on me (though obviously I was already quite an EU geek to be watching it in the first place...).

The symbolism of eastern and western Europe reuniting appealed to me: despite some of the countries arguably not being ready for accession, emotionally I felt that the enlargement was the right thing to do. And there were probably quite a few others that felt similarly.

The enlargement had a big impact on Ireland, where Poles quickly became the second largest immigrant group (after the British), and groups from other Eastern European countries found respectable places on the top ten too. As has been reflected on in the Irish Times, the immigration that came from enlargement has changed the face of small town Ireland, with Polish food shops, etc.* Now there seems that there could be some emigration the other way: when The Late Late Show (Ireland's longest running chat show) did a segment on the new wave of Irish emigration, Poland featured among the old favourites America, Canada and Australia as a destination.

There is a lot of focus on how enlargement is or isn't Europeanizing our countries, but I wonder how many of those who take advantage of the free movement rights become "Europeanized". It's not completely clear if many of the recent immigrants are returning home - though that would be the experience in my area - but there will undoubtedly be a number who stay. Will they vote in the European elections? How far should we go in making the political and cultural worlds open to new comers?

And what is the future of enlargement? With the economic crisis and paralysis on the question of reform, the prospect of further enlargements are being treated more coolly, and as the EU has enlarged to encompass a greater degree of Europe, increasing numbers of people do not feel the "rightness" at an emotional level for more enlargement. Turkey is the obvious example of the arguments that can arise over enlargement, and how they can spill over into arguments about what "Europe" is and ought to be.

But for me the reunification feeling is still there.



* Though as some have commented before, white, Catholic Poles don't exactly pose much of a culture shock.

Does Europe have any Common Foreign Policy interests?

In my post on Neutrality and Europe, which was focused mainly on Ireland's policy of neutrality and its compatibility with EU membership, I hinted at what I thought was a basis of a possible section of common European foreign policy interests: the single market. On Grahnlaw's Blog (the post on Sweden's neutrality/non-alignment), in the discussion, Grahnlaw remarked on the tendency of European foreign policies to speak in more pacifist terms when discussing foreign policy, perhaps just to placate a more pacifist public. I think that Europe is probably home to some of the most pacifist populations and perhaps that translates into (truly) more cautious governments (I suppose that depends on both the country you're talking about, and who you're talking too), i.e. governments are actually affected deeply by the public consensus because they are part of that society, though the calculations would end up playing out a bit more differently when cold policy choices need to be made (and these can be between 2 evils).

These attitudes have both historical and contemporary reasons - and these are well known: WWII/history of destructive war, and the contemporary experience of successful multilateralism. However, I think that these attitudes and the policies that come with them are suited to the problems we face in our region (and perhaps even a mature reaction to these problems, though that would be very contentious to argue). While I've said that Europe has probably the most pacifist populations of any region of the world, I think that most people here fall into the multilateralist band - in other words strong diplomacy, and any use of force to be based on some form of the "just war" doctrine.

So what could be the common foreign policy problems that Europe faces? Sadly, this part isn't too radical, as much as I'd like to say something completely original here. It's mostly stability - stability of:

- Eastern Europe (defined here as countries east of the current member states)
- the non-EU former Yugoslav states
- North Africa
- the Middle East, especially Israel, Palestine and Iran
- energy security
- trade security (e.g. security of trade routes such as those passing by the Horn of Africa)

These would be issues for the member states with or without the EU, in a sense, because of geography. But the internal market means that we are a lot closer and our interests are less bound by coincidence: the free movements mean that we've a highly integrated economy which is adversely affected by stability on our frontiers. All member states are more equally exposed and exposed in more similar ways; northwestern member states are no longer quite so insulated. Failed states also mean more and less controlled immigration, more criminality, increased drug trade, etc. The impact of this on a free single market and our societies can be very damaging. The problemd with a lack of energy security can be seen by events over the last few winters in Ukraine and Russia. The Middle East Peace process is an issue for both these reasons and for moral reasons.

