UK's EU Commissioner: Hill goes, King comes?

I've already blogged about the selection of Julian King as potential future (and last) EU Commission from the UK.

His nomination has been formally submitted to the EU Council last week (PDF incl. his official CV). Cameron, who had his last day in office today, wrote in the letter:

"Sir Julian is a very experienced diplomat with particular expertise in European affairs who has served successive British Governments with distinction. I believe he would be a strong addition to the Commission for the period ahead."

This followed the official resignation of the current Commissioner Jonathan Hill with effect of 15 July 2016, midnight (PDF with Juncker's letter announcing the resignation).

As I wrote previously, it will be interesting to see what portfolio King gets and what kind of games the European Parliament might be willing (or not willing) to play ahead of his potential nomination.

Will Julian King become the last EU Commissioner from the UK (or will he be blocked)?

"Following the nomination by British Prime Minister David Cameron of Sir Julian King as the candidate to replace outgoing Commissioner Lord Hill, President Jean-Claude Juncker will receive him on Monday, 11 July at 11:00 (CET) for an interview." (COM press release, 8 July 2016)

The announcement that the UK's ambassador to France (since this year), Julian King (Twitter), would be nominated as candidate for European Commissioner for the UK has been floating around for  days, so nothing surprising in the Commission's press release.

What will become interesting is (a) whether Juncker will propose him as a candidate after the interview on Monday, and (b) whether the European Parliament will actually endorse him as Commissioner and (c) whether, in case the EP refuses him, the Council and the Commission President would dare to go against the will of the parliament.

The press release specifies these procedural aspects:

"the appointment of a new Commissioner of UK nationality requires common accord between the President of the Commission and the Council after the consultation of the European Parliament … . In addition, the Interinstitutional Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission requires the President of the Commission to “seriously consider” the results of the consultation of the European Parliament – which will audition the candidate – before giving his accord to the decision of the Council to appoint the new Commissioner"

King's CV shows that he had not only experience as representative of his government at the EU Council of Ministers (1998-2003, 2004-08), including as representative to the EU Council Security Committee during the time of the UK's last presidency of the EU Council (as proven by this document). Afterwards (2008-09), he was also in the cabinet of former UK EU Commissioner Catherine Ashton while she was still responsible for trade, not foreign affairs.

Thus, he knows his way around the Council, including at the level of the Council Presidency, and he has served at cabinet-level inside the Commission in a not-so-distant past, which will have given him quite some insights into Commission business.

In other words, the UK sends a person who looks very much qualified for the job, probably better qualified in EU terms than any of his recent predecessors. Don't know anything about him personally, but, short of Jonathan Faull, this sounds like a good choice and I don't see why the EP should not approve him except for broader political considerations.

Interview with the future UK prime minister? - Theresa May on ITV

Yesterday morning, Theresa May, candidate for UK prime minister and thus also one of the candidates for chief negotiator for Brexit in the years to come, gave an interview at ITV.

Most importantly, she doesn't want to evoke article 50 of the EU Treaty before the end of 2016. And she does not want new elections but instead just a Tory party membership vote to decide about the next Prime Minister.

There'll probably be quite some interviews like this in the weeks to come, but they are already telling something about the potential future course of action of the Brexit negotiations.

UK elections: What's at stake for the citizens of the EU?

We, Europeans from other EU member states, may not care who wins the elections in the United Kingdom but we will be affected anyway.

Whether or not there will be significant policy changes - which can be the case if the Liberal Democrats will gain enough seats to be part of a coalition government and which will be the case if the Conservatives win an absolute majority - these elections determine how and by whom the UK is represented in the EU institutions.

You don't think it is important who represents the United Kingdom and which policy programme is advocated by these personalities in the EU Council and the European Council?

Well, then you don't think that the regulation of financial institutions is an issue that concerns you. You don't think that it is relevant whether the UK will push for reforms in the Common Agricultural Policies of the EU or not.

You don't think that it makes a difference whether a Labour government, a Conservative government or a coalition of one of the two other with the Liberal Democrats will determine the new EU internal security strategy or the shape of the EU's External Action Service, including the precise nature of its tasks (e.g. regarding military capacities).

