Goodbye Lisbon, hello Copenhagen
November 6, 2009
(11 votes, average: 3.73 out of 5)
Loading ...
The Constitutional Court in the Czech Republic said that “it is a court, not a place for endless debates”. It ruled that the Treaty of Lisbon is in conformity with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and there is nothing to prevent its ratification. And then President Klaus signed. A long and bumpy road to a new EU treaty finally came to an end and the new treaty will almost certainly enter into force on 1 December. One of the new provisions which interests me greatly is the Citizens Initiative. With 1 million signatures you will be able to ask the Commission to take an initiative on a particular issue. The Commission will launch a public consultation next week asking for views on how it can best be implemented in practice. Who can sign, where and how? Who checks the signatures? What is a significant number of Member States involved, and number of signatures in each state involved? The consultation will run until the end of January. I hope there will be lots of comments!
Another new provision in the Treaty is of course the appointment of a President of the European Council. The Latvian government has put forward the name of former President Vaira Vike-Freiberga as a candidate. For too long the names mentioned for all of the top EU posts have been exclusively male and I find this unacceptable in 2009 when women make up over 52% of the EU population. I was very glad that Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament, made that point the other day at the European Council : “As far as the position of the permanent European Council President is concerned, (…) it should be considered that a woman could and should occupy this position. Appointing a woman would send a positive signal”. I hope the heads of state and government take this on board when it comes down to deciding who should occupy the posts currently being discussed.
I was disappointed prior to the Council last week to hear the Danish Prime Minister playing down the prospect of a climate deal in Copenhagen in December. This is not the time to be pessimistic or over-cautious. It is more important to present some ideas about a realistic outcome of the Copenhagen meeting and the way forward. And to continue to put forward the offers and commitments from the EU countries. Since we now know that the US Senate will not be ready to give President Obama a full economic mandate - there will probably have to be a follow up - a “Copenhagen bis”…
The EU and its main partners responded swiftly, collectively and coherently to the economic and financial crisis because the urgency of the situation was easy to recognise. The sums of money involved in dealing with the crisis are quite staggering. One would think that the threat that climate change poses to our collective future requires an equally swift, coherent and ambitious response…
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
November 6th, 2009 at 10:46 am
With 1 million signatures you will be able to ask the Commission to take an initiative on a particular issue. The Commission will launch a public consultation next week asking for views on how it can best be implemented in practice.
In other words you have no clue how it should be implemented. I think we in Britian should get together the required signatures and force a referendum about Europe, I am taking bets that the majority will want to stay in Europe, the result would be something like 62/38.
Regarding Vaira Vike-Freiberga for President, she is well known for her anti Russian (racist) and was pro war Iraq (on par with war criminals like TB, GWB, DR etc), we do not want war mongers and racists as President of a great institution such as the EU.
November 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Blimey Hans, give the guys a break! It is positive that new measures like citizens’ intitiative are put out to consultation with the very people who will be using it! Also, a million signatures to the Commission on an internal matter like a Briitsh referendum on the EU would be a futile gesture as the commission has no say on what elections the UK can hold.
Can people at least try to understand how the EU works before commenting? The cynicism of some people never failes to amaze.
I like the idea of a female president of the European Council. And it would be a double benefit if she came from one of the smaller nations.
November 6th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Citizen involvement into policy development can only be legitimate when those very citizens remain well informed and represent true stakeholders of the rulemaking at hand. I acknowledge that signature checking seems like the most relevant and adequate manner to approach that issue of ownership and legitimacy. As things stand nowadays the shaping of European Union identity goes hand in hand with such “signature checking process” and I can only think of integrating or implementing a European Union wide identity card linked system. This should also prove a valuable tool for further financial and fiscal integration which in my opinion is the Achilles heel that is preventing us from meaningful gains from the changes in trade and labour mobility arisen from the Lisbon Treaty development.
Climate change target setting will involve a shift from violent conflict driven security world politics into a peaceful technology oriented still security governed game which is by all means a grand transition and can only translate into a grand success but will above all require exceptional and extraordinarily risky efforts. With a strengthened position of President Obama over American decision making and a reborn European Union government as 2010 unfolds it may well be that a second round of negotiations is the solution to crystallize what is being brought forward in Copenhagen. Spanish takeover of the Swedish presidency is certain to provide for optimum conditions in the light of those circumstances.
