Treaty of Lisbon « Fleishman-Hillard Europe

Archive for the ‘Treaty of Lisbon’ Category

Shock: British journalist praises Barnier

Tuesday, December 8th, 2009

At last a touch of balance in Britain’s Daily Telegraph over the nomination of Michel Barnier to the internal market portfolio, with responsibility for financial services! I guess it’s no coincidence that the writer, eurosceptic Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, was the newspaper’s correspondent in Brussels from 1999 until 2004 – the same time span as Barnier’s former term as commissioner. No doubt he has personal experience of the Frenchman’s qualities.

I mention this in the context of the furore over recent months concerning EU appointments, linked in the UK with the debate over financial services regulatory reform and the perceived threats to the City of London. Maybe the frenetic atmosphere is beginning to disperse.

It certainly didn’t help when President Sarkozy told Le Monde that the English were “the big losers in this business”, although the wave of aggression whipped up in sections of the British press over Van Rompuy, Ashton and the Commission nominees was quite a provocation, to say nothing of prime minister Brown’s own trumpeting of the Ashton appointment as a national victory in response to Conservative criticism.

It’s just as well that Sarkozy’s plan for a reassuring joint visit to London with Barnier was knocked on the head. It really would have looked like a French conspiracy.

Barnier has been calming things down. His job, he says, is to strengthen Europe’s financial centres, including London. The fears which had been expressed in the City of London were “very exaggerated”.

There has however been a shift in the political mood which is reflected in the composition of the new Commission. The three key economic portfolios – internal market, competition and industry – go to the Club Med with commissioners from France, Spain and Italy. Free markets, raw in tooth and claw, will not be the flavour of the next five years. The drive is clearly for more regulation, especially in financial services, regulation which has to operate at a European level. That’s no surprise, given that the near-collapse of the global banking system did have Anglo-Saxon origins.

An economic double-dip with more lost jobs would put further pressure on EU policy-makers. The challenge for the Barroso II Commission is to maintain progress in the single market, to stimulate business activity, so helping drag Europe out of recession, and to continue the liberalisation of sectors like energy and telecoms. The nominated energy commissioner, Günter Oettinger, may have the most challenging role, given the problems which German firms have with the gas and electricity packages. Neelie Kroes, on the other hand, should be in her element with the “digital agenda”.

As for financial services, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament are of course working on proposals for financial regulation which also date from the outgoing Commission – the legacy of Charlie McCreevy. These include the establishment of the European Systemic Risk Board managed by the ECB and the three European supervisory bodies for banking, insurance and investment services.

There is some progress on these dossiers. It seems that ministers last week agreed that the powers of the three supervisory bodies will be circumscribed, allowing appeal to the Council by a member state which believes its sovereignty is being infringed. MEPs have yet to discuss these proposals.

Meanwhile the treatment of hedge funds and private equity remains a highly contentious issue which may run well into next year – perhaps beyond a British general election, which some rumours suggest could be in March 2010.

Posted in Digital, Elections, Energy, European politics, Finance, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics | No Comments »

EU appointments: visionaries need not apply

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

We live in the age of media celebrity. So no surprise at the critical and sometimes bitter press reaction to the nomination of Herman Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton, virtually unknown beyond their own parishes, as Council President and High Representative respectively. As someone said, it was like a TV talent show where the choice of the people (and the press) was ignored by the judges. If only we’d been able to phone in!

I guess there are two kinds of disappointment: from those who were seeking charismatic European leadership to force the pace of change and talk face to face with other world leaders; and from those like UKIP who wanted appointment of a powerful figure like Tony Blair to demonstrate that the feared “European Superstate” really had been born. Two sides of the same coin, in fact.

It does at first sight seem a sad reflection on the EU’s lack of ambition that it should choose people with relatively little experience at the highest level of international affairs.

The reality is somewhat different though. This is a period of consolidation. Visionaries need not apply. The European Council was looking for a president who could provide continuity in the management of its business, escape from the six-monthly presidential rotation (although that will still apply for the specialist councils) and build longer term relationships on the international stage. By all accounts Van Rompuy seems well suited to this chairmanship role. His term as Belgian prime minister certainly demonstrated considerable political skills.

