The Fair Share

European Council President Van Rompuy gave a speech on Tuesday, the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall (link; PDF). As you would expect from a Europe-focused, (European dated) 9/11 speech, the reunification and integration of Europe had a central place. However, the rise of nationalism, economic governance, and the EU's budget made their way into the speech. Van Rompuy made clear that economic union would have to accompany currency union, but he did not suggest anything new, only pausing to name-check the economic task force that he recently headed.

Nationalism was characterised as a manifestation of fear, and the resolve of governments to implement austerity plans was praised. Despite re-iterating the relevance of questions of war and peace when it came to inspiring European integration, there was little to offer in terms of inspiration or aspiration to the individual citizen. The fall of Communism, the ending of the wars in Europe, are all powerful and important theme and motivators in European politics, and can still invoke strong feelings, but it is essentially a warning from the past not to do something. As a guide to the present and future it remains vague and unsatisfying. Europe should focus on a positive vision of the future.

What is most striking for me was Van Rompuy's comments on the budget, with the European Council President slapping down suggestions of more direct contributions to the EU budget - or direct taxation - page 8:

"In my view the limited Treaty amendment all Heads of State and Government agreed upon ten days ago is essential, but it should not reopen the entire ‘internal debate’ on the nature, the goal and the architecture of the Union: we have more pressing matters at hand. For the same reason, I do not think that redesigning the way the EU get its revenue is a top priority. The current system reflects as a rule the Member States’ capacity to pay. Contributions are based on the Gross National Income and thus seen as fair. Some have suggested to replace this with a direct EU tax, for instance on financial transactions or on carbon. It is argued that such real 'own resources' would make the Brussels institutions 'more responsible'. I am personally open to new ideas, but since most alternative sources of income would risk to hit Member States unequally, this would weaken the fairness of the current system, its built-in solidarity. So let's be prudent, but let's discuss it."

Using GNI as a base, and arguing that direct taxes would fall on different member states differently (and therefore unfairly) is a strange argument to me. First of all, you have to ask if GNI is a good basis for fairness. According to GNI, when Greece had to be bailed out, Ireland contributed one of the highest per capita contributions, despite the austerity and crisis it was in. Of course Member State contributions should be a significant part of the budget, as the EU is a way of maximising Memeber State power through trade agreement negotiations, common market regulation, etc. But having the burden fall mainly on Member States' budgets does not necessarily mean that it is "fair".

Just as the EU is a "Transfer Union" whether Germany likes it or not (given the history of the CAP, the EC/EU has always been a transfer union), and such a transfer union is based on burden distribution, the central question is of burden sharing - or fairness. When it comes to cohesion funds, the EU has undertaken that funds will be paid out to help develop the poorer regions to ensure they aren'y left behind by those reigions that are more wealthy and better placed to to better out of the internal market (essentially the richer regions help the poorer). To me it's a bad argument to assert that shifting the burden from Member States contributions to direct taxation (note that this is separate from the overall size of the EU budget) is unfair on certain Member States. The whole point of direct taxation is that it would shift the burden from general taxation and the budgets of national governments to private individuals engaged in certain economic activities. When it comes to financial or aeroplane emission taxes, this would shift the burden on to individuals and sectors that benefit most from the freedoms of the internal market, or sectors that can only be effectively regulated at the continental scale.

Would it be so unfair to shift some of the burden of the EU budget on to such shoulders?

What taxes and how well defined they are is a major issue, and I've written about it before, but when it comes to fairness, the issues and factors at play are much wider than the general econoomic performance of the Member States. On the other hand, the political possibility of bringing in direct taxation is extremely low. On practicality I would agree with Van Rompuy, but on principle I would have to disagree.

How Van Rompuy dealt with the different issues he raised in his speech show is that he is strongly intergovernmental. This isn't surprising, given his position as the head of the most intergovernmental institution in the EU, but the issue focus and rhetoric show that an intergovernmental Europe is firmly at the heart of his political world- or continental -view.

Onward, Community Soldiers

The Community method must be saved, cry the Community warriors. The European Council seems to be encroaching on Community territory: crisis after crisis has been dealt with by intergovernmental deal-making and policy taskforces set up by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. The Lisbon Treaty had increased the powers of the European Parliament to set it on par with the Council as a co-legislator in the vast majority of policy areas, yet the Community method - where the Commission proposes and the Council and Parliament legislate and decide - seems to be threatened enough to elicit pledges of support from the Liberal and Social Democratic leaders in the EP to Commission action that takes on intergovernmentalism. Though the Commission has struck back against France over the Roma - an important and welcome development - the Commission doesn't seem to have the same leading role as it had 20 years ago.