In relation to your statements on female underrepresantation I have to endorse your remark but it may well be the biggest challenge of all three. The world is slowly becoming a place were gender differences are seen as an advantage and were equal political visibility is the only way forward and the European Union is leading that process. Could it be that a female candidate may not however be necessary at this moment in time?
November 6th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
“One of the new provisions which interests me greatly is the Citizens Initiative. With 1 million signatures you will be able to ask the Commission to take an initiative on a particular issue.”
And this is one of the problematic positions I pointed out in the past. We, the citizens, the souvereign, can merely ask - like beggers or supplicants - to be heard, and there is no provision whatsover that would force the commision to act on behalf of the the citizens request. On the contrary, the commision is free to put the issue aside without facing consequences or the need to justify their inaction. So basically, the so-called “Citizens Initiative” is just an attempt to deceive the people.
Democracywise, the Lisbon Treaty is a plain and simple fraud, from the regulations it contains to the way it was forced down on the people without legitimation.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“Who can sign..”?
I hope it`s anyone who is a national of whichever country he/she is in.
November 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
With 1 million signatures you will be able to ask the Commission to take an initiative on a particular issue.
Just another way to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses. This is an initiative without teeth, amything the unelected Commisars (sorry Commisioners) do not like they will simply ignore, just as they have done for the last 40 years
November 6th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Are you still here, Mrs W? I thought your term had ended.
“The EU and its main partners responded swiftly, collectively and coherently to the economic and financial crisis…”
I know what Britain did, and what France, Germany, etc etc did…. But what did the EU do? Do tell.
November 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Copenhagen is a waste of time, just as Kyoto was. No agreement will be forthcoming, but that won’t stop lots of globetrotting, high living, tax funded people going there to preach about their alleged worries about climate change. What a self-serving circus of the cynical.
Margot, when is the EU going to abandon the hugely wasteful second parliament building at Strasburg for the sake of the environment? Actions speak louder than words. Set us an example, don’t just preach like the hypocritical Al Gore and Prince Charles. Or do you lot prefer preaching? I expect so. It pays well doesn’t it?
November 7th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Dear Commissioner :
1) Thanks to you all at the EU for the defense of the EU consumers in the Monopoly and market abuse case of Intel , consumers in the EU, USA and around the world need a fair ,honest competition between mighty Intel and smaller alternatives like AMD , ARM , VIA , Nvidia and others, to lower costs and let competition create jobs, growth and new small businesses.
In the Intel case, the A.G. from New York State , Andrew Cuomo, has filed suit against Intel for abuses and fraud against the competition.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/cuomo-files-intel-antitrust-suit/
Many in the tech world are saying that there is a small group of very extreme operators inside Intel that were and are pushing for Intel to become a monopoly, that most workers in Intel are ready to compete, but this small group of top executives and techs are willing to do anything to achieve control of the whole market, after all, Intel manufactures key military and security chips in its factories in the USA, EU and Israel, and also that some of these extreme operators in Intel have and are working with insiders at AMD and that’s why this great little company was making strange circuit design and manufacturing decisions and mistakes , like in the case of the Barcelona chips, and that cost the company billions of Euros and years of work, and that’ s what helped Intel catch-up with AMD, so could you all find out ? this is criminal activity and can explain some mistakes inside AMD , Europa and the world needs a healthy competition between Intel and AMD.
And this is also why an honest choice for the EU President and Foreign Affairs Post is so important : we know that Miliband will try to stop this EU action against Intel, his partners control the factories of this great company in Israel, and this can be a total disaster for the Military Security of the EU as well as the Security of the Borders, Airports, Chemical, Banking and Commercial Enterprises in Europe that use these vital chips , we need honesty and dedication in these EU very important posts,and not neocons working for the Intelligence of countries outside the EU.
Miliband and his partners would also keep Europa stuck on imported oil and gas, so that his Middle East group area, Saudi Arabia ( sunni ), Qatar, Israel ( only so-called partner in the area ) , UAE, Kuwait, etc., could continue to be the center of out attentions , money and weapons, a trap that we need to leave behind as soon as possible !
Miliband would send the EU against Iran ( shiite) , Venezuela and Russia, another disaster.
