Andrew's EU Blog from Brussels

While the appointment of Van Rompuy was somewhat expected as he was the frontrunner and overall favourite for the position, the naming of Baroness Ashton has certainly raised a few eyebrows.

She is Britain's current Commissioner, having taken over the role from Lord Mandelson in October 2008, and will relinquish her role as Trade Commissioner.

Her appointment comes as a surprise, namely because her name had never been mentioned for this job largely because she has next to no experience at all in the domain of Foreign Policy. But she is a women which as I explained with my (now wrong) prediction of the EU appointing a women as President in the name of gender equality...

I guess her appointment is basically to bring the UK-American "special relationship" to the table... which is one reason why I (again wrongly) predicted that the position would go to David Miliband.

Nonetheless, here are your two new European figureheads for at least the next two-and-a-half years...

Labels: Current Affairs, EU

Posted by Andrew at 7:44 PM | Permalink | Comments

The President of the European Council will undoubtedly become the face of the European Union, but the argument here in Brussels has been whether the EU wants someone to act as the voice and face of Europe, or someone that will simply maintain the functioning of the Union in a chair person sort of role.

The ideal would be a bit of both, but the frontrunner (and widely expected choice) is current Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy (left), who certainly does not have the recognisable face, traits and reputation that the likes of other candidates have, such as Tony Blair...

However, I think that this appointment will be even more historic, with the naming of a female to the post. This is just my opinion, but I think that in the face of actions taken by female MEPs recently to highlight the lack of gender equality in the posts of Commissioners, the heads of state may well nominated one to the post of President, or should I say Presidente?

Yesterday, a group of female MEPs from all countries and political groupings, assembled outside the "Justus Lipsius" building in Brussels sporting shirts, ties and CVs.

British MEP, and EuroParl Vice-President, Diana Wallis (seen above centre in the rather nice orange tie) remarked "you have to be a man to get the high posts here", a point she repeated from a press conference held the day before alongside five other female MEPs demanding fairer representation.

With this in mind, I believe the name to emerge will be that of the 71-year-old former Latvian Prime Minister, Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga (below right), whose candidacy I spoke about in a previous blog entry.

While I do not know a great deal about her, but a campaign website (awomantoheadeurope.eu) for her says that she "is a woman of peace, a committed, determined European. She speaks five languages fluently; her culture is that of Europe, her experience is one of commitment in support of Human Rights, the Rule of Law, pluralism and Freedom. She narrowly missed being appointed UN Secretary General in 2006."

Furthermore, it then proceeds to say she "embodies perfectly the female image of Europe whose roots are firmly set in our lands and which have grown with our history".

Her appointment would also carry rather great symbolic importance. Firstly, Latvia is a country formerly considered by the Russians as (perhaps they still consider it to be) within their sphere of influence.

Latvia has opted to join the European Union rather than embrace Russian cooperation, and joined in May 2004. It is also, significantly, a member of NATO, and while it does not currently use the Euro as its currency, it has the declared intention to in the near future.

In the same year we commemorate 20 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Communism in Europe, how fitting it would be to see a citizen of a former Communist-state at the helm of Europe? (Not forgetting of course that the current European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek is from Poland...)

While some commentators are refusing to rule out the (undeclared) candidacy of Tony Blair, I am. I think this would be highly unlikely - made even more so by my opinion on who will be appointed to the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

As no country can hold both positions, it would certainly rule out Tony Blair if my choice gets the position, and that choice (which may come as a surprise) would be British Labour MP, and current Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.

Now I know what you're thinking: "didn't he declare he didn't want the job"? Yes, he did, but I think that was just to quash the press speculation. Once again I can evoke the TV series Yes, Minister, in particular the transition episode to Yes, Prime Minister when Jim Hacker repeats that he "has no ambitions" for the post, when actually he did (episode details). I think (and I hope) that it's the same trick again here.

The job would mean a lot of responsibility and stature; he (or she)would also be a Vice-President in the Commission and chair the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers.

That said, although he/she has powers to make proposals he or she can only represent the Union in matters where there is an agreed policy between all member states. The post is backed by an External Action Service (EEAS), which assists the new combined High Representative to generate consensus in the European Union and implement that consensus when achieved.

