EU

With all the speculation in the UK press at the moment about Tony Blair’s potential ascendency to the presidency of the E.U., one could be forgiven for thinking that it’s all in the bag. This despite the fact that Blair is not even officially up for the post yet, and he remains wildly unpopular in much of the E.U. for his role in the Iraq war and his perceived loyalty to American interests over European.

This latter sentiment has led to the reactivation of the Stop Blair! petition with thousands of new signatures coming in to demonstrate the popular opposition to Blair becoming the E.U. President. There are currently around thirty-six thousand signatures attached to the petition, which points out Tony Blair’s profound unsuitability for the role as the divisive, hawkish former leader of a country which he consistently kept at a distance from Europe, evidenced by acts such as securing an exemption for Britain from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It is not entirely surprising to see such a reaction to the idea of Blair as E.U. President, but it will be interesting to see whether the antipathy shown by so many E.U. citizens will be reflected in the attitudes of the administrations that run their countries. There have been mutterings from the French Presidents’s party about Blair’s unsuitability for the role, but so far neither Sarkozy or German Chancellor Angela Merkel have openly declared whether they would support a campaign by Blair for the post. Many of the smaller countries of the E.U. would no doubt be lukewarm about a President from one of the major countries, but whether this will translate into strong opposition remains to be seen. It would seem likely, however, that the more popular opposition to the notion is seen and felt by the governments involved, the more pressure there will be to oppose Blair for the role, and campaigns and petitions such as this will play a vital role in establishing depth of public feeling on the issue and in convincing European leaders to take a stand in line with their citizens.

Those hostile to or simply unenthusiastic about the European Union have plenty of smaller parties for whom to vote in this year's European Elections. They can vote for UKIP, or for the parties of the extreme left and the extreme right that are bidding vigorously for the Eurosceptic vote. They can vote for the  Conservative Party, which attacks the European Union as a quasi-socialist, fundamentally corporatist organization. They can vote for No2EU, which  depicts the Union, with a righteous conviction entirely matching that of the Conservatives, as a neo-liberal conspiracy. The Labour Party stands on its record of having kept Britain out of the euro, while the Liberal Democrats claim to want Britain to join the single European currency in the long term, but (in case you were worried folks) certainly not any time soon.

There is, however, a small party standing in London which comes from a completely different part of the European argument from all the above. It stands firmly in the European, if not necessarily in the British political mainstream. Yes 2 Europe believes that the genuine merits and advantages of the European Union incomparably outweigh any of its (largely fictional) disadvantages. It is taking advantage of the European Elections to pursue the unusual tactic of speaking exclusively about the European Union and Britain's role in it. Its central message is that Britain is doing itself no good at all by its uncertain and half-hearted attitude towards the European Union and its policies.

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Have we seen the last of the "British" acre? The 700-year old land measurement has apparently been banned by the EU following a meeting in Brussels last week.

The Sun (as you may have guessed) is not best pleased, informing its readers that "Britain" (don't they mean England?) has used the acre to measure land since " the late 13th century under Edward I’s reign." The word acre is apparently derived from the Old English for "open field" and was considered the amount of land tillable by a man behind an ox in one day. The measurement was eventually defined by law under Queen Victoria in the Weights and Measures Act of 1878 as being 4,840 square yards or 43,560 square feet.

This history was brought to an end last week when a "lowly Whitehall official" nodded through the EU orders that sealed the acre's fate. What do OK readers think? Surely the humble acre deserved better than this.

John Palmer reviews What's Wrong With the European Union and How to Fix it by Simon Hix.

(Hix, 2008, Polity Press, 228pp)

In the midst of what has been a largely introverted - even turgidly morbid - debate about the future of the European Union following, the "No" vote outcome in Ireland's referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty, the publication of a book which grapples with just why voter malaise with the EU has become such a problem is a healthy antidote. What's Wrong with the European Union and How to Fix it by Professor Simon Hix of the London School of Economics challenges much conventional wisdom by insisting that the EU suffers from too little politics - not too much.

