Herman Van Who listens the Council President
It was nightmarish – last night in the European Council press hall. Applause for Herman Van Rompuys long, written press declaration and Mrs. C. Ashtons little speech – foremost by a clique of well paid officials.
I know, we have to obey – the Lisbon Treaty. But I would like to open a discussion on the question: Isn’t it time to think about ways of civil disobedience against the EU-bubble.
The question is not: EU or not EU. The question is: What kind of a EU. There are different ways. EU-elite makes us believe, that there is only one: their way. That contributes to the image or the similarity of Brussels with Moscow/Peking. No wonder the remark of Paul Goosens (flemish journalist) in last nights press conference: The decision to nominate and choose Mr. Van Rompuy (Van Who?) seems to be as non-democratic as in China.
Herman Van Rompuy - dreaming (Photo: Hajo Friedrich)
You may say: everything is correct – in application of the Lisbon Treaty. But the nomination and election of Mr. Herman Van Rompuy (Van Who?) is the contrary, which was promissed by the Lisbon treaty: to make the EU more transparent, democratic and effective. The procedure was neither transparent, nor democratic. Effective? Yes. From the perspective of the EU-elite. Not a good sign for future policies.
Good times for citizens and ideals of european (re)unification seem to be over. It seems to become colder in the EU. We are living in diferent crisis and others are in front of us – but not for the EU-power-elites. They looked quite happy last nicht: new posts, new competences. In the European Parliament there is above of all few professionalism to deal with the new competences.
Commissions president José Manuel Barroso subtle power game – to demonstrate, who is the master in the Brussels EU-institution bubble: me, me me!
Mrs. C.Ashton and Mr. Barroso in uniformity
“In the middle of blind people the one-eyed is king” – if i may translate so a german say. Honor Mahony is right. We are disappointed, because Europe and their people deserve a better government. At least a Jean-Claude Juncker should have been the first EU-President.
Barroso and the States-secretary Van Rompuy are mere caretaker in the circle of the EU-power-elite and under control of the influential heads of state and government .
They react. They don’t act. Because of the blindness and incompetence of politics they only administer. And they cover the ongoing games and desaster on the financial markets and the unability of Europe to give the right answers on climate-change, wars and civil wars worldwide etc.
Friends of Europe - of what Europe? (Photo: Hajo Friedrich)
Barrosos etc. main task is and will be: The show (casino capitalism, excessive use of ressources etc.) must go on – with some slight cosmetic changes. The purpose of several public relations campaigns: to give the citizens the feeling (not the certainty) that good politicians like Merkel/Sarko/Brown have everything under control. Symbolic use of politics.
Nice flowers
#1 by Julien Frisch on November 20th, 2009 - 3:49 pm
This is what I meant with “We won’t be silent!“… You’re thus absolutely right.
#2 by SchelmWahnsinn on November 20th, 2009 - 4:37 pm
I’m new here and thus not familiar with your former entries. Please help me understand your position by telling me what *your* preferred candidates for the two topjobs would have been? I’m having difficulties interpreting your text. Thanks.
Sebastian
#3 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 20th, 2009 - 5:50 pm
Bad post by this unknown columnist.
The president of the European Council is chosen by the members of the European Council, like the president of the European Parliament is chosen by the member of the European Parliament.
The High Representative for CFSP, being a member of the Commission, will be subject by constant scrutiny by the Parliament like the entire Commission.
The Commission is the Executive, not the Master, of the “two Chambers” made up by the Council and the Parliament.
#4 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 20th, 2009 - 5:59 pm
And “Mister van Who” is called “van Rompuy”, dear Mr. Europa-Trasparent. Not an unknown politician: he is the Prime Minister of Belgium. He is leaving that important post just because he gives importance to the post of president of the European Council.
It is a honour for Europe to have such a committed politician, well-suited for the workings of the European Council.
Also Blair could have done well, and I would have preferred him. But the outcome is satisfactory as well.
#5 by Ivan Kalburov on November 20th, 2009 - 9:41 pm
I strongly doubt the choice of the Baroness was the best possible one, given the challenges ahead of ESDP, the capabilities, and the setting up of the FOreign Service. http://bit.ly/5pkqwp
I also agree with the point of the author that the way the decision was taken is humiliation for the EU citizens. The only positive thing in the whole process swash Poland’s proposal for the job interviews. But balance is sought only between men/women and left/right not between transparent/secret choices and new/old member states.
This is a very wrong rationale and shows the EU as not more than the sum of its parts.
#6 by al on November 21st, 2009 - 2:59 am
Yes, it seems that you’ve misunderstood. This has nothing to do with “preferred candidates” and everything to do with the lack of democracy.
