The Article 13a of Treaty of Lisbon provides for a European External Action Service (EEAS) to be set up to assist the High Representative of the Union in his / her duties and cooperate with the diplomatic services of the Member States. This EEAS will be composed of officials from relevant departments of the General Secretariat of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission and staff seconded from national diplomatic services.

As expected, the matter rises a lot of questions, as seen in today’s EurActiv article.

Speaking of Tony Blair’s wish to become the first EC President. During his recent visit in Bucharest, the French president Sarkozy, a good friend of Mr. Blair (and of Ghadafi) did also obtain (besides Romanian soldiers ) a promise from Traian Basescu that Romania might support Tony Blair. Of course he promised … In spite of his declarations, our president doesn’t care what Romanians really want. He never did. After all he is not our first president who thinks he knows everything, that he is the only one who can decide on absolute every matter, in short he’s a genius. I wonder if he will end up like the previous genius. He already talks about himself as he is some kind of Messiah … yeah, I’m fed up of constant noise he’s making.

Before the end of this year, the European Union should have a President, elected for 2.5 years.
One of the most pronounced names for the job is that of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, supported by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.
But two other French leaders - Edouard Balladur (the former conservative French prime minister, close to Mr Sarkozy) and Valérie Giscard d’Estaing (former French president and the father of the now defunct EU constitutional treaty) expressed their opinion that Europe’s first president must have majority support from his home country, which should be a nation that respects all its European commitments. Something that Britain might not be doing for the time being.

“Tony Blair cannot be president of Europe,” writes Edouard Balladur in Le Monde . Despite his declarations of good intent, for 10 years, Mr. Blair did almost nothing to put an end to Britain’s special statu, with its opt-outs in the fields of justice and home affairs, non-membership of the euro - area and of the border-free Schengen zone. Moreover, says he, Mr Blair is far too close to America to build an independent Europe.

I might add that if Tony Blair would accept the post, he will have to give up his job at J. P. Morgan, an US-based investment bank (with a salary of around £2 million per year). He would also have to drop his diplomatic role as a Middle East envoy on behalf of western nations.
Besides, Mr. Blair is the subject of an war crimes investigation on the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq (strange that the mass media did not cover this issue according to its importance, but that’s my opinion. And an ‘innocent’ question: will Basescu follow? since he is the strongest and most vocal Romanian supporter of the Iraqi invasion. Yeah, let’s move on).
There is also an on-line petition agains Blair’s nominalization at www.stopblair.eu, and if we remember the “cash for honours” scandal, we undestand why Mr. Blair is not suitable to become the first EU president.

Other two possible candidates are the prime minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, a declared believer in a ‘United States of Europe’ and Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister. For now.

Something tells me that the recent outburst of the communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom will have some consequencies, at least the debates regarding the election of an EU president will be a little more transparent than before.

One of the most enthusiastic European officials, the communications commissioner Margot Wallstrom has said she is fed up with the “reign of old men” in Brussels.

“An inner circle of male decision-makers agree behind closed doors on whom to nominate to EU top jobs,”

“It is incredible that only men have been mentioned in the discussions, and that it is all discussed behind the scenes”

“It is very bad for public opinion. The people see male politicians scheming behind closed doors, and that old men choose old men, as always”

“Just look at the ‘family photos’ at the EU summits. It’s almost all only men that are lined up. Gee, humanity consists of fifty per cent women!

Wow, she’s angry! Of course she’s right, but what should we, the common people, think about the shiny programs of the EU against the women discrimination, since the women are discriminated at the very top of the EU?

(.. continued)

EU is not a federation

The main characteristics of a federation are as follows:
- Power is divided between central decision – making institutions and regional decision – making institutions.
- The nature of this division of power is specified in and is protected by constitutional documents. Disputes over the division are settled by a supreme judicial authority.
- The division of power between the central and regional levels is balanced: both have responsibilities – although not necessarily wholly exclusive responsibilities – for important spheres of public policy.
- some policy areas are primarily the responsibility of the central level because they are concerned with the identity, coherence, and protection of the system as a whole: foreign affairs, security and defense, management of the (single) currency, and specification and protection of citizens’ rights – or al least the more important of these rights.