At the heart of Hix's analysis is a conviction that it is long overdue for the peoples of the EU to be given a far greater voice in shaping the political future of the Union and the political character of its leadership. Hix believes that with - or without - the Lisbon Treaty - there should be far greater and more transparent choice about who should become the next President of the European Commission - the key executive body of the EU. This - he rightly believes - will encourage the political parties to openly contest each other's programmes for handling the current economic, social, environmental and other challenges facing the Europe in an ever more inter-dependent world.

Hugo Robinson (Open Europe): The Irish people have voted down the EU's Lisbon Treaty. The EU's rules are clear - if any one member state rejects an EU Treaty, the Treaty falls. It seems pretty simple - Lisbon should be dead.

Yet yesterday evening, the House of Lords rubber stamped the Treaty. The only explanation for this continuation of the ratification process is that it is a means to isolate and pressurise the Irish, with a view to reversing the referendum decision. Keeping the legislative process in motion reflects a presumption that the Irish will be talked out of their rejection - because otherwise, ratification is pointless.

Surely the only way to truly "respect" the result of the referendum - as EU leaders keep saying they will - is not to have the Treaty at all? The end result of pushing ahead with ratification would be a situation where 26 member states have approved the Treaty, and Ireland has not - making the pressure of isolation far more tangible than is the case now, where eight countries (excluding Ireland) are yet to ratify.

This is a response by David Marquand to John Palmer's article on Ireland's "No" vote on the Lisbon Treaty.

David Marquand (Oxford): The real issue goes far deeper than our blinkered political class and media commentariat seem to realise. The post-cold war world, with a hegemonic US as the only super-power, is dying if not dead. An infintely more complex and more dangerous multi-polar world is coming into existence, with China, India and perhaps a revitalised Russia as super powers alongside the US. The US will for the foreseeable future remain the strongest of these super-powers, but it will not be the only one. Economically it has already ceased to be a hegemon: as the dollar falls, the Euro climbs. The crucial question for Europeans is whether we want the world to be run by the Americans, Chinese, Indians and perhaps Russians, or whether Europe should get its act together and become a quasi-super power as well. Europe’s political elites have either funked or fudged that question, and in Britain virtually no one has so far faced it. But the answer Europeans give to it will determine the shape of global and European politics as the 21^st century proceeds. If Europe wants to hold its own in the multipolar world now taking shape it has to make a qualitative leap towards federalism.

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Just days before he left office on 7th of May, former Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Bertie Ahern told an audience at Harvard University that rejecting the Lisbon Treaty would be an “act of lunacy” by the Irish people.

For a man lauded for his so-called common touch, and ear to the ground, it was an odd choice of expression. Irish people don’t like being told what to do. Irish people don’t like being tagged potential lunatics. This sense of being patronised was, I believe, a factor in Ireland’s initial rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, quite aside from concerns over neutrality. 

Interestingly, new Justice Minister Dermot Ahern TD - who was promoted from his foreign affairs brief in last week’s cabinet reshuffle - has constantly played down the implications of a No vote, adopting a stoical ‘life would go on’ message (this, despite the fact that he resoundingly supports a Yes vote). Just like the dad who tells his teenage daughter that she can go to Friday night’s disco, but he won’t be paying for it, it has been a clever tactic.

Taoiseach Brian Cowen TD has been similarly circumspect. Since taking office, he has placed full emphasis on the benefits that EU membership has wrought for Ireland, linking a Yes vote as a fitting return from a self-confident, modern Ireland. He has also played on Ireland’s current sense of economic uncertainty, as the country begins to come to terms with the fact that the boom is no more. “It is very important that we get a Yes vote,” Cowen said last Saturday. “It is critically important to our strategic interest and to our national interest.”

Catherine Reilly (Dublin, Metro Eireann): Burying bad news: never really a good idea, is it?