There is no Community any more, of course. The Lisbon Treaty did away with the old pillar structure of the EU, so now there's just the Union (though the residue of the internal divisions of the pillar structure still remain within the Union).

Grahnlaw has written about the Community method and the European Council under Van Rompuy. Stanley has welcomed Van Rompuy's style of leadership, with his attempts to try and involve heads of state and government in the EU more (proposing more frequent meetings, for example), so that they take more ownership of the EU and European policies.

On the surface, involving European leaders more in the European Union is a good idea, but the embrace of this method of integration seems to be an optimistic attempt of integration through socalisation of the European leadership. It's important that there's solidarity in Europe, but I cannot see being extended by monthly meetings by the European Council. Member States show solidarity out of community spirit, but also because belonging to the same Union has brought similar interests. Intergovernmentalism is a necessary part of the EU, but the European Council is a bandage for crises, and should be restricted in its role.

The increase in power of the European Council in comparison to the Commission also weakens the EP. If part of the role of the EP is to scrutinise the executive, by taking over the responsibilities of the Commission in setting policy, the European Council renders the EU less transparent and accountable. It is also bad for most Member States. Supranationalism - the Community method - is a good check on the big Member States. When diplomacy, intergovernmentalism and vetos (whether formal or informal) are strong features of the system, the big 3 can dominate, since it's easy to steamroller small objecting states, and when there's a Member State consensus, the EP may be faced with a fait accompli. In comparison, QMV, though voting is weighted according to population size, levels the playing field by making big states more open to conpromise because of the need for coalition building, and the Parliament, though it may encounter consensus in the Council under QMV, is not faced with a fait accompli from on high and may not be as inhibited in the legislative process.

The "Community method" is key to the (more) transparent, open and more democratic decision-making of the EU. It also has a longer-term quality to it as decisions do not have to take place within the pressured short-termist deal-making of a summit. As I have written before, the importance of the supranationalist elements of the EU is not just based on the enthusaism of federalists, but is a key part of the good will in, and the smooth running of, the intergovernmental side.

So I think that there's a need to defend the "Community method". There is a new group set up earlier this month by MEPs to do so: the Spinelli Group. It is a very federalist group, and I am torn over it. On one hand, it is important that the Community method is not circumvented by a domineering European Council. On the other hand, the group seems to be a new form of the "European Alliance" that Verhofstadt has called for before, and which I strongly reject. The Community method and the EP will be well served by strengthening the coherence and political will of the Europarties and developing a clear, visible politics for the citizen. Member State pacts cannot be successfully countered in the loong run by cosy consensuses in the Parliament. If the Spinelli Group focused on defending Parliament and strengthening the Europarties, then it would be more relevant and attractive than a federalist's club.

[As for Grahnlaw's question of how the Community method and the EU's way of operating should be termed now, perhaps the "Union method" could be used in the same manner as the "Community method". Perhaps opposed to the "Council method" or "Special method"? Although that's only my suggestion to the cosmetic part of the question...]

The Role of the High Representative and the EU's CFSP

Dan Smith has written a very interesting and well thought-out post on the state of the External Action Service (EAS) and its potential as well as what aims it should have. The Institute of International and European Affairs had a guest lecture on the topic back at the start of March 2010 on the role of the HR and the President of the European Council. I've embedded the video below.

Further dictionary explanations of European Integration

EU President (Noun):

another term used for the position of the President of the European Council, especially when the user wishes to denote the awe-inspiring power and importance of the post. Best described as a modern day Holy Roman Emperor, the office-holder is chosen by 27 electors: the heads of state and government of the European Union. Presiding over the European Council with an iron fist, President Van Rompuy demands regular fedual oaths of loyality, in ritualised meetings known euphemistically as "cosy fire-side chats". Van Rompuy owes his position to the influence of the Bilderberg group, which he won over during a improvised talent contest at the end of a conference, through his inspiring use of poetic forms, particularly that of the Haiku. Similar to the Holy Roman Empire, the President in turn owes fedual allegiance to the Pope in the Vatican.


Papacy/Holy See (Noun):

refering to the office of the bishop of Rome (the leader of the Catholic Church) and the headquarters of the Catholic Church in the Vatican, respectively. The Catholic Church has influenced the direction of European integration from the start, with the aim of reuniting Christendom and reversing the effects of the Reformation on its spiritual and temporal power. Those who highlight the Church's influence point to the frequent references to the Christian God in the Treaties and the Papacy's direct line with the EU President, who frequently ends his speaches with "God Bless Europe". Competition comes in the form of Whitehall, which constantly rigs elections across the EU to further its neo-liberal goals (See also: Anglo-Saxon/Neo-Liberal Project).


