Is it because the European and American arms industries do not want to loose a good customer, that most commentators fail to mention that Greece spends excessive amounts on its military?

Could better European defence co-operation (economies of scale in division of labour and joint procurement) and an active peace policy in the region (solving the Cyprus standstill and unblocking Turkey’s accession negotiations) enable Greece to agressively cut down on its military shopping-binge? Just a thought.

Look no further than wikipedia for some base figures on this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Greece:

“… Greece directs approximately 4.3% of its GDP to military expenditures, the 2nd highest percentage in Europe (behind the Republic of Macedonia).[4] In absolute numbers the Greek military budget ranked 28th in the world in 2005. By the same measure, Greek military budget ranked 6th in the Mediterranean basin (behind France, Italy, Turkey, Israel and Spain) and 2nd (behind Turkey) in its immediate vicinity, the Balkans.[5] It must be noted that Greek arms purchasing is among the highest in the world: Greece ranked 3rd in the world in 2004.? …”

Join us for a morning of campaigning in support of Emily Thornberry MP and the Labour local candidates for the Council election, in one of the “most Italian” areas of London.

Help us get out the Italian and European vote for the local elections and  help us prevent the euro-sceptic Tories from winning the General Election.

Give us a couple of your spare hours and stay with us afterwards for a glass of wine and some real Italian appetisers.

For further details and to confirm your attendance, please e-mail
info@labour-italy.org.uk

EU Flag - CC / Flickr

As quoted in this piece at EUObserver:

A former British EU ambassador, Stephen Wall, also poured cold water on the scheme, saying that the appointment is about balancing national and political interests in Europe, rather than individual merit.

“Given that they have to placate the right, the left, the north, the south, the large and small nations, you could have a brilliant presentation but, if the politics didn’t fit, what would be the point?” he said in an article in the New York Times on Tuesday.

This is in response to a Polish proposal that candidates for EU top jobs should make presentations to EU leaders.

Let me reply to Stephen’s point. The President of the European Council has no democratic legitimacy at all (appointment is by heads of state and government, no role for the European Parliament), and the High Representative for Foreign Policy is not much better (s/he is part of the Commission team, so needs EP approval at least). But where else, in whatever appointment for a top position does merit not even come into it?

If Wall were still the UK’s permanent representative it might have been right to defend his position behind closed doors. Now, as Vice Chair of Business for New Europe, he has a public relations role and he’s just essentially saying we shouldn’t actually give a shit about whether the person is any good, let’s stick with a diplomats’ stitch up – that’s not acceptable from him. If you’re an advocate for a positive role for the UK in the EU, and for an EU that delivers good policy, you should want a good President of the European Council or High Rep, however unlikely in reality we all know that is going to be.

In short Wall is no person to make any sort of case to citizens about the EU.

(cross posted from jonworth.eu)

Dear Mr Cameron,

We are writing to you today to try and clarify your position on the EU. We have been confused by your recent statements on Europe and so we have an number of questions we hope you can answer.

1. Opting out of the Charter of Rights

Why opt out of a Charter of Rights that simply ensures that the EU has to respect fundamental rights and that any EU legislation that fails to do so, can be struck down by the courts? It is a safeguard, not a threat!

2. Giving UK law primacy over EU law

What is the point of agreeing common rules at EU level if each country is then free to break its agreements and override them by new national laws? Britain won its court case against France when they continued to ban British beef after it was declared safe, precisely because countries must live up to what they have agreed to. If French law had primacy over EU law, they would still be banning our beef!

3. Opting out of the Social Chapter of the Treaty

Having common rules for the common market on some aspects of social legislation ensures a level playing field, a single set of rules for companies to follow instead of the costly confusion of 27 sets of rules in a single market, and gives all workers, including British workers, basic rights and protections. Why should British workers be denied the rights enjoyed by their counterparts across Europe? What is so wrong with this legislation, that is accepted by every other government, including conservative governments, in Europe? You have mentioned the Working Time Directive – legislation that was NOT adopted under the Social Chapter (it is health & safety legislation) and was approved by the Council of Ministers under the last Conservative government with Britain abstaining. Didn’t you know this?

4. Opting out of co-operation on Criminal Justice

Are you aware that Britain already has, under Lisbon, the right to opt-in or opt-out of legislation in this field? Not that we should – criminal gangs operate across borders and we need to co-operate with our neighbouring countries in fighting them – but we can already choose which measures to sign up to.

And how do you respond to the comments of Pierre Lellouche, the French Europe Minister, who describes your plans as “pathetic” and says that your plans to try and renegotiate long-standing agreements will not work, as EU members want to concentrate on tackling big issues such as climate change, trade and security, rather than reopen discussions on things agreed by all countries?

We hope that you can answer our questions because there is a lack of clarity in your supposed pledges that indicate they have not been thought through and are intended simply to placate, for the time being, the extreme eurosceptic element in your party.

We look forward to hearing from you.

———————————————————–

We’ll keep you posted here on any response we might receive.

When David Miliband gave the keynote speech to the Fabian Conference “The Global Change we Need” in London on 7 November 2009 he mentioned two things in the Q&A session. Firstly he said that the nation state remained the repository of democratic legitimacy. Secondly, he said that the EU institutions need to become more transparent in order for more people to connect with it better and easier.

While Miliband did not connect those two statements I asked myself whether their combination might not form the core of an interesting argument.

After all, the Council of the European Union, which is the place where government minister from all EU member states come together to (co-)determine EU policy, is the least transparent of the EU institutions. Their negotiations determine at least as much, if not more, of European policy and regulation than the work of the European Parliament or the Commission, which is where most of the public expect the power to lie.

Member state governments like to underplay their work in the forum of the Council of the EU in their national discourse at home. If something the public and media will see as positive arises from the Council’s work, most governments will sell this as their individual success at home. If something the public and media at home will be critical about comes out of the Council’s negotiation, most governments downplay their involvement in negotiations and blame an anonymous EU.

It is unrealistic to think any country can effectively retreat from global or trans-national governance structures, especially in the light of the increasing global nature of many of the challenges we face such as environmental, financial, economic and social issues.

Global or macro regional governance structures derive their democratic legitimacy via directly elected national parliaments and governments. These are again influenced by the media and civil society, which come together in a nation’s overall public discourse. Why it should not be possible to make better use of a pan-European public discourse, and engage the public more on a European level is beyond me. Especially now as the EU’s democratic legitimacy has been improved through the strengthening of the role of the directly elected European Parliament in the Treaty of Lisbon. However, there would be some mileage in improving the quality of the 27 national conversations about the EU by opening up Council deliberations and votes and with it member state governments as actors within to better scrutiny by their domestic media, civil society and electorates.

We will have to seriously think about how we can increase the democratic legitimacy of global policy making. To start with, we should look at how our own national governments’ work in the Council of the EU can become more transparent, so governments have to take more responsibility for their very direct input into the shaping of European policy and regulation. The EU is not as anonymous a body as the media, some politicians and europhobes want to make us think. The EU is shaped by member-state governments from within, which have to become transparent about their input, just as much as they have to take more responsibility for explaining compromise decisions within the Council to their national ‘home constituencies’, something they have been shying away from so far.

Maybe a citizens initiative for greater transparency of the Council would not be such a bad idea.