Just ask the former British government spin doctor who infamously called 9/11 a good day to "bury" bad news. She lost her job. Or indeed the Irish footballer who, in order to avoid international duty after his girlfriend's apparent miscarriage, ‘killed off' not one but two grandmothers when the media smelled a rat. Those terrace chants and nightclub wind-ups will follow him for life.

John Palmer on We the Peoples of Europe by Susan George.

This book makes a powerful call for a more just and democratic Europe but ignores the gains made from recent reforms.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Ireland.com has news of the emerging 'Northern strategy' of Ireland's largest party, Fianna Fáil:

There has been persistent speculation that Fianna Fáil could merge with the SDLP, with the two parties possibly agreeing a common candidate for next year’s European Parliament election.

Jon Bright (London, OK): I picked this up thanks to Jon Worth's excellent Euroblog. Romanian Institute IPP have set up a new website which allows you to track the performance of your MEP - and the 750 odd others that are out there. I realise, of course, this will be somewhat of a minority pursuit, and there are more than a few people who would rather do away with the whole lot of them than pick through how they are voting. But, for a Europhile (albeit sometimes sceptical) such as myself it's another small sign that, if such a thing as a European "public sphere" is to develop or could possibly develop (a big if), it is the existence of the internet that makes this possible - its ability to do things the printed press could never have dreamed of. A political union of the type the EU is developing (which is still directionally unclear, and still very much contested) would simply be unimaginable without technological advance - and  tools like this one seem to me to be a small contribution to this project.

Neena Gill (West Midlands, Labour MEP): The financial crisis in the US will have a serious impact on Britain and Europe's economic outlook for years to come. Unsustainable dependence on the world's number one economy, which now faces the threat of a recession as grave as that of the 1930s, brings with it a risk of job losses across Britain and Europe.

John Palmer (London): For too long serious political debate about the future development of the European Union has been distorted by the constant mantra from populists, euro-sceptics and others about opposing "rule by unelected Brussels bureaucrats." Although this is a gross distortion of the reality - that decisions are taken by elected governments and an elected European Parliament - the fact that the President and other members of the European Commission (which cannot pass laws but does propose legislation) have always been appointed rather than elected has been an embarrassment.

Ralf Grahn (Helsinki, Grahnlaw): The European Council was up to some grandstanding again at its spring gathering. The presidency conclusions brought us the following vision (Presidency conclusions, document 7652/08 - opens pdf):

Jon Bright (London, OK): One of the interesting aspects of the new EU treaty is the institution of citizens' initiatives and petitions - of which Grahnlaw has an excellent and detailed dissection here. Initiatives with the support of at least 1 million EU citizens can be submitted to the European Commission, which can then turn them into proposals.

Jon Bright (London, OK): Mark Mardell's excellent euroblog has a post asking whether Ireland could vote no to the Lisbon treaty. He says it's too early to assume the "yes" is set in stone:

Some are already suggesting the foundations for rejections are there.

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): The Guardian's veteran political correspondent Michael White cultivates a knowing, seen it all, it won't change, nor-should-it-if-it-comes-to-that, attitude that is only bearable because he works fairly hard. Finally, after thirty years, his faith in the system may have been rocked. In today's political briefing he reports that Parliament's Lisbon debate "rings hollow",

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I've been taking another look at the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (opens as pdf). As I wrote in OK, when I first looked at it it seemed great and I asked why we should not sign it. In particular, according to Spyblog these principles seemed designed to protect us from a database state:

John Palmer reviews Fog in Westminster - Europe Cut Off by Peter Sutherland.

This pamphlet shows how narrow and unreflective the European debate is in Britain and how misguided the government's approach to integration has been.

Jon Bright (London, OK): David Marquand has written an article for OurKingdom we have published in on our openDemocracy article page: England and Europe: the two 'E's that lie in wait for Brown's Britishness. It analyses the state of Gordon Brown's reform agenda, and the wider prospects for democratic change in the UK - and is based on his introduction to the recent Rowntree seminar on how the reform movement that has been stimulated by the Green Paper on the Governance of Britain shuld engage with it now.  Read the article in full here.