Post by earl on May 27, 2008 16:49:52 GMT
BRUSSELS: Never famous for speedy decision-making, the European Union is working more slowly than ever, and it is all the fault of the Irish.
Ireland, with a population of 4.2 million, votes June 12 in a referendum that will decide whether the European Union finally gets a full-time president and a single, more powerful, foreign policy chief.
The Irish electorate will determine whether the European Union can reorganize its ramshackle internal structures and play a more influential role on the world stage or whether it will just carry on muddling through.
It is voting on what is known as the Lisbon Treaty, painfully renegotiated after voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005 rejected an earlier, more complicated version, which had the trappings of a Constitution.
Referendums are always dangerous, and almost all countries decided to skip having one on the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the approval of all 27 member nations of the European Union to come into force. But not the Irish.
Rarely have so few voters caused so many jitters across so many capitals. In 2001, the Irish voted no to the EU's Nice Treaty, an earlier attempt to streamline structures to prepare for the expansion of the bloc.
And with opinion polls showing much of the Irish electorate undecided, the possibility that the Lisbon Treaty may be rejected has sent unfamiliar tremors of fear through the ranks of Europe's top bureaucrats, who rarely have to trouble with voters.
That has meant a kind of unacknowledged but collective halt on anything controversial, particularly if it might upset Irish sensibilities.
"Every time there is a referendum this happens," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London. "This is one of the reasons why there will not be another treaty change for 10 years, in my view.
"With 27 member states, ratification is so difficult," Grant said. "Someone is going to have a referendum and then you have to put policy-making in a freeze."
The view that Brussels has been gripped by a go-slow is shared widely. "We all know this is happening, but we are all denying it - so you won't get me saying anything on the record," one EU diplomat said.
But the evidence is all around. In March, the European Union's 27 heads of government held one of their least eventful meetings in recent memory. By contrast, their summit meeting next month - which starts June 19, after the Irish vote - has a crowded agenda including climate change, biofuels, food price increases, planned laws on cars' carbon dioxide emissions and the role of the new European president.
Initiatives likely to worry or annoy Irish voters are being played down or delayed.
For months, little has been heard about plans to increase European defense cooperation or about a fundamental review of how the bloc spends its budget, expected to reach €134 billion, or $211 billion, in 2009.
Ireland is a defiantly neutral country and, in the 2001 referendum, defense proved to be a vital and controversial issue.
Ireland also remains, at least at heart, an agricultural country, so farming subsidies are popular.
Almost no work has been done on a fundamental review of the EU budget, around 43 percent of which - despite complaints from countries like Britain - still goes to agriculture.
Another initiative liable to worry Irish voters and of which little has been heard is the EU's longstanding ambition to harmonize the way in which corporate tax is levied. Ireland's economic boom was helped by some of the lowest taxes on corporations in the union.
Officials are also reluctant to discuss looming decisions about what the new treaty would mean in practice, including the powers of a proposed full-time European president, its planned foreign policy chief and its embryonic diplomatic service.
The European Union's executive currently has offices around the globe that deal with issues like aid and trade. The idea is to give these a bigger role in supporting the new, more powerful foreign policy chief. But critics worry that the union would assume some of the current responsibilities of national governments.
Similarly, a decision has to be made on whether the European president would have the role of an influential figure on the global stage or more of a technocrat who brokers internal negotiations among the separate member states.
The fear of appearing to take ratification for granted has contributed to inertia, even though the new posts are supposed to start in January next year. "We are caught between a rock and a hard place," said the EU diplomat who agreed to speak off the record. "If we took decisions before the treaty was ratified, then we would be accused of flouting the democratic process."
Not every difficult issue can be avoided, of course. But those that emerge tend to get an Ireland-friendly spin.
When the European Commission recently outlined small-scale changes to the EU's generous farm support scheme, the European Commission made it clear that the system itself was not under threat. The European agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, chided the British finance minister, Alistair Darling, for daring to suggest greater changes.
Still, delay until the middle of next month is the preferred option. Cutting farm subsidies is also a central element of an elusive global trade deal. Ministers from around the globe may be called to Geneva next month - and EU officials are lobbying for any meeting to be after June 12.
In the meantime, the EU continues its job of churning out proposals and, for the time being, the more anodyne the better.
Recently, one European commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, opened a telephone line to explain consumer rights to soccer fans attending this year's Euro 2008 tournament.
Using existing resources, and therefore costing little, this was a perfect initiative for these jittery, pre-referendum, days. It is consumer friendly and relates to the continent's favorite spectator sport.
