Europe

Speaking at an event organised by a French speakers association, Forum 311, David Rennie, the Economist's Europe Correspondent explained the newspapers recent endorsement of the Democrat candidate.

“Dont' imagine that people in America care what Europeans think about this election”, he warned, “Don't imagine that America is fundamentally changing. It remains an extremely conservative country, completely different to anywhere else.. If we hadn't had Iraq and the current economic crisis, if John McCain was younger Obama could be struggling”.

Pointing out that President Bush's personal ratings are lower than Nixon's on the day he resigned, “He's now down there with mass murderers and Hitler, so the fact that a 72 year old grumpy man from the same party is polling in the high 40's is a sign that this is not a very different America”.

“The Economist backed McCain in 2000 over Bush and has a long appreciation of his free trade stance, his resistance to protectionism and his campaigns against pork barrels and some brave stands against corruption”.

Their endorsement would normally have gone to Senator McCain, on his record as a Senator but for what Rennie calls “The almost Shakesperian tragedy of the election where, for the last six months, Senator McCain has been replaced, almost like the invasion of the body snatchers, by someone who has reversed his most impressive positions.” One of which is on the religious right, once described by McCain as “agents of intolerance” and now has chosen Sarah Palin.

McCain's response to the current economic crisis also counted heavily against him, described by Rennie as “Panicky, ill advised, ill considered, essentially very slow and he doesn't make sense, he looks like a man who is being overtaken by events”.

By contrast, Obama has excellent advisors and looks to been calm and assured and the Economist feels he would be a better president “in these terrible times”, but he warns that an Obama victory is not a done deal.

However, it's time for a reality check, “Senator Obama is not Martin Luther King, Obama is not Bobby Kennedy. He is not an idealistic romantic dreamer. Barack Obama is an extremely effective, extremely charismatic machine politician. He came through the Chicago political machine, one of the dirtiest, most corrupt, most nepotistic political machines. He never fell out with the machine, he never challenged the corruption; he does what it takes to get by.”

Highly placed sources in the Obama camp had intimated that an early trip to Brussels was probable, seeing fixing relations with Europe to be a priority and vital for other strategic goals, such as relations with Russia, NATO enlargement etc.

The President's in-tray will have one important issue that few will have heard of, the matter of providing new Air Force Tankers a contract worth $40 Billion, originally the contract was awarded to Boeing in a process Rennie describes as “basically corrupt” and McCain protested, eventually seeing Boeing executives imprisoned. Since then, the contract underwent a fairer process and a European firm, EADS, won the bid to supply 179 tankers, based on the Airbus.

Congress managed to raise protectionism and the enfeebled Bush presidency passed the buck, leaving the issue at the top of the new president's in-tray. Will the new president choose the better bid or an American firm? This will be a key decision for America and Europe..

How will Europe's ambition to be a global player be affected by an Obama presidency? Rennie feels Obama will call Europe's bluff. He imagines a meeting with Chancellor Merkel where he will ask for 25,000 troops for Afghanistan with no caveats such as not allowing Belgian troops out of Bagram or German soldiers not being allowed to patrol at night or in the South. He will also ask for tough economic sanctions on Iran and dismantling of the CAP. All politically unacceptable to the EU at the moment.

A very uncomfortable moment as Europe wants to have a loud voice in the world, to be taken seriously, but cannot decide what it wants to say. How long does Europe have before the new president decides that Europe is not serious? “About twelve months and then we're going to be back with a president who doesn't think Europe is serious.”.

“On balance, If we're not going to be as crap as we usually are, then Obama is definitely the president we should elect.”

Demonstrators gather as MEP's back caps on carbon emissions from power stations

As MEPs met to decide on a range of climate change issues in Brussels, protestors campaigning against the construction of 50 coal fired power plants held a lively demonstration outside the parliament under the slogan, No More Coal.

Stefan Singer, Director Global Energy Policy, World Wildlife Fund explained what they were asking for, “We want the policymakers, especially in the Parliament to address the emerging threat of coal. Coal is coming back in a big way, it is cheap and abundantly available, but it is the biggest offender to the climate system. It has the highest emissions and it is dirty. We need to do something this if we want to take climate change seriously.”

