Julien Frisch

The Lisbon Treaty: A new constitution for the European Union

2009-12-01T00:58:00.004+01:00

It is the 1st of December 2009, and the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force less than one hour ago.

Sixteen years and one month ago, on the 1st of November 1993, when the Maastricht Treaty entered into force, the European Union was born. In that moment, we all became citizens of the first supranational Union, and we have been its citizens ever since.

From today, the Lisbon Treaty has become the legal basis of the EU, and although the amount of innovation might look minimal, the effects on our daily lives might seem small, and the text of the document is a horrible read, the European Union now has become a full Union. No more pillars, no more European Community (EC) - nothing but a European Union, with a strengthened European Parliament that gets almost equal rights in law-making and budgeting as the Council.

In some sense, the Maastricht Treaty (and the Amsterdam Treaty and the Nice Treaty) has already been the constitution of the European Union, but although the Lisbon Treaty is just a limited version of the Constitutional Treaty rejected some years ago and split into two parts, this text it is now a true and unique constitutional document for the supranational system of the European Union.

This European Union is a Union of 27 independent but interdependent countries represented in the European Council and the EU Council, and a Union of 500 million citizens directly represented in the Parliament, both held together by the European Commission in the centre of the institutional setting and the constitutional system of the EU.

Yet, the Lisbon Treaty is just one step forward in a a step-by-step evolution of the constitutional system of the European Union that started less than 60 years ago. But even if this step was the last one, the existence of this supranational polity cannot be denied or ignored, and so we all have to make the best of what we have, for the sake of the Union, for the sake of the member states, but most and foremost for the sake of each and every of the 500 million European citizens living within the Union's borders.

It is the 1st of December 2009, and the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force less than one hour ago.

Update (other blogs on the subject): The European Citizen, Grahnlaw, Le Taurillon, Claudia Sölken (CES), Coulisses de Bruxelles, EU Referendum

Switzerland forbids minarets in referendum: What a sad day!

2009-11-29T16:26:00.005+01:00

Europe in the 21st century is a multicultural continent, with multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religions societies (including non-religious people) - and Switzerland doesn't seem to belong to Europe today.

The Swiss have shown that they truly don't want to belong to this continent by rejecting that minarets may be built together with mosques. They have shown to the world that they want to be a place apart from European values.

These values might have evolved in societies where the majorities were and are Christians, but they have also evolved on a continent that seemed to have learned that religious freedom - the freedom to believe or not to believe whatever one wants - as other individual and collective freedoms need to be respected.

These values have evolved in a continent where migrants and children of migrants and grandchildren of migrant are not a small minority anymore but an integral part of this our common society. In this society, having churches, church towers and their church bells must by as possible as having a minaret with a mosque - or as drawing satirical cartoons about Jesus and Mohammed.

The Swiss referendum rejects this European history and these European values, it is a rejection of the Europe of the 21st century, a Europe where majorities don't rule over the rights of minorities, where minorities are not threatened by what is "normal" or "acceptable" for the majority.

In the Europe we live in today, we try to find common solutions that allow the respect for the freedom and dignity of each and everyone, although this is hard sometimes. Yes, it might be necessary to debate about the shape of a free and multicultural society, but rejecting religious freedom including the right to build appropriate buildings in which this religion may be performed is not the solution.

This victory of xenophobia in Switzerland proves how much we have to fight for the rights of every citizen and person on this continent, it proves that what we regard as given today may be lost tomorrow - and I as a German think I know what I am talking about.

The Europe the Swiss have voted for today is not my Europe, and I hope no country of the European Union will ever follow this sad example!

PS.: And regarding the argument that "this is democracy", I just want to add that decisions against particular groups are decision against equal rights, thus against the foundation of democracy. Had the Swiss voted against all high towers representing a religious or non-religious belief, this would have been a democratic decision respecting its own foundations - forbidding just minarets is discrimination.

Barroso's horror show

2009-11-29T14:11:00.004+01:00

PARRENTAL ADVICE:

Children under the age of 16 should not look at these photos of the next European Commission!

PS.: On should think there are more ~~professional~~ tasteful people working at the European Commission.

Update: And we haven't spoken about the copyright of these photos yet...!

Elmar Brok (EPP) on Catherine Ashton: Bruxelles2 interview

2009-11-29T12:22:00.000+01:00

L'Europe de la Défense et de la Sécurite has published a kind-of-interview with Elmar Brok, EPP spokesperson for foreign affairs in the European Parliament, on the nomination of Catherine Ashton.

