Latest entry
- Mark Mardell
- 7 Jan 09, 02:30 PM
Basking in the almost subtropical temperature of minus three degrees in Oslo this is an odd beginning to the New Year for me.
Much of Europe is freezing and without gas heating as relations with Russia hit another bump. It's a real test of the European Union whether it manages to gets its act together and deliver a single message.
I should, I feel, be in Bulgaria or Austria, sharing their pain and reporting on the problem. But this is also the year of parliamentary elections in the EU and the News at Ten want a big-picture curtainraiser on the subject that delights so many contributors here - the benefits and disadvantages as a whole.
Norway has voted twice to stay outside the EU and opinion polls suggest people are now even more firmly in favour of keeping outside the club. Partly perhaps it's because Norway is rich in oil and gas - so no danger of the heating being turned down here.
But the constant haunting dilemma of this job is where to be and what to cover.
I have another tough choice as well. Whether or not to try "Luttefisk". In a Belgian supermarket just before Christmas I was intrigued to hear a Norwegian woman trying to find a wine match for a delicacy she was having some difficulty describing. She told me it was cod coated with "the same thing you paint the walls with". After a baffled couple of days friends told me the wall-coating substance was caustic soda. They had tried the end product and were less than enthusiastic about this jellified fish dish. I am constitutionally in favour of experimentation and inquiry, particularly when it comes to food, but I may vote "no" on this occasion.
Recent entries
- Mark Mardell
- 1 Jan 09, 06:00 AM
I am surprised how many of my friends dislike New Year's Eve. I guess it is a sense that it is tempting fate to celebrate the year ahead when it may hold disaster and trauma instead of joy and hope.
Those inclined to miss the bubbly and stay in for the night will be gloomier than usual this time round. On this New Year's Day more people than usual will be looking to the future with fear and foreboding. The big story in Europe this year will be the economy, stupid. 
Oh I know, 2009 is a big year for the EU in the institutional sense. European elections in 27 countries in June. A second referendum in Ireland. A new commission. If Lisbon is passed, the implementation of the treaty. If it isn't, another crisis and another institutional crossroads. I will be writing about that a great deal.
But for most people and politicians the recession will be at the front of their minds. If 2008 has taught us nothing else, it should make us painfully aware that we don't see the big ones coming. This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Few saw that in their crystal ball. The financial crisis was equally unheralded by prophets, commentators or seers. But I feel it will be just as powerful a force in reshaping our world as the collapse of the communist empire.
So in a sprit of journalistic humility, I will essay not smooth predictions but awkward questions.
Even the most optimistic predict that the first half of the year will be tough, with many job losses and companies going bust. In much of mainland Europe this hasn't hit home. Particularly in Germany there is a sense that "it's not our fault" - which is substantially true... and leads people to think "so it won't be as bad for us" - which is arguable but, I fear, wrong.
What will unemployment, and increasing poverty do to our politics? So far there have been few vocal protests, few on the streets, marching against the bankers, or politicians or whoever else people might think to blame.
In some ways the economy is seen as a bit like the weather: it may be miserable but there's not a lot you can do about it. Will that change?
As governments turn to what might be called left-wing solutions will people expect more and more intervention? Will a Left that has lost both courage and rationale over the last couple of decades reinvent itself? Or will there be a surge of support for right-wing parties, an increase in nationalism and a move against immigration?
Or will protest find a new outlet in some movement that probably isn't yet more than a foggy notion in its future founder's mind? Will people vote again incumbent governments or hang on to the familiar?
What will happen to Europe's relatively generous health services and social security systems, as tax takes fall and those relying on state help increase?
Will the EU stick to its rather limited role in urging member countries to coordinate their recovery programmes? If so, is this a new modesty, an acceptance of a redefined, more limited role? Or will it press for a bigger budget so it can press ahead with new Europe-wide projects?
Will the rise of a new protectionism undermine the rationale of the EU? Or will there be a European protectionism that turns its face from global free trade?
