Julien Frisch

Erika Steinbach, leave us alone!

2009-11-08T18:45:00.002+01:00

Erika Steinbach is the head of the German Federation for Expellees, and for years she is ruining German relations to our Polish neighbours.

Her confrontative course regarding the representation of interests of Germans (and their children) who were expelled from what would become Poland at the end and after World War II is a disgrace for us Germans who are working for a united Europe with where nobody needs to be afraid of neighbouring countries.

Steinbach has now repeated her claim that she wants to sit in the Board of the new Polish-German Foundation for Expellees that will try to retrace the fate of expellees at the end of World War II, in a way that doesn't put the emphasis on blaming each other or bringing up the idea of restitution but that focuses on the tragic stories in order to allow a proper culture of remembrance.

Yet, somebody like Steinbach who is not interested in good relations but in confrontation is embarrassing, and I can only hope that our new government will manage to keep her out of the new foundation in order to show to our Polish neighbours that in the European Union of the 21st century we Germans don't support those who live in the past but that we look ahead and look forward in expanding good relation to Poland - something foreign minister Westerwelle has made clear when he spent his first visit in office to Poland.

I am glad that although Erika Steinbach is often presented in Poland as the voice of Germans, she doesn't have much room in our own media - and I hope that our government will make clear that she would be the wrong choice for the new foundation and against the whole idea of the creating such an organisation!

Blogging & the EU

2009-11-08T02:29:00.002+01:00

Some think blogging is about fame. Some think blogging is about influence. Some think blogging is just about the blogger. Some have misunderstood blogging.

Some think the EU is about economic power. Some think the EU is about global influence. Some think the EU is just about the EU. Some have misunderstood the EU.

Others think blogging is about sharing arguments. Others think blogging is about working together on topics of common interest. Others think blogging is about crossing boundaries and about overcoming stereotypes.

Some might understand.

A critique of "Women's Political Representation in the European Union" by Johanna Kantola

2009-11-07T23:13:00.003+01:00

Those of you who follow this blog and my tweets know how much importance I put in women's representation in EU institutions - the latest article on Tarja Halonen or an earlier post on the gender gap in the Commission staff are just two examples.

So with interest I noticed the recent issue (December 2009) of the "Journal of Legislative Studies" and in particular the article "Women's Political Representation in the European Union" by Johanna Kantola.

I was hoping for new insights that go beyond the obvious - women are underrepresented both in the member states and in the EU institutions - something that explains more in detail the dynamics that keep women out of the relevant EU jobs.

But the article is about nothing but the obvious: It mostly presents already existing descriptive statistics, it summarises some of the existing scientific literature on why women are underrepresented in political institutions and it lists some possible reasons why one might be interested in changing this.

This article has no added value in a debate, its just telling what we all already know. It doesn't explain anything, it strings together figures that aren't really new, just newly assembled. And it doesn't even have the intent to do more:

"The contributions of the article are empirical and consist of an account of the EU policy on gender-balanced decision-making and numerical presentation of new data on women in political decision-making in different EU institutions."

Looking at where we are in the debates today - bloggers and Twitterers lobbying for women in top EU jobs while Barroso asks governments to nominate women Commissioners - this article sounds light-years behind.

It should have answered why, despite the impression that there is pressure for more women candidates, in the end there are no women brought forward at the crucial stages of selection processes (like Milliband and Van Rompuy now looking to be the only two real candidates for EU "Foreign Minister" and European Council President).

A scientific analyses would be of added value if it could show why women who are official or unofficial candidates for some time disappear from the shortlists later on. Is it because in complex political and regional balances of posts the male majority is not able to fit in qualified women candidates or is it because they think the women candidates are not qualified? Is it because women in power - apart from Margot Wallström - don't support women candidates or because women candidates are never presented by man?

Kantola even takes a short look at women's representation in COREPER I and II, but finding out that women are underrepresented there just tells us that there are probably too few women climbing up to the top diplomatic ranks. By knowing this we haven't learnt anything about the mechanisms that lead to this imbalance. So why aren't women in the upper diplomatic ranks or, if they are there, why aren't they promoted to COREPER I or COREPER II?

What are the real mechanisms? How do they differ between the different institutional settings? Can the same institutional design lead to different representation of women in EU institutions? Do positive dynamics in one member state influence the dynamics in a second member state through personal relations developed in the Council? So many questions, so few answers given by fellow political scientists. Nothing about real mechanisms, just numbers and wild guesses.

This would be my pleading:

Social scientists, political scientists, students of feminist and gender studies, tell us more about the real mechanisms, show in comparative perspective how one could advance gender balance within EU institutions, reprocess unlikely success stories and stories where likely female candidates are dropped. Because those of us in favour of gender balanced power distribution need to know where to "attack", which small or large wheels we need to turn, which level of the hierarchy we need to go to to get the results we want.

But writing descriptive articles about known facts - no matter if the data is presented as "new" - doesn't help at all, it just lowers the interest in the subject, and the next time I will see at title like "Women's Political Representation in the European Union" I might think twice before spending time reading it.

The EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): Waiting for controversies...

