There is no explanation in the article of why she is depicted in this way, so a lot of European Voice readers will be mildly puzzled.
Aminatou Haidar is a human rights activist from the Western Sahara, most of which has been occupied by Morocco for the last thirty years. Last year she was given the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights Award; last month she was in New York to receive the Train Foundation's Civil Courage Prize. On her return to the Western Sahara yesterday morning, she was arrested by the Moroccans, purportedly for failing to complete her immigration form on landing.
This was pretty much announced in advance by King Mohammed VI of Morocco in a speech a week ago, when he announced that "it is time to stop outlaws taking advantage of civic freedoms to agitate from within". This in turn was probably helped by Hillary Clinton the week before endorsing the Moroccan policy on the illegal occupation of other people's territory.
I know some of you guys are fans of Hillary's, but really this is disgusting. The EU is not much better. It can put out a statement condemning Azerbaijan's treatment of bloggers, but I haven't heard a peep from them on the arrest of someone who happens to be awkward for the Moroccans. It is a shameful performance.
First of all, Tony Blair was never really a candidate. He got backing from people who hadn't really thought about it much, including I suspect himself, but once it became clear that the centre right wanted one of their own, he was toast. In any case, the small states were always going to be unenthusiastic about a leader from a large state taking on the role. So, of the 27 member states, the heads of government of Austria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK are ruled out for being in the wrong political family. That leaves 13 countries. But we can also rule out France, Germany and Italy because the small states are unlikely to agree to an EU President from a large state (and anyway Sarkozy, Merkel and Berlusconi are not interested). That leaves 10. But we can also rule out the newest member states, who are not sufficiently known quantities as yet; there will in due time be a Bulgarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish or Romanian candidate, but that time is not now.
That leaves only four countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Sweden. The Swedes' stock is high, but they have the disadvantage that they hold the EU presidency at the moment and it looks really bad if you are chairing the meeting which selects you for promotion. That leaves the Benelux prime ministers, Balkenende, Juncker and Van Rompuy. Juncker is the longest serving PM in the EU (since 1995), and is personally well regarded, but his country is not; where France, Germany, Italy and the UK are too big, Luxembourg is really too small, at least for the first holder of the post. That leaves Balkenende and Van Rompuy.
Balkenende is the second-longest serving PM in the EU (since 2002), which has given him time to put a lot of people's backs up; the then Belgian foreign minister, now European Commissioner, Karel De Gucht described him with brutal accuracy as "a mix between Harry Potter and a rigid bourgeois without charisma" (and this is not a linguistic problem as they share the same native language). Van Rompuy on the other hand is rather sweet and writes haikus on his personal website. More to the point, in his ten months as prime minister he has rescued Belgium from the point of institutional collapse which it reached under his disastrous predecessor, and thus has a proven record of getting people with different native languages and very different political perspectives to work together. He won't be a tremendously high profile EU president, but he will be a consensus-building figure who will make his bits of the institutions work and not interfere with other people's turf - be that member states or other senior EU officials.
I'm not a fan of his party, but I am rather a fan of Van Rompuy, and although most of the reasons why he will get the job are actually bad reasons - there is really no good justification for excluding non-Christian Democrats, or anyone from big, tiny or new member states - I think he will actually do it rather well, which is the best reason imaginable to give it to him. The downside is, of course, that Belgium will then need another prime minister, which raises the depressing prospect of Leterme coming back to screw things up again.
This also improves the chances of David Milliband getting the foreign policy job, whose fate matters much more to me. Again, most of the reasons why are bad - the Socialists get the foreign policy job if the Christian Democrats get the top spot, and then there is a real shortage of Socialist foreign ministers that a) anyone has heard of and b) would be personally and politically acceptable (Bernard Kouchner being the best example of someone who clears the first hurdle but not the second). However, while Milliband may have pulled his punches a bit in the current vicious Labour internal struggle, he is a credible at European level (and not tainted by Iraq to the extent that Blair would have been). The question really is does he want it?
(See also discussion here. And you'll note that many of the above links go to the excellent blog of the Economist's David Rennie, which is syndicated to Livejournal, though with technical difficulties, as
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/syndicated.gif){kind=small}
econ_charlemgne.)
- My own comment - this is not the first I have heard of this rumour; we should take it seriously.
- Why Eight is not canon (old post)
- For the inaugural stint in this high-profile function, EU citizens should expect the selection of a decent national statesman, a statesman with impeccable European credentials, a respected and experienced politician, with a genuine ability to convince his former colleagues with the right mix of technical and political skills. Blair is not that man. He is, as the Financial Times's Martin Wolf once stated, just another British populist.
- So Tony Blair is being considered for the job of European Union president... If the new, improved, post-Lisbon EU is to have any credibility or integrity, it needs a different leader.
