JM Simon's Blog

E. Commission: take the initiative or face a vote of confidence

Since the creation of the new Barroso II commission the European Commission doesn’t stop confirming that she is going to be as daring as the Barroso I Commission. That is: not daring at all. Europe continues to be left at the mercy of the member states and globalization.

One of the reasons to understand why the EU has got to where it is today lies in the creation of the European Commission with the monopoly on legislative initiative.

If the European Commission doesn’t take the lead the EU has to look for other ways to move forward. During the Barroso I Commission nothing can be recalled as main achievement, on the other hand 3 referendums were lost and the Lisbon strategy was an appalling failure. Yet, as I explain in my former post, last week the Barroso II Commission presented another economic plan for 2020 that is doomed to fail.

Yes, the EU needs a European Monetary Fund and yes, the European Commission should have presented these ideas a long time ago. It is their duty to think about the instruments that will take Europe out of the crisis; the instruments that allow a smarter European integration. It is worrying that, out of desperation, the member states have to take the lead in telling Brussels what Europe needs and not all the way round. This is against the treaties and the teachings of history.

It can be argued –by some- that in times of economic boom it is politically convenient to have a weak and quiet European Commission… but in times of crisis the Commission has to change business as usual, take the lead and propose solutions. Instead in the strategy for 2020 the Commission is showing a very worrying lack of attitude and seems to wait for the member states to pave the way forward.

If the newly elected European Commission continues to refuse to take the lead the European Parliament, the body to which it is accountable, should call for a vote of confidence. The Parliament is too much used to blaming the European Commission for lack of this and lack of that but after all the three big groups –conservatives, socialists and liberals- voted in favour of Barroso II for his promises of change. It Barroso II fails to deliver the Parliament should preserve the European interest.

New EU economic strategy – Repeating the failure of Lisbon strategy

Linking climate change with social change – The experience of the Green revolution in the US

During this last week in Northern California I had the chance to check the pulse not only of the civil society groups but also of the political scene in the US and the most relevant thing I found is how the green movement is really kicking-off with a strong political agenda, very often linking green demands with social justice.

In Europe very often we dissociate green politics from social justice because this allows everybody to be green and trendy –even Barroso from the wheel of his SUV promotes green economy-. This is interesting. The ecological crisis, to a certain extend caused by a concrete economic model of production and consumption, is happening and the mainstream parties tend to see it as a mere technological reshuffling to convert the business as usual into a green business as usual.

There is another approach to the issue of climate change that because of the higher social equality in Europe I haven’t seen in the old continent and that is the social justice approach to climate change and the green economy. Using a politically neutral approach to the current crisis allows to apply technological changes without questioning who profited from the appropriation and exploitation of resources during last centuries. A social justice approach to the current crisis wants to link the problem of climate change to its social causes and impacts, namely; how those who suffer the most from failing states or failing ecosystems are those who profit the less from the economic progress.

Europeans tend to ignore or oversee this point. This is strategically good because it avoids social unrest and allows a civilised response. However this is a problem when dealing with the rest of the world because they have a different take on it. For instance during the Copenhagen summit the developing countries insisted in having Europeans (and north-americans) pay the ecological debt.

In the US, a highly fragmented society in racial, social and economic terms, more and more green movements are linking the green revolution with social demands. After all it is low-wage workers who work in the most polluting industries or live next to a hazardous waste incinerator. Since they are the ones who suffer the most from the wealth that the upper-middle class American families accumulate, it should not surprise anyone that this kind of local movements are growing strong. The reason why it is highly interesting to listen to them is because of the take they have on the green economy i.e.: they promote the real green solutions and do not hesitate bashing the greenwashing from the industry and the political stablishment about using nuclear power or burning waste to fight climate change.

The green revolution has to be linked with a social agenda that allows to decarbonise the economy whilst creating sustainable jobs and social equality. A lots of red-neck Americans call them green-communists. I think that their demands, albeit sometimes too populist, make a lot more sense than the greenwashing with which the industry and in consequence the European and national governments bomb us with everyday. Even what is considered to be quality media promote this greenwashing.

Below a video from Van Jones, one of the leaders of this movement in Oakland, California, founder of “Green for all” and former responsible for Green Jobs for the Obama government –before being target of the neo-cons who ousted him from Washington-. A good example to understand what is going on outside the old continent.

The most sustainable shopping in my life

I never thought I would be writing about such a “simple” thing as going shopping but the experience I had this last weekend really deserves it.

My experience these days is that eating sustainable food has become a fulltime job and it is not cheap. If you go to a local market in Brussels it is possible to buy seasonal products and if you try even harder you can even find out where the products come from (but you are quite likely to go back with a good amount of plastic bags and other kinds of packaging).

During this last weekend that I spent in Tuscany I went to the most sustainable shop I’ve ever seen. In the shop Effecorta 80% of the products come from 70km around the Capannori municipality (aiming to get to 95%), many of them biological. But this is just the top of the iceberg; the shop adheres to the principle of Zero Waste and it doesn’t use any plastic bag or any non-reusable package. This is not only true for the tomatoes but also for soap, milk products, cosmetic creams, beer, wines, beans, rice, spices, salt, sugar… you name it! Everything they sell is in refillable, re-usable or/and biodegradable packaging.

This system:

- allows every buyer to buy according to its needs which minimises the waste eventually produced by normal packaged stuff and responsible for lots of food to be wasted (8.3 million tonnes of food is thrown away by households in the UK every year),

- saves us from having to check the source and composition of the products because you know they are all local and in most of the cases biological (time saving),

- contributes to minimise the waste generation at home (no waste packaging and a lot less food wasted).

Believe it or not because of what I explain above you end up spending (and buying) less than in a normal supermarket, even if you buy bio!

This initiative was started by 6 idealists from Tuscany in August 2009 and it has already achieved economic stability and from all the products, the sales of the biological products are increasing by a 20%.

A lot of people questioned in the beginning the quality of natural biological refillable soaps and others. For this reason the entrepreneurs gave to normal people (not the already convinced greeny) different soaps to try and in the end the customers decided to stay with the locally produced biological soap with the refillable packaging for pure practical and quality reasons. The customers of the shop are all kinds of people; the main aim being that this shop should be a normal shop of the future and not something strange thought for already aware people. I could see with my eyes that they are succeeding.

Personally, from all the amazing products I tried it surprised me a fantastic local beer, a really authentic wine (without sulfites!) and above all the fact of being in a shop without marketing; a shop where you see, smell and touch what you buy and not end up deciding according to the nice face on the packaging or anything except what matters. This reduces the bill because you get less distracted and you buy only what you need. How twisted can this society be when I can be surprised of being able to see what I buy?

Anyway, back to my cloudy Brussels now I can’t stop from wishing to have one day one of these shops close to my place. I know that there are other sustainable options in Brussels such as:

- the consumers cooperatives that I highly appreciate and value

- and reason2.be which offers online shopping of seasonal food and even meat with free delivery. It is not a shop as such but a delivery service of mostly organic and local products.

Unfortunately people with jobs like mine can’t use either of these two options because they require a commitment and regularity that I just can’t guarantee with a job that obliges me to travel constantly. Plus they only provide vegetables, fruits and a little more whilst Effecorta offers almost everything you need at home.

If the world is to be sustainable one day Effecorta is the shop of the future.

The Ryanair Flying Circus

I was invited to give a conference in Capannori, in Tuscany and unsurprisingly there was no other option than flying there. The train would have taken 14h each way (changing 4 times), cost 4 times as much and taken extra time to go to book in the station. Note that the part of the trip that can be booked any the Belgian station (booking the trip online is impossible) and considering the reliability of the train system in Europe lately a trip with more than 2 changes involving 3 countries is something that you just don’t want to risk. So far about European transnational networks.

So here I go with the fantastic Ryanair, paying 100eur for a return ticket (+ 26€ to get to Charleroi airport from Brussels) and contributing to global warming and environmental and economical dumping by using a mode of transport that doesn’t pay taxes on fuels. Sadly enough, nothing new until here.

But it is good to always let the events surprise you! Ryanair is as famous for being one of the most punctual airlines in Europe as it is for having the worst labour working conditions, not displaying the complete prices or charging unreasonable charges to pay with debit or credit cards. My surprise comes from the fact that the 1,5h flight turns into a flying supermarket circus from the moment it takes off. They start with selling hotdogs, hamburgers and drinks, they continue with tobacco advertising and selling (with the stewardess seductively walking up and down the corridor showing the cigarettes packages like in a fashion parade) followed by selling participations for a lottery for I don’t know which NGO to save I don’t know which children in I don’t which country and the flight concludes with a duty free with watches, perfumes…

All in all, a flying shopping mall promoting consumerism up in the clouds. How better can it get?

Good news from Copenhagen: how a colossal failure opens new doors to reform

I have to admit that this time our politicians surprised me (which is something very difficult to do). Having spent last week in Copenhagen and last years following climate change negotiations I could have never expected that our politicians could have dared to craft such a disastrous non-existing deal. I just couldn’t even dream that they could be so bad.

The UNFCCC has lost all credibility as manager of international relations to fight climate change.

Rewarded to destroy wealth? Recycling has higher social return than banking

Photo: Dave Ciplet

There are lots of new approaches about how economics should be reformed in order to allow prices to tell the truth, internalising future or environmental costs, integrating scarcity in the equation, new indicators of wealth, etc.  All these topics which might have looked revolutionary or idealist not too long ago are not provocative anymore for many.

However I run into a report about a new approach in looking at the value of work which struck me. A study by NEF in which they look at how much the different professions are paid in comparison to how much they contribute to society it concludes that whereas waste recycling workers they generate 12 pounds for every pound they are paid, bankers destroy 11 pounds worth of value for every pound in value they generate. Yet in our economic system those who destroy wealth are rewarded with huge salaries and those who create it receive minimum wages.