So far, to the chagrin of those of us paid in pounds but living in the eurozone, the single currency has held up astoundingly well. But it is almost inevitable the strains inherent in the project will begin to show. If Greece needs a different level of interest rates than Germany, how will that be resolved? If the euro weathers the storm it will have proved itself beyond the reach of its critics, but can it survive the inevitable strains?
Conversely, how will the British see the pound if it continues to take a battering? Joining the euro seems politically inconceivable, but will other commentators follow Will Hutton in calling on people to look at the idea afresh?
I suspect that the economic crisis will eventually force a more profound revaluation of Europe's role in the world (and I am not just using the E word as shorthand for the European Union).
At the moment some European politicians think they have won the argument that European social market capitalism has proved its moral superiority to Anglo-Saxon free market liberalism. Are they right?
Or does the crisis see Europe not leading the way in the world, but revealed ever more clearly as an adjunct of the United States? With FDR Mark II in the White House will Europe be able to match the level of spending planned in the USA? If not, does it just sit by and wait for America to refloat its economy?
I wrote earlier in the year (or perhaps I just thought it) that the term "financial tsunami" was more apt than those fond of using it actually realised. The wave was towering above us, the chatter on TV and radio terrifying, but describing a situation that was having more of an impact on our morale than our wallets. That has begun to change and this year the full impact of the wave will be felt. But it will be a while, a long while I fear, before the tide recedes and the full account of the devastation can be made. In that smashed-up, battered, re-made world, will the West have a new, lesser role than before? Will Europeans have to get used to a substantially lower standard of living than before?
The old idea that China and India may have a cheap workforce but they don't have the creative dynamism or intellectual firepower, if ever credible, is now laughable: so how does Europe earn its living in the new world order?
Not by nature gloomy, I must admit at the end of this I feel rather more at one than usual with those friends who prefer to miss the parties and sit in the dark turning over memento mori in their unfestive minds. And a Happy New Year to all my readers!
- Mark Mardell
- 31 Dec 08, 06:00 AM
For the European project's enthusiasts 2008 has been a good year.
The European Union has extended its reach in foreign affairs. It brokered a ceasefire during the Georgian crisis and held a common position despite deep and obvious divisions between the 27 towards Russia.
The mission to Kosovo eventually got off the ground.
There's even an EU battle fleet on its way to African waters to deal with the pirates.
Despite the financial crisis the euro has weathered the storm better than the pound.
After a few false starts and the occasionally conspicuous absence of Germany there is agreement on a coordinated plan to stimulate the economy.
Countries are still queuing up to join the organisation. Iceland became a surprise new contender for membership. The most important country in the Balkans, Serbia, chose the EU and the West in elections that were widely seen as a referendum on its future orientation.
Just before Christmas national leaders and the European Parliament backed what has become a flagship plan, to cut greenhouse gases. True, it was much watered down in the teeth of the recession, but it still puts the EU well ahead of the rest of the international pack.
And yet, and yet.
The past year was perhaps even better for those who despise, distrust or just aren't totally convinced about the European project. No need here for a long list. One date.
On 13 June the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty. This was unlucky for some. At that time the Irish government was rather popular and the vote clearly wasn't on domestic issues. So it was clearly a rejection of the treaty itself, or the EU as a whole. But the Irish government claims the rejection was the result of specific fears about the practical effect of the treaty.
The EU's national and commission leaders managed not to have their greater project, of trying to do things that are relevant to people all over Europe, derailed by this blow. They put it on the back burner, knowing it would cook away on its own.
By December the leaders of EU countries and the commission had decided that Ireland should vote again. Actually most of them will have decided that, in the privacy of their own heads, within hours of the result. I was, at the time, far too hasty in declaring Lisbon dead. It's not that I am insufficiently cynical. I just didn't think a second referendum would be winnable, and therefore didn't see it as a viable political option. It still seems to me a huge gamble.
Lisbon was of course the treaty that rose from the ashes of the European Constitution which had been burnt to death by the Dutch and French people. To many the two documents looked suspiciously alike.
