Open Europe blog

Margot Wallstrom: a failure?

2009-10-22T11:20:00.005+01:00

A new book, to be published in Sweden today, paints a rather bleak picture of Margot Wallstrom's stint as EU Communications Commissioner. The book, written by Swedish journalist Emily von Sydow, blatantly labels Wallstrom's time in office a failure. The theme of the book reminded us of the Economist's description of Wallstrom a couple of weeks ago as "a Swede whose 'kum-bay-yah' approach grated with colleagues."

The book catalogues Wallstrom's failures, including:

One of her main responsibilities was to "sell" the EU Constitution. However, the Constitution was voted down in three seperate referendums - in France, the Netherlands and Ireland. (The scope of this failure - and Wallstrom's incapacity to respect the will of the Irish people - were conspicuously illustrated in an infamous interview with the Swede on Newsnight.)

Wallstrom was supposed to boost turn-out in the European elections. However, despite a flamboyant promotion campaign, costing taxpayers around €10 million, turnout dropped in 16 of 27 countries, as did the overall average - to an all-time low.

Her campaign to put more women in top jobs in the EU has not been "particularly succesful", according to the book.

Her proposal for more access to information and EU documents for citizens ended in failure (in fact, the proposal she came up with in the end was widely regarded as a step backwards, making it harder for citizens to access official EU documents).

Neither has Wallstrom's blog been the success story she likes to portray it as, bagging about 50,000-80,000 visitors a month, compared with the 140,000 visitors Swedish blogger HAX gets some months - blogging only in Swedish.

All in all the book goes pretty hard on Wallstrom, but also acknowledges that she hasn't had the easiest job in the world.

Still, at the end of the day Wallstrom has failed spectacuarly in her main duty: to bring the EU closer to its citizens. Altough her intentions have no doubt been good, she has ignored three referenda results and pushed through an agenda of more centralisation of powers at the EU level, against the will of most Europeans. On her watch, DG Communication has acted more and more like a political lobby group for more integration, than an objective provider of information about the EU, wading into national politcal debates and even seeking to control what is written in the media. And the fruits of her labour, the bitter taste they have left, speak for themselves.

Given that she will receive almost £1.8 million when she leaves the Commission this year, she cannot possibly be described as good value for money.

Let's hope that the next Communications Commissioner will be a lot more willing to actually listen to people. Or better still, maybe they will scrap the role altogether in the upcoming shakeup which is likely to see the more pointless posts like EU Commissioner for Multilingualism consigned to the history bin.

For a life without tobacco; for an EU full of tobacco producers

2009-10-19T13:30:00.009+01:00

This is a theme we've looked at in the past, but just to remind readers of the absurdity of the situation we shall return to it. The European Commission has just launched "a new and innovative animated web series called Helpisodes" as part of its €72 million 'HELP - For a life without tobacco' campaign.

The Commission's press release explains that, "A total of 12 Helpisodes have been created. Each episode is one and half minutes long with the exception of the `pilot' which introduces the main characters (Helpers) and how they came to be together and were transformed into anti- smoking super heroes...The aim of these absurd and, above all, humorous Helpisodes is to communicate with young people in a language they understand and appreciate".

This is all a bit weird and over-the-top - like so many other Commission initiatives aimed at the younger generation (see the previous post for another example). But we're in no position to pass judgement on whether or not it works (it's no doubt a worthy cause). But is this really a job for the European Commission?

Remember, this is the same institution that - with the help of the farming lobby, the European Parliament and several member states - spent €293 million in 2008 to subsidise tobacco producers in the EU.

In other words: the European Commission spends €365 million on various tobacco programmes. €72 million of this sum is aimed at fighting tobacco while €293 million of it goes to promoting tobacco. To add to the mix, the EU has introduced tough regulations on cigarette advertising, including the “smoking kills” warning labels on cigarette packets. And in the latest twist, the Commission is now calling for an EU-wide ban on smoking in public places by 2012.

No wonder people are confused as to what the EU is all about...

Painful

2009-10-19T12:53:00.005+01:00

This clip is so painful (and funded by taxpayers): European Commissioner Viviane Reding rapping away in an attempt to encourage people to make more use of various IT inventions. The target group is not entirely clear, but it's not hard to guess.

Hat tip: HAX

A popular Europe, or a politician's Europe?

2009-10-14T16:47:00.004+01:00

Open Europe organised an event at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester last week, entitled "What priorities for a Conservative government in Europe?" You can read a summary of the event here or, for the really keen, listen to a recording.

A couple of days later, on Friday last week, the Centre for European Reform organised a conference entitled, "What future for the EU?" Keynote speeches came from Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, and Giuliano Amato, the former Italian Prime Minister and Vice President of the Convention on the future of Europe (which drew up the EU Constitution).

The various speakers largely addressed their comments based on the (increasingly likely) scenario that the Lisbon Treaty is done and dusted, and likely to be in force before long.

