En ningún frente es esta friccion más evidente que en el financiero y más concretamente en el apoyo al Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) o tasa Tobin un resorte imprescindible para dar mayor sentido y traccion a la gobernanza global. No es sólo interés práctico lo que ha llevado a RU y EEUU a frenar su aplicación durante décadas- por su propia idiosincrasia: asistir la gestión de fenómenos genuinamente globales, debiera haber estado aplicado hace años, sino estrátegico en el sentido más largo placista posible. Su emergencia acabaría por consumar en el plano internacional una versión de los mercados fiancieros internacionales menos libérrima que la que hemos sufrido en la última década y proyectaria a la UE, liderada por Alemania, a un protagonismo en la esfera global hasta entonces insospechado. Efectivamente, para el RU ha llegado el momento de cruzar líneas y plantearse posicionamientos políticos más definidos.

Como apuntaba el ministro de economía Schauble, quizá el RU- cuyo mismísimo gobernador del BoE Mr King avisaba contra la solvencia intrínseca del Euro escasos días tras el 9 de diciembre…, en 3 ó 4 años pedirá entrar en la moneda única…

En cuanto a la UE y su política exterior, parece evidente que el liderazgo francés en este tipo de cuestiones queda en entredicho, así como también es evidente la falta de coordinación en el área de asuntos exteriores que coordina Catherine Ashton. A su falta de visibilidad se le une la falta de claridad europea a la hora de tratar el asunto. La resignación a la insignificancia relativa parece ser la consecuencia. Pero como leemos en el artículo, la historia siempre sorprende al conformista…

Un saludo, Profesor.

Thank you very much for your article, it what just what I needed after reading about the new developments in the nomination of the President of the European Council. Unfortunately, nowadays reconverting disappointment into irony seems to be the only European way.

Regarding Tomas F. Serna’s comment about Princess Grace of Monaco, I am afraid she would have also faced some obstacles at the European Council: she would have been accused of atlanticism (or Hollywoodism, even worse), her country does not participate fully in all EU policies, and moreover, European citizens outside the Brussels bubble might have known her and even liked her, which sadly seems to be the determinant factor.

Anyway, long life for the 2 and a half years King of Europe!

Youth + languages + political skills… plus perhaps as well a willingness to take the job plus a desirable lack of enemies or circumstances that could impede his or her ability to be elected.

I’m no expert on the current state of European Royalty… though I’d say there is a very good chance that there could be a number of candidates within its boundaries that would match if not exceed the requisites you lay down.

Had you asked me some 20-25 years ago, my choice would have been Princess Grace of Monaco… That, you bet, would have brought Europeans together.

1. Las habilidades personales del premier. Me refiero a sus intereses politicos (que actualmente se centran en defenderse de la crisis interna del pais y en dar pasos decisivos a nivel interno que ni Gonzalez ni Aznar se habian atrevido a tocar), a su capacidad de influir (psicologicamente) en sus interlocutores internacionales, y sobre todo a su manifiesta inseguridad y su evidente malestar al cruzar nuestras fronteras por el simple hecho de que no habla otro idioma que el castellano. Es evidente que hoy en dia no se puede ser un lider mundial si no se habla como minimo el ingles o el frances, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que Espana es una potencia media, no una gran potencia como muchos quieren creer.

2. La opocicion. Sin un claro consenso y un inquebrantable apoyo por parte de la opisicion, resulta casi imposible liderar iniciativas internacionales. Y es evidente que por primera vez en nuestra democracia, es el caso.

Nada de legislación fiscal, ni laboral.

Ningún interés estaría por encima del suyo.

El mundo entero sería un espacio donde dar rienda suelta a su codicia.

La única legislación que permitirían sería la que protegiera la propiedad privada.

A través de la globalización pretenden poder escapar de las leyes de cada país.

Esta crisis plantea el problema

– de la responsabilidad de los causantes de la crisis.
– de la impunidad que tienen.
– de la capacidad de los gobiernos para proteger a las poblaciones de los movimientos especulativos.

gracias por tu post, es como siempre una invitación a pensar más y mejor, gracias además por los piropos, de parte de wolfgang también. garabateo hoy estas ideas para continuar el debate tan interesante que propones: el problema de fondo puede ser que desde 1992 las instituciones europeas, tribunal de justicia de la CE incluido, no se han tomado del todo en serio la necesidad de que la UE cada vez con más poderes y más Estados tenga límites materiales más claros a lo que hace, una condición necesaria para su legitimidad y democracia (o mejor demoi-cracia). Pero esto no justifica la decisión de 30 de junio del TC alemán, un intento unilateral y un poco de brocha gorda de subordinar el futuro de la integración (solo en parte pactado en Lisboa) a la voluntad del parlamento de un único Estado miembro o de su máximo tribunal. El reto es convencer desde Bruselas con hechos, autolimitaciones, resultados, que la democracia nacional se fortalece en el contexto de su apertura a la integración europea y que no hay, no debería haber, juego suma cero en nuestro mundo cosmopolita y de gobierno compartido en varios niveles.

This being said, the article is poorly grounded and very, very shallow. The examples about the president´s lack of fluency in foreign languages (how many world leaders are?) or the siege of the Foreign Affairs Ministry are simply absurd. And it is inaccurate that the Spanish or the PSOE people are irreversibly Anti-american; that is not what the polls say and in any event, not worse than other EU countries. If only some people within the government/party had more leverage over Moncloa or Ferraz…

In any case, some of the criticisms levelled against this government may be levelled against every EU big country, for the overall lack of leadership in Europe is a tragedy.

Anyway, as i said, disappointingly simplistic for the Director of a good, reputed think-tank -anybody could have written this piece, copying and pasting some newspapers´articles…

And by failing to provide any policy options, the author´s ultimate purpose reveals nothing but a vain attempt at bashing Zapatero and his people.

07:00 am. Suena el despertador. Media vuelta. Hoy es domingo y no hay ni cole ni trabajo. El día está ligeramente nublado. El sábado ha sido muy tranquilo pero aún así me dormí muy tarde viendo la televisión, con lo que lo más sensato es intentar dormir al menos hasta las diez.

07:12 am. Leches, si es 7 de junio y hoy son las elecciones al Parlamento Europeo. Me tengo que presentar a las 08:00 am en mi colegio electoral ya que soy segundo suplente del presidente. Me levanto de un salto y me enfrento al espejo del baño. No tengo mala cara y no me hace falta afeitar. Preparo el desayuno, de domingo, y tranquilamente mientras escucho en la radio que la alta abstención marcará las elecciones de hoy, me tomo un poco de fruta, bollería industrial y un tazón de café.

07:35 am. Plancho la camiseta de los domingos, la de Estopa, y de nuevo al espejo. Me ducho o me visto. El tiempo apremia y bajo la confianza de que antes de media hora estaré de nuevo en pijama, me lavo la cara, los dientes y me visto. El tiempo se echa encima y no es plan de ir corriendo, que es domingo.

07:45 am. La puerta de algún vecino se cierra y se pone en marcha el ascensor. Deduzco que a este vecino le ha tocado madrugar en domingo por el mismo motivo. Me visto, cojo el sobre marrón que me han mandado de la junta electoral y reviso los papeles. Llamo al ascensor.

07:51 am. Salgo a la calle con el sobre marrón bajo el brazo. Veo que no soy el único, hay un par de sobres marrones más en mi calle y veo que algún otro se acerca por la plaza, uno de ellos es Txema. Mi sobre marrón le pregunta al suyo “que, ¿de que te ha tocado” y su sobre marrón le responde al mío “de vocal y ¿a ti?” “yo, bueno, espero estar de nuevo en la cama en media hora. De segundo sustituto del presidente” responde el mío. Ambos salimos a la calle principal y vemos que una marea de sobres marrones avanzan cabizbajos, como zombis, en la misma dirección que nosotros. Todos los humanos, no uniformados, que deambulamos por las calles a esas horas, portamos sobres marrones o carpetas y nos dirigimos a los distintos colegios electorales.

07:57 am. Ya llego a mi colegio, antiguo Pedro Aristegui en Romo Getxo, donde estudié hace cuarenta años, y el espectáculo es dantesco. Suenan las sirenas de las alarmas, la ertzaina (policía vasca) se muestra nerviosa de un lado para otro. Buscan a alguien. Las verjas permanecen aun cerradas y los zombis con sus carpetas marrones bajo el brazo se arremolinan y parecen querer derribarlas. Un ertzaina aparece con el hombre más buscado por la policía y éste, por fin, descerraja la cerradura de la verja que casi derriban los zombis, y como en la apertura de las puertas de unos grandes almacenes el primer día de rebajas, todas las carpetas marrones, casi a empujones, acceden al patio del colegio.

08:05 am. Distrito 003, sección 008 mesa B. La puerta está abierta, las papeletas en su sitio y la urna preparada. Una chica de ayer, de unos treintaymuchos, parapetada por la urna y en pié, revisa toda la documentación. Mi sobre marrón le pregunta “buenos días, ¿eres de la Junta Electoral de Bizkaia (Vizcaya)?” y ella, muy simpática y con cara de dormida me responde “no, soy la presidenta de esta mesa”. Ella no necesita respuestas al ver mi cara de alegría. Todo lo que le digo es “pues creo que con tu permiso me puedo dar media vuelta ya que soy el suplente de tu suplente”. Vacilamos un rato los presentes con la suerte que he tenido. Intento, sin éxito, votar para no tener que regresar después. Me despido de todos y en especial de Txema, que se tiene que quedar, me deshago de mi sobre marrón y me dirijo a mi casa. Ahora lo que veo por la calle es gente normal, y en lugar de sobres marrones bajo el brazo, lo que portan es la prensa o el pan.

08:35 am. Llego a casa y me cambio de ropa. Con el pijama ya puesto decido sentarme frente al ordenador y escribir esta entrada.

Que tengas un buen día y que la resaca post electoral no te afecte. Seguro que esta noche, en las noticias, todos los partidos se sentirán unos afortunados vencedores. Pero… los que salimos ganando somos nosotros, los ciudadanos. Una vez más hemos contado con la libertad de poder votar, y además, en esta ocasión, lo hemos podido hacer todos.

¡¡¡Viva la Democracia!!!

Rafael del Barco Carreras
Entidad benéfico-social. Que siento fascinación por la CAIXA es evidente. La sentí siendo profesional de banca por los 60, y cambió mi perspectiva cuando viví la amoralidad de su caja “B”, cobrar en efectivo un porcentaje de la hipoteca en el acto de la firma ante notario en su central de Vía Layetana. Otra venda que se caía de mis ojos. Las instituciones benéfico-sociales fundadas para luchar contra la usura eran un antro de Corrupción. Lo más normal del Mundo, la “caja B”. Abandonaron esa práctica hace años, no sin antes publicarla algún disgustado empresario, además de haberla vivido y firmado yo mismo.
Remuevo mis tópicos porque las últimas operaciones del gran Estado en que se ha convertido la autista Caixa funcionando en unos parámetros y autarquía que ni los profesionales podemos captar, no es que solo me llamen la atención, es que me extraña no la llame a los millones de catalanes que con la libretita en la mano le han entregado su corazón. La Caixa es más que el Barça, la Moreneta, la Sardana, la Lengua Catalana, y el sumsum corda, con haber sido la antítesis de todo ello y durante más de cincuenta años dirigida por “fascistas de reconocido prestigio”, aunque dedicando oportunas y a tiempo “subvenciones” a todos los “palos”.
2-03-09. Y suelto este prefacio-rollo a tenor de un artículo leído en El Confidencial sobre la compra de un “pequeño paquete de acciones de un banco austriaco”, otro de los ayudados por su Estado, o sea, en estado de ansiedad al igual que toda la banca mundial. Aparco a más ver las últimas operaciones que la sitúan en un puro festín de buitres devorando grandes cadáveres, Colonial, o pariendo un gran pelotazo, Gas-Fenosa, donde por carambola también contabilizará ganancias el Banco Pastor, o deglutiendo el Grupo Z, con sus “hombres” repartiendo “despidos”, jugando en un campo que el común de los mortales ni sabe de su existencia porque va más allá de su oscura central en la Diagonal de Barcelona, antes Avenida del Generalísimo. Los analistas “libres” ni se atreven a comentar, con Criteria en caída libre, y !comprando bancos!, al tiempo que su otro “hombre” Brufau se pasea por Ecuador y Bolivia para perder el menor dinero posible con su Repsol.
Contestación al periodista. Tema sin comentarios. Una pequeña inversión, 628 millones de euros, con vistas a la expansión hacía la Europa del Este (con tanto gas y petróleo como corrupción) donde tiene presencia el ERSTE BANK. Solo el 4´9 de su capital, más de 100.000 millones de pesetas. Tienen obsesión por el Este, donde se embarraron los ejércitos alemanes y napoleónicos, y algún empresario catalán ha salido despavorido, al igual que por Sudamérica. Una inversión que bien iría a los quebrados que se acercan a sus oficinas, pidiendo, y ante los que sus directores, “delegats”, se arañan la cara soltando Crisis, Crisis, Crisis, a cada dos palabras. ¿O solo se trata de un cambio de papelitos en los que al final aparece una partida en el activo que habrá cubierto otra póliza de crédito incobrable? Eso nunca se sabrá, la Caixa actúa como un negocio privado donde la mano derecha del dueño ignora lo que hace la izquierda, o ambas manos se reparten parte del pastel. ¡Y antes el mayor propietario de Cataluña pleiteaba de “pobre”! Ignoro ahora, por suerte no tengo pleitos con ella.
Seguro que tras la Crisis todos los poseedores de libretitas serán más pobres, de hecho ya lo son, puesto que sus propiedades ni de lejos valen lo que ellos creyeron que valían, y menos de menos quienes compraron con sus hipotecas, pero la CAIXA y sus “hombres” tendrán presencia y riqueza por el Este o por México donde hace poco anunciaron la compra de 100 oficinas al magnate Slim, al igual que la tuvieron en los años de gran miseria, los 40 o 50, en varios paraísos fiscales.
Yo cuando vuelva a nacer quiero ser un “hombre” de una institución benéfico social, lo que también reclaman los Sindicatos por sentirse instituciones barcelonesas que por derecho propio debieran estar en su Consejo. ¡Pobre Caixa!, aunque eso lo veo más difícil que el empeño de Narcís Serra por su presidencia, pero ¿Quién sabe?

“We Change Europe” wants to offer the opportunity of getting involved into the process of political decisions made in the EU. Therefore they created an E-Voting tool and the possibility to promote political aims in form of paneuropean initiatives.

Topics, Europeans can vote for:
The Europeans are enlarging their Union.
The Europeans elect their President.

02-02-09 REUNIÓN DE ZAPATERO CON LOS BANQUEROS

Rafael del Barco Carreras

Los cuatro pilares financieros de ESPAÑA, BSCH, BBVA, CAIXA Y CAJA MADRID, declaran unos tan sustanciosos beneficios que los telespectadores, ¡todos!, ricos, la gran alta y baja clase media, y pobres, afectados en sus bolsillos por una CRISIS DE CABALLO, jamás vista y sufrida, y metido su cerebro en un baile de cifras y vecinos en paro y quiebras, se encogen de hombros. Nadie entiende nada. ¿Puede estar el País en quiebra y quienes manejan el 80% de todo su dinero flotar en beneficios? En teoría podría ser, los quebrados son los endeudados o hipotecados (lo comprado vale menos que lo debido, como si se hubieran comido parte del piso a mordiscos), pero el prestamista, el explotador, haber engordado hasta el insulto. Podría, pero es mentira. Otra falacia. Si el País está sumido en la debacle, al igual los ACTIVOS de sus instituciones financieras. Simplemente, si el activo está formado por créditos e inversiones a quebrados que no pagarán, ese activo no vale nada.

En el INSTITUTO BANCARIO del Consejo Superior Bancario, edificio Banco de España, Plaza de Cataluña, Barcelona, cursos 1958-1961, nos enseñaban que los activos se contabilizan en el Balance Anual de Situación por su “precio real de mercado”, y los beneficios, “una vez consolidados”. Es decir, se presta un euro, y hasta que ese euro no ha sido devuelto, ni intereses ni comisiones pueden contabilizarse como beneficio. Ninguno de los dos preceptos se cumple. Hoy se generan extrañas operaciones entre “empresas dependientes” por la enormidad de sus créditos, participadas, e incluso regidas por comunes ejecutivos, y se contabilizan como beneficios diferencias del prefabricado precio, por ejemplo “operación RIOFISA” (ver Internet), o la simple comisión de una VISA, un gran negocio para ellos y pésimo para sus usuarios.

Recuerdo otro precepto, en los balances los préstamos hipotecarios aparecían como CRÉDITOS CON GARANTÍA REAL, y hoy, si contabilizaran el PRECIO REAL de lo que garantiza las hipotecas, o sea, inmuebles (la mitad del activo), y “provisionaran” diferencias, LAS PERDIDAS SERÍAN MONSTRUOSAS. HIPOTECAS NINJA Y BASURA. Y sin mencionar los créditos con garantía de acciones cotizadas, pignoraciones, pues en el 2008 la Bolsa perdió un promedio del 50% en el mejor de los casos, y muchas inmobiliarias casi un 100%. La suma de los créditos que las grandes inmobiliarias han impagado, o renovado, más o menos lo mismo, supera en mucho los “beneficios” declarados. No entraré, para otra ocasión, en las curiosas cifras publicadas, que en lugar de renovarse deberían estar en CONTENCIOSOS, pero no en los juzgados de lo Mercantil, sino en los de Penal. Y ni elucubrar con los desastres en inversiones y colocaciones por América del Norte y del Sur.