The summary of the interview could be this quote (own translation):

"In the interview we had, Elmar Brok rests very prudent and does not want to give a preconceived judgement on the new High Representative, Catherine Ashton. But one feels at least a lack of enthusiasm, even some scepticism. The word "inexperienced" is the one that comes up the most from his mouth."

The full interview gives the impression that Ashton might still be heavily grilled in the European Parliament hearing next week, both regarding her experience but also on questions like her cabinet and dossiers like Russia and Iran.

Coup des Etats: How the member states want to rule the EU and how the Parliament has to withstand

2009-11-28T13:06:00.004+01:00

One should not forget that the Lisbon Treaty that will enter into force on Tuesday is the little brother of the Constitutional Treaty rejected for various - mostly internal - reasons in France and the Netherlands.

This Constitutional Treaty was meant to bring the Union closer to the citizens. There is room for debate on whether the result reflected this idea, but it is clear that this goal - making an existing political system, the EU, more responsive, more responsible, and more respectful to us, citizens of the European Union - has been there for good reason.

The title and privilege "Citizen of the European Union" is written on our passports and ID cards, and it is valid since 1992. This citizenship is not just a superficial idea, it is a right that allows us free movement all over the 27 member states. So while we move from one state to another, we always remain in the Union, and we always remain its citizens.

These citizen rights also include that we have the right to be represented on the European level, as we are represented on the national, regional, and local level. However, these days we see that the member states are planning their Coup des Etats, trying to take away rights and weakening supranational figures that are meant to represent our common interest:

Several states - the UK, Poland, the Czech Republic - are allowed to disrespect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens as guaranteed by the Lisbon Treaty.

Member states - led by the Swedish Council presidency - push through undemocratic and rights infringing measures against all EU citizens.

Member states purposefully chose two weak leaders, van Rompuy and Ashton, for the two top posts in "their" part of the polity.

Member states further limit the powers of these two leaders, using loopholes in the Lisbon Treaty: van Rompuy by measures described by the EUobserver today, and Ashton by measures described by L'Europe de la Défense and me (taken up by Italian euroblogger Matizandrea in Italian).

From Tuesday, I thus expect from the European Parliament and its members to play a much stronger role in defending the rights of European citizens. Only if this, our elected representation on the European level, is able to counterbalance the power games of the states and their bureaucracies, the Union can finally move on. The Parliament has to reject misinterpretations of the Lisbon Treaty by the Council, and it has to go to Court in our name if the Council doesn't listen.

The EP also has to strengthen its communication people and MEPs have to strengthen their communication effort, it has to put more energy in explaining to the public in simply ways what it is doing and why they are doing it.

The European Parliament has to put more weight on the common interest of the 500 million EU citizens instead of accepting policy outcomes that just reflect the particular interest of the leaders of one or two countries against the general interest of the Union.

The EP has to show that it can withstand this Coup des Etats and the false claims in the name of consensus diplomacy from national politicians, national diplomats, and national bureaucrats - claims that are nothing but the defence of a status quo of privileges and powers of the past leading to policy output of the past!

PS.: The big question - and I agree with Charlemagne - is whether "B Team mediocrities who could not make it in national politics" will be able to even get close to these demands.

The new European Commission: Names and portfolios of Barroso II

2009-11-27T13:16:00.000+01:00

In a press conference, Barroso just announced the names and portfolios of the new Commission.

Me and some others have tweeted from the press conference under the hashtag #barroso2, so if you want to re-read our comments and live quotes from Barroso you just need to click on the link

And here is the full list I took from the Commission press release:

Joaquín ALMUNIA: Competition. Vice-President of the Commission.
László ANDOR: Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
Baroness Catherine ASHTON: High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and Vice-President of the Commission.
Michel BARNIER: Internal Market and Services.
Dacian CIOLOS: Agriculture and Rural Development.
John DALLI: Health and Consumer Policy.
Maria DAMANAKI: Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.
Karel DE GUCHT: Trade.
Štefan FÜLE: Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. *
Johannes HAHN: Regional Policy.
Connie HEDEGAARD: Climate Action.
Maire GEOGHEGAN-QUINN: Research and Innovation.
Rumiana JELEVA: International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response. *
Siim KALLAS: Transport. Vice-President of the Commission.
Neelie KROES: Digital Agenda. Vice-President of the Commission.
Janusz LEWANDOWSKI: Budget and Financial Programming.
Cecilia MALMSTRÖM: Home Affairs.
Günter OETTINGER: Energy.
Andris PIEBALGS: Development.*
Janez POTOČNIK: Environment.
Viviane REDING: Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship. Vice-President of the Commission.
Olli REHN: Economic and Monetary Affairs.
Maro ŠEFČOVIČ: Vice-President of the Commission for Inter-Institutional Relations and Administration.
Algirdas ŠEMETA: Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.
Antonio TAJANI: Industry and Entrepreneurship. Vice-President of the Commission.
Androulla VASSILIOU: Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth.

