The title “Poland and the Future of the European Union” might not sound very exciting, but don’t be fooled.  Just read it!  I wish more politicians had the courage to give speeches like that. A clever structure, historical references,  plain language and some radical proposals that go beyond the current debate that is dominated by economics.  It is a pro-Europe speech but he comes across as  polite and honest – you get the feeling there is someone who really is trying to develop constructive proposals for the future of the EU.  Or as Charles Crawford noted: “That speech (…) was not by a Polish Foreign Minister. It was by a new European leader” (Update 30/11: hmm, so it turns out that Crawford was consulted by Sikorski before the speech)

The line “I fear German power less than I am beginning to fear German inactivity” has obviously been making the rounds in Germany and elsewhere. I think he could have avoided the alarmist word ”apocalyptic’ when describing the current crisis but overall this is a speech worth reading. Hopefully other Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers/Chancellors take note!

The following text is a collection of unorganised and incoherent thoughts. Probably I should have written two proper essays or 5 blog posts. But I was too lazy and put everthing in one long blog post. It is also the result of living in the UK for the last several years and includes a mix of commentary about recent events but also more general points that I find interesting in the UK’s approach to the EU. Everything, as usual, unfinished and exaggerated and ‘thought’ in progress.  Sorry for the lack of links – might include some in the coming days.

What are the underlying problems of the UK-EU relationship?

First of all, there are several underlying problems worth mentioning.

It seems to me that generally there is limited  trust among UK decision makers in the politics and implementation efforts of other EU member states as well as EU institutions.  Take for example the Schengen opt-out which basically tells the rest of the EU: We don’t trust you to secure the external border efficiently.  Another example is the recent obsession with supranational court decisions (albeit mainly the Council of Europe) but it follows the same line of thought. Foreign judges can’t possibly be as good as our judges. Another example is the European Parliament: The idea that  foreign MEPs (that are also elected!) are involved in shaping legislation is seen as a strange concept. Everything should be done in Westminster. Other democratically elected bodies are not good enough – because they are not British (an implicit assumption behind a lot of arguments). It is the focus on theses issues instead of looking at how the UK is involved in certain international bodies which makes public debates so hideous.

Furthermore the political culture of the UK seems to have a problem with the concept of ‘compromise’ and ‘negotiations’ which is vital for European institutions. The media also loves zero sum games – which does not help to frame the issue.  This may have to do with the two party system and the missing tradition to form coalitions but it may well be laziness to understand complex issues. And even the governing coalition does not seem be able to communicate the nature and the necessity of ‘compromises’ in a convincing way.

The UK suffers from a political superiority complex. Especially politicians and commentators do not seem to understand that (1) the empire is gone – and will not come back, that (2) you can learn something from other countries (3) the war is over. All those tendencies create the impression of the “little Englanders” with a funny “island mentality”. Interestingly, the life in the UK is more cosmopolitan than in other parts of the EU and the majority of the population is very liberal and open-mindend. I think this is the real disconnect between the elite and the citizens in the UK.

At the same time, UK citizens are disconnected from the EU not only because Brussels is 2 hours away from London.  No – the UK government secured opt-outs in virtually all areas which could  benefit citizens directly and make the EU  more visible in everyday life: no Euro, no Schengen, no social rights, no fundamental rights…  It is not a surprise that citizens will not be interested, let alone develop trust in EU cooperation. The EU is reduced to a theoretical concept of a trade bloc. This mixed with a hostile media and attention seeking politicians will give you what is commonly described as “‘euroscepticism’.

There is obviously a huge problem with the way how UK media report about the EU. One the one hand side there is the tradition of  tabloid campaign journalism which actively lobbies against anything European.  The Murdoch press has bee opposed to the EU as soon as it realised that competition policy might also have an impact on the Murdochs. However, I don’t think the Murdoch press is the problem. The main problem in the UK  is actually the Daily Mail – and this goes beyond the  EU stories, it has an impact on democratic culture. The Daily Mail is read by a large middle class who tends to think of it as a ‘normal’ newspaper – which I think is an essential problem in the UK. (but this is a topic for another blogpost) One the other hand you can find  inaccuate EU reporting also in broadsheets. However, tabloid ‘EU stories’ have created an atmosphere which can be characterised by suspicion and fear of the ‘other’ and a general feeling that foreigners and immigrats are bad and everything foreign (especially ”Brussels’) cannot be trusted. Let’s not forget that the  media concsiously misreports EU issues and actively develops  euromyths. I don’t believe that this is because of lazy journalists  – it is far too frequent, it only happens in the UK so this must be actively pursued by certain interests! However, the power of the hostile media landscape defined to a large extent what is acceptable for politicians to say ‘on Europe’.

