Human Rights Court under fire
For many British politicians and for much of the UK press, the European Court of Human Rights is the very embodiment of foreign meddling in British life. Two particular findings of the Court have stirred passions in Britain: a 2005 ruling that anyone in prison should be allowed to vote in elections (not currently permitted under UK law); and the recent judgement that the militant Islamist preacher Abu Qatada, currently held in a British jail, could not be deported to Jordan as long as any witness testimony against him in a Jordanian court might have been obtained through torture.
These rulings provoked storms of protest and fed into calls for Britain to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights and other European organisations.
Against such a political backdrop it is little surprise that prime minister David Cameron has used the opportunity of Britain’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to demand reform to the workings of the Court.
Cameron’s rendez-vous in Strasbourg on January 25 was played in the British press as if it were to be a full frontal attack on the Human Rights Court, on the Convention and on the Council of Europe as a whole. That’s how the mood music was played for press and politicians in advance of the speech. The reality was more nuanced.
The prime minister’s main aim was to bring down the temperature. He used the classic device of calling for reforms which are in fact well under way, and of assuming progress over time. Attacking the case backlog he cited the 160,000 cases which built up, partly owing to the surge in countries joining the Council of Europe after 1989. The backlog is now being dealt with because of changes in the Court’s practice, although judges are still having to handle more than 50,000 cases a year.
Cameron used the example of “the applicant taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn’t been as comfortable as advertised” to suggest that the Court of Human Rights was becoming “a small claims court” and said that “we are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally”.
In a most unusual intervention, President of the Human Rights Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza (a British lawyer educated, just like David Cameron, at Brasenose College, Oxford), decided to respond to criticism of his Court in the Independent newspaper (which also outlines the most pertinent ECHR cases involving Britain). Sir Nicolas notes that of 955 applications to the Court against the UK in 2011 only eight were found to violate the Human Rights Convention. He spells out how ECHR judgements have extended human rights in Britain over many years.
Still, there is no question that the European Court of Human Rights must accelerate reform. Until 2010 the Russian Duma blocked a protocol which would have helped speed the handling of cases, but that obstacle has now been lifted.
As to Cameron’s demand that national courts be regarded as final arbiters in human rights cases, it has its dangers. National courts across 47 countries cannot always be relied upon to uphold the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights. It is surely no coincidence that a majority of cases coming to the Court relate to Russia and the Ukraine, where individual rights are often under pressure.
Implementation of rulings is also a big challenge for the Court, but for the UK or others to question the Court’s jurisdiction would make it all the more difficult for the provisions of the Human Rights Convention to extend across Europe – a debate which may have particular topical relevance to Hungary.
The Rise and Rise of Ethno PR in Europe
By Juergen H. Gangoly, Managing Partner of The Skills Group - Fleishman-Hillard’s affiliate in Austria
Nowadays, it seems as though everyone in Europe is talking about the financial crisis and what it means to them. And, for most of us, the outlook is daunting: jobs are harder to come by, innovation is flailing ― and businesses are struggling to grow.
But there is one hugely significant ― albeit surprising ― silver lining to this rather expansive cloud. For years, NGOs, governments and humanitarian organisations have fought tooth and nail to educate the public about the societal benefits of immigrant communities, expelling the flawed perception of these people as economic burdens and driving home the obvious reality that immigrants are key contributors who give back to societies and economies on a daily basis.
Frankly, it’s been a tough fight. But things are getting better ― and it’s thanks to the economic crisis.
You see, for the first time, firms are looking beyond ‘Joe public’ and towards smaller market segments, like immigrant communities, to keep up-and-running. Now, taking their unique needs and interests into account when devising products and services is no longer just about doing what’s ethically right, it’s absolutely vital for economic survival. And that’s what’s making the difference.
What this means in practice is that all over Europe, big companies, banks, insurance companies, retailers, telcos and car manufacturers – among others – are sitting up and taking notice of how immigrant communities consume, earn and play. What they want and need is to tap into what these groups want ― and communicate with them in the most targeted way possible.
And that’s where we come in.
You see, these companies are our clients. To help them meet their targets we also need to raise our game. It’s no secret that immigrant communities are a black spot for our sector too – empirical data on this group is scarce and, where it does exist, it’s far too broad and sweeping to be really valuable.