I will try to follow up on the names and the policy areas as soon as possible but don't have the time now.

In any case, Barroso is confident all Commissioners will be accepted by the European Parliament - and it is now our work and the work of the EP to show who is not qualified for their portfolio, who has conflicts of interest and who has shown in the past that there should be doubts on whether s/he is the right person to be a European Commissioner for five years.

On video: The Bulgarian Commission candidate Rumiana Jeleva

2009-11-27T11:32:00.000+01:00

The Bulgarian Commission candidate, foreign minister Rumania Jeleva, sat down with New Europe editor-in-chief Alexandro Koronakis to speak about her career, her opinion on the van Rompuy/Ashton ticket, women in the Commission, and the future of the Nabucco pipeline project:

Worth watching!

EU to hand all banking details of Europeans to the US

2009-11-27T10:31:00.003+01:00

I am no expert in this field, but it really looks like member states on Monday might give unlimited access to all banking details of EU citizens to the USA.

According to Brussels Blogger this will be done without asking the same from the US, all has been decided without any parliament, and no citizen will be able to go to court against these measures.

In addition, member states want to push this through on Monday because on Tuesday the Lisbon Treaty enters into force an the European Parliament would need to participate in the decision-making then.

If this respects democracy and the rule of law, the East German State Security (Stasi) has been an organisation respecting basic human values and civic rights.

PS.: The Facebook group asking member states to stop their actions regarding SWIFT has been growing from 0 to 530 members within less than a day!

Limiting Ashton's power: The role of the rotating Council Presidency in foreign policy

2009-11-26T11:14:00.002+01:00

With the nomination of van Rompuy and Ashton for the two major top posts, it looked pretty clear that the coordination of the EU's foreign policy will now be handed over to these two persons and their administrations.

Yet, as I have explained earlier, the rotating Council Presidency will not disappear but will chair all Council configurations except for the Foreign Affairs Council that will be chaired by Ashton.

However, I just discovered a freshly published Council document regulating the role of the rotating Council Presidency in the preparatory work of the Foreign Affairs Council. This document is definitely limiting the powers of Ashton and is restricting her freedom to work freely with her own diplomatic service:

The chairmanship of the preparatory bodies of the Foreign Affairs Council referred to in categories 1 to 4 in the table below shall be organised as follows:

1) Category 1 (preparatory bodies in the area of trade and development)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by the six-monthly Presidency.

2) Category 2 (geographic preparatory bodies)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative.

3) Category 3 (horizontal preparatory bodies, mainly CFSP)

The preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative, except the following preparatory bodies, which shall be chaired by the six-monthly
Presidency:
- Working Party of Foreign Relations Counsellors (RELEX);
- Working Party on Terrorism (International Aspects) (COTER);
- Working Party on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (COCOP);
- Working Party on Consular Affairs (COCON);
- Working Party on Public International Law (COJUR); and
- Working Party on the Law of the Sea (COMAR).

4) Category 4 (ESDP related preparatory bodies)
The ESDP related preparatory bodies shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative.

This means that although Ashton is going to chair every Foreign Affairs Council, the prepared documents coming into these meetings from the Working Parties won't have always been co-ordinated by the External Action Service but also by the rotating Council presidency.

And even where Ashton can chose the chairpersons of the working groups, she is limited by the member states (own highlights):

Where ... a preparatory body (PSC and relevant working parties) shall be chaired by a representative of the High Representative, the responsibility for appointing the chair shall belong to the High Representative. These appointments shall be made on the basis of competence, while ensuring adequate geographical balance and transparency. The High Representative shall ensure that the person he or she intends to appoint as chairperson will enjoy the confidence of Member States.

Looking at this document one can see that the coherence in the European Union's foreign policy is unlikely to emerge, with the member states fighting to keep control over certain key areas, limiting the power(s) of the Foreign Minister.

I might be mistaken, but this looks like bringing further disorder into the European institutions that are already very hard to understand and control.

Supplement: Eurogeek has correctly pointed to the fact that this is not new but has already been discussed for some time, as shows this "L'Europe de la Défense" article from 31 October 2009.

The Union for the Mediterranean: A zombie organisation

2009-11-26T01:41:00.002+01:00

In March of this year I looked at the Union for the Mediterranean for the last time, and it was clear that this Sarkozian project was deadly frozen.

