Jean Claude Juncker can be proud of his wingman and 1st Vice President Frans Timmermans for defending not just his president but also parliamentary democracy at European level – and in way that you don't see every day in Strasbourg.
In less than 7 minutes, Timmermans explains what it means to work for a European Commission that is backed by an elected majority in the European Parliament. He stands the shouts from the negative fringes of eurosceptics and eurohating members of the EP, and the gets standing ovations from the positive core of the house at the end.
If I wanted to end on a less positive note, I would say that it is quite telling when the strongest and most convincing voice for the prerogatives of the (European) parliament comes from the (European) executive.
But I don't wanna end on this note, so I highlight that at the time of writing the video already has 25k+ views on the Commission website alone. Must have hit a nerve.
–––
Update: The video is now also on Youtube, including English subtitles (automatic translation into other languages work, too):
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democracy. Show all posts
Thursday, 7 July 2016
Thursday, 1 October 2009
A YES to Lisbon would be nice, Ireland!
Dear friends and fellow citizens of Ireland,
I won't make too many words to kindly ask you to say YES to Lisbon tomorrow. There are just four things that I would like to highlight:
1. The Lisbon Treaty is not an evil thing but a compromise made between 27 governments, parliaments, and peoples. It is not less but also not more complex than the previous treaties that formed the basis of our Union. So saying YES to Lisbon is as right as it was to ratify previous treaties.
2. Most importantly, the Lisbon Treaty strengthens the European Parliament, the only EU institution directly elected by us, bringing together women and men directly responsible to us. Saying no to Lisbon would mean to support the continued over-dominance of the member states and their administrators in the European legislative process, making our democratic vote less valuable than it could be with the new Treaty.
3. Saying YES to Lisbon means to end 8 years of institutional debate. It is important that our legal and constitutional basis is discussed, but it is more important that the EU, its institutions, and its officials can concentrate their work on our concrete needs, not just on the abstract dimension of institutional design. The YES to Lisbon will therefore be a YES for EU officials to have more time to focus on us, the citizens, and not on themselves.
4. And saying YES to Lisbon will mean to prevent the division of the European Union. And I don't mean that Ireland would be isolated - which is non-sense, since we all belong together no matter what our democratic decisions are - but that we will get a Union in which groups of member states will try to advance on their own, creating potential conflict and thus a less stronger Union. So the YES to Lisbon will be a YES to a Union of unity, not an EU of the groups and single interests where there will definitely be more losers than winners.
So please, vote YES tomorrow, and then let's continue to work on a European Union from below, where we citizens matter most, not our administrators!
With warmest wishes from Europe,
Julien
I won't make too many words to kindly ask you to say YES to Lisbon tomorrow. There are just four things that I would like to highlight:
1. The Lisbon Treaty is not an evil thing but a compromise made between 27 governments, parliaments, and peoples. It is not less but also not more complex than the previous treaties that formed the basis of our Union. So saying YES to Lisbon is as right as it was to ratify previous treaties.
2. Most importantly, the Lisbon Treaty strengthens the European Parliament, the only EU institution directly elected by us, bringing together women and men directly responsible to us. Saying no to Lisbon would mean to support the continued over-dominance of the member states and their administrators in the European legislative process, making our democratic vote less valuable than it could be with the new Treaty.
3. Saying YES to Lisbon means to end 8 years of institutional debate. It is important that our legal and constitutional basis is discussed, but it is more important that the EU, its institutions, and its officials can concentrate their work on our concrete needs, not just on the abstract dimension of institutional design. The YES to Lisbon will therefore be a YES for EU officials to have more time to focus on us, the citizens, and not on themselves.
4. And saying YES to Lisbon will mean to prevent the division of the European Union. And I don't mean that Ireland would be isolated - which is non-sense, since we all belong together no matter what our democratic decisions are - but that we will get a Union in which groups of member states will try to advance on their own, creating potential conflict and thus a less stronger Union. So the YES to Lisbon will be a YES to a Union of unity, not an EU of the groups and single interests where there will definitely be more losers than winners.
So please, vote YES tomorrow, and then let's continue to work on a European Union from below, where we citizens matter most, not our administrators!
With warmest wishes from Europe,
Julien
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
The discussions on the German Lisbon Treaty by-law: My Twitter coverage
Below you find my Twitter coverage of the first round(s) of the Bundestag discussions (first reading) around the the four German draft Lisbon by-laws and the adaptation of the constitution (find all five documents in PDF below):
(Discussion starts at the bottom)
(Discussion starts at the bottom)
- Pirate Party (@tauss): The parliament actually didn't want to be stronger, it is just a by-result of the Court decision. #pirateparty
- #CSU: #EU should not be free to negotiate on #WTO questions that affect #Germany without the participation of the #Bundestag
- #CSU: Finally the #Bundestag gets the rights that the #Bundesrat has received ever since the Single European Act (1986)
- #SPD: We want to send a positive signal to #Ireland and to the the presidents of #Poland and the #Czechrepublic
- #SPD: Against new nationalism that says: Not "Germany in Europe", but "Europe has to follow Germany"
- #SPD: The Lisbon Treaty is the result of 10 years open and public discussions and strengthens European democracy.