He denied that he was anti-coal, but suggested that putting a cap on emissions would force power generators to look for ways of using cleaner coal in a more efficient way and developing renewable energy sources. MEPs were also asked to look into co-ordinating the European power grid to make it more responsive and efficient.

The European Parliament's environment committee voted to supply billions of euros to help test carbon capture and storage technology (CCS), something Stefan backs, saying if CCS works then there is a future for coal.

Interview with Stefan Singer (mp3 4.02mb 8:47)

Photos of the demonstration

Will she reply to this one?

Dear Ms Mikko,

I, and other bloggers, have contacted your office on numerous occasions, to try to arrange a meeting to discuss your proposals on identifying and quality marks for bloggers. We have not had any response at all.

I hope that you would be willing to meet me in Brussels to discuss your proposals. As you would expect, we are naturally concerned, not only about how some of the proposals are intended, but also their practicality.

I look forward to hearing from you,

On the plus side, didn't the Eiffel Tower look great! Another good sign was Sarkozy's hour long address to the French people on television about his ambitions for the French Presidency. Can anyone imagine Gordon doing that? or even anyone watching?

One thing is for certain, they won't cock it up as badly as Blair did to the UK Presidency - still regarded as one of the worst efforts in all time, so you can imagine there are some pretty strong contenters for that miserable title.

Naturally he's opening with the "I will restore trust in the EU" line, an ambition more than a promise but it does show that he realises that the disconnection between the EU and its citizens is a huge problem. Has he any answers?

You bet. But that is going to need a back to square one approach and not a series of patch-up treaties. It's going to need fundamental reform, not just of EU institutions but of how the member states run Europe AND use it as a convenient excuse for any of their negotiating failures or similar.

How can Sarkozy 'profoundly change' whilst keeping the agricultural subsidies the same? And as for the 60,000 EU Defence Force, I hope they've learned something from this little incident.

We earlier reported an initiative about the EU certifying bloggers. EU Observer has an interesting report about the outcry from this, correctly noting that this is just a proposal at the moment.

However, further down the report they do quote the proposal's originator, Ms Mikko MEP (Who hasn't replied to our email) saying

 So, there you have it; there is a plan to have bloggers 'Officially Certified' by the EU. Lets hope sanity throws this idea onto the dustbin of history where it belongs.

In the meantime, Ms Mikko can find our response by referring the reply given in Arkell Vs Pressdram.

Respected Euro-blogger, Jon Worth writes a thought provoking article on "Remind me, why do I blog about the EU?"

I think a great many people fall into this area, certainly I do, but we're not shouting the loudest or most stridently.

Blairwatch is also independent, we have no paymasters or political attachments. But we don't feel alone and perhaps what Brussels needs is more independent voices.

Jon, you're not alone, not by a long way.

In my earlier comments on the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, I suggested that instead of an all embracing referendum, they could be broken down into constituent parts and made clearer for any electorate.

In his blog, Stanley Crossick reports that DemosEUROPA are advocating a similar solution and recommends further examination.

The EC has just released a survey on reasons (pdf) for voting, or not voting in the Irish referndum - our initial analysis is here, and there is also some considered thoughts from Brian Barder.

Please read the whole document but highlights include:

The results are worrying for anyone concerened with reform or improving democracy. It must be said that the EU's Communication Strategy seems to have failed. We are hoping to interview European Commissioner Margot Wallström shortly about this.

It would be easy to dismiss this as another example of the EU failing, but that would be a mistake, the point is to see how, and indeed if, the EU can be made more democratic, transparent and accountable. Is the EU capable of widening dialogue with its citizens?

How can the EU be called democratic when the President is elected by 27 people horse trading behind closed doors? I know this is how a Pope is elected, but is that really the model to adopt for a continent?

What's wrong with having a EU Presidential election at the same time as the EU Parliamentary elections and asking, not 27, but the adult population of the EU to elect a President?

Certainly the EU tries to communicate, but, with highly expensive projects not improving knowledge or awareness, the launch of a EU TV channel, radio station, online forum and possible moves on bloggers, it seems that many are wondering when information becomes propoganda. Are they interested in presenting or controlling information?

These are questions that are being asked, quietly at the moment, by people across the political spectrum in Brussels. Why quietly? Because many of these voices are, one way or another, in receipt of the EU shilling, through NGO's, Lobbyists or those more directly employed by the institutions.