I am not quite sure who first used the phrase "They don't know the meaning of the word 'No'" in relation to the EU's plans for treaty reform, but it was a stroke of brilliance. It sticks in people's minds and strikes a chord. In political speak, it resonates. It was quite clear before and after the constitution that most national leaders feared referendums because they thought they would lose them.
The behaviour over the treaties gives the impression the European project is an unstoppable juggernaut. A few bodies in the way might slow it down, but not significantly alter its path, let alone stop it in its tracks.
Few of us will really think the Lisbon Treaty is the biggest issue of 2009, but the second Irish referendum, planned for the autumn, will be an important moment for the EU. If the Irish people back it, it will be the end of the story of institutional change for a while, but it will have done nothing to endear the EU to the people who live within its borders. A second rejection would mean hard choices for those in power. What would they do? Abandon the thing they say is so necessary? Introduce it by the back door or in some way, impossible to imagine at the moment, move on without Ireland? Who will find 2009 a good year in the EU?
- Mark Mardell
- 19 Dec 08, 08:50 AM
Europe's carmakers want more money, in part to cope with a brand new EU law.
The day after the European Parliament voted for new rules to govern the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) cars can emit, the car manufacturers say they need a loan of 40bn euros (£38bn). 
The boss of the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), Ivan Hodac, says: "It will cost us an enormous amount of money, it is absolutely sure the cars will become more expensive, so the consumer will have to pay part of the bill and part of the bill will have to come from the companies.
"We have asked for a soft loan from the European Investment Bank because at this moment the industry is doing very badly and it will be very, very difficult to get the money to invest in the fuel-efficient technologies to meet the target."
As I reported a while ago, after intensive negotiation between ministers and MEPs a set of rules has been agreed, and the parliament formally voted on them on Wednesday. Campaigners like Jos Dings from Transport and Environment feel they've been watered down. He told me "carmakers in each European country have been lobbying very hard so their governments get loopholes that suited them best. The Germans wanted exemptions for big cars, the Italians wanted exemptions for Fiat, the Brits for Aston Martin and Jaguar and if you count all the loopholes together it's a Swiss cheese, with lots of air and no cheese."
As I have covered this story in some depth I have wondered why car manufacturers don't see a huge commercial advantage in being ahead of the game and producing the car of tomorrow today. The short answer appears to be that people don't want to buy them.
A couple of weeks ago I drove a special prototype Peugeot 408 round the Arc de Triomphe in Paris. It's a hybrid diesel and electric and looks just like the ordinary model.
It's a strange drive at first, just because there's no noise. In fact I though I couldn't get the engine going at first, because I couldn't hear anything. The idea is that below a certain speed - and you are always below 30km/h (19mph) in central Paris - the electric engine kicks in and the diesel cuts out. The electric battery is constantly recharged when you brake. It produces about 90g of CO2 per kilometre driven, so it's well below the targets the EU is aiming for in seven years' time.
So why not now, and why not in all cars? The Scientific Director of PSA Peugeot Citroen, Jean-Pierre Goedgebuer, was frank with me. "It's still very costly, and so on the typical vehicle we are afraid there is no market. So first we aim at putting on the market premium or distinctive cars equipped with that technology."
He wouldn't tell me the exact extra cost, but when my guess went up from £1,000 to £4,000 he suggested I was around the right area. For smaller cars I think it would be much less, but the answer to my question "why not put this technology in an ordinary family car?" was obvious. "We're afraid, we're still afraid it's too expensive."
In the end I suspect it will be oil prices and scarcity, not new laws or guilty feelings about the environment, that will force us to adopt different technology.
- Mark Mardell
- 17 Dec 08, 11:34 AM
MEPs have voted overwhelmingly to scrap Britain's opt-out from the 48-hour week in three years' time.
But it doesn't mean for certain that people will be stopped from working more than an average of 48 hours a week from 2011.