All these are issues which are discussed right now in the different EU institutions, and the British government is an important part of these discussions. And all these policies have direct impact on the lives of all EU citizens.

In short, if you don't care for the election results in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, you don't think that the EU has any impact on your life.

Different to how some might want to frame the debate, the question of these elections is thus not so much about staying in the EU or leaving it. It is not the question: Will the Royal Union stay a Loyal Union to the European Union?

No, it's more profane: The UK elections partially determine the outcome of concrete future policies of the European Union. British citizens vote for the direction of their country today, but they also vote for a fraction of the direction the EU will take in the years to come.

So, EU citizens, take a look to the UK today and notice who will win - because this will affect your lives in the years to come!

Picture: © prasenberg / CC BY-NC 2.0

European Parliament elections 2009 (117): EUX.TV on the UK's and the Netherlands' eurosceptic voices

Below a short film on yesterday's elections in the UK and the Netherlands by EUX.TV, but you can also read more at The European Citizen.



------------------------------
Since July 2008, I have been following up national and European activities on the path to the EP elections under the category "European parliament elections 2009".

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

European Parliament election 2009 (114): Criticising the critics: Hat tip to Charlemagne

Charlemagne on the Economist.com has published a wonderful article in which he criticises the PES for criticising the Romanian politician Monica Macovei on its website.

This is one of the few examples of a European news source or blog actually taking up a political statement published by a European Party, and, based on intelligent and thorough argumentation, making a strong and yet pan-European point:

"[...] So it is not, on the face of it, shocking to turn to the campaign website of the main centre-left block, the Party of European Socialists, and find a feature denouncing 12 “terrible” candidates from rival parties [...]

Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, a racist, extreme right-wing outfit, is also singled out for his horrid views, and that is fair enough. [...]

But then comes an astonishing choice: Monica Macovei, the former Romanian justice minister. Talk to senior EU officials and European diplomats who worked on Romania’s accession to the union, and they call Ms Macovei an heroic figure, and pretty much the only reason Romania achieved entry into the EU in 2007. [...]

This attack on Monica Macovei reads—not least because of the stilted apparatchikese in which it is written—as if it were dictated by Romania’s socialists. They certainly do not like Ms Macovei: after all, she tried to prosecute several of them, starting with Mr Nastase.

But the website belongs to the PES headquarters. So they have ended up bundling a brave reformer and fighter against crippling corruption with a British racist, as one of the 12 worst candidates for the European Parliament.

What on earth were they thinking?"

This is the kind of journalism the European Parliament elections need!

Update: And I just saw at the Nosemonkey that this was already the second marvellous piece of journalism by Charlemagne in a day. Respect!

------------------------------
Under the category "European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

European Parliament elections 2009 (86): Are the Scottish underrepresented?

Via Tom I found the follwoing in a blog entry by Jeff:

Think on this:

• Slovakia has a population of 5.4m people and is represented by 14 MEPs.

• Finland has a population of 5.3m and is represented by 14 MEPs.

• Ireland has a population of 4.4m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.

• Lithuania has a population of 3.3m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.

• Latvia has a population of 2.2m people and is represented by 9 MEPs.

• Slovenia has a population of 2m people and is represented by 7 MEPs.

• Estonia has a population of 1.3m people and is represented by 6 MEPs.

• Scotland has a population of 5.2m pople and is represented by a mere 6 MEPs.
  

In fact, if you calculate the number of inhabitants per MEP, then Scotland is close to the overal ratio of the United Kingdom (the UK is subdivided into 12 constituencies of 4-10 MEPs), which itself has a comparable ration to the the largest member state, Germany.

So in comparison with small EU member states Scotland might be underrepresented, but in relation to the number of MEPs of the UK, a Scottish vote has a similar weight to the vote of any other UK citizen.

------------------------------
Under the category "European Parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

Daniel Hannan nationalises the European Parliament

Last week, British MEP Daniel Hannan ruled the world. Almost.

