DJ Nozem

Wrong

2009-12-13T19:53:00.004+01:00

As I have repeatedly argued that the Lisbon Treaty was unlikely to pass a second Irish referendum, its entry into force earlier this month inspires me to admit that I was... wrong!

Need to get better at making those predictions.

There are two reasons that I can give:

- The Irish were more comfortable than I expected with being asked to vote again after being given some of the things they wanted. It's not the first time they did this! A pragmatic rather than a stubborn people. I miscalculated because of the stubborn sentiment I perceived among my fellow Dutchmen and extrapolated from there.
- There's nothing like a financial crisis to remind people who has buttered their bread, is buttering their bread, and would be able to bail them out of future fuckups.

The amended treaties are better organised and easier to understand than what we had since Nice, and contain some useful innovations, so it's a good thing that Lisbon passed even if the process of drafting, signing and ratifying was intentionally obscure.

Vote

2009-06-04T11:53:00.002+02:00

If you're in the UK, today, you should of course vote for the Liberal Democrats. Graham Watson might become President of the European Parliament! That's the highest position a Briton will get in Europe -- barring the awful prospect of Blair as future President of the European Council in case the Lisbon Treaty ever gets through. But anyway... show Watson some love.

For the Dutch, you can vote for two good parties, D66 and GroenLinks. Both are deserving.

Most importantly, get out and vote. Most people won't so your vote will probably count more...

Reaching out and reaching in

2009-04-17T12:11:00.004+02:00

Some clippings:

I wrote about love on the Atlantic Review and got a comment thread from hell
The campaign for the European Parliament elections is finally getting started. Such as it is. Here's a mini-roundup on the th!nk about it community site.
Something on small windmills will be coming up soon on eurotrib... in the mean while, read afew's piece on a 'Europe Ecologie' meet. Europa natuurlijk of natürlich Europa? It might go somewhere...

On Hiatus, Again

2009-03-06T14:33:00.003+01:00

As I'm now an editor on two widely read blogs, the Atlantic Review and the European Tribune (and I can put my snark up on twitter), this crappy-looking blog will likely see even less frequent posting.

Some service announcements will still be made when I follow up on old requests. Still one coming for Mr. Grahn and one for metatone.

See you all on the other side.

Libertas FAIL

2009-02-19T19:11:00.003+01:00

EUbusiness announces the end of a rather strange campaign by the Irish anti-Lisbon Treaty party Libertas to be recognised as a European political party. The question remains why it tried to take this avenue in the first place. Does being a European political party automatically put you on the ballot everywhere? I've seen nothing to indicate that. Getting on the ballot is the most difficult part for new parties. Otherwise, the 200,000 euros wouldn't have been worth the weird candidates. What was Ganley thinking?

(via Kosmopolit on twitter)

What Carbon Blindness Hath Wrought

2009-02-11T18:49:00.003+01:00

SPIEGEL: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals

To be uncharitable: SPIEGEL continues its anti-wind campaign and displays the stupidity of our current discourse on climate change policy, which is staring itself blind on the evil of carbon dioxide emissions instead of looking at the necessity and opportunity of transformation to a sustainable economy.

One has to read between the lines to get at the truth, at the end of the report:

There were discussions about such a system under Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who governed in a coalition with the Green Party. At the time, Minister of the Environment Jürgen Tritten wanted to exclude the amounts of energy covered by the EEG from the calculations used in the carbon-trading scheme. Instead, the industry-friendly regulations currently in effect were pushed through. Major energy corporations, which had claimed as many CO2 certificates as they possibly could, lobbied heavily.

So why has nothing changed? According to experts, one reason has to do with technical problems. In the course of an ongoing trading period, they claim, adjusting the volume of CO2 certificates is no easy task.

Still, an SPD insider provides yet another explanation: "Politicians just have to resign themselves to certain things." As he sees it, if the state went back to the companies and took away the certificates they had been allotted, the result would be an uproar. "What do you think the companies would say to us?" he asks. "As a politician, there are certain storms that you simply can't weather."

In other words, this is not about the inefficacy of wind power as a tool against climate change, but about the inability of the German government to make its utilities pay for their share of greenhouse gas reductions. This situation will be exacerbated in the next phase of emissions trading, which is going to be one big present to the energy sector, paid out of your pocket.

Investigate, Confiscate, Imprison

2009-02-11T16:02:00.005+01:00

Like Jerome says on eurotrib, the long term solution for this crisis involves taking back the money showered on bankers for feeding a bubble.

Here's non-crazy guess on how to proceed with this: due to an actively pursued lack of oversight, there has probably been quite a bit of white collar crime in the banking sector over the past decade. Madoff is just the tip of an iceberg and we'll have similar stuff in Europe. Perhaps the majority of the crazy stuff going on was legal, and we'll have to change the rules to avert systemic risk. And increase taxes on wealth and high incomes. But the return on investment for money spent on investigators (and spies to: Switzerland, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Isle of Man, etc.) is looking good.

Just a throwaway idea for governments facing tax shortfalls over the coming years.

Renewal Postponed

2009-02-10T00:13:00.003+01:00

The EUobserver has a very good report that I think supports my take on this first round of stimulus bills in Europe. No direction whatsoever in them. A few quotes:

"Much more could be done in the areas of energy- and climate," said Jakob von Weizsäker from Bruegel to the Danish weekly.

The financial aid packages reflect a traditional and outdated way of thinking by European governments, he pointed out.

[...]

"The picture is the same everywhere. Rescue packages are designed to give us our old lives back", said Staffan Laestadius, professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. "It is all about saving jobs in the car industry".

Now Keynes once proposed that it'd make sense to pay people to bury printed money and then dig it up again. But I'm not sure we're in an entirely identical situation. We don't have a gold standard and haven't crossed into deflation, yet. And there are limits to our resource use that played a role in bringing us to the current crisis. This makes it more palatable that we are spending only half of what the US will spend this year. We might spend the next half, which we will come around to, in a less foolish manner.

The next round of stimulus plans needs to be European, and green.

(hat-tip to Fran at eurotrib)

Thursdays are for Twestival

2009-02-09T21:33:00.007+01:00

One of the interesting personalities I got to know around the th!nk about it launch event was Bente Kalsnes. I've been following Bente's blog for a while now in my RSS reader (now migrated to teh google, and yes, it's better). As far as I can see she's writing at the intersection of at least two blogospheres - a global-european-belgian sphere that focuses on social media, and the eurobloggers to your right.

Bente's pushing the Brussels twestival, so I'll put in a plug here. Looks like a very cool event. If you're in Brussels and have a few hours in the evening this Thursday the 12th, you should probably go there.

In the mean while, the Berlin twestival seems to have died a quiet death (and no, I don't have the time or contacts to organise it ;-)). I'm reminded of something Joe Noory told me over on the Atlantic Review: Berlin is not the place where cultural novelties start. But Berliners keep at what they like. And so Berlin is the great city of techno, still. And if there's a twestival next year, or sooner, we'll see...

P.S. twestival has a charity: water. Should be a consensus moment. It's even Lomborg-approved...

Ah, and there's a piece in New Europe that you should probably read.

Iceland & The EU Fisheries Bind

2009-02-06T20:40:00.008+01:00

Publius reminds us all that if Iceland doesn't move to join the EU, it will largely be because the EU's fisheries policy is a disaster.

That may be so, but the British, Irish and Danes have all kinds of exemptions. Why not a fisheries exemption for Iceland? Then you may ask: why stop there? Why indeed? There are good arguments for a salad bar EU. If we could get rid of the UK rebate in return for a UK exemption from CAP subsidisation, we should do so tomorrow...

It would be even better if we could have a decent fisheries policy. Unfortunately that is a difficult proposition, for reasons explained in the recent Ecorys EU spending study (.pdf) for the Commission:

As a relatively small group, the fisheries industry is able to form a strong lobby. Similar to farmers, the small size of the group lessens the problems of collective action (as defined by Olson, 1969); which increases the effectiveness of their lobbying activities. Contrary to the budget related lobbying of farmers, fishermen would initially lobby for an increased fish quota. Where lobbying for income transfers may raise opposition from voters, turning a blind eye in relation to fish quotas would probably not have such consequences; on the contrary. For example, Daw and Gray (2005) quote Pirzio-Biroli (Chef de Cabinet to Franz Fischler): “politicians … are faced with the fishing lobby and there are always elections taking place. As a result, politics always ‘gets in the way’ of sustainable fisheries management. Economic hardship and unemployment caused by cutbacks are high-profile issues, eagerly reported by the Press and easily blamed on the actions of a Fisheries Minister.”

The credibility of cooperative efforts by Member States to deal with the fisheries problem is unlikely. Firstly, because of the selection principle as described above (see also Jensen, 1999); secondly, because national governments run the risk of being captured by lobby groups, and thus lose sight of the common objectives; and thirdly, because there is too much heterogeneity in terms of the size of the fisheries industry (both in absolute terms, as well as relative to GDP). This will obstruct agreement on common terms.

The fact that Iceland has managed its fisheries well is also due to its geographical position: it does not have to manage a sea bordered by 7 (let alone 21) states; it has a well cut-out exclusive economic zone not contiguous with that of many other nations.

The diagnosis of the problem in the EU, which is institutional and near-impossible to overcome, does not need to map clearly unto the cure. That is, we can probably do a lot outside of setting and enforcing effective catch restrictions, a task we fail at every year.

Such things could include: a reduction of information requirements on small fishermen, a (low) cap on price support measures, banning the discarding of bycatch, and terminating funds for the 'modernisation' of the fishing fleet. This would go some way to reverse the heavy tilt towards industrial trawlers EU rules have introduced to the market, and on the long run it will create more jobs and increase the amount of fish that can be caught.

But even this kind of tinkering at the margin apparently runs into coordinated protest by industrial fishermen, and will be scuttled by Certain Unnamed Member States. So there needs to be more counteracting coordinated protest. Will citizens start caring before the stocks collapse?

Blogging Projects

2009-02-06T12:48:00.003+01:00

It's been a while since I've metablogged.

That is, the community of the th!nk about it blogging competition, in which I am an editor alongside three other famous eurobloggers. Curious yet? Read the about page. This is the biggest blogging nursery Europe has ever seen.

Coinciding with the th!nk about it competition is the launch of the european bloggingportal, which aggregates and selects the best euroblog content for your easy reading. Some of the same famous eurobloggers are responsible. If you want to read good analyses about Europe, but don't feel like tracking every irregular euroblog in existence (we have become many), this portal was made for you.

More metablogging: you can now follow my every vapid thought on twitter. Still doubting whether to integrate the feed here.

News on further projects will follow in due time.

Overton Window Politics Done Wrong

2009-02-02T22:38:00.003+01:00

Seems like everyone in the UK is having a fun time bashing Jonathan Porritt. Here's a quote from the (sabotaged) wiki:

In February of 2009, Jonathon stated that population growth is a serious threat to the global environment and that contraception, abortion and family planning is a part of the answer to global warming. He thinks that people should have no more than two children and if they do, they are being irresponsible.

Same guy who blamed the UK greens to be 'too depressing', 'too negative' three years ago.

I should take issue with Telegraph man Bruno Waterfield for managing to produce a former Commission official to also direct some of teh outrage at Brussels. That is rather thin stuff, Bruno.

As for the green movement in the UK, take a cue from your German siblings, because the Porritt way is the way to stay in the woods.

A short message to my green friends

2009-01-30T23:09:00.003+01:00

The financial sector has turned into something of an ally on green issues. The big banks, insurers and reinsurers have taken up challenges in regard to climate change, ecosystem services, sustainable development. And they have lobbied for clear government policies.

At the same time, sustainability is a larger paradigm. It is not restricted to green concerns.

On economic sustainability, the financial sector has been a gigantic failure. We need to think about improving its resilience. In the mean while, we should not fear an inevitable and mostly temporary takeover by the state.

Decoupling on the Way Down

2009-01-30T09:16:00.003+01:00

We've been seeing that there is little relationship between economic growth and job creation in the US. Now that economic fortunes have declined, everyone expects a massive unemployment hike. But this outcome of the 'economy' can be influenced by policy initiatives.

Case in point: the great depression. Matthew Yglesias has a graph.

Jobs, jobs, jobs

2009-01-28T12:04:00.002+01:00

The Financial Times suddenly decides that this is a good time to go beyond gdp.

(via Jerome a Paris on Eurotrib)

Not a Bug

2009-01-26T15:47:00.003+01:00

SPIEGEL writes up the amazing countercyclical nature of emissions trading. Strangely, they seem to think it's a problem:

Such a low price is concerning for two reasons. On the one hand, it removes the incentive for companies to make improvements aimed at cutting back their greenhouse gas emissions. The idea behind the European Union Emission Trading Scheme is to create a financial disincentive to pollute. Analysts say that a price per ton of emissions of at least €20 is necessary before it becomes cost effective for companies to install environmentally friendly technology.

Of course, if we didn't have emissions trading the story would be 'climate policy compounds economic disaster'.

The Coin

2009-01-21T19:12:00.002+01:00

While GDP is still King, you do not get thrown in jail (yet) for forecasting its fall.

Talking about currencies, on the other hand, is an increasingly hazardous business. As has been found out by a Latvian professor, journalist, and now a South Korean blogger.

Beware of questioning The Coin on the internets!

Still King

2009-01-18T11:59:00.003+01:00

Now would be a good time to go beyond GDP.

The old credo will do: Jobs, jobs, jobs.

The Best of the Worst Times

2009-01-17T02:00:00.003+01:00

Politically and in my lifetime (so far, knock on wood), anyway. With a hat-tip to Thomas Friedman I'd say this is the Silver Icing at the end of the Dark Cake. Gone in three days.

To celebrate:

The Prankster Presidency

2009-01-14T18:46:00.004+01:00

The French Presidency of the EU turned out to be less fun than I thought it would be. There turned out to be enough real crises for Sarkozy to satisfy his desire for action and grandstanding, and well, he did manage those quite well.

The Czechs, though, seem to be living up to my expectations. The Czech artist David Cerny has created an art installation that displays stereotypes of various European countries, which the Czech presidency has installed in the atrium of the European Council building. This has kicked up a minor media storm, also because he stated it was the work of 27 European artists when it turned out to be only his. Here's a part of his explanation:

At the beginning stood the question: What do we really know about Europe? We have information about some states, we only know various tourist clichés about others. We know basically nothing about several of them. The art works, by artificially constructed artists from the 27 EU countries, show how difficult and fragmented Europe as a whole can seem from the perspective of the Czech Republic. We do not want to insult anybody, just point at the difficulty of communication without having the ability of being ironic.

Grotesque hyperbole and mystification belongs among the trademarks of Czech culture and creating false identities is one of the strategies of contemporary art. The images of individual parts of Entropa use artistic techniques often characterised by provocation. The piece thus also lampoons the socially activist art that balances on the verge between would-be controversial attacks on national character and undisturbing decoration of an official space. We believe that the environment of Brussels is capable of ironic self-reflection, we believe in the sense of humour of European nations and their representatives.

Go watch the art on Kosmopolito or FP Passport.

German Stimulus Lacks Imagination

2009-01-14T10:45:00.003+01:00

The AFP has a decent round-up. Shorter: 50 billion euros in total, of which 18 billion in investments; 9 billion for reducing health insurance contributions and 9 billion for reducing general taxes. Then there's some money for kids and for ~~shredding~~ retiring old cars.

While the tax cuts and reductions in health insurance contributions are not entirely bad, they are not the best way to boost the economy.

At the same time, we are seeing Japan and Korea move aggressively towards creating green jobs:

Japan and South Korea each have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in green projects to create jobs and spur economic growth, in what the United Nations says is the latest sign that its Green New Deal is gaining momentum.

Japan has announced a program aimed at stimulating the economy by promoting measures to curb global warming. Measures announced by Environment Minister Tetsuo Saito Thursday aim to expand the green business market and create up to one million new jobs.

Saito said measures include zero-interest rate loans for environmentally-friendly companies and promotion of the purchase of vehicles and housing with low carbon dioxide emissions.

Now, Germany has a very significant lead in this sector which will not disappear overnight. In a sense, Japan and Korea are starting to do what Germany has been doing since 2000. And a lot of the 18 billion of German investments is going into renovations of schools and universities, which should also be used to make these more energy efficient. Japan is not the best market to export to, though, so it remains to be seen whether the green sector in Germany will benefit from their programme.

