By Pietro De Matteis

Such a strong decision was in the air especially in Washington. The US was expecting a new EU after the Lisbon treaty: more coherent, stronger and more comprehensible. An Europe that after about 8 years since the Laeken Convention, that started the path towards EU’s institutional reform, could finally become an effective partner to manage international issues and challenges.  Also Americans as well as Europeans were expecting that the EU could finally have a, meaning ONE, face to represent its stances in the international arena, thanks to its new President and “foreign minister”. However less than one month was sufficient to see those hopes vanishing or at least to postponed for another while.

It will take in fact some time before the EU manages to think strategically and at the moment it still struggles in understanding what it means being a strategic partner, in this occasion for the US. Many sources tell us that at the end of the last EU-US summit in Prague in 2009, the US were very disappointed by the lack of content of the discussions. This by itself made the foundation for a new summit this year shaky. However the Obama administration  has kept calling for a stronger transatlantic partnership and very recently, on January 30th in France the Secretary of States Hillary Clinton underlined that: “A strong Europe is critical to our security and our prosperity”.

Unfortunately as we have all found out on Monday (January 1st) Obama have finally decided that he will not take part in the EU-US summit. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. officials claimed that the reasons were the uncertainties over the location and on who should represent the EU especially in light of the new institutional framework. On the other hand in the previous days, voices were telling that Obama would prefer to meet with EC President Barroso and European Council President Von Rompuy, nonetheless the Spanish presidency stuck firm in its decision of holding the summit in Madrid.

This is very unfortunate. The EU once again, has not been able to show its consistency and relevance, while the interests of one Member State have made lose credibility to the Union as a whole. However we can difficulty disagree with Obama’s decision: he has several challenges in front of him both domestically and internationally which are more relevant to his administration than fixing our institutional confusion and internal conflicts. Sure thing is that Obama might wish to have stronger allies especially as China is getting more assertive as we have seen lately over US decision to sell arms to Taiwan or to meet with the Dalai Lama.

However this could not be it. The Spanish presidency seems to be keen to make another Transatlantic-gaffe and in the voice of its Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos claimed on January 26th that France had been one of the main supporters of lifting the embargo and “Spain is following that line”. It comes without saying that the US would not appreciate that move as they did not about 5 years ago in the latest attempt to lift an arms embargo imposed against China since Tian an Men.

If a positive note can be drawn from this umpteenth EU disappointment is that hopefully this will teach European leaders that the EU structure should stop being the issue at stake in international discussions and instead become a credible player because; as they say in Italy, “dirty clothes are washed at home”. Also in the EU we should stop expecting our partners to struggle understanding how the EU works, especially in light of the fact that many of our leaders still have of it a blurred idea. Demanding so would be “asking for the moon”, which during a global economic crisis is beyond reach even for the US.

————————

I will not hide that I was expecting a similar decision by the US administration. It is also in this light that about a week before the announcement by President Obama of his intention to skip the EU-US summit, I started a “Facebook Action” to lobby the Spanish Presidency to reconsider its stance on holding the Summit in Madrid instead of Brussels (link below).

————————

In the news:

– Spanish PM accused of pushing to host EU-US summit (27/01/2010)

http://www.euractiv.com/en/priorities/spanish-pm-accused-pushing-host-eu-us-summit/article-189287

– El Gobierno intenta evitar que la cumbre UE-Estados Unidos se vaya a Bruselas (27/01/2010)

http://www.abc.es/20100127/nacional-politica/gobierno-intenta-evitar-cumbre-20100127.html

– Obama to Skip Annual EU Summit (01/02/2010)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704722304575037650352214396.html

– US blames Lisbon Treaty for EU summit fiasco (03/02/2010)

http://euobserver.com/9/29398/?rk=1

– Clinton calls for stronger trans-Atlantic partnership (30/01/2010)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-01/30/c_13156482.htm

– China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo (28/01/2010)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-01/28/c_13154869.htm

– Facebook Action: The next EU-US summit (May2010) MUST BE IN BRUSSELS, NOT MADRID!

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=275418944661

As some of you might be aware of currently there is a public consultation with regards to the European Citizens’ Initiative.

This has been introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and allows 1 million citizens from the EU to present to the European Commission a request to propose legislation on a certain issue. Currently the details are not yet defined and the Commission is asking the opinion of citizens and other stakeholders. This is a great opportunity to fill that notorious “Democratic Deficit” and these “Citizens’ initiatives” might make a significant effect on the development of a European public sphere.

