EU affairs sites just in time for the weekend: EUobserver, BBC News, and The New York Times

To get your daily update on EU affairs I recommend that you go check out the following sites:

EUobserver
Great news site dedicated to EU issues and current events.

BBC News
As always, high quality all the way. Good features and analyses.

The New York Times
Pretty much the same high standard as the BBC, although - for some reason - the U.S. media still seem to underestimate the importance of Europe. But when they do get around to it 'over there', it's classy journalism (and the new website is simple, elegant, and quite user-friendly).

Honorable mentions: Euronews and European Voice. Admittedly, these might as well be in the above category, but especially European Voice seems very EU-nerdish. But of course, that is only a good thing. Beware of the pay-wall, though.

Have a nice weekend!

Book Recommendation: The Choice for Europe by Andrew Moravcsik

One of the best and most thorough books on the E.U. I believe is Princeton professor Andrew Moravcsik's The Choice for Europe. Accessible in its style, it is still comprehensive and takes into account the development of the union as well as the challenges.

You can buy it at Amazon.com (disclaimer: Across the Pond is a part of Amazon's affiliate program and therefore receives a referral bonus). Follow the link below.

.

'Sorry' seems to be the hardest word

A good piece on the whole spying controversy. It seems the U.S. owes the E.U. an apology if the ambitious trade agreement is to become reality.

The Candidates

Who will be the next High Representative for EU Foreign Policy? Or President of the European Council? Jon Worth writes good pieces on the subject. Go to his blog and see why.

Political Procrastination: Jimmy Fallon, Carly Rae Jepsen, The Roots, and Pema Levy join forces

Been trying to find some funny blogposts or tweets regarding American or European politics, but for some reason it's hard. Why isn't Jimmy Fallon a hard-core pol blogger? While looking for the before-mentioned, I was led to this (don't ask how):

Alright, enough procrastination. Pema Levy's actually pretty funny in her tweets, so do check her out. She's done nice work for The American Prospect and Talking Points Memo, too. Plus she's cute.

Building Bridges

I had actually decided to write about the prospects of further E.U.-U.S. cooperation, but it seems that Foreign Affairs beat me to it. An excellent piece here: For Transatlantic Trade, This Time Is Different.

Needed: Reasonable Republicans

Now that the dust has settled from the recent American presidential election it's time for the Republican Party to think about where to go from here.

This time around they chose a fairly mainstream candidate with a right-pandering sidekick. Pretty much like last time when Senator John McCain ran partnering up with then Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In fact, the GOP has moved so far to the right that not even Ronald Reagan would receive his party's nomination were he to seek it today, according to Jeb Bush and Chuck Hagel.

While choosing a vicepresidential candidate that creates a lot of excitement among the base has been the strategy since 2008, we can conclude that it hasn't worked. Substantial losses in both elections forces the GOP to rethink its strategy for 2016.

So who should they choose next?

Bobby Jindal was mentioned by Time Magazine as a potential VP candidate in 2008. Now, he is mentioned as a pick for the presidential ticket for 2016. Recently, he critized his party for being 'stupid'. Maybe a candidate who refuses to pander to the right will be a more effective strategy that will win over moderates.

Jeb Bush - whose name may be his biggest liability - is another choice. His major strength is his rapport with the Latinamerican community, which is widely regarded as becoming more and more important.

Chris Christie scored good points with moderates when he applauded President Obama's handling of hurricane Sandy.

On paper, Mitt Romney was a middle-of-the-road Republican: white, self-made, and a Harvard graduate. Yet, he  failed. It might be time to follow a different path.

A deserving winner of the Nobel Peace Prize

The EU gained some well-needed recognition when The Nobel Committee announced that it was giving the Nobel Peace Prize to the European Union.

Critics are already mocking the decision, but rarely based on any knowledge of the EU. Right now the EU is strugling with economic difficulties (obviously!), but one needs to look at the big picture - namely that there haven't been any wars or noteworthy conflicts between EU members since its inception, and that the EU has directly and indirectly spurred democratic movements in Portugal, Spain, and Greece (which were all - not too long ago - military dictatorships) and Eastern Europe. Besides, an economic crisis doesn't say anything about the EU's ability to create - and keep - peace in a troubled region over a period of sixty years.