La única reflexión que me cabe es que la Tele y Prensa deben tanto dinero, y contratan tanta publicidad de esos cuatro grandes… que se prestan al engaño, a la publicidad, al publirreportaje, cuando deberían, como mínimo, mostrarse escépticos… comentar… pues no están hablando de unas empresas cualquiera maquillando sus balances, se trata de TODO el dinero del País, y avalados por el ESTADO…

Si ¡ya sé…ya sé!… es cuestión de imagen…deben declarar beneficios para que se fíen sus impositores e inversores… Banesto, en tiempos el primer banco del País, arrastró durante décadas la quiebra, y ¡repartiendo dividendos!, ¡cosas de la Política y del Banco de España que inspeccionaba e inyectaba dinero!… y si los bancos y cajas mienten… Zapatero, a su demagogia…él les ha ayudado, “he respaldado… no es el momento de grandes beneficios… y ellos deben prestar a las familias y empresas…”. Parte de su discurso televisivo del día 31 de enero del 2009. Y lunes 2-02-2009, el propio Zapatero se reúne de nuevo con los banqueros y cajeros. Siguen sin dinero, necesitan más. Y es de suponer que ese Club o Peña, logia, cartel, oligopolio o monopolio, cueva de Alí-Babá, por encima de la tontería de “izquierdas y derechas” redondeará el guión del discurso al Pueblo. A repartir sopas con honda.

Corolario, unos y otros, políticos y banqueros, o político-cajeros, utilizan la riada del nuevo papel euro, recién salido de las impresoras, para comprar activos de oscuras empresas deudoras de bancos y cajas, arreglar o liquidar sus negocios, mantener sus escasas cotizaciones en bolsa, y con el tiempo que la inflación revalorice activos, como siempre ha sucedido. ¡Veremos!

¡FELIZ 2009!

Rafael del Barco Carreras

Un año mojón o hito en el antes y después de la Historia Financiera de España, y quizá Política. El crack de la Burbuja pone fin al espejismo del Desarrollo. De País emergente, y exigiendo ser la 8ª potencia industrial del Mundo, al incierto futuro. Causa, el desmadre, la corrupción, la ambiciosa estafa, el saqueo. Y se inicia el año, por las elecciones, negándose la crisis y con infinitas promesas, para acabar en profunda crisis y sumido el País en profundo desconcierto. Insisto y repito. Comparar 2008 con 1929, culpar a americanos, o al igual que en otras pequeñas crisis anteriores a los “tigres asiáticos”, al especulador Soros, o a las “nuevas tecnologías” del 2000, no es más que otra de tantas campañas de creación de “opinión pública” o simple cretinismo. Los culpables o culpable, el Cartel Financiero, los CINCO, BSCH, BBVA, CAIXA, CAJA MADRD, y el BANCO DE ESPAÑA o Gobierno, pues el resto de bancos y cajas juegan a favor de corriente con un escaso porcentaje de todo el dinero español.

2008, rompe los moldes clásicos de las modestas burbujas o pirámides, caso Torras KIO o Telefónica. Los cinco actores, como un solo ente actuando en una sola dirección y manipulando a todo un sector, la Construcción, crean la burbuja inmobiliaria, donde sin atenerse a ninguna ley de mercado financian terrenos y construcción hasta la locura de un millón de viviendas invendibles, y las dos o tres millones vendidas en el proceso, 2002 al 2007, se catalogan en más o menos como hipotecas basura, comprador de muy dudoso cobro o hipoteca por encima del coste real. La vivienda más cara de la zona euro. Mecánica operativa, se recalifica un terreno al que se le atribuirá un exagerado valor y que vía crédito enriquecerá a políticos, inmobiliarias, especuladores y “hombres de paja”, crédito al constructor financiando las abultadas certificaciones de obras, y más, vía hipotecas basura. Y el monopolio o dirección única es evidente cuando a menos compradores, más precio, y cuanto más endeudamiento de las inmobiliarias más suben sus acciones en Bolsa. Burbuja inmobiliaria y pirámide financiera, las dos a la par. La perversión institucional. Pero al tiempo que las instituciones agotan su caja o liquidez, los actores individuales alcanzan fortunas jamás imaginadas y sus “liquideces” rebosan saldos en dinero blanco y negro. El País que almacena más billetes de 500€ de toda la Unión. Y a la par que agotaban el ahorro nacional crean más dinero empaquetando créditos e hipotecas en las llamadas “titulaciones” colocándolas en el mercado internacional. A más basura más crédito.

Repitiendo las cifras de vértigo, 4.000.000 de viviendas construidas en unos cinco años, a un promedio de 30.000.000 de las antiguas pesetas (10 de coste real de la vivienda y 20 de pura basura y estafa) suman 120 billones invertidos ¡todos! por las instituciones financieras (unos 800.000 millones de euros) de muy dudosa o imposible recuperación. Y ni alquilando encontrarán una mínima rentabilidad porque no existen inquilinos que aseguren una renta a tan elevados capitales en teoría invertidos. Sin cuantificar la inversión y gasto público convertidos en elevados créditos en el Sistema Financiero. El “activo circulante”, ni circula ni circulará, y la cifra de lo “atrapado” suma más o menos las ¾ de todo el “pasivo” nacional (cuentas corrientes, de ahorro, y diferentes fórmulas o productos financieros) y una deuda externa no cuantificada pero que bien podría igualar los 800.000 millones de euros, y que al parecer, y con el aval del ESTADO, intentarán refinanciar hasta la eternidad.

Inflación, paro y quiebras, más cinco millones de inestables inmigrantes, empujados por la miseria y atraídos por un espejismo, pérdida de valor de las rentas y pensiones más bajas afectando a no menos de diez millones de ciudadanos, aumento de la miseria y marginalidad, al igual la lacra de la droga y la prostitución, un mercado, que éste sí, junto al de la “mano de obra”, ante la sobrante oferta, estabiliza a la baja sus precios… Y por suerte, y única solución, inyectándose por el BCE cientos de miles de millones de euros nuevos para que los actores del fiasco, LOS CINCO, BANCA CAJAS Y GOBIERNO no quiebren, provocando un “corralito”, el cierre de ventanillas… y sus autores, conscientes o inconscientes intermediarios, políticos, funcionarios y agentes, gerentes o tratantes, consoliden sus particulares multimillonarias ganancias, y así, una de las mecánicas al uso, liquidar sus negocios despidiendo plantillas con pactados despidos… el “gasto social” del que discursea el Presidente…y la adquisición o financiación a través de FAAF o ICO de los “activos basura” para salvar a las entidades financieras…quebrando al ESTADO…

Best regards

The EU Russia Centre is conducting a survey to establish what opinion formers in the EU think about the new President and the measures he should undertake to initiate reform in Russia. The arrival of a new leader in the Kremlin is an opportunity for EU opinion formers who are knowledgeable about affairs in Russia to remind him of these issues, and highlight particular activities that might be undertaken by President Medvedev to reverse the current situation.

I read the IHT article too, the NY Times republished it as well on Monday.

For anyone interested, here are the links:

Once greeted warmly, Google wears out welcome | International Herald Tribune

Privacy Laws Trip Up Google’s Expansion in Parts of Europe | NYTimes.com

We have tangentially touched a couple of times here at BlogEuropa.eu, as well as elsewhere, the issues you raise in your post.

The question over the common european privacy standard would be the first one that common sense would bring to mind. After all, isn’t this a matter that should have been harmonised?

The European Commission at its Freedom, Security and Justice website, under the ‘Data Protection Section’, states the following:

“Developments of a frontier free Internal Market and of the so called ‘information society’ increase the cross-frontier flows of personal data between Member States of the EU. In order to remove potential obstacles to such flows and to ensure a high level of protection within the EU, data protection legislation has been harmonised.“(…) [Emphasis added]

As you and the author of the article both point out, once you start dealing with the matter in real world environments, things tend to get a bit hairier than initially expected.

Google has been advocating for a couple of years now for a common international privacy standard. They argue that it is extremely hard to comply with each and every jurisdiction’s privacy legal requirements when operating an internet venture on a global scale.

One of their latest initiatives in this arena is the so-called: “Global Network Initiative“.
Its website proclaims: “All over the world – from the Americas to Europe to the Middle East to Africa and Asia – companies in the Information & Communications Technology (ICT) sector face increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies in ways that may conflict with the internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

In response, a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics spent two years negotiating and creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector, and have formed an Initiative to take this work forward.”

At present count you’ll be able to find 24 participants, Google being one of them.

While Google’s side on the argument is undoubtedly a legitimate one, we also need to give consideration to questions like: When dealing with different sensibilities like the ones mentioned in the article, i.e. northern vs. southern europe approach to pictures taken to personal property, which sensibilities should prevail? Why should one practical view, perhaps an “easier to comply with” approach, should be imposed over each and every other one? Which would be then, the right approach?

There isn’t, quite obviously, a right or wrong approach. States within the U.S. have different approaches towards privacy, and this also translates in different requirements in their local jurisdictions. And not only over privacy, take gambling for instance. But I digress.

To your second and last question, I’m afraid I can’t offer a straight yes or no answer.

In Spain, most of the problems that ‘Street view’ initially poised were fixed by the blurring of people’s faces and license plates on cars. This is not to say that it probably didn’t took longer for Google to release the product here than elsewhere where privacy laws might be laxer, but it surely didn’t make it impossible for them.

Google operates some truly excellent services and when it comes to innovation, they are always on top of the list. But if we are talking about incentives, privacy laws are not going to disincentive them. As we have seen, they have both the brains and muscle to succeed in their dealing with them.

Bests, TFS

http://participacion.abc.es/27europas/post/2008/10/14/el-fracaso-europa-la-defensa-la-democracia-de-pekin-a

Every decission made by the council or comission , is opposed by the EP ( not without reason) and now, there’s a lack of governance because of the (lack of?) Lisbon Treaty…

Even the European Parliament seems to have grasped these Caudillo-type initiatives as a last straw, totally fogetting that the EP is supposed to lay the foundations for a democratic EU.

But we have to ask, where has the European Commission been, and has it totally reversed into becoming a secretariat and a part of the commentariat?

IMPRIMIR TODOS LOS EUROS NECESARIOS.

Rafael del Barco Carreras

20-10-08. El Congreso de los Diputados, sin oposición, planes, y con el control del Banco de España (inspector de los desmandados bancos y cajas, y perfecto conocedor de su mecánica por la Central de Riesgos), ratifica los dos decretos anticrisis del Consejo de Ministros. La gran salvación de todas las crisis se le negaba a Zapatero, y la solución se dio por si sola ante dos solapadas realidades; la crisis de los dueños mayoritarios de la máquina de imprimir billetes, y deberles tanto dinero que si no se emitían inundando el Sistema Financiero Español no cobraban. Así de sencillo. Francia y Alemania, además del problema provocado desde América arrastrando en dominó a toda la banca mundial, debían tragarse el sapo español. Solucionar el problema principal conllevaba la solución del secundario. Ya no valían créditos más caros al Estado Español avalando cualquier operación de sus bancos y cajas, debían incluir España en el reparto de directamente billetes. Si en EEUU detenían el descalabro con 700.000 millones de dólares, en Europa lo cifran en 2 billones de euros. Tres veces más. En pura demagogia se podría afirmar que los americanos se cobraban el Plan Marshall bombardeando la banca europea con papelitos falsos.

Los europeos, por ambición, metieron sus euros y créditos en la burbuja financiero-inmobiliaria española, atraídos por el espejismo de las vacaciones y las bellas casitas vendidas a sus jubilados. Hitler quería España para granero, huerta y vacaciones, y sin tiros la conquistaron, ignorantes de la habilidad que para el tocomocho tenemos los mediterráneos. De que las casitas eran más caras que las de la Costa Azul, peor calidad, un nido de estafas, y sus vacaciones una orgía de alcohol, drogas y prostitutas ya hacía tiempo que tomaron conciencia. También se apercibieron de la “basura” en las hipotecas garantía de los créditos a las instituciones bancarias españolas, por lo que el BCE rechazó esa garantía. Las “subprime” españolas descubiertas ya antes del crak americano. Las “ninja” americanas una broma con las de la costa española. Aquí se vendían pisos desde a insolventes a inexistentes, y se fabricaban operaciones crediticias de pura estafa para recolocarse a las instituciones financieras europeas. Una verdadera e inmensa Estafa Piramidal fabricada por cajas y bancos, que además de absorber gran parte del dinero de sus ahorradores se sobrepasaron en un 20%, endeudándose con el exterior.

En mis tiempos de bancario a endosar a los bancos efectos sin valor se le llamaba “colocar pelotas”, “letras de colusión”, sin operación comercial que las respaldara. Se giraban a 90 días y en el mejor de los casos se pagaban renovándose hasta el infinito, de lo contrario, estafa y “quiebra”. Los activos de los bancos a reventar de “pelotas”, causa de la debacle bancaria tras la muerte de Franco, solucionada con más billetaje, fusiones e inflación.

Es probable que la total cifra española alcance en los próximos tres años más del 30% de euros a emitir, con representar un 14% de la población de la Eurozona y un optimista 11% de su PIB, sumados construcción y turismo, sin incluir drogas y prostitución, girando actualmente en negro este sector más que el primer y segundo de los industriales, construcción y automóviles, y generando en valor añadido y liquidez mucho más que cualquier otra actividad económica. Los técnicos aseguran que España necesitará los próximos tres años unos 150.000 millones de euros anuales, solo para pagar su deuda externa. Cantidad que de inicio se propone para el “arranque”, para que el Sistema Español no se hunda, y las ventanillas sigan suministrando dinero. Pero si el español de a pie (con algo de posibles) duda de su Sistema Financiero acumulando euros o comprando oro, y los más pudientes, o los restos del quebrado sector de los financieros-inmobiliarios, que han acumulado dinero negro a patadas (del que se benefician los bufetes especializados), piensan en paraísos fiscales, se necesitarán cifras de puro vértigo. Un sistema crediticio en expansión, la burbuja financiera, crea con los billetes circulando, diez veces su valor en saldos pasivos y activos, dinero que los bancos deben por sus cuentas corrientes u otras fórmulas de captación y que le deben sus acreedores o invertido en negocios. Es decir, siendo moderados, con 10 unidades-billetes circulando se crean cien, disponibles en cuentas, por lo que un pánico obliga a emitir el resto, los 90. La creación de Dinero Bancario. Total, el Corralito Argentino, y además la quiebra del Sistema porque los “activos”, en teoría garantizando los créditos a precio expansivo, apenas tienen valor en recesión. El proceso alcanza el paroxismo en plena Globalización, con deudas internacionales multiplicando esa sencilla relación en un supuesto mercado cerrado más o menos autárquico. Solo España, necesitaría en plena estampida, casi los 2 BILLONES DE EUROS que se calculan para TODA LA EUROZONA. La solución, imprimir billetes, no funcionaría ni instalando una impresora en cada red de ventanillas y cajeros.

Un pequeño detalle, la Presidenta del TSJC, advierte que la avalancha de asuntos mercantiles y administrativos (de los que surgirán penales) amenaza con colapsar los juzgados de Barcelona. Yo le contestaría, que no se preocupe, que de siempre los juzgados han estado colapsados a beneplácito y ganancia de los grandes bufetes que a voluntad juegan con ese colapso acortando y alargando los sumarios. Los grandes casos de la época del “pelotazo” (un entrenamiento de lo actual) de los 80 aun colean, ver http://www.lagrancorrupcion.com. Una pieza indispensable en toda corrupta crisis, la corrupción judicial, parte de su desarrollo e indispensable soporte ulterior para los poderosos. Su presidente de la Audiencia, José Luis Barrera Cogollos tiene amplia experiencia, iniciada en el Caso Consorcio de 1980-3. Presidenta y Presidente saben y palpan ya lo que se le viene encima a Barcelona, en definitiva un gran negocio para el sector de la abogacía. La ciudad con más licenciados en Derecho o abogados por m2 y habitante de Europa, unos 20.000. En solo una semana me comunican de viejos amigos, ex amigos y ex socios, varias “suspensiones de pagos”, quiebras, ahora “concurso de acreedores”, por cifras modestas, de 3 a 60 millones de euros. Una suerte que la “corrupción” acabara conmigo librándome en la actualidad de esos problemas, y si me caen varias denuncias falsas, como después de escribir mi primer libro en 1994, la ineficacia judicial espero vaya a mi favor y no eleven esas denuncias del final de los grandes montones al principio.

Resumiendo, si la única solución a la Crisis, negada por Zapatero y sus comparsas, era emitir billetes e inyectarlos sin freno a un corrupto sector financiero, una vez solucionado el escollo de no tener a su disposición la máquina, se avecina, además del descalabro empresarial de la construcción, una más que galopante inflación y presión impositiva a través de la generalizada subida de precios que quien viva de un sueldo o de una triste pensión dispondrá a cada año que pase de menos de lo indispensable… y esos representan el 80% de la población. LOS VOTANTES.

1. Deposit insurance
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1508&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

2- Liquidity ECB
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2008/html/pr081015.en.html

http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2008/html/pr081013.en.html

http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2008/html/pr081008.en.html
Regarding national TARPS : A number of national initialives led by the UK have been announced

3- National TARPS have been oriented to a large extent to recapitalize banks and to lower extent to buy assets. Although, mark to market rules in Europe have been definetly watered down….

