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 blame the sheer number of presentations, essays, and exams which have thrust themselves upon me over the past few weeks for the absence of any updates to this blog, but with the final line of a dramatic interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact, I have (briefly) been freed from all that, so I’ll have a go at keeping things a little more updated. What an awful lot has happened since my last post! Lisbon is ratified, a President of the European Council chosen, and a foreign mi…High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy appointed. But my question is, does anyone recognise the man in the photo above?

Obviously, those of us following politics right now know that he is President van Rompuy, but if a more nondescript character who stands for nothing could be thought of, I’d be very impressed. We now have a EU with what will probably amount to a visionless President, more of the same (ie. nothing of any note) from Barosso in the Commission, and a foreign minister who has little foreign policy experience. I know that the consensus way of filling these posts inevitably means that the most bland will rise, but this isn’t what Europe needs! It will ensure that no one outwith the group of politics geeks like myself, and others with EurActiv on our RSS feeds, will really care what is happening in Brussels, and the same old legitimacy arguments can carry on being wheeled out by all the Union’s detractors.

P.S. The title of this post should mean (if my Dutch is up to scratch) “the boring president”.

Ok, it’s time that I posted something. My extended absence from posting here can be explained by my recently moving house, but it isn’t a good excuse any more. Anyway, reading EurActiv over breakfast this morning, I had a look at their LinksDossier on the Swedish presidency of the EU. After the joke that was the Czech presidency (sorry to any Czechs reading this, it isn’t personal), it was refreshing to see the programme that Sweden has lined up for their six months at the helm. While an “effective, open and results-oriented presidency” sounds a bit too much like management speak to me, it’ still something worth pursuing, while the commitment to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty and the ambition to push Europe forward on actions against climate change are both things which I’d tentatively support (tentatively, as I haven’t had time to look through anything in much more detail than the LinksDossier).

Even if they can’t succeed with all of their programme, as the Centre for European Reform mentions, “Internal political stability and a skilled diplomatic corps should help.”, so I doubt another Czech-style presidency will be seen just yet (again, sorry to any Czech readers).

But it is the risk that the presidency could go wrong again so easily, and the inherent instability that comes from a six-month rotating presidency that just makes such a good argument for a static president with a political mandate. All eyes should be on Ireland to see whether that can happen.

I’ve neglected this blog for far too long, and it’s time to restart regular blogging. So my first topic is one which I followed for a while last year: the Energy and Climate Package. Actually, it isn’t specifically about that, rather it’s about what one of the outcomes of that was meant to be.

The Commission wanted to achieve a moral high-ground with the Package. Essentially, it should have poured icy cold water on the argument that the advanced portions of the developing world shouldn’t have to act on climate change in any strenuous way, as they didn’t make the problem, and the developed world has benefited hugely from emissions of greenhouse gases. Aside from the fact that this argument for non-action can be negated by matters of self-interest for the developing world, it was a fairly good idea of the Commission to try to lead the way.

Unfortunately (or some may say, fortunately), the EU doesn’t just do what the Commission wants. MEPs and national ministers have their say too, and the Package was watered down at every stage, until a very weak piece of legislation was spat out the other end. You could say that the institutions break the legislation down like grass in a cow’s stomach. Take that metaphor where you will.

Anyway, it seems that the Commission hasn’t realised that its proposals were digested in that way, as it has apparently just urged developing nations to cut their emissions, regardless of the EU’s rather limited actions, beholden as it is to commercial interests.

Certainly, the approach to tackling climate change must be global in scale, and stronger nations must help weaker nations, but though this may be initially suggested by the Commission’s media release, it does also go on to say that:

“Up to 2020 the bulk of actions in these countries will have low costs—or even benefits—and should be financed domestically.”

To me this does not seem to be a particularly constructive way of helping very poor states to make the necessary adaptations to their economies and infrastructure that will be needed. After the diluting of the Energy & Climate Package, it seems that the EU is in a bit of a muddle over what to do. A generally pro-action Commission (though clearly not a dream Green Commission) seems held back by the more reluctant views of member states and citizens. I think this is something I’m certainly going to come back to pretty soon.

EU

The climate package has been agreed upon by the European Council. Not as good as could have been hoped for, but I suppose it is better than nothing. My previous posts on it can be found here, and when I get a chance, I’ll go into a bit more detail.

UK

The people of Manchester have spoken. They don’t want a world-class transport system. They like sitting in queues of traffic. I’m now rather more glad that I’m moving away from this place next summer.

Greece

Kathimerini is reporting that Eco-greens have protested against the government, calling for the resignation of senior figures in the interior ministry.

Climate & Energy Package

Ok, so things didn’t look good for the climate and energy package before it went before the environment committee of the European Parliament a couple of weeks ago, but it got through just about all right. Well today the European Council managed to make time to discuss it, in between Gordon Brown saving capitalism, and it seems that, while the eastern Europeans didn’t make much of a dent on it in earlier stages, they are doing their best to water it right down now. Euractiv reports that there is co-operation, but it seems likely that the final agreement will be a shadow of what it should have been.

Canada

Brave faces and disappointment for the Greens were the result of the general election in Canada. Despite gaining 6% of the vote, the party didn’t manage to elect an MP. It looks like the same old problems as we have in the UK were partly to blame: non-proportional electoral system, other parties spouting “greenwash”, &c.

UN

The United Nations Environment Programme will be leading an initiative to develop a workable “green new deal. The proposals are separate from the New Economic Foundation’s report on the same topic which was produced by a committee including Caroline Lucas, and while seeming to be watered down slightly, should be welcomed.