I love it when common sense competes with economics even though the former always loses…

Worth a read:

Waste recycling workers do a range of different jobs that relate to processing and preventing waste and promoting recycling. Carbon emissions are significantly reduced when goods are recycled instead of sending them to incineration or landfill. There is also a value in reusing goods, and we have included this in our model. Our model projects that for every £1 of value spent on wages, £12 of value will be generated.

High-earning investment bankers in the City of London are among the best remunerated people in the economy. But the earnings they command and the profits they make come at a huge cost because of the damaging social effects of the City of London’s financial activities. We found that rather than being ‘wealth creators’, these City bankers are being handsomely rewarded for bringing the global financial system to the brink of collapse. While collecting salaries of between £500,000 and £10 million, leading City bankers to destroy £7 of social value for every pound in value they generate.

Although the role of an advertising executive has high status, the impact of the industry has always been a point of controversy. It encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of value for every pound in value they generate.

Climate Change and the will to exist

If I take a step back to look at the historical moment we find ourselves in, I have to say that the negotiations in Copenhagen are different than any other negotiations I’ve ever assisted to.
Political negotiations are about compromise between the parts, it is about agreeing on the kind of grey that will rubberstamp the agreement. Survival negotiations are not negotiations; they are black or white. In Copenhagen there are two kinds of people; those who take this as a political negotiation and those who take this as a survival decision. Needless to say, a compromise will be more than difficult.

But, as I said, I wanted to look at this with a certain distance; humankind finds it self in a religious moment, in a purely philosophically existential dilemma, in a maturity test, in a “to be or not to be” situation…

We are in a religious moment because the world is about to “flood” for a second time (according to the old testament), the “sinners” have been warned by science (!) that if we continue with our life-style, with the business as usual, we will be flooded. Fair enough. The human race didn’t listen to the warnings of God the first time, the earth was flooded but God gave us a second chance. If we prove again that we are incapable of listening, of taking action to save ourselves… why should nature (or God for that matter) gives us another chance?

We are in a philosophical existential dilemma because as a race, as the big herd that we are, we have to choose between survival and extinction. The evolution of our philosophy has produced a society built on the basis of individuals, with irrational and artificially created material needs, and in which short term profit is put before the preservation of the species. Our philosophical evolution has also equipped us with phantastic logic reasoning, common sense, prudence. What will prevail?

We are in a maturity test because nature is testing our sociological and psicological evolution as a “team” to see if we are ready to survive as a whole or we rather prefer to test our luck. This means that blinded by the short term profit we chose to play our long term existence in a Russian roulette which in the best case will mean the sacrifice of some of us for the sake of the rest but which in 9 out of 10 cases means the disappearance of us all.

It is a “to be or not to be” situation because we have to take a common decision to “be”; to “exist”. Even if climate change would be an invention what is at stake in Copenhagen negotiation is the trust in ourselves as human beings beyond our national borders. If the developed and most polluting countries chose to abandon the developing countries with another treachery compromise the situation will deteriorate and the trust gap will increase. The south will become more and more suspicious about the north; whatever is left of trust will evaporate. And lack of trust in the team is the root of serious and long-lasting conflict.

Sadly, the text leaked today in which Denmark, US and UK worked behind all the other countries is a perfect example of how to destroy confidence with an otherwise very logical short-sighted move from the developped countries.

As redundant as it might sound humankind can only get out of this as a team… Today in Copenhagen I could see Africans screaming and crying out of rage, desertification is literally killing them. It is the second day and this risks getting emotional. Emotions? That animal instinct?

In my opinion the only way we will get anything useful out of Copenhagen is if our repressed animal instinct comes out and we make the irrational decision that “YES! Even though it will cost us money, sacrifice, power, you name it we still want to take the irrational decision to exist.”
Will we be that illogical? I doubt it…

Dirty tricks in Climate negotiations

The US has been giving the impression that they were taking the climate change negotiations more seriously than in previous times. And they do. To the extend of influencing the composition of the delegations that other countries are sending to the COP15 in Copenhagen so that they can get their way easily by taking out those negotiatiors known to be a pain.

The ultimate example of this sabotage strategy is the “coincidence” of the visit of US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton to the Philippines with the destitution of Bernardita de Castro Muller as climate-change advisor of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and coordinator for the G77 (group of the 77 development countries) and China Group in the climate-change talks.

Bernadita has been one of the main responsibles that the heterogeneous group of G77+China managed to articulate a strong and united message that tells the inconvenient truths that the developed countries don’t want to hear. Hence, the US thought it would be a good idea to get her out of the way so that the Copenhagen talks can be more “peaceful”. The 20 years experienced diplomat and her whole team were removed from the Philippine delegation, which at the same time left the G77+China without spokesperson.

The surprise came when right before the negotiations the Sudan delegation announced that Bernadita de Castro Muller would be representing the country which happens to chair the G77. Other members of her team appeared representing countries such as Bolivia. The “Ditas” team was back in the game!

The Philippino government made a fool of itself when it came out that the US strategy to behead the G77+China backfired and as Muller declared: “By serving as the negotiator for Sudan/G77, we will all be proving a point to the Annex 1 countries. Vulnerable countries, despite their “vulnerability”, can and will stand as one and be strong for each other and for the entire humanity.”

The US and the EU have been repeatedly trying to torpedo the unity of the developing world so that they can continue polluting whist at the same time even manage to make some money out of it. The old “divide and rule” tactic is being used over and over again.

It is true that the G77 is extremely heterogeneous and that countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait are radically different than countries such as Ruanda or Bangladesh but it is also true that the only way the G77+China can push the US and the EU to face its responsibilities is by staying together and acting as one. Having the experienced Bernardita Muller back in the negotiations, despite the efforts of the Americans to get her out of the way, will definitely help to bring in realism to Copenhagen.

Climate Change and the Story of a Distraction

Copenhagen negotiations are starting in one week and everything is set for the big show of business bullying the world, fantastic magical solutions and great speeches.
All in all a lot of distraction from what is really the problem:
1- How to effectively reduce emissions
2- How to change the business as usual in the scale proposed by Lester Brown in Plan B 3.0

All the rest is mainly distractions. The video below is an excellent and understandable explanation of what is important and what is superfluous about the historical negotiations we are about to assist to:

Plea for a swap: Barroso for president of the E. Council and Van Rompuy for president of the E. Commission

Apparently, Van Rompuy is an European federalist (see Jean Quatremer’s post). This is great news albeit bizarre ones… Isn’t it weird that the first president of the European Council, who is meant to represent the interests of the member states is more federalist than the president of the European Commission (meant to represent the European interest)???

So far, if there is anything that Barroso has  proven to be capable of is to listen and obey the European Council. He has never dared to call himself a federalist. In small circles he has even mentioned that he is not sure of what he really is! In fact, he is probably the less federalist Commission president that I can recall…

On the other hand Van Rompuy comes from Belgium, a country that knows what federalism is and hence knows what he is talking about when he says that he is a “non-fundamentalist” federalist. It is excellent that we have a federalist presiding the European Council because this will allow him to shape the position in the right way; i.e. not wanting to be the head of the executive or use a kind of a prime minister approach that probably someone like Tony Blair would have taken on.

However, I still believe that it would be good (or even mandatory) if the president of the most communitarian body of the EU would be a federalist. History tends to put people in strange positions but such a contradiction of vocations in the two top jobs of the EU is quite remarkable.

Wouldn’t it make more sense that Barroso becomes the president of the European Council and Van Rompuy the president of the European Executive?

If there is common agreement between the two a swap could be arranged. I believe they would sleep better at night if they would know that during the day their political beliefs match their political roles.

SEPARATING ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE: THE RIGHT WAY TO KILL EITHER OF THEM?

In its new European Commission JM Barroso has decided to separate environment from Climate Change; Environment portfolio goes to Janez Potocnik (Slovenia), who wad Research in the last Commission, the new ‘Climate Action’ nominee is Connie Hedegaard from Denmark.

Is this the result of member states short-sightedness and not understanding the system when amending the Constitutional treaty so that the new Lisbon treaty would have an European Commission (representing the European interest) with 27 commissioners?

Could be…

But what is for sure is that Barroso is using this illogical increase in the name of portfolios to divide and rule. It is understandable, this is politics.

The field of Environment has been a pain during the last 5 years; one of the policy fields that more legislation has produced, that more cases has brought in front of the European Court of Justice and with one of the stronger commissioners: Stavros Dimas.

Stavros Dimas, outgoing Environment Commissioner, has been one of the positive surprises of the last commission. Nobody expected the greek conservative to take environment seriously, hence he was the perfect candidate to keep Environment low profile. This didn’t work and luckily for the environment he has been a pain; he has never hesitated in contradicting his president and the member states.

But Barroso is learning; he doesn’t want to have a strong profile on Environment (remember his cutting red-tape obsession) so he separated Environment from Climate Change first and then put Potocnik, a profile with proven record of uncontroversiality, ahead of it. This should help him keep things under control…

But is this good for Europe? The problem with separating dossiers is that when producing policy it is often the case that different DGs of the Commission produce contradictory policies. For instance; the industry DG deciding push for more cars when environment DG says we should have less or Environment DG deciding on policies that reduce employment, contradicting what is preached by DG Employment.

So far, it has been very useful (and logical) to have Environment DG dealing with climate change because it assured that all environmental policies were intended to fight climate change. This might seem obvious but it is not. Even now DG environment has promoted legislation that does not help to fight climate change. For instance; instead of pushing for recycling the EU is effectively promoting incineration. The argument of climate change was useful to make the case that destroying resources and having to start with extraction and production cycle again is worst than recycling. Still the EU chose incineration because of one more example of the power of industrial lobbies. This is one of the exceptions, but generally speaking DG Environment has been consistent in policies that link environmental protection with climate change.