- #SPD: As long as die #LINKE holds their positions on Europe as it does, there will be no coalition on the national level with the #SPD
- #SPD: While the Constitutional Court has underlined "national sovereignty",while this term does not exist in the #Grundgesetz (constitution)
- #Grüne: Against an imperative (=binding) mandate for the German government in #EU negotiations
- #Grüne: We have to figth against new forms of "executive democracy", and the Constitutional Court has strengthened us parlamentarians.
- #Grüne: It seems as if we cannot separate nation state and European level, so we have to strengthen national parliaments against governments
- #Grüne: This is a sign of the working #democracy. But we should have done this much earlier.
- #Grüne (#Greens): This is a good day for the German #Bundestag, because we have agreed on law during an election campaign. #eu
- #LINKE: We want referenda for important treaty changes. #eu #lisbontreaty
- #LINKE: Against giving the government the right to deviate from Bundestag decisions in #EU negotiations
- #LINKE: All other four parliamentary factions want a Europe of the elites, which we reject.
- #LINKE: Talks about topics of the election campaign, not about #Lisbon
- #LINKE: This debate was fostered by our complaint before the German Constitutional Court. Thx to us,#Bundesrat & #Bundestag have more rights
- #CDU: Like this, the German parliament can become the engine of European integration. We want a Europe of citizens, not of governments. #eu
- #CDU: The new law will allow an early information of the German #Bundestag,so that the parliament can actively influence #EU policy-making
- #CDU: Europe is not far away, but it is part of our internal (!) politics. #eu
- #CDU: We don't discuss enough about European politics and law-making, which would be part of our national interest.
- #CDU: nation states are basis for cultural identity and democratic legitimacy of the #EU.
- #CDU: Europe and the national state are mutually dependent; neither can exist alone. #eu
- #CDU: This is all about the basic question of the relation between the nation state and the European level which may not be ignored #eu
- #FDP: We as parliament will not only get new rights, but also new duties;we will have to care more for European law-making in the committees
- #FDP: Good cooperation between #SPD, #CDU, #Grüne, #FDP in the preparation of the new law.
- #FDP: We want to make Europe better, not to harm it. Against a limited understanding of the German pro-European identity. #eu #lisbontreaty
- #FDP: underlines that Court agreed that the Treaty is constitutional
- SPD: Criticises CSU (Christian Social Union, Bavaria) for its anti-EU positions that would lead to a blockage of the #EU
- SPD: Government may deviate from Bundestag position in EU decision, but needs to give full account of reasons
- SPD: What was a simple agreement between Bundestag and government before (on cooperation in EU matters) becomes a full law now
- SPD: If new competencies are given to EU,legislator needs to be involved
- SPD: Success of EU is based on internal market, and German industry/economy profits from this market.
- SPD: European integration is a basic reason of the German federal state. EU strongest force against war and nationalism.
- Now (!) livestream on the discussions around the German Lisbon Treaty by-law in the #Bundestag: http://tr.im/x9fv (German)
Friday, 7 August 2009
10 months of democracy: On the summer break
After reading an article on a German euroblog that covered the Brussels summer break from a failed satirical perspective (sorry, Jochen), I feel like I should say something on this summer break thing.
I have never really understood why democracy has a summer break. Especially one that takes almost two months.
We are living in a world that is more and more complex, with more communication, more meetings, more everything. But every year, large parts of our democracies go on halt for about 15% of the year. In this time, things move slowly or not all. As if live would stop during this time.
Sure, many people go on holidays during this time, schools are out, universities rather empty, and it's usually warmer outside which is not always helpful to foster an atmosphere for work. But I don't see why our elected and non-elected officials should go on the leave for such a long time.
I don't say they are not working during that time, or that they have holidays during two months, but since everybody is out of office at different times during this break, interactive and collaborative work, not to speak of collective decisions, are not really possible meanwhile.
For the rest of the year, the schedules are tight, and decisions have to be taken under enormous time pressure, which you can see regularly by their low quality. All because there are these two month of vacation time.
What I want to say is that I am not sure that the long summer break is of advantage for the democratic process. It disrupts continuity, heightens pressure during the rest of the year, and gives the impression that you can put democracy on a break for quite a long time without problems.
Therefore, and although I am aware that this would mean an important change in routines all over the continent, I think the summer break should be shortened significantly, because I don't want democracy to "disappear" for more than two weeks in a row!
I have never really understood why democracy has a summer break. Especially one that takes almost two months.
We are living in a world that is more and more complex, with more communication, more meetings, more everything. But every year, large parts of our democracies go on halt for about 15% of the year. In this time, things move slowly or not all. As if live would stop during this time.
Sure, many people go on holidays during this time, schools are out, universities rather empty, and it's usually warmer outside which is not always helpful to foster an atmosphere for work. But I don't see why our elected and non-elected officials should go on the leave for such a long time.
I don't say they are not working during that time, or that they have holidays during two months, but since everybody is out of office at different times during this break, interactive and collaborative work, not to speak of collective decisions, are not really possible meanwhile.
For the rest of the year, the schedules are tight, and decisions have to be taken under enormous time pressure, which you can see regularly by their low quality. All because there are these two month of vacation time.
