Entangled Alliances

photo credit: Mossaiq

They are two perennial problems facing the European Union: a lack of a clear, coherent vision for the future of European integration and a lack of any real leader to implement this vision. Answering “who is the head of the European Union?” is far more complicated than it should be. The President of the Commission? The head of the largest party in Parliament (joking)? Or perhaps the head of the European Council – the leader of the state which happens to hold the rotating EU Presidency?

This problem has suddenly got that much more difficult to answer, as yesterday the Czech government, the current holder of the Presidency, lost a vote of no confidence. How can you lose power in your country but retain it over a much wider area, the EU? According to EurActiv, the Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolánek said “At the moment, this situation has no effect on the role of the president of the European Council,” in a statement issued by the Czech Presidency.

Three things support the Czech Republic’s retention of the Presidency. First of all, the post is actualy held by the rather outspoken President Václav Klaus. And secondly, as EurActiv also points out, “Governments of EU countries have collapsed while they were holding the Union’s reigns twice before – in 1993 in Denmark and in 1996 in Italy.” It continues, however, by pointing out that it has never happened in an economic crisis before – and this is no small crisis.

It is worth considering the extent to which these events led to Topolánek’s outspoken attacks on Obama’s stimulus package in the European Parliament today. Indeed, as the BBC reported:

He attacked the US’s growing budget deficit and the “Buy America” campaign, saying “all of these steps, these combinations and permanency is the way to hell”.

Maybe something was lost in translation – but that’s pretty strong stuff.

The third thing that really supports Klaus’ position is the fact that, because the President doesn’t really do all that much (as has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past), nobody really cares. Yes, the President of the Council theoretically has power to significantly drive the agenda, but it doesn’t really make that much difference (compared to the status quo) if he doesn’t. One area in which Klaus may be seen to have affected the agenda is through his country’s refusal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty – but even this may be seen more through the prism of domestic politics than a deliberately obstructionist policy as President of the Council. My point is – yes, he’s put something of a break on further integration, but there’s no reason to suspect that this wouldn’t have happened if hadn’t been in this European role.

Nevertheless, it’s certainly not a great situation: the government of the country that holds the Presidency of the European Union has just collapsed, significantly (it seems) due to the way they’ve handled the economy. Which makes these problems that much more difficult to handle at a European level, when, despite the weak institutional powers, strong leadership could have a significant positive effect.

The Presidency will be held by the Czech Republic until a mere three weeks before European Parliament elections. It’s not a great advertisement for why people should care about – or engage with – the EU.

Update: Mark Mardell thinks it could have a bigger effect, particularly on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and sensitve negotiations over the Working Time Directive. Maybe this could indeed be Sarkozy’s moment to come to the rescue.. but don’t hold your breath

photo credit: vaviolino

Remember the old Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times”? It’s worth keeping in mind as we head towards April and the meeting of the 20 richest nations in the world: London’s G20 summit is going to be very interesting indeed.  As Mark Bailey reported in his recent post “G20 Preview: Gordon and Goliath”, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama are both calling for a global fiscal stimulus. The likes of France and Germany, however, are rejecting talk of more stimulus, choosing to focus solely on bank regulation – specifically the regulation of hedge funds and tax havens.

Now I like a good campaign against hedge funds and tax havens as much as the next man, yet it must be said that Gordon is completely right to demand that global stimulus packages be pursued at the same time as international bank regulation. As far as Europe is concerned, a large influx of government public spending would work  particularly well, as thanks to the free trade policies of the European Union any stimulus one country puts in place will immediately benefit their neighbours. This, however, is what concerns the likes of France and Germany: the fear that heavy national spending will simply leak out and end up as international spending.This particularly irks Germany who are already gritting their teeth at the prospect of having to bail out the troubled states of Eastern Europe (who, it turns out, are just rubbish at that capitalism malarkey).