It is your recomendation 4, the one that is most at risk …

Proposals 5 and 6 are not compatible with the economic recesion scenario that we are facing or any sound central bank policy would not be compatible with fostering inflation

Rafael del Barco Carreras

12-10-08. Reunión en París de los 15 países de la Eurozona. La debacle de la banca y las bolsas obliga a ilimitadas medidas. Medidas de estado de guerra. El Banco Central Europeo emitirá y prestará los euros necesarios para apuntalar el Sistema Financiero. Y esta vez en la reunión se hallaba Zapatero. España tendrá todos los euros que necesite. Ni se citan medidas antiinflacionistas. El recurso sin freno a la máquina de imprimir, y ni congresos ni senados ni oposiciones.
No había más remedio, aunque el mal remedio se dulcifique con lo de que se otorgarán créditos a las familias y pequeñas empresas en apuros, y hasta se ayudará a los paises en la miseria. De la ruina al reparto para todos.
Los estados avalarán las emisiones de deuda de los bancos, es decir, el Estado avala a los grandes bancos para que acudan al BCE o a quien quiera otorgarles crédito, y adamás suscribirán sus acciones, lo que les permite inyectar capital y controlar. Más o menos ya era así.
Algo parecido y en pequeño sucedió en la Transición Española. Inflación a tope, y la creación del BBVA y BSCH, amontonando descalabros. Pero esta vez la cosa tiene otro perfíl. Si nos atenemos a las declaraciones de Solbes, en España el Sistema Financiero goza de buena salud. Eso no se entiende tras la inyección de 50.000 millones de euros y los que vendrán, pero no seré yo quien discuta a tan sabios dirigentes, y menos con su Tele, repitiéndolo cual si de vender coca-colas se tratara. Una acción loable para detener el pánico, y del todo corrupta si ayuda a no variar una coma el modus operandi. En definitiva los Medios son parte del pozo sin fondo que espera más euros para subsistir. Euros vía créditos, subvenciones o publicidad oficial y paraofocial.
Después de esta reunión, todo solucionado, y España de nuevo a la cabeza de Europa. Si su Sistema Financiero está bien, y antes de la crisis mundial era el mejor de los paises de Occidente, solucionado el problema de no poder emitir su propia moneda, la antigua peseta, porque los europeos han entrado en razón y pondrán en circulación todos los euros necesarios… aquí paz y allá gloria…
Repitiendo, si el BBVA y BSCH, van bien, y los demás “pecata minuta”, y les suministrarán avalados por el Estado todo el billetaje necesario, queda el Cartel de las Cajas de Ahorro, o sea, el gran meollo de la gran corrupción financiera e inmobiliaria. La Gran Burbuja, el millón de pisos a precios inasequibles, ni con créditos y ayudas. Las hipotecas basura. La deuda exterior. Los miles de millones de euros a las inmobiliarias e inmobiliarios, créditos fallidos, que con las cajas y caixas formaban el selecto grupo de multimillonarios transnacionales, y la incalculable pérdida en Bolsa alimentando la gran burbuja financiera sin base real. No parece tan real lo de que España tiene un sistema financiero sólido, más bien en quiebra diría yo, y cuando se entraga más dinero a un quebrado solo aumenta la cifra total de su quiebra. Y aquí, en las cajas, con el 60 % del meollo, el Estado no puede comprar acciones, porque no las tienen, son entes beatifico benéficos, y el control seguirá como antes, el del Banco de España…los políticos… los mismos creadores del desastre…
Los corruptos y políticos deben celebrar con champán, al igual que los ejecutivos del Banco Fortis comprado por los estados Bélgica, Holanda y Luxemburgo, la decisión de los 15. Las ventanillas y los cajeros automáticos funcionarán como si nada hubiera sucedido… y la inflación subiendo…y las pensiones y sueldos… bajando…
¿Tan sencillo?… pues no lo sé… nunca creí que aquella España heredera de Franco aguantara la quiebra de toda su banca… salvando a las grandes fortunas del Régimen, con tres o cuatro millones de parados…etc…etc… pero tampoco las cifras se parecían a las actuales…

Atte.
Jaime Ruiz Lobera
PD. También te invito a revisar mi blog.

Chao

Large countries in Europe will have to follow the same path.
We are retrenching to a national Bank model after waiting in vain for one year for private Banks to solve their capitalization problems.

We need to see consumer reactions to this new environment to make a judgement as to how deep this crisis has affected global economies. My view today is that the effect is not severe.

in view of the recent developments in the last 3 days, are these 5 steps still valid? it seems to be the financial sector is way too big to respond to governments measures. what do you think?
best, Jose

LA MÁQUINA DE IMPRIMIR BILLETES.

Rafael del Barco Carreras

25-09-08. Bush remite al Congreso su Plan Anticrisis. Al rojo vivo las impresoras. La llamada en España “Fábrica de la Moneda y Timbre”. El invento base del desarrollo de los últimos dos siglos, en principio sujeto al oro, acabó siendo jauja para toda clase de gobernantes. Las armas y la maquinita, la conquista de cualquier soñador de Poder. Y si controlar las Armas, los ejércitos, es uno de los grandes avances de las democracias, lo de la maquinita resulta más oscuro. En realidad uno de los síntomas de más o menos Democracia reside en la descontrolada y desaforada arbitrariedad con que los gobiernos utilizan tan fácil sistema de crear papel-dinero. Un espejismo, comprobado por la infinidad de monedas que han perdido su valor. Por el mercado del libro usado de San Antonio, o sellos de la Plaza Real, recuerdo los billetes alemanes estampillados multiplicando su valor facial, y en el presente, amontonados en cajas de zapatos, de casi todos los países de África, Asia, América y Europa del Este, es decir, de todo el Mundo.

En España, hasta el Euro, la maquinita regaba los Presupuestos Generales, los créditos extraordinarios y el Sistema Financiero. Nunca faltaba dinero para cualquier pasteleo político. Ni planes ni discursos para emisiones extraordinarias por crisis, que en tiempos del desarrollismo franquista se daba cada año, cubierta en teoría en verano por la cosecha, los turistas, y la inflación y depreciaciones. Cada “euforia y freno” disparaba el precio del dinero hasta alcanzar el interbancario el 50% a medianos de los 70. Desde el Consejo de Ministros, presidido por el Dictador y después por el Presidente de turno, se libraban créditos extraordinarios (o variadas y complejas definiciones de soltar billetes) que el Banco de España, abastecido por el Tesoro (la maquinita), cubriría. Tantos créditos que a menudo en los próximos Presupuestos Generales del Estado ya no cabía un duro más, de hecho todo posible ingreso estatal ya había sido gastado. Magnificaban las entradas, aumentaban los impuestos, convertían en bueno o malo los déficit o superavit, y hasta el próximo año.

Y si antes del euro el mercado se abastecía de todo el billetaje necesario para usos y abusos, inversiones y desfalcos (inflación al borde del Corralito Argentino), ahora que Zapatero no puede actuar como Bush, que acude al Congreso (mayoría demócrata) para emitir y controlar (y el día 26 el Presidente por disidencias políticas paraliza el Plan Anticrisis), se sigue a golpe de dictak, hasta que reviente el Banco de España o todo el Sistema Financiero Español.

El euro, que pretendía ordenar la arbitrariedad dictatorial del abuso de la maquinita (los europeos no tenían ni idea de la tortuosa y corrupta capacidad de la clase dirigente española para asirse a la ubre del dinero), obligó a tan rocambolescas operaciones financieras a través de bancos y cajas, capaces de endosar sus inventos al Sistema Financiero Europeo o BCE, que disparadas las alarmas por las hipotecas basura, resulta que el Sistema Financiero Español rebosa porquería por todos sus poros, sin ningún FBI que visites cajas y bancos interesándose por los tan peculiares créditos a las inmobiliarias con las que forman bloques monolíticos. La en teoría Inspección del Banco de España conocía perfectamente el enredo por la Central de Riesgos y la inspecciones, o sea, formaba parte del sainete.

Hay quien aconseja o clama por la vuelta a la peseta, y sin dilación recuperar el total mando de la maquinita, y otros aseguran que la Europa del Euro para regularizar el inmenso agujero español deberá excluirla de la Moneda Única. Existen fórmulas intermedias que ya se están aplicando, como encarecer el dinero que el BCE se ve obligado a prestar a las instituciones crediticias españolas, o comisiones especiales al “euro español”, pero abaratar o encarecer el dinero a la burbuja piramidal no ha librado nunca al acreedor atrapado. Entregar una tarjeta sin límite a un desaprensivo socio es sinónimo de rotura societaria.

Assuming that by “non-law companies” you are referring to the dubious kind of firms/people sending the threatening faxes I mentioned above, in my experience these people are targeting anyone willing to pay them for what in most occasions is a half-baked do-it-yourself data protection kit…

I’d say their main target are small companies and professionals who have heard about the compliance requirements, the huge fines, etc… and who aren’t really looking for quality services… and who as you say, most probably lack any knowledge on the subject matter.

This is not to say that everyone in the data protection field should be a Lawyer, but it seems to me that more and more the field is attracting lots of people who –from what I’ve seen– don’t really know what they are doing.

I hope this answers the question.
Bests, TFS

Separately, I would be interested to know if some of the companies targeted by the non-law service providers are non-European entities, which may have a reduced understanding of the compliance requirements found in European states. It seems that companies with less familiarity are likely the ones who would benefit most from legal counsel on this topic, but may be the ones least likely to receive such counsel early on in the process.

Quizás un ejemplo de esas ideas para los conservadores españoles es el foro de la Fundación Burke, para contrastar sus ideas, entre otros, con los liberales/libertarios, los debates serán apasionantes¡ http://www.fundacionburke.org/

In addition, it is grotesque if, let us say 25 member states have to resort to extraodinary measures to satisfy a few exceptional cases.

It will be most interesting to see how legally viable opt-outs against myths and distoritions and general disenchantment are drafted in a legal form, which is convincing for a less than enthusiastic population.

I feel that it is rather inappropriate to ignore the voices of the 26 countries which decided to form a Union based on the Lisbon treaty only because Ireland voted ‘No’.

Rejecting the treaty is obviously their right. However the EU should try to move forward and implement the treaty, anyway. This also means that Ireland would have to leave the Union. However I think a new status for Ireland can be found, as a part of a free trade zone with Europe, which would allow the country to keep its full sovereignty over things like its foreign and defense policy, but wouldn’t stop the rest of the EU.

Thank you for your enlightening comment.
I agree with your analysis. The introduction of criminal penalties should not affect the extremely successful leniency programs. However, I do not think that the introduction of significant punitive damages would be an incentive for a potential leniency applicant if he could face criminal charges for the infringement of the rules on competition. Personally, I believe that the introduction of criminal penalties should be coordinated with the leniency program and successful leniency applicants should not be prosecuted for their violation of competition law. This is also the approach taken in the UK where individuals providing information about cartels are issued a so called “no-action letter” which prevents from being prosecuted in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (but not in Scotland).

A different solution could be the prohibition to use the statements and documents obtained through leniency applications for the purpose of pursuing criminal offences. This would be more than obvious for most of the European countries as it is aimed at protecting against self-incrimination.

I also agree with you that the likeliness that criminal sanctions will be introduced at EU level is extremely low, at least in the medium term. Nonetheless, in the future I can imagine the necessity for an action at supra-national level in at least two cases if a number of EU Member States were to introduce criminal sanctions:
1. Even if the UK’s “no-action letter” approach was adopted by all the Member State, a one-stop shop would be necessary to get an EU–wide immunity “marker”. It would be a huge disincentive for leniency applicants if there was no possibility to file an immunity application for all the Member States at the same time. Imagine an immunity applicant who is granted a “no-action letter” in three countries but is than prosecuted in the fourth country affected by the cartel.
2. If some Member States did not coordinate criminal prosecution with their leniency program it would have a negative impact on the leniency programs of other Member States and on the European leniency program. In such a situation a coordinated approach at EU level would be indispensable.

But I’m not sure if even that would be enough when we are talking about the risk of imprisonment – maybe some kind of US style plea bargaining to reduce the prison sentence for the successful leniency applicants would also be necessary. In the United States, the government and the defendants’ counsel often negotiate the nature of the plea and the terms of the penalties for companies or individuals. Moreover, under the US Corporate Leniency Policy and Leniency Policy for Individuals, the successful leniency applicants are not charged criminally for their participation in the antitrust violations.

However, it seems very unlikely that criminal sanctions will be introduced at the EU level but it is up to each Member State to decide the nature of the sanctions for infringements of the competition rules.

If you are using adobe’s acrobat reader browser plugin to view the timeline and you see everything very tiny… well, you just need to zoom in a bit. All the info is there at readable sizes… the PDF file measuring a whooping 140 x 35 cm.

Also, I’d recommend downloading the file and reading it by means of your PDF file handler app., rather than looking at it from inside your browser.

Bests, TFS

Las relaciones internacionales son un ejercicio puro y duro de hipocrecía institucionalizada, robando la frase de Krasner.

Saludos. Por cierto, me gusta mucho su blog.

Aparicio Caicedo

Lo increíble es que el COI (IOC) se esté prestando al juego de represión e incluso se atreva a descalificar las muestras de repulsa popular que las políticas de represión Chinas producen en el común de los mortales a lo largo y ancho del globo.

Después de los gravísimos incidentes del Tibet, manifestarse -eso si, de forma pacífica- al paso de la antorcha olímpica se antoja casi una obligación moral.

TFS

First of all, the announced opinion has finally appeared at the WP’s website.
As of yesterday morning, it still wasn’t there. You’ll be able to find it here. [PDF document]

Ever since the data retention directive was in the works, it was evident to me that this matter would be in certain aspects very much connected with personal data protection issues.

This is what I responded to a question at an earlier post at this forum:

(…) “As a side note perhaps I should state that in my post I was deliberately mixing two different subject matters (which in the end, experience shows that are very much intertwined…), which are: ‘data retention’ and my beloved (personal) ‘data protection’.”

Well, according to the newly adopted opinion, I was wrong.

Google, who also cited the data retention directive in its letters to the art. 29 WP, to justify its initially proposed 18 to 24 month period of time for “remembering searches”… apparently, was wrong as well…

This is what the WP says: (…) “A search engine provider can however offer an additional service that falls under the scope of an electronic communications service such as a publicly accessible email service which would be subject to ePrivacy Directive 2002/58/EC and Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC.

Consequently, any reference to the Data Retention Directive in connection with the storage of server logs generated through the offering of a search engine service is not justified.”

This should clarify the matter, right?

Well, in my humble opinion it doesn’t. And I will add that I still think that both matters are very much connected, and that neither myself nor everyone else who has been saying so is wrong.

While I’ll save an analysis of this issue for another post, I’m happy to advance that the data retention directive is very clear when stating that IP addresses fall within the various categories of data to be retained under its provisions.

So then, the next question would be: Are IP addresses personal data?

Bests, TFS

felicitaciones por el articulo.

gustavo mariño caracas venezuela

The European Constitution ratification debacle is perhaps symbolic of this orthodoxy; the routine assumption of the European Union as an entity constructed solely from its official member state constituent sovereign Nation-State elements and therefore subject to the tortuous process of approval by 25 individual State mechanisms, any one of which has the capacity to veto the wishes of the remaining 24; utterly ludicrous!

The notion that even a limited sense of collective affinity might actually exist due to common areas of interest to European citizens (climate change, migration flows; global financial markets to name just three of more obvious candidates?) is dismissed as mere fantasy in most mainstream media circles and suffers from active suppression on the part of respective national administrations, desperate to maintain their hegemonic grip on power within Europe’s institutional architecture.

The establishment of a single European Presidency does, in these chastened circumstances, offer a small glimmer of hope that areas of common concern might find a voice within the EU’s institutional structure. We can even dream that democratic legitimacy in the form of an elected office might form the next logical development in Europe’s slow pathway toward recognition as an effective player on the global geo-political stage.

One issue has now been resolved beyond reasonable dispute. Future constitutional developments on European import must be legitimised solely by simultaneous pan-Union plebiscites, the aspirations of 350 million Europeans can no longer be held ransom to the demands of individual member state electorates; big or small!

All European Nations agreed to send a peacekeeping force, and some where allowed to save face by not immediately recognizing Kosovo. I think all in all that is a pretty good outcome.

The early ratification of the Constitutional Treaty confirmed the position of Spain as a constructive member of the EU. If Spanish leadership has been less visble lately, the causes are elsewhere, in my opinion.

I would have appreciated a few reflections on the European Parliament and the EP elections in June 2009 in a piece dedicated to electoral campaign issues.

As you know, ‘cookies’ are tiny text files that store various tracking information regarding any given website visitor-user. In that regard, under EU data protection law in-force, they should be regarded as containing personal data.

The following is the definition of ‘personal data’, as provided by the 95/46/EC Directive:

(…) “‘personal data’ shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity;(…) “

While behind a single IP address you could have a bunch of different computers, in all situations cookies store information about users, (i.e. persons). Either identified or identifiable.

There are different ‘kinds’, if you will, of cookies. In some situations they’re used for security purposes (session cookies) like when you log in to your bank’s website, other times cookies are used towards providing a ‘better’ user experience… so that this or that website are able to remember the general preferences you have defined towards for instance a defined look and feel, and so on…

And now for those amongst you fans of conspiracy theories… Yes, there could be other uses of cookies that could potentially put at risk users privacy.

Say that you run an advertising serving system that places banners in a couple of hundred thousand websites. This advertising network would most probably place cookies in your browser of choice to build certain metrics such as the number of clicks that a certain ad or ad format gets, what ads have already been shown to you, etc.

But let’s say that I start tracking you across the different websites that you visit, some of which are serving ads through this third party advertising network. Let’s say that you click on a banner from a political campaign… Let’s say that either knowingly or by accident, you end up in one of those websites that would better be (at least at your home…), blocked under some sort of parental lock…

Would you say I would be in a position that would enable me to start building a thorough profile on your web surfing habits… tastes… ideology…

Let’s go a step further… What if I own both your webmail app. of choice as well as this ad network?

This isn’t out of the realm of what is already possible… Cookies are very effective tracking devices. The combination of IP addresses + cookies are a step further in the same direction.

La política y el Derecho internacional han de tratar de construir el futuro, no de instaurar una especie de justicia retributiva sobre el pasado. La pregunta quizás es si la independencia de Kosovo contribuirá a la paz en el propio Kosovo, en la antigua Yugoslavia, Europa y en el mundo o todo lo contrario. Personalmente, me temo lo peor. Como bien dice J.I. Torreblanca, es evidente que la creación de nuevos Estados no es la solución para los problemas de convivencia. Cabría añadir: puede incluso hacerlos mucho más graves.

I was just wondering if you suggest that the EU and the US should react more forcefully in Sudan? I think this would be a rather bad idea. The situation there is unclear and a intervention by western powers would be seen as an intervention on behalves of a Christian minority against Muslims. In the end it is likely that it would escalate to a full blown guerrilla war similar to the situation in Iraq.