In the Green Paper, which comes together with the public consultation, there are a few key issues which are addressed, namely:

• Minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come
• Minimum number of signatures per Member State
• Eligibility to support a citizens’ initiative – minimum age
• Form and wording of a citizens’ initiative
• Requirements for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures
• Time limit for the collection of signatures
• Registration of proposed initiatives
• Requirements for organisers – Transparency and funding
• Examination of citizens’ initiatives by the Commission
• Initiatives on the same issue

In this article I will focus only on the first point which I believe is one of the most sensitive.

The debate about the number of Member States from which the participants should come from is in fact of key importance. In the Green Paper two elements are considered somehow in opposition: accessibility, namely the level of difficulty that the citizens would need to face in order to make a proposal to the Commission and the representation, meaning the actual number of Member States from which the signatories should be coming from. It is expected that the higher is the minimum number of Member States from which the signatories should come from, the more challenging the process will be for the citizen. In the Green Paper the question is presented with the following wording: “Do you consider that one third of the total number of Member States would constitute a “significant number of Member States” as required by the Treaty? If not, what threshold would you consider appropriate, and why?”

To answer this question it is important to consider the current status of EU public sphere: the EU in fact, even following the reforms bring about by the Lisbon treaty, will continue to be affected by a strong prejudice (in part understandable) of democratic illegitimacy. This can be partially explained by the fact that the different Member States articulate differently their vision of citizen’s participation in the legislative process.

Such an ex-ante belief need to be tackled urgently. However as no further reform is expected to take place in the near future, it is of key importance to make the “Citizens’ Initiative” a tool to bridge that gap between the institutions and the people. The “Citizens’ Initiative” in this sense has two key roles:

• A stated role of proposal to the European Commission of new legislative actions, and
• An equally important opportunity for citizens of various European countries to cooperate articulating their interests at European Level.

Having highlighted this, we can now better evaluate the discussion over the trade-offs between representation and accessibility mentioned in the Green Paper.

Representation: the fact that the signatures come from 7-8-9-10 or even more member states will not change the fact that the Initiative is set not to represent the totality of the European Citizens. Even in the case that the signatures come from 10 MS, these could hypothetically belong only to a particular region of the Union with specific interests (e.g. the 8+2 “new” member states: 10 new member states minus Cyprus and Malta plus Bulgaria and Romania) and be concerning a specific interest of that region (e.g. rights of Russian speaking communities).

On the other hand having the signatures to be collected from such an high number of Member States could be very challenging for the citizens.

However if we look at the purpose of the “Citizens’ Initiative” in the current institutional framework, it is fair to say that such a requirement is redundant. The purpose of this Initiative in fact is simply to propose to the Commission to take action on a specific issue. It will be up to the Commission to evaluate it and present an action which is balanced for the whole of the EU and later it will be up to the Parliament and to the Council, representing respectively the totality of the EU citizens and the Member States, to agree on a text which is fair and applicable for all.

In other words it is not necessary and arguably unfair, to transfer the totality of the legislative responsibility from the EU Institutions to the citizens by asking them to collect signatures from a very high number of countries. In addition this might translate into having only certain groups or lobbies able to profit from the “Citizens’ Initiative” while leaving common citizens with limited economic resources out of the initiative process.

Why accessibility is key: as mentioned above the proposals made by the citizens will need to go through the EU legislative process, so the purpose of the “Citizens’ Initiative” should be to engage as many citizens as possible which can only be done by limiting the difficulties and requirements (the main being the minimum number of Member States). This for the following reasons:

• The Citizens’ Initiative can help building a European-wide debate on issues which are of concern for the EU citizens;
• Can boost an exchange of views and cooperation between the members of the civil societies of the various Member States without discriminating the one with limited economic resources;
• Can help articulating citizens’ interests in the framework of European Regions which tend to have similar concerns and needs;
• Can increase the legislative competence and legitimacy of the European Commission,

All these elements would have the result of reducing the existing Democratic Deficit and would give to the EU citizens the perception that their voice is heard.

For all the issues raised above, I believe that the minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come from should be very low, potentially from 3 to 5.

This will not impede to have citizens from more Member States to participate, which is likely to happen due to the high number of signatures to collect (one million). It is also likely that there will be a proportionately higher number nationalities represented as far as more “least populated” Member States are involved (due to the fact that their contribution towards the target of reaching 1 million signatures might be limited).This will also imply that the most populated member states are likely to be included in the majority of the future “Citizens’ Initiatives” being a key “source” of signatures.

