Posts filed under ‘politics’
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.
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.
Breaking news from UK PM – Commission supports completing internal market
I have to admit to being a little bit of a pro-European (no? never! you say), so it is with some fidgeting discomfort that I read overnight the happenings in my native land on the EU. Our London office have done a quick round up of the rebellion on their blog (sounds like something Darth Vadar would want to crush).
I think it’s worthwhile reading the Prime Minister’s full statement to the House of Commons from last night in case you missed it. As Jon Worth notes (hat tip for making the front of the Guardian’s online edition yesterday) being in office has driven probably the most Eurosceptic of Prime Ministers closer rather than farther from Europe. As I read through his speech I noted many of the arguments that pro-Europeans make for why the EU is a good thing and in our national interest. Pity it’s taken a financial crisis and frightful backbench rebellion to get Mr. Cameron to say these things out loud and in public. I do have to laugh however that he’s only just noticed that the Commission are actually for completing the internal market and a friend of the UK’s agenda generally…One has to wonder where’s he’s been since the Single European Act, oh, the UK (well that explains it).
As for the future, I’m of the opinion this debate is not going away, especially in light of the further integration needed as a result of what’s happening in the Euro-zone and the PM’s desire to fundamentally renegotiate our relationship with the EU as expressed in the same speech. As the Americans would say, “Good luck with that”. Well, so be it. It’s time the UK had this discussion and that those who are generally have an aversion to “Europe” acknowledge the good things that the EU does deliver for UK business and citizens. As someone who takes delight in seeking to convert London cabbies to the European cause I’m up for it.
James
(note – see top right, all views expressed on this blog are personal)
PdF meetup: how did that go?
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has”. This quote is from Margaret Mead, an American anthropologist, who lived in the pre-Internet world. Now thanks to social networks, it has never been easier for people with a passion to share it with the world, gather support, and make a difference.
“How has the Internet changed your life?” was the question all participants of the 1st Worldwide Personal Democracy Meetup Day were asked. This unprecedented experiment ran for 24 hours, starting in Australia, passing through Asia and Europe and finishing in the U.S. 50 cities took part, 250 participants in total.
How has the Internet changed my life? If only for one thing, since I started blogging and tweeting I’ve met an incredible amount of people, fantastic folks who share a passion for social media and a determination to convince EU institutions to switch from the broadcast mode to the conversation mode. There is an enduring assumption that when people use social media, they live in a virtual bubble. Not true: building relationships online leads to strong relationships offline. The Internet is not disconnecting people; on the contrary it is reconnecting them. More importantly, it is connecting people across borders, something that was not possible at such a scale in the pre-Internet times.
So how did our Brussels PdF meetup go? It was spontaneous, warm and interactive. 30 people joined us, all working in or around the EU institutions, all sharing our enthusiasm for the potential of the Internet to open up the EU bubble. In terms of attendees, we were amazed to see that our Brussels meetup ranked 2nd, just after New York City, home land of the PdF, and before Washington D.C. Who would have thought? Yesterday EU geeks were at the forefront of global online democracy.
The worldwide PdF meetup was an experiment. It was exciting for us to take part and we look forward to similar experiences in the future!
UPDATE: Read the great report of the worldwide PdF meetup day written by PdF co-founder Micah Sifry. I like Joe Anthony’s suggestion for next time: have a ‘crazy idea’ theme e.g. What would you like to see happen in 5-10 years? Inspiring, isn’t it?
Laurence
Small things that could make a big difference for the EU
Since my return to these shores from the U.S. I find myself noting the little things that are different between that country and Europe. It happened again the other night as the missus and I sat down to restart the West Wing boxset from the beginning (a TV show that this blog has neglected to reference since 2009 despite it being the best show of all time – shame on us). It was Josh’s shirt that got me going. It bellows like a hot air balloon about to set down/go up. What is it with Americans and baggy dress shirts? Last year it took ages to find a retailer that stocked a decent fitting shirt for work. Eventually I plumped for the extra slim fit dress shirt from Brooks Brothers on Connecticut Avenue (just in case you are ever a European desperate for a shirt in the U.S. capital).