What happens now? Britain certainly doesn't lose its opt-out straight away. There'll be talks between MEPs and ministers from the European Union's 27 countries aimed at finding a compromise. In theory, if the ministers refuse to budge the status quo stands and Britain keeps its opt-out.
But there will be intense pressure to negotiate a solution. The European Court of Justice has ruled that doctors' on-call time should be part of the 48-hour week if they have to sleep over at a hospital.
France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain all have their own opt-outs about on-call time and they will be eager to find a solution. That probably means a negotiated solution that, from the British government's point of view, is worse than the current position.
- Mark Mardell
- 17 Dec 08, 06:10 AM
When MEPs' fingers hover above their voting buttons today other fingers in Downing Street will be crossed. 
Gordon Brown risks a humiliating defeat at the hands of Labour members of the European Parliament, many of whom want to make sure that people in Britain don't work more than 48 hours a week. It's all the more embarrassing for Mr Brown that the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are backing his government's position.
The parliament in Strasbourg will vote today on a proposal to get rid of Britain's 15-year-old opt-out from the Working Time Directive. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) says more than three million people would be stopped working overtime if the opt-out goes. Open Europe, a think-tank that is very critical of the EU, claims it would cost Britain around £60bn by 2020: an average of £2,300 per household.
But Socialists say it's about being able to work to live, not live to work. They say there should be the same rules across the European Union because it's a common market and the opt-out gives Britain an unfair advantage.
The debate has already taken place, but the vote will be tight. The Labour group is split and so are two of the big political groupings. Apart from some Labour MEPs most of the Socialist group will vote to get rid of Britain's opt-out. The Labour MEP leading the rebellion, Stephen Hughes, says most workers want shorter hours.
Much, but not all of the centre-right, including the Tories, will vote to keep the opt-out. Their leader Philip Bushill-Matthews told the parliament that he recently met a Portuguese woman whose husband had lost his job and who had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. He asked "What hope do you offer her? Either, you say you can't do it, so you're going to have to give up one of your jobs, give up your children, your house. I was elected to look after the people I serve - until I stand down I will stand up for the people who elected me to help them, not to stand in their way."
The Independent MEP from Northern Ireland Jim Allister said he would "refute the right of this parliament of the attempt to rob my country of that entitlement. Control of working hours in my book is a matter exclusively for national control, not for Brussels dictate. If British workers are permitted by their own elected government to work more than 48 hours a week, then why should it matter to those from countries whose governments are more prescriptive? Frankly - it should be none of your business."
Most of the Liberal group, including the Lib Dems, will also vote to keep it, but the French and Italians may take a different view.
The Labour MEPs are split and some sound rather tortured about their decision. Formally they have a meeting at 0900 before the vote a couple of hours later, but I think many will do what they want to do, whatever the group decides as a whole. One told me it was one issue that was raised by people on the doorstep, who told them that they didn't want "Brussels" (or presumably, Strasbourg) interfering with their overtime. Another said he felt it was an issue like poverty pay in the 1970s and society had to move towards giving people a better balance between their work and their life.
Jean Lambert from the Greens said in the debate it was all about health and safety and that tired workers were dangerous workers. "If you are asking people to work long hours, be aware it's a problem - productivity and creativity goes down, which isn't good for a knowledge-based economy. And it certainly doesn't add a lot of quality to work-life balance for people who are too tired to read to their kids when they get home."
So if the MEPs vote against the British opt-out is that it? Overtime banned in Britain from tomorrow? Come off it, this is the European Union. The opt-out would go in 2012, but there's a lot of jaw-jaw before that happens. MEPs appointed by the parliament, rapporteurs in the jargon, would first negotiate with employment ministers from the EU's 27 countries. If they do a deal it is likely to be worse than the status quo, from the British government's point of view. But if British ministers and others won't budge that means it's back to the drawing board. As far as I can see that means Britain would keep the opt-out for a good while, although exactly what would emerge in the end is very uncertain.