In particular, there was a great deal of discussion about what shape the new Lisbon Treaty institutions of Foreign Minister and permanent President might look like - perhaps worth summarising here.

The conference reinforced the fact that there are two different visions of what the permanent President should actually look like. One of those is the consensus builder, devoting their time to creating harmony within the European Council and speeding up progress toward ever-closer union, and the other being a figure for the global stage, a big name to represent the EU externally. No prizes for guessing which category a Tony Blair presidency would come under.

Giuliano Amato favoured an EU President more in line with the first description, saying that when they (delegates at the Convention on the Future of Europe) were drawing up the Treaty, "we thought of the President of the Council not as a world leader, but as a consensus builder in the Council", later adding "We did not want a European Obama."

Lord Kerr, a member of the House of Lords' EU Select Committee and a former diplomat and Ambassador, agreed , saying that for the President, "the first task is cohesion and coherence", rather than external representation.

However, the Economist's Europe Editor John Peet said that whatever the language of the Treaty, the rest of the world would look to the President as a "symbol and spokesman of the EU," adding: "this choice is going to say something about how seriously the EU sees itself as a world power".

Lord Kerr said, "I think the European Council next week should do nothing about the President, because they don't have a Treaty base", but added that a new EU High Representative for Foreign Policy (currently Javier Solana), should be appointed immediately, taking on the EU Foreign Minister role as soon as the Treaty comes into force.

It was argued that they could get around the pesky provisions in the Nice Treaty to reduce the size of the Commission by telling whichever country takes the Foreign Minister job they would be without a Commissioner until a new one was formed under Lisbon.

Lord Kerr summed up the mood in the room, saying, "most people here reflect the general European boredom with institutional fatigue."

However, David Heathcoat-Amory, MP for Wells, and also a former member of the European Convention which drew up the Lisbon Treaty, pointed out that "the public don't want to move on from institutional questions", because they still want to be consulted about the Treaty, on which they were promised a referendum. He said that despite this, "the EU will try to leave these institutional questions behind... I think they will rely on the self-amending parts of the Treaty, such as the passarelle clause, so you won't have to ask the people again [in a referendum]".

Indeed David was the only speaker at the conference who recognised that there is still a strong public appetite for some kind of overdue consultation on the Treaty, saying "we're trying to make a popular Europe, not a politician's Europe".

Well said.

Irony alert

2009-10-14T14:36:00.009+01:00

In the corridors of the European Parliament today Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies climbed onto a chair and announced his bid to apply for the prestigious new role of EU President, should the Lisbon Treaty come into force.

Challenging the idea that the role should go to an ex-Prime Minister or President, as outlined in a recent paper circulated to EU capitals by the Benelux countries, Davies said: "This is a job that should be open to anyone to apply for. And if that means there are millions of applicants to sift through, then it will be worth it in the interests of democracy."

According to PA:

Mr Davies has written to all EU leaders insisting his qualifications for the job are as good as the other candidates suggested so far - including Tony Blair and former Irish president Mary Robinson.

In a dig at Mr Blair, Mr Davies points out that he has never deceived a parliament or been responsible for the illegal invasion of another country. Mr Davies said the "circle of individuals" who could be considered was too small, adding: "The backroom manoeuvrings now taking place are a very poor substitute for an open selection process. We have millions of talented people in Europe, and more than half of them are women, so why is the recruitment net not being cast wider?

"European citizens should be told whether this is just a beauty contest for middle aged males or a professional recruitment exercise intended to select the best person for the job, someone with ideas about how to shape Europe's future."

Mr Davies' letter to EU leaders says: "I am a man in my 50s, with a Cambridge University education and 30 years of political experience, I believe I possess qualifications similar to those of other potential candidates named in the media.

"To my credit I can claim that, unlike some of my rivals, I have never deceived either of the two parliaments to which I have belonged, and I bear no responsibility for the illegal invasion of another country that led to the death of many thousands of innocent people. I hope these facts will not prejudice my application."

The letter adds: "Although the position has not yet been advertised, and the criteria for selection has not been determined, I have no doubt that the Council (of EU leaders) will want to follow good employment practice and to select the best person for the job."

Now, here at Open Europe we rather like Chris Davies - he is a dedicated transparency campaigner and did well on these issues in our ranking of all MEPs earlier in the year.

And he's quite right about the lack of democracy in this EU President post - he or she will be nominated by a qualified majority of 27 heads of state meeting in the EU Council, with no input from national parliaments, let alone the people. (Compare that with the 70 million-strong mandate Barack Obama has).

And the idea that it must be an ex-Prime Minister or President underlines this lack of democracy even further - it basically means we are very likely to end up with someone who has fallen from grace and/or failed to get re-elected in their own country. (Compare that to the current situation, where the democratically-elected heads of state, who have a current mandate from the people, take it in turns to be EU President for 6 months at a time).