I mention this as earlier this week I was a little taken by the comments of Polish PM Donald Tusk. As reported by the Guardian he took his fellow EU leaders to task for talking good game about the EU and then undermining it with their very actions. He also suggested that even in this time of crisis and uncertainty we should be a little bit more confident about being Europeans and what the EU has achieved. It made me reflect that having confidence in their achievements is certainly not something lacking in our transatlantic friends. Perhaps if we could make that small change in our own attitude, combine it with our (relative) ability to focus on something a little more long term than the moment and our infinitely better choice of shirts then we’d be onto a winner.
James
US-EU relations are worse than managing three small children
You know all hope is lost for a normal life when a paper from the US Chamber of Commerce drops into the inbox at midnight and you decide to read it on the iPad before getting some sleep. You would have thought three young children were enough to keep one awake. Damn those good people at the Chamber.
During my brief sojourn in the United States the US Chamber’s European programme was a revelation. It may not be the part of the Chamber that grabs the headlines, but it’s chock full of thoughtful Atlanticists (Gary Litman, Peter Rashish) who are doing their bit to ensure that the trans-atlantic agenda does not disappear into the equivalent of a political Bermuda triangle. A triangle that’s somewhere between the intercine warfare of Washington, an almost morbid fascination with the rise of China and an attitude of ‘benign neglect’ from the Obama Administration.
Yesterday’s paper – which you can find here - provides yet another policy option for restarting what is generally thought to be a generally dormant EU-US relationship. It’s a variation of mutual recognition of standards, which starts with integrating the impact on both sides of the Atlantic through each jurisdictions’ regulatory impact assessments. Its starting point is that in terms of product safety the desired outcomes of our regulatory regimes are pretty similar – even if our routes to achieving them are somewhat different. Something which I reflected upon by suggesting last year that we may be able to agree that neither the EU nor the US wants to kill its citizens. It seems from reading to be a decent approach.
My problem (US readers: I mean challenge) with the Chamber’s paper is two fold. First, I wonder whether there is a risk that the Chamber is diluting its own focus and that of those it is trying to convince by coming up with too many ideas at once. It’s only this time last year that the Chamber heralded a zero tariff agreement as the way forward on US-EU trade issues. Is this now yesterday’s failed idea? Secondly, I’m of the opinion that it is not a lack of policy options that is the issue but a lack of political space. It doesn’t matter how many policy options we come up with. A clear message and an identified constituency needs to be created in Washington that will allow EU-US trade to rise up the agenda and take root there. Frankly speaking, outside of our good friends at the Chamber the educated and influential people I met in my time there just didn’t have Europe on their radar. It’s a non-issue. We may be fascinated by policy in Brussels, but I’d suggest in Washington politics is somewhat more important. It’s the latter that the Chamber and the EU need to get right.
James
The MEP survey: six months on
It has been nearly half a year since we published the MEP survey into the digital trends of the European Parliament, looking at how MEPs go about communicating to their constituents and others, and how they conduct their research. The findings remain highly relevant to anyone communicating in the policy arena in Brussels, highlighting in particular the need for integrating online channels with well-trodden offline tactics like face to face meetings and traditional media relations. After all, if half of MEPs are reading blogs every week to research legislative issues then the validity of a blog seems less questionable. And if 93% use a search engine daily as the starting point for their research, then presence in search engines quickly becomes a “must-have”. Likewise, if two-thirds of MEPs are on social networks, surely it’s worth exploring how to use such tools to provide relevant input and perhaps even engage?
If you wish to revisit the survey or indeed see it for the first time, click here for the full report. Embedded below is a presentation of some of the key findings, and for an analysis of the findings, I’d recommend Steffen’s posts here and here. As ever, if you have any comments and questions, please fire away!
Rosalyn
Is Europe’s drought a symptom of climate change?
Driving across the rolling farming country of northern and central France, as my wife and I have just done, you might think that French arable farmers have never had it so good. Grain prices are high and the landscape as far as the eye can see is bright yellow with rapeseed and brilliant green with wheat, barley or potatoes, the very picture of a healthy agriculture.
