Euroland

It is very difficult to write something new about the situation in Europe with the debt crisis and the Euro-zone problem. However, according to the Financial Times Otmar Issing, a highly respected German economist, who participated in the set up of the Euro, have said that it is not good if a so called transfer union is formed, ie, when rich countries gives to the poor in the EU. He also did not like that an almost consensus had formed around the notion that more strict rules would not help countries keep their budgets.

It seems to me that this would be new information if heeded by the German public. Because it would be one step closer to the D-mark reinstatement. There is one way out that probably is so unpopular that it is unreasonable but it would be possible to peg the salary levels in government to the GDP/capita for each nation. Private companies would follow suit. They could then compete nation for nation to improve their situation and would be more competitive due to lower salaries. I don't see another solution, but then again I am not an economist. Issing ruled out a political union brought about by the necessity for saving the Euro and the idea of such a solution would be to use transfers to equalize the economy.

The fact that lowering salaries, raising pension age and other austerity changes are so unpopular that they seem to induce instabilities is actually quite serious. Because there simply is no other way if a transfer union is not installed. It would be interesting to know if Swedes would be interested in a transfer union? One idea could be to give "influence points" to countries that give transfers. A small country like Sweden could therefore get more to say which would make sense because they have a functioning economy. This might make transfers more popular. It is very quiet in Swedish media on the Euro/debt crisis, by the way. It is actually quite a fuss on the Continent. Is this because there is no solution?

President Obama has only 4% of Israeli Jews behind him.

Column One: Biden’s lost cause: "Second, the Netanyahu Obama faces is not the Netanyahu Clinton faced in the 1990s. Today, the premier leads a far broader coalition than he did in his previous government. It is also more stable. Labor Party chief Defense Minister Ehud Barak knows he cannot unseat Netanyahu. Indeed, he knows he can’t even trust his party to continue supporting him if he leaves Netanyahu’s government. As for opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the latest polls show her trailing far behind Nethanyahu as the people's choice for prime minister. Her party's popularity rates are decreasing, Likud's are growing."

Apparently, Bill Clinton managed to unseat Nethanyahu last time he was prime minister but this time, argues Catherine Glick, despite many recent high level visits from the US, this will be difficult this time around. Vice President Joe Biden is currently visiting and he represents the most pro-Israeli member of the Obama administration.

Tzipi Livni said not long ago that there is no opposition to the position on Iran among Israelis. The trend Glick is describing in her article furthermore underlines the seriousness of this question. The US and Israel a gliding apart, rather than coming together. However, a last month Gallup poll tells that two thirds of Americans support Israel, 80% of Republicans and 53% of Democrats.

What is going to be important for this equation is the position on the Israel-Palestine conflict that EUs new EAS authority is going to have? The pre-Lisbon Treaty position negotiated by the Swedish chairmanship was strongly in favor of Palestine. Lady Ashton, the EAS chief, is apparently starting out with a visit to Gaza. In all probability the result of this positioning is further going to polarize the US on the issue. Probably the EAS is going to be governed principally by the joint foreign ministers of the member states or by the EU Commission. Politicians or Administrators. However, it is not inconceivable that it evolves into something of an NGO like the European Parliament. The US State Department has about 22,000 employees and this should be compared to the 6,000 or so in the EAS.

Kissinger's 'one phone number' for Europe?

EUobserver / New treaty will not create 'one phone number' for Europe: "Summing up the one-number issue, Antonio Missiroli from the European Policy Centre wondered if the image of a 'Brussels-based switchboard' was not more appropriate to describe the new institutional set-up once the Lisbon Treaty comes into force."

Tomorrow there is going to be a dinner for the selection of the top two functionaries of the EU and the discussion continues as to whether we are dealing with the EU or with the member states. The Swedish EU commissioner elect, Cecilia Malmström, said that EU will continue to be important for issues that span the nations such as climate change, jobs-internal market, crime and peace. Malmström is apparently a federalistic European. I also consider myself a federalist, as long as these continue to exist.

Another continuous discussion is whether there is going to be more or less democracy in the EU as we now move into the era of the Lisbon Treaty? I would like to reiterate a post I made one and a half year ago after an interview of Vaclav Havel that was made in the Financial Times.

"We turn to Europe. Havel, a passionate pro-European, is keen that the European Union's constitutional Treaty should be kept alive despite its rejection in the recent Irish referendum. He is convinced the EU will muddle through, ignoring President Klaus' misgivings, says the Czech Republic should press on with ratification. Only then, he believes, should the EU consider a simpler Treaty: "It would be best now to select some three or four people who could create a beautiful, simple constitution that children could learn about at school."