All that said, however, it is pretty hypocritical for a Lib Dem politician, of all people, to be complaining about this now. It's a bit late, Chris. Why didn't you raise any of these objections when the Treaty was still being negotiated? Why didn't ANY of the Lib Dems' representatives in either the European Parliament, the Commons or the House of Lords want to discuss all this stuff when they had the opportunity, when the Treaty was going through the Houses of Parliament last year?

Why, instead, have the Lib Dems pushed this Treaty and argued it's the best thing since sliced bread? And when Tory MPs and peers tried in Parliament for the promised referendum to be given to the British people, did the Lib Dems go back on their word and block the motions?

Davies says he doesn't want Tony Blair to become EU President, and neither do a majority of delegates attending the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth earlier this month. But, as we've said before, it is precisely thanks to these so-called 'Liberal Democrats' that this job has been created in the first place. And even if the British government decided it didn't want Tony, that would be tough luck if the a majority of the other EU leaders did.

Welcome to the post-Lisbon Treaty reality.

Will he won't he

2009-10-13T18:21:00.005+01:00

Czech President Vaclav Klaus is causing a real storm over in Brussels with his refusal to sign the Lisbon Treaty. Having previously suggested that his signature would follow the outcome of the new constitutional court challenge filed by a group of Senators, now even that is not guaranteed, as he seeks some kind of 'opt-out' from the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It's clear the guy is not going to be pushed around by the likes of Barroso, Sarkozy and Merkel, who are all lining up to pressure him into signing the Treaty as soon as possible. He has already managed to delay the appointment of the new EU President and EU Foreign Minister - originally expected at the end of this month, but which will will now apparently take place at the following EU summit in December.

However, it is impossible to tell just how far Klaus is willing to go to scupper this Treaty by delaying long enough to let the Conservatives get elected in Britain and then hold the long overdue referendum.

On the one hand, according to the Times this morning, Klaus has told supporters he will "never" sign the Lisbon Treaty. And his spokesman has indicated that he will not be happy with a fudge on the Charter, wanting instead to re-open ratification in all the other EU countries in order to agree a legally-binding protocol. Anything short of this will after all be pretty meaningless - EU governments will be able to agree relatively easily to a written declaration much like the ones offered to Ireland in return for holding a second referendum on the Treaty.

Spokesman Ladislav Jakl told Czech newspaper Lidov Noviny: "the guarantees given to Ireland are not guarantees; they were a political declaration in a style such that the Irish wolf filled its stomach and the Lisbon goat remained whole".

On the other hand, it would be naive to believe even for a minute that the other EU leaders will allow Klaus to get anywhere close to scuppering the thing they have been obsessing over non-stop for the vast majority of the past decade. As reported in the Sunday Times, France and Germany would get Klaus ousted before they considered such defeat (cue image of Klaus-shaped figure being bungled into the back of a car with blacked out windows...)

Barroso has today made crystal clear that any re-opening of the Treaty to allow for any actual or meaningful changes is absolutely and completely out of the question - "surreal", he said. They refused to do it for Ireland, so why should the Czechs be any different? They will have to make do with a written declaration.

Whether or not this will be enough to appease President Klaus is at this moment anyone's guess. Under immense pressure not just within the EU but also from his own government and parliament, it will take a heroic effort of historic proportions to stick to his guns on this one - and he has our full support.

don't get too comfortable

2009-10-12T13:56:00.012+01:00

Chris Bryant has today been appointed Europe Minister, replacing Baroness Glenys Kinnock who spent a whole four months warming the seat for him. Bryant will be the 12th person to occupy this position in as many years - so much for continuity. With the endless staff switchovers in this portfolio the Government is starting to resemble one of those struggling football clubs that for one reason or another can't seem to hold on to a manager for more than a few months at a time.

Clearly, having an elected member of the House of Commons like Chris Bryant on the Europe job is far preferable to locking it away in the House of Lords where the Opposition can't have a proper pop at it and voters have no chance of holding it to account.

But this new appointment is by no means a net improvement on the current situation. Just to underline his seeming disregard for 'Europe' as an issue Gordon Brown has said that Bryant will remain a parliamentary under-secretary of state - the lowest ministerial rank in the government - meaning that the job, which was formerly held by a minister of state, has been downgraded. A Downing Street spokesman described the reshuffle as "housekeeping".

Once again this government shows just how out of touch it has became. Brown might not think Europe is important but the British public do - a YouGov poll from earlier this year showed that UK voters think that if a Conservative government is elected its second top priority should be to "Reduce the powers of the European Union and increase the powers of Britain’s Parliament."

In contrast, over on the other side of the benches Mark Francois, Bryant's shadow, sits in the Shadow Cabinet. Speaking at our fringe event at the party's conference last week, Francois welcomed the idea that the Minister for Europe should be a full Cabinet Minister, noting that under Labour, the role of Europe Minister had seemed to be “to tour the country, selling the EU to the British people”, rather than to fight the UK’s interests in Brussels.

