But the question needs to be asked. If the Lisbon Treaty does not stipulate exactly what the role and duty of both the EU President and the EU Foreign Minister will actually be, is it wise to place high profile people into these positions?

We first need to understand HOW the European Union is actually run. Its not a democratic union, nor are the people who run it democratically elected. The European Union, like its predecessor the European Economic Community, were founded by the member states as a means for them to resolve common issues. It is member-state driven and run, and as such, the ultimate power resides with the [current] 27 democratically elected national governments.

The European Commission is appointed by the member states to handle the day-to-day running of the European Union, based on the current Treaty in place. Regardless of what laws the European Commission proposes, the ultimate approval or declinal resides with the Council of Ministers [which is comprised of the national ministers relevant to the law being proposed].

So why have an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister?

Currently, the position is circulated amongst the 27 member states, with each one holding the position for six months. The new EU President will hold the position for 2 1/2 years, allowing him/her to provide the European Union with a “long term” President with which other nations can deal with over a period of time. The current EU Foreign Minister is actually comprised of two seperate positions, which have now been merged [logically] into one – also a longer term position.

These two positions will now provide the European Union with a “stable” global representation, a representation for all 27 member states. As Kissinger once allegedly said “who do I call if I want to speak to Europe?”, the answer now is easier to answer. However, we need to bare in mind that both these roles are nothing more than spokespersons for the 27 member states. They are not like the President of the United States or the Prime Minister of Australia, where they can speak on behalf of their nation and the nation follows them.

With the Lisbon Treaty not specifically outlining what roles and what powers these two positions will have, to place into them people of such high profiles as the Tony Blairs of the world, would in effect create friction between the EU President and the 27 national governments. Choosing someone who isnt high profile enough was a logical decision, especially with those chosen to fill the positions at their inception.

With time, as the role of the two positions is defined, more high profile candidates will eventually take over, but this will be at a time when the 27 member state governments feel that it is right. But to appoint high profile candidates into these role now, would not only be suicidal but also extremely detrimental to not only the European Union but also to the member states. For the last thing that anyone would want is an EU President and an EU Foreign Minister who attempted to override the national governments.

I hope you enjoy this added service here on EUToday.

Europe By Satellite – hear the latest Press Conferences, Debriefs and more [opens new window]

Highlights from Brussels

Space And You

Whether one agrees with their own country being in it or not, Sir Churchill was a statesman who focused not only on the present but also the future. Unlike politicians, he looked beyond winning the next election.

I won’t say any more, except that reading the speech he gave at the University of Zurich is enough to make you wonder.

Enjoy.

We must build a kind of United States of Europe!
by SirWinston Churchill

An address at the University of Zurich, 19 September 1946

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I AM HONOURED to-day by being received in your ancient university and by the adress which had been given to me on your behalf and which I greatly value.

I wish to speak to you to-day about the tragedy of Europe. This noble continent, comprising on the whole the fairest and the most cultivated regions of the earth, enjoying a temperate and equable climate, is the home of all the great parent races of the western world. It is the fountain of Christian faith and Christian ethics. It is the origin of most of the culture, the arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern time. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance, there would be no limit to the happiness, to the prosperity and the glory which its three or four million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that have sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this twentieth century and even in our own lifetime, wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.

And what is the plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller States have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas a vast quivering mass of tormented, hungry, care-worn and bewildered human beings gape at the ruins of their cities and their homes, and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new peril, tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a babel of voices; among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed but for the fact that the great Republic across the Atlantic Ocean has at length realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve their own fate as well, and has stretched out hands of succour and of guidance, but for that the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. Gentlemen, they may still return.

Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as if by a miracle transform the whole scene, and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and as happy as Switzerland is to-day. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to re-create the European Family, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.

Much work, Ladies and Gentlemen, has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union which owes so much to Count Coudenhove-Kalergi and which commanded the services of the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body of doctrine and procedure, which was brought into being amid high hopes after the first world war. I mean the League of Nations. The League of Nations did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because these principles were deserted by those States who had brought it into being. It failed because the governments of those days feared to face the facts, and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is therefore much knowledge and material with which to build; and also bitter dear bought experience to stir the builders.