In order to have more information on the public consultation and give your opinion you can check the website below, there is time until January 31^st.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/consultation_en.htm

Brussels, 19 November 2009

Author: Pietro De Matteis

Many words have been written about the appointment procedure of the two new positions set up by the Lisbon treaty and on the possible candidates.  What we have experienced on 19^th December is once again a process carried out behind closed doors despite the fact that some Member States had proposed different options. In short it could have been an exceptional occasion to hold a wider European debate to discuss openly with the European citizens what they would like Europe to do and to be: something which is  urgent in order to keep and increase the EU legitimacy. Unfortunately far from being so, the appointment of the two new positions has looked  more like a “conclave”, some have argued, than anything else.

Such a non-transparent process is keen to produce results which are unpredictable to the majority of the public, often unaware of all the cards on the table.  Today’s appointment to some extent have followed this path and the outcome has surprised the most. While the discussions on the potential candidates for the posts of permanent President of the European Council and double hatted High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,  have been going on for several months within the European circles, only a few (if any) would have imagined today’s final outcome.

Herman van Rompuy which has been Belgian Prime Minister since the end of December 2008, is considered a “consensus builder” and in this sense he might be seen as a key figure in order to find agreement in an EU of 27 Member States.  As a proof of his skills he can claim to have played a key role in the reconciliation of the two main Belgian communities, the Flemish and Francophone, whose animosities have drastically increased in the past years. These have been visible to Europe and to the world when the difficulties experienced in setting up a new government in 2007-08 have resulted in over 6 months of uncertainty.

Catherine Ashton on the other hand, is currently Trade Commissioner following the replacement of Peter Mandelson who left the Commission to take office in the British Government in October 2008. Due to the fact that in her political career she has not held any position directly related with foreign affairs and in particular she has never been a foreign minister, analysts argue that she will need to prove her abilities. Her new tasks are various, not yet clear-cut but surely challenging both on the political and on the administrative side. Undoubtedly she will need to help to develop a more coherent policy with Russia over energy security, give a boost to the conclusion of the long awaited Partnership Cooperation Agreement with China, involve the US on the post Kyoto negotiations and last but not to try to unblock the Middle East peace process following the recent Palestinian Authority’s request for State recognition. In one word  she will need to try to give the EU that “clout” on foreign affairs that the EU wanted to achieve with its Lisbon treaty reform, including pushing for having a Europe that speaks with a single voice.

On the other hand she will need to work towards the setting up the new External Action Service (EAS) and table her proposals for the implementation of such a new structure: Britain is for sure one of the EU Member States with the strongest diplomatic tradition and in so this could be the advantage of having a British HR. In this regard her administrative experience might be of considerable help, nonetheless getting acquainted with the importance and complexity of all the political dossiers might still result very challenging.

Following this brief analysis doubts  might arise as to whether these were the two most appropriate candidates among the various personalities competing for the posts, however this kind of discussion is probably of little interest now that the die is cast. On the other hand it could be useful to try to understand in which perspective they have been appointed and which could be the follow up on the global,  regional and local level.

As we know it today the EU is mainly a global commercial power, with limited power projection capacity on political and military issues. The choice of a HR who has not direct foreign policy experience at ministerial level, but who has filled the role of Trade Commissioner, might have two explanations: the wish to capitalise on EU commercial power to operate in foreign policy and/or the desire  not to have a HR too present on political issues which might excessively hinder Member States’ individual foreign policy interests. As mentioned above a first HR of British nationality might help to capitalise on the country’s experience, especially in a delicate moment such as the creation of the new EU “diplomatic service”. However the fact that Britain has a strong diplomatic tradition could also undermine the process by determining a conflict of interest between its own service and the nascent one. Such conflict could be accentuated by the fact that Britain is notoriously less enthusiastic towards the EU integration process and its goals than other Memeber States. Finally it is also clear that the choice of personality with a lower profile as both President and HR, in the minds of the biggest Member States might be an attempt to avoid being overshadowed by their authority in the international arena.

On the regional perspective following the “Lisbon struggle” it is likely that  there will not be further institutional reform in the very near future. In this view a president like von Rompuy can help the smooth functioning of the EU on its ordinary administration. Member states authority will not be challenged  in a sensible way and the same should be said for the European Commission’s role, while consensus will probably remain the keyword in the Council’s functioning.

However the stated position of the newly elected President of the Council (in 2004) against Turkey’s bid to join the EU due to the fact that it does not share the principles of Christianity on which Europe is arguably founded, is set to destabilise the EU-Turkey relations as well as to put in question the idea that the EU could be a bridge for a dialogue between the “west” and countries whose population profess non-Christian religions.