Over the course of 2009, it will become clear that the new government spending (now at around €60 billion for two years) is not going to be enough. However, due to the federal elections in September it is going to be nigh-impossible to get much more ambitious (let alone smarter) programmes.

Two things that should still be done is making sure that there is enough money in the programme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from buildings, and suspending the degression (yearly marginal reduction of the support) of feed-in tariffs for renewable energy.

Reduced Rate Financing > Tax Credits

2009-01-12T13:40:00.006+01:00

As the US is debating Obama's $800 million stimulus package, the German government is now (today - took it a bit longer than I thought) talking about adding €50 billion, spread over two years.

This is in addition to €35 billion, though that was mostly repackaging and just a bit new spending.

But I digress.

One of the underreported elements of the German stimulus package is added spending on the CO₂ building renovation programme. This programme consists of the German state bank KfW providing reduced rate financing through local banks to people who weatherise their homes. In the mean while, there is also a possibility to get minor subsidies, up to 7.5% of the investment with an upper limit of €3750 for family homes. What I've gathered is that the SPD wants to further expand the programme and that the government is considering to adapt the laws on renting to make the programme more attractive for tenants. I hope it gets through.

Now, this programme seems like a good idea to me in the context of Germany, or any country, and a positively great idea in the context of the United States. It gives retail banks and the construction sector something useful to do and it's a sound investment in the future.

Reading this from the politico on the talking points memo blog (about money made available through the financial rescue package last fall, a different thing, but bear with me), I wonder whether the US is going to stare itself blind on the old solutions it has grown used to, namely, tax incentives:

The Obama team told about 35 Senate Democrats gathered at Sunday's meeting that it would grow the size of an energy-tax incentive package and modify proposed tax credits for individuals and for businesses that hire new employees, according to meeting attendees.

Tax incentives for businesses to do useful things are alright, but they only provide an incentive on one side. The same would go for tax incentives for individuals to invest in saving energy. The German programme, on the other hand, provides a structured solution that hits exactly the right points throughout the economy.

So, that's something for the Americans to invest, say, 100 billion dollars in.

The Great Climate Giveaway

2009-01-11T13:05:00.003+01:00

(Update: this has now been reworked and crossposted)

Aside of my own neuroses, EU climate change policy is probably the issue I have spent most time both studying and thinking about. As such, I should write about it more often.

The interface between my thoughts and the public discourse is, however, difficult.

I find many of the objections of environmentalists to European climate change policy understandable in the context of shifting the 'overton window'. That means, criticising policy in order to shift the political centre towards your position. The 'centre', in that context, is a social construction mainly formulated through the mainstream media. For more, read this post by Jamais Cascio.

There are downsides to overton window politics which are being ignored in the discourse on the left. Mainly, that it is easy for opponents to start painting your movement as irrational extremists. As we have by now successfully started doing to conservative Republicans in the United States. To avoid this trap, one should at least try to avoid bullshit. And, in the context of policy, one should put a focus on offering concrete alternatives to avoid being seen as merely critical.

Now, that's my perception, born mainly out of an elitist preference for truthfulness, nuance and realism, as well as observing how environmentalism has been sidelined and declared 'dead' in the mainstream during the past 9 years. To the extent that 'environmentalist' is now seen as a pejorative by otherwise reasonable people like Nate Silver. It might be, though, that we are on the brink of a more progressive age and I merely lack the audacity of hope.

How has this played out in the context of the EU's recent climate package?

The European Union has unilaterally declared that it will cut its emissions by 20% by the year 2020, and offered to up that to 30% if other countries also offer a serious commitment in global climate change negotiations. These numbers are with regard to the baseline of the year 1990 that is used in the Kyoto protocol; the EU is now slightly (1 to 2%) below that baseline. This declaration was already made by the EU's national goverment leaders in 2007 and the EU has recently adopted a package of laws that back up the 20% goal.

That package includes a 20% share of renewables in the overall energy mix. The 20% energy efficiency target is being implemented through a broader set of laws and policies, only one of which was included here. The fact that those two targets have been upheld in the current economic climate is laudatory. However, there are a few elements to the package that have weakened the European commitment:

Car makers are now obliged to meet the carbon dioxide emissions standards in 2015, instead of 2012, and might still get preferential loans for doing so
The package includes a giveaway to the coal industry in the form of support for 'Carbon Capture and Storage'.
The third phase of European Emissions Trading Scheme (which lets companies trade emission rights and covers industrial installations, power plants and from 2013 also aviation) will still mainly be based upon handing out emission rights for free rather than auctioning them
EU Countries have the option to meet up to three quarters of their national targets by investing in third countries (mainly developing countries), under something similar to the current 'Clean Development Mechanism'.

The last point is especially worrying, for political reasons. Many European countries used to be opposed to the Clean Development Mechanism, and the EU had strongly restricted the use of credits gotten through that tool for achieving national targets under the Kyoto protocol, and had similarly restricted their use in the Emissions Trading Scheme. Backtracking by Europe means that there is now no more real opposition to expanding the tool. Promising this kind of boon could also prejudice developing countries in ongoing climate change negotiations against taking on real commitments. Not that I think the boon will turn out to be real.

Let's go over some of the reactions. The WWF has written that the EU has adopted a 'poisoned' climate package, because of the extent to which the targets can be met by importing credits:

Last week, at the UN climate summit in Poznan, the EU urged all industrialised nations to cut emissions by 30% by 2020 below 1990 levels. “The EU decision today is far below that ambition and is cheating both the climate and the people,” says Stephan Singer, Director of the WWF’s Global Energy Programme.

WWF calls on European countries to undertake maximum reductions domestically and to not use external credits. With strong regulations on energy efficiency and renewable energy the 20% target is easily achievable within the borders of Europe.

Greenpeace, meanwhile, doubts whether the 20% target will even be met:

Greenpeace believes EU leaders meeting in Brussels last week weakened the ambition of the original Commission proposals by giving in to pressure from industry lobbies and to accommodate the short-sighted interests of several member states. The climate parts of the agreed text are filled with exemptions which threaten the EU´s ability to even reach its inadequate 20% target. The legislation also ignores the polluter pays principle by handing out many free credits to high emitting industry. The most positive element of the package was the law to boost the share of renewable energy to 20% by 2020.

There is a bit of truth and a bit of BS in both of these statements. The truth can be read between the lines in the WWF statement. Under normal expectations of economic growth, resource prices and demographic patterns, the EU should easily meet the 20% greenhouse gas reduction target domestically merely by meeting its renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. The question is rather: who pays?

Under this package, that would be the consumer and the taxpayer. And this represents a shift from an implicit corporatist understanding within EU climate policy - that each sector has to pay for a proportional share of emission reductions. Greenpeace frames this in environmentalist terms by saying that polluters now don't have to pay. I'd rather say it's a huge giveaway to companies in those industries that don't face heavy global competition and especially to those in the energy sector. These companies will be able to continue reaping windfall profits by pricing in the cost of emission rights in their products, even though they did not have to pay for most of them.

That is a message that needs to be pushed more. We will all still pay the higher electricity prices. And there is a simple way we could deal with this nationally, that doesn't distort the emissions trading market: tax the windfall.

As the package signified a significant retreat on some elements of the EU's climate policy, further retreat can not be ruled out. These things are now law, and that makes them more secure. But a lot of elements of the energy efficiency action plan still need to be implemented.

In spite of that, the EU is not under threat of giving up its 'climate leadership' - at least not to anyone else. Last time I heard Obama talking about the United States, he was saying he wanted to go back to 1990 emissions by 2020, meaning a 0% decrease. Australia's Kevin Rudd is offering 15% if other countries also commit, half of what the EU offers. Japan and Canada are still far above their Kyoto commitments. And no developing country is doing more than waiting and seeing.

This is a potentially disasterous situation. The EU's estimation is that industrialised countries need to reduce their emissions by 30% in order to stabilise the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide 'equivalents', which it thinks to be necessary for avoiding dangerous climate change (above 2 degrees Celsius). However, current science suggests that there is already a significant amount of risk for dangerous climate change at levels over 450 ppm. So... that's where we are today.

(A set of thoughts, it's going to be made a bit more compact, focused & then crossposted)

Co-Financing the CAP

2009-01-11T10:40:00.004+01:00

The CAP Health Check blog calls attention to the possibility that the EU's Common Agricultural Policy will be financed in part by the national governments. This is seen as a solution to the EU's budget constraints:

One external study has concluded that the CAP could just as well be paid from national budgets as the EU budget in terms of its European added-value. [...] This study seems to have influenced the viewpoint of EU Budget Commissioner Dalia Grybauskaité. She told Agra Focus that there will be massive poltical pressure for the EU to concentrate its policy spending after 2013 on areas where there is a genuine added-value at EU level, e.g., a common policy on energy or climate change.

This solution to the EU's budget woes has already been proposed a fair number of times, including by the prominent French MEP Alain Lamassoure and the Dutch government.

It is interesting to look, therefore, at what this solution would accomplish and what it wouldn't. Perhaps this can explain why it isn't even more widely debated and hasn't been implemented yet.

Co-financing would not provide budgetary relief for national governments, they would spend the money nationally instead of sending it to Brussels
It would, on the other hand, solve half of the budgetary imbalance in the EU
This implies that we should be able to get rid of the British rebate and replace it with a common correction mechanism
This would reduce the scope for horse-trading and ugly post-hoc adjustments to the budget and EU policies
Which will, however, cause resistance by certain unnamed national governments
Co-financing could in addition make the EU budget more progressive if the rate of EU/national money is differentiated according to capacity
There will be a temptation for certain unnamed national governments to use co-financing to increase or keep up the total size of agricultural subsidisation
Co-financing could strike about 20% out of the EU budget, if this is replaced without an increase in overall public spending it will imply a significant transfer of certain policies from the national state to the EU
With according pressure from national bureaucracies and ministers not to do so

The latter two points is what the study (.pdf) referred to by the CAP Health Check is about -- the added value of national versus EU spending. This is the kind of study I'd commission in my dreams, so I'm delighted with it. An extensive analysis will follow, later. For now, two notes:

In my perception, the studies the EU Commission commissions are not necessarily or even regularly mindful of the political positions of those who get to decide on the EU's direction (the big Member States). So, there is a wealth of uncomfortable knowledge available on the EU's web pages. This knowledge is latent - it is seldom used for effective pressure on EU policies.

The study has been performed by two Dutch and one German organisation. In that sense, it runs the risk of being seen as an instrument of the largely overlapping Dutch and German positions, with which it is in accordance. The conflict over the EU's budget, which will be fought in anticipation of the new framework from 2013, requires a deal involving France, the UK and Spain. Perhaps even Poland!

(Technical note: this discussion refers to spending under the 'first pillar' of the CAP. The first pillar contains the bulk of agricultural subsidies and is funded exclusively through the EU - with an exception for the 12 new Member States)

Random Observation

2009-01-02T17:19:00.003+01:00

An underappreciated feature of emissions trading is that it is countercyclical.

(file under: tax or trade?)

Timing the Multiplier

2009-01-01T21:38:00.004+01:00

Random observation: it turns out that the first real shock the eurozone will have to weather is largely symmetric.

Although there will be some differences in timing.

To get back to the issue of the stimulus packages that we'll see growing in the near future, as in a 'bidding war' of 'crass keynesianism', Mark Thoma is of course right in saying that there is a substantial lag for any spending. The question is whether, other than throwing money out of helicopters, there is any way that governments can spend enough money quickly enough. Paul Krugman, for one, thinks that the US can't:

Key problem right now is time and speed. Infrastructure spending is clearly -- I'd say clearly the best thing we could do right now. The problem is you can't just say, okay, let's start -- let's start doing major environmental initiatives and spend the money starting next week. Takes time. Takes time to get stuff going.

So the question is -- the term -- I'm sure everybody's heard it now -- is shovel-ready. How much shovel-ready stuff do we have? And shovel-ready actually doesn't mean you can start next week. Shovel- ready generally means you can start within six months. And even so, there are limits.

So I'm seeing numbers like max, $150 billion is shovel-ready; now, maybe. We've got some very smart people, very creative people coming in. Maybe they can find more of that. But the immediate problem is actually going to be, how can you get enough stuff going in time to slow this economy's nosedive?

The German government will get together next Monday, and if the CDU's Bavarian sister party will stop its silly posturing on lower taxes, as I'd expect, the government will decide upon a programme of 'shovel-ready' infrastructure spending. The number doing the rounds for that is 25 billion euros, which will be on top of the 35 billion stimulus that has already been pledged.

Now, there has been some neglect of infrastructure in the former West of Germany due to an emphasis on renewing the infrastructure of the East. So I could imagine more being managable. But I don't think it will be much more.

As for the timing of the programme, no one knows exactly when the effects are going to hit in Germany. Hans Werner Sinn of the Ifo thinks that timing the stimulus for the Autumn of 2009 will be best:

To be sure, the world recession will hit Germany with full force. The Ifo Institute has forecast that GDP will contract by 2.2 percent this year. But the contraction will be primarily because of declining exports, a large portion of which consists of investment goods, as well as the drop in domestic equipment investment.

These are areas where there is not much that the state can do to help. It can cut taxes to stimulate consumption and it can invest in construction, but these sectors currently need little help, except perhaps for the automobile industry. This could, of course, quickly change. When the second-round effects hit the domestic sector in the course of this year, a stimulus program will be needed. From the German perspective, the best timing for such a program would be in autumn. If the money is spent now, the economy in some sectors could overheat, helping no one.

I can understand people who, like Krugman, are putting pressure on the German government to do more. He's in a position to do so. At the same time, it is odd to paint the German government as grossly irresponsible, merely for it being cautious. It could be that the stimulus it has decided upon so far isn't enough, but there is not much more that it could have decided upon and implemented on short notice. Depending upon the scale of the recession, we'll have to see bolder stuff coming online within a year, or two.

That has to be decided upon within an EU context and will have to have a more strategic orientation and more of a European dimension. There has to be a strong element of renewal - otherwise we will only come out of the crisis to again be faced with hitting the limits of our resource base.

HNY

2009-01-01T13:59:00.001+01:00

Welcome to the eurozone, Slovakia. Looking smart.

Jokes That Fell Flat

2008-12-29T17:33:00.003+01:00

Turns out I should have written seventhirtysix.eu, although if Lisbon passes it will eventually become sevenfiftyone.eu

If Lisbon doesn't pass, it could also become sevenfortynine.eu, if my guess for Croatia's seats is right.

or something... lots of domains to register, no wonder no one is interested.

(And to explain, the referral was to fivethirtyeight.com, a website that registed millions of visits during the 2008 US Presidential elections... 538 is the number of electors in the Electoral College. The number of European Parliament seats is now 785, but that number will change, as written up above)

Lisbon could pass in the fall of 2009, when the Irish are asked again.

My prediction is that it will fail again.

Tiny Stimulus will Get Bigger

2008-12-12T18:50:00.004+01:00

China's stimulus package represents 16% of its GPD. The Japanese stimulus unveiled today represents 6% of its GDP. It's anyone's guess what the Obama administration will propose, but it is certain that it's going to be more than 1.5% of the US GDP.

Yes, these plans are to some extent just packaging. But so are ours. These 200 billion euros were just the first step for the EU. Considering the lack of coordination and direction, maybe this way is the best.

Seven Late Seven

2008-12-12T14:49:00.004+01:00

Does anyone remember the degree of American gloating over the delays in the Airbus 380? It is quite funny in retrospect.

Here's CNN / Fortune, for instance, in March 2007:

The delays in what industry insiders have nicknamed the "Toulouse Goose" - a nod to Howard Hughes's ill-fated "Spruce Goose" - have also enabled Boeing to overtake Airbus in total plane orders for the first time since 2000.

Nobody could've predicted that in building its first completely new plane in decades, Boeing would face problems of its own. Boeing got no 'launch aid' so it would have a bigger incentive not to screw up, and it's a company within a single country with a more business-friendly climate, American commentators seem to have dreamt. At least the supposed awfulness of all the political influence on Airbus was on full display. See for instance this piece of analysis (not opinion) in the Chicago Tribune, in December 2006:

An examination of what has gone wrong with the A380 is a much broader issue than parts that don’t fit and computer systems that can’t communicate with one another. Indeed, corporate and European politics are as much to blame for Airbus problems as the breakdown between computer-design systems in France and Germany.