The solutions to these problems are mostly the ones which the European publics and the European states have been talking about for so long, albeit backed up with a more robust diplomacy and more willingness to take the initiative. A prime example is the Middle East Process, and indeed the Middle East in general. Due to our close proximity to the region, we suffer more than the US when things go wrong (though obviously we're not the ones that suffer the most) - it's hard to see why Europe isn't more assertive here; sure we have our differences, but we're all agreed on the goal. Even the US agrees with the European position. So why can't we be more robust in promoting the peace process? There needs to be tough love with both sides (a basic outline of some of my thoughts on what could be done here), and Europe has the resources to act effectively here. The US may handle Israel with kid gloves, but we don't have to, and we don't have to wait until the US catches up in foreign policy again.

The basic formulation of multilateralism, robust diplomacy and engagement tailored to each area is a winning formula, if done properly. Inherent in this is the recognition that foreign policy is, in a way, just like domestic policy: force of arms generally is a bad idea, and should only be used in extreme cases - and even in extreme cases, they only provide the breathing space needed for a proper political settlement. A good foreign policy is based on a drive for a legitimate international structure, based on balancing needs and interests encompassing economics, stability, participation and political recognition. In many ways a good foreign policy shapes and sustains a successful region in a way that mirrors that of domestic policy. Obviously there are some extreme cases which don't fall into this theoretical musing of mine: not all interests can be balanced or satisfied. However, I believe that such an approach is the best approach for the problems we currently commonly face.

While the US has been portrayed as a global policeman, I think that Europe is the one with the more policeman-like tendencies. The US is more like a superman, racing off to fix certain problems in special circumstances, while Europe works away in the manner of a policeman (though, still in a limited way and in a limit sphere): policing communities, building nations, acting as an administrator, a trader, etc, etc. The US has elements of this too in its policy, but these aspects are the core of how foreign policy is perceived here, if not consciously (or so it seems to me).

An official British perspective on Europe?

David Miliband, British Foreign Secretary, has given a speech on European Reform at the LSE. (Click here). There seems to be a few ideas there, along with a desire for reform (and note the use of climate and energy security policy to slip in an attack on the CAP), but is Britain actively promoting these policies or engaging with the other member states to forge a way forward? It doesn't seem as if any country is really pushing imaginative schemes, to judge from the bland outcome of the recent summits.

And the Commission is hardly taking a lead either.

I like the defence of the single market and the Community institutions/legal system:

"...the best defence from encroaching protectionism is an effective European Commission. You cannot be in favour of the single market, but against the very institutions that preserve the rules of the game. This is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the eurosceptic position."

I've ranted on about it myself. Why can't there be a spirited defence of Community values for a wider audience? Reform isn't enough - the public should be told why the system must be defended and reformed.

EU Communications Strategy (Ireland), or, How should the public best be informed about European issues?

The European Commission plans to spend €1.8 million on a new communications strategy in Ireland, which will be specifically aimed at women, 16-30 year olds and those on lower income. Information about the EU is to be disseminated in several ways, of which:

"Blogging, cinema advertising, listening exercises and advertising in women’s and youth magazines are key parts".

Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin MEP and a prominent figure of the Anti-Lisbon campaign, has called this new initiative "propaganda", noting that this strategy is set out explicitly to target the sections of society which tended to vote no in the June Referendum. The Commission has countered that the publicity campaign will be rolled out after the referendum.

So how far should the Commission - or any other EU institution for that matter - be involved in publicity or information campaigns? There is a lack of public knowledge of how the EU works and what it does (and both have very complicated answers), largely due the way the media works. In the absence of national media reporting on EU affairs (especially when legislation is being drawn up/considered when people can get into contact with MPs and MEPs to try and influence the process, instead of merely pronouncing the end result occasionally), and when national parties and governments devote little time to European issues, then it is left to the EP and Commission to disseminate information about the EU.

