It has been announced that Ireland will hold elections to the European Parliament on Friday the 5th of June. Polls will be open longer (7am-10pm) to try and encourage a larger turnout as turnout for EP elections traditionally decline at each poll.
What makes June the 5th a big election day (apart from the elections to the biggest multinational, directly elected institution in the world) is that elections for local government will be held too, and possibly 2 by-elections (which really should have taken place already by now). Fine Gael hopes to gain from the government's unpopularity in both polls, but I don't expect major losses for Fianna Fáil, if only because they sunk so low in the last local and European elections. More interesting will be the performance of the Green Party, the junior partner in the governing coalition. Will the Greens (who hold the Environment and Local Government Ministry) be able to avoid the voters' wrath?
Given the influx of people from the new EU member states, I wonder if they will register to vote in the EP elections, and if this will have much of an impact if they do...
It will be very interesting to see if statistics for registration levels of non-Irish EU citizens will be available. Are EU citizens in another member state than their home state more likely to vote in EP elections (and possibly be more pro-European?), or would factors such as unfamiliarity with the electoral system (EP elections don't have a unified system) and voter-candidate language difference turn them away? Or is the EP (and the EU at large) not important enough even for mobile EU workers for these questions to be relevant?
Friday, 6 February 2009
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Should Afghan opium be bought by Western Governments?
Tony Barber at the Financial Times has a very interesting article on a possible NATO policy of buying all of Afghanistan's opium crop and using it for medicinal purposes. The idea is that this will reduce the drug trade and reduce the funding of organised crime and terrorist organisations through the drug trade.
However, I think a major weakness of such a policy would be that it (by itself) does nothing to encourage Afghan farmers to grow traditional crops; indeed switching to traditional crops while Western governments are buying your produce would be a risky move, as any farmer attempting this would be leaving a secure market to try one which might have a learning curve for the farmer (would many farmers be experienced with traditional crops? Do they grow a small amount themselves to feed their families?), and require building up new buyer-seller relationships in a market they are unfamiliar with.
Perhaps what Afghanistan needs is... some version of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy?
That probably sounds like a strange idea, but it would be a good way of creating a more attractive, more secure market for farmers to grow (return to growing?) traditional crops. It would be hard to place a similar burden in terms of prices on the Afghan people as Europeans are under, but a system of subsidy and (perhaps more controversial, especially for the EU) more secure market access for Afghan farmers to western economies could help create a solid agricultural base in Afghanistan. With population growth and global warming, there should be a good market for Afghan food which will help an emerging agriculture sector to survive in the market when the West reduces and then ends protection of Afghan farmers.
This could also encourage more Afghans to "buy into" the system, and be a way of reducing the influence and support for terrorist groups.
That said, I'm not an economist and I claim very little economic knowledge; this is just an idea.
However, I think a major weakness of such a policy would be that it (by itself) does nothing to encourage Afghan farmers to grow traditional crops; indeed switching to traditional crops while Western governments are buying your produce would be a risky move, as any farmer attempting this would be leaving a secure market to try one which might have a learning curve for the farmer (would many farmers be experienced with traditional crops? Do they grow a small amount themselves to feed their families?), and require building up new buyer-seller relationships in a market they are unfamiliar with.
Perhaps what Afghanistan needs is... some version of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy?
That probably sounds like a strange idea, but it would be a good way of creating a more attractive, more secure market for farmers to grow (return to growing?) traditional crops. It would be hard to place a similar burden in terms of prices on the Afghan people as Europeans are under, but a system of subsidy and (perhaps more controversial, especially for the EU) more secure market access for Afghan farmers to western economies could help create a solid agricultural base in Afghanistan. With population growth and global warming, there should be a good market for Afghan food which will help an emerging agriculture sector to survive in the market when the West reduces and then ends protection of Afghan farmers.
This could also encourage more Afghans to "buy into" the system, and be a way of reducing the influence and support for terrorist groups.
That said, I'm not an economist and I claim very little economic knowledge; this is just an idea.
Some Commissioners to run in this year's EP elections
EurActiv has reported that 5 of the Commission have told Barroso that they intend to run for election to the European Parliament this June. These Commissioners include:
"Viviane Reding (information society), Louis Michel (humanitarian aid), Janez Potočnik (research), Danuta Hübner (regional policy) and Ján Figel' (education)."