Some very basic thoughts: Major industrial projects like new airplanes are tough. A corporation that has not built a new airplane in decades has its own problems with a poorly geared corporate bureacracy. The airplane market is not a normal market. It does not have any kind of functioning competition, and political influence in it is inevitable and widespread. It is hardly an overstatement to say that planes are in general sold by European Ministers of Foreign Affairs and US Secretaries of State. Trying to get politics out of the market is a futile pursuit. We should rather focus on making sure that political governance on the market is consistent and serves the right goals.

And in that sense, we have to think about restraining Airbus' power8 programme. Airbus may well have a sound reason for closing some factories, but we should limit its design for vertical disintegration and global sourcing, which is a short-term and risky strategy that does not benefit us as Europeans. The launch aid funds are in the hands of our politicians. Just saying.

Quote for the Stimulus

2008-12-03T00:24:00.005+01:00

Under the European Union's 'stimulus' plan, Member States will decide how to arrange their spending mostly by themselves, with a little bit of common spending through the EU. Here's a thought for those at a loss as to how to spend:

Energy efficiency measures have, enabled California households to redirect their expenditures toward other goods and services, creating about 1.5 million FTE jobs with a total payroll of $45 billion, driven by well-documented household energy savings of $56 billion from 1972-2006.

As a result of energy efficiency, California reduced its energy import dependence and directed a greater percentage of its consumption to instate, employment-intensive goods and services, whose supply chains also largely reside within the state, creating a “multiplier” effect of job generation.

The economic benefits of energy efficiency innovation have a compounding effect. [...] It is reasonable to assume that the marginal efficiency gains will be more costly, but they have more intensive economic growth benefits.

From a recent CERES study (.pdf), also featured in the New York Times.

Deep Thought

2008-11-28T15:30:00.003+01:00

No one has registered seveneightyfive.eu yet.

Graph of the Day

2008-11-20T11:59:00.004+01:00

Because everyone loves graphs.

Let's have another debate about energy finlandisation!

(From the ECFR, also, the Energy Policy Blog)

Yet Another Rerun?

2008-11-17T12:13:00.003+01:00

Frank Schnittger talks about the possibilities of a second Irish referendum, on the European Tribune. From an Irish Times poll he cites:

A second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has a chance of being carried, according to a new Irish Times /TNS mrbi poll which shows a swing to the Yes side since the referendum defeat last June.

The poll shows a change in public attitudes since June with 43 per cent now saying they would vote yes, 39 per cent no and 18 per cent having no opinion.

In the poll, people were asked how they would vote if the Treaty was modified to allow Ireland to retain an EU Commissioner and other Irish concerns on neutrality, abortion and taxation were clarified in special declarations.

If the Irish get everything they want, basically, a small plurality may be willing to vote in favour of Lisbon, although that is far from assured. Lisbon's chances don't really change with this news.

In the current context, the European states are in a slow process of refocusing their priorities for international cooperation, towards greater and more strategic economic coordination. European integration has largely been policy-driven. And Lisbon was not really designed to cope with the fact that policy priorities shift. It was a static solution, with increased flexibility only in a few fields that reflected the priorities we had when Giscard d'Estaing was leading the convention on the now-dead Constitution.

It wasn't worse than what we have now, but it was nowhere near adequate for what we need.

Apparently the Germans are still pushing the Lisbon Treaty, behind the scenes. We saw the same with the dead Constitution. Eventually, they too will learn to refocus.

But what do we get out of it?

2008-11-16T12:39:00.002+01:00

The resounding victories of Barack Obama and the Democratic party in the United States are great news for relations between Europe and the United States. Better relations are an unmitigated good. There may have been people who hoped for a more independent Europe as a result of poor relations with the Bush administration. But Europe was split, instead of united, by this antagonism. And it has since only returned to being ineffectual in its foreign policy.

Or: much as I would like for Europe to stop being the playground for American and Russian nuclear positioning by kicking American nukes out, stopping their useless missile defence and stopping the Russians from transporting their (ostensibly conventional) Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, this is not going to happen.

Still, there are a number of foreign policy or international issues on which the major European countries (France, Germany and the UK, to wit) are in agreement, have backing from most other countries, and might thus move together to use the opportunity window presented by the early days of the Obama presidency. He'll be happy to get a quick foreign policy success! Here's what I think we should ask for and what we could offer in return:

An end to Operation Enduring ~~Force~~Freedom in Afghanistan and negotiations with the Taliban.

The command in Afghanistan currently continues to be split between NATO's 'International Security Assistance Force' and the original war effort under American leadership, OEF. The former has 51,000 troops, the latter around 20,000. The war effort is now, however, shared with ISAF. There may be a tactical reason to let some commando forces continue counterterrorism under a different command. However, that is not what most of those 20,000 troops are doing, most are fighting the same war against the Taliban that ISAF is. With more troops in ISAF after Obama's proposed surge, the Americans can continue their 'leading' role, but would at least have to clear their efforts with the NATO allies, instead of also having their own, separate, unaccountable operation. Europe could offer a few more troops and much more funds for reconstruction and training in return.

Europe (to be precise, the UK) has been leading the way in negotiations with the Taliban, but has suffered several setbacks as the Americans keep dragging their feet and undermining the same efforts that gave them relative peace and quiet in the Iraqi province of Anbar. Maybe Senator John McCain could seat Obama, Merkel, Brown and Sarkozy together in a room and tell them to just, really, stop the bullshit. More plausibly, Brown and Miliband should get their colleagues from France and Germany to join them in sending a clear signal to Washington that negotiations with (elements of) the Taliban are going to be a condition for their continued engagement in Afghanistan.

An American commitment to meet the obligations of the Rio convention

The United States may have rejected the Kyoto protocol under Bush, and will join it now. It is too late, and America is too far behind. The only thing their joining now would accomplish is a huge transfer of wealth to the Ukraine and Russia (if you're curious, read up on hot air). The US is not going to do that. However, the EU has a huge stake in getting the Americans to sign on to the next agreement. And to do something in the mean while that looks like it is embedded in the international process.

Now, Kyoto is a protocol under the Rio Convention (UNFCCC) that sets quantitative restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions for most of the developed countries, during the 2008-2012 period. If you're not familiar with the whole thing, process that sentence first. To continue, the US did sign and ratify the Rio Convention. Here is something that convention says:

In order to promote progress [...], each of [the developed countries] shall communicate [...] detailed information on its policies and measures [...], as well as on its resulting projected anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases [...] for the period referred to in subparagraph (a) [1992-2000], with the aim of returning individually or jointly to their 1990 levels these anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases [...].

Now under Kyoto, the developed countries pushed this target further towards the future by adopting stronger measures, but with a longer horizon. The United States, in the negotiations, took on an 8 percent reduction target with regard to 1990 emissions. As said, they did not ratify this. But technically, they are still obliged to reduce to 1990 emission levels. In 2004, the US were 15.8 percent above 1990 emissions. This probably increased up to 2007, but during this year I think the US has seen a notable decline due to the high oil price and the financial meltdown. With the right set of measures, they could well be down to 1990 levels in 2012.

American participation in the post-Kyoto agreement

A future agreement on climate change will have to take considerations of fairness into account more explicitly. This will, ideally, have two elements that are relevant for US Americans. First, there will need to be a more robust adaptation fund. The climate impacts of the medium term future are going to be mainly caused by countries that are currently wealthy. They should pay for the resulting net damages in proportion to their historically accumulated emissions. This ideal is never going to be realised in full, but steps toward it are steps toward greater justice.

On the other side, we should move towards getting a harmonised quantity of per capita emissions, with a convergence point in the year 2050. This can be arranged fairly under a contraction and convergence model. This would give the United States of America a slightly higher emissions cap relative to the European Union, as compared to the Kyoto protocol, as the USA has added more people.

Getting official labour and environmental standards in international trade

Right now all the action is in saving the financial sector. The financial sector is a crucial facilitator for other parts of the economy, and the current crisis has already started to affect logistics, manufacturing and various non-financial services. Now, our entire economy is leveraged, including the money we do our daily transactions with. This whole house of cards may yet come falling down (as of yet it is only wobbling) in which case we'll end up living in a different world. But in that world, there is still going to be international trade in resources, goods, and services. And it will still be important to people's lifes to regulate that in a way that betters the lifes of everyone.

The Democrats are naturally more sympathetic to the European take on this matter, and may in fact end up pushing some European countries to accept that trade needs to come with standards not just on products but also on production. However, the UK, France and Germany currently do accept this and should recruit the Americans to form a concerted position. Because this will still require quite a push to get accepted by India and China.

As for the financial issues, I think something like a minimal tobin tax may be a good idea to stop the sector from acquiring the dangerously dominant position that caused (as a major factor) the current crisis. Allocation should move to a more subservient role. Another sensible policy would be to have a common position on general taxes on capital accumulation and tax paradises. But I don't know if this is something that the main European countries are actually on one line about. So that's just my view, rather than any immediate option.

Since You're Still Reading

2008-11-14T23:43:00.003+01:00

A few of you, anyway, let me point you to Nosemonkey's 'The state of EU debate'.

It's always a good time to pick it up.

Question

2008-11-14T23:32:00.002+01:00

Whatever happened to Mars?

The EP's Blogging Report

2008-09-27T00:03:00.004+02:00

A few months ago the European Blogosphere (well, the eurosceptics, especially) was going haywire over a mere report by an Estonian Member of European Parliament, Marianne Mikko. The relevant text of her report read:

(Recital) O. whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits,

(Paragraph) 9. suggests clarifying the legal status of weblogs and sites based on user-generated content, assimilating them for legal purposes with any other form of public expression,

The new report reads:

(Recital) AH. whereas weblogs represent an important new contribution to freedom of expression and are increasingly used by media professionals as well as by private persons,

(Paragraph) 25. Encourages an open discussion on all issues relating to the status of weblogs;

There's also some stuff about citing your sources when you copy text online, but that is no more than the law of the land already holds (and in any case, it's all symbolic). So as Julien Frisch says, we can go out and drink coffee.

Marianne Mikko has some sour grapes over on being on the receiving end of a lot of abuse, as reported by the EUobserver:

"I've been subject to a lot of attacks from bloggers all over Europe," Ms Mikko told reporters after the passage of the resolution. "I've been called Mao Tse-Tung, Lukashenko, Ceauscescu - it's not very pleasant."

"I understand and yet I don't understand the reaction of bloggers," she said. "Nobody is interested in regulating the internet ... But I understand how a sensitivity was touched. I'm sorry that's the playground we're dealing with at the moment."

She pointed out that while print and online journalists in various jurisdictions are restricted by slander and libel legislation, the status of bloggers as reporters is unclear.

"Are bloggers equally trusted [as journalists]? I'm getting a little bit concerned."

"All you journalists know how powerful the web is," she said, speaking to reporters at a press conference. "But do all bloggers think the same? The web is a weapon in your hands. You can kill someone with your words."

In spite of being called all manner of names by uncivil bloggers, though, Marianne Mikko managed to get through the whole experience.

(there are obviously some speech acts that are worth criminalising. such as direct threats, or incitement to murder. but no cases of words killing directly are known to me)

Mikko's statement that "nobody is interested in regulating the internet" is obvious cant. There is already regulation of the internet. And legislative authorities always have an interest in establishing regulation, so that they can extract money from lobbyists, firms and just plainly increase their own general power.

If she were honest, Marianne Mikko would just admit that her report would not have accomplished any actual regulation even if it wanted to, because it is largely symbolic.

Are weblogs equally trusted? I don't know. There's a fool born every minute (multiple fools, even, despite the EU's current low birthrate). But there is plenty of crap in newspapers, too.

Comparing 'bloggers' and 'journalists' as such makes little sense. The focus of bloggers and reporters tend to be different, bloggers being generally more like columnists than reporters. As rare as proper journalism done well may be getting...

Czech EU Presidency promises tacky pun hell

2008-09-08T18:52:00.002+02:00

And no, I'm not even talking about all the clever plays on 'Czech' here, yet.

Everyone knows what the greatest gift of the Czechs to humanity is, right? Well, humanity... But clearly, the Czechs gave us Pilsener. Which is never going to be topped.

As a lesser known fact, the Czechs are also responsible for the sugar cube. So, being clever, the Czechs have started a domestic TV advertisement campaign around their other contribution to the global obesity pandemic.

The advertisement (aside: laudable production values!) has a punchline that says "we will make it sweet for Europe". Which seems to be a playful, mocking way to say "we'll stick it to Brussels". It can be watched on this Czech blog, by a guy from Pilsen.

As for my own contribution...

Now I'm off to laugh like a farmer with tootache, as the Dutch say.

(h/t to Joerg)

P.S. The Czech Presidency will only start in January 2009...

Daul vs. Daul

2008-09-08T17:13:00.006+02:00

Joseph Daul, French MEP, member of the centre-right EPP, native son of the Alsace as Jon notes in the comments, gets cheeky on Euronews:

French MEP Joseph Daul argued that those in the ‘close Strasbourg’ camp are ducking certain realities:

“A Euro-MP wanting to sit solely in Brussels is not being honest. An MEP is obliged to travel. If I want to see the European Central Bank, I go to Frankfurt. I have to go to Luxembourg if I need to see the European Court of Justice. For veterinarian affairs, it’s Dublin. The food safety agency is in Parma… So a European deputy can’t only work and be based in Brussels.”

That's Joseph Daul defending Strasbourg today. This was Joseph Daul defending Strasbourg in 2006:

However, Daul says he is open for discussion. "If the treaties have to be renegotiated, then we renegotiate the whole [of the institutional arrangements], not just the Parliament's seat."

"Why have all these agencies in London, Frankfurt or Parma?" he asks. "They too cost a lot of money. Why not relocate them too in Brussels?" According to Daul, these decisions are of a political nature, which, by definition, involves horse-trading.

My commentary from back then still stands. This is not the kind of EU that will inspire. The policy of spreading quangos is deeply flawed. It leads to unnecessary institutions, and fulfils no useful role for local representation of the EU. In terms of money flows, finally, it's chump change. There may be a legitimate defense of Strasbourg, but this is certainly not it.

That's not seriousness we can believe in

2008-09-06T20:07:00.003+02:00

Friends,

The EU foreign ministers have apparently placed a bet on who will win the US elections - and kept who voted what secret.

So... where are the connections here to lobbyists for online political betting companies? Miliband?

(we shall never find out, as the voluntary lobbying register is off to a slow start, small wonder, that)

McCreevy's new IPR-expanding plans

2008-09-06T00:04:00.004+02:00

Charlie McCreevy, our Internal Market Commissioner, wants to increase the copyright on recordings from the current 50 years, to 95 years. And he ignores two studies his Directorate commissioned in the process. (via Bente Kalsnes)

This guy never saw an intellectual property right he didn't want to expand.

Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, we also had something called a Lisbon Strategy. Officially, it's still there, but you know...

It was a largely mistaken project to make the EU into the world's most dynamic economy by 2010. The reasons why it was largely mistaken are largely that the EU doesn't understand information, in abstract. Which is a bad thing, if you want to build a 'knowledge' or 'information' economy. More on that in this older post: Software Patents, Revisited.

Although "the Commission reinforces the suspicion, already widely held by the public at large, that its policies are less the product of a rational decision-making process than of lobbying by stakeholders" may be a more straightforward explanation.

That's from a hard-hitting letter the author of the abovementioned studies wrote to the Commission President, Barroso. Worth reading (.pdf).

(though they also really don't get it)

Builder's Outfits

2008-09-03T16:54:00.004+02:00

The European Parliament is now meeting in Brussels, which many MEPs are happy about. Unfortunately, also the British Eurosceptic MEPs, who seem to have taken yet another opportunity to put on a silly show.

"This week's session has now proved that Brussels can be the real home of the European Parliament," Nigel Farage, leader of the Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party told Reuters.

"We believe the tax payer has already saved 20 million euros in this week alone, which is marvellous news for everybody."

On Tuesday, lawmakers opposed to Strasbourg celebrated by dressing in builder's outfits, while others distributed free cake in the chamber in Brussels.

You can't just ask these people to lay low for a few days, can you?

The session on the 22nd - when by the way we should get the legally meaningless vote on Marianne Mikko's anti-blogging report - looks like it will also be held in Brussels.

Sexing up Blogs

2008-08-31T14:26:00.003+02:00

More like this:

Get your dose of doomporn.

(From Magnifico)

Long Term Population Statistics = Bollocks

2008-08-27T21:20:00.002+02:00

So Eurostat has drafted a news release for its new population statistics, which has been picked up by the Beeb and several blogs, as they show the UK becoming the largest European country in terms of population in 2060.