By splitting the Enviroment portfolio and giving it to low profilers we will have more examples of uncoordinated action to fight climate change. More contradiction means less action, less action means less trouble. We can continue to play the role of the naked emperor with the aggravation of using climate change as an excuse to justify anything, even what is not good for the environment. There is a danger that the new Climate Action DG might become the newest greenwashing tool at supranational level.

Barroso is showing he is willing to manage power and it is to be welcomed that he is now taking own decisions under his sole responsibility. But is this emergence of a real head of the European executive good for the environment and, at the end of the day, good for Europe?

ECONOMY – ECOLOGY = 0

Just came back from the Philippines and I could see with my own eyes a very clear example of how the environment is the basis of the economy.

Manila suffered severe floods a month ago: 4 typhoons visited the archipelago and almost all the city (20million hab) was flooded.  Water and mud reached three-stories high. This might sound like the typical climate change story (and it partly is): unusual intense rains blocked the sewers, not used to such big flows. However, the fact is that when being there I could see how the high intensity of torrential waters was only responsible for 50% of the damage; the truth is that sewers were blocked by the huge amounts of waste, mainly plastic bags, dumped in the streams across the city. If the damage that these plastic bags caused had been included in their prices they would have been so expensive that they had not been able to be sold. The price of the plastic bags only reflected part of the cost of production but in no way its environmental cost.

On the top of that, the mud that covered the city was dragged by the waters from the hills surrounding the city. This had not happened in the past because the forests were keeping the soils in place (40 years ago similar storms struck Manila but the mud stayed in the hills) . During the last 20 years all these trees have been cut to build residential complexes and gulf fields. It is now clear that those trees, because of its function, had a lot higher value than what economists and developers thought and what prices reflected. And the top of the paradox is that those paying most of the price of removing the trees are now the poor people living downtown who have seen their households covered with mud. Those who live in the hills only paid a marginal cost for cutting the trees.

All in all; man-made climate change, man-produced plastic bags and forests cut by men are all three the living demonstration of bad economics. The prices didn’t tell the truth; most of the costs (that should have been included in the price) were to be paid after the products were sold and the profit was made by some whilst costs had to be shouldered by many.

Economic theory is useful to nurture philosophical discussions and make one’s ego feel good but seeing with my eyes the effects of getting things wrong (and it’s been 200 years of bad economics) is as humbling as it is infuriating. Being “green” is not a trend, not even a matter of political choice; it is about understanding that the real meaning of economics is the efficient management of today’s and future’s resources in a world of scarcity.

Lost Generation

I am part of a lost generation
and I refuse to believe that
I can change the world
I realise this may be a shock but
“Happiness comes from within.”
is a lie, and
“Money will make me happy.”
So in 30 years I will tell my children
they are not the most important thing in my life
My employer will know that
I have my priorities straight because
work
is more important than
family
I tell you this
Once upon a time
Families stayed together
but this will not be true in my era
This is a quick fix society
Experts tell me
30 years from now, I will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of my divorce
I do not concede that
I will live in a country of my own making
In the future
Environmental destruction will be the norm
No longer can it be said that
My peers and I care about this earth
It will be evident that
My generation is apathetic and lethargic
It is foolish to presume that
There is hope.

And all of this will come true unless we choose to reverse it.
Read the message, then read it again in reverse.

By Jonathan Reed

Stories of the belgian mafia in healthcare

Someone once told me “If the mafia is not outside the system, then it is inside the system”. My experience with the Belgian healthcare makes me think of the second option.

My girlfriend had to be operated of an infection and because of language issues and lack of knowledge of the Belgian system she decided to go for the private sector, choosing an English-speaking doctor recommended by a friend working in the European institutions.

The first checkings were quite expensive but considering the gravity of the situation we didn’t want to look at the prices and focus on getting the operation done. This private/independent doctor operated her in the Clinique Edith Cavell which is supposed to be among the best in Brussels.

The doctor was leaving the same day for holidays so we had to rush to operate or we risked having to wait one month –aren’t there other surgeons in the most expensive hospital in Brussels?-. Anyway, the day of the operation came and we went to this fantastic private hospital. We had to wait 2 hours more than scheduled, and when the operation finally took place my girlfriend was sent back half-unconscious to the room where I was waiting. The doctor didn’t show up to explain how it went so I had to ask a nurse to call her to get a briefing of the situation. The doctor doesn’t work for the hospital which means that it took more time to find her mobile number. We finally managed to talk to the doctor who was already on her way to the airport eager to start her holidays, luckily the operation went well. The only personnel I saw that day apart from the nurse was the anaesthetist who showed up 1h later…

We went home and she started the recovering of the surgery. Some days after the operation my girlfriend started bleeding. We called the bureau of the doctor who operated her but not a single doctor was left for urgencies; all the doctors were on holidays. We had no other choice than going to urgencies in the same expensive private Clinique of Edith Cavell, the waiting room was empty and yet they had us 1,5h waiting with her close to fainting due to the haemorrhage. Exercising extra pressure we managed to find a bed where she could lay down. Then a very nice nurse informs us that they have no urgency doctors available in the hospital but they are trying to find someone, hence the delay. 45 minutes later a kind doctor appears telling us from the start that he is a surgeon and not a generalist and hence he doesn’t know much about these kinds of operations but he will have a look anyway. Luckily the haemorrhage is nothing serious and it can be stopped. 2h later we go back home.

We start to find this scandalous.

The story continues when I have to go visit a doctor in the same hospital to check that I have not been contaminated by the infection of my girlfriend. My girlfriend’s doctor before leaving on holidays had asked her to have me seen by a doctor friend of hers who is also working as independent in the facilities of the Clinique Cavell. Full of suspicion I follow the instructions. I go see the doctor, the visit happens normally, except from the fact that he uses his own laptop and not the computer or the hospital facilities. The surprise comes when is time to pay: he asks me to pay cash the arbitrary amount of 50eur. I’ve been to other doctors so I know that this price is quite expensive; I ask why is 50eur and he tells me that independent doctors are free to charge us whatever extra to the regular amount for their honoraries. Weird. I don’t have 50eur in cash so I ask if I can pay by card to the secretary outside. No, he charges customers directly and he wants it cash so he asks me to go to withdraw money in the ING ATM machine which is in the ground floor of the Clinique. I find this very awkward. Before leaving he asks me to put the 50eur in an envelope and slide it under the door of his room later on because he will be with another visit.

Before leaving I ask for the voucher for the “mutualite” so that I can get some money reimbursed, he agrees but refuses to write down the amount of 50eur. It is not necessary, he says. Right, so he doesn’t want to declare the expenses; perfectly visible black market operations in the healthcare jetset…

Puzzled by the experience I leave the room to go withdraw money. The ING ATM inside the hospital doesn’t work so I end up having to go to another bank 5 minutes walk.

When 15 minutes later I slide the envelope under the door of the room of the “doctor” I ask myself how it can be that in a developed country such as Belgium:

- I can’t pay by bankcard in a hospital,

- I get charged random amounts that don’t appear in the receipt,

- Payment is done sliding an envelope with cash under the door?

All in all, how can it be that the Belgian tax authorities don’t stop this legal black market taking place in their semi-private hospitals?

In order to find out whether the system is weird or it is me that I’m special I go directly to my mutualite with the voucher from the doctor. When I explain them the situation they recognise it immediately: these are the famous rip-offs of private hospitals such as Edith Cavell or Park Leopold, they employ independent doctors who are free to charge whatever they feel like and are not accountable to the hospital, they make good money with EU civil servants and internationals. They work as a network so they send customers from one another for different kinds of checks. This way they work in parallel to the normal system.

They explain me that the price of the visits is regulated and the official price for my visit was 23.7eur (the basis on which I get reimbursed by the mutualite) and they charged me twice as much and it’s ok, they are free to do so. The Belgian system allows this. If I would be an EU civil servant and the mutualite of the European Commission (taxpayers money) would be paying the bill for me I could chose not to care but as an average person with a normal salary the issue really shocked me.

Perplexed and irritated I went home and think of moving to Siria…

Do you have the swine flu? – symptoms

I normally don’t write about these kind of topics but since I see the hysteria kicking off in this beginning of Autumn I thought of bringing some information to the issue of swine flu.

How to know if you have swine flu? How to know if what you have is swine flu or a normal flu?

According to the doctor I just visited in Belgium, if you get the swine flu the first symptoms are going to be really strong. In a matter of less than one hour you should be feeling very, very bad, with high fever and pain all over, and even vomiting. A normal flu is a  lot more gradual. This is just one opinion I found after lots of effort, is it right?

It is really a problem that nowhere in internet but even in hospitals is explained the symptoms of the flu whilst at the same time the media don’t stop making everyone go paranoid about it. After searching a bit in internet the closest thing I found about Swine Flu H1N1’s symptoms are:

- Sudden onset of fever, depression

- Coughing and sneezing

- Discharge from the nose and/or eye

- Diarrhea and vomiting

- Breathing difficulties

- Red eyes or inflammation

- Reduced or no food intake

We are in the beginning of Autumn, the flu season is just starting and Belgian hospitals are already collapsed with people thinking that they have the swine flu. If the authorities allow media to go paranoid about this so-called “pandemic” they should also give the means to the people to know what is it about and how to detect it. Most of the people don’t go to the doctor when they catch a flu because they know how to handle it, however they will go to the hospital this time round because of the hysteria about this virus. It would be a lot cheaper and responsible if there would be a phone number or a website where people could find basic information about detecting whether they have this flu or not.

I want to believe that, despite the economic benefits that a few will get out of this, there is no interest in letting the paranoia spread on this issue.

WHY EUROPE NEEDS BALKENENDE AND NOT BLAIR FOR PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL

After Barroso’s reappointment for a second term as president of the European Commission and having had the treaty of Lisbon finally ratified it is now time to define work-programs, assemble a new –and huge- European commission and start implementing the Lisbon treaty.