Indeed the new appointment looks like a (fairly smart) political move from Brown, rather than one based on any long-term policy considerations. Replacing Kinnock in the Lords with Bryant in the Commons will give Brown a voice with which to attack the Tories over Europe and their new partners in the European Parliament - their favourite new topic. Judging by David Miliband's article in the Observer at the weekend the latter is set to be a major feature of Labour's campaign. Indeed Bryant has already written a similar article for a regional paper.

Bryant himself is a passionate EU advocate and will be an interesting addition to the debate - something which can't be said of many of his recent predecessors in this role (Flint, Murphy...)

But what does he actually stand for?

You won't get any clues from his website. The 'Policy' section is completely blank, having received far less attention than the 'photo gallery' where we get to see Bryant in his red speedos.

However, rarlier this year he told the Western Mail that, "I think the European Union has gone down some cul-de-sacs. The Common Agricultural Policy I would still like to see radically reformed, and we've got a bit obsessed with how many members of the Commission we each have."

We've heard lots about reforming the CAP from this government before and with very little to show for it, as we've argued before.

Bryant is in favour of maintaining the current system of EU regional spending, saying that "The question is whether repatriating large amounts of structural funds would open the door to a vast expansion of inappropriate state aid in the eastern bloc...we want to maintain a structural funds system that brings money not only to the poorest countries but to some of the richest countries."
This is worrying given the amount of money that is wasted funding dubious projects in some of the EU's richest countries. See here for just one example.

However, he has had some good ideas. For example he said that he is in favour of a specific parliamentary question time for EU matters, which would increase accountability and public awareness of EU decision-making. Thumbs up from us.

He has also called for the European Scrutiny Committee, which sifts through over a 1,000 EU documents a year, to meet in a more open and transparent way. And Bryant does seem to recognise the important role the EU plays in governing the UK, saying: "I do think that how we do the scrutiny of European business is absolutely essential to how we scrutinise the Government."

The question is whether he will able to take a breath from electioneering and attacking the Conservatives, or be around long enough to move beyond his recent predecessors and make any lasting mark in the job.

Wasting no time...

2009-10-09T14:48:00.012+01:00

If you're curious about what the Lisbon Treaty will mean for Justice and Home affairs in the EU, you should look closely at the so-called Stockholm Programme - a slew of proposals for more integration in areas such as asylum policy, data sharing, policing and other sensitive policies, traditionally reserved for the national governments.

It's hard to know exactly what the Stockholm Programme will look like for two reasons: First, it's huge, with proposals ranging from a European surveillance and security system (including ID card register and Internet surveillance) to a common asylum policy. Secondly, in trade-mark EU fashion, it's being negotiated behind closed doors, making it difficult for us common folk to know what in the world is going on. Quite apart from the merits or drawbacks of these proposals (the surveillance and datasharing parts no doubt sound awfully Orwellian - as we've argued before), it's fair to say that this is contentious stuff.

And those in charge have wasted little time to take advantage of the Lisbon Treaty, which scraps national vetoes in a range of areas of justice and home affairs, and massively extends the EU's competencies in this area. Even though the Treaty has not been ratified yet, the Swedish Presidency has made it no secret that they intend to raise the ambition of the Stockholm Programme under the Treaty.

Anders Hall, key aid to Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask, has said that the Commission's proposals in this area have been "too modest", given that the EU will soon operate under Lisbon Treaty rules. He said: "Given that the Stockholm Programme will now be carried out in a Lisbon-context, the level of ambition will increase to a certain extent. But exactly how this will play out is unclear as talks and negotiations are currently taking place between the member states."

These people are wasting absolutely no time in ploughing ahead with the Lisbon provisions, even in areas that strike at the very heart of national democracy. Is anyone paying attention?

Hat tip: Swedish blogger HAX

The third way

2009-10-05T16:48:00.004+01:00

The blog is likely to go quiet for a few days as we head up to Manchester for the Conservative Party Conference. Should be an interesting few days, especially with our fringe event on what the Tories should do about Europe scheduled for Wednesday.

For our take on what they should do about the referendum/Lisbon mess, see here for the 'third way' option:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2009/09/lorraine-mullally-.html

Would welcome your comments here!

BBC: Utterly unacceptable

2009-10-02T13:55:00.006+01:00

Sophie Raworth, reading from the autocue live on the BBC One O'Clock news, has just made this quite unbelievable introduction to a piece on events in Ireland today:

"The people of Ireland return to the polls today in a referendum on whether to accept the Lisbon Treaty on enlarging the European Union."

Hat-tip to friends in Northern Ireland who alerted us to this.

This is a quite unacceptable distortion of the facts - the Treaty has nothing to do with enlargement, otherwise we might be campaigning for a 'yes' vote. This Treaty is about giving the EU more powers. What is the BBC on?