The UK allegedly is to grow to a population of 77 million by then, and will be bigger than France (72 million in 'Metropolitan' France) and Germany (71 million).

Never mind Turkey...

European countries apparently want to have these numbers, as they have asked Eurostat in a Council resolution to produce them. Still, Eurostat's methodology leaves a lot to be desired.

The data behind the story is basically contained in the report 'statistics in focus 72', where at the bottom you can get the estimates for the numbers that are supposed to drive population growth for the coming 52 years.

There are some rather big differences here.

Basically, the report works with only one scenario (dumb), which assumes convergence of socio-economic conditions, with 2150 as the convergence point. It is not stated which data was taken as the baseline for this scenario (nor is this stated in either of the notes on the metadata), but it seems to have been the data from the past few years.

A few countries like Italy and Spain have had large inflows of immigrants in the past few years. In Spain's case, this was partly due to the construction boom, partly due to policy. In Italy's case, it was mainly due to immigration from Albania and Romania, who are not going to send such a large number of immigrants to Italy in the medium term.

So we get the odd statistic that Italy will lose 12 million of its current 'natural' population, but will overcome this by adding 12 million net immigrants. Spain will lose 5 million population, but will similarly add 12 million through immigration. Considering the hell that is already being raised in Italy about immigrants, this is an absurd proposition.

By comparison, France is expected to get only 4 million net immigrants.

Long-term population statistic can change rapidly depending upon government policy and natural changes. Last year, the German fertility rate (number of live childs per woman) increased from 1.33 to 1.37, and it might continue to go up this year because of more family-friendly policies. Between 2001 and 2006, the rate increased from 1.63 to 1.84 in the United Kingdom.

Since fertility statistics have a cumulative effect upon total population and even go exponential over a 52 year period, those small differences behind the comma translate into millions by 2060.

Immigration flows can change even more rapidly.

You can see that the predictive power of these statistics is quite low. And it's just the predictions that get reported. The statistics do have a basic if-then quality, but this too is quite low, because they are linear (there's just a line towards a convergence point), and consider only one scenario.

So here's a general rule for longer-term planning: linear, single-scenario models are useless, what is useful for formulating policy are dynamic, multi-scenario models.

(It is quite amazing how many policies are informed by dumb models when you start noticing this. We can do so much better)

Considering that Eurostat only releases these statistics once every 3 or 4 years, there should be enough time and resources for a bit more imagination.

The Long Arm of Brussels

2008-08-14T22:50:00.002+02:00

We´re saving people´s ears over in America. And they don´t even show us love.

Ceiling of European Parliament Comes Down

2008-08-12T19:34:00.006+02:00

And that's the literal truth there in the title. Video:

As you see, it's the Strasbourg seat. There's a report in the the EUobserver.

In the mean while, the oneseat campaign is still active. So if you haven't voted yet...

Thanks to Jan Seifert, in German. Jan notes that if the parliament is not repaired by September, the session could be held in Brussels.

That would be a good precedent.

The Russia-Georgia War

2008-08-10T21:25:00.009+02:00

Let's hope the current conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia will become known as the four day war.

... Peace? Medvedev has apparently ordered the Russians to 'end operations'. More below...

I have collected some brief thoughts on the Atlantic Review. See: Russia's next move. The Atlantic Review also has a good piece of analysis by Stefan Wolff, a UK political science Professor who has written a book on ethnic conflict.

There has been a good deal of compelling analysis on the topic. Here's a list for reading:

Jim Heintz, Associated Press: Georgia makes a power play _ and a big gamble
Tony Caron, TIME: Has Georgia Overreached in Ossetia?
Steve Clemons, Washington Note: Georgia-Russia Clash: American Culpability and the Kosovo Connection
Thomas P.M. Barnett: Answering the inevitable question on Russia
Jerome a Paris, European Tribune: Georgia: oil, neocons, cold war and our credibility
Douglas Muir, A Fistful of Euros: Georgia: played?
Richard Beeston, Times Online: Analysis: why the Russia-Georgia conflict matters to the West

Which analysis we are ultimately to believe depends upon Russian actions over the following days, as I have stated on the Atlantic Review and in a discussion with James Rogers on his blog, Global Power Europe.

Update: now day five, and Russia has pushed beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Times reports. Also see, Reuters, Russia Today. The New York Times blog The Lede sows some doubt on the Russian advance.

Update #2: Day 6, Medvedev orders halt to Russian operations, the wires report. See Associated Press, AFP.

Following Up

2008-08-07T21:00:00.003+02:00

The Females in Front petition that I blogged about in early June is in the mean while closing in on signature number 25,000. Only 20 more signatures needed. Even though some of the basis for the petition - like those of various others - has fallen out underneath it because of the Irish 'no' to Lisbon.

The petition deals with the absence of women in the current leading posts of the European Union, but mentioned that there will be four leadership posts next year, which is now highly improbable. There will be no permanent President of the European Council until the Lisbon Treaty is approved. Which may be never.

... the petition needs to be updated at any rate as its about page still lists the sadly deceased Bronisław Geremek.

Still, although it is uncertain whether there will be three or four leadership posts in the next year, it would still be nice if at least one of them is filled by a woman. This is one petition that should be carried on.

On European Defence

2008-08-06T22:32:00.003+02:00

I have a short post up on the Atlantic Review on a recent policy paper by Nick Whitney, for the European Council on Foreign Relations, that deals with the topic of European defence integration. See 'The State of European Defence Integration'

Whitney is a former head of the European Defence Agency, so he has some expertise on the topic. The paper confirms some of the arguments made in the post on European Geopolitics, particularly the absence of a common strategy and the politicised nature of missions.

One conclusion Whitney draws is that the European Union has not managed to learn from the problems it encountered on earlier missions, because it has been too eager to call these missions a success. This reflects their use to further integration -- they are part of a 'functionalist' integration strategy.

Another objection Whitney raises is that most EU missions so far have been very safe, engaged in only in the framework of the United Nations, or after the United Nations had already prepared the ground. This is probably mostly due to an unwillingness to put troops in harm's way, but also reflects the use of these missions to further integration.

Of course we want EU missions to strive to achieve success, but an excessive focus on building integration through good experiences with missions can mean that the EU will engage in operations that provide little in terms of our security, and could as well be done by others, while failing to engage in vital but more risky missions.

Whitney is rather focused on the EU acting to intervene in failed or failing states. I am sceptical of this interventionism, but it's currently often being done anyway, and at least Whitney proposes that we should have a strategy. An actual, coherent common strategy would be a big step forward, especially towards Africa and the Middle East.

European Geopolitics

2008-08-02T18:03:00.003+02:00

The abstract idea of a common European foreign policy has always seemed attractive to many. It even polls well. It is tempting to say that this attraction vanishes when we start discussing what the policy should consist of. National preferences take over, revealing that the nation state is the first-order frame in which 'high' politics is conducted, and indeed, imagined. There is ample evidence for such a view. Recently, strong evidence was provided by the inability of European countries to take a common position on the independence of Kosovo - a marginal territory on the periphery of Europe - after having had time aplenty to form such a position.

It's possible that profound differences in national preferences will disappear after a common foreign policy is imposed from the top. This would however be a slow, gradual process. And the existence of large differences provides an obstacle to the formation of an effective foreign policy, as can be witnessed by looking at the rules and details that have currently been negotiated. Under the Lisbon Treaty (which has a poor chance of succeeding), foreign policy would be conducted intergovernmentally, with a passerelle clause providing the option of moving towards majority voting at some time in the future. However, that clause does not pertain to all issues that have defence implications.

A foreign policy divorced from a defence policy has a strongly reduced spectrum of options.

The principal reason currently used to forward a common European foreign policy in the English-language discourse is Russia. Russophobia is prominent and popular on the Isles, following the assasination of Litvinenko (although it is far from clear whether the Russian government was involved), and various smaller spats. A notable background event is the recent transition of the UK from a net exporter of natural gas to a net importer, which has generated fears of energy dependence.

Aside of a common Russia policy, the challenge from India and China and the threat of international terrorism are also reasons cited. Curiously, little mention is made of a common policy towards the United States of America, even though the U.S. is doubtlessly the most influential external actor in Europe, and many of its recent actions have been highly problematic. The invasion of Iraq caused a deep split in Europe. The U.S. has been using EU territory to torture suspected terrorists. The U.S. continues to engage in bilateral deals with EU states on topics that fall within the purview of Brussels.

Even some U.S. commentators have noted the lack of a common America policy on part of the EU -- as a problem. See this column by Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post. Her reasons (needless to say if you know Applebaum) are very different from the problems mentioned above, and at times what she says comes down to 'Washington would listen if the EU selfessly offered to solve its problems for it'. But there still is a kernel of truth in her column.

The largest current issues with regard to Russia are Energy and NATO expansion, and perceptions of those issues diverge significantly between the big continental European states, the Eastern European countries, and the UK. The question of NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine is perceived very differently in Germany and France. They see no reason to engage in an aggressive rollback and encirclement strategy with regard to Russia, especially when there is no popular support in the Ukraine, and no reconciliation of the frozen conflicts (soon to be hot?) in Georgia.

In a hopeful and underreported sign of increasing political convergence, however, the UK government sided with Germany, France and various West European states to oppose a concrete move towards NATO membership negotiations with Georgia and the Ukraine, last April. It is not clear whether this signals agreement with Germany and France that such a move would be geopolitically undesirable, and it certainly did not reflect the views of the UK foreign policy community, which remains stuck in cold war frames.

On energy, the dominant narrative in the UK is that Europe is becoming dependent upon Russia, that Russia is playing out European countries against each other, and that the response should come through a European foreign and defence policy and a diversification of gas sources. At the same time, Germany views the energy relationship as one of mutual dependence, and thereby a way of keeping Russia tied into Europe.

A frequent problem of policies and institutions that do not exist is that they are imparted with a purpose they are unlikely to serve by those who argue on behalf of their creation. Thus does U.S. presidential candidate John McCain seek a 'League of Democracies' that would engage in bolder democracy promotion and create freer markets. Thus does Anne Applebaum dream of the leaders of the UK, France and Germany coming to the White House, pledging to solve Afghanistan. Thus, likewise, does the English foreign policy community desire a common European foreign and defence policy that will stand up to Russia.

If the differences in Europe still remain prohibitive to the formation of a common European foreign and defence policy, the EU's apparent strategy for greater integration, at least until recently, seemed to be to build support through successful 'missions'. One can think of the current peacekeeping mission in Chad, but also of the (ultimately unsuccessful) negotiations of the EU troika with Iran.

This functionalist approach also misses the point.

First, missions can go badly wrong. Second, and related, decisions to embark on foreign missions, whether diplomatic or with a military component, should not be unduly influenced by domestic political considerations. In the context of the EU, a desire to drive integration forward could be such an influence. Third, although missions can build greater trust and ability to work together, they do not automatically resolve divergent perceived interests.

Trying to find a baseline upon which common policies can be constructed would be a better procedure. But in the EU, no serious discussion of the sort is taking place. And so it will continue to muddle through.

Sarkozy's Turn at the Helm

2008-07-01T16:57:00.002+02:00

European Union politics are to take a turn for the interesting as the presidency of the Union rotates to France. Giving us six months of even closer contact to the 'frenetic' Nicolas Sarkozy.

As a first foretaste, write this down: M-A-R-S

Over to the BBC:

Ambitious plans for European missions to the Moon and Mars are being considered by the French government.

It wants to kick-start a revolution in space by letting EU politicians not bureaucrats decide on priorities for the European Space Agency (Esa).

The French say that if Europe fails to change its approach to space, it will fall behind Japan, China and India.

Paris is seeking an alliance with the UK to drive the agenda forward during the French presidency of the EU.

The wrap-up by Slovenia can be found here.

Love Awesome Cyprus

2008-06-30T00:42:00.004+02:00

I had no clue how awesome Cyprus is! Take a look at these posts by the Cyprus Mail:

Perdikis calls for public vote on Lisbon Treaty

GREEN party deputy George Perdikis provoked general mayhem at Parliament on Thursday, when he announced his intentions to propose a public referendum for the Lisbon Treaty.

During a conference between the party leaders and representatives this week, Perdikis announced his plans to make the proposal at next Thursday’s Plenum meeting – the date set for discussing and voting for or against the Treaty’s ratification.

His plans were denounced by all other parties, including AKEL who recently announced they would vote against the Treaty.

Lunacy has taken over the country

LUNACY has been scaling unprecedented heights in the People’s Republic lately and I am not just talking about the lawless city-state of Paphos, which will hopefully be granted independence when we finally agree with our Turkish Cypriot brothers how many states the virgin birth would produce.

As with everything else on the sunshine isle, there is no measure in our madness, which is always taken to its logical (or should I say illogical) extreme as if this is a national duty and we would be letting our Republic down if we exercised some restraint or showed a hint of self doubt. [...]

ANOTHER form of lunacy – the type that assumes that the entire population of Kyproulla has undergone a lobotomy – was showcased by our ruling communist party AKEL in association with comrade presidente Christofias.
Earlier in the week, the central committee of the party met in the presence of the AKEL leader and presidente to decide what position to take regarding the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. When it was time for the comrades to vote, the presidente who, a few days earlier had assured the European Council that Kyproulla would ratify the treaty, left the meeting and the Central Committee unanimously decided to vote against it at the legislature next Thursday.

Never before in the history of communist totalitarianism had an entire Central Committee gone in the completely opposite direction of its leader. Was this a coup or a revolution? No it was just a bit of poor-taste political theatre of the ‘vote a soft no so we can cement the yes’ type, at which our presidente thinks he is very good.

The message was that AKEL and its leader were against the Treaty, but Christofias would honour his election promise to grudgingly support it. In other words, he is against it but as presidente he supports it.

Parliamentarians provoke general mayhem and lunacy is scaling unprecedented heights

... and this is nothing compared to what goes on in Malta!

Sobering bottom line: The vote in the Cyprus parliament on Lisbon will be July 3rd, and there appears to be little chance that the Treaty will be voted down.

European Parliament Takes On Blogs (Symbolically)

2008-06-29T18:11:00.004+02:00

The 22nd of September is probably a date to put in your Calendar, as the European Parliament will vote on an 'own initiative report' from Estonian MEP Marianne Mikko on (among other things)... blogs.

Are blogs even a pan-European issue? Not quite, if you ask me. Most of the reading and blogging is done in a national discourse. There is little advertising by international companies across different blog markets. To get into discussing the few dozens of euroblogs is really too much. So, subsidiarity should apply.

To get any doubts out of the way: the 'own initiative report' - if it gets adopted by the European Parliament - (perhaps as, or including, a resolution?) does not mean anything. Legally. See Jon Worth and Kosmopolit for some exaggeration by eurosceptics and the Swedish press on this matter.

Still, it would be nice if the European Parliament were to drop this. It makes too many of these meaningless resolutions at any rate.

For your benefit, here are the relevant bits from Mikko's report, as adapted by the Culture and Education committee in the European Parliament, and adopted 33 to 1 as a 'draft opinion' by that Committee:

(Recital) O. whereas weblogs are an increasingly common medium for self-expression by media professionals as well as private persons, the status of their authors and publishers, including their legal status, is neither determined nor made clear to the readers of the weblogs, causing uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits,

(Paragraph) 9. suggests clarifying the legal status of weblogs and sites based on user-generated content, assimilating them for legal purposes with any other form of public expression,

The paragraph in this case being the operative (still symbolic, but apparently less so) part of the text.

Informed by a sensationalist European Tribune diary and the fact-finding in the comments.

This wiki tracks the proposal.

Barroso Talks Tough

2008-06-26T10:02:00.005+02:00

The reason for most silly laws in Europe is not primarily the Commission, but the demand for it by mid-level Member State officials, and the Member States themselves. Yet, it is the Commission that will catch most of the flack. Barroso, it appears, has finally had it:

The image of the European Union is determined by the decisions taken – not by proposals made. Decisions are taken by the Council and the European Parliament – not by the Commission. What hurts Europe very often is the caricature of its decision-making; what hurts Europe is the attacks on the European institutions, made sometimes even by some very committed Europeans; what hurts Europe is very often the caricature not only of our institutions but also of our policies.

Let me just give you an example. You have all heard the story of the straight cucumbers. It is very popular in Germany and in some other countries. For ages Europe has been ridiculed for prescribing the marketing standards for cucumbers. Well, my Commission has proposed to get rid of them, in a review including 35 other marketing standards for food and vegetables that we find are unnecessary. Our idea is to retain just 10 out of 35 of those standards. But guess what? When we sounded out the Member States, a clear majority was against this change. That is the reality. It is not really Brussels nannying the Member States is it?