Consequently, we can see that the EU does have several federal characteristics:
- Power is divided between central decision – making institutions (the Commission, The council, the EP etc.), and regional decision – making institutions (the governments in the member states).
- The nature of the division is specified in the treaties and there is a supreme judicial authority (the ECJ) with the authority to adjudicate in the event of disputes over the division.
- Both levels do have important powers and responsibilities for public policy, mainly but not exclusively, to the economic sphere.
At the same time, however, in some respects the EU falls short of the federal model:
- Although power is divided between the central level and the regional level, some of the responsibilities that lie at the centre are heavily dependent on regional acquiescence if they are to be exercised. This is most obviously the case where the unanimity rule (still) applies in the Council, for example for decisions on constitutional reform, enlargement, and fiscal measures.
- The policy balance is still titled towards the member states. The degree of this is much less than it was before the ‘relaunch’ of the Community in the mid 1980s, but the member states are still mostly in control of public decision – making. This is reflected in the fact that policy areas that involve heavy public expenditure – such as education, health, social welfare, and defense – are still essentially national policies, and the control of financial resources still lies overwhelmingly with the member states
- Those policy spheres which in federal systems are normally though of as being the responsibility of the central authorities, in the EU are primarily national responsibilities. Foreign affairs, security and defense, and citizenship rights are being developed at the EU level, but so far only to a limited degree and on a largely intergovernmental basis. Currency control is the most obvious exception to this, though not all member states are members of the single currency system.

On 1st January 2008, Slovenia is taking over from Portugal the presidency of the Council of the European Union. Here is presented the logo and preliminary website.
The logo represents an oak leaf, which reflects “the solid, persistent, dependable character of Slovenes, a people who are cool under pressure and thoughtful in their decisions”.
The symbol is also a combination of five basic elements – Fire, Earth, Air, Water and Ether, overall, the logo conveying “openness, movement, ambition and a sense of natural harmony”.
The Slovenian EU Presidency website will be fully operational as of January 2008 in English, French and Slovenian.

(… continued)

The European Union is not an intergovernmental organization

Intergovernmental organizations are bodies that promote voluntary cooperation and coordination between or among its members. Intergovernmental organizations have very little (if any) decision-making autonomy and cannot enforce their will on member states. Examples of intergovernmental organizations: the UN, NATO, the Council of Europe.
The differences between the EU and intergovernmental organizations are:
- The EU has more developed and complex institutional structure than intergovernmental organizations. The model of Intergovernmental organizations’ secretariats and delegations can be recognized, in a much more elaborated form, in the EU Commission and the Permanent Representations, but there are many other characteristics, such as: the regular and frequent meetings at the highest political levels between representatives of the member states; the constant and varied forms of contact between national representatives; the Court of Justice; and the European Parliament – the only directly elected multi-state assembly in the world.
- No intergovernmental organization has anything like the policy responsibilities of the EU. In terms of breath, few significant policy areas have completely escaped the EU’s attention. In terms of depth, the pattern varies, but in many important areas, such as external trade, agriculture, and competition policy, key initiating and decision – making powers have been transferred from the member states to the EU authorities.
- The EU has progressed far beyond the intergovernmental nature of intergovernmental organizations to incorporate many supranational characteristics into its structure and operation.

*The EU may thus be thought of as being, in many important respects, less than a state but much more than an intergovernmental organization.

The EU is not a supranational organization

… even there are several supranational EU bodies and policies.