The public debate “on Europe” is stuck in a frame that only knows “europhiles” and “eurosceptics”. As long as both words are seen as insults there is not much hope to move the debate forward. It is not helpful to address the real problems of the EU or the UK-EU relationship.  Especially political parties need to develop new discoursive frames to create a useful debate “on Europe”.  New frames are desperately needed. Examples could be a “social Europe”, a “liberal Europe” or a “stable Europe”. However, in order to do that you need to accept that the EU is here to stay and that different policies should be decided on the different levels with the appropriate democratic control.

We need better EU politicians. The UK as well as most other Menber states must start sending better politicians to Brussels and Strassbourg. The European Parliament can only work better if citizens send their best and brightest MEPs to Strassbourg and Brussels. The European Commission can only work with Commissiners that are multilingual and  competent in their respective policy area.  Parties and the media must stop seeing ‘Brussels’ as the end of a career but rather as a political choice that is as important as being an MP in Westminster.

Languages are a huge problem in the UK. There will be problems as long as the value of language teaching is contested. One benefit of the EU is to look for jobs and opportunities in other EU countries. However, this only works if pupils learn as many languages as possible. Learning a language needs to become compulsary again in UK education – from the first year to the last year!

There is an  obsession of the current UK government to frame everything in the ‘national interests’ using an outdated concept of ‘power’ and ‘sovereinty’. This may well be a problem of the Conservative party but the real problem is the narrow definition of ‘national interests’.  If everything is framed within zero sum games it is very difficult to win anything. At the moment, the government seems to have a very simplisitic view on power and influence which is also at the heart of its problems with the EU.

And one final thing: The UK is a European country. So, please Brits, stop saying “If you go to Europe…” or “In Europe things are different…” As long as you define everything according to a “them and us” pattern, nothing will change.

What is the way forward for the UK?

A general point which needs to be addressed is that compromise is often painful but necessary. This may not be an integral part of the UK’s political culture but it is important in an interdependent world and even more so in the EU.  Knowledge about the value of cooperation is another broader concept that is often forgotten in the UK debate. The focus on “national interests”, “souvereignty” etc will not help the UK in long term.

The UK needs to realise that you can only change the EU if it is an integral part of it. If you decide to leave the EU you will end up implementing EU policy without the ability to change EU policy (as outlined by David Cameron). A more complex point however is the following.  You can only change a certain EU policy  if you are an equal part of this specific EU policy. If you have an opt-out nobody will consult you, nobody will listen to you and you will not be able to change anything.<
If a two-speed Europe  is not in the interest of the UK there is only one way forward for the UK:  The UK needs to increase its EU bargaining power!

For example: If the UK is serious about changing the budget in the future it will  need to  give up the budget rebate.  The budget is important as it provides strategic opportunities to reform the EU. But if one country pays less because of some dodgy deal 30 years ago it will not be taken seriously. The world has changed since Thatcher. At the same time the UK could win some friends in Eastern Europe by doing this.  This however can only be addressed if the UK government is ready to accept that it could indeed be in the “national interest” to pay more in exchange of ‘influence’. But this is a difficult sell especially if your ‘red lines’ are rigid and your ‘national interest’ is static.

Another example:  Despite the current crisis, the eurozone is the most important market for the UK. Recently, David  Cameron and George Osborne called for more fiscal coordination within the eurozone because the UK wants a stable currency zone to trade with. Now, the problem is that the UK is not a eurozone member, so one can understand Nicolas Sarkozy’s ager regarding the UK’s attempt to lecture how the eurozone should be run. Using the current eurozone crisis to start a debate on repatriating some mysterious powers (which are never properly defined!) is exactly the wrong way to secure a stable eurozone. It will not give you more leverage but only make you sound ridiculous in the ears of French or German politicians. And remember: In the worst case scenario the eurozone will establish parallel institutions and negotiating new treaties outside the present EU framework – and the UK would have no say whatsoever. The bargaining chip is unfortunately (at least for the political elite) full eurozone membership. The UK government should announce to join  (important is the word ‘announce’!) in a reformed eurozone at some undefined point in the future. This may give the prime minister a seat at the table of the eurozone summits and in every other future political/fiscal cooperation mechanism. The bargaining power is quite sophisticated. No direct obligation to join the euro but an influence in shaping the governance of the eurozone based on a vague promise to join one day if reforms have been implemented successfully.