2009-11-06T10:52:00.004+01:00

With the Lisbon Treaty entering into force next month, one particular issue that has been part of legal and political discussions for years will become pertinent: The EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

All EU member states have ratified the Convention and most have also signed and ratified the additional protocols to the convention (including the protection of property rights and free elections [Protocol 1] or the prohibition of the death penalty under all circumstances).

The rights guaranteed by the ECHR are supervised by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. Since through its member states the legal traditions of the ECHR are also informally part of the EU's legal traditions, the European Court of Justice (the EU's court) is already taking into account rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, but so far there is no legal obligation for the Union to follow the Human Rights Convention's provisions.

However, now that the Lisbon Treaty will enter into force, the EU is getting legal personality and is thus able to join international agreements outside the scope of the former European Community, including the ECHR.

And, for those who did not have time yet to read the Lisbon Treaty, the document explicitly foresees that the EU will join the European Convention on Human Rights (which might mean that the EU institutions will be subject to rulings of the non-EU ECtHR). It deals with this matter in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in the article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as well as in the Protocol 8 and the Declaration 2 to the Lisbon Treaty.

In short, these provisions foresee that the EU shall in fact join the ECHR, but only after the EU and the member states have agreed on how the EU's legal and practical relations with the different control bodies of the convention will be and after it is clear how one will differentiate between law suits against the EU and those that would go against a member state (which could become difficult when it comes to the execution of EU law in the member states). In the end, the Council needs to decide unanimously on the accession to the ECHR, and all member states will have to agree individually according to their constitutional provisions.

Although this is now clearly prescribed by the Lisbon Treaty, this is still going to be a very difficult legal and political process, not least seeing the debates around the Charta on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in some member states or the latest "outrage" in Italy against the Crucifix judgement by the ECtHR.

And so even though the Council of Europe - the international organisation built around the European Convention on Human Rights - is already starting to pressure on the EU start its accession procedures, this could take some time until the EU has ruled out all complex legal and practical problems related to this accession.

Therefore, I expect the process to be quite controversial already between the EU member states and EU institutions (including its legal services), but also between the EU and the Council of Europe (including the other 20 signatory states to the European Convention on Human Rights) - and the result will probably be an unprecedented case of legal interdependencies between two different supranational regimes.

10 steps to becoming a Euroblogger

2009-11-04T23:22:00.006+01:00

Some time ago, I have already given an answer on why I blog, but I think there might be some interest in knowing how to actually become a Euroblogger - in 10 steps, because anything can be done in 10 steps.

1. You need to become crazy.

If you are not crazy yet, start reading the consolidated Lisbon Treaty from the first to the large page. If you finished reading and you are still not crazy, please apply for a job in one of the EU institutions.

2. You need to make the first and most important choice.

If you finished reading the Lisbon Treaty, you think it is crap and you don't like the EU because of that, you need to call yourself a "eurosceptic". If you think it is crap and you still like the EU you are now called "federalist". As a Euroblogger you will belong in one of the two categories, and officially there is nothing in between.

3. You need a good name.

If you are lucky, you already have a good name or nickname that is easy to remember. If not, invent something. And since you are crazy, don't hesitate to think of really strange animals when choosing your nickname.

4. You need to write a first post.

It doesn't matter what you write, just use "Europe" and "EU" several times, first in the title and then in the text. Since normal bloggers don't use these terms you will be clearly identified as a Euroblogger. Be aware that from now on you are an outcast in the general blogosphere.

5. You need to get the attention of other eurobloggers.

The easiest way is to start at bloggingportal.eu. Go to every post that appears there and comment on anything you read. Eurobloggers don't get many comments, so they are glad about anyone coming their blogs. By commenting, you are telling them that there is at least one person interested, and they will thankfully go to your site, see that you used "Europe" and "EU" in your first post and add your RSS-feed to their feed readers.

6. You need to write a second post.

Since you are now recognised as a euroblogger by the community, you need to show your web 2.0 competence. So write anything that combines "EU" and "2.0", "Twitter" and a Youtube video. Since 95% of eurobloggers organise their life around new communication tools, you will now be seen as a euroblogger who is also a tech geek - which means that you are now formally part of the club.

7. You need to get a Twitter account.

You cannot write a euroblog without using Twitter these days. If you don't have one yet, get one. Follow all the eurobloggers who will also follow you. Then find one MEP from your country on Twitter and retweet every second message s/he writes. Then discuss with other Eurobloggers on Twitter the added value of Twitter for European democracy. Retweet most of what the others are saying. Then address the MEP with an @-message and ask what s/he thinks about the latest Barroso press conference. If s/he doesn't react, write a blog post about how European politicians have not understood the idea of Web 2.0.

8. You need to comment on an important European event.

The added value of euroblogs is that they comment on important European events, i.e. those events that even the national media notice. Having an opinion on these events and writing excessively long posts on EU-related topics everyone understands will finally bring 20 readers (from the US) via Google. So wait until an important referendum, European elections, or a huge corruption scandal and then voice your anger in your blog. Since all eurobloggers write about it, you will be quoted at least twice, bringing 20 more readers (from Brussels) to your blog.