Since they would need to leave the Commission before the elections, Barroso will need to reshuffle the Commission and balance the competing interests of ideology and nationality. It will be interesting to see how he deals with it, as with 5 Commissioners leaving at once, this will be the biggest reshuffle he has had to manage yet. And as Barroso is almost certain to be reappointed for another term (which will be extended to accommodate the second Irish referendum), this reshuffled Commission could be the basis of the new one.
Another interesting question is: what does this reveal about the political dynamics of the Commission and EP?
The Commissioners may been jumping ship early, as seems to be the habit with Commissions in their dying days, but that all 5 (though others may leave later for other reasons) will leave to campaign to be elected to their (hopeful) next job, and that they want an EP seat may indicate that some of the assumptions of EU institutional balance and European political culture may be aging and loosing some of there relevance:
1. The Commission is more powerful than the EP, and a Commission post is a more attractive than an EP seat.
2. National politics are more attractive to politicians (except in isolated cases of idealists), and Commission posts are for decommissioned national politicians or a spring broad for the national ambitions (in some cases both). In any case Commissioners are usually unelectable as well and unelected and would not put themselves up for the vote.
It has been my own view that the power of the Commission has been declining as that of the EP has been rising. While some of this is to do with the weakness of the Commission's leadership, the extension of the co-decision procedure (making the EP an equal co-legislator with the Council) has weakened the Commission as the EP and Council's consensus matters more to the success and shaping of legislation than sole power of initiation which is vested in the Commission. The Commission's right of initiation is in any case weakened by its fragmented nature (differing ideologies, national viewpoints and agenda mean that its wrong to portray the Commission as a monolithic organisation - though the Commission's civil service and Treaty tasks along with the growing "presidential" power of the Commission President goes some way to countering this) and its lack of resources. In extreme cases the EP and the Council can at the end of the co-decision process make bargains excluding the Commission ("conciliation").
However, I don't know enough about the history of Commissioners running for EP elections, so this may be a tenuous link to make.
Edit: Julien Frisch has pointed out that EurActiv has updated its report. It seems now that two of the Commissioners have ruled themselves out of the EP elections: Potočnik and Figel. Figel seems to be very categorical in ruling himself out. This probably weakens my argument somewhat. I wonder if the other 3 are going to rule themselves out too?
"Viviane Reding (information society), Louis Michel (humanitarian aid), Janez Potočnik (research), Danuta Hübner (regional policy) and Ján Figel' (education)."
Since they would need to leave the Commission before the elections, Barroso will need to reshuffle the Commission and balance the competing interests of ideology and nationality. It will be interesting to see how he deals with it, as with 5 Commissioners leaving at once, this will be the biggest reshuffle he has had to manage yet. And as Barroso is almost certain to be reappointed for another term (which will be extended to accommodate the second Irish referendum), this reshuffled Commission could be the basis of the new one.
Another interesting question is: what does this reveal about the political dynamics of the Commission and EP?
The Commissioners may been jumping ship early, as seems to be the habit with Commissions in their dying days, but that all 5 (though others may leave later for other reasons) will leave to campaign to be elected to their (hopeful) next job, and that they want an EP seat may indicate that some of the assumptions of EU institutional balance and European political culture may be aging and loosing some of there relevance:
1. The Commission is more powerful than the EP, and a Commission post is a more attractive than an EP seat.
2. National politics are more attractive to politicians (except in isolated cases of idealists), and Commission posts are for decommissioned national politicians or a spring broad for the national ambitions (in some cases both). In any case Commissioners are usually unelectable as well and unelected and would not put themselves up for the vote.
It has been my own view that the power of the Commission has been declining as that of the EP has been rising. While some of this is to do with the weakness of the Commission's leadership, the extension of the co-decision procedure (making the EP an equal co-legislator with the Council) has weakened the Commission as the EP and Council's consensus matters more to the success and shaping of legislation than sole power of initiation which is vested in the Commission. The Commission's right of initiation is in any case weakened by its fragmented nature (differing ideologies, national viewpoints and agenda mean that its wrong to portray the Commission as a monolithic organisation - though the Commission's civil service and Treaty tasks along with the growing "presidential" power of the Commission President goes some way to countering this) and its lack of resources. In extreme cases the EP and the Council can at the end of the co-decision process make bargains excluding the Commission ("conciliation").
However, I don't know enough about the history of Commissioners running for EP elections, so this may be a tenuous link to make.