One of the novelties of the treaty is the change of a rotative presidency of the European Council for an elected position of 2,5 years mandate. The new president of the European Council will chair and organise the meetings and represent the EU in the international sphere. In a way, if we build a parallelism with a state the new president of the European Council would be the equivalent of a king whilst the president of the Commission would be more of a prime minister. However the definition of the position is vague enough in order to give the possibility to the future president of the European Council to grow into a kind of a president of the “European republic” in a more French approach.

In other words, the power relation between the president of the European Commission and the President of the European Council is not set and it will very much depend on the personality of politicians presiding either institution.

From the side of the European “executive” the personality of Barroso is known for its non-confrontational and servilist approach and experience has shown that in case of conflict the Commission has preferred to be a secretariat of the Council rather than following the will of the European Parliament. It is hence to be expected that in case a strong figure, such as Tony Blair, would be appointed president of the European Council, the European Commission led by its president would easily fall under the control of the most intergovernamental body of the union. Therefore, for the sake of keeping interinstitutional balance and maintaining right of initiative as well as the communitarian will it is important that a personality of the level of Jan Peter Balkenende is appointed as president of the European Council.

Balkenende has proven to have a diffuse personality, lacks initiative and, same as Barroso, is experienced in losing referendums (Netherlands 2005). As sad as it is, Balkenende might be the best candidate to chair the European Council: he won’t go beyond the treaties, he won’t step into others competencies, he won’t have progressive ideas to increase the power European Council and as a consequence he will leave space to a very crowded, confused, rather powerless and ambition-lacking European Commission.

STIB + CAMBIO + VILLO = ???

The Brussels region has been considerably improving its supply of public transport and right now it has valid options of car-sharing and bicycle-sharing.

The STIB (Société des Transports Intercommunaux de Bruxelles) is the largest urban public transport company in Belgium and supplies the city with buses, night buses, trams and metros. In 2003 it launched the Cambio car-sharing with great success and right now there are Cambio car-sharing stations all over Belgium and in Brussels there is a big supply that allows many of us to happily live without a car. However no common card Cambio+Stib exist and you need one for every different service.

Then in 2009 the company JCDecaux won the license to develop a bike-sharing system in the Brussels region. In partnership with the region and Brussels mobilite this company that has already successfully implemented similar systems in cities such as Paris or Lyon is quickly expanding its presence in the European capital. The bicycles are not as cute as others but they are solid and do the work. This bike-sharing system seems to be expanding all over the world, however having been one of the first “Villo-people” in Brussels I can say that the deployment of the bike-sharing is still far from being finished and still lots of work has to be done by the company to make sure some stations are not left without bicycles during most of the time, but things are improving. The problem again is: you need another card for Villo.be!

I wonder how can it be that in these times of multifunctionality, when a mobile phone can serve as radio or a calendar or when a computer can be used as a TV, how can it be that it is not possible to produce a single card which would allow access to STIB, CAMBIO, VILLO and maybe even other transport services. Any modern ID card could easily integrate all these functions.

The problem is clearly not technical, the STIB has integrated cards for transport and museums,  but a matter of either lack of will or lack of demand from the consumers. It is undeniable that even though STIB, CAMBIO and VILLO are different companies it would clarify the concept of “sharing” if the region would ask all of them to produce an integrated card.

In the meantime I’m afraid I’ll have to keep on carrying the three different cards plus the card of the supermarket, of brico, miles and more, privilege customer of I don’t know what store and whatever else is needed to have access to all these wonderful services.

The new world monetary order and the need for EU foreign monetary policy

Why the EU needs to reflect on the role of the euro in world politics

The monetary policy is an exclusive competence of the eurozone of the European Union, yet it is unclear what role the European currency is to play in the world, in comparison to other important currencies, or what is the strategy of the EU regarding the current reshuffle of world power relations. Even more worrying is the fact that in the current discussions on the programme that the European Commission should implement during the next 5 years not a single word is mentioned about this issue which, if excluded, on its own, can do away with all the EU’s efforts to get out of the crisis.

In any normal state the currency is one of the main tools of foreign policy, for devaluation can increase exports, for it can attract or repel investments or when used as reserve currency it can help finance national debt. Any remotely good school of economics teaches its students that the equilibrium of balance of payments is one of the most important tools for the stability of a country. The EU seems to have forgotten that even though it is not a state, having a common currency means that it needs to act as if it were one when it comes to using monetary policy with its relations with the world.

Indeed, most of the trade of the EU countries takes place within the EU which might give the false impression that the role of the euro as tool of foreign policy is not that important. Are we, Europeans, reading the historical moment we find ourselves in correctly?

The 20th century has seen the rise and consolidation of the US as the world superpower which has been interlinked with the establishment of the dollar as the world currency. The current economic crisis, with the US decline and the emergence of new world powers, is leading towards a multipolar world and this will result in a new world monetary order which will re-shape economics, internal policies and international relations for years to come. During the last decades the US has been exploiting the condition of the dollar as a reserve currency to run colossal deficits in its trade and current-accounts with which it has financed its economy and has managed to keep its status of the world superpower. This time it looks like the dollar domination is over and during next years most probably we will assist to the birth of a new monetary world order.

We are observing how the continuous depreciation of the dollar is having devastating effects in the reserves of most world countries which are held in this currency. Most importantly, countries such as China which have huge surpluses in their trade account with the US see the fate of their economies linked to the strength of a currency whose strength diminishes whilst being forced to buy US debt to avoid further devaluations of the dollar.

Paul Kennedy in his article published in the New York Times on 28 August rightly pointed out two facts which signal an important change: during the G20 meeting in London of April the IMF received an allocation of 250 billion $ in Special Drawing Rights (SDR) and two months later a meeting of the BRICs –Brazil, Russia, India and China- debated shifting currency holdings from the dollar to these IMF units of account in order to diversify risk.

The debate on the post-dollar era and with it the new world monetary system is something that is happening, even if the EU wants to ignore it. We are assisting to the most important change in world monetary policy since 1944 when in Bretton-Woods John Maynard Keynes proposed the creation of a “bancor”, a world currency unit based on the average price of 30 commodities, and the US opted for a monetary system based on the gold standard linked to the dollar which effectively turned the dollar into the world currency. Back then nobody could challenge the strength of the American currency, fair image of the then most powerful world economy. This is no longer the case and the emerging economies don’t want to see its efforts to develop go up in the air with the destruction of its reserves whilst continuing to finance the US economy.

The United States have a clear interest in keeping the status quo in the world monetary relations, since this allows them to get their economy financed by the rest of the world. The Chinese have an interest in changing the rules of the game but they are not against the dollar per se because they indeed have most of their reserves in this currency. However they do understand that if things go bad and the Americans start printing money to finance their way out for the crisis this will lead to inflation and subsequently to a depreciation of the dollar which will decrease the value of the chinese reserves and do away with their development effort of the last decade. A similar reasoning applies for other emerging economies such as India or Brazil.

Also the European Union is and will continue to be severely affected by this constant depreciation of the dollar, since the comparative strength of the Euro will render the European exports more expensive and hence move jobs and economic activity out of the EU. There is a lot at stake for the EU in this game and if we look at the current state of affairs and the discussions taking place between the European Commission and the European Parliament on next years programme, it seems that neither have a clear understanding of the stakes in the game.

What should the role of the EU be in this new monetary world order? There are some reasons why the EU should take the lead in proposing a new system:

First and foremost, because it is easier to push for an equitable, democratic and transparent system in a multipolar world than in a polarised world. History teaches us that the predominance of a currency tends to be proportional to the power of the country that issues it. The end of the US hegemony will bring with it the end of the dollar hegemony and the new multipolar world will bring with it a new distribution of power that will be reflected in the monetary strength. Now is the time when emerging economies can agree to a compromise, in 10 years it might be too late. It is strategically important to take advantage of the moment to work out a plan from which all can benefit in the years to come. China may join a world system today but it won’t do it once it is doped with the taste of power.

Secondly, as indicated above because the current status-quo damages the competitiveness of the EU and unless it is reversed it can seriously harm the recovery of the EU economy. If we add a strong exchange rate and political disunion in monetary policy to the lack of a coordinated recovery plan and the inability of the EU to properly finance itself we have the ingredients for a troublesome future.

Thirdly and finally because if the EU doesn’t take (or join) the initiative the world will move on without and the cost of hopping on the train once it has started moving will be higher than being in the vanguard. Clear signs that the train is moving is when in March this year Zhou Xiaochuan, head of the Chinese central bank, called for an overhaul of the global monetary system by replacing the dollar for a world unit composed of a basket of the most important currencies (SDR). As explained before the talks among the BRICs after the 250 billion $ in SDR given to the IMF to guarantee stability also show a tendency.

The EU, except some timid initiatives taken by the French presidency a year ago, did not react to these declarations and signs and instead we continue to behave like if we were in the 20th century.

At present the EU 27 holds most of the voting power in the IMF and if acting together it could even decide to move the siege of the organisation to Europe. This simple example shows the power that the EU still has, although not for long, in influencing world monetary policy. The EU‘s weight in the IMF is disproportionate to its economic and demographic size and it will be corrected soon.Why not taking advantage of the last moments “in power” to give the right steps to create a more representative, fair and above all stable and robust monetary system? Isn’t it in our interest? The euro can not and should not be the new world currency; instead the European experience of monetary integration could be very useful for the setting up of a new world monetary system based on SDR. Why does Europe stay silent when the status quo is harming European interests?

The eurozone has delegated competence in monetary policy and the council can decide by qualified majority on a proposal from the European Commission: it is therefore in the hands of the European Executive to put together the EU monetary plan. Ideally, the newly elected president of the European Commission should seize initiative and put the European Union at the forefront of these crucial negociations for the world governance. The role of the euro in the new world monetary order should have a prominent place in the program that Barroso will present for approval in front of the European Parliament together with the new European Commission in December 2009 or January 2010.