The only bad post here is yours. Argumentum ad hominem followed by a textbook description of the various political positions and how they’ll be supposedly accountable to each other but never the people? Next time, read the label, and if you don’t like the concept of Europa-Transparent, then by all means don’t participate.
#7 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 21st, 2009 - 8:49 am
@al
So, if I don’t agree with the post of the author, I should not participate in the debate? This is your “good” argument? And why opening up a thread of free comments, then?
Both the post and your argument are really bad.
#8 by Kazimierz on November 21st, 2009 - 8:11 pm
“democracy” – what does it mean? Literally it means people’s power. But how Europeans are to exercise people’s power?
We need a true European Constitution, on 20 pages, not 250 pages as the one rejected or the Lisbon Treaty. I think we need United States of Europe with “government” limited to running economy (that is its legal infrastructure), security and foreign policy. All the rest left to individual states. This is my idea of Europe.
My
#9 by Renzino l’Europeo on November 21st, 2009 - 10:16 pm
We exercise it by way of 2 Chambers – the Chamber of States, namely the Council, and the Chamber of Deputies, namely the Parliament.
We have an Executive, manely the Commission, a Court of Justice, and a Court of Auditors.
#10 by al on November 23rd, 2009 - 3:57 pm
No, that’s not what I said.
No, you’ve destroyed your argument by attacking the person instead of the premise. The rest of your post is opinion rather than fact, besides
That’s well written. However, such was not the intent of those that founded the European Union; they deliberately designed it so that the people would have absolutely no representation whatsoever. On top of that, people at the EU level use language that mocks democracy, US democracy in particular (e.g. Barroso with his “declaration of interdependence” a while back; since interdependence is a form of dependence, it’s the opposite of independence…also, Sarkozy and others with claiming to seek the EU’s version of “George Washington” but making a mockery of how to find such an individual via their secret process, never mind how they formed the EU in the first place).
No, “we” don’t have that; they have that. The people have zero participation in that, apart from electing MEPs, and the way MEP candidates are selected is far removed from the people as well. The European Parliament is a rubber-stamp institution with no legislative power, and no power over anything except to disband the Commission (which results in another Commission appointed that will do the same thing as the removed version, as with Delors). The Commission and Council should not even exist; no executive should ever hold legislative power.
#11 by Ross on November 23rd, 2009 - 5:18 pm
Nothing about this new ‘Europe’ is legitimate until referenda approve it. The French and Dutch rejected it and were punished by the elite by having their right to vote on the eurodeal removed by domestic collaborators.
Brits were promised then denied a direct say – we have no duty to obey and an inherent right to take up arms against supranational control.
#12 by Brodie on November 24th, 2009 - 10:21 pm
On the issue of selection of the lists for MEPs, that is due to national political parties unwilling to allow European level parties to control such lists. Join a political party and try to convince them to allow pan-European lists. Or, take part in the selection process of MEP lists. The selection process to date has nothing to do with the EP or the EU.
Additionally, national governments have been strongly opposed to allowing pan-European constituencies to allow pan-European lists to run. So the point is a bit moot.
Personally, I would very happy to see pan-European political parties and the like but then maybe it would change of the definition of the EU being a ‘Union of Peoples (plural)’ and a derived and pooled sovereign.
#13 by Jean-Baptiste Perrin on November 26th, 2009 - 10:36 am
I tend to agree with Kazimierz on this one. This is what we should get. However, in the meantime, I am happy to work with what we actually got from the late EU Constitution disaster and push for the solution he proposes. I know, the current Lisbon Treaty does not consist in a perfect system, but it is better than the one we had under the Nice Treaty. Hopefully, in the future, thanks to people like Kazimierz, we might get a true Constitution with full democracy… In the meantime, we will have to do with a Treaty and only a bit more democracy.
#14 by Anna on December 19th, 2009 - 5:32 pm
You wrote, “I know, we have to obey – the Lisbon Treaty. But I would like to open a discussion on the question: Isn’t it time to think about ways of civil disobedience against the EU-bubble”.
Does EU Civil Disobedience come before or after National disobedience? For now, people here in the UK are just waiting to see which political Party is going to pretend to lead what used to be a National Government in a National Parliament.
The people cannot support such as the Treaty of Lisbon because it is, according to many more learned people than myself, contrary to the Common Law Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The people cannot possibly accept any part of it because ‘LISBON’it makes clear that the EU would have competence over national Constitutions and laws. The people certainly cannot allow that because it would be of course, a Treasonous action.
They cannot even contribute financially to it either. The people can of course, as they have always done, work with and fight for the people on the Continent of Europe.
Our Present Government knew that the people did not want ratification of Lisbon-that Government ignored the people. Next years election may sort that out, we shall see. Many liken this as the calm before the storm.