What I want to say is that I am not sure that the long summer break is of advantage for the democratic process. It disrupts continuity, heightens pressure during the rest of the year, and gives the impression that you can put democracy on a break for quite a long time without problems.
Therefore, and although I am aware that this would mean an important change in routines all over the continent, I think the summer break should be shortened significantly, because I don't want democracy to "disappear" for more than two weeks in a row!
Saturday, 11 July 2009
Dear newly elected MEPs,
the coming week, with its first plenary session of this term, will be the visible start of a new life for many of you, and I applaud you for having taken this path into a European institution.
You are part of the tiny flame of European democracy that burns for 30 years now, ever stronger but still tiny. You carry the heavy load of being responsible for this little flame, and be sure that you will be held accountable for that over the next five years.
As a citizen, I expect that you bring in your local, regional, and national knowledge to shape European decisions in a way that respects the needs of your constituencies while having in mind the overall good of all EU citizens.
I expect that you are absolutely transparent about what you think, what you earn, and what you do in the name of your function as co-legislator and representative of European citizens.
I don't accept any excuses for intransparency: A modern representative democracy has to be built on the credo that elected officials are responsible to the public not only during elections but at any moment of their term.
I don't mind if you are absent in plenary sessions if you have more important work to do. I don't mind if you earn extra money if you make this extra income public, and if this doesn't negatively influence your work as an MEP. I don't mind if you don't know something, if you don't have an opinion on another thing, or if you let your assistants do a part of the work you would be supposed to do if you are ready to take the responsibility for the outcomes.
As a European citizen I expect that you fully devote your time and energy to the task of making the European democracy better.
I expect that you put aside prejudices, personal conflicts, and old habits and replace them with openness, geniality, and new ways of thinking. The Union needs change, because the way it has been working in the past is not satisfactory anymore, and you are responsible to push for this change.
As a blogger, that is a citizen who makes his voice heard through this blog, I hope that part of this change will be a new way of communicating.
You have to understand that more and more citizens are ready to interact among themselves but also with you as elected officials. You have to understand that in order to make the step towards us citizens, not just during visits to towns and meetings, but also in between and publicly visible for everyone on the continent, you cannot simply work as MEPs used to work in the past.
Use all the possibilities of modern communication - in a mix that suits you best - and open your door(s) for all European citizens who are interested to take a look.
We want to know who you are, what you think, what you do. We want to discuss with you, challenge you, see whether your opinion is grounded on conviction and facts or on false assumptions and back room deals. Using modern means of communications is a way to interact personally while remaining public.
Yes, writing and commenting online demands more attention than a quick press release that you send out in the widths of the European media landscape (where it gets lost in the hands of a journalist who thinks you are unimportant).
But the investment in time, if it includes a change in mindset, too, will bring about trust and public recognition for you while fostering European public debates, debates in which you can set positions and standards if you are willing to take the risk.
Dear MEPs,
in the end you have been elected to take your own, sovereign, and well-reflected decisions. You represent us citizens, you should be accountable to us, and you should take into account that we have justified interest in knowing what you do and why you do it. But you are free to decide!
Even this little letter is nothing but a hint about what is expected from you from an individual citizen who can do nothing but speak in his own name. I am not elected by anybody, so I also don't expect to be taken more seriously than as a single voice of a possible 500 million.
What you do with it, depends on you alone - and I am glad about that!
Respectfully yours,
Julien Frisch, an EU citizen
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Why Jerzy Buzek is the wrong choice for the European Parliament presidency
After looking at Jerzy Buzek's Votewatch profile and seeing him win over Mario Mauro (EPP) and Graham Watson (ALDE), I still have to briefly say why he is the wrong choice for the European Parliament presidency.
As a big fan of Central and Eastern Europe I am happy that someone from Poland will become the next president of the European Parliament. I also don't mind that the EPP will get the presidency of the EP. And it is an asset that thanks to his Solidarity background he can claim to be part of the group of people who co-initiated the fall of the wall 20 years ago.
But Jerzy Buzek is still the wrong choice, for three simple reasons:
- He is old.
- He is male.
- He has built his political career on national politics.
So one of the main political instruments the EP has are symbolic decisions, decisions that rise above the standard message of politics. The EP could have made a choice of such symbolic value, but it looks as if it won't.
Party politics and power positions are dominated by old males. With Barroso in place for a second term on top of the European Commission, and with no women in sight for the post of European Council president and High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy (if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified), the post of the European Parliament president could have been the only one where MEPs could have made a point for equal opportunities and equal share of power. But they have missed their chance.
How to engage the younger generation in (European) politics, if only worn-out old male politicians are the example of who can make it in our democracy?
And the third point is equally important:
Jerzy Buzek has no distinct European profile. His career is built on his Solidarity background, and when he left the national stage after his term as prime minister his reputation had been very low.
He has spent only four years in the European Parliament, and now he is chosen as EP president in a series of power deals between the Socialists, the People's Party and the Liberals, while he still says in the EuroparlTV interview (see also Anda's comment on Twitter) that his nomination is a matter of pride for Poland.
I don't want someone who makes one country proud, I want somebody who makes the European Union proud of itself!