A freshly published Council document reporting about the outcome of a meeting in June of the "Directors-General of Civil Protection of the Union for the Mediterranean Member States" pretty much proves how dead this Union is, although it pretends to be alive.

The document appears to talk about possible joint goals and cooperation projects on civil protection mechanisms in the countries of the Mediterranean Union, an area that in my opinion could offer ground for non-political cooperation for the benefit of the participating member states.

However, the document is, even in diplomatic terms, extremely vague.

Where it talks about clear goals it uses extremely weak verbs or sentence constructions that run in cycles:

"[T]he Mediterranean countries [...] have to get organized in order to implement a real joint coordination to foresee catastrophes and accidents for the populations."

(They have to get organised to implement - not: They have to implement...)

"[I]n the continuity of the reinforcement of a training network, the possibility of focal points presenting the necessary guarantee of quality could be explored in order to create recognized training with diplomas."

(Note: The possibility could be explored, in other words: Nothing.)

And where it uses rather clear verbs the goals are totally imprecise:

"...this cooperation having to be reinforced by developing coherent actions, namely in prevention planning preparation."

But most importantly, the "recommendations" this document is supposed to provide already start (and end) with a sentence that says "We should rather do nothing new, what we have has to be enough." (bold in the original version):

"Particular emphasis was given to the Mediterranean’s existing mechanisms and frameworks."

Altogether, nothing in this document is clear, nothing is agreed, nothing seems to be firmly stated. This seems to be the general state of the art in this "Union".

The Union for the Mediterranean has been nonsense from the beginning, and this newly published document is definitely no refutation to this opinion of mine.

FYROM & Greece: The dispute over the word "Macedonia" continues

2009-11-25T21:48:00.001+01:00

According to EurActiv, the Greek and the Macedonian prime ministers will meet on Friday to discuss the stupid name issue they have been running for years.

I have said what I think about this over a year ago already. And I still think that the name of a country should not be part of serious discussions between two European countries, one of them being a member of the European Union.

So Greece, let Macedonia call itself "Macedonia" (instead of "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" - FYROM), and Macedonia, promise that you don't want any territory in today's Greece. Then shake hands and let the EU candidate country Macedonia advance on its path towards the European Union and let us come closer to a united European continents where countries don't fight over names or territories but work together for their citizens.

Thanks in advance for being reasonable!

Gender balance in the European Union: Tiny steps

2009-11-24T23:03:00.001+01:00

After the final nominations for the European Commission are in (see EurActiv), it is clear that the new Commission will be exactly 1/3 female.

That is far from balanced, but closer to balanced than last time. Important to notice is that the goal of the campaign for "Gender Balanced Commission" has been reached, altough it's just the minimum goal. We are glad this is the case, and we are now looking whether all woman will pass the European Parliament hearings.

It's also important to remind that the two important demands I and others have formulated over the last months - at least one woman in one of the three EU top posts and at at least 1/3 of the Commission posts filled with women - are only met because Cathy Ashton counts twice, once as a top post holder and second as future Commission vice president (if she is confirmed by the European Parliament).

So we are advancing in tiny steps - if we continue at this speed (each time one female Commissioner more) the Commission will be gender-balanced in 20-25 years (depending on enlargement).

And we shouldn't also forget that Ashton got one of the 3 top posts, but that all the other major posts of the Union are filled with men:

Commission President,
European Council President,
European Parliament President,
Rotating Council President,
General Secretary of the Council,
European Central Bank President,
President of the European Court of Justice,
European Court of Auditors President,
European Economic and Social Committee President,
Committee of the Regions President,
Eurogroup Chairman,
EU Ombudsman,
European Data Protection Supervisor,
Fundamental Rights Agency Director,
...

So if anyone in the EU continues talking about gender balance in the member states - an important topic to talk about - he or she should first care most intensively about the Unions institution, because on third of the Commission and one top post among so many others filled with a woman cannot be satisfactory at all!

Catherine Ashton: Foreign policy experience and public appearances over the last year

2009-11-22T16:24:00.003+01:00

After Thursdays choice, questions have been asked about who is the new EU "Foreign Minister" Catherine "Cathy" Ashton, and I'd like to contribute by providing some background information available on the net.