What most are whispering is "I've got some great ideas/analysis, but my boss won't put it through because he doesn't want to upset the Commission/Parliament as we've for a funding review/application coming soon". This is self censorship and the number of people giving off the recored examples of this is getting embarrassing.

 I saw this sign outside the EU Charlemagne building, the slogan reads "Torture is unacceptable", "Fighting Torture Together"

No mention of the several European states involved in secret rendition flights, or the secret prisons in some European countries where suspects were tortured. Berlaymonster should make something of this.

Oh, the Good old Westminster bubble, the small enclosed world of Britain's political class. We noticed that, almost unanimously they pronounced David Davis as a wild nutcase off on a farcical flight of fancy. Indeed it was remarkable at just how slow to react the major parties were.

Then the polls came in. The Great British Public seemed to take a different view. This is a problem for democracy as the 'opinion leaders' and 'policy formers' as they like to style themselves have frequently found themselves on the wrong side of public opinion. now sometimes this is no bad thing, but when it happens so often, one must wonder if those providing 'informed comment' really are informed about anything beyond the bubble.

For politicians to reach out beyond the bubble is vital to keep democracy alive.

This is a general political problem that seems to be some kind on natural phenomenon. In Brussels it is magnified, and so is the problem.

It's glaring, embarrassingly so. I love Brussels, it's a vibrant, quirky, multicultural city - frankly underrated in most tourist guides, but the 'EU Quarter is something very different.

It's almost entirely white. As I wander around the parliament and various Commission buildings, practically the only non-caucasians I see are the cleaners and the dogbodies moving furniture.

I photograph a lot of conferences and I'm faced with a sea of pleasant, intelligent white men in suits. Not a photographers dream. Frankly the EU bubble is about as diverse as a  Ku Klux Klan rally. Secondly, almost everyone involved is taking the EU Shilling in one way or another.

I want to make it plain that I am pro-Europe, but I believe fundamental reform, not just of treaties but of the bubble is the only way forward.

This report from the EU Parliament's Culture Committee has been taking aim at those naughty uncontrolled bloggers.

We've asked Ms Mikko for an interview and have posed a question to the web editor, who asks for feedback:

"Does the Culture Committee regard Commissioner Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the European Commission's blog a threat?

Or Us? "

We'll let you know any reply we get. If any.

While the future of the Lisbon Treaty is debated today, there are several reasons for the Irish rejevtion being mooted. Notably this was a protest vote against local politicians who had lost the trust of the public, some that the message requires no interpretation, it's a rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, whilst others say it's because the Irish have been simply ungrateful for the huge amount of cash the EU has thrown at them in recent years.

The debate about what to do over the rejection is also over three options:
1. Ignore it
2. Hold the vote again and hope they vote 'the right way'
3. Figure out why the treaty was rejected and make changes

Now, it is beyond my capacities to explain what 3 million people were thinking, but as the rejection would have been replicated in many other countries if it had been put to a vote, let's take a look at a few issues and how to counter them.

The Lisbon Treaty.
Blairwatch has been against 42 day detention, but having read the treaty (pdf)^*, there is a strong case for all those responsible for this turgid, inpenetrable and virtually unreadable text to be in carcerated in Gitmo for some time for crimes against language. If the combined minds of the intellectual elite that run Brussels can't write a document in clear and simple language they should not be suprised that people reject such treaties and similar documents.
Solution: EU documents should be written in clear language and could be put as several options. Instead of saying Do you accept this treaty, it could be broken down into several votes on the same ballot.

National Protest Vote
It is clear that there are voters who would vote no, mainly to annoy local politicians, for example Blair would havve been trounced because of his (Murdoch inspired and late conversion) commitment to a vote.
Solution: Tricky. Perhaps a clearer explanation would put the issue in non-national perspective. Getting decent political leaders is the obvious answers, but we're deep into 'don't hold your breath' country here.

They want out of Europe
Some do. Some, often with the excusses provided by national government who see 'Brussels' as the portal of all evils, rather than acceprt responsinbility for their own misdeeds. However, as someone reasonably pro-Europe, I must say that the EC and EU Parliament seem to be doing the euroskeptics work for them, by their inaction, secrecy and occasional outright criminal behaviour they are the ones making it hard for the pro Europe voice to be listened to.
Solution: Some will want out of Europe and it is their democratic right to say so. They should not be demonised. Europe needs to be transformed, made open and the crooks sent packing.