This is the absolutely wrong sign for the European "democracy", especially for my generation, who is desperately looking for people like Alex Stubb or Cecilia Malmström who hold high national offices after having been an MEP, write blogs, and (in Alex's case) can still run an Ironman in their free time.
I want those for high European posts, not their fathers.
Politicians like Buzek - as nice as he may be - or his predecessor Pöttering, the elder statesman puppets, bore me to death - and with them, nobody should be surprised that young people don't go to vote and don't show interest in the EU.
Generation 2.0: Political individuals in the 21st century (hat tip to Jon Worth)
Jon Worth has written an article on political individuals in the 21st century that I can almost completely sign.
It is titled " It’s not a generational issue, it’s more important than that" and the main paragraph for me is the following:
The problem with the EU is that it is even more 1.0 than national party politics - more compromises, more technocratic understanding, more self-limitation due to false diplomacy. In some ways, blogging and tweeting are the only real means to express true political positions on EU-related matters, the rest is bargaining and power plays.
And since we are bored with these, we are here, discussing openly in the widths of the internets, no matter whether the Generation 1.0 (beta version) listens or not.
It is titled " It’s not a generational issue, it’s more important than that" and the main paragraph for me is the following:
"Blogs, Twitter and e-Communications more generally have given people like Eurosocialiste, Boris Wandoren, Kosmopolit, Julien Frisch and I the kind of public voice we would never otherwise have had.I totally agree with Jon, although I think that it is still a generational issue as I have written in a comment to Jon's post:
We’re young(-ish) individuals, answerable almost uniquely to ourselves, people strong views. In times past we would have been the annoying, nagging people at party political meetings, trying to hold everyone else to account. The internet means we have a wider audience to rant air our concerns.
We’re fine to argue back and forth on Twitter, because we’re the sort of people who would be arguing about how to make the world a better place over a coffee or a beer anyway; doing it online is hence really natural.
"In our generation, people like us have the technical possibilities to remain active although classical party structures are not what attracts us.The generation 2.0 of political individuals is using its freedom to freely express its views on politics and political ideals; we are using the means we dispose of to say what we wouldn't say in the standard political environment - not because we wouldn't be ready to defend our ideals but because time and circumstances would limit our focus and distract our attention from what we find important.
This is why some of us – still a small elite – can express their position more freely than within the compromise-driven and promotion-oriented political environment the generations before us have to live with (if they don’t learn to creatively use the opportunities they would have)."
The problem with the EU is that it is even more 1.0 than national party politics - more compromises, more technocratic understanding, more self-limitation due to false diplomacy. In some ways, blogging and tweeting are the only real means to express true political positions on EU-related matters, the rest is bargaining and power plays.
And since we are bored with these, we are here, discussing openly in the widths of the internets, no matter whether the Generation 1.0 (beta version) listens or not.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Council of Europe chairman criticises Moscow Gay Pride abatement / Moldova under scrutiny
Slovenia has taken over the Chairmanship of the Council of Europe, which has celebrated its 60th anniversary on the 5th of May, from Spain last week.
And the new Chairman has already reacted in his function, criticising the abatement of the Gay Pride in Moscow last weekend.
But for those of you who might think that this is a good sign: Not really!
Since this statement is put out only in the name of the Chairman and not in the name of the whole Committee of Ministers, this means that the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (including Russia) have not agreed on this.
Only if in today's weekly meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (= the ambassadors representing the member states) the 47 member states agreed on a joint declaration put out in the name of the whole Committee, this would be a strong sign.
But I suppose that at least Russia will have something against this...
Yesterday and today, there is also a Council of Europe delegation in Moldova, investigating the post-electoral incidents that stroke the country in early April.
This coincides with the first attempt to elect a new president taking place today. There are two candidates, the former Prime Minister and an unknown doctor. The presidential majority is 61 of 101 seats, but the ruling Communists only have 60.
The question is: Will they be able to get one or several oppositional votes (some commentators have said: "buy the votes"), or will the opposition, for once, be strong enough to stick together, if only for the negative?
If there is no president elected, there will be a second round within 15 days. And then maybe a third one. If there is no president elected after the third round, there will have to be new elections.
Moldova, where are you going?
And the new Chairman has already reacted in his function, criticising the abatement of the Gay Pride in Moscow last weekend.
But for those of you who might think that this is a good sign: Not really!
Since this statement is put out only in the name of the Chairman and not in the name of the whole Committee of Ministers, this means that the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (including Russia) have not agreed on this.
Only if in today's weekly meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (= the ambassadors representing the member states) the 47 member states agreed on a joint declaration put out in the name of the whole Committee, this would be a strong sign.
But I suppose that at least Russia will have something against this...
Yesterday and today, there is also a Council of Europe delegation in Moldova, investigating the post-electoral incidents that stroke the country in early April.
This coincides with the first attempt to elect a new president taking place today. There are two candidates, the former Prime Minister and an unknown doctor. The presidential majority is 61 of 101 seats, but the ruling Communists only have 60.
The question is: Will they be able to get one or several oppositional votes (some commentators have said: "buy the votes"), or will the opposition, for once, be strong enough to stick together, if only for the negative?
If there is no president elected, there will be a second round within 15 days. And then maybe a third one. If there is no president elected after the third round, there will have to be new elections.
Moldova, where are you going?