Bilderberg Group (Noun):

a group consisting of the political, economic and military elite of the world, concerned with influencing the course of government, including in the EU. They were the main backers of Herman Van Rompuy to the position of EU President. However, their influential position is under threat in Europe from a shadowy group known as the Buchgemeinschaft der schwaebische Hausfrauen, which has assured the influential positioning of people and families from Swabia (e.g. the Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns) as well as their allies. The Bilderberg Group has recently tried to counter the Buchgemeinschaft's influence by sabotaging the opinion poll ratings of their client German federal government.


"Brussels has decided" (Phrase):

a phrase used to denote that something has been decided by the Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region of Belgium on behalf of the entire European Union. The Minister-President of the Brussels-Capitol region has been empowered by certain enabling legislation to pass certain legislative proposals into law across the European Union ("ordonnances"). This is occasionally used as a legal method of bypassing subsidiarity requirements, since technically such decisions taken by the Minister-President were taken at a level lower than the European one. This method of governance also allows for reductions in the European civil service, as periodically demanded by some member states.

Belgium Assumes the Council Presidency

Today Belgium takes over the rotating Council Presidency from Spain. The rotating presidency chairs the Council committees in the different policy areas (justice and home affairs, economy and finance, etc.) apart from the foreign affairs committee, which is chaired by the High Representative for CFSP, Baroness Ashton. What will make this presidency interesting is the fact that there isn't yet a federal government in Belgium since last month's elections. In the elections the Flemish nationalists came first, and the French speaking Socialists second. Given that they're not exactly ideological allies, it will probably take several months before they can form a coalition. Like the Czech presidency, the Belgian presidency will have a caretaker government run the presidency.

It will be interesting to see how much the European Council President, Van Rompuy (a former Belgian Prime Minister), will fill the void left by the stalled federal government. The President's Belgian roots might make it easier for the caretaker government to let this be "Van Rompuy's Presidency". Whether this could lead to a more permanent empowerment of the E.Council presidency is harder to say - even a country as pro-integration as Belgium will want to preserve the role of the rotating presidency to a large degree, and Poland has big plans for its presidency in 2011, so it's likely that any inroads that Van Rompuy makes would be quickly recaptured by an assertive member state government with a vision.

The website of the Belgian presidency is here.

Conclusive proof that Van Rompuy is now too powerful

I've just read conclusive proof that Van Rompuy has become so powerful that he has eclipsed the rotating presidency of the Council via Open Europe: apparently, neither he or Barroso thanked the Spanish presidency for its work during the last European Council meeting.

"Those who worried that the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of a permanent EU president would sideline the rotating presidency held by national governments have been proved right. Spanish Daily El Mundo notes that during a speech in the European Parliament yesterday, neither President Herman Van Rompuy, nor President Barroso mentioned or thanked Spain’s EU Presidency for its role in last week’s European Council summit. It seems that even the fact that Van Rompuy sat next to Spaniard Diego Lopez Garrido..., the secretary of state for the EU, failed to remind the officials of Spain’s role. Barroso managed to find the time, however, to thank Catherine Ashton, the Parliament, the Commission, and the Council."

Oh noes!

Obviously, this is an attempt to avoid embarrassing discussion about Spain, or something similarly nefarious or insulting to the pride of member states:

"The incident could be part of a larger EU effort to avoid any discussion of Spain, hoping people will forget it may be the next eurozone domino to fall. Or perhaps it demonstrates that the Brussels elite have little time for national governments..."

Or it could be a mistake or omission.

The short article seems to be very lazy and over-sensitive and it's a wonder that anyone took the time to write anything on it at all without anything more substantial. What substantive evidence is there that Van Rompuy is becoming over-powerful versus the rotating presidency? It's hard to measure this because the argument is neither defined nor backed up. Those who feared that the permanent presidency would sideline the rotating one? The aim of the permanent post was to give greater continuity and voice to the European Council, so how should we examine the "fear" that Open Europe had and the reality? If the rotating presidency went on as before, then Open Europe and others would (justifiably) be shouting that the permanent post was unnecessary and costly. If it does fulfil its role, then it would necessarily be more prominent than the rotating presidency, so where do you draw the line and say that the permanent post has infringed on the role of the rotating one?

So far, there have been no reports of Van Rompuy chairing Council formation meetings - despite all the European Council meetings to address the economic crisis and the eurozone crisis, I haven't heard anything about Van Rompuy chairing the Ecofin Council formation, which is the meeting of EU finance ministers. Van Rompuy has proposed chairing an economic task force, and other reforms to deal with the crisis, though this seems to me to be over-shadowing Barroso and the Commission. After all, the member states have not shied away from giving their own two eurocents on what reforms are needed (France and Germany unsurprisingly being the most vocal). Perhaps what holds Spain back in being vocal here is its own domestic crisis - in which case the question is, "if a permanent presidency can keep things going politically, and not just administratively, is that not a good thing to have?"