But what the likes of Sarkozy and Merkel are forgetting is that with more and more Europeans losing their jobs, governments are facing lower tax revenues and higher welfare costs. The higher cost of paying benefits is particularly onerous on European governments, as unlike America the welfare systems of Europe are commendably generous (Britain excepted). Large stimulus packages, therefore, are essential to get people back to work and kick start Europe’s economy.

However, though Gordon Brown’s logic is sound his pan-European ambitions are leaving a bitter taste in the mouth – well, in my mouth anyway – because, despite his calls for a global stimulus, Britain has hardly had one worth the name. Indeed, so far the only “stimulus” we’ve had is last November’s £20 billion scheme, the majority of which went on a much derided cut in VAT. Let’s compare this with other countries, shall we?

Read more…

photo credit: mohammadali

As Mark announced on the update to his post, Cameron has formally reasserted his desire for the Conservatives to leave the European People’s Party, the centre right coalition for the European Parliament. Then he will attempt to form a new bloc, which  supports the economic benefits of Europe but keeps away from the federalist leanings underpinning that the EPP displays.

The problem as the FT’s Brussels Bureau Chief, makes clear is that the alternative to the EPP doesn’t look that  promising and worse, where there is promise for a new bloc, that may cause Mr Cameron as many problems. Yet the Conservative Party’s European alliances are only a small part of the bigger picture. Cameron’s move away from the EPP is not unusual or without precedent in British politics but it is one that has been tried and tested before and has invariably come up short. Furthermore, Cameron risks isolating the UK from Europe precisiely at a time when greater cooperation is, and will be necessary, all to secure control of a rebel wing of his party.

Read more…

When domestic politics is getting you down, the international stage can prove a welcome diversion.  Just ask Bill Clinton.  But here in Britain we’re talking plummeting poll numbers, not impeachment, and the diversion of international economic policy, not cruise missile strikes.  Yes, what a breath of fresh air the international stage has been for Gordon Brown.  Far away from a seemingly insurmountable deficit in the polls, and rumblings in the Labour ranks, Brown has been reveling in a reputation as a far-sighted guru of economic policy, feted by the likes of Paul Krugman and fulfilling a boyhood dream (I’m with you Gordo) of addressing a Joint Session of Congress.  Next month, however, these two worlds will collide in a bold all-or-nothing attempt by Brown to merge the two currents of his premiership; an attempt to rescue his domestic political prospects and cement his role as a world leader in one fell swoop.  In April, the G20 is coming to town, and for Gordon Brown the stakes could not be higher.

photo credit: World Economic Forum

The London Summit, which will be held on one fateful day, April 2nd, is a follow-up to a session held last November in Washington D.C. – a session in which rather little was decided, except vague assurances about cutting taxes and increasing government spending.  The Prime Minister’s zeal was already clear at this stage.  He declared that the summit  was “the road to the new Bretton Woods. It is absolutely clear that we are trying to build new institutions for the future.”  For him, London is where the deal will be sealed.   His agenda is extraordinarily ambitious.  As the Economist sardonically put the issue:

The summit should not only stimulate the economy and renounce protectionism, but also bolster the IMF and other international financial outfits, revamp regulation, create an early-warning system for crises, and save the poor. It was as if Mr Brown thought the ailing economy would yield to an act of governmental will, if only it were colossal enough.

The Economist, ever pragmatic, argues that such overreach risks undermining the immediate necessities of global government stimulus and a united front against protectionism.  This pessimism seems to be borne out by the unenthusiastic noises coming from G20 capitals and an emerging transatlantic gulf in attitudes.  Below the fold, I look at the opposition to Gordon Brown’s plan for new financial institutions, and the implications for his domestic political fortunes.