Below, I have collected some responses to the decision.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/10/why-the-european-union-deserves-the-nobel-peace-prize/263560/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/12/five-reasons-why-the-e-u-deserved-the-nobel-peace-prize/

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/12/the-eus-nobel-peace-prize-not-just-a-laughing-matter/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/12/us-nobel-peace-eu-crisis-idUSBRE89B0YP20121012

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/10/12/european-union-peace-prize-nobel-committee-jumps-the-shark/

http://world.time.com/2012/10/12/nobel-peace-prize-sows-discord-and-laughter/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/the-eu-won-what-europe-reacts-to-nobel.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/12/european-union-nobel-peace-prize-joy-derision?newsfeed=true

Defending Europe

Despite all the talk about sluggish growth and high debt levels, there are still good reasons to appreciate Europe. Here's a good, short piece from Remi Adekoya from The Guardian: Europe is still the closest thing to Paradise on Earth.

The Danish presidency: A job well done

A while ago I wrote a post highlighting the possibility of a succesful Danish presidency of the E.U. So, as the Danes are handing over the wheel to the Cypriots, forgive me for gloating a little over my excellent foresight ;-)

While this presidency didn't draw huge headlines - until the last moment, at least - it certainly achieved important results, and at least one with long-term, positive consequences for Europe.

It seems that the Danes managed to solve a problem that has existed for roughly thirty years, namely that of a single European patent.

Boring stuff, many would agree. But in the long term it very well turn out to be a decisive factor in the E.U.'s ambitions to be one of the leaders in innovation.

As of today, one of the reasons that the U.S. has kept its lead for so long is that American entrepreneurs and businesses have only had to file for its patents in just one place to get protection on a market of more than 400 million people. This has meant low costs and little administration.

Europeans, on the other hand, have had to go through up to 27 government agencies to achieve the same protection, which has been enormously costly and complicated.

In other words, it now means that independent engineers, computer wizzes, business people, etc., will no longer have to borrow about 35,000 euros to make their ideas come to life. Not to mention the advantages of handling just one patent in stead of 27.

So, congratulations for solving a problem that for decades has stifled innovation and job creation in Europe.

Mrs. Schmidt goes to Washington

The Danish Prime Minister and current President of the EU talked to U.S. President Obama. Take a look:

The Danish Presidency - will it matter?

Denmark is currently holding the rotating presidency of the EU. It's one of the smaller countries in the Union, and it has opted out of the euro. Plus its prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, a social democrat, is new at the helm of Danish politics (and now the EU). These facts might cause people to diminish the importance of this particular presidency.

But maybe all of the above works to Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt's advantage. After all (bearing in mind Denmark's surprising win in the 1992 European Championships in football), Denmark is a country that thrives at being an underdog. So maybe a political upset is in the making, too.

Thorning-Schmidt is a skilled analyst (who holds an M.Sc. in political science and an M.A. in European studies from the College of Europe) who's is quite underrated despite her impressive resumé and ability to ride off a storm (she was falsely accused of tax fraud and met by a crowd of agressive journalists in the Copenhagen Airport without as much as a blemish or a stutter).

Nobody really expects much of this presidency (or any other due to the fact that the union now also has a permanent president in Herman von Rompuy). But maybe the Danes' ability to prepare professionally and punch above its weight might result in competent stewardship.

Drifting away from the continent that truly matters?

Will England's influence in the EU and in the world dwindle after Prime Minister Cameron's veto of the European attempt to stabilize the euro like some suggest? One might be inclined to think that England's influence on the world's political scene will soon resemble that on the soccer pitch: vastly overexagerrated.

Maybe it's for the better? England has never really seen itself as being part of Europe anyway. 'Europe', when used by English politicians, more often than not means continental Europe and not, God forbid, the British Isles.

'Keep your eyes on the money, Mr Berlusconi'

Even during times of great financial turmoil and crucial decision-making, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi finds time to check out the ladies, i.e. the Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt.

The EU for (American) dummies

A quick guide to the EU - courtesy of the Delegation of the European Union to the USA. Not unbiased, but a good place to start if you're American and feeling a little confused about the whole EU-thing... So, here it is: The European Union - A Guide For Americans.

A display of soft power

The EU is often criticized for not having much clout on the global political scene. But although the EU often fails to speak with one voice it doesn't mean that it's not powerful, economically or politically. Representing more than 500 million people in 27 countries, the EU has a combined GDP of $16.7 trillion, which is more than that of the US.

But despite its economic might, the EU is seldom on the global media's radar. There are at least two reasons for this: First, the EU lacks hard power, i.e. a single, strong army. If this piece is missing, attention is seldom given to any political actor. Second, the EU's strength lies in the fact it's powers lie in inspiring slow - and less-than-news worthy - progress. This focus on offering long term incentives like EU membership is what has been the primary driving force behind the impressive democratic and economic progress in Eastern Europe.