9. You need to write on Twitter that you wrote a blog post about an important event.

If you don't write about your blog posts on Twitter, you show that you don't think you are important enough. So tell your followers that you have blogged. You will start realising that from now on you don't only care how many people read your blog post but how many of the other eurobloggers retweet your tweet on your blog post. Over the next 60 minutes, you will get 10 extra readers on your blog and two new Twitter followers (one of them will be called Mary Lu and her last tweet links to a porn site).

10. You need to repeat steps 4-9 for three months.

If you don't get frustrated by self-referential and repeating discussions with a small number of like-minded people, if you don't get fed up with boring sources, and if you can draw your motivation to blog out the same 10 people commenting your posts all the time for more than three months, you will be an established euroblogger. After six more months, you will get a comment from an EU Commissioner and some people will start calling you "guru". You will know that this is becoming crazy - and then you realise that this is how everything started (see step 1).

And yes, one day, when you get bored by just being a Euroblogger, you can still organise an anti-religion campaign that becomes news all around the earth...

Three Pillars, Two Treaties, and the One European Union

2009-11-04T10:49:00.002+01:00

In the past, the European Union was based on three pillars but in less than a month these pillars will be no more.

Future students of the EU will read about these pillars in history books, they will try to understand the differences between the European Community and the European Union (that no citizen without EU expertise has ever understood anyway), and they will wonder how anyone could see the European Union, based on two interrelated Treaties, the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as different legal entities and not as the one thing that it should have been from the beginning but that it needed to become over a long period of political and legal fights.

Nevertheless, it is now true that from 1 December 2009, the European Union will finally have to stand alone, not on three pillars but on the shoulders of 500 million citizens living in its 27 member states.

The Lisbon Treaty is ratified

2009-11-03T17:40:00.006+01:00

It is like a dream, but the Lisbon Treaty (here: consolidated versions of the two future EU treaties), topic of endless blog posts and uncounted discussions, is finally ratified.

We all know that this is not a perfect Treaty, it's not the massive reform solving all the many problems of the European Union, but I am sick and tired of waiting and discussing a hypothetic reform instead of actually working on making the EU a better place - which is now finally possible.

I still remember when in 2003 I was reading the Constitutional Treaty for the first time, thinking that it would be ratified soon. I also remember discussions on the diplomatic level in 2006 where it was said that certain things couldn't be done until the Constitutional Treaty would enter into force. I remember a simulation of the Berlin Summit in which I represented the German EU-Council Presidency in which we managed to get a similar result to what would become the final declaration that led to the draft Lisbon Treaty in 2007. Not to talk about the two Irish referenda, the German Constitutional Court decision that will be part of German political science discussions for the years to come, and all the ifs and whens that were part of our lives over the last years.

I am glad that all this is over now, and I am looking forward seeing the changes foreseen by the Treaty entering into force. From 1 December, the European Union will be a single entity with international legal personality. It will get its own diplomatic service with Foreign Minister (called differently but I don't mind); the Council and the Parliament will be official co-legislators and the European Council will get a permanent president. And much more is to be changed and adapted with the new Treaty in force.

Today is 03 November 2009, and after almost a decade of deadlock, the Union can finally move on - and as a citizen of this, our common Union, I am really hoping that it will move on for the better!

Update - the news (good for some, bad for others) in other euroblogs: Eurocrat, Nosemonkey, Jean Quatremer, Open Europe blog, England Expects, Ironies Too, Wiktor Dabkowski, Adjucating Europe, EU Law blog, Brussels Blog, Gawin Hewitt, Eva in Europa, Cecilia Malmström, Jon Worth, A Fistful of Europe, Le Taurillon, Grahnlaw, EU Referendum, Central Europe Activ, The European Citizen, Jochen Bittner, European Journal, Jonathan Fryer

The EU in German blogs (10): EU debates health policy - and nobody notices

2009-11-02T21:05:00.002+01:00

The well-known German health politics blogger strappato just published an article titled "Die EU debattiert unbemerkt über Gesundheitspolitik" (English: "EU debates health policy - and nobody notices") in which he criticises a recent public consultation by DG SANCO that remained almost unseen by a wider public.

Strappato was so kind to allow me to translate the integral post and to publish it here on my blog:

The influence of the EU on health policies is underestimated. Not even the recent debates on controversial initiatives like the strengthening of patient rights in cross-border health care or the maceration of the ban on advertisement for pharmaceutical products have been noticed by the public or the media.

Hence, it is no surprise that the EU [Commission] Directorate-General Health and Consumers (DG SANCO) invited to contact the administration in several online fora without being noticed. The occasion: The tenth anniversary of DG SANCO. From 14 September to 9 October, European citizens could use the opportunity to raise their voice in their own languages to address consumer and health policies and to share their views with others, according to the goals formulated.

The response rate was far from overwhelming. In the German forum only eight posts are losing themselves. And not much difference in the other official EU languages. Only the English forum was more lively.

The communication deficit, however, is on the side of the initiators. Established without proper public relation activities, for a too short time period, without moderation. The EU Commission has shown how much she appreciates the participation of citizens. And the announcement that five participants of the "European debate" were to be invited to a seminar together with Commissioners and former Commissioners for health and consumers on 23 October 2009 in Brussels seemed helpless.