Sin embargo, me preocupa mucho el reconocimiento internacional de Kosovo como un Estado independiente. La rapidez con que se ha producido suena a acuerdo en el G-8. Como bien dice José Areilza, no es un Estado viable ni política, ni institucional, ni económicamente, y espero que sus poco más de 2 millones de habitantes no caigan en manos de algún grupo de mafiosos con dinero que se haga con el gobierno. Es un Estado que no puede asegurar su propia seguridad ni supervivencia, y que dependerá, de forma ilimitada en el tiempo, de las fuerzas militares extranjeras que están establecidas en él.

Sin embargo, lo que me preocupa más es que, por vez primera desde el fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (dejando el caso de Chipre), se hayan alterado las fronteras europeas sin el consenso de los Estados implicados y sin guerra por medio. Y además se ha hecho en el “avispero” de los Balcanes, tan frágil desde tantos puntos de vista. Serbia nunca aceptará la independencia de Kosovo, su patria espiritual, y se ha cuidado de consignarlo en su propia Constitución. La historia nos enseña que las alteraciones de frontera por la fuerza -en este caso, la militar de KFOR- son consecuencia y/o causa de guerras más pronto o más tarde…

No acabo de entender qué gana el mundo con la independencia de Kosovo, pero veo muy bien qué pierde Europa si cada núcleo étnico o religioso mayoritario en un territorio puede “autodeterminarse” y declararse independiente. ¿No queríamos Estados plurales, abiertos, integradores?

Es muy discutible desde el punto de vista del Derecho internacional público si es antijurídica o no la escisión de Kosovo. No me extrañaría que Serbia lo llevara al Tribunal de La Haya. Desde luego, el principio de autodeterminación de los pueblos -tal y como se define por resoluciones de NNUU- no lo legitima. En cualquier caso, considero correcta la postura del Gobierno de España de no reconocer el nuevo Estado. La coherencia impone una retirada progresiva y pausada de nuestras fuerzas militares en Kosovo, pues “de facto” su misión ha cambiado: ya no hay que proteger a la minoría serbia sino a la integridad territorial de un nuevo Estado…

en tu post no explicas por qué es mejor la lucha y el juego sucio que la esperanza y el deseo de un mundo mejor. vivimos en una era de feelings y esto tiene su parte buena. ain utopia, incluido las versiones Disney, acaberiamos volviendonos todos perezosos mentales.
Obama por otra parte ha luchado lo suyo para llegar hasta aquí, no ha tenido una vida fácil y ha trabajado muy duro.

Kind Regards, Jose

Starting with his closing remarks I’ll ask everybody to please excuse my bluntness but I think no-one would disagree in that the US foreign policy can only improve from where it is now… I don’t think there is even the need to discuss its current state of ‘enlightenment’… so I’ll save my thoughts over that.

About Obama… Following the campaign and watching bits of his speeches here and there… (even following him -or whoever he has impersonating him- at twitter)… I get the same feeling I experience when watching a good ‘West Wing’ episode… (hard to find a mediocre one btw…)
I get excited… though I wouldn’t go as far as to declare that a ‘crush’… , kinda ‘moved’ -Malcom I’m looking at you…- and well, you know, renewed hopes start flowing through my system.

http://twitter.com/BarackObama
http://tfserna.wordpress.com

All the best, TFS

Obama es “esperanza”, es…el deseo de un mundo mejor…sin tener que
luchar por ello. Es Hollywood, es París…es esa cosa cursi que tienen
los americanos…las ganas que tienen siempre de “enamorarse” de
sentirse, como ellos dicen, “moved”. Es una película de Disney.

Yo prefiero a Hillary, y la idea del “struggle”. Aunque claro,
menudos los Clinton: deberían escribir un tratado de cómo hacer una campaña sucia.
Qué duros son. A ver qué pasa. Es imposible averiguarlo.
Meses apasionantes en USA.

Un abrazo desde Nueva York
Malcolm Nicholson

While the climate is harsh, the student groups are still fairly homogenous, since the proportion of students with immigrant backgrounds is low. Rising numbers of immigrants are going to pose a challenge for the schools in Finland, too.

Personally, I find less fault with the procedure to exit from the cul-de-sac than with the repeated limitations of the Union’s powers compared to the member states and the rise of intergovernmentalism in words and deeds.

Especially the protocols and declarations show that many of the principles enshrined in the Treaties are empty shells, more or less.

A case in point are the common foreign, security and defence policies, which are 1) retained outside any meaningful democratic scrutiny, and 2) more or less nullified by the requirement to reach unanimous decisions in crucial questions, as well as 3) the declarations (30 and 31) in effect telling us that every country will coninue to act as it well pleases.

This is the re-enactment of Polish Diets with liberum veto, not a basis for speaking with one voice in the world.

On balance, the Lisbon Treaty is an improvement on the Treaty of Nice, but falls far short of the EU needed in the world.

Your analysis is correct. Excluding all the crucial topics makes the group into one which needs to reflect on what it is to do.

The national leaders of the European Union may be tired of institutional reform, but the Reform Treaty leaves the EU far from the effective, democratic and solidary Union the interests of its citizens demand.

The Union can never appear as a vibrant and dynamic global player, relevant and responsive to its citizens without democratisation of its arcane institutional hierarchy. By default that means politicising the European arena and creating truly pan-European political parties contesting elections on specifically European areas of policy.

This would lead to an inevitable diminution of the power and influence currently exerted by member states (particularly the larger examples) via the hegemonic role played by the Council of Ministers/European Council.

How about starting this process by proposing a second elected chamber to represent the real diversity of the Union, i.e. A Senate based on small Member States and Regions within the larger States, to replace the Committee of the Regions, Economic and Social Committee, Council of Ministers and European Council, thus at a stroke injecting a healthy dose of democratic accountability whilst reducing the appointed/bureaucratic profile of the Union’s institutional framework.

Anyone for real constitutional reform?

And, in the 21st Century, democratic legitimacy and accountability is not an option, it is a must.

The Lisbon Treaty is not, and cannot be, the last word on treaty reform.

The machinations of political elites in response to their perception of the collective viewpoint of respective electorates have been truly Machiavellian in character but with the benefit of hindsight, what other course of action was open?

The Irish public will still have a chance to express their viewpoint about the Reform Treaty – it will be interesting to analyse the standard of their debate and compare it with others that have taken place elsewhere. I can state from experience that the tone of dialogue in the UK is overwhelmingly negative in terms of public disposition toward political elites in general and the concept of closer European integration in particular.

The UK govt. has no stomach for confronting the issue of “Europe” head-on and so the significant element of the UK press that is viscerally anti-Europe is allowed to propagate their vitriolic message unchallenged.

For me, the origins of this sorry state of affairs can be found in the first few lines of the Union’s founding documents; “The High Contracting Parties” mentioned in Article 1 of the Rome Treaty.

In 1957 the world was a very different place and perhaps the idea of six nation states sharing a common trauma, cooperating, even pooling their sovereignty in limited areas (although that concept came later), seemed entirely logical. The EEC forged in Rome remained at that stage an essentially intergovernmental mechanism and structure. “Ever closer union” may have been mentioned in the Treaty preamble but I am not convinced that the masses inhabiting the original six member states realised the full implications of this grand project.

The “Europe des Patries” geo-political model pursued by De Gaulle and others during this formative period of the Union’s evolution may have been fit for purpose but in a 21st century globalising environment, a twenty-seven (and counting) member state arrangement, fast approaching the point of political paralysis, is now well past its sell by date.

With each additional member being welcomed to the fold (Türkiye, Makedonija, Hrvatska, Bosna i Hercegovina, Srbija are all potential entrants in the next two decades), this axiomatic truth becomes increasingly self evident to those willing to engage with this issue rather than just bury their head in the sand and hope it will go away.

We need another way and that route is not founded upon member (Nation) states. It is founded upon the adoption of real federal principles (not the perverted interpretation invoked in UK tabloids) and a sober, objective assessment of what we want Europe to be and how it is to function.

This will involve some hard decisions for future generations but they are not so difficult to understand if one can set aside subjective (Nationalist) sentiment and consider the benefits of ceding clearly defined but limited competencies to a central (democratically accountable and transparent) administration, whilst simultaneously counterbalancing that trend by devolving/transferring significant powers to more immediate (sub-national/Regional in the larger member states) tiers of democratic governance. In this manner a more flexible geo-political template might emerge to serve the hopes and aspirations of 21st century European citizens, rather than the compartmentalised mindset presented by current orthodoxy.

Your reference to Machiavelli seems ironic to me because I sometimes feel a great affinity with this iconic figure (not that I would dare to compare my feeble utterances to his great intellect) because in keeping with the mainstream vilification of his philosophy, whenever I mention this concept in discussion forums, the silence is deafening. No one seems capable of assimilating the concept of a European Union based upon anything else except member states; that’s just the way it is so we must play with the cards dealt according to the rules.

It is now the smothering effects of this orthodoxy, which presents the single biggest obstacle to constitutional and democratic progress within the Union.

In bemoaning the wreckage of Lisbon, let us recall the initial optimism of Laeken, which began this a six year journey and mark the malign influence of large member state administrations upon the constitutional process, desperate to retain their individual fiefdoms of power and influence within the Union’s institutional architecture.

Yes, the constitutional document provided by VGD and his team was overlong and convoluted but that was in part dictated by the act of accommodating disparate member state (National) self-interests into what should have been an essentially European text.

No, we must now begin again. The progressive elements of European political discourse must now gather themselves for another assault upon the bastions of Nation-State bound orthodoxy. It will be a long and arduous journey but one that is worth the sweat and toil, inevitable self-doubt and repeated set-back, before we reach another point in Europe’s history where the portent for irrevocable change lies before us.

Maastricht in 1992 represented the last true great leap forward; perhaps we will have to wait for another generation before the opportunity presents itself once more?

Without consolidation the treaties are unaccessible for most Europeans.

Correct information is a much more basic need of the people and duty of the governments than (avoiding) referenda.

With regard to Aznar and the PP, I propose a brief thought experiment. Let us suppose there was some way of knowing with certainty how the Spanish people would have voted had the Madrid atrocities not occurred. Let us further suppose that it showed that the PP would have been comfortably reelected and that the sole and only reason that voters changed their minds was the bombings and that further analysis of their decision revealed that fear of further attacks motivated their last minute switch. If all of this was the case, and we have no sure way of knowing, would it render Zapatero’s government in some way illegitimate? I think that the answer has to be “no”. We can’t decide that the results of elections in democratic countries are in some way “not right” based on post hoc ergo propter hoc analysis of voter behaviour. And anyway, the people are entitled to change their minds at the last minute for *whatever* reason they like and, as long as they don’t vote for parties that reject the basic norms of democracy, the loser’s duty is to accept the result with as much grace as he can muster and get on with the normal business of opposing the government.

Can we honestly say that that is how the PP has behaved since losing the election? I think the answer to that question is also “no” and that this failure to accept the legitimacy of their defeat amounts to a certain of contempt for democracy.

The one remark that troubles me though is the reference to being ‘contemptuous of democracy’ for not accepting the legitimacy of the last election in Spain…

I don’t belong to the PP, wasn’t in favor of Mr. Aznar’s decision towards Iraq –though I fully respect him and still think he has been the best democratic President in Spain to date…–, but I firmly believe that those results were a direct consequence of the terrorist bombings –the largest in Spain’s history–, that killed some 191 souls hours before the last general elections.

Those terrorist attacks were designed and scheduled with a very clear purpose. Sadly, that purpose was achieved… and I think the first one surprised by the general election outcome was Mr. Zapatero.

Am I contemptuous of democracy? Not really. Honestly.

Other than that, very well taken points… in my humble opinion…

TFS

1.
Por haber padecido al fascismo en nuestras carnes, reconocemos en Europa a la mala bestia cuando asoma la cabeza.

Maybe we can recognise it but that doesn’t stop a lot of Europeans voting for it. The current governments of Denmark and Poland have large far-right elements and are both tinged with racism, anti-foreigners with dark skins in the case of the former, anti-Semitic in the case of the later. Furthermore, Sarkozy got himself elected President of France by adopting much of the rhetoric of the FN

2.
Los americanos nunca han conocido nada parecido (salvo, si se quiere, la segregación racial en el Sur.

The Americans seem to be doing a lot better integrating their racial and religious minorities that the Europeans lately. Muslim religious practice seems to be much better catered for in the USA than France, for example. Blacks, Jews, Arab-Americans, gays and lesbians and many other minorities all actively participate in the planning and prosecution of the American state’s domestic and foreign policy.

3.
“la ideología de los neoconservadores es un auténtico proto-fascismo.”

What fascist or proto-fascist regime ever subjected itself to free elections? The Republicans have already lost the House and Senate. Bush becomes history in 16 months and the Republicans have no guarantee that they will retain the White House.

4.
“Es caracerística su infatuación con el poder”

That’s a characteristic of all governments, including democratic ones. Gaining political power and hanging on to it once gained is the ABC of all politics.

5.
su desdén por las instituciones internacionales (no les importa tampoco que los EEUU hayan sido quienes las crearon y mantuvieron desde la II Guerra Mundial)

Some yes, others no. Not much sign of American disdain for the World Bank, the IMF or the IAEA.

6.
por el derecho internacional,

You are right about this.

7.
por los aliados

Some yes, others no. I don’t think you’ll find that Britain or the newer members of Nato feel disdained by the US.

8.
y, en general, por la opinión pública mundial.

What is world public opinion? How could we measure it? If measured, would it form a fit basis for the formation of policy?

9.
Rechazan todo esto porque reduce la eficacia de su acción unilateral, en cuya omnipotencia y omniciencia están seguros.

There has been a definite shift towards unilateralism but hey haven’t rejected “all of this”. They have resort to “all of this” whenever it suits them.

10.
“Hay quien compara a Karl Rove con Goebbels por su convicción de que la opiniòn pública puede ser manipulada a capricho, y por creer que repitiendo mil veces una mentira se convierte en verdad. También comparan al gordo Cheney con Goering, que también fue presidente del Reichstag como Cheney lo es del Senado, por su desprecio por el Congreso y por la democracia representativa”

Absurd and offensive comparisons with the Nazis that only serve to trivialise the horror of the Third Reich. That Karl Rove is not like Goebbels was proved by the results of the last Congressional elections. Cheney may well be contemptuous of democracy, but just like his boss, he marches into the sunset never to return, in January 2009. Some Nazi… And speaking of politicians who are contemptuous of democracy; would you say that the PP has fully accepted the legitimacy of the current PSOE-led government in Spain? Would you say that JM Aznar was more respectful of democracy that Dick Cheney?

11.
Tienen incluso su campo de concentración en Guantánamo y en otros lugares secretos de la CIA donde el Congreso ha pasado legislación permitiéndoles “interrogar” a los prisioneros con cualquier método, con tal de conseguir resultados, y donde solo les falta gasearlos.

I largely agree with this but the use of the term “campo de concentración” suffers from the same weaknesses as the comparisons with the Nazis in the previous point and is a comparison so easily rebutted that its use tends only to serve the interests of Bush’s government.

Overall this post is a self-indulgent piece of tripe reflecting an alarming strain of reflex ant-Americanism that is regrettably present in many circles today. The actions of the US government require serious, well-argued criticism and not self-congratulatory rants like this.

For me this outcome is symbolic of a more profound (and longer term) change in the international order; the increasing irrelevance of the sovereign Nation State as the exclusive unit of socio-political organisation.

Maybe more people will now begin to perceive the European Union as a quite natural response to this changing world order; in a more uncertain and unpredictable future, there is safety in numbers after all.

However for Europeans, the benefits flowing from economies of scale should not overwhelm the quite natural desire to retain those aspects of our existence that we hold most dear; cultural diversity.

Does this mean the European Union needs another way, another perspective discarding the orthodox Europe of Nations geo-political template? I think it does but at present it seems as though I am in a minority of one!

Responden los ciudadanos: continuará…

La Union Europea, o si queremos llamarla Pax Europea, se basa sobre los horrores de las dos guerras mundiales y muchas otras regionales que azotaron nuestro continente. La Union es un Tratado para no volver a hacer guerras entre los europeos. Con el establecimiento de la Union entre los primeros seis paises miembros, se enterro una historia de guerras politicas y de religion entre las mas grandes potencias de nuestro continente y se abrio una época de paz duradera. Con la adhesion de los paises del Este de Europa, hace tres anos, se consiguio acabar la division de nuestro continente por un telon de acero entre dos modos de vida. Ahora es el momento de dedicarnos a lograr la union entre los cristianos y los musulmanes de Europa, me refiero a paises con ciudadanos contemporaneos que ven la fe como un asunto personal. Los turcos demostraron a todo el mundo que comparten los valores de Europa. Son mucho mas democratas y seglares de lo que algunos tratan de hacernos creer. Esta Turquia tiene que convertirse en miembro de la Union lo mas rapido posible y abrir el camino para los otros paises de los Balcanes, la unica parte de nuestro viejo continente que ha sufrido conflictos armados desde el inicio de la construccion europea.

Las fronteras de Europa estan en el mapa del Consejo de Europa: Tenemos todavia otros rincones europeos que convencer, cambiar y conquistar (integrar) en este gran proyecto comun. Turquia es vecina de esos otros europeos, y sera su modelo a seguir…

Creo que el europeo comun tiene una confusion con su religion (independientemente de si es ciudadano de un pais laico o aconfesional o como se defina como individuo ante la religion) que se le ha convertido en un elemento de su identidad personal y nacional desde hace siglos -por razones que no puedo analizar en este espacio- y tiende a ver todos los no-cristianos como no-europeos, como EL OTRO. El problema es iluminar estas mentes, no convertir los turcos…

Yo entiendo o percibo, -puedo equivocarme- que muchos paises se han movido desde los “noes” francés y holandés para, de alguna forma y cada uno a su manera, salir de la crisis y recuperar lo más posible del contenido del proyecto constitucional. Se han hecho estudios, análisis, reuniones …
Sin embargo, todos eramos conscientes que nada podría moverse hasta pasadas las elecciones francesas. Y así ha sido. Lo que antes aparecía en letra pequeña, ahora ocupa portadas. Por eso da la sensación de que, ahora sí, la carrera se ha iniciado y todos corren para llegar un acuerdo lo antes posible.
Me sorprende enormemente tu escepticismo final: yo prefiero salvar lo más posible del proyecto existente que iniciar una nueva y larga CIG que llevará varios años.