It strikes me that creation of the European External Action Service led by the High Representative could be much more far-reaching in its impact than the presidential appointment. Catherine Ashton will have a formidable task, but one with great potential – to “conduct” the Union’s common foreign and security policy and defence policy, making new proposals for policy development and carrying out the Council’s mandate. She will both chair the Foreign Affairs Council and sit as vice president in Commission meetings.

She has to create a European diplomatic service bringing together up to 6,000 officials from the Commission, Council and member states, which for the first time will integrate the Commission’s capabilities with the foreign affairs decisions of the Council, so the trade, aid and substantial budget resources of the Commission can be used to leverage the Council’s policy ambitions. A joined-up European foreign policy at last!

Who knows whether this institutional change will transform Europe’s role in the world as it should, using the soft power policies implemented by the Commission to achieve broader political goals and moving beyond foreign-policy-by-press-release (with all respect to the great efforts made by Solana).

Let’s take one region – the Middle East. The European Commission has for years provided the funding to keep the Palestinian Authority alive, yet the Council has developed no coherent political strategy, for instance on the recognition of Hamas after its success in the Gaza elections and the question of Jewish settlements. It’s time that Europe became an equal partner of the United States in such issues.

There is a host of areas where a stronger EU policy must be developed if Europe’s influence in the world is not to decline further in the face of major shifts in economic and political power across the globe. There is need for a European voice in NATO, much stronger co-ordination of policy within the United Nations and other international organisations and coherent European policies towards China, Russia and others.

In other words there is huge amount for Rompuy and Ashton to do, but they will only make progress if the member states accept the need for a concerted EU approach to the external problems which the Union faces and are willing to toughen up policy vis a vis the rest of the world.

Posted in Defence, European politics, International, Treaty of Lisbon | No Comments »

Conservative realpolitik after Lisbon

Friday, November 6th, 2009

With the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty the British Conservatives have set out the policy which an incoming Conservative government would apply towards the European Union. There is to be no referendum, but a series of legislative measures to limit the extent of EU jurisdiction, and negotiations to take employment and social policy law back into national hands.

Political expediency – or perhaps we should say realpolitik – has been the hallmark of Conservative policy on Europe since David Cameron became leader of the Tory party in 2005. His overriding priority has been to hold his party together at a time when it is adopting domestic policies which belong to the centre ground of British politics, whether on public services, climate change, poverty, equality or infrastructure spending – respectable policies for any European centre-right party.

An aggressive stance on Europe has given satisfaction to those eurosceptic sections of the party which might otherwise have caused real trouble over Cameron’s leftwards policy shift on domestic issues. What’s more, the refusal of Blair, then Brown, to hold a referendum despite earlier promises has been a mighty stick to beat the Labour Government.

Cameron’s policy has also comforted those sections of the British press which have consistently attacked British membership of the EU.

Ratification of the treaty has obliged Cameron to find a formula for future Conservative policy consistent with past commitments, tough enough to keep the eurosceptics on board, but not giving too many hostages to fortune for any incoming Conservative government.

There is no point in being too negative about Cameron’s post-ratification approach (although the scathing comments of France’s Europe minister Pierre Lellouche might be quite helpful in suggesting to the sceptics that battle will be joined!).

Party unity is as vital as ever for the Conservatives. A general election must be held by the end of June 2010 and the opinion polls currently promise a reasonable Conservative majority, provided the party can remain united. The great fear is that smaller parties will top-slice the Tory vote, giving success to avowedly anti-European parties like the UK Independence Party (UKIP) or the British National Party (BNP). This could mean a smaller majority, and even a hung Parliament, which would certainly please the Liberal Democrats and the minority parties if it gave them the balance of power.

A thin majority was the nightmare of former Conservative leader John Major in the 1990s and even drove him to resignation and re-election to resist the eurosceptic wing of his own party. Cameron wants no repeat of that.