Travel and accommodation costs were paid by the EU Commission. A press release on the event? Nothing so far.

Did anyone of you notice this "debate" or the event with citizens? I haven't heard anything about it...

New borders in the Union?

2009-11-01T09:59:00.000+01:00

As an EU citizen you tend to forget that borders still exist, and usually you only realise this when you leave the Union.

But in his latest post, Jon Worth is rightfully complaining about the following incident:

"On the Amsterdam-München CityNightLine service last weekend Netherlands Police boarded the train at Venlo and shone a flashlight in everyone’s faces at the border."

And since I had similar experiences in the night train from Paris to Barcelona and in a normal train from the Netherlands to Germany, I also ask myself whether the member states are trying to establishing new borders within the Union, and in particular within the Schengen area?

If they are doing this, I'd expect the EU institutions to intervene - especially since border controls re-establish the impression that borders are not disappearing, and this would definitely go against the goals and ideals of the Union.

Will Tarja Halonen become European Council President?

2009-10-31T10:52:00.004+01:00

While other sources still search the European Council President on the male side of life, let's follow Jerzy Buzek's proposal and look again at the feminine Europe.

She is number 68 on the Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world, but she is hardly known to a wider public.

Having held three different ministerial posts from 1987-91, being minister for foreign affairs from 1995-2000 (including the Finnish EU Council Presidency in 1999) and being president of Finland since 2000 (including the Finnish EU-Council Presidency in 2006), she has more national and European executive experience than any other women on the continent.

She is a member of the Council of Women World Leaders (CWWL) and was convenor of the International Women Colloquium on Women's Empowerment earlier this year where she became the new president of the CWWL - following Mary Robinson...

So Harja Talonen is a powerful woman with a lot of high level experience and excellent international contacts. She comes from a northern European state and she is a Social Democrat who managed to be in office without creating noise around the continent, which speaks in favour of more diplomatic qualities.

If you add these together, she would not only qualify for the job of European Council President who will need to moderate between the EU's heads of state and government, she also unites a number of demographic and political properties (female, from the north, social democrat) that could well fit the complex equilibrium of the post distribution that we are going to see due to this special declaration to the Lisbon Treaty.

So my bets are on Ms Halonen - and if she won't become European Council President, her profile also fits the Foreign Minister post...

Update: Read also eurosocialist's article "Woman @ EU top: let’s enter the 21st century now!"

EUX.TV on the future European Council President

2009-10-30T08:49:00.000+01:00

EU-Council President Frederik Reinfeldt:

"It's not possible to discuss the role of the European Council President without coming in to the name issues."

European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek:

A woman as European Council President would be an important symbol, as it was to elect somebody from the new member states as EP President

Thanks at Raymond Frenken from EUX.TV for producing the video!

The Council Legal Service: The dark force of the EU?

2009-10-29T11:12:00.002+01:00

Within the EU, almost nothing of substance is decided without the Council, and within the Council there is a dark force: The Legal Service.

Unknown administrators decide whether something the member states want to do is in accordance with the Treaties. And their analyses are secret as you can see in this document as one of the many examples I have come across.

From what I have heard, the Council legal service slows down international negotiations because it first has to approve draft texts that the member states or the Council presidency want to sign or use as EU compromise proposals.

From what I can see in the documents it looks like the Council legal service is proactively shaping what the EU can do or not do:

"The representative of the Legal Service intervened in order to recall certain general principles applicable to the delegation of implementing powers to the Commission, and outlined some drafting suggestions in that regard." (source)

As you can see, the civil servant is telling the member states what they should do, he teaches them about "the principles", acting as if s/he was the guardian of the Treaties.

The Council legal service thus shapes the future law-making of the Union, but all we see from it is empty documents or documents where the most relevant parts are deleted: here, here, here or here.

What legitimacy do these people have to massively influence the Union, to decide over whether something may be done or not? Who is controlling this dark force hidden behind the opaque walls of legal secrecy? Who are these people?

PS.: If anyone has some interesting stories on how the Council legal service influences the EU's decision-making, please share them with us!

Positive blogging, the future, and the one missing fact

2009-10-29T10:36:00.001+01:00

Discussing with a fellow euroblogger yesterday about life and blogging, and thinking about a recent post of mine that I ended with the call to send in critical details about the politician I was writing about, I realised why it is rare that I write rather positive blog posts.

When I write about something that is positive I always have doubts that I missed a detail, that I didn't research hard enough to get the full picture of the story. I look for it, trying to find both sides of the story, but there is nothing, at least nothing I can find. And then the doubts start whether this is a good or a bad sign.

When I come across a negative detail, it is pretty clear that it is negative and that I should write about it. But does finding a positive detail mean that it is really positive? I suppose that this is the old scientific debate between verification and falsification. But it impacts the way I write, because positive accounts of what is happening in the EU are not written as natural as negative ones - not because I don't see them but because I am not sure about them.

And there is a second problem with positive blogging: The future.

Writing about someone or something who/that looks good today might turn out negative in the future (like idols becoming dopers, good leaders turning out to be corrupt, a good bill in one policy having a negative impact in another). So even when you think that you have researched hard enough you are not sure whether the picture you paint today will hold in the future - and whether you aren't contributing to praising something that is actually harmful.