May the Barroso program fail to tackle this vital point for the future of Europe, the European Parliament should better start looking for another candidate to lead the EU executive.

Belgium rollers parade greenwash – a breath of CO2?

I’ve been a passionate supporter of the Brussels rollerskate parade www.belgiumrollers.com since 5 years. Thanks to the rollers parade I managed to skate thousands of km in this otherwise ill-prepared city for skaters and cyclists.

However, something that from the beginning has surprised me is how the opportunity to promote green transport and practices in these congregations is being missed. The parades are lead by a hummer and a 4WD which run on LPG -see pic- which is all very well because this Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) reduces around 20% the CO2 emissions in comparison with a normal car in petrol. But for heaven sake, the consumption of such an irrational and mad machine as the Hummer is still of 24 liters per 100km in the city!

So, the logo claiming to be riding green is nothing less than greenwashing and being severely misleading as it is the organisers should make a point in replacing it by a normal car with capacity to carry a couple of good speakers. The ideal solution -if they want to use a car for it- would be to get an electric car running on clean electricity powered by Lampiris. It will help reduce the consumption, the noise, the pollution, it will not stink -if you skate after the car or even during the breaks the skaters are inhaling the fumes of this thing- and it will allow them to correctly brand themselves as “we ride green”.

One more thing that can be improved from the environmental impact point of view is the disposal of the bottles of water given by the sponsor evian to the sweaty rollers -also the cans from Redbull-. Even though Evian as a company has some good environmental credentials the truth is that they are really committed with the environment they should make sure that the bottles they distribute are collected and recycled. Having participated in many of the roller events I can assure that all these bottles are not separately collected and I would bet more than 80% of them end up in the Brussels incinerator. Therefore it would be good if Redbull or Evian would ask the organisers to take care of the collection of the waste produced by the parade. I’m sure the rollers themselves would be happy to collaborate and it would really be preaching by doing which would be a lot more effective than just sticking the label “we ride green”.

The season of  belgianrollers will be finishing in two weeks. Let’s hope next year the organisers plan these things better and improve this great initiative to give the city to the skaters for some hours.

Barroso: the EP is the wrong audience

Having read the program of Barroso and having listened to the debate today (15/09/09) in the European Parliament, and regardless of the result of the vote of tomorrow where most likely he will be confirmed with the new mandate, I can only say one thing: this man is talking to the wrong audience!

When he speaks about Europe taking the lead,
When he speaks about the need of a strong commission in a strong Europe,
When he says that Europe needs a serious transparent budget giving the EU the capacity to raise its own resources,
When he talks about common immigration policy, coordination of R&D, European recovery package, green economy, regulation of financial markets…

When Barroso talks about all this in the European Parliament he is preaching to the converted. The European Parliament has already expressed several times, and many times even before the European Commission, about the need to bring more Europe in all the abovementioned topics.

If this didn’t happen it was not because the EP didn’t want to, or the European Commission was not aware of it… they didn’t happen because the European Council and the council of ministers, guardians of the national interests, have been extremely reticent in letting go in these fields.
If we don’t have a stronger European Commission –let alone an European Government- is because the European Council insists in treating the commission as a secretariat of the Council and prioritises putting weak politicians to manage it,
If the EU has such a tiny, non-transparent, subject to national bargain budget is because the member states prefer to spend money at national level even when that is economically inefficient and politically wrong,
If we don’t have a common immigration policy, or a true European research strategy, or we don’t have a serious European recovery plan or we don’t have the necessary investment in green economy to get out of the crisis it is not because the EP or the Commission don’t want to, it is because member states continue to think they can do better apart than together!

The EP and the European Commission are the two communitarian institutions “par excellence” and this facilitates the understanding of many issues for they deal with them everyday. The real problem is the European Council where the heads of state and prime ministers meet to bargain about their national interests and where the EU is very seldom the winner. The discussions in the European Council are of very low level and our heads of state and prime ministers, not understanding what their real role is, only try to get as much as they can back home.

I put my hand on the fire that not a single member of the European Council has followed the debate in the European Parliament. Even the Swedish presidency sent the minister for EU affairs Malstrom and not its prime minister.

For all this I reiterate my conclusion with a pledge to Mr Barroso:

Dear Jose Manuel,
Convincing the EP is peanuts, in fact your program is a copy-paste of many of the European Parliament policies and decisions. Now, please go and explain all what you presented in the EP to the European Council, present them your program and see what they say. It is in the European Council where you will find the real problem for the future ambitions of Europe. As you well know, there is where the power and the money are and they are the people that will decide whether you can become the leader you want to be or stay their mere secretary.
Let us know how it goes, the fate of Europe depends on it!

How to get a smart-phone 25 times cheaper thanks to the EU common market

How much would you pay for the iPhone 3G 8Gb? Or the Sony Ericsson Xperia X1? Or the Nokia N96?

Thanks to the common market you can chose from a range of 25 to 700 euros. Wait a second, 25 times difference in the price of the same product in the same market? It can’t be…

Unfortunately for many, and fortunately for some, it can be.

In the Netherlands the deals with the phone companies can get you a iPhone for 26 eur, the Sony Ericsson Xperia for 29 eur and the Nokia N96 for 33 euros, but you can also get them for free if you have a contract with T-mobile. In Spain the deals with big companies like Movistar can get you the same mobiles for free. But in countries like Belgium where telecommunication companies can not offer such deals if you want to buy an iPhone you can pay 575 euros with mobistar or pay even more if you want it liberated. If you want to buy the Sony Ericsson Xperia or the Nokia N96 you can’t find them with the company but you shouldn’t be able to buy them for less than 500euros…

I don’t want to go into considerations -otherwise perfectly legitimate- on whether big companies offering expensive mobiles for free opens the door to unfair competition with emerging telecom companies or the theoretical considerations on to which extend a market can be distorted -and hence stop working as a free market- when prices stop working as information-providers for the consumer, I just would like to highlight the flagrant breach of common market rules by allowing this rip off on the prices of mobile phone:

We are in a common market, yet telecommunication companies can not offer services beyond the national borders -for that we have the roaming services-. Now, if I want to buy a mobile phone in Spain or the Netherlands to use in Belgium I should buy liberated because this way they can charge me a more homogeneus European price since I will only be allowed to use a belgian telecom provider. Or that’s what they think… What happens in reality is that some people are making a highly lucrative legal business reselling the phones bought for free or for 30 eur to companies like Movistar or T-Mobile and getting back 25 times what they paid by selling them in legal shops.

I tested this twice during last 4 weeks in two different countries: in Barcelona I entered a shop attracted by the price of a brand new iPhone 3G, 250 euros! a bargain? When checking the mobile it was clearly written on the box and on the mobile that it was a movistar phone. Good deal for the shop, they get a margin of 250eur and good deal for me, I get a phone for half the “official” price.

I repeated the experience in Brussels, I enter a shop attracted for the price of Sony Ericsson Xperia, 50 eur cheaper than the 500 official price. When checking the phone the seller tells me that because I’m nice I can get it for 400 eur and he includes the 8Gb memory card… same trick: on the box and on the mobile it is clearly written T-Mobile and all the instructions and software of the mobile are in dutch, I check a bit further and in the dialled and received calls appear calls with the code +31 of the Netherlands. They probably got the phone for free in Amsterdam and they will make a profit of 400 eur in Brussels. Not a bad business!

Is this ilegal? In both cases I ask for the guarantee and to get an official invoice and they said guarantee of 2 years and getting an invoice poses no problem at all.

This is clearly a case of common market failure where the European consumers are the ones being clearly ripped off and where only action at European level can bring a solution.

The European Commission has already taken succesful action in the communications market when legislating on roaming costs against abusive prices charged by the big companies. Now it is time for the European Commission to show its commitement in protecting European consumers by stopping this abuse of the common market.

Once this is done we will be closer to answer the 1 million euro question: what is the real price of a mobile phone?

Not all bitches and pussies are animals but all women are human beings

I’m spending some time in Damascus improving my skills in the arabic language and in the hostel where I’m staying the kurdish boy with whom I spend evenings playing chess and baggamon kindly offered me to have a look at his study books, with which he is learning english.

It is not of much use because the book is thought for those who speak arabic and want to learn english but to be polite I was going though its pages and by curiosity ended up checking the different word categories. To my surprise in the cathegory “animals”, which was far from being comprehensive, there were three special animals: kid, bitch and pussy. I know they all happen to be animals but this is not the first thing that comes in mind when you read these words…

My first reaction was to laugh at it but then I thought about how single women or even those women going without partner are regarded in the some parts of the muslim world but also in places in Europe, such as Brussels.

I linked this to the several complaints from my girlfriend that every time she goes for a run in the park in Brussels she is called names and yelled at by some teenagers and grown ups from second or third generation marrocan or algerian belgians. Why is it that girls can not go for a run in the park in cities like Brussels without being harassed or yelled at?

I don’t think that looking down on women is something they are taught in the european schools or see in western media… if some of them regard women walking on their own as prostitutes is because either at home or in books they are told that men are superior to women and have the right to misstreat them.

I see this book that qualifies “bitches, kids and pussies” as animals, when their mainstream meaning is another one, as just a sad coincidence but can give a hint to undertand why this denigrating attitude towards a very important part of the population continues to happen.

If from the west we want to stop these kind of attitudes and behaviours from these young people I”m convinced that it is vital to analyse how, where and what they learn in order to act on the root of the problem.

As for Brussels the solution is not to infest parks with policemen but rather focusing on the real integration of these young europeans and the communes should have programs targeting these especific problems. Otherwise we can expect nothing less than a raise in racism and social fragmentation in our society.

Why a coalition of conservatives, socialists and liberals to fight eurosceptics?

