It might not be the best thing to start a post with, but I’ve come to a conclusion: the citizens’ initiative, currently being fleshed out by various civil servants and politicians in Brussels, is not really all that much about citizens. My conclusion has been prompted by the changes that the Council of Ministers has proposed to the draft regulation that will set out how the whole thing will work.

“… and enhances further the democratic functioning of the Union by providing inter alia that every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union and that not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.”

Extract from the proposal for a Regulation on the citizens’ initiative.

A bit of background first: the Lisbon Treaty included a provision for a citizens initiative, essentially being a petition by individual citizens to get whatever the issue at stake might be, considered by the Commission. Lisbon however, left most of the detail for later. Now is later, and the details are here.

With the current Council proposals, a minimum number of citizens (in proportion to the number of MEPs from a state), in at least one third of member states, will need to sign the initiative for it to be accepted. I don’t know about you, but I certainly would struggle as an ordinary European Citizen to pull off something like that. Even with a movement of some form behind the issue being dealt with, it’d take a lot of international coordination (I’d say more than Twitter could achieve) to get the initiative off the ground, let alone successfully submit it to the Commission. There’s also a slightly sinister provision that, “the Commission should reject the registration of proposals which would be manifestly against the values of the Union.” From a legal perspective, that’s not too controversial a statement. It means that initiatives which contradict the positive and sunny opening articles of the treaties—where all the good things the EU wants to do and thinks are important are laid down—would be dismissed without the Commission having to publish the initiative on its website, or give it any serious thought at all. From a non legalese point of view though, the language is unfortunate. Politically, it could be thrown back at the EU, for it reserving the right to dismiss things based on values that it, not the people, decides. And to citizens thinking of organising an initiative, it is as clear as mud in its meaning.

The citizens initiative, as it is being proposed now, needs someone with a fairly well developed knowledge of how the EU works. Most people don’t have that sort of knowledge about their own political systems, but they aren’t barred at the door for that ignorance. In Scotland, ordinary people (am I using that term too much now?) can start or participate in a petitions system which triggers discussion on the topics in a committee of the Scottish Parliament. Knowledge of the intricacies of this system, and a reading of the Scotland Act to determine the details of reserved and devolved powers. or the ‘values’ of Scotland, isn’t needed. An interest in a political issue (and isn’t everything political?) and an understanding of how to get people to sign a petition means that any person in Scotland can “participate in the democratic life of the” country, to borrow a few words from the Council’s suggestions.

The Citizens’ Initiative will be pretty good for some though. Lobbying groups, NGOs, and campaigning networks will love this. It offers a way to get the EU to, at the very least, think about something. This is good to some extent, but it means that it is wrong to go about thinking that having this wonderful Citizens’ Initiative helps to lessen the democratic deficit of the EU. I still support the idea of the initiative, but it is not something that many ordinary citizens will ever have a chance of using to further a cause dear to their hearts.

I don’t like Charles de Gaulle. There, I’ve said it. I’m obviously continuing here my habit of writing blog posts with virtually no relation to current events (perhaps the cause of my low readership). But the reason for my dislike, and my current expression of it, is that in the course of reading for my thesis, I came across a ’70s book on international development, and learnt that after Guinea elected not to join his French Community in 1958, he didn’t simply respect the right of the Guineans to opt for sovereignty. Instead he severed all ties to the new country, and channeled French support and assistance to Guinea’s rivals and enemies in the region. He actively tried to cripple the new country.

I know it was a different age, but all the same, what a horrible and petty man!

Photograph of de Gaulle meeting the governor of Chad. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

I just got home from a couple of election parties; the first was the official GroenLinks party, at which I managed to end up on telly by accident, while the second was a friend’s traditional-style election night party (conveniently, the parties were in different cities). The elections in question are of course for the Tweede Kamer (lower chamber) of the Netherlands. If there is one thing which has marked out the night, and which I think I’m going to remember, it is the boost in the share of the vote for the anti-Islam and far-right PVV. British readers will know its leader, Geert Wilders, for his attempts to show his film, Fitna, in the House of Lords. While I don’t think he’s quite as bad as Nick Griffin, lets just say that he doesn’t have the nicest policies.

I don’t know what the ultimate result from this election will be yet, and I never like to trust polls when the declared results are as tight as they are right now, but I really hope that, somehow, a centre-left coalition, led by PvdA (Labour) can emerge. After the last few sets of national elections in Europe producing centre-right, or just outright right, governments, please let the Netherlands be the exception.

“The story ends there,” … “I don’t want to hear anyone commenting on them. Nobody is authorised to comment on the gays. You will spoil things.”

President of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika

“The president has demonstrated that he is a caring father, a considerate and tolerant president. We wish him good health in his everyday endeavours as he continues leading the country to
respecting human rights and to economic prosperity,”

Statement from Chimbalanga and Monjeza

Homo Malawi verlaat verloofde voor vrouw [Gay Malawian leaves fiancé for woman]

Headline on NOS Nieuws

How nicely the story of the two gay Malawian men who were sentenced to 14 years hard labour has wrapped itself up. After being pardoned by the “caring father” who is the President, and after turning out to be straight after all, the sensitivities of the national culture need not be offended any longer.

I feel very uncomfortable with the way that this issue is being brushed under the rug. Chimbalanga and Monjeza are only two people, but with absolute certainty, there are thousands more in Malawi, and millions across Africa who are just like them, and who have to face their daily existence being frustrated due to a combination of excessively conservative morality, and imported laws from 19th and 20th century European empires.