When we look at the foreign policy experience Catherine Ashton gathered over the last year, one might look at the list of important non-EU leaders she met during that time (non-comprehensive):

Celso Amorim, Brasilian Foreign Minister (source)
Rohitha Bogollagama, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister (source)
Simon Crean, Australian Trade Minister (source)
Stockwell Day, Canadian Minister of International Trade (source)
Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, South African Foreign Minister (source)
Hage Geingob, Namibian Minister of Trade and Industry (source)
Seretse Khama Ian Khama, President of Botswana (source)
Kim Jong-hoon, South Korean Trade Minister (source)
Ron Kirk, United States Trade Representative (source)
Pascal Lamy, WTO Director General (source)
Elvira Nabiullina, Russian Minister for Economic Development (source)
Anand Sharma, Indian Trade Minister (source)
Yang Jiechi, Chinese Foreign Minister (source)

We could also look at some public appearances over the last year to see how she presents herself and trade policy (her portfolio in the Commission):

Asthon's reaction at the press conference on Thursday
Al Jazeera interview after her selection on Thursday
BBC Hardtalk discussion on free trade in March: 24 minutes video
Speech and discussions at the Carnegie Endowment: 1 hour video
The hearing of Ashton at the European Parliament before her appointment as EU Commissioner: Audio (MP3)

I suppose that we will learn more and more about her over the months and especially of the the next years, but since "Foreign Minister" and future vice-president of the Commission Baroness Ashton will soon have to get European Parliament approval (as any other future Commissioner), I think it's already worth looking at her record from the past year now.

The information above just give some indications to the fact that she was indeed able to gather some relevant foreign policy experience over the last year and that she is able to be as outgoing as she can be diplomatic - let's see what else will be brought up.

Insider business: Juncker & Sarkozy + Mandelson & Brown

2009-11-22T12:47:00.001+01:00

Journalist-blogger Jean Quatremer, quoting anonymous sources, says Jean-Claude Juncker has been prevented as European Council President by the individual veto of Sarkozy.

Isabel Oakeshott and Jonathan Oliver from The Sunday Times, quoting a "well-placed insider", know that former Commissioner and member of the UK government Lord Mandelson was still running on Thursday for the job as EU "Foreign Minister" but was called back by Brown who seems to need him in his government.

In fact, I rather believe both news stories, but they both also show the problem of classical journalism: Working with anonymous sources in reporting (and not just as background) - as necessary as they might be - reduces credibility, at least in my eyes.

I'd rather go for transparency and quotable sources than to opt for the story relying on anonymous sources, but how difficult this can be I have described here.

Quotes that characterise the European Union

2009-11-22T00:38:00.002+01:00

Nothing better than clear statements anyone can understand:

"The EUMC recognizes the co-ordinated effort of the Wise Pen, EDA, EUMS, CEUMC, DGE VIII, DGE IX, CPCC, DGA5 and Joint SITCEN in producing this mature draft NEC Concept."

Source: Military Advice on the draft EU Concept for Network Enabled Capabilities (NEC) in support of ESDP (13 November 2009)

PS.: And in the first comment to this post you can find the same sentence as a hyperlink story.

Chasing Brussels Podcast Episode 008: Rompuy, Ashton & Gender Politics

2009-11-21T23:59:00.005+01:00

We have been recording the eighth "Chasing Brussels Podcast" this evening.

I have been able to join again after long absence - and obviously it is focusing on the two major issues of the past week, the nomination of van Rompuy & Baroness Ashton and the Gender Balanced Commission campaign:

In this episode, three men sit around and talk about gender politics in the EU.

Joe Litobarski hosts this week, and he’s joined by Julien Frisch and Conor Slowey to talk about the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as European Council President and Baroness Catherine Ashton as High Representative for foreign affairs.

Is the appointment of Baroness Ashton a good thing for women in EU politics? Or will it hurt the chances of the Gender Balanced Commission campaign to push for a more equal Commission? All these things and more in this week’s podcast.

Chasing Brussels 08 – Gender Politics

If you have comments on the podcast, please comment directly on the page of this episode so that we have everything in one place - have fun!

PS.: For more on the mascot of "Chasing Brussels" go to "http://mattressy.blogspot.com!

Europe in blogs - Euroblogs (11): Herman van Rompuy & Catherine Ashton

2009-11-21T00:59:00.003+01:00

It was the decision of the decade, because it took a decade until this first decision of "The new EU" could be taken - and the euroblogosphere has covered the nomination of Herman van Rompuy for European Council President and of Catherine Ashton as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy extensively.

A collective "WHY?" has been going through the blogs, or "Pourquoi?" as Fabien Cazenave is asking. It's "[d]isheartening" for Gulay Icoz, "the dampest squib" for Monnet Musing, "a terrible joke" for Open Europe. "No fireworks" says Konrad Niklewicz, and "No. Comment" from the Berlaymonster.

"Habemus Papam" announces Sauvon l'Europe after hearing the "grotesque result", and this result looks like "Fish & chips sauce biki" thinks Un Européen jamais content. As grotesque as the fact that Eurosceptics are applauding the outcome of the dinner, as Gavin Hewitt rightfully underlines.