Read more…

Between June 4th and June 7th, Europeans from twenty-seven member states will go to the polls to elect a new European Parliament.  One man, however, is more likely to tip the balance of power in Strasbourg than the electorates of most individual countries.  That man is David Cameron.  In 2005, when campaigning for the leadership of the Conservative Party, Cameron sought to ingratiate himself to the Eurosceptic wing of his party by making a pledge.  Choose me, he assured them, and I’ll bring the Conservatives out of the mainstream centre-right political grouping in the European Parliament, the EPP (European People’s Party), after the next elections.  The icing on this isolation cake was the surreptitious deselection and suspicious retirements of old-style pro-European Tory MEPs, and the imposition of control from Central Office during the MEP corruption scandals of Summer 2008.

photo credit: loungerie

Why exactly did the Cameroonian plan tug on the heartstrings of the John Redwoods and William Hagues of this world?  Above all, it’s important to remember that the modern-day British correlation between Left and Right and Europhile and Eurosceptic is an anomaly in international terms as well as historically (Labour’s 1983 manifesto promised, for example, to pull Britain out of the then-EEC).  Your most ardent Superstaters are likely to be found, not in the Socialist bloc, but within Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats or Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP.  The Tories smell a federalist scent wafting around the hemicycle, and it gives them the jitters. For them, there’s nothing worse than the familiar refrain of common security, immigration and foreign policies.    And don’t get the anti-Maastricht veterans started on the Lisbon Treaty (no really, please don’t). 

Read more…

Europe’s recession in numbers: If you like your economic data in jazzy form, then you’ll love this interactive map from Dutch newspaper, NRC Handelsblad.

Political intrigue in Germany ahead of September’s elections.  Will Angela Merkel be able to free herself from the constraints of the Grand Coalition?  Her personal popularity suggests so, but it’s not clear whether this will spill over into unequivocal support for her Christian Democrats.

In the context of the ongoing rants at business news channel CNBC over Obama’s economic policies, Daniel de Groot at Open Left links to a fascinating Pew poll (from October) that compares how well-informed various Americans are depending on where they get their information from.  Some obvious findings (doing well, the New Yorker and the BBC; doing badly, Fox News and religious radio), but also some surprises (ESPN outpolls CNN, for example).  And take pride: a whole 28% of Americans can name the British PM.                    photo credit: holger doelle

Also from Open Left, it had been taken for granted that party identification was in inexorable decline, but has Obama (or indeed, Bush) stemmed the tide of this phenomenon, and set Democrats on a long-term upward trajectory?  Sure looks like it.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Department has entered the blogosphere.  Some good catch-up clips from her recent travels in Europe and the Middle East (a visit that serves as the prologue to President Obama’s visit next month).  The FT’s Brussels Blog reports on the masterfully executed political strategy which was her visit to the European Parliament.

photo credit: carf

“Lexington”, who writes the Economist’s weekly column on America, now has his own blog.  This will be the Economist’s second blog on American politics, the other being the long-running Democracy in America.  Slightly off topic perhaps, the latter yesterday considered the nefarious consequences of British visa restrictions (which I discussed briefly last week) on… clowns.

Talking of the Economist, there have been a few articles about friendship groups and social networks recently, but for my money, this article rises above the pack.  Check out “Primates on Facebook: even online, the neocortex is the limit“, and ponder whether you have enough friends to surpass the “Dunbar number”.

One of the oddest things about our political system is that, in all likelihood, the broad centre-left of Labour and Lib-Dem will top 50% in next year’s election, but it looks pretty certain that a Tory government will be returned.  With this in mind, and allusions to the 80s along the lines of my own Thatcher rant, Polly Toynbee eyes electoral reform.

And finally… Andrew Sullivan links to a welcome if unusually frank expression of opinion by a British PM on US politics: Gordon Brown on California’s homophobic proposition 8.

In an earlier post on language I alluded to the idea of a European “demos”, that elusive common sense of European identity and political community which would seem to be the key to any chance of “ever closer union”.  The disconnect between European citizens and their governing institutions is certainly stark.  Have you talked to anyone lately who’s getting excited about the upcoming elections to the European Parliament?  Can anyone doubt that the election of the American president was a much more exciting prospect for an overwhelming majority of Europeans than the selection of a new president of the EU Commission?  And what of the question of identity?  A resident of Manchester would probably describe him or herself as British, English, Northern and Mancunian before considering, if at all, that he or she might be European.

photo credit: Albertane

Some argue that it’s impossible to achieve a common political identity across 27 member states, pointing to different political traditions, language barriers and the enduring pride of the nation-state.  The possibility of “demos” and the very logic of supra-national representation was, for example, attacked by Czech President Vaclav Klaus in the European Parliament last month.  The attitude of Klaus, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council (bring on Sweden), is indicative of a habit of  unproductive naysaying.  It slams the European project without offering solutions and delights only those with preconceived Eurosceptic attitudes.