David Miliband has proved himself to be one of the most reliable and popular politicians in the British Cabinet, and has been lauded for his foreign policy credentials by the majority of EU and World leaders. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, even described him as "so vibrant, vital, attractive and smart," continuing to add, "He's a really good guy. And he's so young!"

He clearly is capable of such a role, perhaps too much so because he fancies his chances in the UK as a future replacement of Gordon Brown in Number 10. Perhaps that is the reasoning behind his "declaration of non-intent"...

Whoever is chosen, it will be a historic event in Europe's long history. Naturally I hope that I am correct in my predictions, but should I be wrong, I hope that the two people chosen will move Europe forward now that the Lisbon Treaty has finally be ratified...

What do you think of my predictions? Who do you think will be appointed? Leave a comment below...

Labels: Comment, EU

Posted by Andrew at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments

The film follows the elder brother, Itso (played by Christo Christov) who is a furniture-maker and a skilled wood carver who dreams of moving up in life and out of Sofia. While walking home from a disastrous meal with his girlfriend (or ex-girlfriend - it's hard to tell which with all the apologies and fall-outs and snubs...) he witnesses a Turkish family being set upon in a disturbing and violent beating.

Itso rushes to break it up and stop the beating but gets punched himself for interfering. His brother Georgi (played by Ovanes Torosian) was part of this group, threw the first punch at the Turkish father and was on "look-out" when (unknowingly) his brother intervened. As the racist neonazi group fled, there was a long sustained period of silent eye-contact between the brothers that spoke volumes.

As Georgi becomes invited more and more to participate in larger violent racist activities, he starts to question his place in the movement - a movement he joined to rebel against his father and attempt to find his place in society.

After accompanying the family to the local hospital, Itso wonders if the beautiful Turkish girl, Isil (Saadet Aksoy), he saved could be his ticket out from his sad life in Sofia. They proceed to meet secretly with each other, until one day when the father had recovered sufficiently from his injuries to get out of the country as soon as possible.

Only by reuniting were the two brothers able to assess what they really want from life. And the film ends, rather abruptly and strangely I must add, with Itso suddenly arriving in Istanbul - I presume to look for Isil, but it is extremely unclear (perhaps it is supposed to be?).

The conclusion felt to me as if the producers had run out of cash, time and/or energy, such was its abruptness. It even surprised all of us in attendance, although not so much as the violent beating scene. I've seen violence on the screens, but that took it to another level. But then I guess even that is not as horrifying as such an attack in real life, an issue which the director is keen to address with his film.

Eastern Plays: Film trailer (Bulgarian with English subtitles)

"Neonazi movements are not more present in Bulgaria than in other European countries", he told reporters at the European Parliament, "intolerance is not exclusive to a single country, nor does it belong only to right-wing political forces. All politicians have the same responsibility - to help people outgrow their prejudices and learn to live together."

And so, the verdict: Well, if the MEPs vote for the political messages contained within each film then there is no doubt in my mind that this one will be the winning film. That said, and putting the violence to one side, I did not enjoy the film as much as Welcome. But again, it is a very worthy contender for the prize.

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments

Making the announcement, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country currently occupies the rotating presidency, said the exceptional summit in Brussels will be in the format of an EU leaders' dinner in Brussels and will come after two weeks of consultations between Stockholm and the other EU capitals.

To be decided are the positions of the new president of the European Council and EU foreign relations chief, as well as the appointment of a new secretary general of the Council, the Brussels-based institution which prepares member states' day-to-day meetings.

In plenary in Brussels on Wednesday (11th), MEPs and group leaders had their change to say what they wanted from these appointments. In the debate, concerns were voiced about the timetable for appointing candidates, their qualifications, and issues gender equality. Here are some of the highlights:

Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE, BE) spoke most openly about the appointments stating his belief that the position of the President of Council should be filled by "somebody who believes in EU integration, is not a eurosceptic, and believes in the community method which takes Europe forward."

"If you want to appoint a Pope, you choose a Catholic", he jovially remarked.

Hannes Swoboda (AT), on behalf of the S&D group, was concerned with the gender question and asked "are you ready to talk to the Heads of State to ensure that we have a gender and a geographical balance [in the Commission] and are you prepared to ensure that there are powerful ladies involved?"

