Off for the holidays now, the irregular spin will continue in 2007. In the mean while, feel free to peruse the archives, or some of the excellent blogs to your right.
P.S.: make sure you have a happy solstice tomorrow.
On the Head Heeb, Alexander Bossy has posted a rather frightening prospect for the EU's institutional reforms.
Given the vast gulf in opinion not only between member states but also between the political elites of many of the member states and their populations, the prospect of a new “treaty” containing almost all of the terms of the rejected “constitution” being successfully forced down the throats of an unwilling European population which has learned that it can successfully vote no seems unrealistic to me. That means that the process of institutional reform is likely to be slow and tortuous as the political class and the public in the various member states need to reach a consensus, and then bridge the gap between those states that have steadfastly failed to reform their statist economies and those that have embraced free markets.The comment about 'embracing free markets' vs. failing to reform 'statist economies' is two or three bits too simple for my taste. Aside of that I must say the prognosis is - unfortunately - quite realistic.
During their presidency, the Germans are going to go try one more time to revive that old 'Constitution'.
The Deutsche Welle has a good piece up on the matter.
Generally, the intentions of the German government are to move carefully on the matter - or at least that's what they are stating and what their proposed actions look like.
This leaves some hope for reality to kick in during the process...
To document some of the spats that the EU is already having over the 'Constitution':
European Voice: Listen to the EU’s citizens, Wallström tells Germany
I agree with Margot's sentiments, but this is one of these methods and goals questions. I'm not really sure which road is the better one to take, solving this exclusively on the highest level or involving the actors that Margot names. In the end, it is the outcome that counts (e.g. a concise document that actually stands the chance of winning a round of referendums). Margot's thinking on the matter does seem to be headed in the right direction. She discusses putting only the new elements of the 'Constitution' to a referendum, which should drastically cut the size of the document. I think that eventually, some of the unnecessary (decorative) substance as well as the 'Constitution' name should also be slashed, which will ideally leave us with a reader-friendly document of no more than 20 pages.Margot Wallström, European commissioner for communication, has warned Germany’s presidency of the EU against ignoring citizens for the sake of getting a quick agreement on the EU constitution.
“You cannot disregard citizens. It is important to make sure the renegotiation is not only about horse-trading behind closed doors,” Wallström said in an interview.
“I know the German presidency says that there should not be too many people involved in the negotiation, but we could invite the European Parliament, national parliaments, the civil society, to show that we welcome contributions on the future of Europe.”
Wilhelm Schönfelder, Germany’s top diplomat in Brussels, said last week that there could be a deal on a new version of the treaty as early as the end of next year. He also said negotiations should be handled by national capitals.
The proposal by Spain and Luxembourg to hold talks in two seperate groups (those who have ratified and those who haven't) is a rather stupid diplomatic move. Yet another reason to hope that Juncker won't become the next Commission president...The Dutch government is disappointed at a proposal to resume stalled talks around the draft European constitution without the Netherlands and France.
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende warned on Friday of chaos if countries are excluded from the talks, Radio Netherlands reported.
Spain and Luxembourg — which launched the proposal — want to resume in January the talks with countries that backed the charter.
Alberto Masseti-Zannini has an interesting take on Turkey's potential accession up on GlobaLab.
Alberto argues that in the EU 'it's the economy, stupid', and that adding Turkey as a member will bring great economic benefits. No argument on the latter, but the EU is about more than the economy.
I don't really buy the argument (made elsewhere) that Turkey would slow down any moves to a more political Europe, though. Nobody that I know of has elaborated on it. The argument, as it is made by one of the commenters on GlobaLab, seems to be based upon the fact that the UK and the USA want Turkey to enter. Turkey is thereby suspected to be a Trojan horse that will do their bidding and thwart French designs to turn the EU into a political, social and military union. This is a rather fatal misreading of where Turkish foreign policy has been heading in the past five years and where it should be heading considering the country's national interests.
We expect Turkey to live up to certain standards with regard to democracy and human rights. At the same time, the EU, as Alberto argues, doesn't really have its own house in order on this topic. I don't know if this is less or more reason for being strict with Turkey, though...
At the end, Alberto comes to the question of religion, which is the most interesting part of his argumentation as he manages to turn this one on the head. I myself haven't been convinced by the argument that Turkey can't join because it is too islamic. The EU is a secular club and Turkey is as secular a country as Greece or Italy, in some ways arguably more so. The argument is cleverly reversed by Alberto, who is afraid that the debate on Turkish entry is being instrumentalised by Christians to establish their religion as a 'common value' and and further their own religious agenda.
Although I'm not too afraid of Christian fundamentalists as a political force in Europe right now, the larger discourse and its potential impact on our politics should not be ignored.