Looking now at the local level, it is not unlikely that the appointment of current Belgian Prime minister as President of the Council throws the country back to instability and under the shadow of secession between the two communities:  finding a substitute with comparable political skills in Belgium might be very challenging.  Should this happen, this would hit hard the heart of the European project, not only because of the fact that the majority of institutions are located in Brussels but also because Belgium is a founding member of the EU and because it is generally considered as a good example of how different communities can live peacefully together under shared governance: this is one of the key discourses on which the EU soft power relys upon.

As for Britain the fact of having obtained such a high post within the new EU administrative set up, might be seen as an attempt to keep the UK indissolubly linked to the future of the EU. This is particularly important due to the fact that next year the general elections in the UK are likely to bring about a new majority in the parliament who is generally considered as euro-sceptic. However such appointment also has the effect to reduce the room for manoeuvre in case of the eventual, even if unlikely, proposal by the conservative party to withdraw from the Union, condition which is now foreseen by the Lisbon treaty. However such rigidity, which might have been conceived as an attempt to pre-empt certain moves, might be insufficient or excessive according to the cases: should the conservative party together with the even more nationalistic and right wing parties decide to withdraw anyway from the EU, the outcome would be a decapitation of the EU foreign policy head with extreme international embarrassment and a substantial loss of credibility of the EU as a whole. In a less dramatic case, the fact that the High Representative is a British national might invite to postpone once again the question which many Britons are willing to see answered via a nationwide debate and eventually a referendum, namely the extend to which their country should “integrate” with the other EU Member States. Until this issue is openly dealt with, the relation between the EU and the UK will always be perceived as mutilated in their legitimacy and used by the most extremist parties as a populist argument.

All in all the appointment of the new High Representative and of permanent President of the European Council is more complex that it might seem at first sight as it is the product of many compromises among Member States at global, regional and local level. As often EU’s legitimacy stands on its ability to get consensus over a minimum common denominator, at this point of history (having a new treaty to implement and new structures to set up i.e. EAS), we should not underestimate the advantages of having some pragmatic and consensus building leaders. It could be also argued that higher legitimacy and more influential personalities will not get the stage until the European peoples have a higher say in the process.

–

Pietro De Matteis,  PhD Cand. University of Cambridge

E-mail contact:  pietrodematteis@gmail.com

http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/students/matteis.html

Following the debate on the new president of the European Commission, it is now everyday more pressing the competition behind closed doors for the future post of President of the European Council. Should the Lisbon treaty be ratified we will finally have some of the important institutional changes which has been waiting in the lobby for a few years now. Among these the creation of the position of President of the European Council and of an upgraded and “double hatted” High Representative for the Foreign and Security Policy.

In this short article I wish to underline why I believe that a more careful analysis is needed in order to clarify some of the opportunities and risks that the creation of the position of President of the Council determine in the EU framework. In particular I believe we can identify two main risks/opportunities: the institutional ones and the political ones.

With regards to the political aspects, it is often underlined that it would be important to have a high level personality as it would be able to use its diplomatic clout when dealing with the Member States as well as with the EU’s external partners. However it could be argued that while this could be important in the relations between the Member States, due to its role of “facilitator”, on the other hand it might end up creating tensions with the President of the European Commission and the High Representative when dealing with international issues. Both the European Commission President and the High Representative might in fact risk to fall in the shadow of a well know and influential President of the Council, reducing the relevance of their roles.

In practise what could happen is a difficult “cohabitation”, as the French would say, with the additional difficulty that the competences and tasks of the three are not yet defined in a treaty to which the parties could appeal. The result could be an even less coherent representation of the EU positions, not only with regards to the policies themselves but also to the representation i.e. who represents what?

From a more strictly institutional point of view we can then assess the risk of having a Commission (supranational organ), subordinated to the Council (international organ). This would clearly be a serious step backwards with regards to the European integration process from a federalist perspective. Furthermore it could be codified in the coming years as “practice” of the relations between the institutions determining, in so doing, a long lasting limitation of the powers of the Commission.

From here stems the preoccupation that has been shown by President Barroso on October 7th a the European Parliament when he underlined that: “The European Commission will not accept the idea that the president of European Council is the president of Europe.”

Also a strong President of the European Council, having as main task the “facilitation” of the relations and agreements between the Member states, would have the opportunity to define directly or indirectly the agenda of the 27 Member States within the Council. This would also allow him to decide the amount of diplomatic pressure to use to see passed some procedures and piece of legalisation which are keener to his own interests.

For this reason it is of key importance, especially in the case of a renowned and influential personality, that he/she is willing to cooperate on an “equal footing” with the other institutional figures and that shares the European integration project in all its developments e.g. Euro, Schengen. This is important in order to build a sort of balance of powers between the roles and to avoid eventual conflict of interests. Such an approach does not necessarily imply that the Candidate must be coming from a member state that currently has in place all the the “european projects” even if this would clearly help. In any case he/she must have showed commitment to the European project and should clearly state his or her approach.