Ideally the parties in the EP would provide this function, but their fragmented nature and the fragmented and nationalised nature of European debate during EP elections has meant that the EP groups have not been able to preform the "educational" function that political parties are normally supposed to preform.

This leaves the Commission to fill the gap, though it is not noted for its success in this area. The Commissioner for Communication, Margot Wallstroem has made some good moves, including setting up her own blog, but in general the Commission has been severely lacking in providing political leadership for the EU. Arguably this not the role of the Commission. The European Council is tasked with the political leadership of the EU in the Treaties but the Commission is a guardian of the Treaties, and this has led to the Commission in some ways styling itself as the "guardian of the European ideal" since it is the institution that is meant to represent the common European interest.

So the Commission is trying in some small ways to engage people more in the EU, an effort which (as far as I can see) is mostly carried out on the internet. The internet is a great communication tool, but for engaging people in political debate I would still prize the traditional media over it - the internet is an area for people with similar interests (even if they hold opposing viewpoints) to voice their opinions, get information and debate, but I'm very sceptical of its worth in drawing more people in to debate European issues. Judging by Wallstroem's comments that the politicisation of the Commission is a good thing, the Commission does seek to some extent a leading political role in the European debate (or in generating one). But on this count it has failed: Commissioners have not made themselves more visible in national-European discourses - especially Barroso, whose invisibility during the Constitution and Lisbon referendum campaigns as well as generally despite being head of the Commission has sparked the online "Anyone But Barroso" campaign.

Having the position of the Commission President electable by the EP (or better yet, directly by the people), would be a good way of using politicisation to encourage political debate and awareness. However the political will in the case of the EP needs to be there (and in the absence of any EP group putting a candidate forward, it clearly isn't there yet) and though having a single electable post would put institutional/political pressure for debate, the lack of a very informed and informing media would hinder a lot of the initial interest, and could seriously weaken the effectiveness of this aspect.* Simply tinkering with institutional balances won't have much affect on debate either, as can be seen from the declining EP election turnouts.

The criticism of any Commission attempt to promote awareness of the EU and its affects (which are criticised as opaque) is that it is only pushing its own agenda, that it's only producing "propaganda". European issues are perhaps the only political area where opinions can be classified as foreign or propaganda, and then dismissed from the debate altogether. This is worrying. Governments and governing parties all release information and have publicity campaigns on their policies and their opinions and views are contested by those who disagree - and this leads to debate (and hopefully increases public understanding of the issues). Official information, opinions and policies all carry assumptions and agendas behind them - all information and forms of media and debate do, so it's hardly special - but it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand and not engage them.

McDonald is right when she says that this initiative is not dialogue, but she misses the point. The only dialogue that the Commission can stimulate is by inviting statements of opinion - which would end up being a focus group type of "dialogue". Imagine an Ireland, or any European country, where the political parties refuse to debate the issues with each other, so that the government resorts to asking (only) focus groups and interest groups their opinions and then goes about its business. In order to engage in a debate, you must at least know what the opinion of each side is, what they claim the facts are. Then you debate, dispute, disagree - engage! By dismissing not just what the Commission says, but indeed what any politician or group from outside the country says as being irrelevant and even unworthy of consideration due to bias, propaganda, "them being foreigners", etc., McDonald and politicians who accept this political culture or use it to their political advantage are smothering the possibility of debate at birth.

Anyway, the Commission apparently spent €650,000 on its communications plan in Ireland last year, and I'm willing to bet that it had no impact whatsoever (I certainly didn't notice it, and I'm interested in this sort of thing!). Just over doubling it may (theoretically) double its impact, but I'd say it would just upgrade "no impact whatsoever" to "next to no impact whatsoever". If McDonald is worried about propaganda, then she can rest easy.





*I will try to post about the media and its role in European debate later, either as an issue on its own or together with institutional factors.