Pero me sorprende, sobre todo, tu pregunta ¿Donde está España en este debate?

España fue el primer pais en ratificar el proyecto por referedumn. España, junto a Luxemburgo, consiguió reunir a 22 paises europeos en Madrid para relanzar el texto constitucional en Enero de este año. Sarkozy estuvo en España el 31 de mayo para hablar de su propuesta con nuestro país que considera un interlocutor esencial. España estuvo el mismo día, el 15 de Junio, en Alemania con Merkel -para fijar la hoja de ruta- y en Polonia -para tratar de convencer a los gemelos que en Europea no se pueden plantear las cosas como “todo o nada”-. España, junto a Francia, presento ayer a los Ministros de Exteriores de los 25 una iniciativa, una propuesta para sacar a Europa de la crisis, manteniendo lo máximo del proyecto. España había previamente pactado con Italia su apoyo a este proyecto franco-español.
¿De verdad dudas de donde está España en este debate?
Yo creo que está bien claro: en su mismo centro de liderazgo, junto a Alemania (Merkel) y Sarkozy (Francia).

Un abrazo,
María

Yo tengo clarísimo que, en el momento que Turquía cumpla -como lo han tenido que hacer los demás- los criterios de adhesión no sólo debe entrar porque tiene derecho a ello sino porque, lo que es más importante, le hará mucho bien a esta “Europea de la unidad pero de la diversidad” y constituirá un ejemplo para un mundo cada vez más dividido y crispado.
Llevo unos días leyendo un libro que me tiene absolutamente fascinada. Lo reconozco. Se llama “Sciences humaines et intégration européenne”, está escrito por varios autores en el 10 aniversario del Colegio de Europa (1961) y el prólogo es de Robert Schuman. Escriben en él ensayos todos los grandes europeistas, empezando por Salvador de Madariaga.

Te incluyo -os incluyo a todos- algunos pequeños extractos del ensayo de Henri Brugmans (historiador holandés; uno de los padres de la integración europea y primer rector del Colegio de Europa) que titula “Un historien regarde l’intégration européenne”. Me encantaría incluiros el ensayo completo pero es demasiado largo para copiarlo. No tiene desperdicio. Es espectacular. Y no lo olvideis: Estabamos en 1961 (las mismas reflexiones que hace con respecto a Turquia las hace, de forma mucho más detallada, con respecto a Rusia pese a escribirlo en la época del telon de acero).

“Il est temps de poser une question qui s’impose à l’esprit du lecteur: Quelle Europe? Jusqu’où va-t-elle, cette Europe dont il est question sans cesse? Quelles sont ses “limites”?
Répondons ausssitôt de façon négative: nos “frontières” ne sont ni sur l’Oural ni sur le Bosphore.
[...]
De même, appeler les deux rives du Bosphore, l’une “européenne” et l’autre “asiatique”, n’est qu’une vielle habitude sans justification. Paradoxalement, le mouvement qui rapprocha la Turquie de l’Occident et finit par le faire entre dans les institutions européenes, partit mème d’Asie Mineure -d’Ankara et non pas d’Istanboul! Dans ce domaine, ce ne sont pas les commodités des éditeurs de cartes murales qui peuven décider. C’est l’examen des réalités historiques, des groupes humains en devenir.
Ceci dit, quels peuples appartiennent à l’Europe?
Les fédéralistes qui, en Septembre 1946, se posèrent la question à Hertenstein, répondirent d’une manière sensée, en définissant à la fois les aspects subjectigs et objectifs du problème.
Font partie de l’Europe, disaient-ils, tous les peuples que “se réclamant d’une caractère européen” et sont prêts à partager la disciple communautaire.
La rèponse continue à se justifier.
[...]
L’Europe est multi-raciale. A sa formation participèrent ethiens, appartenant au groupe indo-européen. Mais en plus, deux peuples européens au moins, sont d’origine asiatique:les Hongrois et les Finlandais -sans parler des Bulgares, qui subirent fortement l’influence hunnique. Pourtant, leur appartenance à notre culture ne fut jamais contestée, depuis le jour òu il reçurent le baptème et renoncèrent à leur mode de vie nomade.
[...]
Enfin et surtout, l’Europe est diverse pars ses racines spirituelles. Ce n’est pas une seule langue ou un seul style, un seul courant philosophique our religeux, une seule doctrine intellectuelle ou artistique qui l’a formée. Ces sont plusieurs.
[...]
Civilisation commune et situation actuelle commune: suffirent-elles à l’Europe pour s’unir? Ce n’est pas l’historien qui le dira. C’est la histoire future.
Mais si l’Europe “se fait”, les conséquences en sont incalculables. Ce sera un message au monde entier, d’une portée immense. Car ce monde aspire à la fois à l’union et à la liberté, à l’efficacité pratique et à la continuité de ses cultures. Sacrifier les unes pour obtenir les autres, équivaudait, soit à l’acceptation d’une décadence, soit au suicide moral. La preuve serait faite que l’humanité doit choisir entre la tyrannie totalitaire et le statu quo nationaliste. En revanche, dans le cas contraire, l’Europe prouverait que l’integration est réalisable, dans la paix et le respect des diversités.
Voilà qui créerait, au sein du continent le plus mondial du globe, une réalité nouvelle et une espoir nouveau”

Un abrazo,
María

1. españa y polonia aceptaron la regla de la doble mayoria pero a regañadientes, a cambio de las mejoras en políticas sustantivas en el resto del tratado constitucional, un equilibrio que ahora desaparece.
2. el consejo de ministros sigue siendo central en la toma de decisiones, el parlamento europeo es sobre todo reactivo y la comisión está muy influida por algunos países, pero tieen un deber de independencia sin el cual no funciona el sistema.
3. la capacidad de construir coaliciones tiene mucho que ver con el nivel de desarrollo económico y social, la posición geográfica, la historia, España nos guste o no es algo periférica todavía y a diferencia de otros países necesita reglas de procedimiento lo más favorables posible (el teorema de areilza)
4.en las 591 ocasiones en las que se podia votar, lo de menos es que se llegase a votar. se negocio “bajo la sombra del voto” y aunque formalmente no se votase, el consenso final representa sobre todo a la mayoría, que ha podido acomodar intereses de la minoría o no.
5. la regla de cuatro países mínimos para bloquear no favorece a España más que a cualquier paíse pequeño que suela votar en la órbita de Alemania.
6. en la UE 27 de nuestros dias, es fundamental que no haya bloques de grandes v pequeños, estamos en una demoi-cracy, por usar la expresión de K. Nicolaidis, y la legitimidad de proceso no se consigue aplicando de forma mimética el modelo estatal.

Thanks for your kind comment.

I don’t know about learning anything from my post… but I’d say that you are absolutely right in your remark. And that would of course apply to most subject matters in the EU…

Take for example Apple. If memory serves, not too long ago when they were taking some heat from different EU local consumer authorities, rumor had it that they were considering shutting down altogether one of the local EU iTunes music stores… That would have been a minor (probably just temporal) loss for Apple, but it certainly would have put pressure on the local authorities from the affected country… (who would instantly become wildly unpopular…), and would have sent a warning message to the rest of the EU neighbours…

In any case that battle was fought at the PR level… As you know now they are facing some competition (‘antitrust’ for our American friends…) investigations, and that is a whole different animal.

As a side note perhaps I should state that in my post I was deliberately mixing two different subject matters (which in the end, experience shows that are very much intertwined…), which are: ‘data retention’ and my beloved (personal) ‘data protection’.

In any case and as mentioned in the post my understanding is that Google is also trying to play the PR game here.

While they certainly have a right to do so –and they do as well raise some interesting points about the difficulties of dealing with regulations from different jurisdictions–, it is also true that the same happens to a certain extent in the US where you would be incorporated in one state and would have to comply with a plethora of different (and sometimes conflicting), regulations across the rest. And we don’t hear much complaining there…

Intente comentar tu “post” en su día pero Internet no me dejó, daba siempre error a mi respuesta. Lo hago ahora, aunque sea con retraso y con la esperanza de que esta vez llegué a su destino y no se pierda en el cyberespacio.

Unos días antes de la publicación de tu comentario, el diario EL PAIS había hecho en su blog una pregunta similar sobre los violentos atentados en Marruecos y Argelia a los que tu te refieres: “¿Que piensa de la violenta reaparición de Al Quaeda en Marruecos y Argelia”.”

Te adjunto mi contestación, el 12 de Abril, a aquella pregunta que, entiendo, se adapta bien a tu comentario:

Desgraciadamente, no me sorprende. Y, además, creo que esto no ha hecho más que empezar. Europa volverá a ser objetivo de esta violencia atroz. No veo, sin embargo, que ante esta cuestión -que posiblemente sea el principal problema que tenemos hoy en día en el mundo (salvando la pobreza, fruto de una enorme desigualdad que no sólo se mantiene sino que se incrementa debido a la indiferencia de los paises “ricos” en los que tenemos el privilegio de haber nacido; pobreza y desigualdad que tiene mucho que ver con este nuevo terrorismo; más que la religión, en mi criterio)- se esté adoptando por los Gobiernos occidentales ninguna iniciativa “constructiva” que permita acabar con este “horror” que parece, según todos los informes estar en sus “inicios” (y ello, a pesar de Casablanca, el 11-S, el 11-M, Londres, etc). La lucha defensiva (coordinación policial y de los medios de seguridad del Estado, prevención, etc) frente a este gravísimo conflicto es necesaria, y es cierto que podrá conseguir parar algunos atentados; pero no terminará con el origén del mismo y, por tanto, con el terror.

Entiendo que sólo con el dialogo, el entendimiento y el respeto entre los pueblos, las culturas y las religiones se puede conseguir la paz. El 50 aniversario de la Comunidad Europea, tras dos guerras mundiales -que estamos celebrando estos días- confirma este hecho. Y, por eso, como europea, creo que es, particularmente, a la Unión Europea a quien, corresponde tomar las riendas para iniciar ese proceso de paz entre todas las naciones a nivel mundial. Empezando por Israel y Palestina. Es cierto que, para ello, debemos, primero, dejar de “pegarnos” entre nosotros -a nivel europeo, entre los países y a nivel nacional, entre los partidos políticos- por asuntos y cuestiones que, comparadas con este problema, no tienen la más mínima trascendencia. ¿No aprenderemos nunca?

Se que no es mucho -solo un gesto- pero podríamos empezar por dejar de llamar a este nuevo terrorismo (en la prensa, en la radio, en las tertulias, en Internet …) “terrorismo islámico” -hay muchas personas de religión islámica que no sólo nada tienen que ver con esta banda de asesinos, sino que están tan en contra de ellos y lo sufren tanto como los que no profesamos esa religión-. Del mismo modo que un día terrible todos juntos, en honor de Miguel Angel Blanco” gritamos en las calles de toda España: “Vascos sí, ETA no”, tendríamos que hablar del terrorismo de Al Quaeda; no son “terroristas islámicos”. Las palabras que elegimos son un instrumento mucho más poderoso de lo que creemos: pueden “tender” o “romper” puentes entre unos y otros pueblos, entre unas y otras religiones. Tengamos cuidado con ellas.

Me gustaría, además, que esos hombres y mujeres (muchos adolescentes, incluso niños) terroristas que están dispuestos a “inmolarse” por la “causa” se preguntasen porqué sus “jefes, empezando por Bin Laden, no hacen lo mismo. Creo que con la respuesta descubrirían que ellos no son “martires, como les hacen creer, sino “marionetas” sin ningun valor para esos jefes que, cada vez, se hacen más ricos y viven mejor con esta “era del terror” que han iniciado.

Un abrazo,
María López-Contreras

Entiendo bien que en la campaña tanto Sarko como Sego alejaran el fantasma “europeo” dadas las circustancias y el mal sabor de boca del “no” en el referedum.

Pero he creido siempre tambien que ganara uno u otro “arreglar Europa” tendría que ser una de las prioridades del nuevo Presidente. Y cuando hablo de “arreglar Europa” excluyo proyectos de “mini-tratado” y propuestas de mínimos.

Puedo ser una ingenua o una idealista romantica pero confio en que Francia y Alemania -con la ayuda del resto de los paises partidarios de la Constitución- nos sacarán del lio en el que estamos metidos. Me cuesta creer que podamos tirar a la basura -y empezar de nuevo- un texto que se ha tardado años en hacerse y que supone un punto de equilibrio -frágil, como todo equilibrio; pero equilibrio, al fin y al cabo- en el que estuvieron de acuerdo 25 paises en Julio y Octubre de 2004.
María López-Contreras

We do not, by any stretch of the imagination, invoke minority rights. We assert that the will of the majority in Turkey is firmly opposed to ostentatious religiosity, and that religion will continue to be kept out of public life. What people do in their private sphere is, of course, not for us to decide.Hence the unsurprising participation of veiled women in the demonstrations.

And, dear professor, a final note: there ain’t no such thing as a perfect democracy. Most countries have fumbled their way towards it, just as we’re doing so now. And while the experiences of a learned man, who must have spent much of his life under a dictatorship are of course of interest to those of us who haven’t, please do be careful when making sweeping generalisations.

Se han dedicado a razonar y explicar su programa y huir de las desconsideraciones e insultos para con los oponentes porque esta técnica electoral muestra lo inconsistente y débil que es el candidato que la utiliza.

A ver si esta rejuvenecedora corriente de aire fresco en la política francesa cruza los Pirineos con la misma intensidad.

I now live in Spain and the pro-European attitude seems curious set against the typically parochial attitudes (even more so than in the UK). Can anyone explain why this might be so?

As a passionate “European” I am understandably delighted to remind myself of the profound societal improvements wrought by successive decades of closer integration but these positive reactions are undermined by deep disappointment with the pace and direction of the integration process.

For me the advance of European integration and recognition of the potentially seminal role of sub-national geo-political entities are inexorably interwoven. It is no accident that the most vociferous opposition to closer integration in member states comes from within those Nations exhibiting relatively fixed unitary characteristics; such as the UK.

An element of devolution has been achieved in Scotland, Wales and (hopefully following this weekend) Northern Ireland but these developments do not signal a wholesale capitulation to the dispersal of power by Westminster. Competencies granted to each of the ‘Home Nations’ have been both asymmetric and strictly limited; only Scotland retaining any capacity to raise (small scale) revenues independently. Power to determine the scope and nature of public revenues, and with it the facility to establish relative financial independence from Whitehall, remains steadfastly London bound.

England, which continues to dominate social and economic activity within the British Isles, also remains exclusively unitary in its constitutional nature. Power is centralised (increasingly so) within a paranoiac control freak orientated Whitehall government machinery. The dispersal of effective political power is extremely hard won by lower tiers of accountable governance and painfully slow in emerging from a state machinery habitually reluctant to devolve competency and displaying a pervasive culture of centralism.

Why do I believe that European Regionalism and closer European integration are so dependent upon each other?

The answer is simple – the vast majority of European citizens do not fear Europe; indeed every successive Eurobarometer survey has indicated an appetite on the part of ordinary Europeans for the Union to play a more robust role, but only within clearly defined policy areas, where it can clearly demonstrate a relevant capacity. Obvious examples include:

• Global trade
• Global environmental strategies
• Pan-European and global transport policy
• Macroeconomic Policy (through Eurozone mechanisms)
• Organised (international) Crime & Terrorism
and more contentiously
• Defence
• Immigration
• Foreign Affairs

By contrast, European citizens in general react negatively to “unnecessary interference” from Brussels in policy areas they perceive as localised and immediate in scope, such as:

• Education
• Healthcare
• Local Law & Order
• Cultural matters
• Local economic strategies
• Local transport strategies
• Housing

Put simply, within a pan-European geo-political structure, the post-Westphalian Nation State has become too small for some issues but too large for others.

It is this emerging dichotomy of policy relevance that should dominate the great European debate in the 21st. century but the legacy of 19th century Nationalism continues to haunt our collective European future, stifling progressive approaches to increasingly complex challenges.

Those Europhobic groupings who implacably oppose the notion of integration in any form highlight the negative impact of centralised (and unaccountable) power – the constant refrain “European Super-State” is heard repeatedly but let us examine such claims in more detail. Ironically, whilst I concur with these fears, the solutions both you and I might advocate are rejected precisely because they cut across the status quo represented by the current Europe of Nations template.

In a Europe in which citizens have demonstrated their wish for Europe to be more involved in certain activities but not in others, following this principle to a logical conclusion, we discover that it is larger old-style Nation states looking increasingly past their sell-by date.

Countering the European Super State “bogeyman” is feasible by counterbalancing the ceding of powers in clearly defined policy areas with the devolution of effective power in other areas of more immediate concern to citizens – see the examples shown above. Within this context “effective” means the power to raise revenues commensurate with those policy areas devolved to more immediate sub-national tiers of governance.

Pursuing this strategy both incrementally and irrevocably would see a “withering on the vine” process emerge; gradually the relevance of National tiers of governance (in larger member states) would recede until at some point in the distant future (50 years hence?), our children and grandchildren might be faced with a dilemma; why bother retaining these old style National administrations representing out of date, ineffectual (and expensive?) geo-political entities?

Were the principles of logic and democracy to underpin the development of Europe’s institutional arrangements, the larger member states would begin to disperse power to accountable tiers of sub-national governance. Concurrently this array of more immediate geo-political entities could assume a stronger role within the European institutional hierarchy, perhaps by adopting the proposal of an upper elected chamber (thus establishing a conventional bicameral institutional structure) to represent the Union’s ‘real’ cultural diversity with each Region electing a set number of representatives (Senators?) based on respective population sizes.

This fundamental reform would signal the beginning of a true democratisation of the European political arena and initiate a long process of power realignment mirroring the new circumstance presented by the twin challenge of globalization combined with electorates desiring more direct influence over their immediate day to day lives.