Again, it should be pointed out that neither Van Rompuy nor the Spanish rotating presidency could get these things done without the consent of the European Council/Council. Which consists of the member states. The member states are not co-opted or bullied by presidents into doing things; negotiation between them is the key aspect here.

Given that Madrid has ensured that there have been EU meetings held in Spain and not all in Brussels, and the willingness to promote its leadership role domestically and abroad (mostly to the detriment of the High Representative Aston), I don't think that the rotating presidency is dead or meaningless yet.

But it's good to know that Think Tanks like Open Europe are spending their time coming up with constructive policy proposals and not just wading through pages of information to pick up on irrelevant details to push a political message.


UPDATE: here's a link to an article on Ideas for Europe "President Paradox" which argues the opposite. As you can see from the comments, there are powerful counter-arguments to the article's reasoning (I largely agree with the counter-arguments), but at least the arguments and reasoning here is clear: clear arguments with a target, not just a lazy assertion.

Two Presidencies, Two Presidential Websites

The dawning of 2010 brings with it the beginning of two parallel Council presidencies: a rotating, currently Spanish, one in the normal Council (apart from foreign affairs), and one in the European Council, in the shape of Van Rompuy. Though Van Rompuy has been in office for a month now, the last European Council summit was run by the Swedes who held the last rotating European Council presidency.

So with two presidencies (well, two Council presidencies), there's two presidential websites:

The Spanish presidency.
Van Rompuy's presidency.

As uninspiring as the Spanish one is, it's clear that there's more money behind it than Van Rompuy's... remember when the President was supposed to be an ueber-powerful figure who could shoot directives from his eyes? Can't even find a good website designer, apparently.

Though not much has happened yet with the Spanish presidency, there are two interesting signals: the intention to set up a council with Van Rompuy to smooth out how to operate the two presidencies harmoniously, and the ambition to see a Palestinian state in 2010.

While the first seems to show that Spain doesn't wish to undermine the new permanent presidency and will willingly accept the Lisbon reforms in practice, the second could weaken Baroness Ashton's position as the High Representative politically. The HR organises the Foreign Affairs council (as it's called, but it might be easier to think of is as a committee) of the Council and sets the agenda there, so I doubt that the HR's position could be irreparably weakened by the rotating presidency, but it could be politically weakened. After all, the HR depends on the member states to agree with her to get anything done, so any loss of political initiative could be hard to win back, even if the position is one of consensus-builder.

How will Van Rompuy and Spain hammer out their respective political roles, and how will Ashton take on the political challenges raised by the Spanish Presidency? Ashton has stressed the consensus-builder role of the HR; can she skillfully present such ambitious goals as a Palestinian state in 2010, or take on the task of solidifying a common approach in the EU? And how far could she take control or ownership of foreign policy projects, or will she be buffeted about by the changing winds of the rotating presidency?

Could an unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence be Ashton's first test? The foreign policy field seems almost crowded at the moment with possible "first tests".

Van Rompuy, European Council President

A few days ago, Van Rompuy was a little known, everyday, average Belgian Prime Minister... but now he's the President of the European Council! Ok, so it's not all that dramatic, and thank god it isn't.

Despite my first impression, really, I can't complain too much with this appointment: though I'd have preferred Freiberga or Juncker, I have argued for a low-key Presidency, and that the Council itself is the legitimate electoral college for the choice (though of course that in itself wouldn't stop me from disagreeing with the choice). Van Rompuy has a good record as a consensus builder, and has proven able to hold the linguistically divided country together; surely good experience for the role of a chairman steering the Council agenda to some sort of workable conclusion. He's very unlikely to claim much of the media's attention, which is both good, in that it will defuse the chance of a conflict between the Council Presidency and the Commission Presidency (and probably even with that of the High Representative); but perhaps also bad in that the clear constitutional separation will mean that the media will have little inclination to highlight the different positions between the Council and Commission. Hopefully it will still lead to a bit more of a clearer representation of the differences between the Commission, Council and Parliament in the media, though I'm not sure I'd be willing to put money on it.

Still, the first few days have revealed a certain potential for controversy - particularly over Van Rompuy's opposition to Turkish EU-membership and his support for the idea of an EU tax. Controversies probably won't arise too often, since Van Rompuy is likely to stick to his brief and just represent the decisions reached by the Council publicly, though he could prove to be influential on issues such as Turkey (could France and Germany try to use his opposition as a front to deflect criticism for any anti-Turkish moves on their part?). In any case, Van Rompuy needs to be careful, since his statements will colour the impression of the EU both within and without: it is, at its heart, the most diplomatic post in the EU.

In any case, with the European Council Presidency in safe enough - and dull - hands, the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, will be even more interesting.