Well, all that is beginning to change.
We at The Skills Group, the Austrian FH affiliate, have teamed up with the immigrant lifestyle magazine in Vienna, Biber, and the market research firm Meinungsraum to create EthnOpinion.at: the first opinion research firm in the Austrian German-language area that specialises in surveys of immigrant groups.
What we do isn’t original in itself: a combination of multi-language surveys and in-depth interviews in focus groups. Where we differ from other firms out there is that we specifically tap into immigrant populations in a way that can be fed back into advertising, marketing and PR programmes, and for developing new products and services.
And that’s why we’re able attract and retain prestigious clients from across the public and private spectrum.
This should send a clear message to our sector colleagues: we have the power to simultaneously lower social and cultural barriers, pay our own way and see our clients through these hard times.
Hungary poses a stern test for Europe
The European institutions have rarely faced a sterner test than in their dealings with Hungary. As defender of the European treaties the Commission must do all in its power to protect the fundamental principles that underpin liberal democracy in the EU, yet any decision to block an EU-IMF aid package until Hungary’s authoritarian measures have been scrapped risks further serious damage to an already fragile European banking sector.
A collapse of the Hungarian currency and subsequent default would hit Austrian banks particularly hard. They have €40 billion in liabilities in Hungary. Italian banks would also suffer with liabilities of €20 billion. The damage would not end there, as contagion spread. No doubt Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party hope to rely on the threat of such collateral damage to secure “precautionary” support from the IMF without having to make too many other concessions.
Hungarian negotiators may say that everything is negotiable and that there are “no preconditions” in talks with the IMF taking place in Washington this week. There may even be a move to restore some independence to the Hungarian National Bank, but there are so many wider issues to be resolved in Hungary-EU relations such as press control, dismantling of the Constitutional Court, weakening of the judiciary, changes to the electoral system, grant of nationality and voting rights to Hungarian minorities in neighbouring countries, limited recognition for religious groups and the arrest of the Socialist party leader – to name but a few. Here is a recent analysis.
Hungary’s new constitution which came into effect on January 1 2012 seems indeed to have many of the trappings of an authoritarian state. The European Commission and the other EU institutions must do all they can to reverse this situation. In the background is always the threat of Hungary’s suspension or expulsion from the EU. A paradoxical outcome in pursuit of democratic principles!
It is a sad irony that the death of Vaclav Havel, standard bearer of freedom for all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, should occur at a time when another country of Eastern Europe is donning the apparel of a one-party state. It’s a further irony that Hungary’s governing party, with a clear parliamentary majority, is apparently intent on entrenching a single party in government. It has some of the hallmarks of Putin’s Russia, including party control of administrative, judicial and constitutional appointments – in other words a “nomenclatura” without the checks and balances vital to a democratic society.
Consequences of Britain’s summit veto
It’s too early to gauge the real impact of David Cameron’s veto at the European Council in the early hours of December 9 and the decision of 26 countries to devise a new treaty, but there have been straws in the wind over recent days which indicate how positions are evolving and which will set the agenda for 2012.
One consequence of Cameron’s self-imposed isolation in Brussels has been a surge in articles and interviews arguing for Britain’s full engagement with Europe. We’ve seen nothing like it for years. The nicely-named “Atlantis” strategy, whereby Britain takes the eurosceptic route, “repatriating” major elements of EU legislation, quitting key parts of Europe’s decision-making process and becoming (as some British eurosceptic MPs have advocated) like Norway or Switzerland, has been widely exposed as a recipe for decline. See for instance Timothy Garton Ash’s Guardian article.
One long-term consequence of the UK position could be to encourage the break-up of the United Kingdom. Scotland’s first minister Alex Salmond has already questioned whether Scottish interests will be adequately protected, given the UK’s isolation, reflecting the fact that the Scottish National Party has always seen the future of an independent Scotland as a committed member of the EU. The SNP plans a referendum on independence in 2014 or 2015 where the protection of Scotland’s interests will no doubt figure.
