Brussels threatens to sue Britain to let in ‘benefit tourists’

The Telegraph

Another day, another anti-EU story in The Telegraph. Normally I resist the urge to dissect articles like this, but this one is particularly annoying. The gist of the story is that the big bad bullies in Brussels want to change British (Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves!) law to encourage everyone in Europe to steal benefits from honest, hard-working, decent and down-to-earth English people. (more…)

As someone who spends his political life in international politics, it would probably be appropriate for me to pen something on how commendable the treaties, concluded the other day, between the French and British governments on military cooperation are. After all, do I not want some form of increased cooperation, with a reduction of the size of national military forces to as small a size as feasible, making more room for civil activities in the goings-on of government (not to mention lessening the all the silly stuff around funny hats and shiny boots)? Well, yes, I want such a sort of thing to happen. Why should we waste money and effort in creating a massively duplicated set of armed forces around Europe, when we can share capacities with our neighbours (with whom we are bound to ever closer union)?

Though treaties on sharing military capacity might seem to be a step in the direction of what I profess to desire, I don’t think this latest set of developments signals such a move. Conversely, I think it is a profoundly anti-European action. Rather than put efforts into greater cooperation with other countries (including of course, France), the British and French governments have chosen to bypass the European sphere, and go for a distinctly Anglo-Franco deal. It is a retreat to the comforts of intergovernmentalism, a petty treaty of old, concluded in such a fashion, and lacking the recognition of the importance of Europe sticking together in the ever more diverse world which we now inhabit.

Photo: Creative Commons, The Prime Minister’s Office, Flickr

Thanks to very little BBC reporting on it, it wasn’t until I noticed the European Council lanyards on the other people in the pub last night that I realised that there had been a summit during the day (somehow, despite working in the centre of Europe, and dealing with EU related things all day, I manage to miss the big stuff), but with the reports today of a confrontation between Sarkozy and Barroso, I’m glad that for once we see some passion in a European summit. It’s just unfortunate that it was over the appalling treatment of European citizens.

I’m a bit surprised that Sarkozy is still pushing on, claiming support from other heads of state and government, despite the fact that he really does seem to be standing alone on this one. I suppose it shows a modicum of decency in the leaders in the EU that there have been public condemnations of the French Government’s actions, and it certainly is nice to see a Commissioner willing to publicly criticise a member state, but I can’t help but feel that it is all a bit too little, and a bit too late. I don’t want Europe to be tiptoeing around, with everyone playing diplomacy. The EU should be part of the rough and tumble of politics, just like any national capital or regional government. Maybe the next time a member state does something reprehensible—though obviously it’d be nice if whatever it was simply didn’t happen—the Commission and Parliament speak out sooner.

I could never quite bring myself to proclaim, “anyone but Barroso”, last year when the post of Commission President was being considered—what with the implications that I’d plump for Wilders or Griffin instead—, but still, I really can’t say that I think he’s any good.

When I think of Barroso, I think of the grey concrete and soulless boulevards of the European quarter of Brussels. He is a civil servant and a bureaucrat; I can’t summon any idea of what he stands for, and, perhaps more importantly, where he wants to take the EU. Maybe this could be seen as a good thing, for the EU to have a settled time to get used to its new system with Lisbon &c., but while the EU is doing the equivalent of breaking in a new pair of shoes, where does it leave public perception and opinion of the Union?

Various blogs and newspaper articles have suggested that the post-war idealism of peace in Europe, brought about by the unity between nations, is meaningless to most people of my generation. Frankly they’re right. I still think it is one very positive contribution of the European project, but it isn’t something that can motivate people to accept what is still an oddity in most people’s conceptions of what a state is, and where laws come from.

Ultimately I wasn’t surprised by Barroso’s first State of the [European] Union. It was as much of a feast of buzzwords as many have predicted, and it didn’t really seem to say anything astonishingly new or push forward a continuing vision of where the European project is going. Perhaps it will prove a worthwhile contribution to the political process of the EU, with a growing acceptance that the citizens, and thus their representatives in Parliament, are prime, with the executive reporting to them, but I have little faith that this isn’t just going to end up like the sort of mechanical and contrived show that so much of EU politics and governance manages to perform. The fact that the compulsory attendance of MEPs was discussed before, with members being infantilized by a requirement to press voting buttons to confirm their presence is perhaps testament enough to the unnatural character of such an occasion.

Image from the European Parliament on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence.

Isn’t Europe supposed to be the continent where we look after people who have fallen on hard times, and provide them with the support that they need to get back on track, and make something out of their lives? Aren’t we supposed to have the European ideals of society and working together, rather than the harsher ‘every man for himself’ attitude that prevails in some other parts of the world? I’m asking because, for the past few weeks, the ugly discrimination and marginalisation of an entire group of people has not just walked into consciousness, but has paraded its way through the media and public debate.

(more…)

What a very long time it has been since I last wrote anything here on the Thursday Briefing. My failure to post has been caused by the need to devote all my time to writing a thesis and attempting to plan and execute an international move in just a fortnight (not a wholly successful endeavour). Thankfully now though, the thesis is done and graded, and as of tomorrow the stressful nightmare that is moving house will be completed, leaving me free to pursue my attempts to become a Eurocrat here in Brussels. I have a feeling that living in Brussels and working in, and around, EU politics will be nothing but good for this blog, especially as I will have enough free time to actually write stuff.

Anyway, with perhaps a little stutter, while I attempt to get everything settled (dealing with Belgian bureaucrats is not fun), the Thursday Briefing is back. I did have a chance to think about the content of the site though, and I plan to change the focus. This started out as an attempt at a hybrid Scottish-European-Green politics blog, but since I haven’t lived in Scotland for more than a year, I think it is time to change the focus to being a much more of a EU/Green blog. Not that I won’t ever write about Scotland or Scottish politics, but it only makes sense to focus on what I know, and that is the EU.

So, what started as a little experiment in CSS3 has now entered its second year of existence. Lets hope it can last to its third birthday.

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’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.