It is a pity that it has to be a speech from a British politician speaking to another British politician about basically British politics has to become one of the most viewed and famous speeches in the European Parliament ever (and for two days the most watched video worldwide).

The EP webeditors have discussed the viral effects of this phenomenon, but even Mr Hannan, a well-known blogger himself (which is one basic explanation for this success), seemed to be surprised.

So Mr Hannan has finally won: He managed to nationalise the European Parliament.

European Parliament elections 2009 (63): British Tories (conservatives) leave the European People's Party's group in the EP (corrected)

With interest I note that the British conservatives - rather eurosceptic - leave the European People's Party's (EPP) group (EPP-ED) in the European Parliament which itself is rather pro-EU.

The rumour that this might happen one day was floating around for quite some time already, but it seems as if the British conservatives want to go into the election campaign with this new face, maybe also to fight clearly eurosceptic players like Libertas which has just started its UK campaign.

Altogether, this is a considerable blow to the EPP-ED and will cost the group in the European Parliament over 25 seats if the Tories will at least keep their result of 2004.

Whether the Tories will join the eurosceptic United for a Europe of Nations (UEN) or whether they will form a new political group is not yet clear.

Read the story and related discussions also here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

(Corrected: The Tories are not part of the EPP but just of their group in the EP.)
------------------------------
Under the category "European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

United Kingdom breaches European Convention on Human Rights in post-9/11 anti-terror measures - but just a bit

The European Court of Human Rights* (ECtHR) today has issued a Grand Chamber (thus final) judgement that the United Kingdom broke the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by unlawfully detaining nine suspected terrorists.

I am still trying to understand the judgement, because the press release is badly written, but what is sure is that 9 mostly North-African nationals were held as suspected "international terrorists" and were kept in continuous detention because the UK was not able to deport them due to the fear that they would be tortured in their home countries.

Apparently, this custody was not in conformity with the Article 5 of the ECHR (right to liberty and protection from unlawful detention).

Yet, there is some very strange reasoning in the text:

The Court acknowledges inter alia that there has been a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” (as defined by the UK) which made these measures not as bad as they were in other circumstances (also taking into account that there might have been a risk of mistreatment in their home countries if deported):

The Court made awards under Article 41 (just satisfaction) which were substantially lower than those which it had made in past cases of unlawful detention, in view of the fact that the detention scheme was devised in the face of a public emergency and as an attempt to reconcile the need to protect the United Kingdom public against terrorism with the obligation not to send the applicants back to countries where they faced a real risk of ill-treatment.

I am not fully into the case, but all this reasoning sounds rather imprecise, more like a compromise that doesn't hurt the UK than a pro-human-rights verdict!

Read also: the International Harald Tribune article

*The ECHR technically belongs to the 47 member states strong Council of Europe and should not be confused with the European Court of Justice belonging to the EU

UK abstains when voting on EU terror list

Some days ago I have reported on the decision of the EU to remove the Iranian opposition group PMOI from the EU's terror list.

Now, wondering through the endless stream of Council documents, I have found a document titled "Outcome of Proceedings of the CP 931 Working Party meeting held on 8 January 2009" which looked so strange that I needed to have look into it.

Without mentioning any names, this document summarises the decision to take of PMOI from the terrorism list. And it indicates (taking into account previous discussions where the UK objected) that most probably the United Kingdom might have abstained when it came to the vote on this matter, showing that despite the decision of the Court the UK would not have been convinced it was wrong.

PS: And just out of curiosity I learnt that the CP 931 Working party is the "Working Party on implementation of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism" (the terms of reference of this working party can be found here).

Member states stop fooling around the European Court of Justice: Iranian opposition organisation PMOI removed from EU terror list

After fooling around the European Court of Justice for some time (see my article from October 2008 on that matter), the Council of the European Union has finally decided to remove the oppositional People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) - without discussion, as EUobserver reports - from the EU' terror organisations list.

This is the first time that an organisation was taken off the EU's terror list.