British public opinion has been broadly in favour of the Cameron stance and even puts the Conservative Party ahead of Labour, which is no mean feat in these times of austerity, but those questioned in the YouGov poll showed some popular concern over the economic impact.
As for Britain’s EU partners, Chancellor Merkel’s conciliatory speech in the Bundestag after the summit was a helpful start. She stressed Britain’s role in Europe and so provided some comfort to the British prime minister. This contrasted with President Sarkozy’s attack on Britain’s obsession with the single market which was followed by a stream of criticism about the British economy from various French notables, including the head of the French central bank – further evidence that Anglo-Saxon financial services are seen as the ultimate villain behind the present crisis, and also a sign of the tensions within the Franco-German alliance.
That said, there is no doubting the distress that has been caused among several member states by the UK opt-out. Ireland was quick to promise intensive bilateral talks with London to avoid British isolation and agree common agendas.
There has been some back-tracking and some reassurance. Prime Minister Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne said immediately after the Council that the British veto would prevent the European Court and the Commission being used for implementation of the “fiscal compact”, but after a weekend’s reflection Mr Cameron had “an open mind” on the subject. The lawyers had ruled that the EU institutions could be used, under Articles 121, 126, 136 and 273 of the existing Treaty.
Britain’s draft protocol, presented in the early hours of December 9 to give treaty protection for UK financial services, would have demanded the right for the UK to adopt banking laws which were stricter than provided under EU financial services legislation. It seems there was no need to worry though: Commissioner Michel Barnier has since said that the Vickers report, requiring enhanced levels of bank capital, can be applied to meet the UK’s special situation.
In a previous blog I suggested that David Cameron’s prime motivation for exercising the veto in the small hours of December 9 was to satisfy the eurosceptics in his own party and avert a referendum. I have since been told that he said to Barroso and Van Rompuy during bilateral meetings that his job was indeed on the line. One can only draw the conclusion that the British prime minister found himself trapped by political calculation at home and diplomatic isolation abroad, leaving him little choice but to act as he did.
Little choice for Cameron in Europe à la carte
This week’s summit in Brussels has certainly been a defining moment in the history of the European Union. The UK’s decision to block any revision to the existing EU treaties as part of the package to save the euro is confirmation that we live in a Europe à la carte. Whether it proves to be a “two-speed Europe” only time will tell. That depends on how the eurozone evolves.
Given Britain’s position outside the euro and the fiercely eurosceptic mood in his Conservative party I’m not sure that David Cameron had any choice other than to veto proposed modifications to the EU treaties.
Cameron’s approach is consistent with the coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats. This clearly stated that a referendum would only be triggered if there was a transfer of power from the UK to Brussels. The prime minister does not want to be forced into a popular vote; the best way to avert any such risk is to use the veto and to leave the 17 to work out their own solution.
Suppose Cameron had agreed to support a treaty revision aux 27, it would have been extraordinarily difficult for him to avoid a referendum. Britain is already subject to Article 126 of the EU Treaty concerning excessive deficits and government debt. Any change to the associated protocol to include new rules would surely have raised major problems in the Westminster Parliament. An alternative would be the use of Article 136, which sets out provisions specific to eurozone countries, but that too would seem to implicate the UK, particularly as it would further strengthen the powers of the Commission and the Court of Justice.
Cameron has domestic political reasons to tread carefully. There are quite a few Tory MPs who loathe his partnership with the Liberal Democrats and who would gladly use the European issue to seek to depose him and break the coalition. He may have cited the defence of the City of London as his make-or-break issue, but this seems rather disingenuous, since financial services legislation is governed by the existing treaties, while the imposition of a financial transaction tax, seen as a special danger for UK financial services, would be subject to unanimity.
There is of course an implicit danger here, that the 17 eurozone countries could decide to impose a unilateral tax on their own investment firms, whether operating in London, New York or anywhere else. And pity poor old Ireland, which dreads a eurozone agreement to harmonise corporate taxes and so threaten Ireland’s 12.5 per cent rate.
It is in areas like these that Britain’s longer term negotiating position in Europe will be seriously weakened. It is significant that six non-euro countries are already committed to join the “fiscal compact” agreed in Brussels, while Hungary, Denmark and Sweden will probably do so after consulting their parliaments. The UK will be the odd one out.