Just two points that are often neglected by UK politicians and commentators: (1) Germany will do everything to save the Euro. And I mean everything.  It may be hard to believe for some UK commentators, but a break- up of the Euro is not on the agenda. Only British newspapers speculate about it. (2) All Eastern European EU member states are legally obliged to join the Euro in the future including states such as Poland. Denmark has an opt-out but its currency is linked to the eurzone which makes the opt out purely symbolical. That leaves the UK and Sweden – the latter is thinking about holding a new referendum after the crisis. The danger is not a two-speed Europe -  but a core-EU of up to 26 member states.

Another example. You can’t advocate for a better EU foreign policy and saying at the same time that nothing needs to change. It is a failure of the British diplomacy not to use the EU in more strategic way. After all, British diplomats are among the best out there and are highly respected within the international system. But why is Britain opposed to making the EEAS work, why not develop joint consular services or coordinate foreign policy on the ground, why not save money and increase efficiency with a military coordination unit in Brussels? It is pure hypocrisy to criticise on the EU’s lack of power without trying to change things. Again, this has to do with an outdated concept of sovereignty which places more importance on symbols and traditions than addressing the real problems.

I think the UK elite consistently failed to build strong EU alliances. Especially a strong British-German alliance within the EU would be desirable.  There is a lot of common ground between the two countries – provided you are prepared to learn from another country. There is a substantial part within the German elite which can identify with the  UK’s philosophy on trade and markets.  In contrast, the French state centric economic model does not really correspond to German realities.  However, the German-French axis mainly exists because of historical reasons – and the lack of alternatives. I think the Germans would rather run the EU with the Brits than with the French if the Brits were a bit more involved in everything and would not always look for the opt-out. The truth is that Germany and Britain are both large countries that are obviously linked through history (and the British obsession with the wars might not have helped in the past), languages are not that different and even the Queen has German ancestors. People in Germany are fond of the English language and British culture. So wouldn’t it make sense for British politicians to develop closer links to Germany?

You want to change the CAP,  liberalise services in the EU, reform the EU budget, clearly define what policy is decided on which level, creating a better EU foreign policy? Well,  I think Berlin might be interested. But from a Berlin perspective, the UK is already seen as semi-detached from the EU – if not fully detached. Basically nobody in Berlin cares what British politicians say on ‘Europe’ or what they want during the next round of treaty negotiations.

Well, this is something David Cameron should change. But he can only change it if he offers something in return.

In case you have not seen it, a couple of days ago my post on German UN diplomacy on Libya was featured here. Actually a funny thing because it is one of those posts that took me 10 minutes to write – which does explain the amount of  typos and the general incoherence of the piece. But well, SPON thought it was good enough for their press review. And to put it into perspective: Spiegel Online is the biggest and most influential news website in Germany.

And being featured as the only blog among the likes of Le Monde, The Guardian, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Der Standard and dw-world is a nice achievement for your humble blogger.

Thanks a lot SPON for these 15 minutes of fame.

Germany was the only NATO/EU member to abstain together Russia, China, Brasil, India. Result: no common EU foreign policy (Ashton being absent from the wider debate anyway) despite the good opportunity for an interesting ESDP mission. The US seems to support the resolution but does not want to use own military capabilities. At the same time there is an agreement between France, the UK and Italy. It is a missed opportunity for ESDP and EU foreign policy in general. And the reason, strangely enough, is Germany. Moreover, Germany is partly to blame why the it took so long to agree on a UN resolution.