However, this logical evolutionary process of geo-political driven reform is frustrated by the hybrid nature of our current European institutional architecture. Effective power within the European Union still resides within the Council of Ministers/European Council nexus – the larger member states: Germany, France, UK, ably abetted by a second tier comprising: Spain, Italy, Poland & Sweden combine to reinforce the status quo. The crucial question here is: does this quasi intergovernmental institutional arrangement best serve the aspirations of European citizenry en-masse or does it merely function to preserve the power and influence of member state institutions?

A stronger role for sub-national entities is denied by member states – e.g. their refusal to allow Constitutional Regions any direct contribution to the European Constitutional Convention process. Did they fear the enhanced political standing such recognition might convey?

Domestically, individual member states deliberately impede the development of robust, culturally legitimate sub-national entities precisely because they fear the emergence of any nascent Nationalist sentiments from within. Scots, Scanians, Silesians, Catalans and Bretons can all testify to varying levels of repression and/or discriminatory tactics during the last 50 years.

Here then lies the source of my dilemma – do I salute the achievements made during the last 50 years of European integration or condemn the blind-alley inherent within a “Europe of Member States” template?

Are we going to waste another 50 years discovering the fact that the member state foundations laid down within the very same treaty we are celebrating this week actually now poses the single greatest threat to further European integration?

Tschernobil-type plant is very different from most nuclear plants in operation today. It was built mainly for military reasons (to enrich plutonium to be used in nuclear heads of missiles and bombs), although it also produces electricity. Both the USSR and the USA operated such plants, but the USA closed them in 1966, due to the risk involved. There is just one Tschernobil-type reactor working in the EU nowadays. It is located in Lithuania and it will be closed in 2009. Not taking on account this reactor, 38 % of electricity in the EU comes from nuclear plants.

Nuclear energy was an option in 1957. In the present context, it is a necessity for Europe.

The Independent is probably the best (in terms of its objective reporting style) daily Newspaper in the UK. It has a relatively small (but growing) loyal readership base.

They love printing stories like that highlighted just to **** off tub thumping Daily Mail reading xenophobes – hence the final comment in the list.

However, before you get carried away by the apparently positive attitude illustrated in the Independent, try the following link – http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=5825&edition=1&ttl=20070325211509&#paginator

This page is from the BBC’s Have Your Say forum – they posted an article on the 50 year celebrations and asked readers to comment – the page indicated is a list of the most recommended (i.e. popular) comments!

As I commented myself; it would appear that dogma driven ill-informed narratives remain standard currency in the forum. However such comments are widespread and popular – I am not sure what that tells us about the state of UK public opinion – no doubt those with a grudge use the BBC’s HYS forum to have a good old moan, mostly Daily Mail readers (we hope!)

I think the only serious framework is the Swedish approach, ie. setting a goal, evaluating costs and reaching explicit political consensus.

And I’m very sorry to hear about that terrible experience…

Take care, TFS

Progress in the negotiations (held in private backrooms between individual member state government officials – who said anything about these matters being open and transparent?) is paralysed because the French Presidential election season in now in full swing.

Everyone waits to see who will emerge as the likely victor – actors outside France do not dare to display tacit preference for any individual candidate because this would be interpreted as indirect interference in French internal politics – a faux pas of the worst possible kind.

This posturing is symbolic of the flaws inherent within the orthodoxy of a “Europe of Nations” geo-political template.

I think you should float your “think big” alternative, not that I believe it to be any more plausible than other options but simply because it is likely to find favour with individual member state actors (those who actually influence events).

Why do I think that? – Because it will have the effect of postponing, for a few more years, the day when a real decision about the future of Europe has to be made! No doubt that will have an appeal for many of the individuals involved.

Now what would be really innovative (and therefore unlikely to happen) is for a new European Convention to be initiated, followed by that most novel of ideas; a European conference, structured around the real foundations of Europe – its citizens!

He publicado en mi blog el comienzo de tu artículo. Por supuesto, he dejado claro de quién era y de dónde lo extraía. He puesto un enlace a BlogEuropa, y he informado en el post que para leerlo entero hay que acudir a este lugar. Espero que no te importe, pero si existiera algún problema, te agradecería que me lo comunicaras.

I am intrigued by your analysis and the potential scenarios you describe; they are certainly logical but objective rationality is not often discovered intruding into the Machiavellian world of EU institutional power politics. For me, a common thread emerges from your account and it is the fundamental inadequacies and failings of an essentially intergovernmental structure in delivering strategies of European significance for European citizens.

I have no doubt that powerful actors within the Spanish government yearn for a revival of the Constitutional Treaty in its original form – how convenient for them because the Spanish electorate has already delivered a positive verdict upon its content. Sadly Spain, with or without the backing of a majority of other member states, representing more than half of EU citizens, cannot deliver because the strictures of a “Europe of Nations” orthodoxy (the same principle that decreed ratification by individual member states) will continue to defy further progress of the treaty, using that protocol.

Perhaps French and Dutch electorates are now more positive about the concept of a constitution for Europe – debating why the polls indicate this change of heart is a topic in its own right but experience tells me to treat public opinion survey data in general with a healthy dose of scepticism. Prior to the French referendum all opinion polls indicated a large YES majority but soon after the referendum was officially announced the polls began to move irrevocably downwards. Exposure to information about the Constitutional Treaty only served to accelerate a decline in public approval. In the “white heat” of a highly charged campaign those advocating a negative message have a much simpler task than anyone wishing to build a consensus around constructive debate – in short it is easier to destroy than it is to create.

Let us hypothesise for a moment and consider the possible scenarios:

1. The ratification process is restarted on the basis of the original treaty
or
2. The treaty is renegotiated in a strengthened form, with additional competencies afforded to the European tier of governance and then subjected to a fresh round of ratification.

How might the “renegade” Member States react in such circumstances?

Within the UK public attitudes towards the political classes plumb new depths with alarming frequency. Perhaps this hostile disposition is shared more widely across the Union – sadly I lack the language skills to discern the fine detail of public and media comment outside my mother tongue. The visceral antagonism exhibited by the UK electorate toward their political masters certainly shows no sign of abating. The recent spectacle of an incumbent Prime Minister being interviewed by police pursuing a criminal investigation into allegations of “cash for honours” only added to a pervasive sense of moral depravity surrounding the execution of the democratic political process. Unfortunately the European political arena is tainted by association and thus cannot escape the fallout flowing from such revelations.

The prospect of a UK electorate delivering a positive voting outcome on any issue designed to cement its relationship within the European Union is fast receding into the realms of fantasy; the likelihood of a UK electorate voting YES to the original treaty text this side of 2010 being close to zero. I am not certain about the longevity of the existing round or ratifications; how long do they remain valid before they must be morally/legally renewed?

Given this background, the second option does have more promise, if like me you live in the progressive camp of Euro enthusiasts; unfortunately my views represent a mere fraction of the UK public. The deliberations of the 18+2 group may well be mere posturing (or wishful thinking) on their part, designed to exert pressure upon any future UK administration but I would like to think that political leaders across Europe are well informed. Surely they realise that (New) Labour is already morally constrained to submit the treaty text, whether original or augmented, to a referendum.

The most likely alternative successor to Labour is a Conservative administration under the leadership of David Cameron. However, the Conservatives have already intimated that they will probably seek to align themselves with hard-line anti-integration elements in Poland and the Czech Republic; an even more unpromising avenue than the current UK government provides?

Reluctantly therefore, I have to conclude that either of these first two options seem like mission impossible.

An unwanted but entirely plausible outcome from either of the first two options on offer is a polarization of positions within the Union, fractured along the usual National lines of self-interest. The route to a two-speed European Union could be more direct than we think!

Will this lead to irreconcilable differences and ultimate fracture of the Union? No one can predict with any certainty how this story might unfold but wider European integration will certainly be the loser in the short/medium term. Remaining positive (if that is possible) perhaps the shock of such a fundamental cleavage and the consequences of economic uncertainty unleashed by it will be precisely the right kind of long overdue “bitter medicine” necessary for a perennially reluctant patient (or group of patients), which brings us to our third option.

3. A mini-treaty (as proposed by Minister Sarkozy) is extracted from the wreckage of the original text and used as a vehicle for limited institutional reform.

There are many variable factors influencing the degree of acceptability (to a variety of interested parties) of such a scenario and consequently any potential for ultimate success. I wouldn’t dismiss this option until I had seen the proposed text or the methodology for its ratification.

In the first instance, what is meant by a mini treaty? A text restricted to basic principles of rights/responsibilities, seeking to define the role of the (European) state/other institutional actors and (European) citizens within it, together with their relationships, whilst conveying a legal personality to the European Union; I wouldn’t be averse to a text with this “story” and I think a majority of my fellow European citizens could be persuaded likewise.

However, such a (Europeanised?) mini-treaty is unlikely precisely because it will emphasise the European credentials of any current/future institutional framework and lay the foundation for a nascent European identity long feared by individual National governments – turkeys don’t vote for Christmas and member states can hardly be expected to be enthusiastic about any document hastening their ultimate demise.

Finally:

4. Go back to the beginning and start all over again.

This might seem like a nightmare scenario in member states where ratification has already been achieved. Laeken seems a long time ago now and no doubt the “fatigue” displayed by ordinary citizens is replicated amongst political élites across Europe. However, the “dogs dinner” served up by Giscard D’Estaing did not deserve to succeed. It was unnecessarily complex and entrenched the dominance of member states within any post constitution institutional hierarchy.

It is worth remembering that the political paralysis we are currently enduring and the associated decline in public approval ratings is a direct consequence of the principles laid down in the founding treaties. Endorsing a text that seeks to reinforce the dominance of member states, at the expense of ordinary citizens, will only exacerbate the worst features of a “Europe of Nations” constitutional orthodoxy. What we need (as Europeans) is innovation and boldness, not the timidity and lowest common denominator fudges we have been repeatedly served up with by successive IGC’s

In summary the potential for constitutional progress will be determined not so much by the content of any proposed text as the methodology of its ratification process. When the actors involved finally admit that the current period of reflection is merely a means of postponing the inevitable, perhaps European public opinion can be persuaded to endorse the obvious remedy; namely a simultaneous pan-European referendum, possibly with some form of super majority (55% in favour?) safety clause inserted as a means of placating the most vocal opponents of progress (of any sort).

Let me tell you also a personal anecdote: I’ve been travelling all around USA from I was twelve with no problem at all. Last time, I went there for a short tourist trip to New York of less than a week. It was in 2005 -first time after September 11th-. I was detained at customs about 8 hours. ¿the reason? For them my name was María López and they had a María López in their most wanted list. They took everything from me: my finger prints, a photo of me, a print of my eye’ iris, my weight, my height, the colour of my eyes and hair, my address, my profession, … . It’s true that police was very kind and they assure me that they knew it was not me and that everything was a terrible coincidence but still I had to answer all the questions they asked me and to give them all kind of data you can imagine. In any case that part of the story took less than 15 minutes. After, we were just simply waiting for the “call” (of some USA central agency where they sent all my data that checked them). More or less eight hours later, they told me everything was OK and I could go. But they also warned me about something … because my name, I would be detained everytime I will travel to USA from now on!!!. The good new, accordingly to them, was that next time it will took much less time because …. now they know everything about me and they have all my data!!

I believe that EU data protection legislation -at least as it is been intepreted and applied in Spain- is too restrictive so it is difficult for lawyers and business people to do our work. But I cannot accept USA demands neither justify them (by the way, they are not in a war there).

My best regards,
Maria

I cannot be as optimistic as you. Just four data:

1º) Accordingly with EL Pais, John Bellinger, Condoleezza Rice’ legal adviser has said that CIA has not made any detention in Europe without Governments’ authorisation. He also has admitted that there has been secret CIA flights from 2001 stopping in Europe and that there has been also detentions. So it seems that all European governments (both, those that now condemn those flights and those that justify them) did know about these flights.

2º) The only person that, up to now, has resigned from his post due to this human right’s scandal has been (even if “officially” he has left for “personal reasons”), as far as I know, is Gijs de Vries when, in my opinion, he did not have the powers to do anything about it, not even to oblige Member States to inform him. So not only the European Goverments are not cooperating in this area -not even saying the truth- but they have “sacrified” the only “innocent” person -lacking of any power to solve the situation- is this unacceptable scandal.

3º) We must welcomed that Fava report was adopted last Wednesday by European Parliament (382 votes) but we should not forget that 256 MP’s voted against and 74 abstentions. 330 MP’s looking the other way is, on my opinion, too many people.

4º) the “unofficial” visits of Spanish police to Guantanamo (as the ones of the French, German police…), without any judicial order, -where, in our case, it seems that they did not even interrogated Spanish citizens but Moroccan ones- sounds me as a “horrible joke” taking into account that European Union has been, meanwhile, reporting, as regards Guantanamo’s prisioners, the USA’s infringments with international humanitarian law and with full compliance with international human rights instruments.

Best regards,
María

On the other hand, your two scenarios may be compatible. We could “think small” by way of the Accession Treaty of Croatia, and then “think big” with a new Convention and a new IGC after 2009. Of course, we run some serious risks because some countries may be tempted to run away from thinking big once they secure the mini-institutional reforms they want. But if they fail to deliver later on, the other member states would have the legitimacy to “think big” on their own and leave the others behind.

Europe may then evolve in two circles, the “Nice-plus-only group” and the “Constitutional group”. Therefore, to some people, a two-stage process is risky, but they may prefer it over a mini-treaty in one stage which would surely shelve for 20 years any possibility of real political integration.

Obviously the matter at issue is usage, storage plus usage perhaps.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating in any way for ignoring of our privacy legislation.

The fundamental right we recognize for controlling where our personal data goes, the purposes of collection, etc. is an important piece of legislation in my humble opinion.

I have a lot to object on how these issues are handled and affect businesses ‘in the real world’… Though I think and recognize they serve a key purpose and that they are necessary (and not in the sense of necessary evil…)

I’m just trying to make a point over that there is a need to recognize who the counterpart in this issue is (a Government, as opposed to a dubious website as I said in the post), as well as the purposes they are trying to achieve through these data mining techniques.

I would dare to say that these kind of issues and counterparts were not in the mind of the legislator when our privacy Directive was enacted.

Let’s not get too serious and please allow me to say goodbye with a brief personal anecdote that I think comes very handy to our discussion: I visited the FBI headquarters around 10+ years ago with a very good american friend of mine who knew people there.

After the regular tour they had everyone leave but they asked a couple of visitors to stay. During the tour they fired and demonstrated, from behind a bulletproof glass, a number of firearms that both FBI agents as well as the bad guys used throughout FBI’s history.

So they handed some of those guns (after having been emptied of course) to us, and were kind enough to have a photographer take some pictures.

I recall that this little group was comprised of one or two retired police or government officers with some close family as well as my friend and myself.

After taking the pictures they said that they would send the pictures home. So I responded: “excuse me Sir, I’m from Spain…” (They didn’t have my address…)

And this gentlemen responded: “Well, that’s the good thing about the FBI… Don’t worry about it. We’ll find you.”

Best, TFS

But that doesn’t mean that Europe doesn’t need a Constitution, or that Europeans don’t want a Constitution. They might wish one, if given a good one.

So the right question seems to me: what would be a good Constitution for us Europeans ?

I’m sure that if Jean Monnet, Robert Schumman, Spaak, Spinelly, Gasperi or even Churchill would have the chance to read you comment they would smile and they would say: at last, one citizen of the XXI century understans which were our aims when we create the European Communities.

I fully agree with the essential of the five principles you have established as the basis for the long term’s health of Europe future. But it has been a surprise to see them in written. When I explain what I would like for Europe I say more or less waht you have described. But I always warn to the audience that this is my personal “dream” so it does not mean that it is going to become really or that is shared by the rest of the Europeans citizens.

In fact, now I believe I will not see it. Maybe my grandchildren will be lucky enough.

I see ourselves so far away from those ideas.

If I have not understood wrong, you belive that the majority of european citizens share your idea of Europe, so you blame Member State administrations and specifically those of a larger and more influential stature.

I’am not so sure about that, as you seem to be. In fact, I believe that if, nowadays, MS’s administrations are so selfish that they are not cabable to see that Europe is the future, it would problably be because neither their citizens see that future as clear as you and me do. Don’t forget, for instance, that that everytime a Treaty -establishing an step more in the integration- has not been ratified it has not been the Goverment nor even the National Parliament who have said “no” but citizens in a referedum (Irland,Denmark, Netherlands, France).
Do you think, for instance that UK or Danish people would one day accept the euro?

Do you believe that French, English or German citizens would give up their own external policy as regards international conflicts (Yugoslavia, Irak, etc) and accept, as a best choice, a “single” European voice -a dream, I hope it will become reality in my lifetime-, even when they do not agree but a majority of states does?

I’m not so sure…but you don’t imagine how much I would like to believe you.

Regards,
María

Many thanks for reading as well as for taking the time to share your thoughts.

I wouldn’t want to get in a discussion over the practices of nations at war, or else on how the current US administration chooses to conduct its anti-terrorism policies.

We could do that. We could perhaps reflect both on current and past US administrations… and I think we would end up agreeing in some instances while very much disagreeing on some others. We could even try to balance how much does Europe as a whole owe to the US on an overall historical scale…

But let’s not go there as that was/is very much out of the scope of my post.

So, putting every other issue aside, let me say that it only seems reasonable to me that if I’m voluntarily willing to set foot in a foreign country, a country in which I’m an alien… I should fully comply with their requirements, rules and regulations.

Perhaps furthermore in this case, where I would be willing to enter a country that is currently at war and that has suffered terrorism on unprecedented scales both within and outside its borders…

While being very wary towards the usage of my personal data by non-authorized parties, this seems to me a non-issue. An issue artificially ‘fabricated’ to grab some headlines and political momentum every so often.

As I said, we are dealing with national security issues here. We are talking and talking back and forth over 34 pieces of information that people should take the time to review… in order to realize about the ridiculous nature of the discussion itself.

Once you are duly notified that the international transfer of personal data would need to take place should you be willing to visit this or that country, it is your choice whether to choose an alternative destination for your honeymoon/ shopping / business trip, and such transfer of personal data would never happen.

This is just diverting attention from where is really needed. TFS

Therefore, please, take my last words in my to date last message as not at all written.