One could summarise many of these reactions with the words by European Union Law: "One thing is clear – both Mr. van Rompuy and Mrs. Ashton do not have substantial foreign policy experience." But one could argue,as Grahnlaw is doing, that those holding the rotating Council presidency never had more experience either.

Still, almost everyone is saying what Nosemonkey says about the two: "Lightweights". For Jean Quatremer finding somebody less non-existing than van Rompuy must have been almost impossible, but the fact that it was possible had been proven by the choice of Baroness Ashton - a team that Europeans weren't dreaming of.

Nevertheless, Lobbyplanet doesn't mind to call them "The Dream Team", but the actual dream team should have been Lamy/Freiberga/Miliband, notes Jon Worth.

Others, like Europaeum know very well that Thursday's dream team was not even van Rompuy/Ashton but in fact Merkel/Sarkozy, and reseuropa couldn't agree more, concluding that with the choice of Ashton the two "will have removed the anglo-saxon domination of European economic policy of recent years".In return, Pietro De Matteis interprets the choice of Trade Commissioner Ashton as a decision representing the true core of the EU: Commercial power.

At A Fistful of Europe, one thinks that with this decision the countries have been working to restrain the EU institutions under the Lisbon Treaty, while Charlemagne knows that this decision is a sign that the EU is nothing but an "inward-looking fortress".

This EU is now post-heroic for the Verfassungblog, yet Honor Mahony discovers the new hero: Barroso. This is why EU Referendum summarises the result of the game with a simple: "Commission 2 – Council 0".

Taking a look back, Titem notices that the list of candidates and the debates going through the euroblogosphere were never really reflected in the traditional media. And still her - Asthon's - name was missing both in the old and in the new media, and so she was "[s]hocked, flustered and almost a little embarrassed" saw Gulf Stream Blues.

Brussels2 saw this Catherine Ashton at the press conference who wasn't prepared, Giacomo Benedetto sees an alumna of the Centre for European Politics at Royal Holloway in one of the highest European offices, and Joe Litobarski sees at least a success of the twibbon campaign "For a Woman at a Top EU Job".

Van Rompuy also gets his share of the attention: Some friendly words from Tony Barber who sounds glad that the first European Council President who will shape the office is "[i]ntelligent, civilised, modest, with a calming sense of humour - a consensus-builder and an organiser" are countered by Paul Belien's comparison with Saruman, the wise wizard in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who "has built himself a high tower from where he rules over all of us". Ironies Too has a single adjective for Herman: "Ludicrous".

Eva remarks that he is at least not one of those leaders who are searching every little spotlight, and that Ashton could maybe bring the British back to Europe. But Daniel Basteira cannot see van Rompuy filling out the post as "chef d'orchestre".

There is also the Swedish Troika: A "positive result" from still-Commissioner Margot Wallström and "A successful dinner!" by soon-to-be-Commissioner Cecilia Malmström are both washed away by Carl Bildt who is so disappointed that he refrains from any further comments.

Finally, there are also a rather calm analysis by Menaru and a rather negative and taxpayer-oriented analysis by EU for US. And Daniel Antal's call that we need a constitution.

But maybe we should all take it like Gideon Rachman and just think: No matter who would have gotten the jobs, there's anyway no substance and it didn't matter anyway who'd get them. Or do it like Yordanka Stoyanova and just say: "Congratulations!"

But no matter what we do or say, the decision is taken, and we'll have to live with it in one or another way. So, that's it for now, but Europe in blogs - Euroblogs will be back soon, probably with more amazing coverage of the citizen-oriented European Union.

PS.: And for all those of you who cannot get enough of euroblogs speaking about "great" events, I recommend re-reading the Europe in blogs - Euroblogs: Barroso Special published before Barroso's re-election earlier this year.

The new EU: First analyses

2009-11-20T12:21:00.003+01:00

Yesterday evening I have commented on the van Rompuy/Ashton decision, and the main point to highlight is that I was right with my prediction on Wednesday about how the result would look in terms of the profile of the persons.

Now the time for complaints is over for a moment, it is time go into the analysis.

Having seen the press conference of Reinfeldt, Barroso, van Rompuy, and Ashton yesterday evening one could already see how the new EU will look like:

The rotating Council presidency (see their coverage) will lose importance, it will be sidelined in public appearances, as Reinfeldt was sidelined yesterday evening.

The European Council President will hide himself behind pre-fabriqued speeches changing languages every minute to confuse interpreters. He will try to keep invisible, filling his role as moderator, as European Council General Secretary.