Well, we will not stop; we will put forward the proposal to get rid of these unnecessary standards. Then it will be time to put up or shut up with regard to bureaucracy coming from Brussels. If there is one thing worse than the bureaucracy from Brussels it is 27 national bureaucracies coming to Brussels to ask for the reinforcement of legislation at Brussels level.

Therefore, let us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and let us respect the principle of subsidiarity; but let us do it not against European institutions but because we want to be closer to our citizens.

This excerpt from the "Debate on the European Council Report at the European Parliament" - in the part called 'President's reply to MEPs questions', which has in the mean while been airbrushed from the RAPID press release. It's brought to you courtesy of google's cache. Thanks go out to the European Union Law Blog and Reuters for the catch.

... I note that the reply lives on, here and here. Full statement follows:

President's reply to MEPs questions

Mr President, we have spoken a lot about listening to citizens, and I am very happy that at least some of you have stayed here to listen to myself and Prime Minister Jansa, so that we can respond to the very interesting remarks that were made during this debate.

Naturally, the debate was also about the conclusions and the consequences of the `no' vote in Ireland.

Let me make a point that I think will be very important for the future: let us not fall into the trap of Europe bashing - on bashing ourselves as European institutions. That would be a real mistake. No one will gain from that.

In fact, all the available data - all the objective surveys - show that in general the citizens of Europe have more trust in the European institutions - including the Commission - than in most national governments and certainly most political parties at national level. Therefore, simply to identify the problem as a problem of confidence in the European institutions is intellectually dishonest.

By the way, according to our data and to what Prime Minister Cowen told us about Irish voters, Irish voters did not vote against Europe. In fact, 80% of `no' voters said they were in favour of Europe. They may have some criticisms of this or that aspect, but, according to the Irish authorities and to all our available data, this cannot be seen just as a vote against Europe.

Therefore, let us not put the blame on Europe. Let us be modest; let us understand what our shortcomings are; let us accept the criticism; let us make our work better in Brussels or in Strasbourg, but let us not simply put the blame on Europe and let us try to understand that today the responsibilities of power - be it at European, national, regional or local level - are huge and that we have to face this with a sense of modesty but not giving in to populistic, easy arguments.

The image of the European Union is determined by the decisions taken - not by proposals made. Decisions are taken by the Council and the European Parliament - not by the Commission. What hurts Europe very often is the caricature of its decision-making; what hurts Europe is the attacks on the European institutions, made sometimes even by some very committed Europeans; what hurts Europe is very often the caricature not only of our institutions but also of our policies.

Let me just give you an example. You have all heard the story of the straight cucumbers. It is very popular in Germany and in some other countries. For ages Europe has been ridiculed for prescribing the marketing standards for cucumbers. Well, my Commission has proposed to get rid of them, in a review including 35 other marketing standards for food and vegetables that we find are unnecessary. Our idea is to retain just 10 out of 35 of those standards. But guess what? When we sounded out the Member States, a clear majority was against this change. That is the reality. It is not really Brussels nannying the Member States is it?

Well, we will not stop; we will put forward the proposal to get rid of these unnecessary standards. Then it will be time to put up or shut up with regard to bureaucracy coming from Brussels. If there is one thing worse than the bureaucracy from Brussels it is 27 national bureaucracies coming to Brussels to ask for the reinforcement of legislation at Brussels level.

Therefore, let us fight unnecessary bureaucracy and let us respect the principle of subsidiarity; but let us do it not against European institutions but because we want to be closer to our citizens.

During the debate mention was made of the Soil Directive. It was presented as an example of over-regulation by Brussels. Let me remind you that in November 2007 it was this Parliament that voted by a large majority at first reading in favour of the Soil Directive. So what do you want? If someone asked me as Commission President to ignore the vote of the European Parliament, I could not do it. So whether this directive becomes law is now in the hands of the co-legislators. I would like all pro-Europeans not to hide behind the Commission if the majority in the European Parliament votes differently to what some of you would like.

The same applies to the Return Directive. I head the Chairman of one Group criticising the Return Directive, just adopted by this Parliament, and presenting it as one of the problems of legitimacy of the European Union. Let us be frank: if the European institutions themselves call into question the legislation that they themselves have adopted, then we really have a problem regarding support by our citizens.

This is important because at national level when a political party or a political leader does not agree with a particular decision on legislation, it does not question the legitimacy of the nation, of the state or of the national democracies, but I find very often in Europe that when some politicians do not agree with a particular policy they try to call the whole legitimacy of our European process into question. This is unacceptable and it is not an honest way if we want to go ahead with our European project.

The same applies to the caricature of social and liberal. We are now advancing the debate in the European Council of whether or not to address the immediate concerns of the most vulnerable people in our society. The response of the Commission was clear: let us do it. There are the people who are most in need and we need to act for them now and, if there are some European instruments, then let us use them, adding to what we have at national level. I believe it is possible to have both a structural response and an immediate response. I believe it is possible to be in favour of both market and social policies.

I believe that sometimes the European camp is divided unnecessarily by an artificial division between those who favour more market orientation and those who favour more social orientation. I think that is quite possible to be in favour of an internal market, against state interventionism that distorts competition but, at the same time, to be against ultra-liberalism that distorts solidarity. It is perfectly possible to do both things at a European level and not to deepen ideological differences which, if we do not handle them correctly, will only help populists at the extremes in their stance against the European project.

We must have a debate on those issues if we want to go on with confidence with our European project. I believe that allocating blame to the European institutions is pointless and self-defeating for all those who believe in the European ideal.

Let me tell you also very frankly that, as has often happened in the history of European integration, every time there is a setback some national politicians use it to try to reduce the role of the European institutions and to try to weaken the role of the Commission. Some even suggest that the Commission should not speak out for what it believes in. I will not accept that. The Commission will stand firm for the competences of the Community and for Community matters. We will stand against any attempt to reduce European competence, because I really believe that the problem is not that we have too many European competences but that those politicians who should be defending European ideals and the European project lack conviction.

My plea is that we stand up for our values: that all those working here in the European institutions in Brussels - proudly in Brussels - or in our capitals or all over Europe should unite in a spirit of partnership between all our institutions and the Member States to explain why more than ever we need Europe. Let us not apologise for defending the Lisbon Treaty that tries to reinforce accountability, democracy, the coherence and effectiveness of our Union. Let us tell our European citizens with courage that the `no' vote in Ireland did not solve the problem that the Lisbon Treaty was intended to solve, that there is tough competition out there, that the world will not wait for Europe and that the world needs a Europe that is more than ever present, not only for the benefit of its citizens but also for the promotion of its values.

Too critical for the Member States?

Must be the weather...

2008-06-25T18:16:00.003+02:00

Apparently, I am not the only one who was tempted to write a self-absorbed 'why does no one listen' rant on EU blogging today.

See Jon and Clive.

The Lisbon Treaty Failure: Getting back to Basic Frames

2008-06-25T15:33:00.005+02:00

There is a lot of interesting discussion in the European blogosphere about issues related to the Irish referendum. Like the list of demands of Sinn Féin. Like the speculation about funding of Libertas by the American defence establishment. The latter is typical 'undernews' that is, for now, being ignored by the mainstream media.

But let's not lose sight of the big picture.

The Lisbon Treaty did not fail the Irish referendum due to evil American defence corporations, rich Irish corporate hacks, or because it had some elements that irked a small post-marxist Irish party. It failed because it failed to take into account basic emotional responses that any European electorate would have had. If put to a referendum, it would fail in the vast majority of European Union Member States.

A collection of relevant quotes:

On June 18th, 2008, in the comments on the European Tribune:

The disconnect between politicians and the public means that it is rather difficult to even find out why the Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The biggest mistake right now would be to negotiate with the political parties who campaigned for the 'no'. They do not deliver anymore. As much as we might dislike it, the American and Irish financial backers of the 'no' campaign and Rupert Murdoch are more relevant partners. Ultimately, though, even their sway is limited. What would be needed is a direct dialogue with the citizens, which politicians don't have any clue about (neither do I, no idea how to organise something like that). See further:
Centre for European Politics - CEP Blog - Ireland's No to Lisbon: What are the causes?

On October 16th, 2006, with regard to Andrew Duff's ill-thought-out proposal to revive the dead 'Constitution', on this blog:

The dynamic of a second round of referendums will be the same. People will be confronted with a European Union they neither think a lot, know a lot, or care a lot about. These people will see a document that is confusing but threatens (already by its name) to increase the powers and importance of this entity, will be alarmed and will vote it down. You need to go to the voters with something they can understand after minimal effort. The 'Constitution' is only comprehensible to those who understand EU law and spent many hours reading it.

This applies - mutatis mutandis - directly to the Lisbon Treaty. Its name was slightly better. Its contents were even more obscure.

On December 18th, 2006, with regard to Margot Wallström's criticism of the intransparent process for drafting what would become the Lisbon Treaty, also on this blog:

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). [...] I think that eventually, some of the unnecessary (decorative) substance [...] should also be slashed, which will ideally leave us with a reader-friendly document of no more than 20 pages.

Margot Wallström gets a lot of flack for not effectively communicating the European Union, which is her task as Commissioner. But with the national government leaders determined to ignore the public, what space does she have? I would like for her to lash out even harder, but it's not my job that's on the line.

On June 17th, 2008, in the comments on the Atlantic Review:

The lack of a European demos is an argument that is overestimated to some degree. Integration theorists tend to think that you can create a demos by fueling popular discussion of the EU through the media and other channels. I tend to think that people will start engaging more with the EU only when they get a larger amount of say, and the EU starts making decisions that are more directly relevant to people's lifes. Then people will organise along their political preferences, without there being a need for a felt common identity created through the media and the (often lame) symbols that are currently clung to by many enthousiasts of deeper integration.

In a reply to that comment in the Atlantic Review thread, Joe Noory of the right wing ¡No Parasan! blog gets this:

I think this thing has suffered from intangibility due to overcomplication. Each of the public votes was rejected on the fear that Brussels would have too much power in one area or another. There needs to be a straitforward conversation about the separation of powers, and a short, concise constitution that the broader public can understand and either support or advise change on. Only then will people actually know what their rights are.
These rejections are founded entirely on voters having a fear of what they don't think they're being told about it, and a suspicion that Brussels will not respect any limitations put on its' power.
They should just go back and study the German, US, and Lebanese constitutions and start over. Read up on the essential properties of each of those documents, and you'll see why.

The failure of Lisbon is due to the lack of a coherent narrative, the normal baseline of public perception of the EU (low saliency, just another regulator), the obscurity of the treaty. This logically leads to ignorance and a scare reaction - and those logically lead to a 'no' vote.

Every cloud has a silver lining edition: Although I would have liked for Lisbon to pass, this is not all bad for this blog. As I wrote in a post last November:

In the past two years, I have spent a lot of time trying to understand people's general perceptions of the EU, in order to understand why they rejected the 'Constitution' and how a new treaty might be constructed that would be able to win referendums.

As the government leaders in the European Council have decided that referendums are to be avoided wherever they can be, most of this effort has been in vain. Still, I'll try to sum up some conclusions, soon.

Another cheap outstanding promise, I know. But have faith and stay tuned.

After some more narcissistic self-quoting - what can I say? I was right, and I do not claim originality for these views, I got them from a lot of other sources - we might finally get around to that. For now, let's retire this monologue with the following: The gap between how the vast 'silent majority' perceives the European Union and how the majority of those inundated with EU politics perceive it and think it is perceived is immeasurable. The latter are living in a fantasy of what could ideally be. By now, that bubble should have burst.

Habermas on European Union

2008-06-24T13:03:00.005+02:00

SPIEGEL online has a feature about the 'Disunity in the European Union', including lengthy analyses by Dirk Kubjuweit and Jürgen Habermas.

The piece by Habermas contains much the same diagnosis that I forwarded in a shorter version in the intro of the euroblog roundup. Not to claim originality, mind. Here are some of the more hard-hitting quotes:

Suddenly roused out of complacency, European governments don't want to appear helpless. They are looking for a "technical" solution -- which would result in a repeat of the Irish referendum.

This, though, is little more than unadulterated cynicism on the part of the decision makers, especially given their protestations of respect for the electorate. It is also wind in the sails of those actively wondering whether semi-authoritarian forms of pseudo-democracy practiced elsewhere are perhaps more effective after all.

[...]

The failed referendums are a signal that the elitist mode of European unification is, thanks to its own success, reaching its limits. These limits can only be surmounted if the pro-European elites stop excusing themselves from the principle of representation and shed their fears of contact with the electorate.

[...]

Where the blame lies is clear. First and foremost, it can be pinned on the fact that governments themselves are at a loss -- and are thus spreading the malaise of a lackadaisical and morose "more of the same" attitude.

It's easy to blame the governments for this failure. But it is also correct.

Habermas goes on to suggest drafting a two-speed Europe and arranging for the option of letting some countries drop out if they do not want to go ahead with integration, which I am not sure I entirely agree with. More on that, soon.

The Purpose of Lisbon

2008-06-20T20:41:00.005+02:00

Not only does the EU have a 'democratic deficit', it also faces severe shortcomings in its ability to act, particularly on the international stage. This is in part due to uninspired leaders, but largely due to the institutional setup: no negotiation can go ahead without unanimity and extensive consultation at all stages.

Linda Margaret of the EU for US blog posits that the Lisbon Treaty was largely meant to deal with the lack of effective decision-making in the European Union in an imaginatively framed post. One key exerpt:

A common complaint about the Treaty is the lack of democracy in the EU institutions, something the Treaty was accused of ignoring. But the Lisbon Treaty was not exactly looking to make the EU more democratic, it was looking to make the EU more effective. It wasn’t a Constitution designed to unite the European people; it was a convention of regulations designed to unite the regulatory bodies that make up much of the EU today.

Rather than take away any more power from the sovereign Member States, the Treaty was (is?) supposed to create more power for actors at the EU level. It was to give current EU representatives the ability to take (in US English “make”) decisions with other international actors.

Worth reading in its entirety.

No Closure on the Lisbon Front

2008-06-20T18:42:00.005+02:00

Faced with a difficult decision upon the Irish referendum, European leaders have predictably decided upon indecision. To go straight to the source, here are the presidency conclusions (.pdf):

The European Council agreed that more time was needed to analyse the situation. It noted that the Irish government will actively consult, both internally and with the other Member States, in order to suggest a common way forward.
Recalling that the purpose of the Lisbon Treaty is to help an enlarged Union to act more effectively and more democratically, the European Council noted that the parliaments in 19 Member States have ratified the Treaty and that the ratification process continues in other countries.
The European Council agreed to Ireland's suggestion to come back to this issue at its meeting of 15 October 2008 in order to consider the way forward. It underlined the importance in the meantime of continuing to deliver concrete results in the various policy areas of concern to the citizens.

A familiar strategy, as the European Council had also long postponed dealing with the dead 'Constitution'. This portends poorly for the future of the Lisbon Treaty, if the previous process on the 'Constitution' is any guide.

Worse, we get many more months of speculation.

Deep Thought

2008-06-18T20:18:00.003+02:00

If the Irish had voted yes, someone in a major paper would really have written a column on this:

DJ Nozem: Lisbon Treaty Referendum: Last Minute Scribblings on the Irish Vote

For that matter, I wonder if the UEFA Euro 2008 will have any influence.

Instead, we get a pleasant AFOE post by Desmond McGrath, which does make one good point, halfway in.

Still, it wouldn’t be Europe if there weren’t some quarrelling and quibbling over arcane regulations. The Irish No “dramatised the inability of European leaders to persuade citizens of the benefits of complex documents that most find impossible to understand” as the Financial Times put it.
Ruud van Nistelrooy’s opening goal against Italy showed that most fans are unaware of some rules that govern the common project.

Good line by the FT, too.

Redirect yr Energies

2008-06-15T13:05:00.005+02:00

Dutch blog Sargasso proposes a novel solution to the obstacles now in the way of the 'European Dream': Start a megalomaniac project to dam off the Mediterranean!

You can't think up something crazy enough which has not been thought up before by some crazy German scientist. With apologies about the stereotype, but when it fits...

Originally profiled on Strange Maps (one of the best places to waste your time online).