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The European Citizens' Consultations - a follow-up
Some 9 days ago, I have published a rather critical article on the European Citizens' Consulations (ECC).
I would like to mention that a short but very constructive discussion has developed in the comments to this article.
There is a reaction from a participant of the ECC, my clarification of some things I said in the article, another clarifying reaction from the participant, and now also a comment by Gerrit Rauws, ECC project leader.
For those of you who have just read my initial article, it is very much recommended to notice this follow-up, too!
I would like to mention that a short but very constructive discussion has developed in the comments to this article.
There is a reaction from a participant of the ECC, my clarification of some things I said in the article, another clarifying reaction from the participant, and now also a comment by Gerrit Rauws, ECC project leader.
For those of you who have just read my initial article, it is very much recommended to notice this follow-up, too!
Thursday, 7 May 2009
Guest post on "Th!nk About It" (3): A visible opposition in the European Parliament
This week I am guest blogging on TH!NK ABOUT IT. I will publish the articles here, too, but I would like to kindly ask you to comment on TH!NK09. This is my third article, which you also can find here.
One might be as europhile as I am (and just a little remark: I still would not call myself "EUrophile" with a capital U, but rather "EUroptimistic" or simply "europhile"), but I can understand to a certain extend many of those who have doubts about the European project called "European Union".
And so, given that this week we are witnessing the last session of this European Parliament in this period, let me express high appreciation for Daniel Hannan who, in his probably last speech in front of this parliament, has again shown that you can be eurosceptic, critical, and even tastefully polemic, but that this can be done in the most intelligent, articulate, and honest way.
His call for a "visible opposition against the EU" in the next European Parliament is thus not to be understood in a negative manner, but in the best tradition of a democratic institutions in which the pro and the contra are the main elements of free and democratic discourse of ideas and ideals.
And he is absolutely correct pointing out that it is better to allow and to support open and democratic opposition - even against the project as such - within the institution than waiting for radicals and xenophobic opponents outside the parliament to be the sole voices of discontent heard all over Europe.
So here's Daniel's speech, as always short and concise, and with remarkably warm words for outgoing EP president Hans-Gert Pöttering:
Thank you, Daniel, for your work and your directness - and I suppose you will be around...!
One might be as europhile as I am (and just a little remark: I still would not call myself "EUrophile" with a capital U, but rather "EUroptimistic" or simply "europhile"), but I can understand to a certain extend many of those who have doubts about the European project called "European Union".
And so, given that this week we are witnessing the last session of this European Parliament in this period, let me express high appreciation for Daniel Hannan who, in his probably last speech in front of this parliament, has again shown that you can be eurosceptic, critical, and even tastefully polemic, but that this can be done in the most intelligent, articulate, and honest way.
His call for a "visible opposition against the EU" in the next European Parliament is thus not to be understood in a negative manner, but in the best tradition of a democratic institutions in which the pro and the contra are the main elements of free and democratic discourse of ideas and ideals.
And he is absolutely correct pointing out that it is better to allow and to support open and democratic opposition - even against the project as such - within the institution than waiting for radicals and xenophobic opponents outside the parliament to be the sole voices of discontent heard all over Europe.
So here's Daniel's speech, as always short and concise, and with remarkably warm words for outgoing EP president Hans-Gert Pöttering:
Thank you, Daniel, for your work and your directness - and I suppose you will be around...!
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe rejects shortlisting of candidates by the member states - updated (2x)
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has just rejected the shortlisting of only two candidates (see my previous post) for the post of the next Secretary General of the Council of Europe by the ambassadors sitting in the Committee of Ministers' Deputies (the organ representing the governments in the Council of Europe).
The parliamentarians deplore the reduction of choice which was done by the Committee of Ministers against the formal rules of procedure of the Council of Europe. Several said that reducing the list to two candidates representing socialist parties would reduce the political choice of the assembly.
Some even compared the action by the governments' side with the lack of democratic standards the Council of Europe is observing in its member states (see my Twitter coverage from this afternoon).
So with some ammendments and by only one vote against, the Parliamentary Assembly has adopted this draft resolution asking the Ministers' Deputies and the Committee of Ministers to present to them the full list with all four candidates.
Tonight at 7 p.m., the debate will most likely be continued in the Joint Committee, the body uniting representatives from the Parliamentary Assembly and the diplomats from the member states to discuss issues of joint concern.
But the reaction of PACE today was a clear slap in the face of the governments of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, in procedural, political, and democratic terms.
Update: The press release on this matter sounds veeeery diplomatic...
Update 2 (01 May): I just learnt at Le Monde that Mr Van den Brande, on of the eliminated candidates, has been the favourite candidate of Russia and that the Russian Federation is thus not quite happy with the outcomes of vote in the Committee of Ministers' Deputies.
The parliamentarians deplore the reduction of choice which was done by the Committee of Ministers against the formal rules of procedure of the Council of Europe. Several said that reducing the list to two candidates representing socialist parties would reduce the political choice of the assembly.
Some even compared the action by the governments' side with the lack of democratic standards the Council of Europe is observing in its member states (see my Twitter coverage from this afternoon).