Joseph Daul (EPP, FR) also spoke on this issue, strongly advising Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that "once the Member States have designated their candidates [for Commissioners posts] you should move as quickly as possible to establish their portfolios, so that they can be heard by the EP in hearings which we want to be as in-depth as possible."

Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA, DE) lamented the fact there "is as yet no sign of any strong men or women coming forward", while Timothy Kirkhope (ECR, UK) used his allotted time to suggest that "some [government leaders] are even trying to divide the European Union into two classes of citizens, by saying that only individuals coming from Member States in the Schengen area and the Eurozone should be eligible."

Dismissing the summit's objectives all-together, Lothar Bisky (GUE/NGL, DE) argued "it would be a good idea if the Heads of State and Governments were to use the summit for [rather] more practical and concrete politics."

With so much for the heads of State and Government leaders to discuss and decide, one wonders whether they will have time to eat. But regardless of the names that emerge from the meeting, it will be another significant day in the history of the European Union.

Remember, remember the 19th of November...

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments

Last night I stayed late and went to one of the screenings in the EuroParl building of one of the three films that are the finalists in this year's European Parliament Film Prize 2009 - the Prix Lux. As the result is to be announced while I am on mission in Strasbourg, it will be one of my assignments to file so I wanted to make sure I see the three films before heading to France in a fortnight.

The first I saw was a French film called "Welcome" directed by Philippe Lioret. It is the story of an Iraqi refugee, Bilal (above right, played by Firat Ayverdi) who had fled his war-torn country to head to England to rejoin his girlfriend. However, he has a problem, he cannot get to England, and he failed in his attempt to smuggle his way in illegally in the back of a haulage truck.

Gazing across the Channel on the beach of Calais, he formulates a new plan: to swim, and immediately uses his limited money to take up swimming lessons at the local pool. It is there that he meets Simon (above left, played by Vincent Lindon), an instructor, lifeguard and a former national swimming champion, who has problems of his own.

In the process of being divorced by his wife, he is depressed and in light of the young Kurd's determination for love decides to take a big risk and try to train Bilal to enable him to swim the Channel.

In the film Simon laments how Bilal had walked hundreds of miles for three months, across dozens of foreign countries in the name of love for his girlfriend while he couldn't even cross the road to save his own marriage. The two troubled men discover that they have much in common, and their friendship develops into a strong bond that will prove necessary for both men to realise their dreams for a happy future.

The film, which has apparently seen huge success at the French box office, not only addresses some of the pressing social issues of the day and the tricky issue of immigration controls, but is a truly touching, heart-warming and delightful portrayal of one person's kindness that is perhaps not as present in today's society as it should be.

Welcome: Film trailer (in French)

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments

Labels: Current Affairs, EU

Posted by Andrew at 8:05 PM | Permalink | Comments

But that was not the main reason for his visit. Presidents Buzek and Platini were due to discuss a number of wide-ranging issues in their meeting, including Mr Platini's latest "Financial Fair Play" initiative, the protection of minors and the clubs that train them and the issue of betting in football, namely corruption and match-fixing.

They also spoke about the arrangements for the forthcoming UEFA EURO 2012 tournament finals which are to be co-hosted in the Ukraine and Mr Buzek's native Poland.

After signing a couple of footballs and reminiscing about former players, Mr Platini addressed the press after the meeting today saying he was extremely pleased that they share the same outlook for the sport and that Mr Buzek has "encouraged us in our efforts on Financial Fair Play, the protection of minors and their forming clubs, as well as in our fight against corruption linked to betting."

He also thanked Mr Buzek for having agreed to join UEFA's Friends of Football.

In return, Mr Buzek said these are "good policies for European football and I fully support all the initiatives of UEFA and President Platini which are crucial for football in Europe".

He also gave his backing for grassroots football and for the game to be used to help educate young people reaffirming that "there should be zero tolerance against racism, violence and doping" in the popular sport.

Focus perhaps will now turn to the future football match, and to what position Mr Buzek will allocate himself in the team. After holding one of the signed balls in his hands throughout the press conference, should perhaps he wants be the goalkeeper...?