Building a two and a half kilometre-wide and three hundred metre-high dam across the Gibraltar Strait is a crazy notion indeed. However, big ideas of using the Mediterranean for renewable energy generation are not necessarily insane. I rather like the idea of partnership with Northern Africa for the generation of electricity through concentrated solar power. Also something proposed by German scientists!

Our current energy infrastructure, which runs on sucking huge quantities of black liquid out of the Middle East and bringing it over on three-hundred metre plus long ships, sucking gas out of Siberia and transporting it through thousand-kilometre long pipelines, and levelling mountaintops to extract solid carbon... it is megalomaniac as it is. When you think about it.

Euroblog Coverage: The Irish 'No'

2008-06-14T12:06:00.006+02:00

We can only have little idea of what the Irish 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty will mean for the institutional question in the European Union. The matter, simply, will be dealt with by the leaders of the governments we have elected. Whether they deal with it in a realistic way, or try to ignore reality for as long as possible as was the case with the 'Constitution', is now the big question.

In scanning the European blogosphere for analysis of the 'no' vote, it becomes clear that a lot of well-meaning analysis on the course of further action has not been held back by the clear disconnect between the governments and the people, which now exists on a level where it is hard to imagine a government holding a genuine conversation with the public if it wanted to.

This situation must have become maddening for the national governments, but it is hard to pity them as they do not even try. Quite the opposite. The Lisbon Treaty process represented a flight into secrecy and obscurity which met its logical end in an Irish referendum where the 'no' vote was primarily motivated by a lack of understanding for the Treaty's contents.

To the analysis of others:

Jan Seifert (blog) has a piece up in German on zoomer.de. Jan campaigned for the 'yes' vote in Dublin. From the reactions he got, it became apparent that the 'no' campaign had been successful in reaching the people with its message, as he was often left clarifying myths. This indicates that the government itself had not been successful with its effort to inform the public. More information, however, might not help. The Lisbon Treaty presents a range of technical changes to the existing foundational architecture of the EU without a unifying European idea. This is an impossible sell for any goverment facing an apprehensive population. The Europe of the "governments, secret negotiations and technical reforms" is incapable of inspiring enthousiasm.

Still, Jan thinks the most likely course will be other countries ratifying and Ireland being forced to a re-vote, or to exit the European Union.

J. Clive Matthews (Nosemonkey blog) gets the honour of being the first to declare the Lisbon Treaty 'dead'. Europe, according to Clive, is too diverse for 'one size fits all' solutions like the Lisbon Treaty, or the dead Constitution it was meant to resuscitate. Politicians should now not repeat the same mistake by dressing up the corpse and trying to get it through by another name. Instead, defeat of Lisbon and the Constitution must be accepted. It is time for more radical solutions -- a complete re-think of what the European Union is for. In a related post, Clive calls for looking more closely at the evolution of political integration in the United States, which did not happen merely by the stroke of a pen.

Jon Worth (blog) had a very early post urging calm on the 'no' vote. He calls for continuing ratification, suspending work on institutions that will only be created after the treaty passes, looking carefully at the reasons for the Irish 'no' and perhaps running a better campaign next time. He also notes that there is little chance that there will be a measured response along those lines. Indeed, both the Czechs and the Swedes are already indicating that they might suspend ratification.

Stanley Crossick (blogactiv blog) maligns the use of referendums to approve complex treaties and states that a veto is unacceptable in a Union of 27. He notes that there are now three options. Abandon the treaty, make a declaration and have the Irish vote again, or go ahead without Ireland. France and Germany consider the new treaty a necessity. The 'no' vote weakens the Union at a time when many challenges have to be addressed at the European level. National governments should tell their electorates the truth about why we need the EU and admit that more economic and social policy is now made in Brussels than nationally.

James Rogers (Global Power Europe blog) sets up a comparison with an American book called 'The Last Days of Europe'. Rogers thinks that the result of the Irish vote shows that the Irish are living in a bubble of wealth and apparent security and are thus unable to grapple with the future, which will bring renewed great power competition, a challenge from islamism, global warming, and so forth. Much of Europe has gone down the same path, embracing pacifism while relying on the strength of others to provide security. What Europe needs right now are bold leaders who will sort out the institutional question. The British Prime Minister Gordon Brown should press ahead with ratification. If unification is blocked, Europe would be pulled apart.

Carl Gardner (Head of Legal blog) calls for ending ratification of the treaty, and warns against letting the Irish vote another time. The 'no' vote is a result of the lack of influence the people have on politics in Europe. This lack of influence causes them to punish the politicians for not listening to them. Instead of merely talking about 'bringing Europe closer to the people', politicians should actually do so. There should be something along the lines of a ten-year moratorium on new treaties, and afterwards treaty changes should be implemented piecemeal after they have been put to individual referendums in each Member State.

Ralf Grahn (Grahnlaw blog) states that it is unthinkable to let the Irish vote again, but also finds it unpalatable to let the Irish block changes that the other 26 Member States agree upon. He proposed going further on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty, by changing the articles relating to its entry into force. It would arrange for an entry into force if enough states have ratified it, with non-ratifying states exiting the EU and entering something like the European Economic Area. They can then re-enter the EU at their own time.

Richard Corbett, MEP (blog) calls to mind the Danish reaction to their failed referendum on the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Back then, the Danes came with proposals to find a way out. Ireland should first figure out what it is that it does not like about the Lisbon Treaty, and then come up with a list of suggestions. Corbett notes that a lot of the arguments made against the treaty were really not valid. After the Irish have come up with a solution and changes have been made -- preferably not by changing the Treaty in a way that would require renewed ratification -- the Irish should vote again.

Ralph Keating (Gulf Stream Blues blog) thinks that the consequences of the Irish 'no' vote will make 2009 a very bad year for the European Union and that if the EU does not solve its serious structural problems soon, it risks completely disintegrating within a few years [aside: this is known as the bicycle theory of European integration]. The EU is in a dilemma, with low public legitimacy coupled to low public interest and knowledge.

Many perspectives of the same animal...

And that's not all. Links partially via abovementioned posts, Erkan's roundup, and rz -- who seems as nonplussed as I am. Lots of speculation in this monster Eurotrib comments thread, and some brainstorming about an initiative here.

Irish Referendum - Early Returns

2008-06-13T13:48:00.017+02:00

The returns can be watched on ireland.com

Liveblogging on the European Tribune

After the first constituency reports, no leads yes 54 to 46.

Early excitement watch: The Financial Times' Brussels Blog talks about 'The mother of all political crises'. Quite. I don't know what the EU faced after the French and Dutch rejection of the 'Constitution' but it must have taken a miracle to survive.

Jon Worth has a measured response to the expected 'no' vote. I can't be bothered to think things out right now. A lot should depend on how large the margin is. If it is a close margin, the response will likely be to let the Irish go to the polls again somewhere in Autumn, also because turnout was low.

After a few more constituencies report the tally is unchanged at 54 to 46 for the 'no' vote.

An old statement from Alexander Bossy on the now unfortunately moribund Head Heeb, as quoted previously on this blog:

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.

For your consideration.

The 'no' vote is gaining ground. Now at 58 to 42 percent.

Some more liveblogging in the comments at A Fistful of Euros.

The result is closer again: 53.6 to 46.4 percent for the 'no' vote.

More old advice, on this blog in 2006:

In the EU, the lowest common denominator is often the rule - and in this case this need not be a very bad thing as various more ambitious changes to the institutional architecture might be made through this path than were made in the 'Constitution'. What would still be a good idea is to present the patchwork of changes in the various Treaties...
("Article 248 of the Treaty establishing the European Community will be amended thusly: ... [...] In the Treaty on the European Union, Title IV, a new Article 42 bis is inserted: ...")
...as a single, comprehensible, semi-legal document that clarifies them in lay terms, so that we have something to go into an another round of referendums with.

The plan, instead, was to avoid referendums, which has succeeded to an amazing degree. But by maximising incomprehensibility much along the lines of my example, the EU has made this a hard treaty to campaign on for the Irish.

Minimal movement: at over 50% in, the 'no' vote leads the 'yes' 53.5 to 46.5 percent.

Update: I see I have confused the rate of reporting. Previous percentages altered or deleted.

Now that the majority of constituencies has reported, we see that there is a much higher turnout than expected. Average turnout seems to be around 55%. The percentage of votes that has been reported should accordingly now be 55 to 60 percent. It is inconceivable that the 'yes' vote will move ahead again, so I'm calling it for the 'no' vote. A lot might still depend on how close the result is.

With only 5 of 43 constituencies not yet reporting, the margin is the same as at the beginning of the day. 54 to 46 for the 'no' vote.

Final numbers: Voters 1,621,037 (turnout 53.1%). 'No' 862,415 (53.4%). 'Yes' 752,451 (46.4%).

A clear defeat for the Lisbon Treaty. Now we'll see the EU's response.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum: Last Minute Scribblings on the Irish Vote

2008-06-11T20:16:00.006+02:00

(see here for returns as they break)

Looking into the crystal ball on the Irish referendum tomorrow, there is little to see. I find myself wishing that there were more polls. The Irish Times poll and the Sunday Business Post poll were conducted over much the same period. Although the Sunday Business Post poll was released on Sunday, it was conducted on the Tuesday and Wednesday before and the Friday previous to that, which makes it less current than the Irish Times poll.

The polls were widely different. This might be due to the phrasing. The Irish Times poll refers to the 'Lisbon treaty' whereas the Sunday Business Post poll talks about the 'Reform treaty'. People seem more eager to vote for 'Reform' than for 'Lisbon', the best efforts of the European Tribune notwithstanding.

We know very little, and are reduced to talking about things like the weather. For that matter, I wonder if the UEFA Euro 2008 will have any influence.

In the final analysis, it is very hard to know if an Irish 'no' will even have great consequences of if they will just be driven to the polls again after an additional protocol or some other symbolic gift.

I could never muster great enthousiasm for this treaty. But I hope the 'yes' votes scrapes by so that the EU can turn its efforts to more productive endeavours than institutional navel-gazing.

The new treaty is not worse than what we have.

Update: Jon notes that singing turkeys are also a grave concern.

If you are really dying for intellectual pieces to help you through the Irish vote, read Henry Farrell or Richard Laming.

New Poll on the Irish Referendum

2008-06-08T01:46:00.005+02:00

(see here for returns as they break)

The Irish Sunday Business Post reports a new poll on the Irish referendum, conducted on its behalf by Red C. Here are the numbers, compared to previous polls:

In 2008, Ireland will hold a treaty to ratify the European Union Reform Treaty. If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Ireland to sign up for the reform treaty or not?

Yes / No / Don't know

Jun 8th: 42% / 39% / 19%
May 26th: 42% / 32% / 26%
May 11th: 37% / 30% / 33%
Apr 2008: 37% / 30% / 34%
Feb 2008: 46% / 23% / 31%
Jan 2008: 45% / 25% / 30%

That looks like a big gain for the 'no' vote. However, the Sunday Business Post notes that the numbers look better for the 'yes' campaign among people who are certain that they will vote: 46 to 37 percent. I guess it will depend on the weather?

The numbers of this polling outfit have been consistently better for the 'yes vote' than the numbers of the Irish Times, which showed the 'no' vote ahead last Thursday.

Both are reporting the same trend: the 'no' vote is gaining. However, both polls were conducted up to last Wednesday and may not reflect some developments since, such as the pledge of support by the Irish Farmers' Association.

Next Thursday...

Females in Front

2008-06-06T12:05:00.004+02:00

Helena Markstedt flags a new petition 'females in front', which is trying to get a woman in one out of the four top EU posts to be filled next year.

The campaign was started by Danish MEP Christel Schaldemose, a member of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. It comes on the heel of a Margot Wallström op-ed in the Financial Times in which the Commissioner wrote:

The Dutch economist, lawyer and author, Heleen Mees, wrote in the Financial Times recently: “Male dominance works like a cartel: it impedes proper functioning of the market by barring talented women from top jobs. The old boy network should be busted like any other cartel.”

Margot's support did wonders for the oneseat campaign, so perhaps this is another petition that could go long.

This means that there are now at least three petitions on the EU's top posts. The Stop Blair! petition, which opposes the candidacy of Tony Blair for the European Council presidency, is running dry at just over 27,000 signatures. Enthousiasm for the petition has stalled now that it appears very unlikely that Blair will get the job.

Meanwhile, the whodoicall.eu petition, which seeks to unite the European Council presidency with the Commission presidency, does not give out numbers. That campaign, run by eurobloggers Jon Worth and Jan Seifert, is more organised, but has not gotten the same kind of media exposure so far.

The whodoicall.eu campaign points to this Welt am Sonntag story (de) about the distribution of the posts. The European Council presidency would go to Jean-Claude Juncker, the 'High Representative' foreign affairs portfolio would be taken by David Milliband, and Barroso would remain president of the Commission. The presidency of the European Parliament would be shared by Jerzy Buzek and Martin Schultz.

None of those are female.

It's worth noting that gender equality on the European level is currently only fought for by the left, and that the Social Democratic / Socialist PES is leading this fight. European voters will have a clear choice in the 2009 elections for the European Parliament. That election will determine the leadership of the EP as well as the Commission. The conservative parties are not going to deliver on gender equality.

The females in front petition is fresh and shooting up quickly. Within a few hours, it has gone from 2,800 signatures to 3,100. Go sign.

Further coverage:

EUobserver
EurActiv
whodoicall.eu

Ireland's Referendum -- Down to the Wire

2008-06-05T22:35:00.004+02:00

(see here for returns as they break)

Today's Irish Times sports an opinion poll showing - for the first time - the 'no' vote winning. By 35 to 30 percent, with 35 percent undecided or not voting (via eurotrib).

Previous polls from the Irish Times conducted by TNS mrbi:

Will you vote yes or no on the Lisbon Treaty?

Yes / No / Don't know or not voting

Jan 26th: 26% / 10% / 64%
May 16th: 35% / 18% / 47%

RedC is another outfit doing regular polling. Here are their numbers:

In 2008, Ireland will hold a treaty to ratify the European Union Reform Treaty. If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Ireland to sign up for the reform treaty or not?

Yes / No / Don't know

Jan 2008: 45% / 25% / 30%
Feb 2008: 46% / 23% / 31%
Apr 2008: 37% / 30% / 34%
May 11th: 37% / 30% / 33%
May 26th: 42% / 32% / 26%

An Irish 'no' blog has some more speculation about polls, here.

While it is impossible to isolate this from the data as an outsider, I think the difference between these two groups of polls clearly shows that the EU should have stuck to the 'Reform Treaty' name, formally as well as informally.

Yes, people really are that shallow. Especially when they are not going to read a document because it is too obscure. The obscurity of Lisbon, however, will be the major cause for an eventual Irish 'no' vote.

Still, there is a lot up in the air. Next thursday...

Elsewhere in the Great Sea of Citizen Media

2008-06-05T15:31:00.002+02:00

Meta again.

Blogging took a bit of a downturn as obligations and promises stacked up in the past months, reciprocally preventing actual action and giving rise to entirely new theories about writer's block - although I have not surveyed the field.

Still, not entirely silent.

I have taken up a stint as 'chief editor' at The Atlantic Review. That's what the administration suite tells me. Either we are all chief editors or Jörg Wolf is 'chief founding executive editor and publisher'. You can read my entries there via this link.

Rising Fuel Costs Slow Down Globalisation

2008-06-03T19:03:00.003+02:00

Ages ago, I hinted that Airbus missed the memo on vertical integration with its Power8 programme, which Gallois and Enders are still pushing. Here's some more evidence from Treehugger (via Sterling).

The cost of shipping a 40 foot container from Shanghai to the east coast of North America has gone from $3,000 in 2000 to $8,000 because of the cost of fuel, and for many products, the Asian cost advantage has virtually disappeared.

“In a world of triple-digit oil prices, distance costs money,” write Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets. “And while trade liberalization and technology may have flattened the world, rising transport prices will once again make it rounder.”

That metaphor of the moustache has always been off.

(instert platitude about intertia and yesterday's solutions)

EU Biofuels -- Take the Poll

2008-06-03T13:07:00.004+02:00

Via eurotrib, there's a poll on this Commission page about the EU's biofuels target. That target would be 10% of the fuel mix in 2020. So go on over and give the Commission your view. At 45,000 votes, the balance is 88.4% against.

The conditions under which a 10% goal might be sustainable do not exist, in my estimation. We would need radical new technologies that are unproven and seem less promising than investment in electrical or hydrogen. Or, alternatively, we would have to consume less than half the fuel we do now.

Otherwise, there's just not enough land and we need it for food, not fuel.