Since the European Elections a new big coalition of conservatives, socialists and liberals has been forged arguing that a strong coalition is needed to fight eurosceptics. Well, coalitions are sometimes good because they bring stability but in the EP this stability doesn’t require a coalition for the simple reason that there is no possible euro-sceptic blocking minority in the EP. Moreover it tends to divide the EP between pro-europeans and anti-europeans which is something that after 30 years of existence of the European Parliament and 60 years of existence of the EU should have been since long time overcome.

The pro and anti-european debate is a false one, the reasons and supporters of eliminating the EU are so lunatic and little in numbers that should not be given the importance they are getting. Instead there are a number of policies where it is important to work and real political fight is needed. This is what can interest the citizens, this is what is not happening and this is what media should be denouncing.

By keeping the fight between Europeans and anti-europeans the debate will be dominated by populists and other UKIP lunnies who, even when very small in numbers, and just because they tend to be more mediatic, irresponsible and fun than pro-europeans end up bringing the debate to their field. The European Parliament must grow up and accept that it is here to stay, with no need to justify the reason of its existence. There are many challenges like climate change or economic crisis that need to be properly addressed and we need to hear the different alternatives suggested by the ideologies represented in the European Parliament on this issue.

The argument of building a big coalition to fight eurosceptics clearly doesn’t stand. What is the reason for building this big coalition then?…

European Socialists – You don’t play, you don’t win

Shortly after the results of the European Parliament elections have been made public the most astonishing thing is the defeat of the socialist parties in Europe.

Imagine that you have a economic crisis caused by lack of regulation and which according to economic theory requires social(ist?) policies, imagine that you have the head of the executive who is a conservative and who has led the Union through last years, rising unemployment, delocalisations… who do you think would be expected to rise? The right?

The socialists have only themselves to blame for their failure: they played defensive when they should have attacked. Now more than ever it was the time to have a clear program for the recovery of Europe and to play the European card. In France, UK, Spain, Portugal, Germany… they could have hidden their weaknesses by rallying behind a project for Europe. Instead they decided to run national campaigns where, for different national reasons, they were weak and vulnerable.

When the president of the European Commission was conservative and weak the socialists could have taken advantage of the situation to come up with an alternative candidate who could have personified their program for the European recovery. In national politics people would kill to stand against a weak president in times of crisis of neoliberalism, timing could not be more suitable! Yet the socialists decided not to move and play conservative. 

It is a lost opportunity for the socialists but also for Europe. Had the socialists been more daring they could have managed to give a new vision and leadership for Europe which would have been good for them and for the Union. Neither will happen. Without a clear program, the right won thanks to not being contested. It will be difficult and anti-democratic to push Barroso out of the European Commission when the EPP has such a majority in the European Parliament.

I’m convinced that socialists have pages to write in European history but in order to do so they have to be able to articulate their message more clearly, update it to the XXI century and have leaders who in times of crisis can stand up and lead the boat. 

It was the time to think out of the box and they preferred to stay inside and hope for the best. And the best doesn’t happen by itself: if you don’t play, you don’t win.

Enjoy Brussels or put worms in your life

Today I assisted to a session to learn to do compost at home with worms -vermicomposting- organised by the Inter-Environment Bruxelles and it showed me to which extend we live in a strange world.

The session was very entertaining and a huge success. I was expecting that in a meeting like this I would find 5 to 10 housewifes and/or old hippies, rather the opposite: it was mainly young people -both genders- that you could find any day in the metro. We were taught how to build a worm composter and everything we need to know about the life of the worms: what do they eat, what do they like, when to feed them, how to protect them, how -and when!- they have sex, how long do they live… amazing. I found a bit surreal that our civilisation has reached this level of paroxysm.

On one hand it is clear that more and more people are starting to be conscious about the unsustainability of the throw-away society we live in and this is good. It is good when people look at the garbage bin and ask themselves how can they generate so much trash and they want to help by doing home-composting. On the other hand it shows how people are starting to take the initiative as a reaction to the inaction from the institutions. Because, wasn’t it the role of the municipality to take care of our garbage?

Don’t get me wrong, I think that doing home composting -and vermicomposting which enables those of us who live in apartments to do compost- is great and necessary because it raises awareness about the impact of our actions and it reduces the amount of mixed waste we generate, which in Brussels ends up in the incinerator (producing CO2, toxic ashes and destroying resources; let’s not forget that organic waste is more than 60% water and burning water is not very smart). HOWEVER, shouldn’t it be the authorities who should be ordering the organic waste to be collected separately in order to either generate energy with anaerobic digesters or directly compost it?

I mean, vermi-composting and home composting are great but having seen how it works I can tell you it is not as easy as it looks, it is time consuming and having worms at home is something that we can’t expect that everyone will accept with open arms. Personally I’ll do vermi-composting because I believe in it but I know that the market of this is rather limited and I’m fully aware that nothing really substantial will really change until organic waste is separately collected and treated.

Currently EU legislation says that organic waste should be gradually phase out from landfills -where it produces methane- but it doesn’t say what should we do with it. So we burn it. The EU has been avoiding having compulsory separate collection of organic waste since 10 years and only some countries have taken the initiative to impose it. Of course the incineration industry is happy to burn organic waste -again, mostly water- that would be a lot more valuable as carbon returned to the soil and the European Commission is also happy because less legislation means less work -even when this is effectively damaging the environment-. How long will we have to wait to make possible what is environmentally and economically sensible?

In Flanders they collect organic waste separately and they have reached recycling rates of even 75%, in San Francisco they do the same and they are also recycling 70%. Separate collection, better if door-to-door, radicaly increases recycling which saves money to the people, helps the environment, creates jobs and is the right path towards a Zero Waste society. 

I was surprised by today’s unexpected interest generated by the training on vermicomposting, more and more people are realising that things need to change and they are willing to their bit. Will the competent authorities also dare to look beyond the interests of the industrial lobbies?

In the meantime I’ll start taking care of my worms

Barroso “European of the year”!

Taken by EM Denmark

The European Movement Denmark has awarded Barroso as “European of the year”. I have to say that I ignore the reasons that led them to this at first surprising -if not shocking- choice but thinking it twice they might not be that wrong…

I would just formulate it otherwise, this year Barroso has been important for Europe but not thanks to himself but despite of himself.

Barroso with his servitude to the European Council, his lack of leadership and his laissez-faire and anti-regulation policy as president of the Commission combined with the economic and financial crisis has managed to find himself in the eye of the hurricane.

He has been campaigning to be reappointed as president of the European Commission with the www.tellbarroso.eu website -paid by the European Parliament- and has been visiting European capitals and even convincing socialists prime-ministers to support him (Zapatero, Brown, Socrates…). He has been successful in raising support for his re-appointment.

At first nobody noticed and nobody cared. The European Socialist Party was doing everything possible to avoid discussing the election of the next Commission president and the other parties were complices in the silence. With the crisis and thanks to the pressure of organisations like the federalists the issue has been climbing positions in the agenda and now the election of the new Commission president is an open topic discussed among socialists -Schulz and Rassmussen are making stronger and stronger declarations- among greens and leftists -with the anti-Barroso alliance- and even among liberals with Verhofstadt also raising his voice in favour of a strong commission president.

So YES! maybe Barroso is the European of the year; because he is the last president of an European Commission designed to talk a lot, do little and stay far from the scrutiny of the public. The crisis has shown the need for a visible and accountable European Executive and how the EU can not afford weak presidents anymore. When the media were looking for the “face of Europe” or the leader that would present the European solution to the crisis they found Barroso, who didn’t have the solution but at least was there for the parties and the citizens to confirm that lowest common denominators might be ok in quiet times but they don’t work in times of troubles.

The newly elected European Parliament will have in its hands the approval of a new Commission and a new EC president and for the first time the parties are starting to behave like European parties, deciding to chose the president of the European executive according to their political ideas and programs and not following corridor deals.

After all, if we look at blogs dealing with European issues -starting with this one you are now reading- the politician that appears more often, 95% of the time as scapegoat for Europe’s problems, is Barroso. What would we do without him?

We can say that Barroso despite of himself, and in a very peculiar and contradictory way, managed to spice up Europe!

A great step for supranational democracy, thanks Barroso!

EU institutional failure in the management of financial and economic crisis

European and world economy are submerged in an economic crisis, direct result of the financial crush of last months.

Two comments on this: 

One; the EU has not fixed the problems that caused the current chaos in the credit market, Two; the response of the EU to the crisis continues to be insufficient. 

To which extend is this an institutional failure?

Firstly, it is important to fix the problems that the crisis caused. Whilst much of the G20 debate has concerned issues such as global fiscal stimulus, the real challenge remains in choosing a new philosophy for the international financial system and its regulation. 

Unless we want to hermetically close the borders and change the economic system, we will need capitals flowing in and out. So far this has been done without much control and the lack of information on what was being traded has created the bubble that exploded a year ago. How to fix it?  

It is the old story of choosing the right tools to address the problem which is the fact that financial markets are global when the regulators remain national. Understandably, as soon as capitals start flowing between countries it is more and more difficult to keep track of what is being traded. Different accounting rules, lack of transparency, lack of accountability… As soon as information is missing, speculation escalates and a few get filthy rich whilst money disappears from pension funds, saving accounts and people lose their jobs because the company they work for can’t have access to financing. This is institutional failure. The system is failing to protect their citizens from legal theft. This requires a change of system or justifies and upraising from the citizens against the institutions representing them.

Although, if we take into account the increasing integration and interdependence of the world economies, a world financial regulator would be the solution, it still seems to be too far away for many; especially for those countries not used to the exercise of sharing sovereignty -which has delivered so much to the European citizens-. However, within the EU it is unacceptable that we can have a common market, free movement of people, goods, capitals and services –at least on paper-, a common currency and monetary policy and a high level of economic integration without having a functioning European financial system. 