So, Havel has a generational perspective on the EU and was right on the success of the Lisbon Treaty. This is music to my ears and now when the US-ASEAN summit has defined a rather distant realm, perhaps it will usher in a new climate of cooperation in Europe. Then later it might be time to even elect a president of the EU and finally get that phone number.

Post German Election--The Continent Starts to Move?

France and Germany unite to push Britain to EU sidelines - Times Online: "Joschka Fischer, a former German Foreign Minister, said the Franco-German axis had to come into its own again whatever the fate of the Lisbon treaty. “The centre of gravity of Europe can only be Paris and Berlin,” he told Le Monde last weekend. “Britain has decided to stay on the edge. Italy is . . . Italy. Poland has a way to come. Spain is buried in deep crisis.”"

In The New York Times Roger Cohen writes:

"This Germany is more nationalistic, more evenly poised between Washington and Moscow, cool to the point of disinterest about the European Union, self-absorbed and self-satisfied, dutiful but unenthused about the NATO alliance."

This is post financial crisis stuff where Sarkozy and Merkel have come together on bonuses and tax-havens. I took a look at Gordon Brown's speech the other day and thought it was good. He made a good case for Labour rather than the Tories. However, he was facing severe criticism from many corners and the overall feeling is that he, and the UK, will be essentially gone for a year pending the election next spring. On top of this the Tories are very EU sceptic and has left the EPP in the EU parliament.

Well, Ireland is voting on the Lisbon Treaty tomorrow.

A Post-Democratic Era?

Interview with Declan Ganley: Just Say No to the Lisbon Treaty. - WSJ.com: "Mr. Ganley says. 'You will hear it discussed quietly across the dinner tables in certain sections of Brussels and elsewhere that we're entering into this post-democratic era, that democracy is not the perfect mechanism or tool with which to deal with the challenges of global this-that-or-the-other"

Few things stir the debate in blogs in Sweden as the famous democratic deficit of the Lisbon Treaty. If Ireland votes yes in three weeks, are we entering a post-democratic era?

What is the difference of electing a president like the Americans directly from the people, or so it seems, or having the European Council, the heads of states of the 27 member countries, electing one for us? The heads of states are elected by the people directly and perhaps these people are better suited to pick a leader among them or other for optimal function. I have a problem with how this would count as a post-democratic event. If people turn out to dislike the president they will not vote again for the heads of states.

The American system, by the way is not particularly popular among Americans right now. Relatively few people show up to vote for the president and the Congress have an approval score of 29%. More people show up to vote for the heads of states in Europe. I would go so far as to say that under the Lisbon Treaty we will get a more democratically elected president than in America.

So what is Ganley talking about in the citation above: democracy is not the perfect mechanism or tool...

Further Political Integration of EU, or not?

”Skattemedel för miljarder går till EU:s propaganda” - DN.se: "När de i folkomröstningar under de senaste tio åren har fått chansen att säga sitt om ytterligare politisk integration i Europa har svaret varje gång blivit detsamma: nej till införandet av den gemensamma valutan euron, i Danmark 2000 och Sverige 2003, nej till Nicefördraget på Irland 2001, nej till EU-konstitutionen i Frankrike och Nederländerna 2005 och nu senast, nej till Lissabonfördraget på Irland 2008"

Are these arguments not quite weak? Think of all positive sentiments that have moved the development of EU forward. According to democratic rules used, the weak no from Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty was not particularly depressing in the light of 26 positives from other countries.

The economical development of Europe is also a success and the security situation for the individual countries is remarkably improved. Take for example Nicholas Sarkozy's negotiation with Russia a year ago when he managed to stop further intrusion by Russia in Georgia. This would not have been possible with a France outside the context of EU.

I guess it is possible to discuss exactly how much money is going to be used for the continued integration, if further integration is going to happen now when the constitutional court of Germany have in essence prevented at least Germany from further integrating itself. However, I sincerely believe that the best future development of world politics is with a strong EU in collaboration with the US for maintaining the values that the authors seems to dislike in the introduction of the article. If the authors think our civilization is not good enough, do they want to work for a dissolution of EU and the temptation of for example Russia or China to "colonize" us with their values?

Lisbon Treaty?

Germany's top court gives green light for Lisbon Treaty but delays ratification Europe Deutsche Welle 29.06.2009: "Germany's highest court ruled on Tuesday that the European Union's Lisbon reform treaty was compatible with German basic law but said that additional national legislation was needed before the Lisbon Treaty could be ratified."

This was a major hurdle that was just passed for the Lisbon Treaty invocation. Remaining is the referendum in Ireland in October and the signature by the Polish President Lech Kaczynski who will not sign the ratification until the Irish referendum is passed. The Czech President Vaclav Klaus will not ratify until the last moment. He might be hoping that David Cameron is going to block the treaty all together by bringing Great Britain out of EU.