You can find longer take in this eurotrib diary of mine (part of ET's biofuels series).

Distribution is the Key

2008-05-31T11:15:00.004+02:00

An EU Agency for every country!

EUobserver.com

The EU has failed to agree where to place the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), the EU's flagship innovation and education project, due to a Polish veto. But Hungary's capital Budapest looks certain to win the seat when the bloc returns to the issue in June.

EU ministers in charge of competitiveness discussed the issue over dinner on Thursday evening (29 May), with negotiations dragging on into the early hours of Friday morning.

Five applicants are keen to host the administrative headquarters of the institute - Hungary's capital, Budapest, Germany's Jena, the Polish city of Wroclaw, Spain's Sant Cugat del Valles, while Slovak capital Bratislava has joined forces with Austria's Vienna in launching a cross-border bid.

The ministers are expected to revisit the topic on the eve of the EU leaders summit in June. The Slovene EU presidency has said two criteria should be respected - the winner should be a "new" member state and not already have an EU agency.

(my emphasis)

Because clustering is just so 2005.

On the merits, Budapest is actually a good city for this. It's got a central location in Europe, it's not too small (like Jena or Sant Cugat del Vallès) and already has plenty of infrastructure for students and experience with international education through the Soros-funded Central European University.

Update: It should be noted that the EIT will initially be a mostly administrative body coordinating several 'Knowledge and Innovation Communities'. In time, however, it could evolve into a full university.

Related posts:

Spreading the Quangos (Dec. 4th 2006)
The Oneseat Reception (Sep. 23rd 2006)

The Opium Route

2008-04-12T21:03:00.004+02:00

Passes through Bulgaria, it seems. FP Passport writes:

Bulgaria, the EU’s newest member state, is fast becoming one of Brussels' main headaches.

Back in January, corruption accusations grew so rampant around the country’s road construction projects that the EU froze all related funding until further investigation.

[...]I’m all for the EU accession of Western Balkan states –- if nothing else because there is presently no other viable alternative for an economically and politically stable future in the region. But it's because of the lack of an alternative that accession standards have slipped as far as they have. And if the EU can’t hold Bulgaria on its commitment to anti-corruption standards, how will it ever manage the likes of Bosnia and Serbia?

I spent some attention to the Bulgarian accession back in 2006 and the issues of corruption and crime:

Questions of how 'fit' a state is for membership of an international organisation always need to consider the question whether the state might sooner become acceptable through membership than when the membership is denied.[...]

So the question is not simply if Bulgaria is fit for entry, but how the former scenario can best be accoplished. If postponing accession a year will cause Bulgaria's politicians to become serious about fighting crime, and membership erases the incentives for doing so, postponing Bulgaria's entry until 2008 (and allowing Romania, which seems to have only technical problems) might be a good solution.

If Bulgaria does enter, that does not mean that no bargaining chips remain with which its government can be pushed to fight organised crime.

From a later piece:

the important question with regard to the Bulgarian (and to a lesser extent, the Romanian) accession into the EU is not whether they fulfil the criteria, but how we get it to become a stable and prospering democracy tied to the EU. One thing one needs to realise in this context is that the negotiations do not end after accession.

At this time, the Commission's strategy appears to be headed towards accession instead of a 1-year postponement, but it wants to keep more chips on the table to bargain with.

There's another report on Bulgarian troubles in the EUobserver. It notes that there will be assessment reports for Bulgaria and Romania in early summer as part of the monitoring process. The problems of Bulgaria are a crucial test for the European Union, especially with regard to enlargement. If it can not successfully effect change in a country after its entry... that will be a very strong argument against further enlargement.

Forza Nederlandia!

2008-04-06T17:00:00.009+02:00

While the foreign press has been rambling on about the latest stunt of Geert Wilders, the peroxide-dyed agitator from Limburg, a far more potent force on the right has emerged in the Netherlands.

Rita Verdonk, a former minister from the second Balkenende cabinet and deeply involved in the fall of that cabinet over the Ayaan Hirsi Ali citizenship controversy, has launched her 'political movement' Trots Op Nederland (proud of NL).

Verdonk and her Americophile campaign manager Kay van der Linde launched the "it's not a party, it's a movement!" in the bombastic style of a US party convention:

Right now Verdonk is being given a cold shoulder by the international media. Google news only has 38 stories on her, whereas Wilders gets 3,607 for his crappy movie. That difference severely overestimates the impact Wilders can have on Dutch politics: he is not perceived as serious by the overwhelming majority of Dutch voters, and will never get more than the 6% of the vote he got in the last elections. Verdonk, on the other hand, is favourited by 20% (nl) to become the next Prime Minister, and would get at least 17% of the vote if the Parliamentary elections were held tomorrow.

Part of the reason for that difference, aside of his ridiculous hair and general wackiness, is that Wilders is a one-note politician who has built his party on an anti-immigration, anti-Islam platform. Verdonk is much smarter about her image, which she is styling as pro-Netherlands.

The next elections, however, will be in early 2011. That is, unless the Balkenende IV cabinet falls, as all of Balkenende's previous cabinets have. Previous to that, however, there will be elections for the European Parliament in 2009 and for the communal elections in 2010. As the Dutch daily NRC reports (nl), Verdonk's party has a strong pull on local branches of the traditional, large right-liberal VVD party. She should also have a strong pull on many of the localist parties that have sprung up across the Netherlands in the past decade. The anti-the Hague feeling of most of these parties is precisely what Verdonk now is appropriating. If she can find a new way to integrate these localists into her party - in a more loose and flexible manner than how the national parties organise their local parties - she would have a powerful machine.

The communal elections could be a harbinger of what happens in the general, as they were in 2002, when they boosted another movement: that of Pim Fortuyn.

Parallels between Verdonk and Fortuyn cannot be stressed enough. But it also has to be stressed that they mostly lie in the political. Fortuyn launched his personal movement on the basis of an originally localist, anti-the Hague movement. His financial backers were much the same crowd that is now backing Verdonk: real estate magnates and self-styled entrepreneurs. And Verdonk will have to define and mobilise the same electorate. As Dutch pollster Maurice de Hond called it in the day: two completely disparate groups of people, one for whom economical and social change is progressing too fast and one for whom the very same change is not progressing fast enough.

Kay van der Linde is noted as saying that you can either be a pro-establishment candidate or an anti-establishment candidate in the Netherlands. But that is too simple. What Fortuyn in a way symbolised and what Rita Verdonk symbolises even more is a struggle for political power between the political establishment and a commercial establishment. That commercial establishment has in part unweaved itself from the centrist Christian Democrats and right-liberal VVD during the 1990s and is also partially a new force, furthered by the commercialisation of television and, ironically, the third way policies crafted by the Hague in the nineties.

Verdonk so far has not offered much of a program. The main points right now are promising to eliminate (or strongly cut back) the provinces and reduce the number of seats in the Dutch parliament from 150 to 75. These are both somewhat reasonable proposals, though I'd prefer a parliament of 100 and merging provinces to eliminating them. The anti-liberal part of the platform starts with its calls for stronger punishment of minorities and minimum sentences. Special justice is a perversion of justice, as is intervening with a judge's ability to decide on the specifics of a case.

The platform of Verdonk, however, is not mainly about policy. It's about feelings, patriotism, and an anti-government, leave-us-alone sentiment that is broadly shared by the people of the Netherlands. This can only be counteracted by other parties if they manage to define Verdonk, and the next elections, on their terms.

Malcolm X on Nationalism

2008-04-01T03:08:00.007+02:00

A current discussion.

In the United States of America, Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama has tried, in his words, to start a dialogue between the different races. In the European Union, we are supposed to have the 'year of intercultural dialogue'.

So here is an attempt at such dialogue.

Please entertain the following excerpts from a speech by Malcolm X, read by Mos Def:

Malcolm X was a black nationalist. Listening to what he says may be uncomfortable. But he speaks very clearly. And he speaks of universal topics that nationalism deals with. We have had nationalism, and we are seeing attempts to fire up nationalism, both in small regions and Europe-wide, all around us. Any speech on nationalism that achieves honesty and clarity should be relevant to us.

This speech shows both the best and the worst aspects of building a nation, and shows them as two sides of the very same medal.

The good side is bridging differences, and building unity:

And every time you look at yourself, be you black, brown, red, or yellow -- a so-called Negro -- you represent a person who poses such a serious problem for America because you're not wanted. Once you face this as a fact, then you can start plotting a course that will make you appear intelligent, instead of unintelligent.

What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don't come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Baptist, and you don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist. You don't catch hell 'cause you're a Methodist or Baptist. You don't catch hell because you're a Democrat or a Republican. You don't catch hell because you're a Mason or an Elk. And you sure don't catch hell 'cause you're an American; 'cause if you was an American, you wouldn't catch no hell. You catch hell 'cause you're a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason.

This is what happened in nation-building across Europe in the 19th century. The stupid thing is that it happened for much the same reasons as Malcolm X outlines:

We have a common enemy. We have this in common: We have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator. But once we all realize that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common. And what we have foremost in common is that enemy -- the white man. He's an enemy to all of us.

Unity is much easier to build when you can define a common identity against someone. But what have we got to be against, today, personified? In Europe, very little. There are those who'd want us to stir up fights with Russia, or Islam. This is a long way from the things that really ail us, which have become diffuse and hard to define. And most of all: less urgent.

Unfortunately, when you ask people what ails their country, a prime answer still seems to be 'furriners'. Which shows how little progress we have made.

Building unity through opposition has problems. One problem is what it does to the community you try to build. Dark side of the force, and all that jazz. Another problem is what happens when the common enemy changes or your common problem becomes less of a problem. Then your movement becomes smaller, grows more detached from reality, gets marginalised and ultimately dissipates.

Our European Union has the fortune also to have been built for positive reasons. A common commitment to economic integration and peace, originally, which has been expanded to a commitment towards sustainable development, and social as well as economic cohesion between the different countries, and equality between men and women.

These goals are not yet perfect. They need to be made more clear. If you can state a positive goal to unite as clearly as you can point to a common enemy, you will have a powerful tool for integration. That is what we will need to build an 'ever closer union'.

A Political Alliance

2008-03-30T22:10:00.005+02:00

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, on NATO and EU enlargement:

As in previous rounds of NATO enlargement, the Bucharest decision will ultimately be a political one. I cannot and do not want to prejudge that decision here and now. It will reflect the consensus among our current 26 members on the next stage of NATO enlargement. Clearly, though, NATO does not suffer from enlargement fatigue – and I hope that the same can be said for the European Union. Because it is the combination of NATO and EU enlargement that offers the best guarantee for long-term peace and stability on our continent.

It is good that De Hoop Scheffer recognises that the decisions NATO makes are political. It may not seem too controversial a thing to state, but as I wrote three years ago:

According to president Bush NATO is a "performance-based organisation" which has an open door for any country in the region that wants to join. Of course this is sophistry, any decision to enlarge NATO is political and strategic, military capacity can then always be built.

At the present, most political and strategic considerations would counsel against pushing forward with NATO enlargement. With the exception of Croatia, all the countries considered for joining or starting the membership application process are insufficiently stable, and would cause further regional instability if they are taken in.

EU enlargement has become something I like less, as it is used as a panacea for dealing with political and security problems. I have no problem with enlargement per se, but it would be nice to at least attempt to solve some of the issues in Eastern Europe through diplomacy as well.

Bonde Bowing Out

2008-03-25T19:12:00.006+01:00

The EUobserver wire reports that Danish eurosceptic MEP Jens-Peter Bonde is not going to put himself up for re-election.He's going to be replaced May 9th, this year.

Bonde was one of the more reasonable eurosceptics around, and also one of the more pro-active and internet-savvy MEPs altogether. Bonde contacted me back when we were still discussing the dead 'Constitution' and later launched an online petition calling for a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, which has garnered nearly 35,000 signatures so far.

Not to turn this into more of a eulogy, go read the one Bonde wrote for himself on bonde.com

Wish List Time, Again

2008-03-13T12:38:00.004+01:00

After an easy ratification in the European Parliament and 5 Member States, the Lisbon Treaty is running into its first problems:

The Åland Islands, a miniscule part of Finland that will have its own vote on the treaty, is making rumblings over... chewing tobacco. Basically, it wants some exemptions from an EU ban on a particular kind of chewing tobacco. Mark Mardell has more.
Irish farmers are the first to make a move for Ireland's wish list, which may become quite long as the country has a high-profile referendum coming up in June - the only one in the EU. The farmers (predictably) are linking their possible support to the EU's position in the Doha round negotiations. More on this on the CAP Health Check blog.
In Germany, Peter Gauweiler is (once again) bringing a constitutional challenge to the Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe. Earlier commentary on the case he brought agains the 'Constitution', here. Further details on the current case in the EUobserver.

Will more countries follow the example of the Åland Islands and more interest groups that of the Irish farmers?

Bet on it.

Macedonia the Great

2008-03-09T16:03:00.005+01:00

The dispute between Macedonia and Greece over the name of Macedonia (via Nosemonkey) is really rather strange.

Greece opposes Skopje’s use of the name “Republic of Macedonia” even though it has been recognised by over 120 countries. Athens argues the name suggests Skopje could make territorial claims over Greece's own northern province of Macedonia.

There is a province in Belgium called Luxembourg, adjacent to the state of Luxembourg. As far as I've been able to determine, the state of Belgium has not expressed fears that the state of Luxembourg would take over this province. Luxembourg does not have a history of conquering half the civilised world, but the last time Macedonia did that was over 2,300 years ago.

Inflation, Deflation

2008-03-08T22:11:00.003+01:00

Jerome has a really good post up on the European Tribune on the kind of inflation and deflation we are currently facing. As I indicated last thursday, there are good reasons to believe that current inflationary pressures are not monetary phenomena and that central banks can do little about them. Jerome's makes the argument that inflation is caused by increasing scarcity of commodities due to the physical limits of the economic system in a more elaborate, but still understandable manner.

(the argument Jerome makes on deflation is mainly relevant to the US and UK, not to the eurozone)

Much of traditional economics is based upon the assumption that the economy is a system unto itself. This has never been true, but until recently the physical limits to the system have not played a game-changing role. As this is now happening, we need new ideas about how to deal with inflation.

One not all too radical proposal would be that as the share resource costs have of total production costs increases, we need an industrial policy that focuses on resource efficiency, and on increasing the level of recycling. So, rather than monetary policy, we need green policy to fight inflation.

Inflation and its causes

2008-03-06T13:28:00.003+01:00

Wolfgang Munchau has an interesting piece up on the relative uselessness of economic forecasting models on his eurointelligence blog. He notes that most economic models have failed to accurately predict inflation, which is supposed to be low but is consistently turning out higher than predicted.

His conclusion, that this high inflation almost certainly is a monetary dynamic, as economic theory predicts, is, however an odd one. The monetary side of the equation which is held to govern inflation by monetarist economics is presumably one of the parts that fits most easily into the various models.

Munchau's thinking is symptomatic of much of neoclassical economics, which seeks internal explanations for all matters relating to the economy. However, this time inflation might be a problem caused by external limits to the economic system.

So I'd like to forward the alternative notion that higher than expected inflation is caused by an issue which did not use to play much of a role: that of scarcity pricing for commodities. The global economic system is running near its physical limits, and as a result, prices for resources are on the up and up.

There is very little a central bank can do about this.

The Paranoid Style in EU Politics

2008-03-06T12:07:00.005+01:00

rz of Re:Europa discusses some grave examples of eurosceptic paranoia. As I've indicated before, the most authoritative source for understanding eurosceptic discourse on EU politics remains Richard Hofstadter's seminal essay 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.

As the saying goes, though, "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the EU isn't out to get you". There is an underlying reality to the widespread despair among eurosceptics about their dispossession: support for the basic existence of the EU is widespread, especially among the political leadership; a debate about its very existence is thereby unlikely to effect much.

Although the mainstream of European politics has shifted a bit to the right in recent years, it is still to the left of the UK, so the EU will have a negative effect as far as conservatives there are concerned. The same phenomenon explains some of the opposition to the EU that exists among the Nordic Green Left parties, though that is now shifting (Correction: as Jan points out in the comments, the Swedish Greens were never part of the NGL as a political alliance and European Parliament group. Nor, in fact, are any other of the green parties in Finland or Denmark. Scandinavian greens did, however use to be more eurosceptic)

Beyond this reality, however, English eurosceptics often have a purely rhetorical conception of what the EU is, what it can do, and how it will develop. Some notes on the psychology behind this, from Hofstadter:

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power: he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing); he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional).