So how damaging would Cameron’s new policy be for relations between a Conservative government and its partners in the European Union? There is a commitment to hold a referendum on any major new treaty, which mirrors Irish legislation, and also before any adoption of the euro. A law is promised to assert UK sovereignty, but this would not compromise the supremacy of European law and parallels existing powers of the German constitutional court. The commitment to “repatriate” employment law looks the most difficult part of Cameron’s package: perhaps surprisingly British employers’ organisations have greeted this with no great show of enthusiasm.

Withdrawal of the Conservative MEPs from the EPP is the one decision which has already caused major damage to Cameron’s future relations with other European leaders. This will require a major repair operation if a Tory government is to achieve its aims in Europe.

Meanwhile European diplomatic channels are humming as the candidates for President of the Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs are analysed and assessed. It’s getting close to decision time, and it looks as if Blair’s name for president has faded away.

At the same time the British foreign secretary David Miliband is still getting strong support for the High Representative role, not least from the European Commission, which sees him as the ideal person to set up and run the European External Action Service which I discussed in my last blog. Miliband is also the candidate of the European Parliament’s socialist group. Miliband himself says that he is not taking the job, but we’ll see. He is only one of several potential successors to Gordon Brown in the event of a Labour defeat in the spring, and who wants to spend four or five years in opposition?

Posted in Elections, European politics, International, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics | No Comments »

Leadership needed for Europe’s foreign policy

Monday, October 19th, 2009

A fundamental purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon is to make the European Union an effective force in the modern world, a global player with a power and influence far greater than the sum of its parts. The appointment of a High Representative bestriding Commission and Council, served by the European External Action Service (EEAS), is designed to provide the institutional framework to achieve this aim, in conjunction with the new Council President.

But will the member states appoint people capable of fulfilling such high ambitions? and how much power will governments be willing to concede in making the new system work? In particular how will, say, France and the United Kingdom approach the challenge, given their highly active foreign service and foreign policy traditions? Remember President Sarkozy and Georgia? Who will speak for Europe in the future?

The rumour mill is working overtime as we await the Klaus signature on the Treaty. The Council President could be an effective bureaucrat or a political driver, male or female, from big country or small. Ireland’s Mary Robinson is one possibility for the presidential job. Tony Blair? I don’t think so, given the UK’s absence from the euro, Schengen etc and Blair’s record with Bush. The Netherlands’ Balkenende could run strongly for the High Representative job. It’s fun to speculate, but no one seems to have any real idea.

It does matter who gets the job of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The external relations aspects of the Treaty imply far-reaching change within the EU institutions. Over the next two or three years thousands of officials will be brought together from the Council Secretariat, from the external services of the Commission and from the member states to form the EEAS, a separate entity to handle the EU’s relations with the outside world. Great leadership qualities will be essential to build an effective service.

There will be some fierce institutional battles before there are any diplomatic ones. On Thursday October 22 MEPs will vote on the Elmar Brok report which outlines the parliamentary view of the EEAS and insists that the service should be clearly affiliated to the Commission and funded from its budget. This would give Parliament a direct say which it would be denied if EEAS and its funding were to be hived off to the Council. ALDE member Andrew Duff warns of a block on the new Commission appointments if the EP does not get its way. So it’s clear that the institutional wrangling is by no means over.

The scale of the changes ahead is considerable. It seems that more than 5,000 people could be transferred from the Commission alone – a fifth of its total complement. They may continue to work in the building where they are now, probably the Charlemagne, but they will no longer be Commission officials (although remaining EU officials). Trade, development and enlargement will remain the Commission’s direct responsibility, but even these departments will be expected to work closely with EEAS.

The European Commission’s 125 or so delegations across the world, plus the Council’s liaison offices, will become European Union embassies, with responsibility for co-ordinating and implementing European policies in their territory. Up to now it has been the embassy of the member state holding the Council Presidency which had this role (or a caretaker embassy in the absence of a national representation). Many officials of the EEAS will be recruited as “temporary agents” from national governments, to serve in the representations and in Brussels.