We've made a complaint - and we urge everyone else out there to do so too, and as soon as possible. The same piece reported that most people in Ireland are still to vote, many of whom may not yet have made up their minds. This kind of ridiculous and false statement might just tip the balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

Speaking for Europe

2009-10-02T12:46:00.003+01:00

If you're still making up your mind on Lisbon, see here for the dozens of pleas from pro-democracy people all over the EU, urging a 'no' vote:
http://www.europesaysno.org/index.html

Here's a handful of some of the latest comments:

Leo Beata, Sweden:

"To the Irish people, please vote "NO" .. for Europe, for a little bit of democracy, for sovereinity, for some power to the small countries...In Sweden we were promised exceptions when we were to vote for the EU-membership 14 years ago. Today they are all gone, and EU roles our lives and we just have to obey... For a peaceful future, please vote "NO" on friday."

Ninetta Donizetti, Italy:

"Europe has been bullying Ireland for too long! It's time Ireland and its people were treated with respect."

Tim Spencer, UK:

"Everyone in Europe should have the right to vote on this treaty. We are being treated with contempt. Where is the democracy in the EU?"

Gudrun Sievers, Germany:

"All european People looked for Ireland because in Germany we can not speak for yes or no to die Lisbon Treaty. The Idea of EU is fantastic, but not enough democracy - but we can not vote! Many Peoples (80%) are not for die Treaty! in Germany! Good Luck for the Vote. Please say no!"

Lave Broch, Denmark:

"Lisbon Treaty is the wrong way for Europe. The treaty does not make changes to EU's custom union towards the rest of the world and it strengthens the militarization of EU. It is also very undemocratic that only the Irish people got a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and it is even more undemocratic that the Irish no in the first referendum was not respected."

G. Kissamitakis, Greece:

"IRELAND PLEASE VOTE NO!!! Greece, the place where Democracy was born, denied our right to vote!!! I ASK YOU TO VOTE NO to the LISBON TREATY ON BEHALF OF ALL GREEKS AND EUROPEAN CITIZENS!!!"

Martha Browne, Ireland:

"An appeal to my fellow citizens, cast your vote correctly in the NO box. If not, it could be the last chance to vote for anything meaningful ever again."

Lisbon in action

2009-10-02T10:57:00.007+01:00

As Irish voters go to the polls today for the second time on the Lisbon Treaty (welcome to ~~Venezuela~~ the European Union), there is growing coverage of the news that Tony Blair is in all liklihood set to become the first EU President within a matter of weeks. This news was first uncovered by Open Europe as we reported on secret meetings hosted by the Swedish EU Presidency.

Most people in Britain and indeed Europe thought they'd seen the back of Blair when he left the House of Commons in 2007, saying, "That's it - it's the end."

But no doubt partly thanks to the invaluable work of his good friend Peter Mandelson in keeping the flagging Labour government alive long enough to get Lisbon enforced, Blair could be flying around the world in Blair Force One before we've started saving up for Christmas.

Assuming that the new EU President will be paid the same as the President of the European Commission, Jose Barroso, this means he or she will receive roughly the same basic salary as Barack Obama - the democratically-elected President of the United States.

Just think about that for a moment. A man voted in after years of high-profile campaigning and public debate and with the support of 69 million people, will be rubbing shoulders on the world stage with a man who just weeks before his election has not had a public word to say about the idea, and who will be nominated by 14 people (a majority of Heads of State, as per the Lisbon Treaty) behind closed doors in a meeting in Brussels, with no public input, not even from national parliaments.

And the people pulling the strings in the corridors of Brussels are amazingly arrogant about it. This week an unnamed senior French diplomat commented that although most people in Europe will be against the idea of Blair for EU President, because of his position on the Iraq war, that makes no difference at all, because "only public opinion is concerned about this, not the 27 Heads of State and Government that will vote him in".

Who, among the 'yes' campaign can honestly say this is not a step backwards for democracy in Europe? Amont many others, Brigid Laffan of the Ireland for Europe campaign has marked her campaign with shrill and hysterical outbursts against British people calling for a 'no' vote. If she is so anti-British, how can she possibly support the idea of Blair as EU President for the next two and a half years? Because that is what Irish people will be voting for today if they approve the Lisbon Treaty.

The same goes for all those Lib Dem delegates at conference a couple of weeks ago, who supported a motion saying Blair must not become EU President. Bit late for that, Lib Dems. It's precisely thanks to your "leader" Nick Clegg that such a position can even be created in the first place, given that he controversially allowed the Lisbon Treaty to sail through Parliament without the referendum he promised in his manifesto. Even if we wanted to, Britain wouldn't actually be able to stop Blair becoming EU President, because he only needs the support of a majority of EU heads of state.