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts the projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry.

The maximalist goal of eurosceptics has gone beyond mere withdrawal of the UK from Europe, which will not happen, to the very destruction of the European Union, which will most definitely not happen. More generally, the opposition of English eurosceptics is generally born out of a dislike of all international governance, in which it is similar to the paranoia of US conservatives about international institutions. But global governance is set to intensify in the near future, as countries will need to cooperate in more and in more fields as the global market grows more integrated, and the radical wing of conservatives in the US look set to lose their power, making such cooperation easier.

As I've stated before, I'd expect a Democrat to win, but even John McCain is much more of an internationalist than Bush was. For English eurosceptics, then, the future will only bring an increase in frustration.

More on the European Council President

2008-03-06T11:57:00.001+01:00

The briefly expressed thoughts on the "EU President" bore some elaboration, which I hereby provide in a longer piece on the upcoming European Council President, online petitions, and What It All Means. Read it on the Atlantic Review.

Let's have more centralised power

2008-03-02T21:40:00.004+01:00

Jon Worth and Jan Seifert have set up an online campaign in order to finally give Henry Kissinger what he wants - a single person to call in Europe.

In the form of a president of both the Council and the Commission.

Personally, I like the fragmented chaos that is the EU and I do not want it to get federal structures - part of the territory of not being a federalist.

Plus, I don't like giving Kissinger what he wants.

So I'm not backing this. But if you would, or if you just want to take a look, here's the link:

whodoicall.eu

Sunday Navel Gazing

2008-03-02T14:48:00.004+01:00

From the New York Times profile of Josh Marshall and his talkingpointsmemo blog:

[...] he seems to have followed a business model unlike the founders of many of the dot-coms: Begin as a tiny operation. Manage to gain a following. As the audience grows, ask readers for donations and accept advertising. As the advertising and donations grow, add reporters and features. Repeat as often as needed.

Many Euroblogs, like this one, follow a similarly well-honed strategy: write a string of good posts. Manage to gain halfway decent traffic. As the audience grows, go on leave for two weeks or two months and lose the audience again. Repeat as often as needed.

(there are reasons, of course. in this case, sickness. no good writing blog posts when your head is filled with snot)

...

Joe Noory of ¡No Parasán! has a short piece up on euroblogs, which he finds to offer little of inspiration. I can halfway see his point: I skip over most of the material on the newspaper, think tank, and political party blogs myself.

Some innovations for bringing the more interesting euroblogs into broader attention are being discussed and drawn up right now. More on that, soon.

Another Show of Unity

2008-02-18T19:05:00.005+01:00

EU Foreign Ministers fail to agree on the most basic issues about the status of a small breakaway Yugoslav province (population: 2 million est.) that declared its independence over the weekend.

An issue that had been on the horizon for about, oh, nine years.

How's that common foreign policy coming along?

Support the EU Troops

2008-02-17T21:53:00.004+01:00

Margot Wallström has a recent post in which she states the following:

The [EU] peacekeeping force [in Chad] is part of the European Union’s efforts to create peace in the region and put an end to the acts of cruelty that have been going on for many years now. According to the United Nations at least 200 000 people have been killed since 2003, many of them women and children.

The EU has also sent peacekeeping forces to Afghanistan, the Balkans and to other regions in the world. I often think of these women and men who take care of these tasks. To me they show a great deal of courage. Far away in a foreign country they risk their lives to protect children they don’t even know. They deserve our support and respect for the work they are carrying out to protect people. Their work is about security and development - about humanism in practice.

The fact is that these soldiers will have to do some dirty work - even on the missions that have a noble purpose. Margot is rather quick to assume that noble purposes are all those who send them there have in mind, and that good intent will automatically contribute to good outcomes.

More realism. Please.

A Sentence on Fantabulism

2008-02-17T21:45:00.002+01:00

A lot of people have wildly outsized ideas about what the European Union is and what it can do.

The EU Agenda for 2008

2008-02-12T15:34:00.000+01:00

It's February, already, and high time for an overview of what is going to happen in European Union politics this year.

My crystal ball is not all bad, but of course there will be unexpected developments. This is a summary of what we do know will happen:

Lisbon Treaty Ratification: just last week the French National Assembly and Senate approved the measure, leaving only President Sarkozy to sign it. Hungary, Slovenia, Malta, and Romania had already preceded France in voting for the measure. Next up is the European Parliament, which will discuss the Treaty from February 18th. The big story will be the Irish referendum, provisionally slated for somewhere in May or June.
The Lisbon Treaty, when ratified, will provide a new, permanent Council presidency which will be held by one person for 2 and a half years, renewable once. The deal on the first president will be made behind closed doors, probably somewhere between early summer and late autumn depending on who you ask, but there is growing resistance against that process. Witness recent comments by Margot Wallström, and the Stop Blair campaign.

The European Commission will make a fundamental review of the way the EU budget currently functions. A consultation is now underway, the results of which will be published in late 2008 to early 2009.
The Common Agricultural Policy, until recently the largest expense of the EU, will also get a minor overhaul with its 'health check', due to be published this spring. There is a dedicated blog. Update: See this February 7th article in the European Voice for an overview of current tensions.
Developments on the CAP will - once again - be important with regard to the Doha round, which, though moribund, might get yet another shot at coming to a close.

The European Parliament Elections, in June 2009, are gearing up. Some more tales from the initial preparations for the campaign trail, soon.

Kosovo is on the verge of declaring independence, a move that might be countered by Serbia and Russia by taking control over the northern parts of the terittory, which is ethnically Serbian. The EU will have to prove its diplomatic worth by handling this crisis.

The Slovenian presidency of the Council has a pretty tame programme, but things should become more entertaining when France takes the helm from July. The frantic Nicolas Sarkozy is already making bold statements about 'putting politics back into Europe' and... a mission to Mars! Nothing, it seems, is crazy enough for Mr. Sarkozy...

That is a first review of what I see coming up. Clive Matthews has also (already) done a preview. He focuses on doubtlessly important political developments in the US and Russia, and their likely impact on Europe.

Anything to add?

Columbus!

2008-02-12T15:11:00.000+01:00

The European research lab has now been attached to the International Space Station.

A good day for international cooperation in space.

Consolidated Versions of the Lisbon Treaty

2008-02-11T20:24:00.000+01:00

Ralf Grahn has updated the list, which, sadly, is the most official version you'll find.

Obama and Europe, Again

2008-02-11T14:47:00.001+01:00

It's looking increasingly likely that Barack Obama will win the nomination as Democratic candidate for the White House. A good time to revisit this January 4th piece on Obama and Europe.

Basically, nothing much has changed with regard to the argument in that post, except that Obama has used plenty of exceptionalist phrases on the campaign trail, notably 'from sea to shining sea' - a term associated with the (historical) doctrine of manifest destiny. Then again, he hasn't gone full monty and talked about the 'city upon a hill' just yet.

The phraseology of exceptionalism is something that fits well with the Obama campaign's 'inspirational' stance, as many Americans want to feel good about their country again. So in that respect, some of it should be discounted.

With regard to Clinton, I have noticed no changes at all. She remains more of a transatlanticist than Obama, but also more of an old-fashioned hawk.

My main line was that whichever Democratic candidate was selected, Europe needed to have a loose strategy to deal with them. With regard to Obama, this strategy would mainly apply to his willingness to intervene for humanitarian reasons. Europe is failing to produce common policies on almost all foreign policy issues, so that is not a very likely proposition. But it is still a valid proposition.

I have not dealt with the possibility of a Republican president, because I thought it unlikely that one would win in November. Now that the nominee is going to be McCain, the chances are marginally better, but still very low. McCain is an extreme hawk, moderate only insofar as he opposes certain war crimes, like torture, which the Bush administration engages in. But he's very eager to wage war. If he wins the elections, the European policy should be to disengage from current cooperation, to limit his scope for waging new wars.

Again, it's not likely that this policy will emerge. The more likely one is continued token cooperation and dragging of feet by most European states, and active cooperation by a few.

The Atlantic Community has posted an overview of the stances of Clinton and Obama on Europe and of the Republican candidates (including Romney and Giuliani, who have now dropped out). The articles are interesting reads:

Obama and Clinton: Who Would be Best for Europe?

Republican Candidates on Europe: Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney

stopblair.eu breaks 10,000

2008-02-10T16:14:00.000+01:00

Signatures. Yesterday.

This is only 1% of the goal, but it's only taken 4 days.

The campaign has been driven by extensive media coverage so far. To make sure it keeps going, it is about to go viral. Will keep you posted on that.

In these first 4 days, the petition has been translated into 15 out of the EU's 23 official languages, and four additional languages.

If you know one of these European languages: Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Finnish, Irish, Latvian, Maltese, or Slovenian, contact the site.

Not too bad for a first drive. But to keep this alive, a second and third drive are required.

http://stopblair.eu

The Euroblog Pyramid

2008-02-09T20:41:00.000+01:00

Jon Worth has some very interesting thoughts about the growing blogosphere in Europe, and how to make it more effective.

Go read.

Stop Tony Blair!

2008-02-06T13:26:00.000+01:00

The rumour that the first Presidency of the European Council, to be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty (and before that, the 'Constitution') would go to Tony Blair has been buzzing around for a long time now.

Usually early rumours mean that the candidate is dead, at least that is how it often worked with regard to the Presidency of the European Commission. But the game may have changed, certainly now that Sarkozy is aggressively backing Blair.

Blair would be a very bad candidate for the job. He's an adept politician, but he has shown very poor judgment in going to Iraq, and worse, very poor ethics in how he made that decision.

But we can do something to prevent it.

The people of the European Tribune, myself included, have set up a petition against the eventual nomination of Blair: http://stopblair.eu/

It's gaining signatures, fast.

If blogs are ever going to get any influence in Europe, we need issues to organise around. This is such an issue. The Presidency of the Council, should it be introduced, is too important to be given to such an unscrupulous opportunist.

Not Tony Blair. No. Not in our name.

http://stopblair.eu/

Lisbon Treaty: Dutch Consolidated Version Available

2008-02-03T16:46:00.000+01:00

Finally.

After the signing of the Lisbon Treaty, it quickly became apparent that the Council would not release a readable version. As I discussed earlier, this seems to have been due to opposition specifically from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

The Dutch government still has not released its own consolidated version of the European treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. This is inexcusable.

I have been in touch with Ries Baeten, who copy-pasted a consolidated version of the EU Treaty, which is available, here (nl). Though that version was not entirely up to date, and a cleaned up version the longer former EC Treaty remained to be written.

I seriously considered updating and publishing these two treaties, but to be honest, that would have taken me two days of work which I right now don't have. Since there is something to be said for doing both a version that shows all the changes and one that does not, I might still do the work, in a few weeks.

For now, a Dutch Professor of European Law has published a clean consolidated version of both treaties, which you can download here (nl), and here (nl).

Monitoring EU Aid

2008-01-28T20:26:00.000+01:00

Coordination of development cooperation on the European level has increased in recent years. For 2006, the European Commission controlled a full fifth of all EU aid, and thereby over a tenth of all global aid.

Scrutiny of the European Commission's actions in this field is vital. When you have that amount of money (over €4 billion in the main fund, yearly), you need a good control system. Or you'll get more serious mishaps than this one.

And there are even more important questions, such as whether the aid is invested effectively, or even what the objectives of aid should be.

Whither EC Aid is a project set up by two aid foundations to deal with these and further questions about the European Commission's aid practices. It's a participatory model. It's also a good example of how you can lever a blog.

You can leave your comments on the main issues they have outlined.

This outtake from their outline of the issue of accountability is instructive:

The EC is a one-of-a-kind donor: it is not part of the multilateral system per se, nor is it accountable in the way that bilateral donors are, notwithstanding the European Parliament and the monitoring activities of Civil Society. Viewed positively, this peculiar status can insulate it from the direct political pressures experienced by bilateral programmes, which are reflected in practices such as tied aid. On the other hand, this can reduce scrutiny and responsiveness. Current discussions on the European Parliament’s scrutiny of CSPs and the role of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly attest to ongoing tensions over increased transparency and democracy in the European aid programme.

The project should be very interesting for anyone who has a background in development cooperation. My own knowledge of the topic is not sufficient to dive in immediately. I will mainly follow the discussion, if it develops.

Go have a peek.

Insulting Ataturk

2008-01-28T19:08:00.000+01:00

Still a problem in Turkey. A professor has been found guilty after offering some mild criticism, and was given a suspended sentence.

Will keep an eye on the appeal.

Eventually Turkey will get rid of these provisions, if it wants to join the EU.

Then again, insulting the monarch is a crime in the Netherlands, too.

Europe: Against Stronger Monocultures

2008-01-26T16:09:00.000+01:00

Or, why I despair at libertarianism, take 2287623.

From Marginal Revolution:

It turns out, by the way, that the world's supply of Cavendish bananas -- the ones we eat -- is endangered by disease (more here) and many experts believe the entire strain will vanish. Most other banana strains are much harder to cultivate and transport on a large scale, so enjoy your bananas while you can. The previous and supposedly tastier major strain of banana -- Gros Michel -- is already gone and had disappeared by the 1950s, again due to disease. Today, European opposition to GMO is one factor discouraging progress in developing a substitute and more robust banana crop.

Bad Europeans. Preventing progress towards a more successful monoculture because of their silly green ways.

Energy & Renewables Roundup

2008-01-26T14:49:00.000+01:00

A few EU blogs discussing renewable energy policy this week:

On the Social Europe blog, Crispin Williams has a good, if pessimistic review of the EU's renewables package:

These question-marks over viability also apply to the renewable sources of energy, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and CHP. The time pressures forced by climate change in needing to reduce carbon emissions mean that these technologies have to prove their ability to provide the main amount of a country's energy. Most, apart from hydro and geothermal, are still very much in the development phase. This means that even a combination may not prove sufficient to provide the necessary amount of energy.

Yourspace, the PES Manifesto site, also has a brief post about the renewables package.

For my part, I think that wind is a quite mature technology already. The climate change reduction targets we have set can be met through an intervention on, I think, four main points: Demand reduction, increased use of renewables, increased public transportion, and increased energy efficiency. There are other points to address; points that will take on a leading role after 2020. But for the next fifteen to twenty years, these will be the main points. There should be a large role for combined cycle cogeneration as a replacement for current, low efficiency coal and gas power plants.

Whether and how we liberalise the energy market in the EU plays a large role in the matter. The current plan is ill-considered; there is no strategic thought behind it other than 'liberalise, split up generation and infrastructure, and let the market do its magic'. Part and parcel of the market ideology that runs through large parts of the Commission. This has been tried before in California. It has led to crises and, famously, Enron.

If there is to be liberalisation, we need to fundamentally change the way the energy grid works, and even then there will be a large, investment-related role for the state. There is, fortunately, some pushback from the Committee of the Regions. For an entirely different reason: Subsidiarity! The EU Law Network has a post up on it.

European Commission proposals aimed at further liberalisation of the EU’s electricity and gas markets are too far-reaching, according to the findings of a consultation organised by the Committee of the Regions’ Subsidiarity Monitoring Network.

The majority of respondents stated that it would be better to properly implement the current legal framework, adopted in 2003, and to provide more practical help to those Member States and regions which have not yet fully transposed this legislation.

Finally, the New Values Community (essential reading on emissions trading) has a piece from the Reuters feed, on an analysis by Goldman Sachs of cap and trade. Goldman Sachs is stating that emissions trading won't be enough to achieve 'breakthrough solutions' and that thereby R&D funding will also be necessary:

Capping and trading carbon emissions will not be enough to fight output of the gases blamed for warming the planet, the managing director of Goldman Sachs' US carbon emissions desk said on Thursday. The bank's carbon head Ken Newcombe was emphatic that cap and trade has huge potential in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer. But government research and development budgets should also be boosted to complement cap and trade's potential to spur innovations and investments in carbon-cutting techniques, he said. "I'm not at all convinced from what we've seen internationally that a cap and trade regime and a price on carbon is going to motivate investment in truly transformational technologies," Newcombe said at a carbon policy forum in New York.

Newcombe is right that emissions trading also requires a set of flanking policies. However, sponsoring corporate R&D, though a favourite of a wide range of liberarians and neoliberals, is one of the least effective available solutions in both theory and practice. Changing the game on the energy market through a feed-in tariffs scheme, and providing renewable energy start-ups with seed money would be much better policies.