I was very glad to read in the newspapers two days ago that my friend President Truman had expressed his interest and sympathy with this great design. There is no reason why a regional organization of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organization of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis will only survive if it is founded upon coherent natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the western hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organization. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the onward destinies of men? In order that this should be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.

We all know that the two world wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of a newly-united Germany to play the dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the invasion of the Mongols in the fourteenth century and no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, then there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr. Gladstone many years ago called “a blessed act of oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past. We must look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years that are to come the hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European Family and this act of oblivion against all the crimes and follies of the past. Can the free peoples of Europe rise to the height of these resolves of the soul and of the instincts of the spirit of man? If they can, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted will have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it, and all will achieve their hearts’ desire.

I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European Family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause. The ancient states and principalities of Germany, freely joined together for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe. I shall not try to make a detailed programme for hundreds of millions of people who want to be happy and free, prosperous and safe, who wish to enjoy the four freedoms of which the great President Roosevelt spoke, and live in accordance with the principles embodied in the Atlantic Charter. If this is their wish, if this is the wish of the Europeans in so many lands, they have only to say so, and means can certainly be found, and machinery erected, to carry that wish to full fruition. But I must give you a warning. Time may be short. At present there is a breathing-space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped; but the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form the United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now.

In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I will even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a state and nation which we know will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom. But it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation, but may possibly desintegrate the globe itself.

I must now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the strength of the United Nations Organization. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European Family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe. And the first practical step would be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not wiliing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and of every land from war or servitude must be established on solid foundations and must be guarded by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than submit to tyranny. In all this urgent work, France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America and I trust Soviet Russia-for then indeed all would be well-must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live and shine.

So lets have a look at how decisions are made within the European Union.

Firstly, the European Council.

Current system of voting

Under the current system, which was implemented by the Treaty of Nice in 2003, the European Council’s decision needs to be approved by not only a majority of member states [50% or 67%, depending on the issue], but also by a majority of populations within those states [62%] as well as a majority of the votes [74%]. This requires a triple approval for anything to be approved by the European Union.

Confused?

I’ll break this down for easier understanding.

Under the existing Treaty of Nice, each country is allocated a certain number of votes, which in total make up 345. For a proposal to be approved, it will require 255 votes in favour.

Secondly, it will require those nations agreeing with the new law, to make up at least 62% of the entire population within the European Union.

Thirdly, it will also need a majority of member states also approving it – either 50% or 67% [I'll explain this later on].

The checks and balances are in place to avoid not only the larger states controlling the European Union due to their population sizes, as well as avoiding the smaller states ganging up on the larger ones.

To see how the current system works, there is an excellent interactive calculator here. As you can see, decision making within the European Council is a complicated set-up. Click here for the number of votes and population of each member state.

So who is the “European Council” that has such a complicated framework?

In layperson terms, it is the Heads of State of the member states [27] as well as the President of the European Commission. The European Council meets twice a year and although it has no formal legislative or executive powers, it does deal with major issues and decisions that impact on the entire European Union.

The 50% or 67% criteria that I mentioned above is used as follows. If the European Council is not acting on a proposal from the European Commission, it requires the 67% criteria to be met. If the issue is as a direct result of a proposal from the European Commission, then only a 50% approval is required from the European Council.

How will this change if the Treaty of Lisbon is approved and implemented?

The European Council’s decision making will be reduced from a triple approval set-up to a double approval set-up. The changes are as follows:

1. To pass a decision, the European Council will need a majority of countries (55% or 72%) and a majority of the population (65%]

2. To block a decision, it will require the Condition to pass a vote not achieved and at least 4 countries against the proposal. This is double declinal is to ensure that the more populous states can not override the wishes of the majority of member states.

Decisions requiring unanimity amongst the member states

At present, the qualified majority voting system [QMV] is used to pass certain legislation while others require unanimity among all Council members. Under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon, which has to be ratified by all member states before it can enter into force, decisions in about 20 more policy areas would be taken using QMV, leaving only key, sensitive issues to be decided unanimously (including tax, social policy, defence, foreign policy and treaty revision).