So with some ammendments and by only one vote against, the Parliamentary Assembly has adopted this draft resolution asking the Ministers' Deputies and the Committee of Ministers to present to them the full list with all four candidates.
Tonight at 7 p.m., the debate will most likely be continued in the Joint Committee, the body uniting representatives from the Parliamentary Assembly and the diplomats from the member states to discuss issues of joint concern.
But the reaction of PACE today was a clear slap in the face of the governments of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, in procedural, political, and democratic terms.
Update: The press release on this matter sounds veeeery diplomatic...
Update 2 (01 May): I just learnt at Le Monde that Mr Van den Brande, on of the eliminated candidates, has been the favourite candidate of Russia and that the Russian Federation is thus not quite happy with the outcomes of vote in the Committee of Ministers' Deputies.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
A comparision of India's parliament with the European Parliament
You can always find counter-arguments in comparisons like this one between the Indian parliament and the European Parliament made by Tobias at the EUobserver blogs, but it is still a nice confrontation of what can be and what is.
Have a read!
Have a read!
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
European Parliament elections 2009 (56): Follow-up on the Bulgarian (non-)vote
I recently quoted some figures that 50% of Bulgarians don't intend to vote on this year's European elections.
Now, after a hint by Ruth, Boyan Yurukov from Th!nk about it! has followed up on this issue, explaining why Bulgarians don't vote and what the civil society and bloggers' community are trying to do against this apathy:
Yet one more argument for true European elections!
------------------------------
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.
Now, after a hint by Ruth, Boyan Yurukov from Th!nk about it! has followed up on this issue, explaining why Bulgarians don't vote and what the civil society and bloggers' community are trying to do against this apathy:
In Bulgaria people don’t have faith in the system. Most people don’t see an alternative in the opposition either. This causes a sort of a mass political depression in our people - we don’t see a point in doing anything. We either don’t vote or cast a negative vote against whoever is in charge at the moment. In this way several new parties have managed to climb on top of the public disapproval and received a big support in the last few elections.In this sense, the European elections do not seem to be different because they are, more or less, national elections for a European institution. But if people don't trust their own politicians in their own country, why should they send them to Brussels/Strasbourg to change something?
Yet one more argument for true European elections!
------------------------------
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.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Authoritarian G2C communication sponsored by OSCE
Sorry, but I just had to laugh about this OSCE seminar organised in Belarus...
Maybe I am cynical, but fostering online government-to-citizen (G2C) communication in an authoritarian state (or a dictatorship as some call it) does not seem priority N° 1 for me.
Maybe I am cynical, but fostering online government-to-citizen (G2C) communication in an authoritarian state (or a dictatorship as some call it) does not seem priority N° 1 for me.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Electronic democracy: Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly debate
This week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (uniting parliamentarians from 47 countries of the European continent) meets in Strasbourg to debate different pan-European issues.
After a rather pessimistic speech of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on Monday, complaining about the lack of funds for the Council of Europe and its European Court of Human Rights, debates about the war between Georgia and Russia and discussions about the International Criminal Court and the regulation of media, the Assembly tomorrow will discuss electronic democracy.
I did not have time to go through the comprehensive report, including a resolution (directed to the 47 parliaments) and a recommendation (directed to the 47 member states), but those of you interested should watch the debate tomorrow on live broadcast from 10 a.m.
But I have doubts that the parliamentarians will show much interest in this, because first of all it is Friday (time to travel home...) - and the report (as far as I could read) does not seem very innovative but rather like a stocktacking of developments from the perspective of somebody who does not completely understand the opportunities (and true risks) that electronic means offer to a modern democracy.
After a rather pessimistic speech of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on Monday, complaining about the lack of funds for the Council of Europe and its European Court of Human Rights, debates about the war between Georgia and Russia and discussions about the International Criminal Court and the regulation of media, the Assembly tomorrow will discuss electronic democracy.
I did not have time to go through the comprehensive report, including a resolution (directed to the 47 parliaments) and a recommendation (directed to the 47 member states), but those of you interested should watch the debate tomorrow on live broadcast from 10 a.m.
But I have doubts that the parliamentarians will show much interest in this, because first of all it is Friday (time to travel home...) - and the report (as far as I could read) does not seem very innovative but rather like a stocktacking of developments from the perspective of somebody who does not completely understand the opportunities (and true risks) that electronic means offer to a modern democracy.
Monday, 27 October 2008
More transparency in the Council of the European Union!
As a follow-up to the previous article, the comment by Grahnlaw, one of my earlier posts, and in reference to a recent article by Grahnlaw, I would recommend reading Professor Steve Peers' article containing:
"Proposals for greater openness, transparency and democracy in the EU".
Also the article is not limited to the Council, especially relevant as a follow-up on the intransparent work of the Council of the European Union that I discussed in the last article is the following paragraph from page 3 of the text:
And since, as Mr Peers states, the Council has the right to decide upon more transparency on its own, it would only be recommandable that it would do so - not in 10 years, but starting from tomorrow...!
"Proposals for greater openness, transparency and democracy in the EU".
