Europe

This is the second and final part of the interview. Also present is Joe Hennon, her Spokesman. Part one is here

Part 2 Interview with Commissioner Wallstrom (31.05, 28.4mb, mp3) Criticism, the citizens' right to have a voice, how to tell if a Commissioner is doing a good job, getting rid of jargon, what frustrates her, advice for the next commissioner, the difference between old and new media, making the pro-Europe case, why we need referenda, the workload of a commissioner, the difficulties of public life, the need for doubt, and starting writing.

This is the first of a two-part podcast with Commissioner Wallström, who has revolutionised the European Union's strategy for communicating with citizens and has been a bold experimenter in using internet based technologies for putting their message out and encougaring debate between the institutions and citizens.

Whilst her efforts have not always been appreciated, to put it mildly, by the EU institutions, her remarkable energy and tenacity is slowly changing the entrenched mindset of many people.

It may be too early to say how successful she has been, or if future Commissioners will continue opening up debate, her impact is beyond doubt. As she nears the end of her two terms, she discussed openly, passionately and movingly on her work and beliefs, she also spoke about the price of a life in politics and her plans for the future.

Part 1: Interview with Commissioner Wallström (29.59, 25mb, mp3) Reforming communication strategy, blogging, using the internet to encourage debate and discussion, why people's attitudes to govenment has changed, why politicians blame 'Brussels' and the dangers of reading the Daily Mail every day.

Part 2

We have two excellent interviews with Chris Davies, one of Britain's most effective Members of the European Parliament and recently nominated as MEP of the Year.

He's recently visited Gaza, and blogged from there. He's also known for leaking a report into MEP's expenses and was recently busted for posessing cannabis as part of his decriminalisation campaign.

In this podcast, we covered a lot of ground and Chris spoke freely and interestingly and gave a real insight behind the parliamentary walls. In this podcast the Lib-Dem MEP discusses a wide range of issues including;

Part 1: Gaza and Israel ( 14.37, 13.3MB, mp3) His trips to Gaza, including during the conflict, dealing with Hamas and looking for a peace process, the Arab Peace Plan.

Part 2: The European Elections and the European Parliament (32.34, 29.8MB, mp3) On prospects and effects of the BNP gaining seats, discussions on how to counter the far-right, The difference between European and national parliaments, the political process in Europe, the pro-Europe case, the Euro, the forthcoming elections and why European politics is boring.

Further Reading:

Chris Davies MEP official site - Contains articles, speeches etc.

Chris' Weblog - includes his blogging from Gaza

I wrote earlier about the upcoming European Parliament elections and in a magazine about the belief that the global financial crisis would lead to a rise in far-right representation. Finally, the Labour party have woken up to the threat, or at least been told about it.

There are several factors that could make a 'perfect storm'. The Conservatives are hopelessly inept over Europe. Cameron's election campaign made the promise that the Tories would withdraw from the ruling centre-right block, to the horror of his MEP's. So far they've lobbied hard and nothing has happened to Cameron's first political promise.

So, once again, the Tories have no actual message on Europe. Are they for or against, what about enlargement, the euro, Lisbon etc. All is either silence or a whispering from both sides of the mouth.

Labour have no real message either, the European party is much better than the national one, but I find them the hardest to engage with. No Labour MEP has ever replied to any of our emails, but when I meet them we have interesting conversations.

Frankly, the two main parties have no clear message, no open support for the EU. They're just keeping quiet and hoping nobody raises the issue.

The Liberals are very active and have good leadership and some very good MEP's. They also have Andrew Duff. As part of the centre group they do a lot of good work, even though they are centre-left and the group as a whole is centre-right.

The Greens are punching above their weight and well regarded, but this is a personal appreciation that depends on the quality of the MEP.

UKIP are basically standing outside throwing bricks at the windows. True they often raise vital issues, but despite having a very competent leadership, the party itself isflaky and illdisciplined. UKIP have yet to define themselves as anything but a right wing Tory party. If the Tories become more Eurosceptic, will they wither away?

So, there's a huge yawning gap for the BNP to exploit. They could become the main home for protest votes, for people angry with insecurity from the growing financial crisis for several reasons:

1. They will proclaim a vigorous anti-Europe message.
2. People think the EU elections don't matter, so why not tick the BNP box?
3. BNP will run on an xenophobic platform.

What is truly tragic, is that so far, the Labour response has been to mimic the BNP line on immigration, "British jobs for British workers".

There are two factors that assist the BNP, Labour's inept economic planning and Labour's unwillingness to challenge the BNP on immigration, Europe etc.

There are some worried people in Brussels. As the financial crisis deepens, there have been cases of unrest throughout the European Union, especially with the BNP supported wildcat strikes in the UK.

Will the far-right gain from a protest vote, inspired by the political stalemate and financial crisis?

There are a couple of factors for the UK. What will the Conservative party do? Cameron's election campaign involved a pledge to immediately leave the EPP (Centre-right) group in the European Parliament, because they were seen as too pro-Europe. Most Tory MEP's were against this as it would affect financial support and leave them on the sidelines with the far-
-right parties.

So far this hasn't happened and Cameron is trying to sweep it under the carpet. However, pressure in on him to explain himself before the elections.

Where does this leave UKIP? Basically they're a right wing Tory party with a gifted leader and a bunch of ill disciplined eccentrics. They are not a racist party or far-right. But what happens if Cameron does play the Eurosceptic card? Their unique selling point vanishes.

This is why I am wondering about the Geert Wilders controversy, initiated by the UKIP Peer, Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox, a UKIP supporter. Both take a line that can be called islamophobia, and Cox campaigns for all Arabs to be removed from Jerusalem, for example.

The film and Wilders argument is bigoted and racist. He claims that all Muslims are violent extremists and the Koran should be banned. This is a hate filled rant and nothing more.

But is this a sign that UKIP will veer to the xenophobic right? Or, as I suspect, did the leadership of this shambolic party simply have no idea what was going on?

The EU has just launched its European Citizens Consultations, a website where people in all 27 EU states can make proposals and debate the social and economic future of the EU.

We hope that readers will sign up as this initiative could lead to wider consultations. If this is successful, it will also be a great victory for those in the EU institutions who want to involve citizens, and that has to be good.

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.