Mark Mardell has a good take on the *yawn* EU summit.
Calm Summit Before the Storm (thru Erkan).
Basically the point is that although all conflicts have pretty much been avoided at this summit, the groundwork has been laid for many future spats.
Incidentally, Mardell has one of the most interesting diaries on the EU. The only big problem is that it isn't blogified (coining terms as we go along, or wait! it already exists but I just gave it a 2nd meaning...). What I mean is, there is no diary as such that you can link to and scroll down, only individual entries that can be read and linked to.
The only other English reporter (that I know of) blogging on the Brussels beat, David Rennie, is unfortunately moving to another publication. Rennie's blog was generally irritating because of its overall tone (Rennie writes as if Thatcherite neoliberalism were common wisdom -- part of the territory when working for the Torygraph, I guess), but it contained a lot of good, original reporting. As a farewell (or au revoir), here's a link to one of these excellent pieces:
The Town that Sarkozy Built
Even Jacques Chirac admits that it is b o r i n g...
Seriously, with the decision with regard to Turkey having been made by the EU's foreign ministers, there is nothing much that this Summit would decide on. And sure enough, they haven't decided on any of the main issues. Not the 'Constitution', not the Polish veto of the new partnership with Russia, not Frattini's plans to use the 'passerelle clause' on justice and home affairs to move it from unanimity to majority-based voting.
You can find the conclusions of the presidency here (.pdf)
Some news in advance of the decision.
A few days ago, I commented that
For Germany, it will be Minister of Foreign Affairs Steinmeier (from the social-democratic SPD) making the decision in the Council next monday. He seems less opposed to Turkish entry than Merkel.On the European Tribune, dvx has partially translated an article of the Süddeutsche Zeitung stating that Merkel and Steinmeier are indeed at odds over this.
Jon Worth has been blogging the PES (European Centre-left) congress in Porto.
Excellent to have some good reporting on this from a blogger, especially as the media seems to have virtually no interest so far. A google news search on PES congress yields only a handful of links, maybe there will be more after the weekend)
The series is still on the front page, for later reading go here.
Personally, I was somewhat interested in the 10-point plan for a 'Social Europe' that the party was going to present at the summit. You can find it on this page. I especially like the fact that environmental concerns are integrated into the plan. More on this later.
Speaking about the European center-left, Margot Wallström has some refreshingly cheerful commentary about the new REACH legislation and the growing public awareness on climate change. I wonder if there is a trend here, if we can say that the European social-democratic parties are beginning to fully take up environmental issues and find integrated solutions. Margot also hints that she wants to organise a meeting with website operators and bloggers, which sort of completes the circle back to Jon Worth's work blogging the PES congress.
It's an interesting idea (speaking as a blogger who'd want to take part as opposed to a citizen evaluating whether it would have any benefit for society at large). But do make sure that the Wifi runs smoothly, Margot...
The Fatma Koşer Kaya case has just gotten even more dubious.
(Also see this earlier post)
Peter Sain ley Berry confesses to the bicycle theory of European integration:
Like a bicycle, the Union needs momentum to allow it to stay upright. At the moment it is in danger of falling over - unable to act effectively, either at home or abroad, because of an inability to resolve its competing national interests. This was all too evident at the recent Russian summit, for example. There is only so far that you can take a Europe of compromise before it starts to fall apart.I don't agree with this. The EU's institutions are flexible enough to survive setbacks, probably even partial renationalisation. Out of the current deadlock, a better solution could be found than the 'Constitution', either in the form of a much-reduced Treaty with mainly institutional reforms, or in the form of 'enhanced cooperation' -- a multi-speed Europe.
The largely useless ratification by Finland of the dead 'Constitution' brought the following, perhaps interesting comment.
Paavo Lipponen, the president of the Finnish parliament, said the vote had produced "an even greater majority of member states in favour of this treaty."This comment could be also considered in the light of the 'double majority' rule that the EU Council will exclusively employ for majority votes, if the treaty were ever to enter into force. The rule, quite simply, requires that (specified) legislation is supported by a majority of states, representing a majority of citizens. If we translate this to the EU 'Constitution', we can see that although 15 out of 25 Member States may have cleared the Treaty, making it a clear majority, they only represent 35% of the EU's population.
Odd, but welcome news, via the EU Business Review:
Turkey agrees to open port and airport to Greek Cypriots
Turkey, faced with the possible suspension of its EU membership talks, has agreed to open a port and an airport to Greek Cypriot ships and planes, a spokesman for Finland's EU presidency said.Personally, I had thought that the Turkish government had dug itself in too deep to make a U-Turn like this. Will it be enough for the EU, will it hold, and will there be a backlash in Turkish society?