Edit: Julien Frisch has pointed out that EurActiv has updated its report. It seems now that two of the Commissioners have ruled themselves out of the EP elections: Potočnik and Figel. Figel seems to be very categorical in ruling himself out. This probably weakens my argument somewhat. I wonder if the other 3 are going to rule themselves out too?
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
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.
"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.
Libertas' EU funding halted
Just after Libertas was recognised as a pan-European party eligible for just over €200,000 of EU money, an Estonian MP - needed to confirm Libertas' pan-European credentials (it must have the backing of a certain amount of other national parties in a number of member states) - has distanced himself from Libertas. Igor Grazin has denied signing anything backing Libertas' attempt to gain recognition as a pan-European political party. Libertas has claimed that Grazin did sign a document in its Brussels office.
Meanwhile, Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has called for the decision to give Libertas official recognition to be reviewed.
It's an embarrassing incident for Libertas, and it will be interesting to see if they can prove that they got Grazin's signature at some point (could Grazin withdraw his support even if he has signed a document of support earlier, or is he locked into it? I would assume so, but I'm not certain on that). More important would be if Libertas will be able to attract enough support without Grazin.
Meanwhile, Liberal MEP Andrew Duff has called for the decision to give Libertas official recognition to be reviewed.
It's an embarrassing incident for Libertas, and it will be interesting to see if they can prove that they got Grazin's signature at some point (could Grazin withdraw his support even if he has signed a document of support earlier, or is he locked into it? I would assume so, but I'm not certain on that). More important would be if Libertas will be able to attract enough support without Grazin.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Talks with the Social Partners break down, Government to announce cuts anyway.
The Irish government has been criticised for being slow to react during the economic crisis (apart from a brief period just after the bank deposit guarantee scheme), but I can't help wondering if all this dithering is part of a strategy of sorts.
The self-imposed deadline of today for the talks with the Social Partners (Trade Unions, employers, etc) seems like a great way to prepare the ground to push through generally unpopular reforms without anyone's agreement. You just have to let the deadline come closer and closer; let the outcry for action - any action - build up and up, and once the deadline passes (as it now has), announce the cuts you want to make anyway.
Could it be that similar tactics are being used for the crisis in general? Or is it giving the government too much credit to suggest it has any plan at all?
While it might work short term however, the current government has little political capital to spare, and if Fianna Fail is using such tactics, then they're not likely to serve them well in the future, when the next round of ballots is cast.
The self-imposed deadline of today for the talks with the Social Partners (Trade Unions, employers, etc) seems like a great way to prepare the ground to push through generally unpopular reforms without anyone's agreement. You just have to let the deadline come closer and closer; let the outcry for action - any action - build up and up, and once the deadline passes (as it now has), announce the cuts you want to make anyway.
Could it be that similar tactics are being used for the crisis in general? Or is it giving the government too much credit to suggest it has any plan at all?
While it might work short term however, the current government has little political capital to spare, and if Fianna Fail is using such tactics, then they're not likely to serve them well in the future, when the next round of ballots is cast.
Libertas Campaign Launched (Again?)
Libertas has launched it's campaign in Poland. I have to admit, I'm not sure if this is a recent event or not - the Irish Times has just reported it today, but the Libertas website sets Ganley's Polish rally on the 11th of January, but I think I visited the site between now and then and didn't notice it... Perhaps it was a different event.
Anyway, the candidates I've read about seem right-wing and rabidly eurosceptic, a philosophy which doesn't seem to be reflected in how Libertas likes to portray itself. And while this theoretically shouldn't impact on what is supposed to be a single issue party, Libertas' target audience in Ireland during the referendum was the wavering middle class - not a group likely to be courted successfully by the candidates and viewpoints on offer. Of course, this doesn't mean the same tactics will be used across Europe, but Ganley has shown some desire to project Libertas as a pro-European movement, if only with an eye on how Libertas abroad will reflect on Libertas at home. Though it would be the first time that the Polish resistance against the Nazis was invoked in the name of a "pro-European" cause. Isn't "Europeanism" supposed to have good-neighbourliness at its core? I wonder if his comments on the Siege of Vienna 1683 reveals anything about his views on Turkish membership prospects?
Libertas has also gained access to EU funding as it was granted pan-European party status. Ganley has stated that this money (€202,823) will not be spent by Libertas until it has gained a mandate from the voters. A German pro-Europe think tank also called Libertas is threatening to sue Ganley's Libertas for "usurping its name to campaign against the Lisbon Treaty".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)