There are others with much better analysis than this but the EU needs to open up and radical top to bottom reform, respect people when citizens vote against them, communicate better and boot out the crooks.

That said, there are honorable and decent democratically minded people throughout the  parliament - from right to left - and in the Commission and other institutions but the 'Euro-Reformists' are utterly unorganised. Our interview with Nigel Farage, leader of the Independence and Democracy movement and UKIP was the first in a series of interviews we're undertaking on the future of democracy in the European project. We'll have some more news soon.

* Warning reading this is a deeply painful experience. Blairwatch accepts no liability for any damage or harm caused by following this link

There is much debate over the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, but what I'm finding interesting is how a democratic decision by an electorate is regarded in the EU institutions. Remember, most nations have ratified the treaty by shoving it through their national parliament, often with little debate.

How people respond and react will say a lot about how democratic Europe really is. This is a little difficult, with the Eurosceptics being too hungover to speak and many others keeping their heads down, but let's see if we can round-up the blogs etc and see what we find.

Earlier I said how I overheard Andrew Duff, leader of the Liberal Democrats say 'We will not accept this decision'. So far there is no confirmation that ZANU-PF have offered him a job as Press Spokesman.

Tee best comment, analysis and round up has been on Jon Worth's Euroblog. Indeed his writing puts all the official 'EC writers and websites' to shame. Another good round up is here.

Tory MEP Richard Corbett has a thoughful piece wondering where to go from here, but pointing out that Ireland must have an internal debate about what they want from a treaty and how to address these concerns. Stanley Crossick thinks

One wonders if he would have written the same thing about the mechanism if the vote has been Yes, but the fact that the EU hasn't been 'sold' is the key point.

Aiden Gibson makes a case for a Pro-Europe No vote. EU Observer supports the Lisbon treaty but reflects that the EU hasn't made enough progress on improving democracy, thansparency or efficiency. A very interesting article.

In a disturbing development, the Irish Daily Mail has published a secret memo where EC Vice-President Margot Wallstrom will 'tone down or delay and pronouncements from Brussels that may be unhelpful'. Bruno Waterfield of the Daily Telegraph takes up the story.

More comment is here. We will add links as we find them, please leave your suggestions in the comments.

So what's really going on?

The EU was designed from the very start to be a top down organisation, mainly by people who were deeply affected by WWII and its aftermath. They designed a set up where 'we know what's best for you' ruled the day. They also narrowed down decision making to make it more manageable, or malleable depending on your perspective.

For many years this did reasonably well and life carried on.

Today things are different. Politics has changed, on the one hand many parties have moved to the centre and blurred the lines between them. Younger readers may not know this, but in the UK there once was a very real difference between Labour the Conservatives. Really.

Faced with a preceived lack of difference or choice, allied to the rise of the internet, people became disillusioned and cynical. They also felt less involved, less interested. One aspect is the rise of single issue politics, either as a simple "Out of Europe Now' or protests against veal calf exports, road building etc.

People still have some sort of connection to their MP, but not to their MEP's who have unmanagabley large constituencies. They are also working in Brussels and Strasbourg, physically remote from their constituents. Indeed one reform that could be helpful is to close down Strasbourg and have one seat of government.

The Irish citizens, like a great many other countries inhabitants, would if they were allowed to, have given the EU a bloody nose. Not entirely because they want out of the EU, but they want an accountable and democratic EU. The message is clear: "We're here, take notice of us".

Will Europe make real and serious attempts to be open, transparent and above all, democratic? The replies of Eurocrats and Brussels insiders to the referendum will be the earliest indication.

Watch them like hawks. We disagree with UKIP as we feel there is a chance, albeit slim and against massive odds, to build an open Europe, but an essential requirement is that those employed or funded by the European institutions must be willing do do whatever it takes to ensure these fundamental reforms are discussed and implemented, and we mean a lot more action than writing meaningless, bland and turgid press releases and reports that essentially say as  little as possible or occasional maealy mouthed press conferences.

Jean -Paul Satre Famously said 'Hell is other people', If he'd been still around he would realise that Hell is in fact reading EU documents.

We need a real commitment to transform the European Project from a top-down institution to a bottom up one.