If you think about it, it happens far more often that something that was called positive in the past is seen very negatively in the future, while it occurs rather seldom that a negative issue in the past will be redefined as positive later on.

Positive blogging is thus more risky than negative blogging, it involves more insecurity, and I suppose that this leads to a certain style characterising most of the political blogosphere - which in the end is still not that bad in a world filled with way to many yeasayers...

Leaked: The Commission's EU budget review

2009-10-28T09:43:00.001+01:00

After the recent leak of the Presidency proposal for the Stockholm Programme, FollowTheMoney.eu has now published a leaked draft EU budget review (PDF) by the Commission.

The first and most notable quote is that "the Commission considers that a root and branch reform of the budget is needed". In other words, the EU budget as it stands is completely outdated and needs an extreme reform to stand the demands and necessities of these days.

Then, the document focuses on five priorities the new budget design should focus on:

generation of European added value
concentration on key priorities
greater flexibility and responsiveness
simplification and efficiency of delivery
fairness and added value in the financing of the budget

I won't go into details of these five different points, especially because they are the same as always when somebody proposes to review a budget.

In fact, the whole document is fairly general, and so let me focus on some conclusions and points that are more concrete and that I find important enough to highlight:

cohesion funding needs to be made according to clear conditionality and it also needs to be performance-oriented (p. 12)

funding shall become more competitive and focus on cross-border activities (p. 13)

the climate and energy change budget should be adapted to the goals set, inter alia by making the cohesion and agriculture spending "climate proof" (p.15)

"considerably more funds" for transport infrastructure are needed (p. 16)

a "significant reduction" in agricultural spending (p. 17) and a possible co-financing of direct aids by member states (p. 19) are foreseen

the neighbourhood policy funding shall be reinforced (p. 20)

the EU needs closer co-operation regarding migration and a Migration Management Support Fund should be established (p. 23)

on page 24 there are a number of interesting measures to increase flexibility in the budget

lighter procedures for smaller funds shall be applied (p. 25)

integration of national programmes and EU spending (p. 26) and more national co-funding (p. 27)

develop new financing resources for the EU that make it profit from its own successes (p. 29, 2nd para)

So this document is not about the size of the budget, but it is well about the principles that the EU budget programming should follow. Nevertheless, it is clear that the many addition budget issues mentioned will need a clear reduction in the CAP budget - something that is clear to everyone but the agriculture lobby (kindest regards to the milk farmers who waste our taxes and throw away our milk to pressure on our governments).

Altogether, I think the draft text of the document is quite ambitious in many regards but remains quite vague in many other instances too.

It also mixes policy-related points with an obvious political dimension and administrative issues that almost look self-evident. I am not sure whether this is very helpful because if you have seen diplomatic negotiations around such documents, the debates will concentrate on the policy issues and the most obvious administrative issues that could be tackled immediately are left aside and disappear in the jungle of diplomatic speeches and addenda.

And the CAP reduction will be a tough fight, and the Commission has all my support to fight hard!!

But I am not sure whether the Commission will be able to get this thing through (and we haven't even seen the final version of this document yet) and so by now all it is is nice talk that hasn't gone through the hands of the member states who will talk it down as they always do...

Werner Hoyer: Return to EU politics in the new German government

2009-10-26T23:44:00.003+01:00

While all eyes are on the inexperienced new German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle (with no European profile) and the proposed German EU-Commissioner Günther Oettinger, let's have a look at the second row of German EU politics under the new government.

Werner Hoyer, liberal member of the German parliament (the 'Bundestag'), will return into the Foreign Office as "State Minister" (that is a special title for a state secretary of the Foreign Office having a seat in the Bundestag), a function he already served from 1994-98 in the last government of Helmut Kohl under foreign minister Klaus Kinkel.

As State Minister responsible for Europe (assisting or replacing the foreign minister in important European meetings), the new foreign minister Westerwelle will have an experienced and - as far as I can see - convinced European on his side.

In 1996, Hoyer was the main responsible in the preparation of the Intergovernmental Conference to revise the Maastrich Treaty (which would later be the Amsterdam Treaty), and already at that time he supported a smaller Commission, a stronger co-ordination of the European foreign policy while demanding that the Commission would need to initiate legislation on the demand of the European Council.

But he continued his European activities even after the victory of the Schröder government ended his term in the foreign ministry:

Vice-president of the ELDR from 1997 to 2000, he became president of the European Liberals in 2000 and remained in office until 2005. Consequently, one can expect that he still holds good contacts to the political scene in Brussels, proven by the fact that during a visit to Brussels in May he was able to meet representatives of the Commission and the Council or by his participation in the post-election analysis of the European Liberals in June.

Looking at his policy profile one finds a convinced European with clear liberal attitudes and a transatlantic orientation: In 2007, he supported the Lisbon Treaty, although criticising that the Charta of Fundamental Rights and the clear support of a free internal market were not included in the Reform Treaty. And in an interview published in September, he underlines (from minute 10) that we tend to take the European Union as something given, while forgetting that it needs work. He then demands that politicians should develop a future vision for Europe.