To María López-Contreras González, whom everyone might understand I greatly disagree with, I can only answer I do prefere choosing my own poisons, and neither the articles nor the EPM you are mentioning in your ‘irated’ answer are my cup of tea.

For ethicall reasons, nonetheless.

Regards,

I can only concur with the comments made by Ionna

I am also perplexed.

Rational discussion of the controversial subject of immigration (I happen to support the principle of open borders, a la Schengen, across the entire Union) inevitably becomes mired in accusations of racism.

Similarly, in this instance you appear to be claiming the moral high ground in any debate concerning the sensitive topic of European Regionalism by discrediting any group or individual supporting the principle of ultimate separatism as a fascist. This is a rather obvious and ultimately hollow approach to take in discussing such a serious topic.

However, in a similarly blunt attempt to forestall any objections on your part (or other readers) I will state from the outset my unequivocal rejection of violence and intimidation as a means of securing political goals. However, such acts are to be condemned from all quarters and by way of reminder let us recall the recent revelations in Northern Ireland where the complicity of law and order forces in murdering suspected Nationalist sympathisers was exposed, after many years of denial and official conspiracy to cover up the facts. One man’s “terrorist” is someone else’s “freedom fighter”.

I am a fervent supporter of the Europe of Regions model as a credible alternative strategy to advance the process of European integration. As such I utterly reject any attempt to claim moral legitimacy for the current geo-political status quo to remain in situ, in perpetuity.

Can I suggest you obtain a copy of “Size of Nations” by Alesina & Spolaore http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=9931&ttype=2 , paying particular attention to the chapter explaining the growing influence of the European Union as an overarching canopy of political stability, in which the principle of enhanced autonomy for individual Regions can thrive.

Another useful resource is this animated timeline illustrating how the geo-political map of Europe has changed dramatically during the last 100 years or so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/europe/02/euro_borders/html/default.stm

If you had predicted at the beginning of the last century the demise of the dominant European Imperial powers and their replacement with a dynamic array of smaller more immediate geo-political entities reflecting the diverse nature of Europe’s cultural heritage, you would have been either laughed at or locked up as some kind of lunatic with an agenda.

The moral of this story is simple: things change over time!

Let us also consider the ongoing situation in the Balkans where the people of Montenegro opted for autonomy in an entirely democratic manner. Kosovo also seems to be opting for self-rule. These issues are not without controversy but solutions (difficult though they are to achieve) are possible.

To summarise, what would happen in a scenario where the inhabitants of Euskal Herria (we could also add Catalunya and Galicia to the list) express a clear choice for ultimate separation from Spain & France via the ballot box – i.e. by voting in a party or parties with specific pledges for just such a policy in their manifesto(s)?

When the leaders of said political parties come knocking on the door in Madrid/Paris, with their plan for self-rule/autonomy in their hands, one assumes you will be similarly unequivocal in condemning any attempt to discredit or intimidate the democratically elected representatives of a community wishing to express their fundamental right to self-determination?

Internet is full of forums and blogs where people insult and discredit each other using no real arguments. This is not such a kind of blog. So, I’m sorry, Adolfo, but if you are not capable to give just arguments when you disagree about an opinion of other person so your contribution would just be to attack personally to that person that does not share your ideas, I’m sorry to say that you don’t have a place in this blog. If you don’t know to behave yourself, if you don’t know to respect others opinions even if you disagree with them, I kindly advise you to choose one of the thousands of Internet forum where these kind of conducts are allowed and even promoted.

I should not even enter in your unfair game but I need to clarify some points about assertions made by you and by someone else –that, by the way, have nothing to do with the point we were discussing- as to make clear which are the rules of the game in this blog, so in a democracy.

JMA’s opinion about separatism (“the Union should help MS resist separatism, even if this political program is not defended with extortion, bombs and machine guns”) is absolutely respectful. Of course, you or me, we can disagree with it and, in this case, we may explain why we disagree with that idea. I will send a second comment to give my opinion in that topic –the only topic that was in the table-.

But respect and tolerance distinguish democratic people from those that are not really democrats. Personal attacks mixing a person’s ideology with the past of some of the founders of a clear democratic political party and with the major of Salamanca personal position about something that has nothing to do which the topic we are discussing are not arguments. I’m sorry to say that this is the worst way of demagogy. Regretfully it only shows that the person using them is not capable to respect the opinion of others and does not have real arguments to explain its disagreement.

I have not idea how old you are. But I assure you that JMA’s statement was accurate. There was a time, not so many years ago, where some politicians from both the European institutions and other Member States were in some way sympathetic and understanding with ETA. Fortunately this is not any more the case as regards the big majority.

Other point: It is probably right that in the Popular Party we can still find some very few persons that are not really democratic and they are still missing dictatorship’s ways. But I assure you: within the Socialist, the Communist (Izquierda Unida) or any other political party (also nationalists) there are also a few fascist people. A fascism that probably is even worse: that one where someone finds himself “culturally” superior to the rest of the people -that he, consequently, scorns- and has the deep conviction that he must take decisions on their behalf because people is not trained to take decisions themselves.

In any case, I don’t see differences between “right” fascism and “left” fascism.

We are lucky that, nowadays, the majority of the Spanish people (whatever their ideology will be) are not like that, so you cannot generalize and, as a judge, to discredit a person and a whole party (by the way, a democratic party which is voted by millions the Spanish people) just because you don’t share their ideology or their opinions.

Your comment is unacceptable. And I believe it is important to clarify this point.

And please, don’t even try to answer me back attacking my political ideology (that, first, you don’t know and, by the way, it is far away from the one of the Popular Party) or suggesting that I’m just defending a friend (it is true, JMA is my friend. But, first, he does not need that anyone defends him; he knows quite well how to do it himself; and, secondly, I would have written this very same message to you if your personal attack would have been to any other person, or any other political party or ideology.).

Just a last point about one of Ioanna’s statements. Terrorism is terrorism. And I have the conviction that all democratic people and political parties have the same idea of what terrorism is. You have just to read the articles that Rosa Diaz –a Basque socialist woman- has written in the last two years.

So, as far as I know, the Popular Party has not any “peculiar view” of what is to be called “terrorism”. The difference between political parties about this matter it is not, on my personal opinion, their idea of terrorism but the methods, measures and instruments to fight it.

But, in any case –and this is the point I wanted to underline-, I have many friends from the Popular party -with whom I usually disagree in almost everything and sometimes also in their positions about how to solve the Basque (and ETA) problem and I assure you than none of them has ever called me “friend of terrorists” or “terrorist”. They have respected my ideas as I have respected theirs even if strongly disagreeing. So again to generalize, to blame every bad thing that happens to a particular person or to a particular political party is not the way, it is unfair, and it does not reflect reality.

So, please, let’s discuss about ideas; let’s discuss about our different opinions with regards Europe; but let’s do it as the civilized and well mannered people that we are.

Regards,
María López-Contreras González

I am Basque democrat and I’ll always qualify Terrorism if the spanish army invades Basque Country or Catalonia if those regions claims for independence in a peacefull way.

Are you sure Spain “guarantees the fundamental freedoms of thought, expression, communication, meeting & vote”? I thought Spain hasn’t. In fact there are a large number of cases in which the opinion is penalized, speacially for Basques in Spain. The Popular Party closed two Basque newspapers (besides torturing the staff of journalist of the only Basque lenguage newspaper,) several Basque magazines, a radio station…

Is that what you understand as “guarantees the fundamental freedom of expression”?

As for the freedom of thought, Spain has recreated a strange obligation “to comdenm”, making even possible to prosecute political parties just because suppossedly fail “to comdenm”. Coming from a party, the Popular Party, that resists to comdenm the Francoism… it’s a rare way to understand the freedom of thouth.

What to say about “the fundamental freedoms” of communications, meeting and vote, when just these days we’ve witnessed how the Basque elected president is prosecuted just for having uses precissely his “freedom of communication” (perhapps he wronged the direction of his “communications” in the Spanish Popular views, hasn’t he?) and the freedom of meeting (not so “fundamental” also in Spanish Popular view) is being prohibited day after day.

The vote… well, this part of the “fundamental freedoms”… make me laugh, because it was just the Spanish Popular Party who created an state of the art juridical ingeniery to exclude an important part of the Basque citizenship from this “fundamental freedom”.

In fact, it is all a joke in the Spanish ruled Basque Country. Not to speak about the dirty war and violence the Spanish State has directed against the Basque society during decades, and specially in the last three, when the actual politics were yet plainly accountables.

And nothing less real than that.

The majority of those citizens will like to see, at least, an overall and deep change in the relationships between their region and the Spanish central government, as they did already in the ’30s, under the first autonomous Basque government, well before any terrorism (except that of the Francoist coup d’etat) arose. And that majority has also once and again clearly manifested itself radically against any form of terrorism.

Let’s say it plainly: Hitler and Gandhi were both staunch nationalists; Washington was a die hard independentist and both Torquemada and Saint Francis d’Asis were Christians… No one would say nowadays that Gandhi’s, or Saint Francis’ or Washington’s ideals were ‘corrupt’ because some of the issues they defended were also in the agendas of some dark counterparts.

But let’s also say it plainly: nothing in the original message that is in the origin of my interventions here has anything to see with the European Union or the European institutions. Least of all the grossly unfair statement about ‘still today inside the European Union Institutions (which one? The Commission? The Court of Justice?… The Parliament? All three of them?) and Member States’ (?) Basque terrorists being often seen as “misguided patriots”. Everything in the message by JMA can be more easily explained in the light of pure internal Spanish policy, where anything related with the ‘Basque problem’ is understood as a key issue to win elections.

Please, let’s not bring purely internal affairs to the European debate; let’s not rely in the European boomerang to hit some political heads at home: it could bounce back against our own heads some day.

Of course EU institutions must support the struggle against terrorism; of course they must not intervene at all to resist democratic projects being defended through democratic ways. Or any given day we can wake up and discover something nasty in the European sky.

However there are some contradictions that I would like to underline:

- Ionanna, as far as I know, all democratic parties or persons have the same views about “terrorism”, independently of their political ideas or the parties they belong to… I don’t see that the Popular Party has any peculiar view of what is to be called “terrorism”. Other thing is that political parties disagree in how “terrorism” should be fighted. But this is quite normal and healthy in democracy.

Moreover your assert that “anyone not sharing that point of view is deemed as > or a > himself is absolutely unfair. I know many people from the PP and I assure you that none of them has ever considered me scum because I did not share their views.

You are talking about “a decision freely chosen by the majority of the population of any given nation” and that you don’t see any problem when “it follows a decision of the incumbent nation.”

The problem of the Basque country is that it does not fullfil the main requirements of your own definition: when the language are bombs and murder’s threats, citizens have not freedom.

Furthermore, as you may know, in the Basque country there is not a “majority” (a clear majority) that wants separatism but, precisely, the problem is that half of the population wants it and half does not want it (that, without counting the thousands of Basque people that cannot vote there because they have emigrated afer murder’s threats).

So, what do you propose? ¿If a referendum there is just a few votes in favour separatism you consider that is fair to accept that decision that obliges half of the population to go away from their land?

In any case, you have got to the key when you say “if a clear majority of the citizens of any stateless European nation agrees to separate from their present State and the respective government of both former and new State agree on finding the procedure to be followed …”. So we agree: there has to be a clear majority of Basque people that want to create a separate State.

Political leaders in the European arena were (I would argue) aware of a growing sense of disenchantment with the European project even before Laeken – the declaration was their attempt to forge a bridge across an emergent chasm of public disillusionment; “democratic deficit” was certainly in the common vernacular pre-Laeken http://www.newton-dunn.com/pr-releases-new/challenge.htm

The grand idea of an “Ever closer union” and the process of integration was initiated by a generation suffering from the “shock and awe” of two European civil wars and a profoundly held belief in strategies designed to make the reoccurrence of such tragic events a physical (if not moral) impossibility, initially by merging the resources and infrastructures required to wage mechanised warfare and latterly by laying the foundations for the integration of individual National political, social and judicial systems through which such ruinous policies had been previously prosecuted.

Times change and Europe now faces a very different set of challenges, perhaps less immediately obvious than a V Rocket landing on your house or soldiers herding you into a concentration camp, but nevertheless retaining the potential for equally dire consequences. Climate change could ultimately lead to mankind’s extinction and others would argue that global cultural conflict (extreme or more subtle in form) now represents an perennial threat to the actual fabric of European society.

I have always fully supported the sentiments underpinning the desire to secure a lasting constitutional settlement for Europe, binding its citizens together through the vehicle of a democratically accountable, open and transparent, institutional hierarchy, reflective of the true diversity of its people rather than the artificial constraints inherent within the “Europe of Nations” constitutional template bequeathed to successive generations by the founding treaties.

However, I remain deeply critical of the shadowy role played by individual member state administrations and particularly the intrusions of the larger Nation State actors into a constitutional process designed to deliver a document that will impact upon the everyday lives of individuals for generations to come. Europe should be a bottom-up construction and ordinary citizens represent the fundamental building blocs of any future European politicised society, not member (Nation) States!

So who are the real culprits in this charade of constitutional and political paralysis?

Perhaps we need to look no further than some of the murky details highlighted within the analysis provided by Kirsty and Jose Ignacio. I was a keen follower of the events (call me an anorak!) surrounding the Laeken Declaration and the Convention it spawned and I can concur with their account.

There was, during the 18 month period of open sessions referred to a real sense of optimism. Here at last was a chance for community stakeholders to make their voices heard.

How and why did that sense of optimism and genuine commitment evaporate? I have a painfully cynical but entirely plausible explanation.

During the open sessions contributors were mainly drawn from various political blocs within the European Parliament and/or representatives of European civil society. It is true that some were appointed by individual National Parliaments and it also true that a few of these contributors made passionate pleas for the repatriation of powers back to member state Parliaments but in a Federal system, competency should be allocated to the most appropriate tier of governance. It is ironic that mere mention of the dreaded “F word” in such circles is actively discouraged.

The buoyant mood referred to flowed from a sense that the discussions and debates were about the future of Europe and how it would shape the everyday lives of ordinary peoples. Here were innovative ideas being proposed that would begin to deliver a more accountable, citizen driven political culture, reflecting the rich diversity of European society – how naive and foolish we were to believe that such genuinely democratic outcomes could be realised!

The dawn was well and truly false – we had conveniently overlooked the fact that those contributors debating during the open sessions did not exert any real power or influence. The shadow of cynicism that settled upon proceedings when the Convention went into its “closed doors” hearings was an all too familiar reminder of the harsh realities imposed by intergovernmental back room wheeler dealing power politics. It was as though the open sessions had always been a mere precursor to the main event: “OK boys and girls, you can put your toys away now, the real movers and shakers are in town now!”

Power is a word bandied about in a political context but very rarely explained in terms comprehended by mere mortals not interested in the minutiae of political skulduggery. For me, the meaning of this word is very simple:
You have power when you can make a decision and actually implement it
You do not have power when you can propose ideas/policies but do not possess the influence to see them implemented.
It is this crucial difference that shapes how European politics is done.

Real power within the European institutional framework steadfastly remains within the Council: that is the Council of Ministers/European Council. The Commission can propose but it knows that any idea without the tacit support of a clear majority of member states (and quite often, unanimity) has no chance of surfacing as a serious policy outcome so they do not bother to float ideas that have no chance of success. I wouldn’t spend valuable time researching ideas if I knew they were doomed to failure, no matter how laudable/logical/equitable they might be.

It is member state administrations that remain deeply conservative in their increasingly desperate attempts to preserve respective fiefdoms of influence and power. Inside this closely guarded web of mutual intrigue there is a clearly established pecking order with France, UK & Germany at the pinnacle, Spain, Italy, Sweden & new entrant Poland (very much making its presence felt) on the next tier down and the remainder in layers below.

One only has to peruse any dialogue concerning the machinations of the European political arena to witness the negative impact flowing from this disparate array of National self-interests. At the first sign of discord on any particular issue, groups of politicians align themselves into cliques fractured along National lines of demarcation and the constitutional debacle is merely another example in a litany of European aspirations sacrificed on the altar of short-term domestic political expediency.

This parochial approach to political discourse within élites is mirrored by disparate National electorates across the Union. Juan Díez Medrano’s excellent dissection of this phenomenon exposes the National orientation of public attitudes toward European integration – http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7671.html

How can this seemingly perpetual cycle of self-serving Nationalist driven ineptitude be broken?

In terms of the Constitution:

1. The Constitutional Treaty in its original format is dead and buried (just repeat the words from the Monty Python parrot sketch to yourself a few times to get the general idea) and anybody attempting to resurrect it, lock stock and barrel, is deluding themselves and wasting the time of everybody else they involve in the process – it’s time to move on!
2. A revised and very much simplified Treaty has a chance to succeed but only if it remains true to basic principles that the mass of ordinary citizens can both understand and identify with.
3. The revised treaty should be subject to referendum because any document with constitutional implications is a matter for the people’s consent; a fundamental democratic tenant that cannot be sidestepped.
4. The referendum should be a simultaneous pan-EU event, no ifs or buts. The Constitution is a distinctly European issue with similarly European outcomes for European citizens. It is not a document for individual member states to dissect, apply a la carte (we like this part but we’ll opt out of that) preferences to, or use as a domestic political football. It should be considered by the citizens of the Union within a specifically European context.

For the more general long-term health of Europe’s future:

1. The concept of European integration is doomed to long-term paralysis and ultimate failure unless we can implement institutional reforms that will diminish the dominant influence of member state administrations.
2. The ceding of power in policy areas with pan-European import to a central administration, which should be inherently democratic, open and transparent in nature, can be counterbalanced by the devolution of effective competency (that means revenue raising powers commensurate with budgetary responsibility) in other policy areas, to robust semi-autonomous sub-national geo-political entities, i.e. Regions
3. Political, Legal, Economic, Social & Technological spheres of human activity are inexorably interwoven and interdependent. If we (as Europeans) decide that it is mutually beneficial to integrate in one area we are, ultimately, bound to integrate in others. In short the concept of a trade only relationship is both inefficient and unworkable in the long-term.
4. The orthodox Europe of Nations model is a constitutional dead-end. With the addition of each new member state, the political paralysis inherent within its structure becomes more obvious to all but those with a vested self-serving interest. Let’s not waste another 50 years discovering this axiom.
5. Innovative reforms are essential to re-energise the momentum for progressive change within the Union. One idea might be to replace the European Council/CoM, Committee of Regions and European Economic & Social Committee with an elected body (or Senate as some would call it) based on Regional criteria, thus creating a more recognisable bi-cameral institutional architecture. This would simultaneously inject democratic legitimacy and reduce the current burden of institutional complexity – less politicians and bureaucrats all round; a definite vote winner!