(Sorry for the lack of links and background info and the lack of any sophisticated writing, just think of it as a draft blog post – bit in a hurry at the moment…)

So what is the problem with German diplomacy? A quick explanation:

1. There are a couple of important regional elections in the coming weeks. Hugely important for Merkel’s CDU and it does not look very good. Merkel seems to be inspired by Schröder who won elections with swift decisions and a “no war” attitude. So, Merkel’s decision perform a u-turn on nuclear energy (albeit only for 3 months!) and the the “no” to war in Libya seem to follow that idea. However, I think Merkel completely misjudges the situation. The u-turn on nuclear energy lacks any credibility and does not seem to help the CDU (and first opinion polls do support this view). Libya is not Iraq. Libya is quite an easy narrative, and not as controversial as Iraq so you can’t win popular opinion with it. Afghanistan is unpopular, so the idea to do more in Afghanistan and not support the intervention is Libya is counterproductive.

I think the German population would rather support an intervention in Libya than to abstain as the only Western country. Moreover, supporting a UN resolution would not necessarily involve a commitment to military engagement. Germany could have supported the resolution without contributing (citing the real(!) lack of military capabilities). Support: yes, military involvement: no – that would have been a more successful strategy…

Maybe Merkel/Westerwelle were not sure how people would react to an involvement of the Bundeswehr – or even to a formal endorsement of the intervention in Libya. However, judging on trends in popular opinion at the moment it is easy to come to the conclusion that any controversial decision (i.e intervention) could become a hot issue in German politics.  The prospect of defending a war in the three upcoming election campaigns might have been a contributing factor that explains the German position.

2. Foreign Minister Westerwelle is not up to the job. He lacks the political feeling for situations, foreign policy is not really his field of expertise. He often seems uncomfortable with foreign policy. After the elections he should have taken over the ministry of finance and/or economics. And he is the most unpopular foreign minister ever. In Germany, Foreign ministers are always among the most trusted and popular politicians – with the exception of Westerwelle. Is Libya an attempt to become popular again? Oh, and it seems that the Chancellery is the main foreign policy player at the moment. So, the abstention could be a sign of the internal problems of German foreign policy, a disagreement between Merkel and Westerwelle is quite likely.

3. “No war” as a foreign policy principle. Not very convincing after Kosovo & Afghanistan but it might have some influence in the thinking on foreign policy among German diplomats. Especially the rather bad experiences in Afghanistan might have shaped the “no intervention” stance of the German government. A more serious point is that German decision makers are convinced that this “no fly zone” will basically result in a war which might last for quite some time. And nobody in Germany wants to send soldiers on Libyan soil. Not only is it unpopular, there are quite some risks attached to it.  Especially after  Afghanistan and  Iraq the danger of a getting into a conflict that last for several years should not be underestimated. Moreover, there has been very little talk about what constitutes a “success” of the intervention. German decision makers are naturally reluctant without having a clear exit strategy and general strategy what to do after the air strikes! I think these ideas are crucial in understanding the German position.

A last chance for German diplomacy?

The Libyan government just announced a ceasefire (a real chance or Gaddafi trying to buy time?). If implemented (which is doubtful anyway) there might be some negotiations about the future of Libya. Maybe a mediation to discuss an acceptable exit strategy for Gaddafi or some power sharing mechanisms; there might be a UN backed peacekeeping force – everything in flux as Gaddafi seems to be determined to stay in power as long as possible. So, any diplomatic negotiations will mostly happen in the background. Germany could be seen as the only ‘credible western country’ to negotiate between the Libyan government and the opposition/international community. If the German government wants to restore trust and credibility it might a good idea to get involved now. However, it is probably not very likely to happen…not with Westerwelle and Merkel.

Update: Germany rejects Libya ceasefire monitoring role

So, what happened in the EU institutions so far? High Rep Catherine Ashton gave a statement on Egypt on Thursday (pdf) and on Friday evening (pdf). On Saturday European Council President Van Rompuy also issued a statement (pdf). All statements seemed very moderate and basically called all parties to refrain from violence.  However almost none of this made it into the mainstream media. Having watched the excellent Al Jazeera live stream during the last days I think it is safe to say to most people following the event did not heard of these statements. But why is that? Apart from political and institutional disagreements we could witness a few basic public diplomacy mistakes (This post is NOT  about EU-Egypt relations! Suffice to say that Egypt is in the EU neighbourhood and is included in the ENP. The question whether the EU has a coherent and efficient policy in place is another (and very important) question that I don’t want to discuss here):

• It was obvious on Friday afternoon around 3pm/4pm (Brussels time) what was happening in Egypt. However, no statement of Ashton in the afternoon. The statement was published in the evening – after a statement of Hillary Clinton (at least this is how I remember it).  It would have been crucial to put out a statement before Washington wakes up to the story because as long as the Americans do not react on a story all media outlets would at least consider to report the EU reaction. (Not to mention the difficulty for the US to criticise Mubarak and Obama’s failure to mention “democracy” in his speech on Friday – a real opportunity for the EU!) The first crucial reaction is important if one wants to shape the discourse and influence events!