Meanwhile this is a brilliant parody of the "No" posters:
- Disgraceful.
- ...without public announcements, the administration of President George W. Bush removed all nuclear weapons from Greece in 2001 and from Britain in 2008, plus withdrawing most of the deployed weapons from Germany in 2007 and a large number from Italy... Today, five countries [Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey] host "tactical" nuclear weapons... The basing countries thereby have many of the responsibilities of nuclear weapon states but little of the ultimate authority... Does NATO unity really depend on outmoded weapons and increasingly obsolescent delivery aircraft? ... Washington and five European capitals have it easily within their power to create a de facto European nuclear weapon free zone between the French and Russian borders. No real security would be lost; much money would be saved.
- "At this point the challenge is how to go about flushing out the Cyprus moon rock"
- and watch the complete canonical Whoniverse in one sitting without toilet breaks, sleep or anything else, it'd take you 15 days, 19 hours and 36 minutes to get through One-Ten, Torchwood, Sarah Jane, even K-9 & Company.
- Scroll down for his interview with a Czech journalist
Isn't it undemocratic to have a second referendum? I find it a peculiar argument to say that there can only ever be one referendum on a particular topic. I'm not especially in favour of them anyway, but if you like referendums in the first place then it seems odd to object when you get more than one. (Unless, of course, you only like them when you agree with the results.)
So has the Lisbon Treaty been amended to take the concerns of Irish voters into consideration? No. One concrete change to the EU has been made as a result of last year's referendum (or rather, one proposed change has been dropped), but I'll get to that in a moment. At their June 2009 summit, the EU's leaders made a decision that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't affect a) the peculiar provisions of the Irish constitution on abortion, the family and education, b) taxation and c) Irish neutrality. Since this is just re-stating what was already in the Treaty, it isn't an amendment (and while the decision will be incorporated into EU law eventually, that won't be until the next new member state joins).
So how does that change things? Well, if you are an Irish voter who voted against Lisbon last year in the misinformed belief that it would lead to the EU interfering in Irish policy on abortion, taxation and/or defence, you can feel reassured. (If you are an Irish voter who hopes that the EU might in future interfere in these issues, not so much; but the Lisbon Treaty was never going to be much use to you in that regard anyway, and see below on the German Constitutional Court.) I note that the Eurobarometer post-referendum opinion poll (here, page 19) found that a total of 14% of "No" voters voted against Lisbon because of their (misinformed) concerns about one or other of these issues. That's not a lot but it would be enough to produce a different result.
And that's all? No. There's also a declaration on workers' rights, which has even less legal force than the decision on abortion, taxation and neutrality, but may give comfort to those who fear the EU is a neo-liberal capitalist conspiracy. Though I am uncertain how many of those individuals will be reassured by statements made by the 27 EU heads of state and government, who presumably are key co-conspirators. Also the Irish government made a further declaration on neutrality and defence, which of course isn't binding on the other 26 governments.
So there is no concrete change? Actually there is one very important concrete change, but the decision on that was made in December 2008 rather than June 2009. The current rules (the Nice Treaty) compel the EU to reduce the number of European Commissioners when they are next appointed (which will be in the next few months). As a result of the Irish referendum vote, however, the EU has decided to keep one Commissioner per member state (a concern cited by 6% of No voters in the Eurobarometer survey). But it cannot do this unless the Lisbon Treaty is passed (because Lisbon gives the member states discretion to decide how many Commissioners there are; Nice simply says there should be fewer). So there is a very immediate and practical consequence of a "No" vote on 2 October - fewer European Commissioners.
Does that matter? I think so. I have never bought the argument that the European Commission with 27+ members is too large to function - sitting as I do in my office beside its headquarters, it seems to function just fine. There is plenty of work to go around. I admit that I scoffed when the new Romanian Commissioner was given the portfolio of multilingualism, which sounds terribly waffly, but I was wrong to do so; he supervises 15% of the Commission's total workforce, DG Translation being the largest single directorate-general - it's not glamorous but someone has to keep things moving. Given that the work is there, and that Commissioners, for all that they are supposed to be above such things, are in fact important representatives of national interests in Brussels, it makes sense to have one per member state.
The German Constitutional Court? Ah yes. This actually makes much more difference than the European Council declarations. Germany's Constitutional Court has made a ruling on the Lisbon Treaty which basically kills off any idea of a European federal super-state. A lot of my German Euro-federalist friends have been looking down in the mouth since the ruling came out on 30 June, and now that I've read it I can see why. Key quote: "authorisation to transfer sovereign powers to the European Union [is] granted under the condition that the sovereign statehood of a constitutional state is maintained". The court essentially allows the German government to sign up to Lisbon but only if the level of democratic scrutiny of Lisbon and of future EU developments is enhanced, and also makes it clear that there are limits to how far European integration can go. The ruling should also dismay Lisbon's opponents, however, as the court concludes that Lisbon itself is not a threat to German sovereignty, as long as it has been properly approved by the German democratic system. (Which has since happened.)