I gather that the Swedish presidency, COREPER ambassadors in Brussels and the Commission are working intensively to work out the appropriate structure for EEAS. It will then be up to the High Representative, once appointed, to make a formal proposal to the Council in consultation with MEPs and with the “consent” of the Commission as to how the new organisation will function. It looks as if the HR/VP will be appointed before the new Commission has taken over, in which case the current commissioner from that country would stand down. Whoever takes the post will have a formidable task ahead.

Posted in Defence, European politics, Integration, International, Trade, Treaty of Lisbon | No Comments »

Irish vote launches the Lisbon end-game

Monday, October 5th, 2009

It looks like end-game for the Lisbon Treaty at last. Ireland’s two-to-one majority in favour of ratification on October 2 was a convincing reversal of the 2007 “no” vote, especially given the increased turnout, which at 58 per cent of the electorate was six points up on last time.

The convincing “yes” majority can be ascribed especially to the economic crisis and a hunger for European solidarity in the face of Ireland’s troubles, but there were other factors, including strong leadership of the campaign by former European Parliament president Pat Cox, the specific reassurances given on sensitive subjects such as abortion, tax and defence policy, and the promise to guarantee a Commissioner for every country as from 2014.

There’s even a chance that the Treaty could come into force at the start of 2010. The Polish president may well sign within the next few days, so foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski told the BBC over the weekend.

The Czechs await a ruling from their constitutional court on questions posed by Czech senators before President Václav Klaus will sign – although it seems that the Court did already give its seal of approval in November 2008 in response to a similar reference. The Czech Europe minister is pushing for ratification before the end of the year.

Once the Court has pronounced there is a suggestion that Klaus could declare himself indisposed for 24 hours to allow his temporary replacement to put a presidential signature to the Lisbon document.

The Irish referendum result couldn’t have come at a worse time for the British Conservative leader David Cameron, just as his party conference begins. Party unity is vital in the run-up to a general election and there’s no subject like Europe to reveal the fault lines. Cameron has apparently written to Klaus, in effect urging him to delay ratification (while rejecting any “interference” in the Czech ratification process!) to give time for an incoming Conservative administration to hold a referendum.

Be careful what you wish for! The Scottish National Party is planning a referendum on Scotland’s separation from the UK. Given Scotland’s general enthusiasm for EU membership a United Kingdom vote on Europe could give quite a boost to the nationalist cause. One referendum could beget another.

Everyone is now asking Cameron whether he will still hold a referendum if the Treaty has been ratified and implemented by the time of a general election, which must be held by June 2010 at the latest. The eurosceptic wing of his party is angrily demanding a vote whether or not the Treaty has been ratified. Klaus however remarked after the Irish vote that “the people of Britain should have acted much sooner” if they had wanted to stop the Treaty. There would be no further referendums on Europe, so he told reporters. Not particularly helpful for Cameron.

The Swedish presidency is now wrestling with the question of how to select a new Commission, whether under Nice or Lisbon rules. Under Article 213 of Nice there must be fewer than 27 Commissioners, which would leave one member country unrepresented, but one idea is to nominate the Council foreign affairs supremo at the same time on the assumption that he or she will become the 27th Commissioner once Lisbon is implemented.

Of course Lisbon does give the Commission president the task of allocating portfolios between members of the college, but there seems little reason why Barroso should not work with the member states in selection of the individual candidates and their allocation of roles. That would surely be the reality in constructing the college whatever treaty was in force.

Posted in Elections, European politics, Integration, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Vote for continuity before Copenhagen

Sunday, September 20th, 2009

The European Parliament’s convincing vote for Jose Manuel Barroso’s second term as European Commission president puts him in a stronger position than any candidate since Jacques Delors in the 1980s. To have secured the votes of the European Conservatives and their allies and an estimated 25 Socialists in addition to his centre right supporters in a secret ballot was a considerable achievement, at 382 delivering 13 more votes than an absolute majority.

Cometh the hour cometh the man. Barroso is no Delors, but can deliver the continuity which will be needed in a highly unpredictable period, where I see that the latest threat is from the Czech constitutional court which could delay Lisbon ratification for another six months even if the Irish vote “yes” on October 2.