Does this mean that the evidence brought forward by the United Kingdom in October was wrong? That the member states purposefully ignored a judgement of the European Court of Justice although the "new" evidence was not strong enough to support this position? That the United Kingdom brought false evidence? That the member states don't care?

Or does it mean that the member states in the Council just listen to the Court when they deem it politically appropriate...?

European elections 2009 (36): How the UK might vote

Nosemonkey presents how the British might vote for the next EU elections. He announces that he might well not vote - rather astonishing for the most prominent British pro-European blogger. If the elections don't get - who will they actually get?

Worth reading!

------------------------------
Under the category "Tracking: European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

European Elections 2009 (33): United Kingdom candidates/party lists (including Wales and Scotland)

As we are getting closer to the EP elections, more and more countries are deciding upon their party lists for the 2009 European parliamentary vote.

In the United Kingdom, which elects its 72 Members of European Parliament (MEPs) in 12 multi-candidate constituencies, these lists have already been agreed upon in most of the constituencies (all except Northern Ireland (3 MEPs) as far as I could see).

The lists have been published on Wikipedia:

• Scotland (6 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• Wales (4 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• London (8 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• East Midlands (5 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• East of England (7 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• North East England (3 MEPs, 5 parties)
  
• North West England (8 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• South East England (10 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• South West England (6 MEPs, 6 parties)
  
• West Midlands (6 MEPs, 5 parties)
  
• Yorkshire and the Humber (6 MEPs, 6 parties)
  

Where there are 6 parties in the English constituencies, these are The Conservatives, Labour, The Liberal Party, The UK Independence Party (anti-EU), The Greens, and The English Democrats. In North East England and the West Midlands, the English Democrats do not have a list. In Wales, Plaid Cymru replaces the English Democrats, while in Scotland they are replaced by the Scottish National Party.

------------------------------
Under the category "Tracking: European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have a look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

British journalism and the European Union: Shocking!

Having read this article by the British daily The Observer, Jon Worth concludes:

"How, how, how can a major UK newspaper get away with publishing something that is so completely and utterly rubbish? No wonder the UK population is bewildered by the EU when paid journalists cannot even be bothered to do a bit of basic research about what the rules are."

Read both, the Observer article and Jon's reply - and you will understand why reading European blogs sometimes is much better than reading a national newspaper writing about European issues...

The UK's negative approach to free movement in the European Union - and the Commission criticising member states

In a draft proposal for the European Union Council conclusions on the assessment of the state of free movement in the European Union, the main concern of the United Kingdom delegation is: Crime.

The proposed wording by the UK delegation can be summarised by the last paragraph of the document:

"The Council asks the Commission to bring forward an interpretative statement, providing guidelines on the operation of Directive 2004/38/EC and any appropriate proposals to combat abuse, misuse or crime. These guidelines would reflect the Council’s Conclusions and support Member States’ efforts to safeguard their fundamental interests and prevent abuses of free movement.

If this is the main isue with regard to free movement, then I feel sorry for the UK.

I would rather stick to the remarks made in an ALDE press release, stating that "Europe [is] still far off genuine guarantee for free movement of its citizens", related to an EU Commission report (see also an article by EUobserver) on the state of the implementation of the free movement directive. This report tells that most member states have failed to fully implement the directive, which makes the goal of free movement within the EU still more a vision than a reality.

It is nice that the United Kingdom cares for the "special needs" of criminal minority, but maybe it should work harder on the free movement of the majority of citizens - an appeal that actually all member states should take into due account.

A look at: Blog censorship

Worldfocus.org dedicates one article to the topic of blog censorship including EU criticism towards Turkey, the attitudes of older Finnish as well a British view on the matter.

Interesting read, which makes me remind readers that even EU institutions are ready to censor or prohibit critical reporting.

EU: UK and Ireland can keep the mile, the pint, and the troy ounce

In a common possition regarding the measurements within the EU, the Council of the European Union agrees that the United Kingdom and Ireland may forever continue to use the "mile", the "pint", and the "troy ounce".