One question which the summit does raise is whether the British prime minister has worked hard enough to build alliances with his natural allies in Europe. Briefing after last month’s meeting with Chancellor Merkel suggested that some sort of agreement had been reached between the two of them, but there was no evidence of mutual understanding in Brussels this week.
Former MEP Ben Patterson has just published The Conservative Party and Europe, a comprehensive book tracking how Conservative Party opinion has switched from staunchly pro-Europe in the 1970s to viscerally anti-EU today. This switch led to the decision of the Conservative group in the European Parliament to sever links with the European Peoples’ Party. Patterson argues that this move potentially weakened David Cameron’s position with his natural allies.
The recent EPP meeting in Marseilles was perhaps a case in point, where EPP leaders met informally to agree common positions or at least to clarify reasons for disagreement in advance of the summit.
It could be argued that Friday’s blood-letting has cleared the air. The UK can now concentrate on the overriding priority, to do everything it can – including through the IMF – to help prevent the collapse of the euro. The irony is that it is the weakness of the eurozone structure, and not its strength, which has triggered the need for the new inter-governmental treaty and threatened the future of the whole European project.
Michael
What do Michael O’Leary, Dr Margaret Chan, Vivienne Westwood, Andrew Witty, and Eric Schmidt have in common?
Let me start with telling you who they are. Perhaps that will help.
Michael O’Leary is the Chief Executive of Ryanair we love to hate. Vivienne Westwood is a leading fashion designer; you know the one with the shocking red hair. Dr Chan is the formidable Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO). Andrew Witty is the omnipresent CEO of GlaxoSmithKline Group. And Eric Schmidt is the Executive Chairman of Google, all the way from Mountain View, California.
It’s a tough one, I know, so I’ll end the suspense here.
Turns out some inspired soul at the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation came up with the above, it must be said, rather innovative list of people (amongst others) to speak today and yesterday at DG Research’s first innovation convention. The convention comes one year after the adoption of the EU’s Innovation Union flagship initiative, the EU’s masterplan to exiting the economic crisis by making Europe more innovation-friendly and competitive.
Fueling innovation to help solve all our problems and create more, sustainable jobs sounds like a viable strategy, but finding the right cocktail of ingredients to achieve such innovation is altogether less obvious. Making Europe the leader of such innovation is an even tougher conundrum.
To help Europe on its merry way, Michael O’Leary offered this bit of advice – ‘get the hell out of Brussels as quick as you can’ he said, or risk losing your innovative streak and new ideas, doomed to be dulled by the politicians and technocrats of the EU. Marvelously constructive advice I thought.
Dr Chan and Andrew Witty were more helpful when discussing their views on how innovation can deliver better health care globally. Innovation is seen as the necessary ingredient if we are going to make the next big discovery in healthcare, something we badly need given ever decreasing national healthcare budgets exacerbated by an ever increasing ageing population.
According to Dr Chan, innovation can come from just doing more with existing resources, given 20-40% of all healthcare spending is wasted. But it can also come from the power of collaboration across the international community, as demonstrated by the examples she cited ranging from the creation of a meningitis vaccine for sub-Saharan Africa through collaborations with industry to tackle tropical diseases.
But both Dr Chan and Witty warned that even when innovations are found through investment in research and development, the power of innovation can only be realised through effective delivery. Put simply, Witty said, ‘research for research sake doesn’t work – we need to know what to do with innovation once we achieve it’.
But I was left wondering whether the current policy and regulatory frameworks across Europe facilitate the required speed and depth of collaboration to achieve and deliver real innovation? Will the proposed funds and much promised reduced red tape in the Commission’s newly proposed research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 (the new FP8) help solve the challenges it seeks to address from well-being and excellent science through to industrial leadership? Dr Chan says yes, so long as the goal of achieving innovation is achieving social benefits (even if those ideas did originate in Brussels).
-Aoife
FH Podcast: Alumni series – exploring PA #1 – Barry Lynham, Knauf
Lots of smart and interesting people have worked for FH Brussels over the years. Many of them are still here, but some have moved on. Over the next few months we’ll be chatting to a few of the people who fall under the latter, to explore how the practice of communications, especially PA, differs depending on the nature of the organisation, and how PA has developed over the years, in Brussels and beyond.