- Mark Mardell
- 16 Dec 08, 01:35 PM
STRASBOURG 1330
President Sarkozy has called it an "outrage" and a "wound" that the president of the Czech Republic doesn't want EU flags flying from public buildings. The order caused a spat when a delegation from the European Parliament came visiting Prague Castle. 
The trip was apparently a rather torrid affair, with the Greens MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit, that old student radical from 1968, verbally attacking President Vaclav Klaus. They were hardly likely to be big buddies: Mr Klaus is seen not only as an outspoken opponent of the EU and the Lisbon Treaty, but he also dismisses mainstream beliefs about climate change, calling the legislation that the EU is so proud of "a silly luxury".
Mr Sarkozy was responding in the European Parliament to the UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who said that the delegation should have shown respect to a head of state rather than behave like thugs and bullies. Mr Sarkozy suggested respect should be shown by Mr Klaus as well.
This didn't protect the French president from the wrath of Mr Cohn-Bendit, who has apparently decided to make attacking heads of state his new trademark. Pointing his finger, he said America's president-elect would say "No, you can't", because the climate change legislation didn't go far enough.
Mr Sarkozy, rather mildly for him, responded in effect that the Green MEP always seemed such a nice man when they had agreeable lunches together, but turned into a different fellow altogether when the TV cameras were switched on.
- Mark Mardell
- 16 Dec 08, 01:18 PM
STRASBOURG 1030
"Europe turned up."
President Sarkozy was talking about the Georgian crisis, but it was the message of his whole speech - that the world needed Europe to be strong, and a strong Europe had to be united. After his speech the leaders of the political groups had their say.
Much of the French president's speech was pretty standard fare of course for speeches to the European Parliament - stress the need for Europe, and need for unity. It's what most here believe and want to hear.
He placed the blame for the financial crisis squarely on the shoulders of the American government: he said it began when they accepted the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers. He also boasted that despite the difficulty of coordinating a response by the 27 countries with very different economic and political cultures, despite the misunderstandings and hesitations, Europe had got the response right. He said that the US had belatedly followed with a solution "based entirely on our plans".
He said there had to be a "re-moralisation" of capitalism, based on entrepreneurship, not speculation.
He told MEPs that when he first visited Dublin he had caused a fuss by saying the Irish would have to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty, but that is what a "courageous" Irish government had now decided. He said this wasn't easy for the Irish people, but Europe was about "a spirit of compromise" and this was what was being displayed. He predicted Lisbon would come into force, just a year late.
He concluded by saying Europe had to be built with the will of the nation states and labelled what he called "integrationalism" as an historic error. He'd enjoyed himself a lot, and the last six months had taught him a great deal. "Europe is the most beautiful invention of the twentieth century, Europe has moved me, it has changed me."
- Mark Mardell
- 16 Dec 08, 09:20 AM
On 1 July the French took over Europe with fanfare and flummery, the Eiffel Tower was bathed in blue, the EU's gold stars projected on this symbol of France. 
And President Nicolas Sarkozy, the new President of the Council, proceeded to impose his frenetic style on an organisation used to a more leisurely pace. Today he is giving a final speech in this role to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I doubt he will manage undue modesty.
Last week's summit of the EU's prime ministers and presidents ended in what Mr Sarkozy, at least, regarded as an historic triumph, with deals on climate change, the economy and the Lisbon Treaty.
The presidency can be a rather weak excuse for a few "informal" meetings in the country holding the presidency, with a few pet ideas shoved on top of whatever is the main business of the day. This was dramatically different.
There's no doubt Mr Sarkozy put his stamp on the presidency in a way that few manage, behaving as if he was indeed the President of Europe.
The veteran French Socialist Jack Lang told me he didn't always agree with Mr Sarkozy, but during his presidency he "gave a personality to Europe. He gave a feeling that Europe had a political existence. From an international point of view he gave presence to Europe".
Just as some unlikely leaders come to the fore in wartime so Mr Sarkozy seemed well-suited to our crisis-ridden times. But did his success really amount to very much?
The Irish No vote to the Lisbon Treaty was certainly seen as a crisis by the EU leadership, although it might not have bothered anyone else that much. Then there was the Russian invasion of Georgia. Within days Mr Sarkozy was in Tbilisi negotiating a ceasefire, then in Moscow signing it. Many felt it was deeply flawed, and ignored some crucial details. If so, it was typical of his style: restless action rather than careful analysis.
He called the first emergency summit since the Iraq crisis, to discuss the aftermath of the war. It wasn't to be his last.
One adviser told me this was an example of Mr Sarkozy's stubbornness paying off. Failure was not an option. Restless energy was. He called an emergency summit in Paris. It failed. He called another one. It was slightly better. He called an emergency EU summit. A bit more agreement. He travelled to Washington. He travelled to Beijing.
Ulrika Guerot of the European Council for Foreign Relations says "it may not be the best way of doing business, because you can make the reproach he looks like the king of Europe, it's an imperial way of doing the business of Europe.
"But with respect to the financial crisis he was the driving force for bringing together the G20 in a very short time, and he will be judged a success beyond his personal temper."
She forcefully makes the point that in the Georgian crisis and the financial crisis it was Europe making the running, not the United States. For some that is enough in itself. That is what really excites those who want the EU to play a bigger role in the world.
But this high-wire, high-risk summitry has infuriated Germany's leader Angela Merkel. When she was in the hot seat, conjuring the Lisbon Treaty out of the wreck of the European Constitution, she worked meticulously to discover each nation's hang-ups and hopes and carefully wrought a delicate compromise. Mr Sarkozy announces an idea, which often comes as a surprise to his diplomats and civil servants, let alone other leaders... and waits to see if it will fly.
Lord Patten, the former Conservative Party chairman and former EU Commissioner for External Relations, told me "While they both hate the comparison, the young Sarkozy is a bit like Chirac when he was a young prime minister - he was known as the bulldozer and he was known for his energy, his ubiquity and the way he got his own way simply by steamrollering or bulldozing things through, and I think there are aspects of that in Mr Sarkozy. It may or may not be the best way of doing business in France, but I have my doubts in Europe, which requires more continuity. But it has been a style and I suspect that after six months of the next presidency we might be looking forward to the smack of charisma again."
There were tentative suggestions from the French press and indeed Mr Sarkozy himself that there should be a way for him to continue his role, perhaps as leader of the Eurozone countries. This will formally come to nothing, but I bet one of the arguments we hear more of, perhaps today, is that his success and style proves the need for a full-time President of the Council, as proposed in the Lisbon Treaty.
- Mark Mardell
- 12 Dec 08, 03:20 PM
The hyper president was hyped up for his news conference at the end of the French presidency of the European Council. The summit he said would "go down in history".
President Sarkozy of France - but for a few days yet not of France alone - had praise for other leaders. Gordon Brown he said was "an extremely constructive European". The Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen was "brave". But he saved the strongest praise for, well, himself.
He said, with an enormous grin, that it was obvious the changes that would be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty were needed: especially a full-time president of the Council. "Nobody today would doubt the need for a President of the Council showing real leadership." Pause for an even bigger grin. "Not just for six months, but for two and a half years."
There were of course four big issues to be covered in the news conference. Climate change. Lisbon. The economy. And just how well Mr Sarkozy had done in his six-month presidency.
He said that Europe had to stop getting bogged down in daft rules, and suggested strongly that it would take someone like him to make this advance.
He gave a long example about how he wanted his minister in one of yesterday's meeting but was told the seating arrangements wouldn't allow it. So he suggested bringing in another chair. He was told that wasn't possible, it was revolutionary. So he said he would get the chair himself. It showed that in the EU people could spend hours arguing about an extra chair. He said that Europe needed an injection of flexibility and freedom.
But he went on to complain about the endless repetition of speeches. He said after last night's discussions on the economy over dinner he had banned anyone from trying to repeat themselves this morning. Rather contradicting his earlier remarks, he said "we can't work without specific rules in place". Next week he'll give his final speech of the French Presidency to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. I am sure he will be as modest as ever.
PS - I've run out of green ink again, but will go shopping at the weekend.
- Mark Mardell
- 11 Dec 08, 06:30 PM
Mr Cowen didn't use the word "referendum". But the Irish prime minister has told his fellow leaders that his government "is committed to seeking ratification of the Lisbon Treaty" by the end of next October.
In return the EU will deal with what the Irish government claims are the "concerns" of the Irish people and give "the necessary legal guarantees". They will ensure that the Lisbon Treaty doesn't affect:
Ireland's traditional neutrality;
Ireland's laws on the family and abortion;
The taxation system.
If Lisbon comes into effect the leaders would then use the vote to make sure the commission "includes one national of each member state". The plan to slim down the commission would be abandoned.
The UK wants more legal advice about the nature of what is being promised, so no one can argue the treaty is now substantially different and needs to go back to the British Parliament... or British people.
- Mark Mardell
- 11 Dec 08, 12:11 PM
The man who organised the "No" vote to the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland is setting up the first pan-European political party to fight next year's parliamentary elections. Declan Ganley says that it will be a single issue party, campaigning solely against the Lisbon treaty and what he believes is the anti-democratic nature of the European Union.
Listen to my interview with him.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
- Mark Mardell
- 11 Dec 08, 08:15 AM
President Nicolas Sarkozy looks like a man who likes nothing better than being at the centre of a crisis, unless it's being at the centre of four of them at once. If the normal way of doing EU business is about delicate compromise, he seems more in favour of push, punch and swagger. But he wants a triumph at today's summit, to round off an exceptionally busy six months in the hot seat.
He's written to fellow leaders telling them that they face a series of decisions that will be highly significant for the future of Europe. Wagging his finger, even before they are physically in front of him, he tells them in a letter of invitation that he is determined that they live up to their responsibilities, and show vision and a spirit of compromise.
What are the big issues ?
CLIMATE CHANGE
Agreeing the climate change package will be the most difficult task. Although the commitment to cut greenhouse gases by 20% by the year 2020 is not being directly questioned, both the newer countries of the east and big industrial countries are worried that the package is too tough, especially during an economic crisis.
Germany wants nearly all its industry to be protected from foreign competitors, who will not have to meet similar standards. They want carbon trading to be cost-free for nearly all their industry.
The Poles are leading Eastern European countries who say that they need more help, and more money, converting from coal.
This Brussels summit takes place while the world's environment ministers gather in Poznan in Poland. Diplomats say if the EU can't get its act together then the global talks may be doomed to failure.
LISBON
The Irish are likely to signal they will re-run a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, after the summer's No vote. I wrote about this a short while ago and haven't much to add. I'm pretty sure this is going to develop during the day and I will update when I can.
ECONOMY
The Commission hopes that the prime ministers and presidents will back their 200bn-euro rescue package, but Germany isn't keen. The sign that the Commission has won is if the figure 1.5% of European Union GDP appears in the final documents. If it doesn't Mrs Merkel has blocked it.
AGRICULTURE
The French want to make some reference to the recent review of the Common Agricultural Policy. The British want to make sure it doesn't signal an end to reform.
DEFENCE
There will be a declaration that over the last decade the EU has become a global political player and has assumed more ambitious responsibilities. It will say that current military resources are inadequate and need to meet specific new targets. One of them is to be able to deploy 60,000 people within 60 days.
That is quite enough for a two-day summit. I'm told that the French desire for a conclusion by Friday afternoon is really serious: no lunch has been ordered for ministers. Although Chris Patten suspected that the French admiral who accompanied Jacques Chirac everywhere really had snacks, rather than nuclear codes, in his briefcase, President Sarkozy has nothing like that to fall back on.
By the way, I do intend to answer freebornjohn's serious allegations of bias. But I keep running out of green ink and patience. A post by the beginning of next week is not quite a promise, but it is an intention.
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)