It is therefore no surprise to learn that groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo remain the principal barrier to the radical reforms required; the very same institutions who wield effective power within the current architectural structure of the Union – Member State administrations and specifically those of a larger and more influential stature.

The only power that will remove this barrier is that which lies within the collective hands of the European public – will they ever be bold enough to use it?

I continue not being able to remember a single case in which the European institutions had shown ‘sympathy for (Basque) terrorists’. Well, at least you now speak about ‘European politicians’ and that is a very different point. I can also understand that someone in those institutions, or in the administrations of the MS, and I don’t know whether is that the case of Adolfo, could have felt being object of a very unfair treatment here.

JIT says that ‘It is evident that the solution to our problems is not giving statehood to all human groups asking for one. Rather, it is about creating the conditions and the institutions in which both collective and individual projects can be realised without necessarily creating a state’.

Nicely written, but how are EU institutions supposed to act against ‘separatism’ if we take into account the following facts?

- First, that statehood is not ‘given away’ or offered as a gift as it was not given, for instance, to Finland, Iceland, the Baltic republics, the Checzs, the Slovaks, the former Yugoslavians or, very soon, to the Kosovars. Neither it was ‘given’ to Eastern Germans when they decided to re-integrate Germany (following Kohl’s words ‘in application of the principle of self-determination’). It follows a decision of the incumbent nation. Majority rules, as usual in democracy.

- Second, that statehood is not requested by everyone in Europe, but just in very isolated and already identified cases. In Western Europe I can identify but two with a relevant citizens’ support: Scotland and the Basque country. I can hardly see a wave of stateless nations all over Europe demanding their states to be created. And, were that the decision of the majority of those peoples… what should be done then ‘democratically speaking’? Are perchance British authorities knocking hard at the door of the European institutions looking for help against the SNP?

- Lastly, because I cannot accept, as a rule of thumb, that nationalist projects aiming to statehood are against European values (liberty, democracy and respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms and of the rule of law). I can for instance remember Basque nationalist delegations in the last forties taking part in the creation of the Council of Europe.

If a clear majority of the citizens of any stateless European nation agrees to separate from their present State, and the respective governments of both the former and new State agree on finding a procedure to be followed (as in the Scottish scenario, or the one in Canada) I will be absolutely against any interference of any European institution on that democratic path.

And just in case: I absolutely agree there can be no space in Europe for political violence.

But also no barriers for free and democratic decisions.

“By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’.
This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

Regards,

So, you really mean it. You really mean that perfectly democratic political parties pursuing perfectly democratic aims through perfectly democratic ways… should be ‘resisted against’ at EU level. And, of course, I am speaking about political parties which are deemed as thoroughfully legal on the grounds of their national constitutional systems.

What’s next? Commies? Leftists in general?

Jews?

Well, I have to confess it doesn’t really surprise me: the political party you belong to, the Spanish Popular Party, has to date failed to condemn Franco’s dictatorship, was actually founded by some Franco’s minister and this same week has, against, voted against retiring the bloody dictator the title of ‘perpetual and honorific’ major of Salamanca he got back in 1937.

After that, speaking about ‘sympathies for terrorists’ or ‘misguided patriots’ seems a joke to me.

A very bad one.

Last but not least, let’s not forget your very unfortunate comments on the European institutions as having been ‘sympathetic to terrorists’. In some countries that would be nice stuff for a libel case. I just agree with you in a single point: ‘Fascism is highly contagious. Europe may have to pay a high price tomorrow for letting it spread today.’

Maybe we both understand fascism in a very different way.

I absolutely disagree.

Firstly, because I can hardly see a recent single example of European institutions or Member States speaking about terrorists, even Basque ones, as ‘misguided patriots’ or giving them anything close to sympathy. A very different thing is that some political parties, especially the Popular Party in Spain, would like everyone to share their peculiar views on what is to be called ‘terrorism’. And often, anyone not sharing that point of view is deemed as ‘a friend of the terrorists’ or a ‘terrorist’ himself.

Secondly, because it is quite hard to believe that, in Democracy, a decision freely chosen by the majority of the population of any given nation is not to be considered at least as symptomatic of a very clear and serious long standing political problem… If not for a real ground to legally implement that decision (as for the terms of the Canadian Clarity Act, for instance).

No: “the unity of a Member State” is not a value in itself, Democracy is.

Regards,

Just one more though, the unity of a Member State is a value in itself, because enhancing and renewing national identity is at the heart of the European project. The Union should help Member States resist separatism, even if this political program is not defended with extortion, bombs and machine guns.

There may be a gap between what people tell pollsters & what they would actually opt for if & when the question of Scottish independence were put to a vote.

If however Scotland were to opt for independence, such an historic departure would likely reverberate throughout Europe. Independence for regions such as the Basque Country, Corsica, Flanders, possibly the North of Italy (& others) would become psychologically much more plausible, & thus politically more probable.

As such institutional changes would perforce entail a thorough revision of EU arrangements, they would usher in a period – probably protracted & possibly quite tense – of political upheaval in the EU & its Member States. The complexion of Europe that would emerge from such a commotion is impossible to predict; but it is to be expected that meanwhile, overarching uncertainty & the mobilisation of political energies towards constitutional issues would seriously affect business confidence, & render the adoption of unpopular but urgently needed economic reforms harder to agree upon.

In other words, Scottish independence would trigger a succession of events that could – at least in the short run – set Europe back in the global economic race.

However, in this concrete case, you seem to forget that it was not Mrs. Royal who propose a referendum about the draft European Constitutional treaty in the first place.

Now, that the harm is done and that after asking the French people in a referedum they have said “no” to the draft Treaty, I don’t believe it is possible to step backward (What are they going to say to French people? we apologize but we did mistake ourselves and as regards this complex issue “representative democracy” is much better that “direct democracy”?) and to ratify the draft Treaty by the French Assembly.
France made a mistake and now it would have to sort out the problem but it is unlikely that Frech people would consider legitimate that French Parliament would ratify a text to which they have said “no”.
Best regards,
María

I totally agree with you that the Commission’s (German) Vicepresident declaration was cleary unfortunate and the real problem is that it possible reveals the position of thousands of citizens of the bigger countries of the Union.

However, let me add some riders to your post.

First: I don’t believe that the principle of independence of Commissioners -that must protect the European interests- from their home countries established in article 213 of EC Treaty is “a bit idealistic”, even if I recognize of course that we all are human beings, also Commissioners.
But if I would not have the full conviction that this principle is true and it is respected, I would be unable to believe not only in the Commission – as the European interest’ voice- but either in our national judicial power (Constitutional Court included) or in the European Courts.

Second: It seems we forget history very quickly. Until May 2004, the 5 bigger Member States, -among them, Spain-, have had the “unjustified” privilege of appointing two Commissioners while the rest of the countries only had one. Why this privilege that has be maintained for years and that, in my opinion, it has not justification at all taking into account that, as you, I believe that the Commission -that must be, in this matter, distinguishes from the Council and the European Parliament- represents the European interests as a whole? ….

So, maybe, we should not be neither surprise nor indignant about Verheugen’s suggestion, even if we -of course- do not share it.

I agree with you that the ideal would be that the selection principle of Commissioners should be exclusivily based on their capacity to serve European interests and in this sense I have seen as a big positive stept the right of veto that has been conferred to the European Parliament as regards, first, the appointed Commission’s President and, second, the whole Commission.

I believe that EP -that represents European people- is the right forum to evaluate the capacity of the candidates to really serve the European interest.

But, as you, we have come back to the departure: How to elect these candidates, if -I imagine- we all agree that in an Europe of 27 or more countries it is not workable to maintain a Commission with as many members as States?

And, to answer this question, I really have not seen yet a better solution -as Victor has already pointed out in this blog-that the one provided by artícle I.26.6 of the Draft Constitution Treaty: 2/3 of the members of the Member States appointed through a system of equal rotation between Member States.

Last but not least: probably you are right that evidence shows that small Member States may be more loyal to the Community spirit that large Member states. But as regards the Commission I think that the attitude and personality of each person has more weight that the country from where that person comes. Just two names as example: Delors (France) and Santer (Luxembourg).

Best regards,
María

Insofar as certain people (whether immigrants or nationals) don’t respect such values in their actions, there are (or should be) existing mechanisms to deal with that (e.g., police prevention against domestic violence). I don’t understand how these issues are connected with immigration policies (other than in certain media in search of sensations).

“Basic values” is an empty term anyway (perhaps you can explain what you mean by it). I don’t think all people residing in any member state can agree on any basic values beyond what is enacted by law (and, in most cases, not even on that).

A good way to start with could be the 2/3 agreement included in the European Constitutional Treaty (article 26.6).

Afterall, Turkey aside, how did the EU do with their recent energy deal with Russia? Poland vetoed it. Once again, the entire EU will was hijacked by one member state using EU leverage to pursue its own national interest.

The fact that Cyprus, a country subject to a dispute that is exactly the sort of thing the EU was meant to get away from, is even in the EU is the result of yet another veto threat (by Greece).

The EU has issues and although they sometimes manifest through the process with Turkey, they have nothing to do with Turkey. 27 countries each with their own national interests and foreign policies and each with a power of veto. This sounds like a complete political non-flyer.

The consitution is meant to magically fix everything – but which mug is going to give up their veto over their own destiny?

Examine the opening words of the Treaty of Rome and compare it with the words of your own article – can you not see the common link? Who are the “High Contracting Parties”? Couldn’t be anything to do with the same “Berlin and Paris governments” or the Sweden “not agreeing to the pasarelle clause” or the “Poland blocking European efforts” by any chance?

The grand European ideal has been proceeding down a constitutional blind alley for the last fifty years and with each added member state its underlying faults become more obvious. One hopes we will (as Europeans) not spend the next fifty years discovering this sad fact.

Unless and until we develop democratically accountable structures of governance functioning on a European scale (that means politicisation of the European arena) and move away from the Europe of Nations model embedded within the founding treaty and every successive intergovernmental agreement (that’s what treaties are!) we will never truly realise the vast potential of this continent.

There is (in the longer term) no space upon the global stage for competing geo-political actors in the form of established old style European Nation States: Germany, France, UK, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Poland et al, to mutually co-exist with an emergent European entity; ultimately one must cede to the other – such a leap of faith will be the real “moment of truth”

To those who cry “European Super-State – Never!” I say “What Super-State!” Federalism is a two way street and for each field of policy ceded upwards to a open and accountable tier of European governance there is an equally vital one capable of devolution downwards to closer to more immediate and tangible geo-political entities. It is this constitutional counterbalancing act that can deliver the kind of open and flexible Europe we all yearn for.

One can be simultaneously “Andalusian and European, Bavarian and European, Scottish and European, Breton and European, Silesian and European, Tuscan and European, Scanian and European because such concepts of affinity are mutually exclusive. Allow German, French, Spanish, British, Swedish, Polish etc. to enter this complex equation and it is any nascent European sense of identity that suffers.

A credible alternative future lies in a Europe of Regions template where larger member states wither and die over a protracted period of time. What prevents this possibility of this strategy gaining popular credence? The vested interests of a relatively small (but very powerful) political élites resolutely resisting the wider circulation of its advantages amongst an increasingly frustrated and disenfranchised European electorate.

We (Europeans) have the power but ignorance and fear seemingly prevents mutually beneficial action.

Peter Davidson
Alderley Edge
NW.England

However, for Turkey will have to turn inside out. What the Turks fail to realise is that it’ll be for the betterment of their country to do so.

There is no chance in hell that the Turks will stop trying to get into the EU. The Turks are blackmailing the EU to go soft on them.

Cyprus has to be resolved to benefit the Cypriots. Greek Cypriots make up and have always made up 80% of the population but their opinion (as NOT reflected in that ludicrous Annan Plan) apparently does not count.

Turkey has made Cyprus it’s national cause to keep the populace’s mind off the ineptitude of successive Turkish Governments, and the Army which runs the Turkish state.

Is Turkey prepared to give human rights to its 20 million Kurds?

What role would Turkey play in the EU? Is Europe prepared for a massive impulse of millions of Muslims looking for work and secession when they become the majority in certain areas? You are naive if you think this will not happen. THe rights given to Turks/moslems in Europe are not those given to Christians in Turkey. It never will be no matter how many laws are put onto paper.

These things need thinking about. Naivete needs checking.

La adhesión de Bulgaria y Rumanía a la Unión servirá para consolidar Europa en un futuro bajo una misma moneda y, esperemos, un marco legal unificado. Pero, de nuevo, nos enfrentamos al reto de integrar en nuestras filas a cerca de 30 millones de ciudadanos que viven descontentos de sus países y que parecen mirarnos más como un vía de escape que como una inversión de futuro. Europa es un proyecto basado en crear una federación de estado que vivan en una realación simbiótica, de necesidad mútua, que garantice la paz y el bienestar de sus ciudadanos. Esperemos que las nuevas incorporaciones vean el camino a seguir y, con nuestra ayuda, puedan hacer una rica aportación a este proyecto de paz que es la UE.

En el plano extracomunitario, parece que cada uno tendrá su propio quehacer.

China tendrá un reto importante en controlar su galopante economía, además de preparar los JJOO del 2008 en Pekin, que, por cierto, parece que lo están haciendo bastante bien.

EEUU tienen una agenda bastante interesante. Su presidente está en entredicho tras perder su partido las últimas elecciones. Y mientras su papel como “árbitro de la paz” se plantea peliagudo, con una Corea del Norte rearmando su arsenal nuclear, Irak al borde de la guerra civil, y su aliado Israel peleando con Irán en tierras palestinas y libanesas. Y, mientras, algunas de las principales compañías industriales del país reestructurándose ante el reto de sobrevivir a la creciente avalancha de productos Made in China, a mitad de precio e igual calidad.

Tampoco olvidemos, pues, el importante papel que desempeñará la comunidad árabe en ayudar a mantener la paz y estabilidad internacional.

La retirada de Chirac y Blair de la política dejarán a Mekel, Presidenta de la UE, en medio de un campo de juego que parece que va a entrar en un ebullición, tanto a nivel interno, con el trajín que supone incorporar 2 nuevos estados miembros, como el externo, pues quién duda que tanto los EEUU como China y otros viejo aliados llamarán más de una vez a esta nuestra puerta recordadno viejo favores y pidiendo una ayuda.

Y dejando Rusia, África y Latinoamércia en el tintero, me despido deseando un 2007 muy feliz a todos.

La Unión Europea, y especialmente el Parlamento Europeo ha sido a menudo concebido como una especie de premio de consolación en el que políticos destacados podían descansar de la política nacional. No fue así con Loyola de Palacio que se entregó a sus tareas en el ámbito europeo con tanta dedicación como había hecho en sus anteriores puestos. Era el mejor ejemplo de lo que necesita la Unión Europea, aportando no sólo probada eficacia en la gestión sino ilusión por el proyecto europeo y sobre todo algo fundamental en este momento: ideas. No en vano fue la mujer española que más lejos ha llegado en la política europea.

Hubiera sido una pieza muy importante tanto en la renovación de ideas y la estrategia que permita al Partido Popular volver al poder como en los retos de la Unión Europea.
Por todo ello se la echará mucho de menos.

Sería mejor resaltar figuras ejemplares como la de Loyola, antes que reservar cuotas en los consejos de administración de las empresas.

Una gran perdida.

Fantástica la cita de Oscar Wilde… no tengo palabras…

En relación con la ‘alianza de civilizaciones’ y sus ‘recomendaciones’… la “creación de proyectos conjuntos para la producción de películas“, tiene que haber sido extremadamente bien recibida en el sector audiovisual español…

Al margen de lo pueril e incosistente de esta y otras recomendaciones contenidas en el texto… mi primer pensamiento es que estas coproduciones –de llegarse algún día a realizar–, naturalmente serán subvencionadas… y viniendo estos fondos de Europa podrán por supuesto combinarse con los que tradicionalmente se vienen recibiendo del erario público español.

Con independencia de que esta iniciativa de la alianza ya no tiene siquiera la entidad de un brindis al sol… no hay como tratar por todos los medios de tener a la clientela contenta.

Abrazos, TFS

No sabes lo bien que me ha venido este artículo en el plano profesional…

Quizá sería interesante colgar las resoluciones de la DGRN, para tener acceso a los argumentos esgrimidos para denegar las inscripciones a las que te refieres.

Un abrazo, TFS

No queremos aquí establecer un debate acerca de la política interna de Rusia. Todos sabemos sobre las vulneraciones a la democracia y a los derechos humanos que se pasan en aquel país, y también podríamos decir que Rusia ni siquiera es un Estado de derecho.

Sin embargo, desde una perspectiva de las relaciones internacionales y sus teorias, es importante que tengamos una cantidad considerable de grandes potencias (grand puissance) alrededor del mundo, de manera a establecer contrapesos a la potencia estadounidense. Así, una Rusia fuerte, con la cual los Estados Europeos logren llegar a un “partenariado estrategico”, con un equilibrio basado en el aporte industrial de Europa, sumado a las reservas energeticas de Rusia, puede ser la clave para la estabilidad mundial

(…) “No creo que ninguna solución resulte posible si no aparecen, de forma urgente, auténticos lideres europeos como lo fueron los de la post-guerra, o los de mediados de los 80 por citar los más recientes, que sepan anteponer la integración europea a sus particulares intereses nacionales y que consigan trasladar a los ciudadanos la necesidad y el entusiasmo por una Europa cada vez más unida.”

¿Tienes algún nombre en mente?

Un abrazo, TFS