It took this crisis for the non-interventionist/regulation-phobic European Commission to start working on the regulation of hedge funds, transparency of derivatives markets and improved accounting rules aiming at creating a level playing field between EU countries. It is better late than never, but this will fall short to prevent a new crisis. As long as European financial markets continue without a regulator -which should be democratically managed, transparent and with the power to enforce its decisions we will continue to live under the threat of a new financial meltdown. 

The decision to allow more or less speculation, to allow using money for the sake of just create money instead of directing to productive investments is not a technical one that can be self-regulated by a market. It is highly political and it requires intervention of European legislators.

Secondly, whilst working on the prevention we need to act to fix the damage done by the crisis. Of course money matters when we want to protect those who are losing their jobs and at the same time invest in economic reconversion but is also a matter of political leadership to pick and implement a coordinated approach to transform the European economy. 

So far there is no serious European recovery plan as such but a sum of multiple stimulus plans. The European Commission put forward a recovery plan that falls short in scope and objectives when the EU needs bold new vision to move forward. European taxes –without increase tax pressure on EU citizens- or issuing EU bonds to increase the financial capacity of the EU is not a “tabu” issue only supported by some “lunatic federalists” anymore; time has proven that the unbalances of power and competences within the EU may be able to exist as transitional structures but when going through troubled waters the EU needs fiscal federalism and a consistent European budget.

This is why in the new legislature starting next month we need the European Commission to start behaving more like a federal government in order to manage an expanded EU budget of at least 2% of the community GDP, with the capacity to issue Union-Bonds and develop a European fiscal policy matched by an increase in the political responsibility.

This reaction is far from radical; it is what any state is doing right now, from China to the US and from Argentina to Germany. In the EU the level of economic integration and the fact that we share a monetary policy justifies why this is the only sensible, yet politically difficult, way forward.

Continuing with the current indecisive situation puts at risk more than just the recovery of the economy but the current structures of the EU because the increasing and unbalanced indebtedness of national budgets will endanger the common market and the euro. 

We can talk of institutional failure when the institutions fail to deliver the pillars for normal functioning of a society; namely rules (regulatory framework), transparency, fairness and political and budgetary capacity to act in times of crisis. This is needed today and it doesn’t look like is going to be delivered by the EU. 

Parts of the solution require treaty changes, some others don’t. A strong leadership is necessary to lead either of them and this leadership should come from the European Commission. If the current Commission is not up for the work the newly elected Parliament should exercise its democratic power and reject any new commission that lacks leadership and a plan for the future of Europe.

The European Commission is -literally- on fire

Pic taken by Joerg Janssen

I was walking by the Commission building today and I saw that the heart of the European Union was burning.  

Did they launch an impact assessment on whether it is better to burn the institutions instead of have them working?

Has the European Commission started to produce its own energy by burnning coal in the rooftop?

Is it that they were having a barbecue in the terrace and they ended up burning the sausages?

Where can we find the CO2 emissions of this fire?

Is it the love of European citizens for the Commission which lit the fire?

Is it a Commission official who went for a smoke in the terrace?

Is Barroso burning the secret files of the institution?

It is very easy to make metaphores about the fire in the European Commission building, I’m inclined to think that this is just a desperate attempt from the Communication DG to bring people to vote for the EP elections of 4-7th June…

Climate Change fever: without a World Environmental Communitty temperature will go up!

As the economic downturn and the swine flu dominate the pages of newspapers a lot more important issue, for it affects our long term survival in this planet, disappears from the media: the fight against climate change.

In December will take place in Copenhagen the next United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in which the new rules and targets will be laid to replace the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto treaty was based on 5 principles: commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, implementation measures, minimization of impact in developing countries –via adaptation fund-, accounting reporting and review and compliance.

A decade later evidence shows that worldwide emissions have increased by 38% and even though the EU15 did a good job in stabilizing the emissions the increase of emissions in China (+150%), India (+103%) or the US (+20%) among many others has caused the emissions to grow.

Hence, the Kyoto protocol, albeit its concretion in what needs to be done is failing to deliver what it was designed to do. And what is worst, we are not learning.
The relative failure of Kyoto can be due to the wrong setting of objectives or to the inadequacy of the tools used to meet the objectives. I believe the objectives, although sometimes arbitrary and not scientifical enough, are not the problem. The instruments we use are clearly failing.

The weakest point of Kyoto, same as any international treaty, is its implementation and enforceability. Who does what, how, and who monitors that job is done properly and has the power to sanction it when this is not the case.
The EU offers a good example about implementation and compliance: whilst cooperation has proven its inability to deliver, integration has clearly been the key to success. Once something is agreed among the 27, implementation takes place –at European, national or regional level- and enforceability is monitored and the European Court of Justice can sanction the non-complying member states. This effective system of supranational governance descends from the European Coal and Steel Community, where the 6 founding states decided to put under a supranational democratic rule what they considered was a public good, and which had been the cause of disputes and wars over the years. From this milestone the successful story of European integration unfolded.

The EU is the most successful example in the history of supranational governance for it has had the capacity to deliver. Yet, the virtues of the model have not been followed by other supranational structures. Kyoto has had a very weak mechanism of enforcement; a feeble compliance committee has been deciding on who was following the commitments. For instance: Greece was excluded of the Kyoto protocol in 2008 due to unfulfilled commitment of creating mechanisms of monitoring and controlling emissions and reporting false data.
Excluding countries from the protocol is not the way to guarantee enforcement; it is just a declaration of impotence to manage the system.

Environment is a common public good for humankind; pollution doesn’t stop at the borders, can’t be fought with weapons but it has the potential to exterminate us. It is therefore high time to get organized to fight climate change effectively and this can only be done with the right tools. Never before we have known so much about the threat before us. Yet, knowledge is a mighty two-faced asset for it gives us the false impression that we control the situation: We know what is happening, we know what we need to do and hence we might think that we can solve it. But we can’t.

Whatever objectives the world community sets for itself in Copenhagen, they can only be met if we manage to set up an institutional structure where global interest is put before the national interests. This world institutional setting that we could call “World Environmental Community” would treat environment as a global public good and would have a “High Authority” which would care only about the global interest. The national interests could be represented in intergovernmental meetings such as UNFCCC or in a more formalized body. However, the “High Authority” should be supervised by a body not representing the states but the global interest and the members of which could be elected or appointed by the states. The system would need of a Court of Justice able to guarantee the enforcement of the decisions. Such a structure would create the space and the tools where a system of global taxes could be set up –if needed- and properly managed in a democratic and transparent manner.

What stays on the way?
The will of the our elected governments who have to decide what is the best way to defend the national interest: by not letting go in the short term and putting our survival in danger in the mid term or by ceding a bit of sovereignty in the short term to be able to have a long term at all.
Also, Environmental NGOs should look at broader picture and along the world emissions targets; ask for a governance deal that empowers the treaty to deliver.

History shows that humans always learn the hard-way. Sane decisions tend to take place after disasters such as WWII.

Would we be the first generation to anticipate and prevent the disaster?

The world has climate change fever and temperature keeps going up. We have all the symptoms to get pneumonia soon and we continue to stay alone in the cold.

Until when?

Tell Barroso that: YES HE CAN!

This is weird. Normally you ask opinions when you start something, not right before finishing. Why does Barroso ask us now our opinion now? Has he finally realised (after more than 4 years as president of the EC) that citizens exist? Has he realised that he might have to convince someone else, other than his friends in the Council, about his skills to lead the EU?   

Is he -maybe- campaigning? …

He didn’t campaign 5 years ago, why should he do it now? 

This is fun. Barroso, the candidate of “some European political leaders” leaders seems to be running a campaign, without being official candidate but supported by the conservative think-tank CES, to be re-elected as president of the European Commission which is financed by the European Parliament…

Neither the European Parliament nor the European Commission wanted to spend a cent to campaign for the constitutional treaty and now the EP finds itself financing the campaign of the head of a Commission who refused to campaign and lost three referendums… a lonely runner in a race without participants, where the slowest is doomed to win.

With such a passionate, breathtaking, competitive and hard campaign we can tell Barroso that: YES HE CAN!

Barroso, the candidate of all European parties?

This is as confusing as it is absurd. In yesterday’s meeting the EPP leaders back Barroso for a second term as president of European Commission but still no party is behind Barroso’s ambition to renew his mandate as president of the European Commission.

One could expect that if the leaders of a party back a candidate of the same party and nobody in the party opposes, this candidate would become THE candidate of THE party. Not in European politics.

Same as EPP, the European Socialist Party has no official candidate for president of the European Commission. When Rasmussen, PSE president, was asked about the PSE candidate in the presentation of the PSE manifesto he said that they hadn’t decided on a candidate “yet”. At the same time socialist prime ministers such as Zapatero, Socrates or Brown already openly expressed their support for Barroso. I guess it is easy to back a candidate when the contest is a false one…

Barroso, the president of what is to be the executive body of the EU,  is backed by individuals. These individuals are not “normal” individuals; they are heads of state and heads of governments. However, what does it say about the future president of the European Commission and the Commission as a whole?

Firstly, that the “European interest” can’t be defended by a body whose president is held hostage by heads of state and governments. The role of defending the interest of the member-states was the role of the president of the European Council but it seems like the Commission is dangerously shifting towards the intergovernmentalist option.

Secondly, and as a consequence, no expectations about leadership or initiative should be put on a body elected without a political program and that is held hostage of the interest of the member-states.

Leadership is crucial in times of crisis and without a strong European Commission taking the initiative to regulate the financial markets, in raising resources for a economic relaunch, in investing in the infrastructure necessary to launch a new green economy the EU is doomed to fail to its citizens.

Leadership comes from personality but also from legitimacy and recognition. Why should the Europeans, even those who will to vote in the European Parliament elections, feel that Barroso is representing them? They will vote for a program that can’t be implemented because Barroso’s program is improvised in the heads of state meetings and not subjected to public scrutiny.