Whatever the result of the referendum, Europe must get its act together for the Copenhagen conference on climate change, much as it did more than 20 years ago when the Vienna Convention on the ozone layer and the Montreal Protocol were negotiated.

I mention this because just 80 days before the opening of the Copenhagen conference the United Nations designated September 16 2009 as Ozone Day. The UN sees action on the ozone layer as a curtain raiser for Copenhagen, a model for what can be achieved through concerted international action in the face of a major environmental challenge.

It’s 24 years since the Vienna Convention for protecting the ozone layer was signed and 22 years since the Montreal Protocol, which set the timetables for phasing out of the man-made chemicals responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. It is proving a remarkable success, although the task is by no means complete. A UN note gives more detail.

What does surprise me is the contribution that the ozone-depleting chemicals, and particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were making to global warming. CFCs have now been virtually phased out (January 1 2010 is the phase-out deadline of CFCs for the poorest countries) and scientists argue that this co-ordinated action has given the world up to 12 years of extra breathing space for arresting the process of climate change. They reckon its impact to be five or six times the impact of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

The late 1980s were years when environment policy came of age. The Vienna Convention was first based on a scientific thesis of ozone depletion caused by man-made chemicals, and only proven as fact in 1988 when US spy planes confirmed the existence of a vast hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic caused by man-made chemicals. It will be many decades before the ozone layer is fully restored, but things are no longer getting worse and should progressively improve.

Of course tackling climate change is a vastly more complex challenge than reversing ozone layer depletion. Every country and every industry is involved, as is the whole human population, but there are some fundamental principles which have been established through the Vienna process which are relevant to Copenhagen:

A template was negotiated to assist developing countries through a combination of financial assistance and phasing to allow further time for adaptation, plus special help for the countries of central and eastern Europe.

The last twenty years have demonstrated industry’s remarkable capacity to adapt and innovate once faced with obligatory targets. Firms which at first resisted the proposed Montreal measures, arguing that there were no alternatives, have developed new products and new technologies – a process which must continue.

The international community found the political courage and the mutual trust to accept the scientific consensus and build a global policy in the face of inertia and downright opposition.

The European Community (as it then was) was a major driver in formulating an international agreement and seeing it through to completion. It’s a good precedent for the European Union to follow.

Posted in Climate change, Environment, European politics, Treaty of Lisbon | No Comments »

A rentrée of doubt and anticipation

Monday, September 7th, 2009

Rarely has the Brussels rentrée occurred in such a muddle of doubt and anticipation. Doubt because the October 2 Irish referendum could kill the Lisbon Treaty for good; anticipation because approval of Lisbon should open up new capabilities for Europe and settle the constitutional uncertainty which has dogged the EU for so many years – and provide some jobs for the boys.

The Irish Times reports that support for a “yes” vote slipped eight points in a recent opinion poll, with 46 per cent in favour, 29 per cent against and 25 per cent don’t knows – and that’s just four weeks before the vote. Irish political leaders have started to raise the tempo of their campaign, but the Swedish prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt has confirmed that contingency plans are being drawn up to apply the terms of the Nice Treaty in the event of an Irish rejection.

Of course even a “yes“ vote in Ireland is not quite the end of the affair. Germany, Poland or the Czechs could delay ratification well into 2010, raising the hopes of some British Conservative eurosceptics that a victory in a June 2010 general election would allow them to hold a referendum, steer a de-ratification through the Westminster Parliament and so block the treaty. A mouth-watering prospect for constitutional lawyers!

The hero of these eurosceptics is of course Czech President Vaclav Klaus who has so far refused to sign the act of ratification and is determined to be the last to do so. Germany now appears to be on the brink of approval having agreed more national scrutiny of EU legislation. The Polish president has yet to sign.

It’s looking inevitable that the present Commission, which would normally step down on October 31, will be asked to remain in office for some months until the treaty is fully ratified, taking its term beyond the Copenhagen post-Kyoto summit, but at least Barroso should provide continuity into a new college provided that he can secure the approval of the European Parliament on (probably) September 16 following this week’s meetings with the political groups.