So, maybe the EU's best way to attract attention is to lead by example. That is why it's is interesting to see how the EU's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (maybe a shorter job title would get her easier access to the world's newspaper columns) Catherine Ashton has taken steps to punish Libya for its overly aggressive methods during the country's ongoing revolution. While suspending a trade agreement with a country currently committing crimes against its people may seem a bit modest, at least the EU uses the most appropriate "weapon" in its arsenal. But more importantly, it sends a clear political message with real consequences for the Libyan regime - although, in the grand scheme of things, a modest one.

Suspending a trade agreement therefore shows something more important than the suspension itself. It shows that the EU can lead by example in high profile international crises.

Moving to Brussels...

Hard to disagree. An easy way to save money...

Better late than never...

So, the EU has decided to freeze the assets of former President Ben Ali of Tunisia. Better late than never, I suppose, but in a way it would have been refreshing to see someone fully support the positive political movement in Tunisia.

Europeans are socialists!

Europeans are socialists. At least that is the common perception among Americans if Fox News and other right-wing news outlets are believed to be somewhat representative of the American populace. Luckily they're not, but still. They're quite influential.

But are Europeans socialists? Of course not. In some European countries, the state plays a bigger part in people's lives than it does in the U.S. But it is a far cry from socialism where there is collective ownership over the means of production. It would be a mistake - most people would agree - to say that for example Great Britain is socialist. All EU - and most European - countries are liberal democracies with free and well-functioning market economies with minimal government intervention in the economy.

Not a single EU country lives up to the criteria of socialism, and for that reason alone, the EU cannot be said to be socialist. The claim reveals a fundamental ignorance of European politics and social life. That the EU should be socialist is a gross misinterpretation of the political and social structure that exists.

The misunderstanding is probably based on the fact that some EU countries are well-established welfare states where the government plays a big part in terms of health care and education. But having a strong welfare state doesn't mean the country is socialist.

Seeing how the Tea Party movement in the U.S. raves on about socialism in the U.S. is a bit bewildering when you observe it from across the Atlantic. How come no one is questioning whether or the Tea Party movement even knows what socialism entails?

The Tea Party movement's insistence on labeling the E.U. as socialist can be seen as nationalism in disguise. And questioning if President Obama is even a legitimate citizen - despite overwhelming evidence that he is - is either insane, improbably ignorant, or racist.

Cable Gate

The latest WikiLeaks exposure is certain to make diplomats and politicians alike more than just a little embarrassed. Things said in confidentiality are seldom suited for prime time news.

But will it have a lasting impact on how our diplomacy works, and will it seriously harm relationships between nations?

I don't think it will do much harm - unless, of course, if cases of criminal behavior are revealed - because diplomats and politicians aren't naïve. It's only natural for them to have their own personal views on the people with whom they work. That their views are made public in this manner is of course embarrassing, and the next meeting with a person you are now known to have made fun of will be a bit awkward. But then what? Life goes on, and these professionals have more important things to attend to than worrying about whether or not their diplomatic counterparts like them.

It's a well-known fact that e.g. certain Afghani politicians are involved in drug trafficking. And that German Chancellor Merkel is not seen as being very creative is probably not the biggest news.

Perhaps people will choose their words more wisely in the future, but I don't think the leaked cables will change much.

A more interesting discussion, I think, is the one revolving around freedom of speech vs. protecting state secrets. More than anything else, the WikiLeaks affair - already having earning it's very own 'gate' term (Cable Gate) - demonstrates that it is almost impossible to keep things secret once they reach a certain point of complexity. Anyone can leak confidential information to an organization like WikiLeaks. How can the world function if a minimum of trust doesn't exist? We have to trust that people won't tell others what we say. If we don't trust others, we can't share knowledge and information. If an erosion of trust between nations and leaders becomes the result of Cable Gate, that would be a true tragedy.

Maybe the realization that high level secrets can no longer be kept will force politicians and diplomats to make more ethical decisions. One could hope so, even though in general I think people at this level are honest, decent people who are confronted with difficult decisions the rest of us will never face. Overall, I choose to trust our politicians and diplomats - regardless of their political orientation - because if I don't, I contribute to an erosion of the very idea of representative democracy. Widespread distrust of government is poison to our democracy and will only lead to things like domestic terrorism like in the case of Timothy McVeigh in the United States, who blew up a government building killing innocent people.

Most people would probably agree that embarrassment is better than an erosion of democracy.