In the first paragraph of the text (dated 09 October 2008) we can read:

Directive 80/181/EEC1 requires the United Kingdom and Ireland to fix a date for ending the exemptions, where they are still being applied, in respect of the units of measurement known as "pint" for milk in returnable bottles and beer and cider on draught, "mile" for road signs and speed indications, and "troy ounce" for transactions in precious metals. However, experience has shown that, given the local character of those exemptions and the limited number of products concerned, maintaining the exemptions would not result in a non-tariff barrier to trade and, as a consequence, there is no longer a need to put an end to those exemptions.

So don't be afraid, British friends, you can remain as you are, you can measure life as you'd like it to be measured. You may remain an exeption and you may keep your exemptions!

Only the acre will disappear forever (para. 10):

Since the acre is no longer in use for land registration purposes in the United Kingdom and Ireland, there is no longer any need to provide for an exemption in that respect.

What a pitty!

Let's remember it by reminding everyone what it was worth: 1 ac = 4 047 m².

One minute of silence...

For all the non-British and non-Irish within the Union, it is still worth to read the document, especially if you wanted to know how exactly to measure 1 Kelvin. You would like to have hint what you need to know for that...? Okay:

0,000 155 76 mole of ²H per mole of ¹H, 0,000 379 9 mole of ¹⁷O per mole of ¹⁶O and 0,002 005 2 mole of ¹⁸O per mole of ¹⁶O

Interested? Then have a look at this precious document!

Tracking: European parliament elections 2009 (XIX)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are looking for broader and up-to-date information on the 2009 EP elections, I recommend starting with my Overview article covering all my articles on the 2009 European parliamentary elections between July 2008 and the day you have come to this article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Czech Prime Minister has proposed to form a (eurosceptical) conservative faction within the European Parliament after the 2009 elections. It sounds like, for him, the European Peoples Party (EPP) is not critical enough towards the European Union - but I have doubts that his proposal (i.e. to merge with the British Conservatives in one faction) will be realised.

The Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics argues that more female candidates for the European Parliament elections would raise the interest of women in the process.

Maybe more effecient will be the merger of elections dates. The United Kingdom, like Ireland, will probably have local and European elections on the same day. The only problem can be that this will lead to a mixture of European and local issues during the campaigns, which could lead to the effect that one of the sides will receive considerably less attention - by the media and thereby by the citizens.

In order to raise participation, British liberal democrat Andrew Duff is proposing to lower the voting age for the EP elections to 16 years for the next vote in 2014. However, looking at the recent Eurobarometer report, it seems to me that the effect could be marginal given the lower interest rate of youngsters in the election process. Duff also puts forward transnational party lists, an issue I don't see much agreement on in today's state of the European Union.

------------------------------
Under the category "Tracking: European parliament elections 2009" I am following up national and European activities on the path to the European Parliament elections 2009.

For an overview over all articles in this category have look at the overview article.

For the five newest post see also the sidebar.

A new EU Commissioner: Baroness Ashton of Upholland (updated)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For a newer post on Baroness Ashton please also read this follow-up article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The peoples of Europe will have to learn a new name - Baroness Ashton of Upholland (first name: Catherine) - our new EU Commissioner, hopefully not for trade...

Sorry for making fun, but if you follow Nosemonkey, you will have seen in a recent article that it's quite unlikely that more than 5 people outside Brussels will learn her name.

New Europe informs that EU Commission president Barroso has confirmed her on Friday.

That she is absolutely not qualified for that task is easy to recognise: Nosemonkey rightly mocks her profile, while Jon Worth (who knows all EU commissioners by name and picture!!), admits that he does know almost nothing about her.

Jon supposes that she might not become trade commissioner but will receive a less relevant post, something highly recommandable considering the absence of any EU or WTO experience of the Baroness. I am very much in favour of promoting women, but I am very much against promoting lack of experience with European matters for European posts.

Therefore, please allow me to say:

Aaaahhhhh, why is the EU so damn unable to attract qualified people?

Aaaahhhhh!!!


Read Jon's very interesting follow-up articles:

- Can Baroness Ashton even become a European Commissioner?
- Ken Livingstone to the European Commission!