And if it turns out to be useless, few swing voters are likely to notice - Ireland failed to qualify for the contest.
Ireland, with a population of 4.2 million, votes June 12 in a referendum that will decide whether the European Union finally gets a full-time president and a single, more powerful, foreign policy chief.
The Irish electorate will determine whether the European Union can reorganize its ramshackle internal structures and play a more influential role on the world stage or whether it will just carry on muddling through.
It is voting on what is known as the Lisbon Treaty, painfully renegotiated after voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005 rejected an earlier, more complicated version, which had the trappings of a Constitution.
Referendums are always dangerous, and almost all countries decided to skip having one on the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the approval of all 27 member nations of the European Union to come into force. But not the Irish.
Rarely have so few voters caused so many jitters across so many capitals. In 2001, the Irish voted no to the EU's Nice Treaty, an earlier attempt to streamline structures to prepare for the expansion of the bloc.
And with opinion polls showing much of the Irish electorate undecided, the possibility that the Lisbon Treaty may be rejected has sent unfamiliar tremors of fear through the ranks of Europe's top bureaucrats, who rarely have to trouble with voters.
That has meant a kind of unacknowledged but collective halt on anything controversial, particularly if it might upset Irish sensibilities.
"Every time there is a referendum this happens," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London. "This is one of the reasons why there will not be another treaty change for 10 years, in my view.
"With 27 member states, ratification is so difficult," Grant said. "Someone is going to have a referendum and then you have to put policy-making in a freeze."
The view that Brussels has been gripped by a go-slow is shared widely. "We all know this is happening, but we are all denying it - so you won't get me saying anything on the record," one EU diplomat said.
But the evidence is all around. In March, the European Union's 27 heads of government held one of their least eventful meetings in recent memory. By contrast, their summit meeting next month - which starts June 19, after the Irish vote - has a crowded agenda including climate change, biofuels, food price increases, planned laws on cars' carbon dioxide emissions and the role of the new European president.
Initiatives likely to worry or annoy Irish voters are being played down or delayed.
For months, little has been heard about plans to increase European defense cooperation or about a fundamental review of how the bloc spends its budget, expected to reach €134 billion, or $211 billion, in 2009.
Ireland is a defiantly neutral country and, in the 2001 referendum, defense proved to be a vital and controversial issue.
Ireland also remains, at least at heart, an agricultural country, so farming subsidies are popular.
Almost no work has been done on a fundamental review of the EU budget, around 43 percent of which - despite complaints from countries like Britain - still goes to agriculture.
Another initiative liable to worry Irish voters and of which little has been heard is the EU's longstanding ambition to harmonize the way in which corporate tax is levied. Ireland's economic boom was helped by some of the lowest taxes on corporations in the union.
Officials are also reluctant to discuss looming decisions about what the new treaty would mean in practice, including the powers of a proposed full-time European president, its planned foreign policy chief and its embryonic diplomatic service.
The European Union's executive currently has offices around the globe that deal with issues like aid and trade. The idea is to give these a bigger role in supporting the new, more powerful foreign policy chief. But critics worry that the union would assume some of the current responsibilities of national governments.
Similarly, a decision has to be made on whether the European president would have the role of an influential figure on the global stage or more of a technocrat who brokers internal negotiations among the separate member states.
The fear of appearing to take ratification for granted has contributed to inertia, even though the new posts are supposed to start in January next year. "We are caught between a rock and a hard place," said the EU diplomat who agreed to speak off the record. "If we took decisions before the treaty was ratified, then we would be accused of flouting the democratic process."
Not every difficult issue can be avoided, of course. But those that emerge tend to get an Ireland-friendly spin.
When the European Commission recently outlined small-scale changes to the EU's generous farm support scheme, the European Commission made it clear that the system itself was not under threat. The European agriculture commissioner, Mariann Fischer Boel, chided the British finance minister, Alistair Darling, for daring to suggest greater changes.
Still, delay until the middle of next month is the preferred option. Cutting farm subsidies is also a central element of an elusive global trade deal. Ministers from around the globe may be called to Geneva next month - and EU officials are lobbying for any meeting to be after June 12.
In the meantime, the EU continues its job of churning out proposals and, for the time being, the more anodyne the better.
Recently, one European commissioner, Meglena Kuneva, opened a telephone line to explain consumer rights to soccer fans attending this year's Euro 2008 tournament.
Using existing resources, and therefore costing little, this was a perfect initiative for these jittery, pre-referendum, days. It is consumer friendly and relates to the continent's favorite spectator sport.
And if it turns out to be useless, few swing voters are likely to notice - Ireland failed to qualify for the contest.