This is probably just the first of many, many concrete and all-too-real examples of why Lisbon is bad news that will, if the Treaty is passed, start to hit us one by one over the coming months and years as we face up to the full implications of what we have done by allowing this to happen.

simple but (hopefully) effective

2009-10-01T15:30:00.006+01:00

This one is a particular favourite...

A matter of trust

2009-10-01T10:30:00.004+01:00

Irish PM Brian Cowen has announced there will be not be another referendum if Ireland votes 'no' to the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow.

He said: "There won't be a Lisbon Three -- that's for sure."

But hang on, that's exactly what they said last time. Click here to see Dick Roche, Irish Europe Minister, suggesting ahead of the first Irish referendum that it was 'delusional' to say there would be a second referendum.

He said:

"There is no plan B and there is absolutely no possibility of this Treaty being subject to a further renegotiation. The idea that we can reject this Treaty and have another Referendum as happened with the Nice Treaty is a dilusion. That cannot and will not happen."

And yet here we are.

The Irish government likes to pretend that no-one bullied them into voting again on the Lisbon Treaty after it initially gave the 'wrong' answer, but given Roche's unequivocal stance, clearly they did.

Wild claims

2009-09-30T17:46:00.013+01:00

On 14 June 2009 the Irish Independent reported that Margot Wallstrom, European Commissioner for Communication, said during a visit to Dublin that the Lisbon Treaty would "encourage" affordable childcare in the EU.

A question was tabled to her in the European Parliament, by Syed Kamall MEP, asking the simple question:

"Can you please clarify which articles in the Lisbon Treaty will encourage affordable childcare in the EU?"

The question was tabled in order to deliver a response mid-September at the latest. However, having delayed this far, our Commissioner for "Communication" has, at a minute to midnight today declared her response will only be ready on 6 October, conveniently after the Irish referendum has already taken place.

So this completely unsubstantiated, nonsense claim from the politician we pay good money to communicate the Lisbon Treaty is allowed to stay just as it is, with no explanation.

We're reminded of The Economist column last week which described Wallstrom as "a Swede whose 'kum-bay-yah' approach grated with colleagues". It's grating with us a bit too.

If you haven't already checked it out you should have a look at her here on Newsnight after the last Irish referendum, when she failed spectacularly to explain what on earth people are supposed to do to reject this Treaty, since voting no is clearly not enough.

Double standards part 125

2009-09-30T15:32:00.006+01:00

In an extraordinary admission today Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary confesses to his real motives behind his €500,000 campaign for a 'yes' vote in the Irish referendum on Friday.

He said: "One of the reasons that I am campaigning for a 'yes' vote is that our Government is incompetent, yet I need to persuade them to sell me Aer Lingus." Funny that. In June 2007 the European Comission blocked a bid by Ryanair to purchase rival airline Aer Lingus on competition grounds.

And in a clear conflict of interest, the EU Transport Commissioner Antonio Tajani spent six hours last week campaigning aboard a Ryanair flight alongside O'Leary.

Don't expect the Irish media to jump up and down about this though. If Declan Ganley had let slip that he was campaigning for a 'No' vote for some similarly dubious reason, all hell would of course have broken loose.

Paying people to tell you what you want to hear

2009-09-29T18:25:00.007+01:00

Just received a ridiculous survey to fill in from Gallup Europe, which is working on behalf of 'Friends of Europe' - a Brussels-based outfit that gets most of its funding from the European Commission.

The survey asks questions about the EU's 'communication policy', with a view to producing a new report on the subject to feed back into the Commission and "improving communication about Europe."

Apart from the obvious issues with the Commission paying organisations to come up with policy ideas to feed back into the Commission, the problem is that all the questions are asked on the assumption that the respondant believes there should be an EU Communication Policy in the first place, which we do not (click here to read why).

Clearly the Friends of Europe wishes to help the Commission's DG Communications department in its ongoing efforts to convince people of the benefits of EU integration. Judging by its last effort along these lines, which was a report for the institutions called Can EU Hear Me?, (resulting in a letter to the EU Commission recommending it "Promote the benefits of EU Membership"), it has no intention of improving people's knowledge of the EU but instead wishes to improve its popularity.

If this survey is to be the basis of the future direction of EU 'communication' policy, we should be very worried indeed. Questions focus on such things as what the Commission should be doing to improve 'communication' about Europe in schools and in the media, making use of the internet to persuade people of the benefits of the EU, creating a 'Europe' brand, and creating a 'Commissioner for Citizens'.

Having commissioned many polls in the past, we imagine this online questionnaire is not coming cheap. Hopefully they will take note of some of our suggestions, such as scrapping EU Communication Policy altogether and allowing people a direct say on the big EU questions like treaty change. Is anyone in any doubt that Irish people will be the best informed about the Lisbon Treaty and the EU in general than any of their European neighbours, as a direct result of the recent referendums?