So, the bottom line is... As I said last time, the changes proposed in the Lisbon Treaty are indeed mostly improvements, and certainly will make life easier for those (a small, self-selected and privileged minority, admittedly) who have to operate within European politics. Voting against it doesn't kill the EU, or globalisation, or anything like that; it just perpetuates the existing machinery. The Irish government is somewhat over-selling the guarantees they have received from the other member states, but then the "No" campaign shamelessly exaggerated the effects of the Treaty last year and continues to do so.
- The US is the only major industrialised country that does not provide regular healthcare to all its citizens. Instead, they are required to provide for themselves - and 50 million people can't afford the insurance. As a result, 18,000 US citizens die every year needlessly, because they can't access the care they require. That's equivalent to six 9/11s, every year, year on year.
Well, I know about him now. ( Read more... )
There are some irritating errors with foreign names, including one appalling footnote about NATO which is probably libellous, but in general it is a much more interesting book than the title and rather drab cover would suggest.
- Sad times at the British Embassy in Tirana
- The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meets
- The European project, 52 years on
- China Mieville on the Writer of the Century
Presidency Press Statement on the state of play regarding the ‘telecoms package’I suspect this is more an attempt by the caretaker technocratic Czech government to explain to the more impatient member states (ie France) why they haven't done anything about it, rather than an attempt to nudge the new European Parliament into changing its mind. Will keep watching this space though.
The Council of the European Union today held an informal discussion on the state of play regarding the ‘telecoms package’. The Member States consider this set of legislative proposals very important, not least because of the current economic downturn and the role the sector of information and communication technologies can play in mitigating its impact. The Council agrees that the three proposals of the ‘telecoms package’ should be adopted as soon as possible.
That is also why the Council, represented by the Czech Presidency, had spared no effort in intense discussions with the European Parliament on the package earlier this year, and finally reached a compromise solution with the Parliament’s negotiators on 28 April. However, in a plenary session on 6 May, the European Parliament adopted one provision (known as amendment 138 or 46) that runs counter to the agreement.
The Council is ready to work towards a solution of this last outstanding problem and looks forward to working with the newly appointed European Parliament during conciliation. However, the Council cannot take any formal position at present, since the Parliament has still not officially informed the Member States about its second reading position.
Likewise to my Lib Dem friends, alphabetically arranged: Stewart Arnold, Neil Corlett, Chris Davies, Andrew Duff, Jonathan Fryer, Simon James, Ben Jones, Christopher Le Breton, Sarah Ludford, Deborah Newton-Cook, Rebecca Taylor, Diana Wallis, Graham Watson, and Peter Welch. I will see most of you in Brussels one way or the other.
Also tomorrow the Netherlands elects its MEPs. Best of luck to Sophie in 't Veld, as lead candidate for D'66 - hope you get re-elected too.
Some countries will vote on Friday and Saturday, but most on Sunday. I shall cast my vote for Annemie Neyts here in Belgium; my best wishes go to Marianne Mikko in Estonia, Gisela Kallenbach, Doris Pack, and Heide Rühle in Germany, István Szent-Iványi in Hungary, Jelko Kacin in Slovenia and Ana Maria Gomes in Portugal; and especially to Nina Suomalainen in Finland who is not an incumbent but trying to get elected for the first time.
This is probably the most interesting European election in Northern Ireland since 1979 (though that is not saying much). Given the strength of their respective parties in recent contests, Diane Dodds for the DUP and Bairbre de Brún of Sinn Féin must be considered very likely to retain their parties' seats. The interesting questions are:
- will Jim Allister erode enough of his former party's vote to allow de Brún to top the poll?
- will he do well enough to overtake Nicholson for the third seat? And
- will the Unionist vote be sufficiently splintered or demoralised that Maginness overtakes the second-placed Unionist and wins the third seat for the SDLP?
Incidentally this means that Northern Ireland will probably end up with three eurosceptic MEPs. I don't have opinion poll figures to hand re the degree of popular euroscepticism in the province but I doubt that it is anywhere near 75%, let alone 100%.
Those of you voting in any part of the UK may find this site of interest / amusement.
- Oxfam on the EU and climate change
- A good question (asked by a good friend)
- The real problem with writing about the EU: it's not very interesting.
- Cameron, alas, is merely reflecting the primitive state of the British debate on the EU.
- The Irish Times' relatively sober print account is harrowing enough; the YouTube video even more so.