Lets hope that next time something like this happens, the outcome will show some actual progress for LGBT rights.

I have mixed feelings towards the announcement by the Malawian President that he is pardoning the two men sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment for the most heinous and indecent crime against the society and culture of Malawi, the act of—drumroll please for the sheer audacity of this offence—getting engaged.

Of course, it is a good thing that they’ve been pardoned, but the words of the President afterwards demonstrate the fundamental problem in the promotion of LGBT rights in Africa.

“In all aspects of reasoning, in all aspects of human understanding, these two gay boys were wrong – totally wrong,”

BBC News

“These boys committed a crime against our culture, our religion and our laws, however, as the head of state I hereby pardon them and therefore ask for their immediate release with no conditions,”

Mail & Guardian

Maybe I’m just reading the wrong Malawian newspapers, there is a more reassuring atmosphere presented in South Africa’s Mail and Guardian coverage of the matter, but one thing I can’t help but notice in the reports from the Malawi Daily Times are the many disparaging references to the opinions expressed by aid donors. Would it be too cynical to suggest that the pardon from the President, coinciding as it did with the visit of Ban Ki-Moon, was reluctantly given to safeguard the aid that is said to provide roughly half of the government budget?

I seem to be in a digital rights mood just now, what with my last post, and a Eurovision prompted foray into the EBU and EC’s positions on cross border media (I know, only I could go from the Eurovision Song Contest to the Audio Visual Media Services Directive in only two steps). I’m far from an expert on European broadcasting rules, and regulation of AVMS (to use the wonderful Eurojargon), my specialist area being development policy, but as an avid consumer of media, gulping down content from the UK, the Netherlands, and Belgium, to name but a few, it seems crazy that the directive is limited by not creating a common market for copyright. To get boring for a second, I shall reach for my copy of the Treaty on European Union, which states in paragraph 3 of Article 3,

“The Union shall establish an internal market … It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States. It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced.”

To me, these provisions suggest that a copyright licensing system that reinforces national borders and locks some truly fantastic content (naturally not just TV, but also music &c.) into the member states would be contrary to the principles on which the EU is built. I have a feeling it’ll take a tad more than an EBU workshop with Tom Dice and his guitar to make cross-border copyright work.

I was in a meeting last night, discussing intellectual property, at which one of the participants suggested that copyright is ‘un-green’. “Greens do not do copyright” were the approximate words used. As a green, and a content producer and publisher (no matter that few read the words I write and publish), I could not disagree more. The Thursday Briefing is licensed under a Creative Commons ‘BY-NC-SA’ licence, which is just the way I like it. You see, I like to have control over my content. After all, why should I give up control to something that costs me time, money, and effort to produce? But equally, I want to share what I produce with others, and allow others to take the posts that I produce, or the photos I take, and make interesting things out of them.

Take the photo below of some amusing graffiti in Paris as an example. If copyright law did not exist, and that work were in the public domain, I would have no right to stop a company, for example Underground Carrots PLC* from using it in an advertisement, and no right to receive royalties from its usage. Because of Creative Commons, based on copyright, I can licence it for non-commercial use where it is attributed to me.

Copyright law is good, but it is far from perfect. Without it, this blog, my personal blog, my photos on Flickr, and anything else I’ve published online, would be in the public domain, free for anyone to take and do what they want with. Call me old-fashioned, but that is not an appealing prospect; if it were the case, I’d shut this blog tomorrow.

* Naturally a fictitious company.

The lovely font used in the fake advert is Public Gothic, from http://www.a2591.com/2009/10/type-for-you.html.

I’m not sure why this election didn’t inspire me to blog in the way that I did for the US presidential election. It should have, what with it being for my own country and all, but I just didn’t see any reason to break out the custom election day theme, and live-blog it all. Anyway, I thought I’d better salvage this blog’s reputation as a political blog, and write something about the “con dem nation” (entirely plagiarised from Twitter) that we seem to have pieced together.

First off, isn’t it a bit odd to see at least one member of the European Movement as a Secretary of State in a Tory dominated cabinet? Perhaps I’m just putting too much emphasis on the European side of things. Anyway, my initial reaction to the BBC News footage of Cameron was, “could’ve been worse”, followed by noting that he’d opted for a plain microphone with no lectern (call me cynical, but was this his first theatrical step as PM?).

Policy-wise though, all I can say is that this government will be bad for Britain, and bad for Europe. Like the Irish Green’s coalition with Fianna Fáil, I think the Lib Dems will end up tarnished by their senior partner, hurting their chances in future elections, and thus removing any chance for them to show that, contrary to all evidence, they have some back-bone. The proposals for a referendum on AV are pointless; AV is pointless as an alternative, because it doesn’t do what an alternative electoral system needs to do, which is make Parliament more representative of the citizens. So, well done to the Liberals for capitulating on the one thing I wanted Liberals in government to do.

More in my sphere of concern is the impact of the new government on Britain’s place in Europe, and the effect that a Eurosceptic government in one of the big states will have. The Conservative’s insistance on calling for powers to be repatriated in some areas, and trying to put a brake on other areas will probably not hurt the EU too much. It’s a big thing, and it can comfortably withstand an uncooperative government or two. It will however hurt Britain. Enough Europeans (by which I mean people involved in Euro-politics) already complain about our intransigence, and that ill will towards the UK will probably only increase. It’ll be interesting, though perhaps uncomfortable, to watch how this affects the real world.