I was particularly intrigued to learn that the EP vote on the Commission president would be through secret ballot. A defeat for Barroso would be an interesting test of party loyalty – but I suppose we’d never know who the rebels were.

Posted in Elections, European politics, Treaty of Lisbon | No Comments »

Iceland’s path to EU membership may be a rocky one

Monday, July 27th, 2009

I see that the EU Council of Ministers has asked the European Commission to deliver an opinion on Iceland’s application to join the EU, just 10 days after Reykjavik submitted its formal request for membership. The Swedish presidency wants the report by the end of the year, and foreign minister Carl Bildt has implied that Iceland’s status as an EEA country could speed the process of the application, in contrast to the slow progress for the Balkan applicants.

The Icelanders no doubt remain shell-shocked by the collapse of their banking system and the consequent halving in the value of the krona, and crave the stability of the eurozone, but it strikes me that the path to membership may be far from smooth. At the end of the process – say in 2011 – lurks a referendum: by then the mood of the country may have changed.

Fisheries could be a major stumbling block. Seafood accounts for almost half of Iceland’s exports and 10 per cent of its gross domestic product, which is quite something when another chunk of the country’s economy – the banking system – has disintegrated. The cod wars of the 1970s, when Iceland extended its territorial limits to 200 miles and the Royal Navy sent frigates to protect British fishing vessels, showed the depth of national feeling on this issue.

Even now international relations on fisheries policy remain poor. I gather for instance that Iceland has been excluded from negotiations on the management of mackerel stocks in the North Atlantic and has therefore opted out of catch allocations. The country is very concerned to rebuild cod stocks, which is a key economic asset. Stocks may be recovering but there will be intense opposition to surrendering quota to EU fishermen under the common fisheries policy. Just to add to the sensitivities, Iceland still has a whaling industry.

At least the review of the EU common fisheries policy is timely, with signs that ministers have accepted the need for fundamental change (just as well, as many fish stocks in European waters are on the point of collapse – and see Sarkozy’s change of heart). However, the fisheries chapter in the Commission’s Iceland report will be one of the most difficult to compose. Could it be the catalyst for the creation of a new fisheries policy, or will it hark back to the disastrous EU policy which has been pursued since 1973?

Becoming part of the eurozone is the big driver for Iceland, but there could be difficult issues here as well, given the level of Iceland’s public debt (about 100 per cent of gdp). For Iceland to qualify for eurozone membership could be an even greater challenge than is faced by the Baltic states and Hungary.

The vote in the Althing to apply for membership was a close run thing – 33 in favour, 28 against – and it would certainly be wrong to underestimate the negotiating difficulties which lie ahead. If the Irish vote “no” on Lisbon then the prospects for any enlargement would be gloomier still.

Meanwhile Britain’s Conservative shadow foreign secretary William Hague continues to inveigh against Lisbon. But whatever you think of his views, he is a consummate speaker. You may like to savour his recent performance in the House of Commons on the possibility of Tony Blair becoming president of the European Council under a ratified Lisbon Treaty. No wonder Gordon Brown needs a holiday!

Posted in Agriculture, Enlargement, Eurozone, Fisheries, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics | No Comments »

Frustrating start for Sweden’s presidency

Sunday, July 12th, 2009

What a frustrating time this must be for Sweden’s EU presidency! Stockholm’s ambitious plans to demonstrate its dynamic management of the Union are becalmed. Two days after confirming the Council’s candidacy of Barroso, prime minister Fredrik Reinfeldt was obliged to announce that the European Parliament had postponed until mid-September its vote on renewing the Commission president’s mandate. Urgent decisions relating to climate change and the economic crisis could well be delayed. No institutional navel-gazing was the Swedish promise, but it’s not turning out like that.

To make matters more complicated, all institutional matters must await the outcome of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, now scheduled for October 2. “There is no plan B” commented Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt on the possibility of an Irish “no” vote.

All this delay must be especially galling for Bildt, a quintessential man of action who relishes the international stage – and one of the candidates for Lisbon’s new job as Council president.