2) the very best making sure all the work and taxes in the European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html , can have direct and practical applications to daily EU problems, turn these vital investments into jobs, solutions for energy and growth, and here you can see how important is to have honest gentiles in charge, and because some of the neocons above would send all the key contracts to their partners in the Middle East and elsewhere , a disaster and a huge waste of taxes.
3) thanks for the Lobbyists Register , http://ec.europa.eu/news/justice/091028_en.htm , its a great start, and here also we can see how important is to not have one single neocon , like Miliband and his partners, in charge, and because he will close down this new transparency change, when we need even more honesty than ever, all of you at the Commission that helped this “new clear way” deserve to work longer there , in my honest opinion.
In the USA there is no such a thing out of Washington DC , because after all , the friends of Miliband are in charge already ( Summers, Emanuel, Shapiro,Geithner,Bernanke,etc.,) so it’s to be expected, right? let’s hope you all can continue the good work and keep the light shining over the lobbyists and their partners, thanks.
November 9th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
How can somebody be a citizen of a quango? I might as well be a citizen of Tescos or Carrefour…
November 9th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
A woman means: anyone but Blair… ha ha. For instance, Margot Wallström… Mr. Barroso, stream down this Wall!
November 9th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Given the EU’s record of complete contempt for the views and opinions of the people only an idiot would waste time and money organising a million people to suggest something to it.
Either this initiative will be completely ignored or the EU will conspire to organise million strong groups to support what it was going to do anyway. We already see this kind of thing at work when the EU pays pressure groups like Friends of the Earth to lobby it with demented, apocalyptic eco-hysteria, something the EU itself is extremely keen on.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Dear Commissioner:
These Blogs right here , where Free Speech is a reality , are the new Free Press , the new free media , so will the new EU political appointees ( the new President and the new Foreign Affairs High Representative ) be able to close down these blogs? where will the EU Taxpayers talk directly to the EU Leaders? what’s going to happen to this Free Speech window?
and to all of you who express their opinions freely ( and their creative insults ) right here on these blogs, tell me one country where you can blog directly to the top politician ? tell me just one ?
And I know that Miliband , if he gets the chance, will close down blogs like this one, he and his partner Netanyahu believe in walls and police control, not in free speech blogs, so what will it be ?
I vote to keep the actual Commission members in place to defend the EU against the neocon lobby of Miliband and his partners, but do the men and woman in the EU care ? do they know ? does anybody cares in the EU ?
On the Afghanistan War, where NATO is spending 6.5 billion euros a month, a story about Hedge-Funds taking over advisers to the military is really the best example of the ultimate corruption, greed and war profiteering ,
“Northrop agrees to Sell TASC Consulting Unit ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/09deal.html?
Europa must have Free Speech blogs like these right here , right now .
November 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Well done Ben Murphy for exposing this petition as a gimmick.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Dear Commissioner
My name is Tom and I´m a fellow Swede living in Uppsala.
As a Saab driver and a friend of industry in general, I wonder what is happening with the Commissions work in looking into the Swedish State Guarantees for Saabs approved EIB loan? Now that the “Riksgälden” has approved of a state guarantee and that Saab has sufficient funds as collateral for the EIB loan… what is there to think about? I´m not criticizing only looking for an answer. There is a business and lots of employees to think about in all of this.
The Loan is a part of Saabs AUtomobiles future and needed to be able to quickly develop new environmentaly sound tech for tomorrows (and current) vehicles. Tech that could well be a part of cleaning up the environmental impact of the automotive sector. Tech that could help other manufacturers aswell in the future.
Why is the descission being halted? When will we see the result of the Commissions work regarding this matter? And without the Commissions approval, many things could go to waste and billions upon billions would have to be spent by the Swedish state and taxpayers to give former employees the backing they would need. I know that the taxpayers are worried, but without Saab, there Will be a blow to the taxpayers.
And a healthy competition amongst businesses is always good to spurr the motivation of always getting better.
Thank you for your splendid work within the EU!
Cheers/Tom
November 11th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
financialtools1, I agree with you. Commissioner Wallström should be given some credit for allowing comments - good and bad - to appear on this blog.