• The most striking EU problem has been the lack of any video footage. This is a basic PR mistake. Public diplomacy only exists if the public knows about your diplomacy. Especially in the case of the “televised” protests in Egypt it would have been a good opportunity to get Ashton on TV!  Is it really that difficult to organise an exclusive Ashton interview for Al Jazeera?  Or a press conference with Catherine Ashton, let’s  say on Friday at 5pm?  Later in the evening Clinton and Obama appeared on TV and the pictures were circulated on all major news outlets…

• I know these criticisms might be a bit unfair given that the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council will take place on Monday 31/1  and the agenda has been changed and Egypt is now included.  However, a joint statement of all 27 EU Member States 3 days after Friday 28/1 and almost a week after 25/1 is just too late. Even if the EU manages at least to agree on one  position – nobody will take notice (I hope I am wrong on this though!) So, the timing needs to be improved.

• It is difficult to coordinate 27 MfAs but this is the job of Ms Ashton – also on a Friday afternoon or during the weekend! We were promised that the Lisbon Treaty would make everything more efficient – well it is not happening, is it?  And statements are not (yet) policy – here the High Rep can improvise to a certain extent (there are quite a few documents on EU-Egypt relations that can be used for inspiration)! One could come to the conclusion that the lack of foreign policy expertise of Ms Ashton is part of the problem here. She does not seem to have a “feeling” for the situation. So if the EU is serious about being an actor in international politics it needs to react more quickly on major international events! It’s the media, stupid!

• And on Saturday we also witnessed the “worst case scenario” in  EU foreign policy. A joint statement of the UK, France, Germany on Egypt. The “big three”: Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy took over, issued a statement and it made it into all major news! The statement was published in German, English and French on the respective national websites:

“We are deeply concerned about the events that we are witnessing in Egypt. We recognise the moderating role President Mubarak has played over many years in the Middle East. We now urge him to show the same moderation in addressing the current situation in Egypt.”

“We call on President Mubarak to avoid at all costs the use of violence against unarmed civilians, and on the demonstrators to exercise their rights peacefully.

“It is essential that the further political, economic and social reforms President Mubarak has promised are implemented fully and quickly and meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

“There must be full respect for human rights and democratic freedoms, including freedom of expression and communication, including use of telephones and the internet, and the right of peaceful assembly.”

“The Egyptian people have legitimate grievances and a longing for a just and better future. We urge President Mubarak to embark on a process of transformation which should be reflected in a broad-based government and in free and fair elections.”

So, business as usual. No “common” foreign policy of the EU. The “big three” sideline the EU and dominate the headlines and the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.  One could of course argue whether “one voice – one policy” or ” many voices – one policy” is the better strategy. However, it would be interesting to know whether they actually tried to organise a EU initiative or if the call for “free and fair elections”(arguably, the most radical part of the statement) is really contested among EU member states? Another question is if Ms Ashton knew about this initiative and whether she agreed with it…

Update 31/1/2011:  Council Conclusions on Egypt (pdf)

—–

Update 11/2/2011: Mubarak resigned – and the EU must have learnt a lesson! High Rep Ashton reacted rather quickly. (maybe an indication that the resignation was not such a surprise?) One hour after the official annoucment of Mubaraks resignation, High Rep Ashton did a live TV interview on the BBC and on Al Jazeera! She must have been the first international politician giving a statement on live TV. As a result most press coverage included Ashton’s remarks, official US statements came only several hours later. Furthermore, two hours after the resignation a press briefing in Brussels was organised and a joint statement of High Rep Ashton, European Counicl President Van Rompuy, Commission President Barroso was issued. It was quite an impressive performance of EU public diplomacy!