A blank cheque

2009-09-25T16:10:00.011+01:00

While the Irish government continues to play down the EU's ambitions in defence policy in order to get the Lisbon Treaty safely passed, some telling comments have been forthcoming from other Europeans this week, which give us some insight into the kind of agenda that Lisbon will effectively authorise.

First there was the news that French Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche was in favour of a budget specifically dedicated to EU defence, just as there is one for agriculture:

He said that, "In order to progress with 'defence Europe', it should not be that spending linked to security is completely separate from the EU's financial perspectives. Why should three member states contribute to the equivalent of two thirds of the military spending of the 27?..We need to put these questions on the table, in the same way as agricultural policy, technological innovation, or the environment."

He also confirmed that the French Foreign Office was already working on the establishment of the EU Diplomatic Force, which should only come into effect if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, saying "In the Quai d'Orsay, we are already working on defining the nature, the scope, and the missions of this new service, in close relations with our partners."

We wonder if one of these partners was Ireland, seeing as they have not yet made a decision on whether or not they even want the Treaty yet? (or rather they have, but they're being given a second opportunity to make the 'right' choice).

And now we have the French Defence Minister Hervé Morin saying that he is "convinced" that the EU will have its own permament military headquarters in Brussels, and that it will not be possible to deploy tactical groupings of 1,500 soldiers without such a headquarters.

He suggested British reluctance is holding up progress towards this goal, but predicted that within "one, two or five years, we will end up with a command, planning and operations centre in Europe."

He also said he hoped that there would be "one day, a Council of European defence ministers" in Brussels, as there is for agirculture or foreign affairs ministers.

Of course, noone should really be surprised at this, given that the warning signs that France was chomping at the bit to move ahead with this have been there for a while. But this talk of actually creating an EU defence policy, funded from the EU budget, and with decisions taken by the Council of Ministers just as they decide on agricultural policy, is big news.

Meanwhile, the Polish government has announced this week that its top priority for its EU Presidency in the latter half of 2011 will be the development of a "European defence policy".

According to Coulisses de Bruxelles:

"Warsaw wants the EU to have a fleet of A400M military transport planes so it can independently carry out military operations outside Europe. The planes could be bought by a European Armaments Agency whose powers would be considerably strengthened. Poland is also proposing a deputy EU Foreign Minister in charge of security questions, and Warsaw wants the future EU Foreign Minister to take part in Nato meetings! One can only imagine the reaction of the Brits to such proposals, which will delight Paris to find in them a strong ally in the East."

The combination of all these statements is important. A dedicated EU defence budget, open to mistargeted spending and abuse on the same scale as the agriculture budget?

An unelected Deputy EU Foreign Minister as well as an unelected Foreign Minister and President Blair?

Presumably the feeling in Brussels is that once Lisbon is ratified, people can put forward all sorts of ideas for new jobs without bothering with any more pesky EU Treaties to authorise them. And allowing the Foreign Minister to take part in NATO meetings will no doubt be one of the inevitable consequences of allowing so much of the Foreign Minister role to go undefined in the Treaty. (He's going to look pretty out of place sitting there next to all the democratically-elected Foreign Ministers around the NATO table. Or maybe he'll eventually be sent instead and on behalf of EU ministers?)

On top of everything else, it is deeply worrying that these ideas are being discussed and touted behind the scenes, and the shape of the future of the EU's defence policy is being quietly nudged along in the Quai d'Orsay and other such locations, away from prying eyes.

Don't count those chickens

2009-09-23T17:44:00.007+01:00

Reuters has the story that Ireland's largest independent bookies, Boylesport, is already paying out on a Yes vote for the second Lisbon Treaty referendum, to be held on 2 October.

Apparently their spokesman said, "With odds at 1/12 a positive outcome looks like a foregone conclusion at this stage", before adding, "although we do expect it to be tight."

Rival betting company Paddy Power has said they won't be paying out a penny before 2 October, perhaps wary of getting their fingers burned like last year when they paid out more than 180,000 euros to those who had placed Yes wagers, before even a single vote had been counted.

While the Yes side do have a lead in the polls, the latest Millward Brown poll at the weekend shows that 21% of people still say they don't know how they are going to vote, which means there is still time to convince people that the Treaty is a bad deal for Ireland and a bad deal for Europe.

See here to read why http://www.europesaysno.org/

How you are paying for the Irish 'yes' campaign

2009-09-21T18:29:00.007+01:00

Apparently the Young European Federalists are launching yet another 'yes' campaign to urge Ireland to adopt the Lisbon Treaty.

They write:

“The absence of a strong No side demonstrates that there are no real arguments to reject this treaty.”

Or maybe it’s more to do with the fact that there’s no public money being pumped into the ‘No’ side. The YEF, on the other hand, enjoys funding from the EU Commission in order to promote European integration, as we pointed out in our December publication, 'The Hard Sell'.

The group received a rather sizeable €132,927 from the EU between January 2005 and October 2007.