Labels: EU, Sport

Posted by Andrew at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments

The big talk in Brussels today is the eager-awaited decision of the Czech Constitutional Court which today has rejected a challenge to the EU's Lisbon Treaty, paving the way for the sceptic Czech President Vaclav Klaus to sign it.

The court ruled that the treaty - an overhaul of the EU's institutional rules and laws - is compatible with Czech national law.

The treaty "is not in conflict with the constitutional law of the Czech Republic," Pavel Rychetsky, the court's chief justice, told state TV on Tuesday (3 November).

The decision was warmly received in Brussels, where European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek said: "The final hurdle has now been cleared. The decision clears the way for President Vaclav Klaus to sign and finalise the ratification of the Treaty and I am very confident he will do so."

"The Treaty of Lisbon should now enter into force by the end of the year."

"When I met President Klaus in October in Prague, I said that I was optimistic that we could find a solution," he continued.

"The Czechs have secured their opt-out on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and due legal process has been respected. We now look forward to working on the implementation of the Treaty which greatly enhances the powers of the democratically-elected European Parliament. "

The case had been brought by a group of 17 senators and came on the back of a similar though narrower challenge last year, which the top Czech judges also dismissed.

The Czech Republic is the last EU member state to fully ratify the treaty. The process has been held up by Mr Klaus, a eurosceptic and arch opponent of the document.

His signature is all that is required to complete ratification.

Now the decision has been announced, the mass attention will now again return to just who will occupy the two major posts that the Treaty will create...

UPDATE (15.35): Reports suggest Czech President Vaclav Klaus has now signed the Lisbon Treaty! Click here for BBC report

Labels: Current Affairs, EU

Posted by Andrew at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments

While the main media's converge today on yesterday's EU Summit in Brussels centred on the granting of an exception that the Czech president made a condition for signing the Lisbon Treaty and on the possible identity of the President of the European Council that would be created once it is in force, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek made his most telling remark on the role that seems not to have been picked up.

Buried in a relatively long speech delivered before the Summit meeting, he made reference to the future post (of which Tony Blair is/was a forerunner) and said:

"As far as the position of the permanent European Council President is concerned, this person should be a 'chairman or chairwoman' rather than a President. At the same time it should be considered that a woman could and should occupy this position. Appointing a woman would send a positive signal".

This small paragraph is remarkable for two main reasons.

Firstly, Buzek's interpretation dispels the belief that the President will be the face and voice of Europe. Last week in an interview for Le Figaro, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (16 October) declared "there are two visions for the role of the permanent President of the European Council: the face and voice of Europe around the World or, as others have conceived, the President will ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the European Council (...) In reality, we are looking for Mr. Right who will do both."

Buzek's words imply that he is looking just for the latter of those visions: that the President will be one to ensure the smooth and efficient continuation of the European machinery. This is not the job that Tony Blair would be interested in, and after all, his global clout would be no good if the post did not list being the face and voice of Europe in its job description (which is still largely undefined).

Secondly, Buzek's will to see a woman appointed essentially disregards all of those candidates that have already but their names (formally or informally) forward: the likes of Mr Blair, Jean-Claude Juncker, Jan-Peter Balkenende, Wolfgang Schüssel, Felipe Gonzalez, etc...

Instead it would strongly suggest that the preferred candidate for Buzek would be Vaira Vike-Freiberga (left), who at 71 years of age is a former Latvian President whose candidacy is being heavily encouraged lately by the neighbouring Lithuania.

But just who is Ms Vike-Freiberga? Well, she was the first female president of Latvia, a former Soviet republic that joined the European Union and NATO in 2004.

She is dubbed by many as the Iron Lady of Latvia and served as President of Latvia for eight years after being elected in 1999 and re-elected in 2003.

She was a staunch supporter of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, which could cause divisions of opinion from the other states towards her candidacy, like we have already seen in the case of Mr Blair.

So what chance is there of a Latvian assuming the post that is to be created once the Czech Republic ratifies the Lisbon Treaty? Well, it would certainly come as a surprise. The big powers in Europe would naturally like their country to be represented, so to give the post to a country who only joined in 2004 and not one of the founders would cause a stir.

Latvia does not use the Euro as its currency (although it would like to), and its position and relationship with Russia could become important symbolic considerations should she be chosen for the post.