First up, we talk to Barry Lynham, who left FH in 2003 and went on to run an art gallery before joining Knauf insulation as Head of Public Affairs for Europe. In this podcast, he enthusiastically tells us how in-house and agency differ, how PA has become a more complex discipline over the years, and how the PA model needs to move on from Brussels-centricity to be truly effective.
Click here to listen to this edition of the podcast.*
Click here to subscribe to the FH Europe podcast on iTunes.
* If using Internet Explorer, you may have to right-click on the link and save target as, then play the saved file by double clicking it.
Steffen
Will you leave us alone? Not likely.
I’ve been spending quite a bit of time recently with industries which might be described as ‘beleaguered’. The press have decided that they are evil and to blame for society’s ills. The online world is awash with negative comment as people pile in to criticize. Politicians denounce them and regulators sharpen their knives.
In many cases it’s all tremendously unfair, and certainly they think so, but as we know this is not really the point. They are, as the saying goes, being tried in the court of public opinion and are generally looking at a pretty stiff sentence.
What always surprises me is the continued desire by companies or organizations to adopt what might best be described as the “leave us alone” strategy. Broadly, this depends on a line of argument which goes something like this. “We’re really important to the (normally global) economy. You don’t really understand what we do because you’re not technical like us. We’re quite capable of self-regulating. We’re really very responsible (no, really). Best to leave us alone.” Whilst I totally understand the attraction of this approach, I have one small issue with it. I’ve never seen it work. Ever.
Sometimes, one has to bow to the inevitable and even to see the opportunity in said bowing. Do we have a vision for a different and better world? Do we have a solution which everyone can embrace, or at least a suggestion of one? So many companies want to be thought leaders and this can be very hard to do (not least because you need leading thoughts). But in sectors under attack, genuine leadership is often difficult to find as everyone runs for cover, and people are genuinely interested in informed opinion. This is powerful stuff for the company prepared to stick its neck out.
The challenge is always to look beyond the immediate crisis, to the positioning opportunity. A positive, solution-oriented, industry-leading point of view, stated passionately, widely and consistently, can only stand organisations in good stead. It puts their opponents on the back foot and shapes the debate. It raises morale internally and galvanizes the sector. After all, they might as well. The one thing we can say with certainty is that they won’t be left alone.
Nick Andrews
Challenge: Internship. Approach: Coffee. Implementation: Still following outlined procedure. Outcome: To be confirmed.
Wednesday 2 November 2011: a significant and anticipated day in my diary for two reasons. Not only did this day mark the fact that I have been working for Fleishman-Hillard for exactly two months, but it also marked the milestone of my 21st Birthday.
Taking both of these events into account, now seems like a great time to expose the true thoughts of an overly keen intern entering the manic world of public affairs. In the hope that I still have an internship after this, here goes…
The day before I arrived in Brussels two distant months ago, I left bewildered and highly confused friends behind asking the same questions that they have always asked me; something along the lines of ‘What is wrong with you’? They justify this accusation, this time at least, with three core reasons: I am coming to Brussels to undertake a full time job in public affairs. Although I’m 100% sure that most of them don’t know what public affairs (or the EU for that matter) is. As they packed their sombreros, beach towels and a bottle of ‘England’s finest Spanish Sangria’ (I mean really?) for a year of Erasmus in Valencia, I packed my suits, a pair of high heels (or two) and a pink pencil case. I got on a plane that morning, the small business jet type where you are surrounded by highly important looking people and therefore try not to even breathe too loudly, and not once have I looked back.
So the question is, how do I explain to my sun soaking friends on a beach in Valencia just how fantastic this decision was, and that actually, my judgment of the ‘year abroad’ in my opinion, was without a doubt the best. This is where my 21st Birthday would fall into my explanation; I genuinely felt that there was nowhere else I’d rather be on this day than doing a job that I’ve fallen in love with and working in a truly unique office that I feel privileged to be a part of.
So how has this happened so quickly?
Yes, I have a very small tendency to be over enthusiastic about everything but my diagnosis of this situation is, I believe, justified.