And although he will just be a state minister, Hoyer's role in determining the future German work and positions in Brussels should not be underestimated, in particular since earlier this year, he demanded a stronger role of the German foreign ministry in the coordination of German EU politics (by now this role is shared with the finance ministry and the ministry of the economy)

So, from what I could find, it looks like the German foreign policy, despite its inexperienced new foreign minister, will get a reasonable but determined State Minister for Europe who, as an EU insider, won't need much time to get back to work in Brussels and elsewhere in the Union.

PS.: Please, if you have critical remarks on Hoyer or if you can share links to sources that paint a more critical picture of him, I'd be most glad to include them in the article.

Günther Oettinger will be the German EU-Commissioner: A catastrophe!

2009-10-24T13:41:00.010+02:00

The Christian-democratic minister president of the German federal region of Baden-Württemberg, Günther Oettinger, will become the next German EU-Commissioner.

The man, here on a photo with Barroso, isn't known for much in the Federal Republic of Germany (despite the way he speaks), but his promotion for EU-Commissioner proves the trust Chancellor Merkel has in him.

The German TV news told that he seemed to have underlined his abilities in economic policies during the coalition negotiations, but apart from that he does not really have a strong policy profile on the national scale. From his CV you can see that his main policy qualification was in media policies, but nobody would mention this when asked about Oettinger.

For the first time he appeared on the national sphere in 2005 when he became minister president, and the only time he became really seen on this level was when he defended former Nazi Hans Filbinger, an affair in which he lost much credibility in the country.

When you look at his CV (or here), there are neither hints to any international or European experience nor any information about his language skills. And from all televised appearances of Oettinger I have got the impression that he is unable to communicate, something that would be most needed in a European Commission that wants to reach out to the people and peoples of the Union.

I think that is one of the worst choices one could have made for EU-Commissioner, and the Twitter reactions are also mainly negative. Even people who voted for the Christian Democrats or who support the present coalition seem to largely share this opinion.

So the only reasons to promote him for this position could be his technocratic skills and the trust Angela Merkel seems to have in him - or they want to get rid of him from Baden-Württemberg, one of the two economically most successful federal regions of Germany, with relevant power in the German second chamber.

Sorry, European Union, but Germany is sending a failure to Brussels - I hope he will not get an important portfolio (which is an unlikely hope, though...)!

The issue in euroblogs and German blogs: Kosmopolito, Europa-transparent, Lars Haise, Grahnlaw, Jean Quatremer, student86

CAP and Commissioner Fischer Boel's metaphor

2009-10-23T13:11:00.001+02:00

Earlier today I was complaining on Twitter that the Commission blogs were almost quiet this October, but now EU Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel published a post that is way beyond expectations.

In the post, she is heavily criticising the recent dairy farmer decision by the EU Council, and she uses a marvellously undiplomatic metaphor to do this:

So to put it a bit bluntly, we are currently using one hand to shoot ourselves in the foot by unnecessarily increasing production costs whilst the other hand is trying to stop the bleeding with cool cash.

As I pointed out at a recent conference at the European Policy Centre, it sometimes seems as if I were part of a television comedy, except for the fact that there is absolutely nothing to laugh about.

Thank you, Ms Fischer Boel, especially since you are right in criticising the ministers for not taking decisions on GMOs while wasting money on milk production that is way to high over demand or way below efficiency if the prices are this low - below production costs - as they are now.

This is blogging worth publishing, and other Commissioners could use the example to actually blog instead of producing kind-of-press-releases.

Do electoral systems influence women's representation in politics?

2009-10-23T10:19:00.000+02:00

It is a fact that women are generally less represented in politics, and discussions around Mary Robinson are just one result of this deficit.

The Council of Europe has been dealing with questions of electoral systems at this year's Forum for the Future of Democracy (ending today), and one of the issues was the effect of electoral systems on women's representation in politics.

In a now declassified document from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe titled "Impact of electoral systems on women’s representation in politics" the rapporteur Lydie Err comes to the following conclusions:

women are still grievously underrepresented in politics in most Council of Europe member states;
the lack of equal representation of women and men in political and public decision-making is a threat to the legitimacy of democracies and a violation of the human right of gender equality which must be rectified as a priority;
the most important factor leading to the current underrepresentation of women in politics is linked to attitudes, customs and behaviours widespread in society which disempower women, discriminate against them, and hold them hostage to prescribed role-models and stereotypes according to which women are “not suited” to decision-making and politics;
these attitudes, customs and behaviours also influence a country’s institutional, party and electoral landscape; but conversely, a change in that landscape can also impact on society’s attitudes;
changing the electoral system to one more favourable to women’s representation in politics, including by introducing gender quotas, can lead to more gender balanced, and thus more legitimate, political and public decision-making;
in theory, the following electoral system should be most favourable to women’s representation in parliament: a proportional representation list system in a large constituency and/or a nation-wide district, with legal threshold, closed lists and a mandatory quota which provides not only for a high portion of female candidates, but also for strict rank-order rule (e.g. a zipper system), and effective sanctions (preferably not financial, but rather the non-acceptance of candidatures/ candidate lists) for non-compliance.

I think I agree with the conclusions, but I am not sure whether this is of any value...