As you can see, the European Council is made up of all the member states’ heads of state, who have been elected by the people of their respective countries.

In the next article tomorrow, The European Commission. Who are they? What do they do? How do they get to be Commissioners.

The question posed, was:

“ For over a decade now, none of the EU Audits have been signed off by the Auditors. Can you please explain why this is the case, and what the European Union is doing to resolve this issue?“

Not surprisingly, the European Union’s Vice-President and Commissioner Siim Kallas’ spokesperson posted the following response:

“ Hi all,
I am Commissioner Kallas’ Spokesperson. The Commissioner is sending his regards to the participants of this debate and has asked me to reply to your question.

Let me start by clarifying some basic concepts about the EU audits and accounts.

The EU auditors (i.e. the European Court of Auditors) provide once a year their audit opinion (called a ‘statement of assurance’) on the EU accounts and all the transactions (e.g. payments to individual beneficiaries not only in the EU but all over the world) in a given year. Their opinion on the accounts is largely positive: the EU has a very modern and accurate accounting system, similar to those used in the private sector (the so-called accruals-based accounting, which only very few governments apply).

When it comes to transactions, the auditors now give green light to over 40% of the total spending (including most of agricultural money). In the remaining part of the budget (e.g. help to poor regions), the auditors still find too many errors. These are errors, not fraud: out of hundreds of transactions checked last year by auditors, only two gave rise to a formal investigation by OLAF (the EU anti fraud office). Typical errors range from an incorrect amount paid or a late payment to missing documentation or incorrect application of tendering rules. Many of these errors give rise to various sorts of financial corrections, applied directly by the Commission o by member states, so as to minimise any loss to the EU budget.

Why can errors happen? Most payments are done on the basis of claims from individual beneficiaries – their number and diversity is huge. The advantage of the system is that even local projects can get EU funding; the disadvantage is the resulting complexity of financial management. The EU budget is spent in a decentralised way: 80% of the money is spent by national governments, which are responsible for preventing and, if need be, correcting errors. The Commission then checks how this was done, and may suspend payments or impose corrections on the countries which failed to prevent or correct errors.

What is the Commission doing to improve things? We are improving control systems both at the Commission level, and in member states. Where those system fail to work properly, the Commission will not hesitate to suspend payments (as was the case e.g. for the UK last year). Member states are now obliged to send detailed audit summaries. Transparency initiative will further reduce the risk for fraud as member states will now have to disclose to the public the names of beneficiaries to whom they have given EU money. Finally, as many errors result from complicated rules, financial rules are regularly reviewed to simplify, where possible, cumbersome procedures.

Those interested in the issues of EU audit and financial management will find more information on Commissioner Kallas’ website:
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/positive_declaration_en.htm “

The response was, from my perspective, greatly appreciated. Not only because they took the time to respond, but also provided the European Union’s view on the whole Audit issue. Unlike the reports that the general public read in the press, it wasn’t dramatised or sensationalised and provided a balanced view on the whole issue.

There are more questions raised in the forums. As each one is answered, I’ll be posting the questions and responses here for all to have a read.

Cheers

With his kind permission, I have reposted it here.

Europe, Its Time To Lead

Something has clearly changed on the international political stage that gives the European Union an unprecedented opportunity to bring stability and an end to a violent conflict in the Middle East, without the need to have someone’s permission to act.

Europe is capable of conducting an active foreign policy and has the ability to commit the necessary financial, diplomatic and military resources in order to bring much-needed stability and peace to the Middle East, taking into consideration that the road map is going nowhere and the peace negotiations are deep in the mud.

Europe’s historical ties to the region are a source of diplomatic strength and will give it options for negotiations that will rival those of the United States.

The European Union must dare to be more involved in solving conflicts and engaging in peace missions. Europe is needed on the international stage and should play a decisive role in calming conflicts. It must act in a prudent manner and not as if it is a superpower, and it should seek to become a counterbalance to the US on the world stage.