Turkish authorities sent a message to the Finnish government, holder of the bloc's presidency until the end of the month, to inform them of the decision, spokesman Mikko Norros told AFP.
He declined to say which locations could be opened or when it might happen.
Now, I am not a politician, addressing the masses in their thousands.Quote by Attilla Yayla, addressing the masses in their millions in the International Herald Tribune.
In American foreign-policy thinking the most widespread argument for pushing the EU to accept Turkey into its arms is the supposed transformational power of the decision. By taking up a Muslim, second world country the EU is supposed to show the world that the cultural and economic standards of what we still call the west are open to everyone. This is one of the few really bipartisan foreign-policy ideas, supported by Clinton as well as by both Bush 41 and 43. The view was repeated in recent comments by US undersecretary of State Nicolas Burns:
In the EU, we should be extremely careful about this kind of view, because in a way, it asks us to embrace Turkey precisely because of the aspects that separate us. We will be ill-served by this kind of enlightened idealism when we want to work on the things that unite the EU, like respect for diversity, human rights, international law and a dynamic economic system that rewards all people's efforts. Turkey still has some way to go on all of these."Historians will say it is one of these important decisions the Europeans made ... at the beginning of the 21st century, to open the EU up to this major Muslim secular democracy"
Although strategic considerations matter, they don't suffice as a reason for wanting Turkey in the EU. The ultimate reason should be that it has a culture and economy that is already strongly integrated into the European Union. Both sides will become richer if the process of integration is carried forward successfully. Turkey is still a large, poor country, but it is richer than the Ukraine and many Balkan states that are considered to be up for membership. The average income of its people is comparable to Bulgaria and Romania, two countries which will enter the EU next January 1st. In addition, it has a healthy economic and demographic development which should put it in a better position when it is up for entry. Which is 2014, at the earliest.The EUobserver reports that Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso has turned to supporting the idea of reviving the 'Constitution'. A lamentable development, if true. The article is a bit low on actual information, and I haven't been able to find the Reuters story it's based upon on reuters.com or reuters.co.uk.
Developing...
Update: Got it, it's from the French Reuters. Here's the article (fr).
Apparantly, the remarks upon which the story is based were made in a letter accompanying this document (.pdf). I'll have a translation in a bit.
More: Here are the critical quotes from the article.
Let's see if the Commission will start showing some more unity in its message following this..."It's important to maintain a sense of urgency, and that urgency can perhaps best be demonstrated by emphasising the things which Europe lacks by the absence of a constitution" Barroso stated in a letter accompanying a 10-page document on 'the cost of the non-Constitution'.
The document would illustrate "the ways in which efficiency and democracy" are affected by the absence of the text, which was to enter into force this November 1st, but was torpedoed by the French and Dutch 'no'.
Though we can do great things with the current treaties, "in the absence of instruments adapted to making the enlarged Europe function, we are trying to achieve our goals with one hand tied behind our backs"(my translation)
A quango here, a quango there, a quango everywhere.
See the list on wikipedia and an earlier post.
Erkan has a round-up.
Overall, I think that freezing part of the negotiations is the right decision to make. We're in a long process of negotiations with Turkey -- its entrance is foreseen in 2014 at the earliest. And I support the process as well as the eventual entry of Turkey into the EU, if it is ready. When Turkey gets to change the game repeatedly during the negotiations, the process will not work and Turkey may at the end not be ready. I think it's important for the EU to maintain the upper hand.
Emotional considerations, however, point elsewhere. The EU speaks with many voices on Turkish entry, and a large part of the message has lately been that we don't want Turkey in. This is causing alienation among the Turkish public, many of whom no longer support the idea of accession into the EU. The fall-out that will result from the deadlock in the talks could push them further in that direction. On the other hand, with the talks partly in the freezer perhaps the growing anti-EU sentiment will cool off.
Better than movies, says the Antitrust Hotch Potch.
I once had to do a presentation on Alcan II (Alcan is a state aid saga that dragged on for 17 years), so I can sort of feel that.
The Alcan II case, it came to my mind, is still relevant. The upshot of the European Court of Justice judgement in the case was that a company has no (nada, zero, zilch) legal protection under national law for state aid given or promised, when the aid is in conflict with EU competition law.
The aid in that case was given by Germany -- and Germany, right now, wants to create exemptions to the European emissions trading scheme for its bright new coal plants, which come down to (essentially financial) promises of supplying unlimited rights to emit. As these are likely to be in conflict with EU competition law, the companies should be reminded that Brussels - not Berlin - is where the decision gets made.
Posts
All Comments