Unfortunately Romania proves to be one of the slow learners and the way it is handling the Schengen accession issue is a very good illustration. After France and Germany made it clear that they would rather see Romania’s and Bulgaria’s accession postponed to a later date when the two countries will be better prepared, bringing as the strongest argument their still very corrupt justice system, Romania decided to take a strong position. That would be all perfectly justifiable, especially given the fact that technically, it is ready to join the Schengen area, if only Romanian politicians had benefited from the socialisation process in the last four years and had learned how to properly use the rules of the game in their favour. Instead, the messages Romania has been sending in the last days come across as desperate childish attempts to threaten the EU with blocking ongoing processes such as Croatia’s accession (on the pretext that any future Member States should also have a Co-operation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), like Romania and Bulgaria do) and the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty amendment allowing for the new 18 MEPs to take their seats in the European Parliament. What Romania is naively trying to achieve with this is to “hurt” France and Germany (although it is Spain that benefits the most from the additional MEPs), but such statements and, even worse, actions fit much better in a kindergarten than in the EU arena.

What Romania is proving in the last days is that:

1. it has not learned anything in the last four years about how the EU really functions, what are the main institutional players, what is the balance of power and how can one best influence the decision-making process; and here I mostly refer to the informal mechanisms, the things one learns by doing, the product of the so called “socialisation process”, although I still have doubts about how clear the formal mechanisms are to Romanian politicians, and the latest developments are only reinforcing these doubts;
2. it lacks a coherent strategy to reach the goal of Schengen accession; after the EU accession process was completed, the various political forces in Romania have not been able to work together to create a constructive position for Romania to assume at the EU level; instead, contradictory messages from Romanian officials kept reaching Brussels, each one defending its domestic political position, without even realising the harm they do to Romania’s image and interest. In a sense, one can say that all these inconsistencies and the lack of a clear official stance fueled the arguments against the March 2011 accession. Romania has thus shot itself in the foot, thanks to the messy internal political scene but also to the ignorance (and lack of interest) regarding the functioning of the EU and the role Romania can and should be playing in it;
3. its officials lack tact and diplomatic skills; not that this is any news, but this situations proves once more the inability of Romanian politicians and diplomats to, first of all, prevent such incidents from occurring and, secondly, once they’ve occurred, to try to suggest reasonable solutions or at the very least (and I am really lowering my expectations here!) refrain from making ridiculous statements. Not only was it bad enough that the Foreign Minister said that Romania can, and probably should, unilaterally withdraw from the CVM, President Basescu suggested yesterday, while assuming his responsibility for the possible postponing of Schengen accession, that in case Romania is not offered a clear and definite deadline to join Schengen, the funds that were meant to be used for securing the borders should be used for other purposes, such as helping SMEs. No comment.

While, on the one hand, it does not seem fair that new conditions are added while the process is ongoing (the criteria are, after all, just of a technical nature, although, in principle, one can easily link corruption with border security), Romania should have been prepared for such a situation and should have come up with a lobbying strategy for the major EU capitals instead of the lame attempts to blackmail the big Member States with issues that can, at best, only backfire and hurt the country’s image in the EU. Unfortunately, this is just an example of Romania’s negotiation “skills” (or lack thereof) in the EU arena; if this trend continues, Romania can forget about ever exerting any influence (despite its size) in the decision-making process. The first lesson it needs to learn is how to use the power of informal mechanisms in its favour instead of falling victim to it, like in the Schengen accession story.

Update 7/1/2011:  According to EUobserver, Romania’s president Basescu announced that Romania would not take any of the proposed retaliatory measures (see above) because they could “backfire against Romania”. But Basescu  also complained about the lack of solidarity: “It was overnight and without a warning. I would have expected that one of my colleagues in the Council – either Mr Sarkozy or Ms Merkel – to say ‘look, Mr President, we will be against it.’ But they didn’t and you know that normally in the Council there is talk about solidarity.” Be that as it may, early warning  is also the task of the Romanian diplomats in Brussels…

Obviously, there is no real debate about the question who should replace Verheugen since German elections will take place at the end of September. A couple of months ago, there were rumors (some more here) that Wolfgang Schäuble could be one of the potential candidates. I argued here why this is a pretty bad idea. The German government already indicated that it would like to have either the internal market, the competition or the industry portfolio.