Something that a job advertisement could never tell you about is the truly exceptional atmosphere of the office. I am surrounded by people who are clearly experts and completely dedicated to what they do yet this is magnificently combined with good humour and a great spirit and this hits you as soon as you walk through the office door. Additionally, I am fortunate enough to work amongst an impressive range of nationalities which I am informed is particularly unique to the Brussels office. It would be hard not to enjoy working in this office.
In the past two months I have learnt more than I ever did in my past two years at University. I have been involved in organizing and attending events (Christmas party included), I’ve discovered that things such as ‘logistics’ are actually relatively interesting topics and I’ve even had the opportunity to visit the Paris Office for a day. I now tweet about everything (within reason) and I am genuinely committed to Renovating Europe and the 3% pledge. I am even going to have a go at being on the FH football team. The pace is fast and every day is different and it actually keeps me occupied; being someone with an uncontrollable amount of energy, this has always been a particularly difficult task.
So all in all, I would recommend this internship at Fleishman to anyone that would ask me about it. I would probably tell them that yes the job is hard work and yes sometimes it can get a little difficult, but I would also tell them that it is beyond rewarding and that this opportunity is absolutely incomparable. The job is exciting, the people are fabulous, there is an office band, the coffee machine isn’t half bad, there always seems to be cake in the kitchen and for me, it is a great position to be in when you really care about what you do.
I had a 21st Birthday that I will never forget and my fingers are crossed that I enjoy the next eight months just as much as I have enjoyed the previous two. Perhaps I’ll write a sum up article at the end of my internship year in June and compare the two…!
Emma Cracknell
Is the climate right for change?
Not so long ago, I had the privilege to visit our team in South Africa, where our world-class team has been in overdrive helping a range of clients prepare for the upcoming COP17 global climate talks in Durban later this year.
It is clear the government there – and many of its biggest companies – are determined to put on a big show. Anyone suffering hearing damage from the sound of vuvuzelas at World Cup 2010 would surely agree that the country does “big show” very well. But now, football has been replaced by climate change as the subject on everyone’s lips.
That strikes me as a contrast to the way the subject is being viewed in Europe. The continent has historically led the world in the development of climate change policy and practice, but lately, I get the feeling that other concerns – economic recovery, job creation and so forth – have caused politicians and business leaders to focus elsewhere.
While in many ways this is perfectly understandable, it fundamentally misses the point. I say that for two reasons. Firstly and most obviously, the problem hasn’t gone away. Climate change is still happening, we’re still making more of an impact on the world than we should, and many complex issues have yet to be solved before we are able to live sustainably within the world we created.
Secondly, there is a mistaken notion that tackling climate change costs money and jobs. In reality, it often makes good business sense to tackle climate change. High energy prices mean that measures taken to make operations more efficient can give companies a competitive advantage. The opportunity to do our part to save the planet motivates employees, inspires innovation, and creates new jobs in cutting-edge industries. The notion that reducing our impact on the environment has to mean increased costs or job cuts is outdated.
That said, I also think that it is important to put a value on our environmental impact if we are going to seriously address the problem. It has often been said by companies that “we will not buy our way out of environmental responsibility;” but the real issue is about changing behaviour. Behavioural change is always difficult, and cost is a much more powerful motivator than goodwill.
I’m not sure whether COP17 will produce a watershed of political support for environmental and social sustainability. Early signs are promising – China, for instance, is sending 2000 delegates to Durban, South Africa intends to unveil a comprehensive carbon tax, and the EU remains ideologically committed to furthering the discussion. But international agreements are complicated, the world is deep in recession, and – and as COP15 in Copenhagen showed us – intent and result are often very different things. Time will tell.
In the meantime, however, each of us can focus on where we can personally have an impact. If we each can assess and show improvement in a small way, and actively think about and manage our energy use, it can make a huge difference. It is also important for each of us – either as companies or as individuals, to communicate: to talk about what we’re doing; how successful we have been, what we have learned along the way and – of course – how much money we have saved. Doing this will make it much more real than talking about it in the abstract.
There is no one-size-fits-all model for reducing environmental impact. But if each of us does a little, we can have a big influence. The future of the planet is too important to be a passing fashion.
Dan Baxter