Also the article is not limited to the Council, especially relevant as a follow-up on the intransparent work of the Council of the European Union that I discussed in the last article is the following paragraph from page 3 of the text:
"Since 2006, the Council has normally held public meetings when discussing acts pursuant to the ‘co-decision’ procedure. The Treaty of Lisbon would oblige the Council to hold public meetings as regards all legislative acts, regardless of the applicable procedure. There is no need or justification for the Council to wait for the Treaty of Lisbon to enter into force – if it ever does - to extend the openness of its proceedings, since it can regulate this issue in its rules of procedure."This is exactly what needs to be done, no matter if the Lisbon Treaty will ever enter into force: The law- and decision-making of the Council needs to be as transparent as possible, especially in a situation where its decisions have direct effects to the European citizens.
And since, as Mr Peers states, the Council has the right to decide upon more transparency on its own, it would only be recommandable that it would do so - not in 10 years, but starting from tomorrow...!
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Baroness Ashton, the European Parliament, and some sweat for Europe
Yesterday, maybe-EU-Commissioner Ashton was roasted in the EU Parliament Committee on International Trade.
EUobserver reports and quotes from the meeting:
Jon Worth called her appearance "dull", which fits the larger picture of EU politics these days.
And while Baroness Ashton had to sweat in the EP committee, I have lost quite some sweat today running around the city to work on international co-operation and European democracy. One major state institution in the morning (two times, actually), and six European and international organisations in the afternoon. Several kilometers, but hopefully with positive results.
In any case, I will go to bed today and feel Europe in my legs. I wish the same to Baroness Ashton...
EUobserver reports and quotes from the meeting:
"Now it's not the time for a novice, we need a big hitter. Frankly, looking at your CV, you do not have any direct relevant experience to take on this job at what is a very very dangerous time," Mr Farage said.She does not sound very convincing, but instead more like someone in a strong defence rather than in an attack position. If she is like this when she is negotiating, the next WTO talks will be fun for the rest of the world.
Mrs Ashton, a former economist, defended her record as a negotiator while stressing that she has "hundreds of very experienced people" working on the trade portfolio at her disposal.
"I am a negotiator, this is what I do. I may not have had the profile of the now newly ennobled Lord Mandelson, but that does not mean I have got no experience. Quite the contrary," she said.
Jon Worth called her appearance "dull", which fits the larger picture of EU politics these days.
And while Baroness Ashton had to sweat in the EP committee, I have lost quite some sweat today running around the city to work on international co-operation and European democracy. One major state institution in the morning (two times, actually), and six European and international organisations in the afternoon. Several kilometers, but hopefully with positive results.
In any case, I will go to bed today and feel Europe in my legs. I wish the same to Baroness Ashton...
Friday, 1 August 2008
Tracking: EP elections 2009 (VI)
EurActive has published a long article titled "European Elections: Outlook for 2009".
While most of the article deals with general questions (e.g. voter turnout, political groups etc.) and history, for those of you rather familiar with the European Parliament it is still worth scrolling down until the section "Strategies to re-engage European voters: What the parties are doing".
Some quotes:
One issue that I would like to raise is connected to the following quote:
Mainstream media are looking for the same old power struggles at the European level that they are used to from national politics. They are unable to tell an interesting story about something that is different from the usual boring games of politics. For me, it is rather interesting to see a British Labour party MEP, a Swedish conservative, a Romanian Liberal and a Latvian Green working on the same question in very similar directions than hoping that they have to clash over everything just because they belong to different party affiliations.
From my point of view, we will only get more interest in EU and general European matters if the media - and I include us bloggers to a certain extend - will become able to tell new stories in a new fashion. We should not try to project our old national and political stereotypes onto situations that have nothing to do with what we observe locally or nationally.
It is in the nature of things that European matters are more complex, because there are more people, more institutions, more cultures, more geographical and political interests involved in every single matter. So what? Then let's try to tell a complex story in new words and story lines.
And that we add more complexity does not mean that we have to make it more complicated! We just have to make it different, innovative in the true sense of the word.
If we manage, the European story will become interesting and European politics will become more democratic - not just because we have changed institutions but because we have changed interest in European matters and created the inherent need to participate - in European parliament elections but especially beyond.
------------------------------
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.
While most of the article deals with general questions (e.g. voter turnout, political groups etc.) and history, for those of you rather familiar with the European Parliament it is still worth scrolling down until the section "Strategies to re-engage European voters: What the parties are doing".
Some quotes:
For the 2009 campaign, the EGP [European Green Party] plans to do [...] “a common campaign” and events planned in several European capitals such as Rome and Prague. [...] "In some countries, the common campaign will be 99% of the campaign because they do not want to add a national touch to it, whereas in other countries the common campaign might only make up 15%."For more details, I recommend reading the complete article, that offers quite some food for thought and discussion.
To re-engage with its voters, the PES [Party of European Socialists] has therefore chosen to polarise the debate along traditional left-right political fault lines.
Whether the EPP [European Peoples Party] will be able to translate its political strategy into a coherent common campaign for the 2009 election ... remains to be seen. And it is not certain either that such a programme will appeal to its core voters, especially in countries with a traditionally more critical stance towards Europe.
The European Liberals and Democrats (ELDR) [...] have only recently started discussing their strategy. The party manifesto will be based around four themes, the first being foreign, security and defence policy. Future discussions [...] will take place on the themes of "Liberal Europe" (understood as civil liberties) and the EU single market.