Set amongst the background of the other subjects addressed at the Summit it is surprising this small section of Mr Buzek's speech was not picked up by the big media outlets. José Manuel Barroso has also recently sent a rallying cry for more women to fill the top posts in the EU urging the national leaders to see "gender balance as a common goal and a shared responsibility".

So who are the front-runners in the race for EU Council President now?

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments

It is very noticeable that everyday in the Belgian free press there is an article or a reference to when the country takes over the rolling presidency of the European Council and its consequent projected level of spending, which the locals worry will cost too much.

The Kingdom of Belgium is set to resume the presidency on 1 July 2010 for six months after Spain who will take over from the current Sweden on 1 January.

So the news emerging today from France about its spending for its six months in charge, will do little to ease these fears: The French Court of Accounts put the total cost of the July-December 2008 presidency at a whopping €171 million (approx £155m).

On average the rotating presidency of the EU costs each country approximately €70-80 million, but this works out at nearly €1 million a day!

Attempts were made in the report to try and justify the massive expense at the hands of the French taxpayer, remarking that "the scale of this summit, the irregular nature of its procedures and its massive impact on public finances together make this summit a kind of record."

The report noted that France organised 489 EU events during its presidency including nine summits, 25 ministerial meetings and 328 seminars and symposiums.

This huge sum eclipses the amounts previously spent by previous French presidencies of the EU - in 2000 (€56.9 million) and 1995 (€14.1 million), and will certainly add, rather than dispel, Belgian anxiety.

Yet if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified, then under the proposed system there would not be a rotating presidency of the same scale so Belgians will not have to spend quite so much...

UPDATE (28/10, 15.00):
And if that was not already enough, the Daily Telegraph has discovered that included in this spending was a including £250,000 custom-built luxury shower that, get this, President Nicolas Sarkozy never even used...

While incorporating power and massage jet buttons as well as a surround-sound radio feature, the main bulk of the money was spent trying to get it installed in what is a listed building...

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments

The 'Rise of the Right-wing' took another visible step over the weekend as a clutch of far-right political parties have "cobbled together an alliance of convenience to represent their interests in the European Parliament", the EU Observer reports.

The article reports it was Gabor Vona, the party chairman of Hungary's extreme nationalist grouping, Jobbik, who announced in Budapest on Saturday (24 October) the founding of the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements alongside a declaration of common goals that was drafted by the British National Party's (BNP) leader, Nick Griffin.

Five parties have also initially signed the nine-point declaration: Jobbik, France's Front National, Italy's Fiamma Tricolore, Sweden's National Democrats and Belgium's Walloon extremists, the Front Nationalists.

The parties that signed the declaration have agreed to reject "any attempts at forming an EU federal state," and will call for pro-family policies and "traditional values" and demand Europe be protected from "religious, political, economic and financial imperialism."

This alliance is not an official political grouping because according to the EuroParl rules it needs to include a minimum of 25 elected deputies from at least seven member states.

Currently, only Jobbik, the French Front National, the BNP and the FPO have any representation in the European Parliament. As a result, it cannot claim office space in the parliament nor the accompanying financial grants...

That said, the Hungarian party won a whopping 14.7 percent of the vote in Hungary in the last European elections (giving it three seats in Strasbourg) and the BNP, as we know, won two seats. As for the others, most did not even garner 1 percent...

It would seem therefore that the rise [thankfully] still has a long way to go...

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 4:58 PM | Permalink | Comments

The 2009 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought has today been awarded to MEMORIAL, their three representatives Oleg Orlov, Sergei Kovalev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, and on behalf of all other human rights defenders in Russia.

First awarded in 1988, the Sakharov Prize is named in honour of the Soviet physicist and political dissident Andrei Sakharov who helped to found the organisation as a means to document Stalinist repressions of peoples. From the initial idea of establishing a monument, a museum, archive and a library, it has since expanded into an active civil rights defence society of activists.

The Memorial organisation aims to promote fundamental rights in post-Soviet states including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova and Ukraine.

On its website, the organisation describes itself as a: "non governmental organisation spread all over the former post soviet states, it's a research centre, a community of human rights NGOs, Memorial is a number of regional associations of former prisoners of political prison camps and members of their families."