I suppose that the study itself will not have a big impact, because all it does is to reflect the complexity with which general attitudes and institutional design are intertwined. I don't see any good argumentation on how one could put the measures proposed into practice, and I don't see the actors willing to do this.

What we have here is thus yet another account of inequalities in our societies - but what we learn again leaves us at loss how to actually change the situation.

But why not repeating it, here and elsewhere, as long as the situation is as it is?

The "new" European Parliament?

2009-10-21T00:36:00.002+02:00

Yesterday, Barroso presented himself in the European Parliament, answering questions from Members of this, our common Parliament, and several blogs have reported about it: here, here, here, here.

Barroso even got coverage on the EP's feed on Twitter, and a summary on the EP website. But did anyone really notice? Did the "new" Parliament make anything out of this change? Did MEPs comment publically, use new technologies to communicate about this event? I didn't notice much.

And isn't this "event" a good example that not much has changed, that MEPs, new or old in the newly elected parliament, did not use the new start to adapt to 21st century communication?

Isn't this kind of public critique by MEPs on the working methods within the Parliament or this kind of active communication on Twitter still the exception, although we would expect our representatives to use the means that our time provides to talk directly to and with citizens (or at least to an interested public)?

Didn't MEPs hire people with communication skills, don't they get enough internal and external expertise to get their work to a new level, making the European Parliament a "communication parliament" instead of just being a "working parliament" hiding its expertise in the Brussels bubble?

Do people like MEP Alvaro who speak at fancy public affairs events but who just follow 18 people on Twitter actually contribute to changing the European Parliament or aren't they just talking about it?

I do not see a new European Parliament, no matter whether it has the first "Facebook president", I see the old Parliament with some new people - what do you see?

Personal Democracy Forum Europe in Barcelona: I won't come

2009-10-20T00:14:00.003+02:00

Update: The critique to Micah at the end of the post regarding my blogging at the PDF Europe blog was based on a misunderstanding which has been sorted out.

PdF Europe in Barcelona.

I won't come. Too expensive (high fee + travel + accommodation). Too much meta-stuff.

Too many speakers that I expect to speak about themselves, about theoretical projects, about thousand things that have been said a thousand times without changing anything.

No visible spirit. Too professional. Not for real people. Thus against the spirit of the personal democracy. Not interesting.

(This is the answer to the Personal Democracy Forum Europe people who asked me via mail whether I would promote the conference - enter into a "promotion partnership" - on my blog and in all my communication, getting 20% reductions for my readers and a free card if I got four tickets sold - which is a sign that the demand cannot be that high and which is a sign of the business-like spirit of the conference that makes it sound like a sterile exercise.)

PS.: My high expectations about the PdF - who invited me to blog on their platform (which I did once) - were also massively disappointed when I realised that its president Micah L. Sifry wanted to see every post before I would blog them - which is against my blogging ethos - and who did not even activate comments to posts. If this is their vision of personal democracy, then we have a different vision.

Ask Barroso about his European vision!

2009-10-19T22:11:00.000+02:00

The year 2009 is slowly approaching its end, and I haven't heard any major European politician speak about her/his European vision, her/his European dream for the future of the EU.

All year, we have been discussing about important persons, about treaties, about national politics during European elections.

But at no moment we had any ideational leadership, there was no one of profile sharing a vision of how the EU should be in the future - if you exclude Jean Quatremer's scenarios that look so negative or technocratic that I don't even want to talk about them.

Tomorrow, MEPs will have the chance to question Barroso, for the first time ever, in a plenary session of the European Parliament.

This would be the moment to ask him about where he sees the Union in 10 years, it would be the moment to get him out of his suit of armour made of boringness and ambiguity. It would be the moment to make him say something of value, of importance, for the first time since he is in office, at least for the first time I would remember.

This is what I actually want to hear from him: Where does he want us to be? Is he willing to lead - or is he planning to stand behind the fence and just to look at the other children playing on the street? Will the Union get back to a European dream that is worth the term, and is the Commission able to deliver this spirit?

Bureaucracy or brilliance, past or future, narrow-mindedness or a Europe of open spirits?

Probably MEPs will instead ask him about little policy details, about Lisbon, about the Stockholm programme, about enlargement and they won't get anything but diplomatic answers, nothing that is close to a vision of our Europe - a human Europe - nothing that is anywhere near to what the Union needs if it still wants to be a guiding concept for a whole continent and its 800 million people, of which 500 million are already citizens of the EU.

But if anyone has a light moment tomorrow, if anyone has the courage to leave the paths that are paved by old habits and political games, just ask Mr. Barroso about his vision - and if he has nothing to say, then let him go and hide forever in his snail shell!

The EU in German blogs (9): Leak of Swedish Presidency draft of Stockholm Programme (updated)

2009-10-16T00:44:00.005+02:00

----------------------------------------
UPDATE (16 October 2009, 17:45): About 24h after netzpolitik.org informed about the leak, and some 15 hours after this blog post was published, the Swedish EU-Council Presidency announced via Twitter that they had made their draft of the Stockholm Programme public.

Here is the webpage with the announcement and here is the official document.
----------------------------------------

In general, the German blogosphere is swinging between apolitical nothingness and overpoliticised commentaries, but it lacks a sense of investigative or analytical blogging that would fill the gaps left by classical media outlets.