Europe is still seen, in the Middle East, as a credible broker, and therefore should use it diplomatic wit and the economic leverage, without being the parties’ banker, to push through a European solution to the conflict in Lebanon and the Middle East in particular.

The time has come for Europe to stop being guided on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the US, which is partisan, as it is the main supplier of weapons to the Israelis.

Europe is working on the margins of American-dictated policies, which has proven counterproductive.

The US influence in shaping the EU’s stance is especially marked in Europe’s refusal to have direct contacts with Hamas. Informed sources in Tel Aviv confirmed in telephone interviews that indirect talks between the Israeli Defence Ministry and Hamas were under way in Cairo.

This is also a European opportunity to develop a foreign policy that will enable Europe to deal with the crisis in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe.

It is an opportunity as well as a challenge to be able to walk alone again on the international stage without American crutches.

The US diplomatic manoeuvring possibilities in the Middle East are limited now because of the fallout from the Iraq war. Much will depend how seriously Europeans will be taking their international commitments and face tough opponents. The bottom line will be whether European diplomatic activities will amount to anything substantial.

A new Middle East summit, as the rumours fly from Moscow, if is to succeed, has to result in a concrete attempt to tackle the final-status issue. The way this issue will be dealt with will determine what kind of state a future Palestine might be and whether the peace settlement will last.

There are significant gaps between the parties’ starting positions. There is also the need to accelerate the speed of the talks between Israelis and Palestinians.

From a security point of view, there has to be a full Israeli-Palestinian security agreement. At the same time Europe has to bring about an Israeli commitment of non-intervention in Gaza and the West Bank, in order not to undermine the Palestinian Authority that is anyway in decline.

Europe will have to convey the message forcefully that, even if it sometimes does not speak with one voice, when putting forward its foreign policy it is not two-tongued when it comes to the Middle East.

It has to be made clear that it is a mistake to overestimate Europe’s political disagreements. It has to be a message that will convince the doubters that Europe has the will and the determination to bring lasting peace to the Middle East.

The Middle East is not in the need now of a new summit; new ideas are needed, and not a substitute for peace making.

It is of importance that Europe will revitalise a decisive policy of active engagement on the international stage in order to be able to reverse the cycle of tensions and violence around the world.

Furthermore, it should use existing mechanisms in order to be able to hold accountable those who act against legal and moral norms, and it must stand united behind its common values.

It has to be made clear what Europe understands and what it means when it talks about freedom and human dignity, as it is the prerequisite for a serious and frank dialogue with other cultures and religions.

Europe’s strength lies in remaining impartial at the same time as pointing out wrongdoings by all involved sides in the Middle East.

The EU can secure itself a leading position at the forefront of the new world order, and this with a collective foreign policy.

If the ability to project force is now the sign of an independent European foreign policy, then Europe is at last getting more bold and resolute in its action.

Since the war in Iraq, European states have supported most areas of the EU’s foreign policy, but in order to make the policy more assertive, policy making and the involved institutions must be streamlined.

Europe must change the diplomatic dynamic on the international stage if it wants its leadership to be accepted and avoid the entire foreign policy losing its credibility.

There is only the hope that courage and political imagination will secure Europe’s future in the changing world.

Israel Rafalovich is a journalist and analyst based in The Hague, The Netherlands. He covers European affairs and writes a weekly column on international relations. You can read more by Israel at http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/israelrafalovich

Those opposing Turkey’s membership tend to rest on the issue of “where is Europe”, although many of the underlying reasons are not geographical but rather of a religious nature. The European Union nations are Christian whereas Turkey is Muslim.

So, lets deal with each issue individually.

Where does Europe stop and the rest of the world begin?

According to the United Nations, the European Union, National Geographic, Universities etc, the continent of Europe is defined as per the map below, it covers all of the “traditional countries” of Europe. Its eastern borders are considered to be the Ural Mountains in Russia, while the southeastern borders continue to the Caspian Sea, the crest of the Caucasus Mountains and on to the Black Sea; the Bosporus, the Sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles conclude the Asian boundary.