Upon announcing the winner, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek said "We hope to contribute to ending the circle of fear and violence surrounding human rights defenders in the Russian Federation."

The Pole and former anti-Communist campaigner added that he felt "personal satisfaction" over the award as "a man who comes from Solidarity and who saw Poland fighting for truth and freedom, which it finally won in the 1980s."

Three Memorial staff, Oleg Orlov, Sergei Kovalev and Lyudmila Alexeyeva, will be invited to collect the prize, which comes with a €50,000 cheque, at the EU parliament on 16 December.

The other two finalists for the prize, Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish (a Palestinian obstetrician in Gaza who treats Israelis and Palestinians) and Dawit Isaak (a Swedish journalist, writer and playwright of Eritrean origin who has been a political prisoner since 2001) also received commendations from President Buzek at the announcement.

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments

When it came to the voting this afternoon (21st), the overall title had been duly altered to include the other countries of the European Union, an alteration that reveals a certain sense of unity amongst all the groups.

However, when it came to the important votes, the chamber was divided - almost 50/50%. While the minor amendments of paragraphs were accepted, the overall draft resolutions were all voted down. Nine in all.

It is a result that illustrates that there is a general consensus that something should be done, but a disaccord as to how it should be done. The debate will certainly continue...

Press Freedom Index 2009

The timing of the votes could not have been more relevant as they came the day after the unveiling of the annual Press Freedom Index by the organisation Reporters Without Borders.

Revised every year and formulated on the basis of questionnaires completed by hundreds of journalists and media experts around the world, the 2009 results turned out to be rather gloomy reading for Europe.

In 2008, European countries represented 18 out of the top 20 countries in the World. This time around, they number only 15.

However, the top five countries of the world that respect the freedom of the press are European, namely: Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Norway and Sweden.

Appearing at the head of the list is somewhat of a coup for Denmark whose journalists have faced great criticism in recent years after the publishing (and republishing in solidarity) of the now in-famous Mohammad cartoons.

UK 20th, Italy 49th

Italy, whose press situation was the initial subject of the debate at the European Parliament plenary meeting in Brussels earlier this month leading to today's resolution, fell five places down to 49th.

Bulgaria is the lowest ranked European country at 68th out of 175 countries. Last place was awarded to Eritrea where many journalists were imprisoned in the last 12 months.

The biggest rise up the table was that of the USA, which climbed 20 places in the rankings, from 40th to 20th, in just one year. RSF credit this to the "Obama Effect" saying that Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this rise.

Since 2008, the United Kingdom's press freedom note improved by 1.5 points, ranking it at joint 20th alongside the USA.

The full table can be viewed here.

The organisation's secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said at the release of the latest table that press freedom needs to be defended everywhere in the world "with the same energy and the same insistence".

“It is disturbing to see European democracies such as France, Italy and Slovakia fall steadily in the rankings year after year,” he said. “Europe should be setting an example as regards civil liberties. How can you condemn human rights violations abroad if you do not behave irreproachably at home?"

Vincent Brossel from Reporters Without Borders says Europe should be setting an example of strong civil liberties around the world, but in many European countries press freedom is moving backwards.

"Important countries in Europe like Italy or France or Spain have really, have lost all their ranks especially because of intervention by the chief of states, like [Italian Prime Minister] Berlusconi or [French President] Mr. Sarkozy," Brossel said.

This year’s index reflects press freedom violations that took place between September 1 2008 and August 31 2009.

Labels: EU

Share |

Posted by Andrew at 1:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

"Despite the cold here in Strasbourg, I'd like now to talk about countries which are warmer and where the temperatures are slightly more ideal than in here."

Ning's beach equipment hire and surf school, Barbados: Photo (C) Neil Burgess

Labels: EU, Travel

Posted by Andrew at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments

The mystery surrounding who will become the first full-time President of the European Council took an unusual turn this week when a European MP declared his candidature.

Chris Davies, a British Liberal Democrat MEP for the North-West, revealed to a small gathering of the press at the European Parliament today that he has written to each of Europe’s 27 heads of government to state his claim for the job.