And there is even less relevant content on EU-related subjects, not to speak of "news".

But yesterday, the most important German blog, netzpolitik.org, helped to inform about the leak of the latest Swedish EU-Council Presidency draft of the Stockholm Programme (own translation; 1 link added, 1 link adapted):

"We had just reported about it, and now a current version of the Stockholm Programme has been leaked from the negotiations in the EU Council of Ministers. Here is the PDF [and here a better version; JF].

The document dealing with internal security in the EU between 2010 and 2014 is the basis for the decision of the Justice and Home Affairs Council at the end of November and of the European Council at the beginning of December.

It would be nice if someone could produce a synopsis where one could easily see the differences to the first version issued by the Commission in June. In other words: Who could make a diff?"

Thanks a lot to netzpolitik.org for spreading the news!

Maybe some of the European readers will find this document - and also others provided by Statewatch.org - helpful to prevent our governments and the EU administration from making our Union a place where state security and fear dominate over freedom and the rights of citizens (or of any human being staying within our borders).

Creating noise: Blog Action Day '09: Climate Change

2009-10-15T13:31:00.001+02:00

Wow, it is Blog Action Day '09, and this year it is on... Climate Change.

But what will this action day bring to the world:

More noise on a topic that is already covered by so many people that you actually don't need more people writing about it.

You don't need blog action, you need real action. So what the Blog Action Day will do is to create more noise in a debate where it gets more and more difficult to see who actually provides some added value to the discussions - or who is actually doing something to prevent our world from drowning in its own waste and resource overuse.

So thank you, Blog Action Day, for creating even more noise, so that nobody will hear the voices of reason!

Fingerprints, migrants, and police cooperation between EU member states

2009-10-15T11:43:00.002+02:00

Often it is really hard to track member states' positions on crucial issues, like data protection or migration - but sometimes you can find some very interesting things.

In September, the Commission issued a Proposal for a Council Decision on

"requesting comparisons with EURODAC data by Member States' law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes"

This proposal - criticised already in June by the European Council on Refugees and Exiles in a memorandum (PDF) - starts with the following assessment:

"Fingerprint data is especially useful information for law enforcement purposes, as it constitutes an important element in establishing the exact identity of a person. The usefulness of fingerprint databases in fighting crime is a fact that has been repeatedly acknowledged.

Fingerprint data of asylum seekers are collected and stored in the Member State in which the asylum application was filed, as well as in EURODAC.

[...]

However, while Member States successfully access asylum seekers fingerprints on a national level, it seems that access to asylum seekers fingerprint databases of other Member States is more problematic. The reason is that there is a structural information and verification gap since there is currently no single system that is accessible to law enforcement authorities which enables to determine the Member State that has information on an asylum seeker."

As a consequence of this assessment and following the analysis of what is already possible under EU law, the Commission proposes the following:

"The proposed action establishes the basis for the right of Member States as well as Europol to request a comparison of fingerprint data or a latent with EURODAC data. A successful comparison with result in a 'hit' reply from EURODAC, which will be acompanied by all data that is held in EURODAC regarding the fingerprint. Requests for supplementary information following a hit would not be regulated in the proposed Council Decision but rather be covered by existing instruments on the exchange of law enforcement information.

The scope of the proposal will be the fight against terrorist offences and serious criminal offences, such as trafficking in human beings and drugs."

Today, a summary of discussions of the Police Cooperation Working Party of the EU Council on 30 September 2009 has been published. And interestingly, the positions of the member states regarding the proposal have been recorded - and only Belgium seems to be totally against it:

"A vast majority of delegations (AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, FI, HU, IT, LV, LT, SL, PT, PL, UK, SE, MT, NL) welcomed the proposal and expressed their support to it.

BE indicated that, although significant progress had been made since the discussions on this issue in 2007 which resulted in Council Conclusions on access to Eurodac for law enforcement authorities, it continued to have serious concerns about this proposal.

Various delegations introduced a scrutiny reservation (AT, BE, CY, CZ, EE, EL, FI, IR, LT, MT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK, UK), and/or a Parliamentary reservation (DK, MT, NL, PL, SE, UK)."

The next meeting of the Working Party is set for Monday, 19 October 2009 - maybe someone in Brussels could try to follow up on this?!

An Intergroup on Youth Issues in the European Parliament?

2009-10-14T16:10:00.000+02:00

European Parliament intergroups are a rather unknown but still interesting subject for non-insiders to the European Parliament or the Brussels bubble, which for me is proved by the interest my article on intergroups (covering the last European Parliament) is still raising.

European youth groups and some MEPs, after the success of making 2011 the "European Year of Volunteering", are now pushing for the creation of an Intergroup on Youth Issues in the European Parliament to get more influence.

Part of their effort is displayed in the following video (via letzi from the European Youth Forum):

Parlement européen - Intergroupe jeunesse
Hochgeladen von damienabad. - Sieh die neuesten Nachrichten Videos an.

But here, as for any other intergroup, and despite the fact that I support the cause, the question will be: Necessary co-ordination or just hidden lobbyism? - and the answers will have to be given by the participating person.