- sf academic conference this week in Leuven - alas, I don't think I can go
- I completely agree with #2, #7, #8, #9, #10 and particularly #11. Mildly in favour of #3 and #4 (#4 sort of happens anyway). Neutral on #1 and #6. Only bad idea is #5.
- I must say I don't agree with the first recommendation in comments!
- EurActiv's guide - a bit more sober!
- Good overview of European Parliament elections - for an American audience to boot!
- 1981 hunger strike could have ended three months earlier
- 21 June is to be a Day of Private Reflection on the Troubles
- More on Attlee - the case for the defence
I had a look at the site, concentrating in particular on the page about EU foreign policy, which is my particular area of interest. I was startled to see that it starts and ends with two outright lies.
The header to the article reads as follows:
The Lisbon Treaty further militarises the EUThere is no such text in the Lisbon Treaty or in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. The line quoted is from Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is not an EU document, not a Constitution, commits its signatories to abolish the death penalty except in extraordinary circumstances, and has anyway been in force since 1998 so it is a bit late to start worrying about it now.
One of the articles of the Constitution allows for the death penalty to be introduced "in time of war or of imminent threat of war".
The final paragraph of the No2EU article reads as follows (original punctuation preserved):
The Lisbon Treaty does not require EU military actions to be in accordance with the United Nations Charter,I quote from the text of the Lisbon Treaty, paragraph 49, my emphasis:
The common security and defence policy shall be an integral part of the common foreign and security policy. It shall provide the Union with an operational capacity drawing on civilian and military assets. The Union may use them on missions outside the Union for peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.Most of the other statements on the page are debatable, but it's pretty brave (or something) to put two such blatant untruths top and bottom. A useful reminder that the eurosceptic Left can be just as crazy as the eurosceptic Right.
Even so, there were a couple of interesting points that hadn't occurred to me before. The first was Tocci's analysis of the dysfunctionality of EU institutions. Within the EU, Greece pushed Greek Cypriot interests, and the Commission worked on Greek Cypriot accession (as this was the mandate it had received from member states, at Greek insistence). Nobody in the EU actually had conflict resolution as their goal - certainly nobody who was a significant actor within the system. There was also a lack of information inside the EU about what was really going on in Cyprus, but I feel that even if (as I do) EU officials had had subscriptions to the daily headlines from the Cypriot press, that still wouldn't have provided the necessary motivation. The EU is good at resolving conflicts among its own members, but much less so along its borderlands.
The second point which jumped out at me is not Tocci's, but her summary of John Burton's general theory of conflict: that it arises when certain basic human needs (physical security, justice, recognition of one's identity) are frustrated. These are non-negotiable; the ways in which they can be satisfied ("satisfiers", eg local autonomy) however are negotiable. Secession is not an end in itself: the real desires are for security and self-determination. The introductory chapter summarises other writers such as Zartman and Galtung, but this was the point that really struck a chord with me. I'll need to hunt out Burton's work, and also any critiques that are out there.
( full list )
Sorry, Ms Thyssen, you may be my neighbour but you've lost any chance you might have had of my voting for you; I'm all the happier to support Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck with my vote come June 7th.
The British MEPs who voted against or abstained were all Tories or ex-UKIP.
The Irish MEPs who voted against were all Fine Gael.
The Belgians who voted abstained were CD&V, and the one who voted against is MR (though he now says this was a mistake).
MEPs rejected the package because it would have exposed internet users to the blocking of their accounts as a penalty for illegal downloading. A parliament amendment inserted to protect these rights was removed just days before the vote, in a meeting between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. The parliament plenary rebelled against this move.European Parliament:
A user's Internet access cannot be restricted without prior ruling by the judicial authorities, insists the European Parliament reinstating one of its first-reading amendments.The Czechs are pissed off:
It is evident that the whole package has become hostage to the pre-election campaign of a part of MEPs. The issue of internet users’ rights, which was behind the decision of the MEPs not to respect the compromise, is indeed important and needs to be discussed thoroughly. However, the telecoms package is not the right place to deal with it. The question has nothing to do with the aims and purposes of telecoms market reform.Liberals claim credit:
[Comment: Indeed, how dare MEPs pay attention to voters' wishes, just because the member states wanted to sneak some repressive legislation into a proposal where it didn't really belong?]
Sophie in ´t Veld (D66, Netherlands) said: "I am very pleased that the EP did not bow to the attempt of the Council to use the back door to insert a rule restricting the access to the internet."Of course, the Liberals can hardly claim sole credit: 407 MEPs voted in favour of their amendment, with 57 votes against and 171 abstentions. Congrats to all who contacted their MEPs on this issue - the Czech government clearly identifies us as the villains of the piece! In particular, of course, kudos to La Quadrature du Net for their eternal vigilance.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Syndicate