It’s not really healthy, of course. Unless rain falls within the next week or so those rolling hectares will lose their bloom. Drought has hit the cereal regions of the UK, France, Germany and Poland, which together account for two-thirds of European grain production. Already forecast yields for wheat, barley and rape are down by 10-20 per cent, while the prospect of a dry summer threatens a greater shortfall and a further escalation in food prices, which have already gone up by 30 per cent since March.
This is bad news for Europe. High grain prices mean rising costs for milk, meat and egg production, as well as bread, beer and other cereal-based foods, putting more strain on shop prices. Food price inflation has a direct political impact which will put additional pressure on EU governments at a time when household spending is already squeezed and unemployment levels remain high.
In France 42 départements have declared water control restrictions. The Polish government has been pressing the European Commission to raise the support level for wheat in support of its arable farmers – a plea which was rejected in the recent farm ministers council.
There are unexpected consequences. As rivers levels fall or even run dry I see that French nuclear power stations, which rely on river water for cooling, may have to cut back on generation capacity.
The global picture is no more comforting. With the US also suffering from drought there is little prospect of recovery in world supplies, let alone the building of stocks, during 2011. China is also affected. Russia and the Ukraine are the only northern hemisphere producers which have decent prospects for grain production this year.
The political implications are far-reaching. All those countries which depend on grain imports to feed their people, which include most of the Maghreb and much of the Middle East, will face a further food price crisis at a time when their political systems and their economies are undergoing revolution.
A succession of climatic disasters in the US may lead to recognition in the United States that climate change is happening and that something must be done, although it is a big step to acknowledge that human activity is the driver. As for Europe, after the driest and warmest April in parts of our continent since records began the argument that the climate is undergoing fundamental change seems incontrovertible.
Michael
Twitter turns five
Last night – at 8:50pm GMT – Twitter turned five years old and it got me thinking.
I openly admit to boycotting Twitter when it was launched (echos of protesting “I don’t care what Betty ate for breakfast” spring to mind). But I equally admit to being a convert five years later.
Some thoughts on why
1. Twitter can help sort the headlines from the fun stuff, and the urgent news from the background material.
A useful tool in tracking the latest news out of Libya or Japan, Twitter can also draw your attention to an article you might otherwise have missed by browsing a webpage. Case in point: I only came across the Financial Times’ rave review of EU Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva through their tweet of it:
@ftbrusselsblog: “The Accidental Commissioner http://on.ft.com/hAk8fG” (She is also on Twitter @k_georgieva)
(Fun stuff: It also alerts you to the fact that Robert Redford is coming out with a new biography and perhaps the most hilarious review of a Parisian restaurant I have ever read: @Vanity Fair
2. Twitter brings together people with similar interests and can be a tool for identifying key communicators on a given issue.
Twitter is great for communicators. But it is also great for listeners. While searching for who was tweeting on Twitter’s birthday, I came across this from European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek:
@jerzybuzek: “Happy 5th birthday to #Twitter – one year+ for my account, essential way for me to communicate”
Buzek –or the person who manages his Twitter account- averages some five tweets a day and talks about everything from current events to internal Parliament decisions. But he also takes an obvious interest in anyone who responds to his tweets and regularly responds. True to the 2011 EP Digital Trends study, the EP is waking up to social media.
3. Twitter can bring on the funny – but more importantly, the creative.
Reducing a message to 140 characters can be challenging, but it also encourages communicators to have a clear and attention-grabbing message. It is a great tool for creativity in sectors that might not immediately be considered creative – just ask mutual fans of logistics and Salt-N-Pepa:
@cwarroom RT@makower: “Ship it. Ship it good: RT@EDFbiz: Carbon Data Driving Freight Decisions”
Funny. Informative. And a reference to a 80s music “classic”.
Point is, as Tris Hussey of the Vancouver Observer keenly observed, “For something that was so geeky when it started out that even geeks didn’t know what to do with it, Twitter sure has taken off like a rocket.” And I find it useful, both professionally and for the fun stuff.
Where will Twitter go from here? The Guardian gives a few interesting indications: “40% of tweets originate on a mobile device [...] with 5.3 billion mobile phone users in the world, and 90% of the world’s population in reach of a mobile phone network, Twitter has a far better chance of reaching everyone first…”
Jess
[Just starting out on Twitter? Here are some tips on how to get started.]