Without indulging in the media-fostered image of phantom overlords plotting away in Eurospeak in their Brussels hideaways, then, I fully admit the need for a greater sense of relevance for the EU and the importance of attempts to foster “Europeanness”.  Indeed, in response to Klaus’s challenge, the task of pro-Europeans is to identify measures that could be taken to improve the extent to which Europeans identify with their policy makers and planners.  Below the fold, I discuss some of these ideas.

Read more…

photo credit: PappaJack

Tuesday marked the anniversary of Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia. I meant to write about this sooner – but the day passed off largely without event, with none of the ugly scenes in Belgrade of a year ago.

In the extended entry, I’ll look at the effect of this declaration – both in Kosovo and on the wider international system – as well as the mood on the ground, from a visit I made there a couple of months ago.

(and I will definitely return to my mini-series on the EU in 2009 shortly – I should also have a post on Norway coming up in the next few days)

This post has become quite large so I’ve divided it up into the following sections if you’d prefer to read it that way.

• The International System
  • and Serbia
• Inside Kosovo
  • Division of Kosovo?
  • Mitrovica
  • Civil Society

Read more…

Jacques Chirac appeals to a long history of English amusement at the French.  When, in 2006, he stormed out of an EU summit because the (French) leader of a European business lobby addressed attendees in English, it gave the Anglophone world another chance to feel smug in the superiority of their tongue.  How ironic that English, brought to every corner of the world by the trading ships of the British Empire and the teleconferences of American business, had become the lingua franca of the 21st century.  

photo credit: kurotashiO!

Since then, things have got worse for the French.  Francophones are increasingly threatened, not just in international organisations where English is an easy mutual method of communication, but also by the infiltration of the language of Shakespeare into that of Molière.  The Académie Française can’t be pleased about all the people sending textos or emails (which it insists on calling mél), if they don’t have time for le chat.  This worrying trend has even seeped into the corridors of power.  Chirac must be seething to find that under a successor derisively called l’Américain, the Higher Education Minister feels happy to defy Gallic loyalty, winning this year’s “prize” for services against French, the Prix de la Carpette Anglaise (think doormat):

Her crime: proclaiming to the press that she had no intention of speaking French when attending European meetings in Brussels, because, she said, it was quite obvious that English was now the easiest mode of communication.

Outside France, where resistance, especially through its “linguistic Commonwealth”, the International Organisation of Francophonie, is strongest, English is surging ahead more quickly.  Last week’s Economist reported on efforts by European news websites, such as Der Spiegel (Germany), NRC Handelsblad (Holland) and Politiken (Denmark) to offer content in English.  As The Economist points out, this affords an opportunity for the first real pan-European exchange of ideas:

Read more…

In a follow up to my top heavy article, I wanted to bring attention to the fantastic news covered in Huff Post, that 350 European cities have signed up to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. Dafydd Ellis at Climactico has some excellent analysis.

photo credit: doug.siefken

Another issue puts this into a wider context. Back in 2005 141 US Mayors  signed the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.  By 2007, 500 US Mayors had signed. The pact agreed to aim to meet Kyoto limits and was a slap in the face to the Bush administration, who throughout its 8 years opposed or held up any serious Climate Change agreement.

What marks both out is their decision to create policy outside of national Government and beyond their national borders  indicating a remarkable shift in traditional political power structures. While the US has always had stronger support for the Mayoral system than the UK, the gap may be coming to an end as a new era of urban self-determination could become increasingly prominent in 21st century politics.

Read more…