However, I would personally hate to be in a position where I am in receipt of other people’s money (where many of those people object to the existence of the eu) and I am unelected. I would find that unfulfilling and I would be riddled with guilt. I don’t know how she sleeps at night.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
About Copenhagen Climate Change meeting
MW: “I was disappointed prior to the Council last week to hear the Danish Prime Minister playing down the prospect of a climate deal in Copenhagen in December. This is not the time to be pessimistic or over-cautious. It is more important to present some ideas about a realistic outcome of the Copenhagen meeting and the way forward…….One would think that the threat that climate change poses to our collective future requires an equally swift, coherent and ambitious response”
As said in a previous comment,
the reason this meeting will fail
(in application, whatever about a postive announcement that will no doubt be made)
is the insistence on Emission Trading as a solution, which among other problems brings about unnecessary international tension.
As Climate change campaigners themselves have noted,
the current EU system leaves spectacular loopholes for companies to exploit,
while those against emission control have seen the time and expense nevertheless wasted by companies,
in complying with the regulations put in place.
Emission trading, Cap and Trade, is therefore wrong,
whether or not one believes that action is needed to specifically to reduce CO2 emissions
http://www.ceolas.net/#cce5x
Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting —
International Trade: Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market —
Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading —
Companies: Business Stability + Cost —
In Conclusion
As it happens, if there is to be an emission policy,
Electricity and Transport sectors alone (80% of CO2 emissions) are sufficient to meet emission reduction targets,
with measures advantageous in themselves
(including energy renewability, and that emissions contain much else, whatever about CO2),
long term funded for reduced consumer price impact,
without cap and trade schemes without industrial carbon taxes and without efficiency regulation
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
Cars, planes, ships have emission taxation.
Power stations have phased-in emission limits on CO2, as with mercury or other substances
The often repeated argument that
“It takes too long to deal directly with energy supply and emissions, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don’t meet defined efficiency standards”
doesn’t hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money. Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source. http://ceolas.net/#em1x
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans. http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway. http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
4. Because -while it should not be needed- appropriate and temporary taxation on products that would otherwise be banned not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects, it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required, with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans. http://ceolas.net/#gg5x
.
November 12th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
As you may know the above Act today doesn’t say anything on this situation and re-calls only the national laws of the European members so the consequence is that, as, for example, in Italy there is no law that prevents convicted people from becoming elected Italy has the bad record for number of sentenced people who sit not only in Italian Parliament but also in the European one.
I know that a revision of the Act was embarked last autumn by the Afco Committee, dealing with the minimurn age for voters and candidates. I think that the ban to convicted people becoming members of European Parliament could be taken into consideration in this context [Article 190(4) EC Treaty].
- Aldo Patriciello (EPP):
Convicted to four months for illegal financing: in the beginning of the 90s he gave 16 million of italian lires to a “political friend”.
-Mario Borghezio (EFD):
In 2005, he was found guilty of arson, for having set fire to the belongings of some immigrants sleeping under a bridge in Turin during a vigilante raid, sentenced to 2 months and 20 days imprisonment, commuted to a fine of 3.040 euros.
- Vito Bonsignore (EPP):
Convicted to 2 years of prison for attempted bribery for the contract the hospital of the italian city of Asti.
- Nick Griffin (NI):
Convicted for incitement to racial hatred for material denying the Holocaust.
- Jean Marie Le Pen (NI):
Convicted several times for racism or inciting racial hatred.
I thank you in advance
Best Regards
November 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Every government has the power to change it’s environmental laws right now, they just choose not to do it. We do not need a global police force creating new sanctions to achieve better environmental practices, we need to go to our countries leaders and tell them what we want. I am shocked that nobody has questioned the implications of creating a body that could impose sanctions because of something as addressable as climate change. Nobody will argue that we need to change many of our practices in respect to the environment, but I wonder at these open-ended powers that will be imposed on sovereign nations. Seems like another tentacle of the W.T.O. reaching in for more control over individual freedoms and suffocating small business.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I agree there is an urgent need for one of the two new positions to be filled by a woman, as the Commission chief and Euro Parliament chief are both men. How about Mary Robinson, Ursula Plassnik or your own Cecilia Malmstrom?
November 16th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Edith Cresson for EU ‘president’.
She sums up the organisation and its attitude to the money of ours it squanders.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
i agree with you
دردشة