"Cathy" Ashton, the "Foreign Minster" will be responsible to speak in foreign policy matters, she will be having the telephone that Hillary Clinton will call when Obama wants to know whom to talk to in the EU. Nevertheless, the personality of van Rompuy will probably leave Ashton with much more freedom and a much stronger role than any other European Council President would have been doing. Maybe I am mistaken, but for Ashton, if she knows how to use her position, this might actually by a good thing, although I am not sure that she will be able to handle large diplomatic service. And in the press conference yesterday it was clearly said that she would be responsible (just) for the day-to-day work.

The clear winner of yesterday night was Barroso and the European Commission. You could see it in his eyes, in his smile, in his gestures. He was handing a present to Reinfeldt that looked like he said: Thanks for being here and helping me, now go and leave. Van Rompuy is even less a communicator than Barroso and he won't have a large administration to support him, so he won't be a threat for Barroso. Ashton is too new and she will be below Barroso in the Commission hierarchy, so Barroso knows that he'll keep a strong influence on foreign policy, too, while having the better networks in Brussels and in the world to get decisions that fit his policy preferences. In the future, Ashton will have to deal the problematic and conflictual work in foreign policy while Barroso will come and appear whenever it suits him - he'll probably be much more visible than in the past.

In this regard one could say that after yesterday's decision we might see a much clearer division of the EU into an intergovernmental and a supranational part. By choosing weak personalities for their domain(s), the governments made clear that where they govern, they don't want to be disturbed by supranational elements (like brilliant personalities working in favour of the EU).

But they also didn't put up a strong personality that could overshine the supranational institutions - the Commission and the Parliament - or their leaders. They have thus opted to keep their governmental strength in their national hands instead of projecting them on the EU level with the risk to loosing them to the personalities they chose.

The new EU will hence probably see an even sharper division between its two poles, and the question will be who will win the fight with what means or whether this will just bring the Union to a new equilibrium - interesting months and years to come.

PS.: And just not to be mistaken: I don't blame van Rompuy & Ashton for who they are and I wish them good luck for their jobs. When I complained yesterday this was rather against the choices of the heads of state and government. The two newcomers will have to show their abilities or (non-)impact over the next months.

van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton for the top EU jobs

2009-11-19T20:45:00.007+01:00

Update: See the "Europe in blogs - Euroblogs" post with over 40 blog reactions from all over the euroblogosphere!

I have already said everything on this massive disgrace in my post some 30 minutes ago, but now it is official: With Barroso, van Rompuy and Ashton the EU gets the worst Troika any could have imagined.

I have just decided to learn Chinese, because the EU will definitely lose importance over the next years, and with van Rompuy and Ashton there is no hope that there is anyone to stop it.

This is the end, this is definitely the end. What a sad day for Europe, for the European Union, and all its citizens.

PS.: My blog post on me becoming an EU-sceptic is truer than ever before.

A massive disgrace: van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton for European Council President and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy?

2009-11-19T19:15:00.005+01:00

Update: See the "Europe in blogs - Euroblogs" post with over 40 blog reactions from all over the euroblogosphere!

The day is (almost) ruined, the nightmare seems to have become reality.

On Twitter and in several news sources we can hear that the faceless Belgian prime minister Herman van Rompuy has been officially proposed to the heads of state and government to become the first permanent European Council president.

In the same sources, Catherine Margaret Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland is told to be proposed as future High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

If this double ticket will be confirmed, this Thursday, 19 November 2009, will have been one of the worst in the history of the European Union, because this would mean that we get the "Troika of Death and Boredom".

With van Rompuy we get an unknown European Council president without European or international profile and without the strength to oppose the national leaders, and a "Foreign Minister" who is female but clearly not qualified for the job.

Ashton wasn't qualified to become EU Commissioner (let me remind of Nosemonkey's and Jon Worth's articles when she was nominated a year ago) and within one year she has had no impact at all, neither in the area of trade nor elsewhere. She has, as van Rompuy, no European or international profile, and they won't be able to inspire the EU or bring our Union forward.

If the two are confirmed, the heads of state and government have insulted all European citizens, they have spit into our faces and they have ruined any dynamic that the Lisbon Treaty might have created. It would be a disgrace, a massive disgrace!!!

We won't be silent, no, we won't be silent!

Ouverture for the EU top job summit

2009-11-19T18:11:00.004+01:00

Just watched the prime ministers and presidents arrive for the EU top job summit in Brussels. Most of them passed the pack of journalists without giving interviews. Those who did did not say much.