One issue that I would like to raise is connected to the following quote:
[A] vicious circle of voter apathy has developed among EU citizens, fuelled by a lack of clear-cut power struggles which in turn diverts media interest away from the election.For me, this points at one of the biggest problems:
Mainstream media are looking for the same old power struggles at the European level that they are used to from national politics. They are unable to tell an interesting story about something that is different from the usual boring games of politics. For me, it is rather interesting to see a British Labour party MEP, a Swedish conservative, a Romanian Liberal and a Latvian Green working on the same question in very similar directions than hoping that they have to clash over everything just because they belong to different party affiliations.
From my point of view, we will only get more interest in EU and general European matters if the media - and I include us bloggers to a certain extend - will become able to tell new stories in a new fashion. We should not try to project our old national and political stereotypes onto situations that have nothing to do with what we observe locally or nationally.
It is in the nature of things that European matters are more complex, because there are more people, more institutions, more cultures, more geographical and political interests involved in every single matter. So what? Then let's try to tell a complex story in new words and story lines.
And that we add more complexity does not mean that we have to make it more complicated! We just have to make it different, innovative in the true sense of the word.
If we manage, the European story will become interesting and European politics will become more democratic - not just because we have changed institutions but because we have changed interest in European matters and created the inherent need to participate - in European parliament elections but especially beyond.
------------------------------
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.
Monday, 7 July 2008
Launched: European Association of the Schools of Political Studies
The Council of Europe, the pan-European human rights, democracy and rule of law watchdog (with 47 member states from all over the continent), has announced on Saturday the creation of the "European Association of the Schools of Political Studies".
The association will unite 16 national/regional Schools of Political Studies (e.g. in Bulgaria, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Russia), which, "supported by the Council of Europe, aim to train the next generation of political, economic, social and cultural leaders in the countries in transition. The schools organise seminars and conferences on such themes as European integration, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and globalisation in which national and international experts take part." (for more information, read here).
In a declaration, 650 participants of the Third Summer University for Democracy, representing the Network of the 16 Schools of Political Studies, inter alia:
I can only join this request: Training competent citizens and leaders who are aware of human rights, of democratic norms and of the need for good governance and the rule of law is sooo important! (Especially in the countries where the Schools have been set up...)
Maybe we cannot change the old elites, their stupid blame-games, their ignorant intolerance, and their lack of awareness for the most basic values of a free and democratic society - but we might be able to work within our generation, e.g. through those Schools of Political Studies, to achieve the necessary changes.
And building upon European associations is a good sign because it shows that these issues are taken seriously as a common goal.
The association will unite 16 national/regional Schools of Political Studies (e.g. in Bulgaria, Georgia, Kosovo, Moldova, Russia), which, "supported by the Council of Europe, aim to train the next generation of political, economic, social and cultural leaders in the countries in transition. The schools organise seminars and conferences on such themes as European integration, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and globalisation in which national and international experts take part." (for more information, read here).
In a declaration, 650 participants of the Third Summer University for Democracy, representing the Network of the 16 Schools of Political Studies, inter alia:
Encourage the Council of Europe, the European Union, the governments of the member states, observers and all public and private partners to continue and increment their support for the further development of the network of Schools of Political Studies, a unique project that seeks to ensure that democratic values, institutions and practices become a reality across the European continent
I can only join this request: Training competent citizens and leaders who are aware of human rights, of democratic norms and of the need for good governance and the rule of law is sooo important! (Especially in the countries where the Schools have been set up...)
Maybe we cannot change the old elites, their stupid blame-games, their ignorant intolerance, and their lack of awareness for the most basic values of a free and democratic society - but we might be able to work within our generation, e.g. through those Schools of Political Studies, to achieve the necessary changes.
And building upon European associations is a good sign because it shows that these issues are taken seriously as a common goal.
Saturday, 5 July 2008
Electronic vote counting lacks transparency
The London-based Open Rights Group (ORG) has published a report on the electronic vote counting ("e-counting") during the May London elections. In the conclusions, ORG remarks:
I think that for the future of voting we will have to very carefully balance the need to have an efficient procedure (i.e. through electronic means) with the need for a general transparency of the process. Especially for countries that lack the general will to organise open, free, and fair elections the general acceptance of intransparent electronic voting systems could be a good opportunity to make sure that elections will always have the "right" result.
The report reminds again that elections need to be as observable as possible during all stages of the process in order to guarantee that the democratic standards can be monitored by (neutral) external actors.
ORG also commends the spirit in which London Elects has sought to enhance transparency around the May 2008 London e-count. However, as has been noted in various sections of this report, the level of transparency is not yet adequate. There is insufficient evidence available to allow independent observers to reliably state whether the results declared are an accurate representation of the intentions of London‘s voters.
I think that for the future of voting we will have to very carefully balance the need to have an efficient procedure (i.e. through electronic means) with the need for a general transparency of the process. Especially for countries that lack the general will to organise open, free, and fair elections the general acceptance of intransparent electronic voting systems could be a good opportunity to make sure that elections will always have the "right" result.
The report reminds again that elections need to be as observable as possible during all stages of the process in order to guarantee that the democratic standards can be monitored by (neutral) external actors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