Anyway a few days ago, Spiegel Online reported that Peer Steinbrück (check his wikipedia profile here – and his website here), currently finance minster, is a potential candidate. Merkel apparently wants to reward him for “his handling of the financial crisis”. According to this article the scenario is more likely if the SPD (that is part of a grand coalition with the CDU at the moment) looses the general elections and Merkel can form a CDU-FDP government – and Steinbrück, a SPD politician, would loose his job. So why would Merkel nominate somebody from the opposition? Apparently Barroso is active in the background:

Merkel has said in the past that the post should be filled by a member of her Christian Democrats. But Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has been urging European governments nominating their national candidates for the Commission to make sure that it isn’t staffed by too many conservatives.

It is pretty sure that nothing will be decided before the elections on 27 Sep. So we have to wait and see.

The video is a German perspective (with English subtitles!) on the recent security discourses surrounding surveillance and control in the name of “the war against terrorism”…

What about trusting your own citizens…?

This blog post is part of a campaign to restore trust and rebuild bridges initiated by the Anna Lindh Foundation. I blog for trust.

The powers that the EU ought to have are those that the member states cannot exercise effectively on their own: no more and no less.

Nosemonkey:

the EU’s “democratic deficit”[...] is actually preserving the sovereignty of the member states.

Jean Quatremer:

(Solana) L’homme qui “parle toutes les langues sans qu’on puisse en comprendre aucune”.

Joschka Fischer:

Karlsruhe ballert in seiner Entscheidung mit verfassungsrechtlichen Kanonen auf imaginierte Spatzen: “ Wenn man das Urteil bis zum Ende lese, gewinne man den Eindruck, „man befände sich in einer Fraktionssitzung der britischen Konservativen“.

Norman Cohn (from the 1995 foreword to Warrant for Genocide (1967) – via Martin Amis:

There exists a subterranean world where pathological fantasies disguised as ideas are churned out by crooks and half-educated fanatics [notably the lower clergy] for the benefit of the ignorant and superstitious. There are times when this underworld emerges from the depths and suddenly fascinates, captures and dominates multitudes of usually sane and responsible people, who thereupon take leave of sanity and responsibility. And it occasionally happens that this underworld becomes a political powerand changes the course of history.

Wolfgang Münchau:

A Europe presided over by Messrs Barroso and Blair is a modern European hell. Only it is no joke.

Tony Barber:

But it is almost an iron EU law that the people first mentioned in connection with big jobs are seldom the ones that get them.

But he is , together with Ursuala von der Leyen (also known as “Zensursula”), the hate figure of the German blogosphere and known for his law and order approach. So what is the problem?

He is quite fond of  “preventive security” and critics accuse him of undermining the rule of law. He initiated several controversial counter terrorism laws in Germany. He once declared that the presumption of innocence should not be applied to terrorist suspects and that preventive assassinations should be made legal. Controversially, he also suggested that it should be possible for the German army to operate inside Germany.  Schäuble also proposed that people that sympathize with terrorists should not be allowed to use internet and mobile phones. He also proposed to use statements that were made using torture in courts. In that context he also proposed that terrorists should not have the protection of the German Basic Law. Nor surprisingly, he defended the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism.

I don’t want someone with that kind of thinking in the College of Commissioners.

Schäuble is known to support everything that involves the use of biometric data including fingerprints, eye scanners, DNA tests – you name it!

As German Minister of the Interior he initiated a couple of very controversial data retention laws that allow the German government to store personal  data for six months (everything from telephone and mobile calls to text messages and online behavior). Hence the civil rights campaign called Stasi 2.0. There is already too much support for these kind of measures in different member states, no need to “europeanise” that approach..

And a couple of things that I personally find quite worrying: (1) He actively supported a campaign against double citizenship in Germany in the late 1990s. (2) During the Iraq war he was one of the few German politicians that supported the US approach. (3) And he was heavily involved in the CDU party funding scandal a couple of years ago… A neo-con with a preference for backroom deals, the opposite of what we need in the European Commission.

So, I am rather skeptical about Wolgang Schäuble as the new German EU Commissioner especially if he wants to continue with his security policy, a policy field that is becoming more and more important at a EU level.   The EU debate could turn rather nasty as he is likely to propose (but not necessarily implement!) controversial EU policies…

Of course he perfectly fits the traditional job description of a typical EU Commissioner:  experienced national male politician (= old), end of the career posting to Brussels (= Merkel wants to get rid of him).  Wolfgang Schäuble is unfortunately not a candidate to get excited about…

For 28 years, a nearly insurmountable barrier kept people from fleeing East Germany. But then, the dramatic night of November 9, 1989, saw the fall of the Wall that divided Germany. Today, it is difficult to imagine what was bitter reality just a few decades ago.