Former Commissioner Grybauskaite who is now Lithuanian president said that she is not a candidate. Balkenende from the Netherlands told that the (formal?) nomination would only be on the 1st of December. And the Irish prime minister Cowen told that their candidate John Brutton was still available if there was a consensus around the table.

Most noticeable was the Swedish prime minister Reinfeldt who stood at the entrance of the Council for an hour, greeting the European political high society with handshakes. Some halted for a minute to discuss with him, most just stopped for a photo. Reinfeldt look really nervous and uncomfortable, and he seem tired, too. I think that this might have been the worst week of his political life, and it might be the worst night, too.

At 18:01 he left his place in the lobby to climb up to the European Council meeting in the form of a dinner. The night could be long, and we are waiting for the results to come late.

We may expect surprises, but I am not sure whether they will be positive or negative... (I will stay up all night if necessary.)

The Dinner

2009-11-19T07:45:00.000+01:00

What are the Heads of State and Government having for dinner tonight?

Fish & Chips and Pasta?
Pīrags & Sautéed reindeer?
A mix of French fries from Place Jourdan & Central London?

Or maybe just some blowfish, and the two Heads of State and Government surviving decide on their own?

If you know the menu, you know everything...!

PS.: Did I forget any dishes?

Euroblogs in the "New Europe" weekly newspaper

2009-11-18T18:16:00.002+01:00

I just wanted to use the opportunity to thank the editors of "New Europe" for printing euroblog articles in their weekly newspaper and for linking them on their front page.

I had the pleasure to appear twice over the last two weeks (see page 22 of the issues 559 & 560), first with my post "10 steps to becoming a Euroblogger" and this week with last Friday's article "A European Blog Action against a Commission without gender balance" that became reality quicker than I expected with the campaign for a "Gender Balanced Commission". But it is as much a pleasure to find my own texts published as it is to read the texts of other bloggers, seeing our content distributed in a new way and incorporated into editorial content.

What I particularly like with the blog section in New Europe is that it connects the world of blogging with the readers of classical newspapers, that it brings our texts from the widths of the net into the limited space of physical paper.

They, the editors, still keep their editorial control, they make the choices they would like to make for their readers, but we, the bloggers, do not have to change our style or rhythm, we don't have to follow editorial rules: They like it, they take it - if not, it's still online in our blogs...

I appreciate this a lot, and I can only commend the New Europe team for taking this step to link from the "real world" to us, the euroblogosphere - a different kind of hyperlink story.

We won't be silent!

2009-11-18T09:17:00.000+01:00

It's the final countdown: Tomorrow - or aftertomorrow - we will know whom our lowly skilled and unmotivated national leaders have chosen to be their handymen on the European level.

The one will have to play the role of the Secretary of the European Council, the other will represent the lowest common denominator of what the bosses think about the EU's foreign relations, and we might thus have to call him Low Representative.

Together with Barroso they will form the Troika of Death and Boredom, and Jerzy Buzek (European Parliament President) will smile, lower his head and ask the assembly to approve anything these three men do.

And they will tell us that this is what we need. They will inform us about what they have decided after they have decided. And they will hope that we agree or that we don't care.

But if the choices made tomorrow are bad, we won't be silent, and if we don't agree, we won't be silent. And we will let them know, not just on Friday or Saturday or Sunday, but every day of their term.

We will let them and their bosses know what we think of them, and they will realise that the Union of the Lisbon Treaty cannot be "politics as usual" because we will finally have clear targets - and we will learn to hit!

Gender balance & "Females in Front"

2009-11-17T22:26:00.004+01:00

There is quite a lot going on around the campaign for a "Gender Balanced Commission" that started just yesterday - including a mentioning of the campaign on European Voice.

We finally get to a point where this issue is not just something for the "feminists", we are arriving at the point where even national news start to recogise the topic (right now it's on the top of the front webpage of the Austrian newspaper "Die Presse" and the campaign is mentioned by El Pais).

I am really glad seeing this, in particular since the issue of gender balance has been one of the guiding lines of this blog. I just looked back and found that my fourth post ever, 1 1/2 years ago, was on "Females in Front", an initiative that demanded that at least one of the three top EU posts would be for a woman and that has almost 200,000 signatories by now.

In two or three days we will know whether this initiative had any success, whether following up was worth the time, or whether the political and social struggle will have to continue - maybe through a rejection of the proposed Commission college in the near future.

On thing is clear for me:

We - men and women - need to stick to this matter, we need to keep it on the agenda until the moment when European leaders will recognise that gender balance as a policy issue has left the back rooms and has become a priority issue for more than just the hard core, an issue strong enough for a campaign like this and strong enough for the European Parliament to act decisively...