Still, a pattern is beginning to emerge. On Bastille Day former Polish prime minister Jerzy Buzek is expected to be elected president of the Parliament for the next 2 ½ years on the understanding that the Socialist group will take over for the second half of the five year mandate in the person of Martin Schulz. ALDE’s Graham Watson has withdrawn his candidacy in return for an enquiry into the financial services crisis to be chaired by German liberal Wolf Klinz.

It now seems likely that this package will ensure EPP, Socialist, ALDE and Conservative support for Barroso in September, although the greens and others will seek a further postponement.

The MEPs are keeping up the pressure on Barroso: he must set out his own policy objectives to the Parliament in advance of the EP vote.

However, I see that Barroso is planning to use his spare time between now and mid-September to campaign for a “yes” vote in Ireland. Jerzy Buzek is also planning to go there. This is surely in marked contrast to the previous referendum, when foreign politicians were asked to stay away. The point will no doubt be made that without approval of the Lisbon Treaty, the Nice rules will apply, depriving Ireland of a commissioner, maybe for five years in every 15.

Back in the Parliament, chairs of the committees are being allocated. The Conservatives – that’s to say European Conservatives and Reformists – will be pleased that Malcolm Harbour is slotted to take over as chair of the Internal Market Committee. Harbour is much respected by the Commission, in particular because of the role he played in piloting the services directive through Parliament.

I reckon Harbour is someone in touch with the real world. Having just got a new mobile phone and yet another charger to add to my collection I’m glad to see his involvement in a voluntary scheme for setting a standard for these devices so you don’t get a new charger every time you have a new phone. Practical measures like that are especially welcome in the midst of all this institutional power play, or navel-gazing as they call it.

Posted in Climate change, Elections, European politics, Telecoms, Treaty of Lisbon | No Comments »

Barroso’s future in Parliament’s hands

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

Who’d be leader of the British Conservatives in the European Parliament? No sooner had the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) been formed, with representation of eight member countries, than Finland’s Hannu Takkula decided not to join the group after all. He has chosen to remain with the Liberal ALDE group in deference to home party loyalty.

So the ECR is back to seven countries, the minimum number necessary to form an EP group and rather close for comfort. There is much debate over whether the group can survive. The 26 British Conservatives, 15 Polish MEPs from the Law and Justice Party led by the Kaczyski brothers and nine Czechs from the Civic Democratic Party form the core of the new grouping, with single members from Belgium, Hungary, Latvia and the Netherlands making up the total of 54. Seems to me it could be a rather flaky coalition.

The first test will be over the reappointment of Commission president Barroso. He is certainly desperate for the job. I’m told that he was in tears at the wind-up press conference at the June European Council, when he received a somewhat grudging, hedged-about approval.

Of course Barroso’s future is now in the hands of the European Parliament, where the EPP is keen for his nomination, the Greens and Socialists casting about for an alternative and the Liberal group divided: most UK members of ALDE are in favour of the nomination while François Bayrou’s six French liberals and Germany’s 12 FDP MEPs are against. The Conservatives seem likely to give Barroso their votes. However, there is strong pressure to await the outcome of the Irish referendum in October before a parliamentary decision.

There is much wheeling and dealing in the Parliament. Even with ECR support, the EPP cannot muster sufficient votes to give Barroso the simple majority he needs, so offers are being made to other party groups for the EP presidency over the second half of the five year mandate beginning in 2012. (The EPP will fill the post for the first 2 ½ years).

Matters are likely to come a head on July 9, when the conference of presidents is to decide on the timing of the vote for Commission president. If they opt for a July 15 vote, Barroso is probably home and dry. If not, then everything is to play for.

The end of a Commission mandate is always a difficult time, as political manoeuvring completely upstages the making of policy. This time it could be worse than ever, yet there are big decisions to be taken over the next six months, including response to the economic crisis and the Copenhagen conference on climate change. It will all be quite a challenge for the incoming Swedish presidency.

Posted in Climate change, Elections, Environment, European politics, Treaty of Lisbon, UK politics | No Comments »