To conclude we are again in front of a key moment of the European integration process. Clearly there is a great opportunity but also a risk, which is increased by the current vacuum in the definition of the tasks and competences of this new key post. It will be the first President of the European Council to shape this position and to define the potential and the limits in the framework of the “institutional game”.

–
Pietro De Matteis
PhD Cand. University of Cambridge

http://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/contacts/students/matteis.html

Ireland has passed the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty with an overwhelming majority of 67 per cent in favour as just two of the 43 constituencies voted against it.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen said credit for the result rested with the Irish people who had shown a determination to be at the centre of Europe.

Speaking at a press conference at Government Buildings in Dublin this afternoon, Mr Cowen said: “We will now work with all our partners in ensuring the reforms this treaty will bring are implemented”.

Mr Cowen also said he was “confident” the Green Party would stay in the Coalition and that its members would vote in favour of supporting Nama at a party conference next week. “I am confident that my Government will continue and will take all necessary steps to affect economic recovery as quickly as possible”.

The referendum was carried with 67.1 per cent of the electorate voting in favour, reflecting a 20.5 per cent swing to the Yes side since the June 2008 referendum. In the first Lisbon poll, the No side secured 53.4 per cent of the vote.

Yesterday’s turnout was 58 per cent with 1,214,268 people voting for the treaty and 594,606 voting against. This was higher than the 53.13 per cent turnout for the first referendom on Lisbon.

Dublin South recorded the highest support for the treaty, with 82 per cent of ballots in favour. This was closely followed by Dún Laoghaire, which had an 81 per cent Yes vote, a 17.7 per cent swing compared to last year.

Across all 12 Dublin consitutencies support for the treaty was 69 per cent, with a turnout of 59.3 per cent.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he saw the Yes vote as indicative of the Irish electorate’s confidence in the European Union and as a “sign that Ireland recognises the role that the European Union has played in responding to the economic crisis”.

Tipperary South was first constituency to declare a result today, reporting resounding majority in favour of the treaty just before 1pm. It was quickly followed by Yes majorities across the State as almost all constituencies reported significant swings in favour of the treaty. The counting, which began at 9.00am, was completed by 4.30pm.

The exceptions to the national trend were Donegal North East and Donegal South West, which rejected the treaty, the latter by a narrow margin of 50.3 per cent against. Donegal South West is the constituency of Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise Mary Coughlan. Both Donegal constituencies rejected the treaty last year.

No campaigners conceded defeat within hours of ballot boxes being opened this morning as the extent of their defeat quickly became apparent.

Libertas leader Declan Ganley told reporters at the main Dublin counting centre in the RDS the result was “a very convincing win”.

“I’m surprised how big the Yes vote is and it shows how scared people are,” he said. “This is a very convincing win. It’s a mandate of sorts. I wish him [Taoiseach Brian Cowen] the best of luck.”

“I politically admire a masterful campaign from a masterful politician who has made absolute glove puppets out of the opposition,” Mr Ganley said.

Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said he was delighted and noted that the guarantees secured by the Government had played a crucial role, while Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan said the result was “an essential first step towards economic recovery”.

Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore said the decision was secured “despite the anger and frustration people feel at a very unpopular Government. The biggest obstacle we had throughout this campaign was the unpopularity of the Government.”

At the central count centre in Dublin Castle, Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said the people of Ireland had exercised their power in an enlightened way.

“It was a victory clearly for the people who rose above the anger of politics and the cynicism of politics to put their country first,” he said.

Sinn Féin vice-president and anti-Lisbon campaigner Mary Lou McDonald said the vote should not be seen as an indication of support for the Government parties. “This vote does not mean that the Government has a mandate for Nama or the upcoming budget and let them not think that or fall into that false sense of security. People still want change.”

Pat Cox, a former president of the European Parliament who headed the Ireland for Europe group, claimed the voters of Ireland had put their country first. “This was a mature vote in which the Irish people rejected those voices telling them to make the referendum a verdict on the government and on national policies,” he said.

Minister for Commutations, Energy and Natural Resources Eamon Ryan said the result could be a turning point for the country after a difficult 18 months.

In the first referendum on Lisbon on June 12th, 2008, the treaty was rejected by 53.4 per cent to 46.6 per cent.

In the previous EU referendum on October 19th, 2002, the Nice Treaty was approved by 62.89 per cent to 37.11 per cent. In an earlier referendum on June 7th, 2001, Nice was rejected by 53.87 per cent to 46.13 per cent.

Source: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1003/breaking1.htm