For the first time, a realistic computer animation reveals the vast security system of Germany’s inner border and the Berlin Wall, both of which were recreated virtually in the greatest detail.

There is also an interesting “making of” video.

So, we are interested in two things:

1) Who are the likely candidates that are tipped to become European Commissioner? What are the rumours in your country?

2) Who would YOU like to nominate if you had a say? Who would you support as a candidate?

Use the comments on this blog or head over to Jon’s post that already attracted several comments!

Here is my contribution

Answer to 1) In the case of Germany we have seen rumours that Peter Hintze or Peter Altmeier might be the nominee. But also political figures like Wolfgang Schäuble , Roland Koch and Friedrich Merz were mentioned in the press. I think the race will be between Hintze and Almeier who both belong to the inner circle around chancellor Angela Merkel.

Answer to 2) Germany should nominate  Joschka Fischer to become External Relations  Commissioner and eventually the new High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy . (I am aware that this scenario is very unlikely!) The position will be created after the  successful ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty and will replace both, the High Rep for CFSP and the Commissioner for External Relations (another uncertain scenario..).

So what is eurotopics? (for those of you that have not come across the service…) -  eurotopics is a multi lingual daily press review of translated newspaper clippings  from around Europe with ambitious aims:

The daily press review allows Europe-wide access to debates and opinions, which media have so far carried out at a national level. In this way, euro|topics promotes transeuropean discussions and the development of new networks for media, cultural and political exchanges.

I have been a regular reader for several years and eurotopics has been an incredibly useful took to stay on top of European debates and discover new interesting topics. Indeed it is one of the few email newsletters I actually read on a daily basis!

PS: As you have 3 votes for the Grimme Online Awards check out the online radio byte.fm (vote here) It is a nice alternative radio station far away from any format radio approach with lots ot thematic shows and great music.  In a way, byte.fm is  radio how it should be!

… And I did not get paid to write this post nor did anyone ask me for a favour…

1. Great visions for the future of everything: yes.   – Policy details: no, not really.
2. Great rhetoric: yes.  – Great visuals for his campaign: yes, definitely.
3. Bush-bashing: no. – And a “Berlin surprise”: Oh yes please.

And what did we get? (You can read the transcript of the speech here)

1. What about “visions”: well, sort of. Barack Obama spoke about many global problems and a lot of shared responsibilities and the need for cooperation. Not more, not less. Of course freedom played a big role (George W. Bush would have said the same!). Also the importance of immigration is something Europe needs to learn! Interesting maybe the issue of nuclear disarmament. I haven’t heard any politician to call for that in the last decade or so. Of course he did not go into any detail (it is election campaign time! not a good time for details). However, the “big visionary moment” of the speech was missing. But considering what could have gone wrong with such a speech, I guess it was OK. But of course symbolism prevails over content in every election campaign…

2. What about “great rhetoric”: First of all, I think the rather short speech was well constructed. The second part was better than the beginning. But I also found that the family background did not really work (maybe he should have started with something else and talked about it later? ). I liked the idea of a “world citizen” (what do you expect with that blog name…?). The delivery was very professional but, again, the big moment was missing. BUT the visuals for the campaign were great (and eventually that matters at the moment): They can suggest that he is respected and hugely popular in Europe (the crowd of 200 000 was impressive, right? ) which might give him some foreign policy credibility in the US. But that depends on the spin of the campaign…

3) Obviously no Bush-bashing abroad which is unthinkable in the diplomatic world. So what about the “Berlin surprise”: Nothing really. Basically he used Ernst Reuter and the Berlin airlift for his speech trying to put it in context with globalisation and global challenges. Not a bad idea. But then again, since expectations were huge I doubt that he could have delivered a real “surprise”. Maybe next time…

Anything else?

Well, from a European perspective we can take note that he knows about the EU and he generally thinks highly of global institutions and international cooperation, which is good to know. But I think the really remarkable thing is the pure existence of this event, a kind of “globalisation of US election campaigning”. I think we will see similar events in the future! As somebody on German TV said “It seems that he is the candidate for the world presidency”.

Update: Here is the video of the speech: