The EU thread

[Zanza]

Do we even really need the EU Council Presidency? I feel this could be organized by bureaucrats and the agenda could be set by the rotating presidency.

[Sheilbh]

I basically agree. I don't think the role has lived up to what it was supposed to when it was created in the constitutional treaty/Lisbon.

I also think it suffers from a little bit of the title inflation/prestige that is a thing in the EU (e.g. the "Five Presidents' Report" ). I also (and I have no basis for this) get the sense that Michel is prickly about that sort of thing. I always remember the meeting with Erdogan when there's only one big seat for the EU and then basically an aide's seat - and lots of people complained about Erdogan being sexist for that. That's not how I read it as I think it was a power-play by Erdogan but the sexist/unacceptable behaviour was Erdogan who absolutely raced to get into the big seat ahead of VDL. There's also been other events where I think his behaviour is not great/very much about him.

I think Tusk was very good but maybe that's what it needs is a serious figure from a big country and that won't happen often (especially as I think many would prefer to get a good Commission role). Instead we've had Michel who's a single term Belgian PM and van Rompuy who took the job after one year as PM of Belgium. I get that Benelux politicians are very good at coalition building/deal making so can be effective in EU roles, but if that's what the role actually is I'm not sure it adds much.

[Jacob]

From the American presidential election thread:

I think in France it's more staying at home not turning out for a republican front in the second round. Although if you are a voter who cares aboutsome cultural issues and migration etc on the left - then Macron's Interior Minister has accused Le Pen of being "soft on Islam" and has tried to outflank her. So if those are your big issues, it is more difficult to justify.

This is a danger - which I think is quite common in the Eurozone because of the fiscal rules - of not providing alternatives within the mainstream. Kicking out the bums is a really core democratic principle and if you basically wipe out the centre left and centre right and just have one super-party, it may help consolidate support against the extremes for a while.

But at some point there'll be a change election and the only alternatives will be the radical right or left. I think it's a danger of that sort of "grand coalition" politics is that the only place from which you can oppose is with the extremes. It can work for a while in a response to a specific set of circumstances but is dangerous if it becomes the norm. You always need meaningful choice and difference for voters.

Yeah I agree.

In Denmark, for the last many decades the government was always either a centre-right to rightwing coaltion (blue block) or centre-left to leftwing coalition (red block). There were some common things, but many other things were up for grabs and how far the gov't went left or right depended on the constellation of coalition parties making the government (and a whole bunch of horse trading). To me, at least, it seemed like there were real choices to be made - voting far left or far right had a good shot at increasing the quotient of policies you liked; and same for voting centre right or left.

Now there's a government "across the middle" consisting of the bigger centre-right and centre-left parties, as well as a "moderate" party that's split from the centre-right one. And the parties on the left and right flanks have no real chance of getting into government unless those centre parties decide. So there's a strong sense of there not being many alternatives available... which I think is driving anti-politician sentiment significantly.

[Sheilbh]

On this I think a lot about Peter Mair's point in Ruling the Void that the role of parties is really important in this. The social infrastructure that used to surround and maintain European mass parties - unions, churches, social clubs etc - withered and, then, so did the parties. But the parties politically served a really important role - in creating a place where citizens and political elites were able to meet and interact. But also the parties represented distinct, specific constituencies within society and their interests. That mean, broadly speaking, that when they won they would advance the agenda and interests of a specific, grounded group that politicians knew through their party. As the infrastructure and party has gone those politicians don't have that grounding but also don't really have accountability to their core constituency.

He argues that it is tied to politicians and parties no longer trying to represent a specific interest in society, but instead to position themselves as speaking for everyone (which is, of course, impossible). What that practically means is that their grounding is the media and comms because that is their constituency. And in its own way it inadvertantly paves the way for populism because instead of a party representing labour interests and unions, or established social institutions and capital - they both ultimately claim to speak for "the people" in their own way. I always think Blair is the most extreme at this with his line that the goal of New Labour was to become the political wing of the British people. But because they are all competing for that same media and comms constituency - they increasingly present similiarly and have a similar and constrained worldview in terms of policy. But also not representing a specific group in society means the vote is less reliable - as I say in Europe the trend is not entrenching polarisation but unprecedented volatility.

I also think in a UK context there is something about the class background of politicians mainly having gone to university etc compared with decades ago when the unions especially were a route into politics of working class people who'd worked their entire lives. I'm not sure if it's similar in the rest of Europe. But I think it's why Angela Rayner comes across so well and does really well in focus groups (even unprompted) is because she left school pregnant at sixteen with no qualifications, she was a single mum living in a council flat and working for the local council in social care. She got vocational qualifications in social care and British Sign Language and became active in her union. It's a very different background than most politicians and I think people like her for that - there is a grounding in a real experience there.

But I generally think a lot about Peter Mair's Ruling the Void (he died before completing it) on the "hollowing of Western democracy" which is basically Europe focused. He describes a mutual withdrawal by citizens and political elites - so the governed and the governors. He initially wrote about these ideas in 2006 was that there was growing disaggregation of democracy's popular and constitutional sides and broadly the triumph of democracy in the post Cold War was also accompanied by the downgrading and limiting of the popular part of democracy. His argument, ultimately was that the victory in that form was causing problems of representative legitimacy for the new political elites/governors. And the resulting gap between citizens and politics, as well as, in his view, a legitimacy crisis would fuel a response at both popular and elite levels. At the popular level it would populist mobilisation because the political class itself would become a political issue; on the elite level it would increase demands for more non-majoritarian (or non-democratic) decision making and more role for non-partisan, non-political bodies: judges, regulatory bodies, central banks, international organisations etc (which would also incidentally provide employment if the populist mobilisation overwhelmed them). I don't think it has a treatment proposed or how to solve it - and I don't know if we can - but I think the processes he describes are very true.

Separately that is, incidentally, my major hesitation with PR over FPTP. I think it boils down to when political decisions are made and by who, and accountability for them. In FPTP generally (I know the last couple of elections in Canada have been a bit of an exception), the party that wins the most votes will be able to form a government with a sufficient majority to pass the manifesto they presented to voters. If they disappoint or they fail or their manifesto actually delivers dreadful results, it is relatively easy to then kick them out. PR is more representative but the electoral manifesto for voters is then only a platform for coalitions negotiations by politicians and - depending on the system - it can be very difficult to get rid of them.

I've mentioned Mark Rutte before - who is leaving office at the next election (and might become NATO SecGen). For a number of years he's had the second lowest approval rating in the EU, after Macron. His party consistently win about 20% and he's been PM for 13 years because he's really good at coalition building/negotiations. So he starts in a coalition with Christian Democrats and Geert Wilders, then his second term is with the Labour party, then his third term is a grand coalition with social liberals, Christian Democrats and some very socially conservative Christian Democrats - which is then the same basis for his fourth term. As a voter you don't necessarily know what you're going to get and even though he's one of the most unpopular leaders in Europe it's really difficult to get rid of them I think a higher threshold - as in Germany - would help with that. Similarly I quite like the typical approach in some countries - I think Israel does this quite regularly - of coalition negotiations basically happening before the election so people know what they'll get and have a choice rather than so much power going to the party leaders after an election.

[Josquius]

You'll have seen Orban is blocking Ukrainian membership due to their language rules oppressing the Hungarian minority.

My first impression was this seemed fair enough. Orban may have the wrong intentions but this complaint seems valid enough. Ukraines recent laws targeted against Russian are a bit dodgy and it's not unexpected they might hit other minority languages by mistake.
And its not like this is a reform that would completely derail Ukraines chances. Easy enough for them to change  when they can set their mind to peaceful matters again.

Read an interesting explanation today though. Turns out... It's not a broken clock being right twice a day. It's just orban being orban.
It's not that he cares about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine being oppressed too much... It's that he's pissed about not being able to oppress minorities in Hungary and wants EU minority language rules destroyed.

[Tamas]

You'll have seen Orban is blocking Ukrainian membership due to their language rules oppressing the Hungarian minority.

My first impression was this seemed fair enough. Orban may have the wrong intentions but this complaint seems valid enough. Ukraines recent laws targeted against Russian are a bit dodgy and it's not unexpected they might hit other minority languages by mistake.
And its not like this is a reform that would completely derail Ukraines chances. Easy enough for them to change  when they can set their mind to peaceful matters again.

Read an interesting explanation today though. Turns out... It's not a broken clock being right twice a day. It's just orban being orban.
It's not that he cares about the Hungarian minority in Ukraine being oppressed too much... It's that he's pissed about not being able to oppress minorities in Hungary and wants EU minority language rules destroyed.

Ok, defending Orban causes me physical pain, but that is not true. There is no ethnic minority in Hungary substantial enough to worth oppressing from a political/powerplay point of view except gypsies and they have been plenty disadvantaged already without the EU interfering. Minority language use is an absolute non-issue within the borders of Hungary.

That doesn't mean of course that Orban genuinely cares about the Hungarians in Ukraine (even though yes, they have been collateral damage in the cultural war between Ukrainians and Russians since 2014). Rather, their blight (which can be argued just how bad actually is, but certainly they are not in a good or EU-compatible situation) is a very useful excuse for him to continue being anti-Ukraine and coerce concessions for every little ground he gives on that.

Incidentally, Orban will be doing another round of "national consultation" it's a now long-established practice of loaded (to put it mildly) questions presented to the populace to mail in their feedback. It's along lines of "Some people think Hungarian families should be protected and supported. Others want to take away family support and give it to illegal immigrants. Which do you prefer?" So anyway, one of the questions will be if you support Ukraine's EU membership and government ministers already are talking it up like "If Ukraine joins the EU, Hungary loses all EU grants" etc.  Just limitless scumbaggery.

[Sheilbh]

In fairness on that question - it is probably true. I think this is the side of the EU needing to transform in order to accept Ukraine. It's a very agricultural country and also a lot poorer than the rest of Europe. Both the CAP and cohesion represent about a third each of the EU's total budget at around €600-700 billion.

Estiates are that Ukraine would, from both, receive something like €200-300 billion. I think at the minute the net contributors are France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands - everyone else is a net recipient. Many of those net recipients would become net contributors if Ukraine joins - absent significant reform of the EU. Don't know about Hungary though - Hungary is one of the top recipients (ahead of Bulgaria!) which seems odd as it's definitely a converging economy that's done better than some others who receive less. Which suggests, if nothing else, Orban is good at European politics.

[HVC]

Sometimes, just sometimes, I get where eurosceptics are coming from.

[Josquius]

Big thing euroskeptics always fail to notice/willfully ignore is that funding for poorer countries isn't forever.
Look at the current Eastern members and many are gaining on the west fast.

But yes. Cap needed reform anyway but Ukraine furthers this

Also worth noting even as things stand today the net recievers becoming net contributers thing is a bit overblown. Many are net recievers of only a small amount. Doesn't take much to nudge them.

Ok, defending Orban causes me physical pain, but that is not true. There is no ethnic minority in Hungary substantial enough to worth oppressing from a political/powerplay point of view except gypsies and they have been plenty disadvantaged already without the EU interfering. Minority language use is an absolute non-issue within the borders of Hungary.

That doesn't mean of course that Orban genuinely cares about the Hungarians in Ukraine (even though yes, they have been collateral damage in the cultural war between Ukrainians and Russians since 2014). Rather, their blight (which can be argued just how bad actually is, but certainly they are not in a good or EU-compatible situation) is a very useful excuse for him to continue being anti-Ukraine and coerce concessions for every little ground he gives on that.

Incidentally, Orban will be doing another round of "national consultation" it's a now long-established practice of loaded (to put it mildly) questions presented to the populace to mail in their feedback. It's along lines of "Some people think Hungarian families should be protected and supported. Others want to take away family support and give it to illegal immigrants. Which do you prefer?" So anyway, one of the questions will be if you support Ukraine's EU membership and government ministers already are talking it up like "If Ukraine joins the EU, Hungary loses all EU grants" etc.  Just limitless scumbaggery.

I'm seeing a sizable German minority on Wikipedia?
And yes. The roma.

Sigh on those dumb referenda. Such a cheap trick but they get away with it.

[HVC]

Big thing euroskeptics always fail to notice/willfully ignore is that funding for poorer countries isn't forever.
Look at the current Eastern members and many are gaining on the west fast.

But yes. Cap needed reform anyway but Ukraine furthers this

You're paying Hungary to slap you in the face

And while I get the feel good nature of letting Ukraine in, you really shouldn't until they meet criteria.

[Josquius]

Big thing euroskeptics always fail to notice/willfully ignore is that funding for poorer countries isn't forever.
Look at the current Eastern members and many are gaining on the west fast.

But yes. Cap needed reform anyway but Ukraine furthers this

You're paying Hungary to slap you in the face

And while I get the feel good nature of letting Ukraine in, you really shouldn't until they meet criteria.

I wish hungary could be kicked out and I don't support Ukraine entering until meeting the criteria?

[HVC]

Ok, glad we agree

[Sheilbh]

And while I get the feel good nature of letting Ukraine in, you really shouldn't until they meet criteria.

Yeah - plus the EU will need fundamental reform.

In part because of how big and agricultural Ukraine is. But also because of how poor it is, which I think is under-appreciated. Even if we set aside the reconstruction needs Ukraine's per capita GDP is around the level of, say, Vietnam or Indonesia or Egypt. The current EU model is not built for that and even the experience of the EU 10 or Romania and Bulgaria are not close.

Ukraine needs reform to meet the criteria, I think the EU needs reform to be built in a way where it can accept Ukraine.

[Sheilbh]

This failure is a choice made by European leaders. I think in the UK there were very good reason the Tories were right to oust Johnson but there has been a shift in Ukraine policy as a consequence - Sunak (and I suspect Starmer) are happy to be in the pack of countries supporting Ukraine while I think Johnson always wanted to be bolder and we would have been.

But more generally I just don't understand why we still haven't ramped up production. It's crazy. We've given loads of arms to Ukraine, without ramping up production meaning we've accidentally disarmed ourselves and aren't giving the Ukrainians enough to fight back properly. This is why I slightly sympathise with the Poles that they've given Ukraine everything they can out of their existing stocks, but they're doubling defence spending and need to arm themselves first - there is at least a policy there as opposed to wishful thinking.

Also to be super clear - the target and timeline is not the problem here

Artillery blame game hits Brussels over the million shell pledge to Ukraine
The idea of setting a hard target and timeline is under fire.
By Laura Kayali, Jacopo Barigazzi, Stuart Lau and Caleb Larson   
November 14, 2023 10:08 am CET

BRUSSELS — Critics of the EU target of supplying 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine by March — which is increasingly unlikely — have been skeptical since day one.

Now, as EU defense ministers gather in Brussels, the blame game is on.

"We have to assume that the 1 million will not be achieved," German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius said at the start of Tuesday's summit of EU defense ministers.

When the idea was launched last March, there were worries that it was unwise to put a specific figure linked to a deadline for the ammunition pledge if there was the slightest doubt about the bloc's ability to hit that target.

"The question of whether 1 million was ever realistic was actually the right one," Pistorius added. "There have been voices that have said, 'Be careful. One million is easy to decide, the money is there, but the production has to be there.' Unfortunately, those voices are now right."

The initiative came from Estonia in response to Kyiv's desperate plea for enough ammunition to counter Russia's grinding offensive.

That's not to say that it's been a complete failure; 300,000 rounds have been shipped since February 9 under a program to send shells from national stockpiles to Ukraine. But officials have increasingly poured cold water on reaching the million mark in just four more months. On Friday, a senior EU diplomat said the goal was "very ambitious" to begin with.

Diplomats and some ministers put the blame on Europe's production capabilities. "Even a decision on the war economy, from which I expressly distance myself, will not lead to production starting up tomorrow or being able to cover the demand," Pistorius said.

However, senior Commission officials pointed to a lack of national contracts and of ammunition suppliers selling shells to countries besides Ukraine.

Exports and contracts

One way of ensuring the 1 million target is met would be for defense firms to focus on sending more ammunition to Ukraine and exporting less to other countries, the EU's foreign and security policy chief Josep Borrell said.

He questioned the claim that the Continent's defense production capacity has reached the upper limit.

"Keep in mind the European defense industry is exporting a lot — about 40 percent of the production is being exported to third countries," he told reporters before chairing the defense ministers' meeting. "So it's not a lack of production capacity; it is that they send their products to [other] markets. So maybe what we have to do is to try to shift this production to the priority one, which is Ukrainians."

As for Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton, he's putting the blame on capitals. The EU's ammunition target will be met if governments sign contracts, he said.

"Ammunition production capacity increased by 20 to 30 percent. We're on target to increase our production capacity by spring, now it's a matter of member states placing the orders," he told reporters.

Breton said he has seen production increases in countries including Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary and Romania. Now it's up to capitals to place orders and to ensure that their arms industries make Ukraine a priority.

Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur announced his country on Friday launched what he called "the biggest procurement in Europe at this moment" — a contract for €280 million worth of 155 millimeter artillery ammunition.

"We sent the procurement offer to five European companies, so this money goes to European companies to produce 155," he told reporters ahead of the meeting. "This is the message to the industry: 'We've said many times that we need contracts, here they are.'"

Pistorius acknowledged "close coordination" with Europe's defense industries is a prerequisite to boosting production and procurement so that "projects can be realized more quickly."

"That's what matters now," he said. "But you can't influence time."

Borrell also underlined the importance of governments signing deals with arms producers.

"According [to] Commissioner Breton, the European industry has the capacity to produce 1 million shots a year. But it doesn't mean that we already have 1 million shots ready by March. So maybe we will not have 1 million by March," Borrell said. "But it will depend on how quickly the orders come to the industry and how quickly the industry reacts."

While aid to Ukraine was high on the Council meeting's agenda, defense ministers also approved new priorities for the EU's defense capabilities during a European Defence Agency steering board meeting.

Among the main lessons from Ukraine reflected in the new priorities are the importance of land forces and integrated air and missile defense. The war has also shown that quantity is as important as quality when it comes to equipment and ammunition.

This article has been updated.

The EU figures Borrell and Breton are absolutely right - it owuld be a rubicon but you can't help but feel that some form of common procurement might be a way around this. But I find this learned helplessness from some of those quotes unbearable. It's that Flanders line: we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas. Especially given that it's normally accompanied by a general view that everything will basically be okay for Europe so it doesn't really matter.

I don't know why people haven't woken out of that or what it'll take to happen. I'm not sure Trump 2 will make any difference given that his first term didn't. There'll be furrowed brows, deep concern about the international rules based order expressed and think tank symposia - meanwhile China and the US ignore trade rules to ensure they have an advantage in AI and green tech etc, while Russia nibbles at the territory of sovereign European states - and every neighbouring despot realises they can get billions of funding by holding some migrants hostage and threatening to release them into Europe. It's very, very depressing

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Not surprising though since Ukraine is an issue that requires more than just virtue-signalling and finger-wagging. The same with protecting our borders and pushing back the illegals to whence they came.
It requires balls and they don't have any.
Meaning that the Europeans are going to end up being the idiots playing by a rulebook everyone has almost thrown away.