He believes his qualifications for the job are as good as other candidates suggested so far and so is prepared to make himself "available for interview."

Campaigning under the banner "Stop Blair: Yes EU can", Davies took a swipe at former UK Prime Minister saying that he has "never deceived a parliament or been responsible for the illegal invasion of another country."

While admitting his campaign for the presidency was "more or less tongue-in-cheek", he hopes to highlight just how limited the circle of individuals said to be in the running for Europe’s top job is.

"I recognise Tony Blair is a great public speaker, but I don't think he belongs in Brussels," he said, "I think he belongs in The Hague."

Davies believes the best person for the job would be a woman, remarking that "there is nothing written in the Lisbon Treaty to say that anyone cannot be considered for the job.

"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?"

As for his own credentials: "I'm male, I'm middle class, I'm white, I'm in my 50s, I have an Oxbridge education and 30 years of political experience, so I reckon my credentials are as good as any of the other candidates."

He then spoke of his time chairing the Liverpool City Council’s housing committee in the Opposition years of the 1980s, jovially adding "I think after that, managing 27 heads of European states would be a piece of cake."

The President of the European Council post would be created once the last country Czech Republic ratifies the Lisbon Treaty, and although not officially announced as a candidate, Tony Blair is thought to be the front-runner.

Labels: EU

Posted by Andrew at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments

Now that the dust has settled on the massive Irish 'Yes' vote in the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, the question of who would eventually become the new President of the European Union has remerged.

Tony Blair, the former UK Labour Prime Minister, is the favourite for this post, which would be created when the Lisbon Treaty comes into action after being ratified by all 27 Member States. Now that Ireland gave their consent, Poland has indicated it too will sign soon, leaving the Czech Republic the only country yet to ratify.

Its perhaps most significant action would be to create the post of EU President to replace the rolling six-month presidency that is in operation at the moment (currently Sweden, Spain will assume control on January 1 2010). This would allow the EU to have a fixed figurehead on the world stage, which it believes will give it much more weight in international relations.

It was The Times last week that reported French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying he believed Blair is the best man for the job and that German opposition from Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to have softened.

Asked if Blair was the only real candidate, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner is quoted as replying: "For the moment, indeed." While the opinions of attitude of France and Germany are crucial to any decision, the future president will have be elected by all 27 EU leaders.

But here is the interesting bit, Blair, who appears to be disliked by all political parties in the Parliament, especially by his supposed allies on the left, and many of the national leaders for the UK's terrible decision to engage in war with Iraq amongst other things, may end up being elected because of the lack of another suitable candidate!

[Imagine how Gordon Brown would feel should his former boss, who he finally displaced, became his 'boss' again...]

Because of the arrangements to share posts between the two most represented political groups in the Parliament, the future president will be either a social democrat or a conservative, and while a few other candidates have emerged (for example former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, and former prime minister of Spain, Felipe Gonzalez) you can hardly say they have the international clout that Blair possesses. The same is true of the potential conservative candidates Jean-Claude Juncker, the current Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Jan Peter Balkenende, his Dutch equivalent.

Renowned blogger Jean Quatremer (fr) says that such international status will raise the EU to an equal footing on the world stage with the other big players, such as the USA. But symbolically, how would we all feel with a Brit holding the most powerful post in Europe?

For me, this feels rather uncomfortable considering how disengaged and unenthusiastic we have become to engage with the rest of Europe and participate fully in the European Union.

If Blair's appointment would be a catalyst for the UK to integrate further with the EU, i.e. declare the five economic tests passed and adopt the Euro and become a full member of the Schengen area for starters, then I would be very enthusiastic about the appointment.

But I don't think it will be, even more so with the ominous threat of a Conservative Government with anti-EU David Cameron at its head. At the party's conference, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague reaffirmed the desire once in power for a referendum of our own, and consult the public on whether we still want to be part of the EU. Naturally, this would be a catastrophic step and one which I hope will be avoided, but with Blair potentially at the helm of the European ship, you get the feeling it might make the Conservatives even more hostile and more willing to jump ship.

The role of President should be awarded to one of the founding countries, or at least to a country that over the years have proved that it is fully committed to the European cause.

So that would certainly rule out the UK then. But just what is the alternative now?

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, EU, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments