Wie ginge es nach der Unterzeichnung weiter?

Der Vertrag tritt zum 1. des Folgemonats in Kraft – nach der Hinterlegung der unterschriebenen Ratifizierungsurkunden in Rom. Sollte Klaus mitspielen kann der Lissabon Vertrag also zum 1.12. in Kraft treten. Sollte sich dieser Fahrplan bestätigen, steht der 12.11. für einen informellen Sonder Gipfel im Raum, um das Personalpaket zu schnüren. Über dieses wurde auf dem Europäischern Rat letzte Woche nicht verhandelt (auch wenn die Spekulationen natürlich weiter gehen mit jedem Treffen). Die Regierungen werden informell die Ressortverteilung innerhalb der Kommission mit Barroso abstimmen, müssen aber formell drei Posten besetzen: den Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates, den Hohen Beauftragten und einen Ratsgeneralsekretär. Letztere waren bisher in Personalunion. Die Aufwertung des Hohen Vertreters (= Außenminister) wird wohl dazu führen, dass für die interne Organisation des Rates weniger Zeit bleibt und diese Rolle somit auch separat besetzt wird. Bisher ist sie auch faktisch stark vom stellvertretenden Generalsekretär des Rates, dem Franzosen Pierre de Boissieu ausgefüllt worden.

Sollten die Anhörungen der designierten Kommissare schnell verlaufen, könnte die komplette neue Kommission zum 1.1.2010 ihre Arbeit aufnehmen. Im EP werden dafür schon die Kalender gewelzt, um rechtzeitige Anhörungen noch vor der Weihnachtspause zu organisieren.

Please find our first two recordings on Joe’s website. Our first debate was on the outcome of the German election and its implications for the EU. The second debate was recorded on monday night (me moderating) and focuses on the Irish referendum. – Many thanks to Joe for editing the recordings and putting them online!

In the future you can find all the podcasts on our Chasing Brussels website and you can follow us on Twitter. In the coming weeks we shall also try to register through iTunes.

Any feedback is very much appreciated!

[image from cc/flickr Colleen AF Venable]

Its main element is the petition (I have also signed):

The European Parliament will elect the next European Commission. We, the voters on June 7 do not only decide the composition of the European Parliament, we also decide upon the driving seat of the EU: The European Commission. The composition of the executive EU body – the European Commission – has to reflect the vote of us EU citizens on June 7.

We call for the PES to build a new progressive majority with a strong Commission President.

We demand respect for our democratic rights! We demand that the Presidency of the European Council makes sure that the European Governments nominate a Commission President that reflects the majority in the European Parliament.

Besides the petition the activists put up relevant information on the building up of the Commission and speculations about Barroso’s replacement. – Not bad. However, the focus could be a little less PES-based. Given their awful record in the past months and the complete absence of leadership from Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the one and only credible candidate for the Commission President job remainining is Guy Verhofstadt in my view. The positive thing is that also Greens should be able to live with him and as a federalist I have obvious big sympathy for him.

Let us hope that PES leader Martin Schulz also comes to the realisation (at least on election day) that it is up to him to bring together the progressive forces in the EP to block the Barroso appointment and propose an alternative candidate. Why not go for the big package deal together with PES-Greens-Liberals in the EP in which he could secure his own role as Parliament president and install the “social” Commission he is always talking about?! Greens and others are waiting for your first step. – Over to you Schulz!

I wish the European Greens (EGP) would have been able to run an equally good campaign.

There are two reasons why I am writing this blog entry – and why I am writing it on my blog.

The other day I have received an email from Jeremy Cliffe, the PES’s focal point for bloggers. He was linking up to a recent blog entry by Nyrup Rasmussen in which he declares that the PES is working towards a new majority to stop Barroso. – What a surprise I thought… as if this is not the logic of pluralist political party systems in which parties actually compete for leadership. However, this logic has not really got through to the PES leaders who have been incapable of agreeing on a candidate for the job of Commission President. Given that the PES is (still?) by far the second biggest grouping in EU politics, such a lack of responsibility is the biggest farce in democratic politics I have seen for quite a while (more on the reasons for PES cacophony in Jon Worth’s recent blog entry).

But to make things even more ironic, Nyrup Rasmussen goes out even more openly about it and declares:

I would have preferred the PES to have a candidate for the President of the European Commission, but we do not, and we will not before the elections. Who becomes President of the European Commission now depends on the result of the European elections.

So here we go: The PES party leader is (rightfully) demanding that the PES presents a face and his own members do not follow. Such a crucial issue would force any party leader elsewhere to step down and let others take over responsibility. Why not Nyrup Rasmussen?