Map is courtesy of National Geographic

Map of Turkey courtesy of Lonely Planet

Based on these definitions of Europe, Turkey itself is partly in Europe and therefore under the membership rules of the European Union [and its predecessors], is entitled to apply for membership. Some people argue that only 5% of Turkey is geographically within Europe, which is true. However some 14% of the country’s population live within European Turkey. In addition to this, the membership rules of the European Union do not stipulate how much a country has to be within Europe to qualify. It simply must be part of the European continent, and in Turkey’s case, they are eligible.

I believe the real issue is NOT whether Turkey is eligible for membership into the European Union. Rather the underlying reason is the fact that it’s not a Christian country. Had Turkey been Christian, the opposition to it joining would have been non-existent. Which thus raises the other issue – why are some people so afraid of allowing a Muslim country into the European Union?

Some of the arguments being put forward include the fact that Turkey is a poor country, that they are Muslim, that they will be the “doorway” for other Muslims to flood into the rest of the European Union. Yet these arguments do not hold water. The European Union allowed the poor eastern European nations like Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Greece etc to join, and contrary to the fears people had, only a small number moved out of their homelands into other European nations. There was no “flood”. A trickle, maybe, but definitely no flood.

On the issue of being a Muslim nation, Turkey is probably the most westernised and democratic Muslim country in the world. Ever since Ataturk dissolved the Ottoman Empire and reformed it into the Republic of Turkey, Islam has been removed from the political arena. Any attempt by a Turkish government to Islamify the nation has been met not only with mass protests within Turkey but also the threat of military intervention by the Turkish defence forces, who see themselves as the guardians of Ataturk’s vision and of democracy. In addition to that, their tolerance for Islamic extremists is very low.

Further, if anyone needs any evidence that Turkey is pro-Western, one needs only to look at their involvement. They have been part of NATO since 1952, joined the Council of Europe in 1949, OECD in 1961 and the OSCE in 1973, amongst other Western organisations. They have also been an associate member of the European Union [and its predecessor - the European Economic Community] since 1963.

So, should those opposing Turkey join the European Union have anything to fear?

Personally, I think not. If anything, it will be to the European Union’s advantage to have a Muslim nation within its borders. It will secure the southeastern border of the European Union as well as provide a more reliable access to oil and gas from the Middle East. In regards to the claim that Turks will “flood” into the rest of the European Union, one only needs to ask this. Why?

Yes, a small minority will leave Turkey for elsewhere. However as experience has shown, many other Europeans will also move to other nations, including Turkey. For example, one of the booms in the housing sector is in Bulgaria where many British and German people are buying homes at ridiculously low prices and moving there. Migration is a two-way street, both now and in the past. It won’t change with Turkey joining the European Union.

Is Turkey ready for joining the European Union?

Unfortunately, the answer to this is “no”. Under the membership requirements, Turkey needs to fulfil its obligations, which include:

1. Free movement of goods

2. Freedom of movement for workers

3. intellectual Property Law

4. Regional Policy & Coordination of Structural Instruments

and more.

These are the basic requirements of being accepted, and like the other countries that are either waiting or have already joined, Turkey needs to fulfil the 35 chapters of membership.

Until it does, then Turkey will remain outside the European Union.

Cheers

In my previous comment, I mentioned how they were running around hysterically claiming the Treaty of Lisbon actually condoned the death penalty.

After I pointed out that the Treaty itself had nothing to do with the death penalty, they then started to turn their attention to the fact that because the European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon mentioned the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, it somehow would legitimatise it.

Well, I have some news for them.

It was ALREADY legal back in 2000 when the Council of Europe and every single European nation [European Union member states AND non European Union countries] approved it. It has been in effect ever since then. All the Treaty of Lisbon does is formalise it as THE Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Whether the Treaty of Lisbon gets approved by the member states or not, the Charter is already in existence and binding.

So kiddies …. time to stop running around like a chicken without its head. You have to come up with something more substantial than that.

Cheers

Hope you enjoy both.