There is a conflict between supranationalism and intergovernmentalism regarding the EU future . Despite broad acceptance of the supranational principle, national governments have been reluctant to cede control over all policy areas to EU institutions. A supranational organization is different because member states surrender power in specific areas to the higher organization. Decisions taken by a supranational organization must be obeyed by the member states. Often there are courts to determine when violations have occurred, although frequently enforcement mechanisms are not as effective as they are within nation states
Because countries were hesitant to surrender any control over national affairs, most of the practical proposals for supranational organizations assumed that economic integration would precede political unification.
The development of three distinct EU pillars reflects this conflict: Member states have declined to yield national control to supranational institutions over politically sensitive areas such as foreign policy and judicial affairs.
The three pillars are
1. The first or ‘Community’ pillar concerns economic, social and environmental policies.
2. The second or ‘Common Foreign and Security Policy’ (CFSP) pillar concerns foreign policy and military matters.
3. The third or ‘Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters’ (PJCC) pillar concerns co-operation in the fight against crime. This pillar was originally named ‘Justice and Home Affairs’.

In the first pillar we find the supranational elements of the EU. Initially, these mainly involved economic policy, but since have expanded to include aspects of social policy, immigration policy, and education. The first pillar contains aspects of both economic and political integration.
In the second and third pillar we find the intergovernmental elements of the EU. The member states of the EU cooperate to formulate common foreign policy and security policy. They also cooperate in justice and home-affairs. In these areas, the members of the European Union retain their authority and autonomy. In other words, if only 26 of 27 member states agree on a foreign policy, the remaining state can choose to pursue its own policy.

*In economic and other areas, the EU is supranational and in most other areas, such as the military and foreign policy the EU is intergovernmental, both of these elements exist in the European Union.

(to be continued)

The presence was: 22.79% for referendum and 27,29% for European elections (I have my doubts, but close to what I was predicting earlier)
Anyway, I was listening (until I’ve turned off the TV, it was too much for my stomach) the speeches of political leaders: it’s a collective deliria, they really think this was their success (what success?!!) and the other parties’ failure. All of them. Obviously, their mental health should be urgently tested, they’ve lost any contact with reality.
Or they just have lost any form of common sense, the nerve they have is incredible.

Till this hour (around 16:00) only 14% of Romanian have voted. I cannot say that I am surprised. Any figures above 20-25% presence (and I am optimistic) might be suspicious, from my point of view. What surprises me is that there were approx. 50-50% urban/rural voters. Usually, Romanians from rural area are more ‘disciplined’ and do vote mainly in the morning. I wonder if the politicians will get the [real] message: they are no longer credible, any of them (including all parties, Prime Minister and President). I think not.
And something tells me that the number of voters will miraculously increase in the evening, and the share of traveling voters (even though it is autumn, foggy day, cold, bad weather etc.) will be very important.

Latest figures: 19%

All this craziness regarding the xenophobic campaign against Romanian citizens in Italy happened to have even a benefic outcome: the far-right group of in European Parliament - The Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) has been finally dissolved. The Romanian MEPs leaved the group, after Alessandra Mussolini’s comments, granddaughter of former fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

Many MEPs welcomed the group’s dissolution:

“We are happy that this group, which does not belong in European democracy, has been dissolved”, [ …] ultranationalists” […] no longer use European taxpayers money to support “xenophobia and neo-fascism”.

(Socialist leader MEP Martin Schulz)

ITS’s “inherent radical nationalism” made its implosion inevitable, […] “they are a casualty of their own philosophy, which […] encourages xenophobic and racist comments […] which have no place in the European Union”.

(Liberal democrat group leader MEP Graham Watson)

“a welcome blow to the prejudice and bigotry” it promoted, […] “united only by hatred […] it was only a matter of time before they succumbed to a hatred of each other as well”. […] “great news for the European Parliament and the fundamental and democratic values of tolerance on which the EU is built”. “We must now […] try and convince those voters who supported these candidates to change their minds at the next European elections.”

(Green MEP Jean Lambert)

Later edit: Well, I’m not the only one who tries to see the full half of the glass. Still … it could be another way. Maybe…. someday.