For those who might still wonder why I am writing this comment here and not in response to Nyrup Rasmussen’s comment on his own blog, I must explain this: Best practice in blogging is to let people more or less freely comment on other people’s blogs. I would have liked to do that but the PES only permits comments from PES members – and only upon prior registration. Even if I were a member, would I go through an extensive registration processes, password confusions etc? No, restricting the comments section in your blog is the opposite of the interactivity that the web 2.0 allows. A lesson to learn for Jeremy Cliffe & Co? Or are you sceptical of critical comments? (But why do you email me then for a start?)

[Picture from www.pes.org]

With this blog entry I will try to sum up Andrew’s speech and include some observations and comments from myself. It is surely not complete and anyone who wants to hear the real Moravscik is more than encouraged to attend any of his inspiring lectures!

Andrew in short:

The centre of gravity of the study of European integration has shifted to Europe (where it belongs) since the 1990s.

EU citizens do not spend much time thinking about the EU because they do not care much. However, the EU does have some significant distributive effects. Consequently, there are many reasons to be concerned about the “democratic deficit”.

Moravcsik’s main argument is: The core of the democratic deficit stems from relative unimportance of EU issues in the mind of voters – i.e. the relative lack of issue salience.

There are three myths
1. The EU as an emerging super-state (libertarian myth)
One of the most misquoted “facts” (from an old Delors statement) is the idea that 80% of laws emanate from the EU. In the meantime several studies have shown that only 7-20% of laws originate in the EU – and there is no increase over time.
2. Voters cannot influence EU politics (pluralist myth)
The EU is possibly one of the most transparent polities. In fact all actors (except maybe the Commission) are directly or indirectly elected and fully accountable. Moreover, decisions are usually taken with super-majorities.
3. EU institutions are distant
In recent referendums there has not been a serious protest vote. Only a margin of “no” voters in Ireland voted specifically anti-EU. More than 70% of the Irish had a positive view on the EU on the whole (at the time of the referendum). Other surveys have found that citizens trust EU institutions as much or even more than national institutions.

Why are EU citizens not interested in the EU?
The non-participation has a very simple reason. It is because EU issues are not salient to EU voters. There are no really fundamental decisions taken on EU level that really get the broad majority of voters excited.
Europe is boring!
Attempts to mobilise people (for Europe) is counterproductive. The best (negative) example are random (national) referendums.

According to Moravcsik there are three kinds of proposals to overcome the democratic deficit.
1. the institutional proposal (Simon Hix et al.)
There is no focal point in EU elections. Therefore, the election of the Commission President needs to be made the central contest.
I very much agree with this line and it is also supported by federalist organisations like JEF and UEF who have launched the campaign “Who is your Candidate” to demand from European political parties to nominate their Commission President candidates before the elections. Unfortunately, only the European People’s Party (EPP) has in some way declared its support for a second term of Barroso.
However, Moravcsik claims that this proposal lacks empirical grounding. It exaggerates the Commission’s role because priorities emerge from Council and the European Parliament, and he doubts that such a minor change would be decisive in changing Europeans’ perception of EU politics.

2. the social-democratic argument (Habermas, Scharpf and others)
These people argue that more important issues should be directly tackled by the EU. This would include such vague challenges as globalisation or the “race to the bottom”.
Again, Moravcsik is convinced that these topics are not concrete enough to mobilise sufficient voters.

3. the “informed” social-democratic argument (Giddens, Schmitter)
These people argue that the EU should help to reform the welfare state in member states. Concrete examples suggested are a guaranteed income for farmers or rules for the treatment (and subsistence) of immigrants. This would surely get people out and interested. But even Giddens himself suggests that such suggestions are maybe not necessarily legitimacy-enhancing because citizens are broadly against EU interference in their welfare policies.

Moravcsik’s conclusion therefore is that we will continue to live with the status quo.

In a final remark Moravcsik suggested that China is “over-rated” and that studying the EU (the other global super power next to the US) is the most fascinating thing to do. More on this in my previous comment.

[Picture taken from http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/photos.html]

But with a Convention in town and the close Polish-American relations I am only wondering if Obama or McCain (or Pope Benedict?) will be invited to speak to the European delegates?

Give it a look yourself: www.one-city.eu

Meine Eindrücke und Schlussfolgerungen hab ich in einem Gastbeitrag für zoomer.de zusammengefasst. Hier kann man ihn lesen.

Ireland has the choice. This Thursday the people of Ireland will be the only EU citizens voting directly on the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. According to the latest opinion polls, the outcome is in no way clear. Therefore, I have decided to go to Ireland and try to convince some of the many undecided voters. To vote. And to vote in favour.

My initiative is a part of the wider “European Youth for an Irish YES” campaign of which JEF is a partner.