Would accepting Nord Stream be a blow to European interests?

Angela Merkel is pushing for the EU to back the Russo-German Nord Stream pipeline, which should supply gas to Germany, bypassing Eastern transit countries.

But with energy security an increasing concern - with the Czech Presidency even describing the South Stream project (a Russian pipeline to go through the Balkans) as a "threat" to the EU's plans for an alternative non-Russian controlled pipeline through Turkey ("Nabucco"). These new pipelines will reduce the political insecurity of gas supply which has dogged European countries over the last few years, but they will mean that EU countries will remain dependent to a large degree on Russia for its gas.

It would be easy to overstate the threat involved here. Russia is not forcing anyone to buy its gas, and these pipelines will not prevent the EU from developing green energy sources and finding other suppliers. However, the political courage to take any of these energy security measures it largely (if not solely) one of necessity. At a time when Obama is making the right noises about investing in green technology and promoting a green economy (of course, it's too early to tell how this will work out), the EU has weakened its committment in December. Could Al Gore be right when he said that only the US can lead on climate change?

The weaknesses of our politicians in making tough decisions in this area is a lot harder to overstate.

Should Europe accept Guantanamo detainees?

Since President Obama issued the executive order that the Guantanamo Bay Base be shut down within a year, there has been some debate over what will happen to the detainees. Those that will be released will be sent back home, but some cannot be sent back for fear that they will be tortured and/or killed in their home countries.

The Portuguese have suggested that European countries take some of the detainees, and EUobserver has an interesting article on how the EU is considering it, with France proposing an EU fact-finding mission to Guantanamo and for 60 of the detainees to be taken by EU member states, and the Czech Republic favouring a more state-centred version, where each state decides for itself on a case-by-case basis. Countries in favour of taking some detainees include: Sweden, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

But the big question is: should Europe take the detainees?

On one side, Europe has a moral obligation to do so. European countries have long criticised the US over Guantanamo and called for its closure, and European countries have been complicit in the detainees' treatment through the extraordinary rendition affair. This (along with our championing of abolition of the death penalty, torture, and our support for the rule of law) creates a moral obligation to offer help to at least some of these 60. We wanted their release if they could not be found guilty in a fair trial. It becomes a question of acting to live up to our own rhetoric.

On the other hand, this is largely the US's fault. The US has the largest moral obligation to compensate those detainees who are innocent and to resettle those who cannot return home. It would be difficult to integrate them into the society whose government has wronged them, but it is up to that government to right the wrong; it is not up to European governments.

I favour accepting some detainees. We comment so much about the US being credible and living up to its values, yet time and again we show embarrassing hesitation on living up to our own.

There are a lot of technical issues that would need to be addressed: integrating the detainees - they may need language training, counselling, etc - who will pay for their integration, European governments or the US; and security checks for the detainees before they're accepted, etc.

However if the technical issues can be sorted out, then Europe should accept them.

The Return of Ken Clarke

Ken Clarke's return to the Tory front bench has been widely reported and commented on on the Internet. Apparently, his economic wisdom is boundless and will help right the wrongs of the British economy which were inflicted by Brown.

However, despite his seemly vast economic knowledge, according to the Tories, his opinions on the Euro are heresy, and something which shouldn't be taken too seriously since it's not something he would know about anyway. Pro-Europeanism and views on the largest project of economic integration in the world are also outside this economic genius' remit, as is anything that would challenge the Tory's conventional wisdom.

I mean, he would have to have been Chancellor once for anyone to consider his views seriously, wouldn't he?

On a serious note, I do think Clarke is a capable politician and minister, and he's probably a good choice for Cameron's shadow cabinet. He may hold views that go against the Conservative party orthodoxy, but I'd say that he'd toe the line now (or at least make more of an effort to) now that he's back in frontline politics. As a "big-hitter", he could be a very valuable weapon for the Conservatives.