But don't take our word for it - check out the YEF's own website, where they proudly show off their EU funding.

Turn up the sound and click here for an example of the sort of stuff this group is spending your money on to get you to support EU federalism (warning - it's possibly the cringiest thing on the internet).

As regards the Lisbon Treaty, they believe it "is crucial to put the EU back on track on the road to unification".

One proposal they've put forward recently is for a single EU Olympic Team, an idea they came up with when Britain was doing well winning medals last year in Beijing. After the idea was covered in the newspapers in the UK, Toni Giugliano , the Vice-President of the group issued this extraordinary statement. Here's an extract:

“It’s great to see that the British press have reacted so passionately to the proposed European Olympic Team, especially since this is the year that team GB finally showed the continent and the world that Britain is not only the heart disease, cancer and diabetes capital of the world, nor the couch potato Rupert Murdoch reading state that everyone makes it out to be. No! Brits really do love playing sports, and winning at them too!... It may be the case that team GB did better than usual in these Olympics. Perhaps they fed their athletes with Special K instead of the usual fried chips ‘n egg. Mmmm, they’re learning.”

Quite why taxpayers should be paying for this kind of amateur rubbish is beyond us.

Say what you see

2009-09-21T17:59:00.012+01:00

Strong stuff coming out of the Lib Dem conference in Bournemouth today... Hat-tip Spectator Coffee House Blog.

Chris Davies MEP gets worked up over the issue of politicians fiddling their expenses:

"I hate the dirty, cheating b******s, who have taken every opportunity to fill their private pockets with public money. I despise them for dragging down the reputation of my Parliament and all its members. I want them exposed. I want them punished. I want them thrown out."

We don't know exactly who he's referring to but in the past he has singled out disgraced ex-Conservative MEP Den Dover, who apparently still owes the taxpayer £500,000 in "unduly paid expenses", saying that some people see him as "no better than a thief".

Davies' comments are a useful reminder that the problem of MEPs and their expenses is still to be resolved. Since July MEPs have been governed by a new Members' Statute, governing rules on expenses and allowances for MEPs, which offers some very small improvements.

For instance, whereas in the past, MEPs did not have to produce a single receipt for the more than £360,000 available to them every year in allowances (on top of their salary), MEPs must now produce receipts for one chunk of that, which is their travel expenses (although the rules now state that all travel can be by business class). As well as that, MEPs' staff in Brussels are now directly employed, and paid for, by the European Parliament.

MEPs may also no longer employ direct family members (although if they were already working for them in July, they may carry on working for them).

But office expenses and the daily subsistence allowance are still available without receipts - effectively leaving huge amounts of money going straight into MEPs' pockets every year, with no check on how ~~that~~ your money is being spent.

Outrageously, as recently as March this year, MEPs voted to exempt documents which detail how much they are claiming in expenses, and what they are claiming for, from public information requests.

Full credit to Chris Davies - he is one of avery few MEPs who has consistently encouraged and voted in favour of greater transparency in the European Parliament (he voted against exempting documents relating to MEPs' expenses, along with about a quarter of UK MEPs).

Just like at Westminster, the Brussels (and Strasbourg) system needs root-and-branch reform, as we've spelled out before.

Former Labour Minister blasts Lisbon Treaty

2009-09-19T12:54:00.004+01:00

In a similar vein to the last post, the Mail today picks up on comments made by Labour MP and former Minister Gisela Stuart at Open Europe's Dublin meeting last week, at which she blasted the Lisbon Treaty because of its serious implications for democracy.

As a member of the European Convention which drafted the Treaty, Gisela really knows her stuff. Warning that "the nature of democracy is really at stake", she said there would be "no more treaties, no more referendums anywhere" on EU integration.

She is also a key supporter of the Europe Says No campaign.

You can read her important comments in more detail here on our website.

Tell it like it is

2009-09-18T17:48:00.003+01:00

Hat-tip to Iain Dale for this find:

Labour's candidate in Folkestone & Hyde, Donald Worsley, has told the Romney Marsh Times:

“Top of the reasons for the euro [elections] disaster must surely be the Government’s failure to honour its Manifesto pledge to call a referendum on a New European Treaty. Such serious pledges once given must never be denied.”

Yup.

Nothing to fear from a 'no' vote

2009-09-17T14:19:00.003+01:00

Good piece in the Wall Street Journal today, about how Ireland has nothing to fear from a 'no' vote.

Well worth a read.

Europe Says No

2009-09-16T21:18:00.004+01:00

Check out this new pan-European campaign: "Europe Says No: No to Lisbon, Yes to Democracy" - http://www.europesaysno.org/

As well as explaining in detail why the Treaty is so bad for democracy, there's also a place to add your comments, and to show your support by signing up to the Facebook group.

Reading through all the comments, you can see how Charlie McCreevy got the idea that 95% of Europeans would have said 'no' to the Treaty if only they'd be allowed a say on it...