If the EPP happens to have the same political program as Barroso -which would make sense if he belongs to the party the leaders of which support him- why isn’t Barroso the candidate of the EPP? Is the EPP scared that if they declare Barroso as their candidate the socialists might be forced to declare that Barroso is NOT their candidate?

By Barroso not being the candidate of any party… should we interpret that he is the “de-facto” candidate of all parties?

If so, we certainly live in a strange stage of the European democracy…

Comment on Žižek – Are we free and independent enough to stop and think?

(www.vest.si) Žižek na Bledu from Jaka Tomc on Vimeo.

Žižek perception of reality is as provocative as enlightening. So many things happen in front of our eyes and we all march blind…

In a world of coffee without caffeine, beer with alcohol, coke without sugar… are we finally having political parties without political ideology?

In a world where there is no money to feed the people, to invest in renewables, to save ourselves from the effects of climate change… there is money to save car makers and bankers?

In a context of refusal of knowledge and complexity, the transmission of ideology has left the old channels of political parties to infiltrate our everyday life:  we are bombarded with commercials all day, every holywood movie is a political panflet and going shopping is our economic contribution and act of faith to the ideology of consumist/throw-away society that finances the power that controls us.

“Non-political” people go shopping and watch videos non-stop in order to cope with a world they don’t understand and believe ideologies are dead when they are unconsciously supporting a very clear political option.

Humankind has been rushing during last 100 years and increase the speed of innovation, change, destruction, growth…

…

…

time to stop and think?

The EU – a philosophical player?

“They are always talking about philosophy with us,” Deutsche Welle paper reports Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the committee for international relations in the state Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, said about the Europeans.

There are two approaches to this: firstly, once cradle of western civilization, the EU sees itself as resort of morals and values that are at the core of all their policies and which should reign in the relations with other countries, regardless of how economically or politically developed they might be. This is laudable and it gives a moral strength and ideological coherence to policies that otherwise would look as disperse and arbitrary as the Russian policies.

The second approach is that philosophy is always a good rhetoric tool when unable to articulate a coherent message. That is in European energy policies and anything that relates to foreign policy where the EU is a political ghost. Until we are not able to have a political Union with a legitimised European government, capable of properly representing the Europeans the best thing we can do is philisophise about how things should be according to X values and principles.

When our great “philosophers” are stars like Barrosso maybe we are dealing more with the second option?

Whether we continue to live in the ideal world of Plato or we turn around and walk out of the cave it is something that the current crisis will push us to decide upon.

A funny way to explain who is who in EU bureocracy

From my experience, this joke is not far away from reality:

A man in a hot air balloon over the Belgian countryside realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. Descending a bit more he shouted, “Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago but I don’t know where I am”. The woman replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above the ground, between 40/41 degrees latitude, north, and 59/60 degrees longitude, west.”

“You must be a middle-grade Commission Official”, said the balloonist.
“I am”, replied the woman, “How did you know?”

“Well”, answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct but I have no idea what to make of your information and the fact is, I am still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you have delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded, “You must be a Senior Commission Official”.
“I am,” replied the balloonist, “But how did you know?”

“Well,” replied the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault.”

Appeal to bring G.W. BUSH before the International Criminal Court

It’s been 8 years since Bush got into power and next week he will be walking out of office with the most disastrous record of the last 43 US presidencies.  He leaves the American (and world) economy in dire straits, he has wasted precious time to fight climate change and he has continued to steal money from the poor to give it to the rich but on the top of all this he has lied to his citizens and to the rest of the world, he has led an illegal war against a sovereign state, he has open illegal prisons where he has justified torture and denied elemental human rights whilst mining the credibility of the democratic world.

How big is the impunity with which the American president, called by some leader of the free-world, can violate international law and human rights? How big can be the credibility of the democratic world when our leaders are not responsible for what they do?

In my opinion the impunity of the American president is inversely proportional to the credibility that the “democratic” system can have. If Bush can do what he has done and his acts remain unchallenged our political system loses credibility. Then, our political capital when criticizing Chinese or Russian governments is not enough to legitimise our arguments.

Saddam Hussein was executed because of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, Slobodan Milosevic was charged with crimes against humanity, violating the laws or customs of war, breaches of the Geneva Conventions and genocide, George W. Bush has led an illegal war based on lies that has caused the death of 4000 US soldiers and around 1 million of Iraqis and imprisoned thousands of people without any charges and will be allowed to enter history not as a criminal but just as a dumb US president who fulfilled his duty.

Or will he not?

The Americans are not going to bring his former president in front of the court; the Spanish didn’t do it with Franco, the Chileans didn’t do it with Pinochet and the Serbs didn’t do it with Milosevic. Time did justice to what Franco did, a Spanish judge brought Pinochet to trial and it was the international criminal court who dealt with Milosevic. We can’t wait Bush to be judged by the time. Not because he might escape the judgment of history but because immediate history needs justice to be made if we want to be able to continue to preach our vaccine to the problems of the world.

The impunity has been administered to kings of the past, dictators and oligarchs. Democrats can’t apply impunity to flagrant cases of war crime and crimes against humanity. Otherwise, by becoming partners in crime, we are destroying the basis of our political system, that is rule of law. If democrats are not equal before the law and law is to be applied to only some, our political system is doomed. Then we can go to other countries saying how good democracy is and surprise ourselves when they don’t believe a word we say.

For all this; Bush should be brought before the International Criminal Court.

Now, arguing for Bush’s conviction is easy, the problem is HOW to do it. Not much has changed in today’s political arena that can make us think that a group of countries could stand up and collectively ask to bring Bush to the International Court. Arguably, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Iran, Gaza and other few could but since they are the “axis of evil” they would not be taken seriously. What if the call could come from inside the “democratic” world? Our leaders will never dare to do something like this but the bloggers are starting to be political actors and a coordinated action from the blogsphere could at least raise the issue loud enough so that when Bush leaves the office on the 20th of January there is enough pressure out there to at east make him sweat a bit.

Worth a try?

Poznan negotiations – Apocalypsis now!

When I was leaving the venue of UNFCCC in Poznan someone was whistling the soundtrack of Titanic, I ignore whether the choice of the song was deliberate but it well described the situation we are in.

We have hit the iceberg and our politicians continue to dance in the hall. With small island in the pacific or even big countries as Bangladesh starting to go under water the deal last Week’s deal in Poznan was to postpone decisions (and action) one year more; to Copenhaguen 2009.

Having been in Poznan the first impression that I have is that, among the political leaders such as ministers or heads of environmental policy of the various countries, there is no consciousness about the gravity of the climate problem. They all know the problem exists but their reactions and proposals do not reflect the gravity of the situation. For example, they talk of reducing emissions by 20% by the year 2020 and 50% by 2050. But the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that, in order to have a 50% probability of keeping global temperature rise to 2C (after which there would be true environmental catastrophes), we would have to stabilize the concentration of CO2 equivalent gases in the atmosphere below 450ppm (parts per million). The problem is that in 2005, the concentration of CO2 had already reached 379ppm (before industrial revolution it was 280ppm). In other words, we are already past the limit for a scenario where we have only a 50% probability of holding the temperature below dangerous levels, and even so we are not acting with the necessary urgency.

This goal that so many politicians mention, of not passing 2C seems to be merely wishful thinking since we have already increased 0.8C; as the British scientist Bob Watson said: “…we have to try to keep the temperature increase to 2C but we also have to prepare for an increment of 4C…and of course if it rises by 4C most probably there will be a series of feedback mechanisms such as the escape of methane from the permafrost of Siberia, the Canadian tundra and ocean clathrates, as well as the destruction of the Amazon and the melting of the glaciers, which will push the temperature rise above 5C, then to 6C and then… ?”

To see the gravity of the case, we only have to remember that less than

8 months ago there was a tropical cyclone in Burma that left more than 150,000 dead, the equivalent of 2 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs together.

And this is before the temperature has increased even 1C. I wonder, what will be these catastrophes that the IPCC speaks of if the temperature rises more than 2C? Millions of dead in one single climate event?

In spite of all this, the principal polluters (the countries of the

North) want to continue polluting, and in order to do so, we want to give the Southern countries money to plant trees, capture the methane from landfills or put up wind turbines. This we call carbon trading, clean development mechanisms, joint implementation – we have plenty of creativity to continue inventing names when an intelligent and honest analysis of the problem demands an immediate halt to any additional CO2 emissions. The problem is complicated because many Southern countries agree with this approach, as it provides them with funds.

On the other hand, although the historical responsibility for the current problem lies with the industrialized countries, since we have produced 70% of all greenhouse gases emitted since the start of the industrial revolution (in spite of having only 17% of the global population), the problem is that, in the last decade, the situation has changed. Those countries called “developing countries” now emit more than the “developed” countries. For example, China has passed the US as the world’s principal emitter of CO2. This means that, in order to solve the problem, the Southern countries must also embark on an effective program of emissions reductions; this could be done if the industrialized countries recognize their historical responsibility of having caused the problem and provide the necessary capital and technology to do so. Some estimates of the necessary investment run on the order of US$200 billion per year; but the industrialized world seems not to be prepared to put in more than 10% of this amount at best.

The final decisions will be taken in Copenhagen in one year, but everything indicates that, if the decision makers of Northern and Southern countries do not change their positions, we will soon face climatic situations never before seen in the history of humanity. In the face of this challenge, only a citizen movement can steer the humanity into salvation. Our politicians can’t.

Now, I don’t doubt of the abilities/skills/preparation of our politicians (at least of not all of them ) but in the current system it is just impossible that they will take us out of this mess. Why? Because it is not their job; they are in this to defend their national interests and nobody is there to defend the world’s interests!

If the organization of Small Pacific Islands turned up to be the most progressive in Poznan it was because their survival is at stake. If Saudi Arabia or the US block any kind of deal is not because their citizens are better or worst than those of Spain or Bangladesh, it is because their representatives have to defend the national interests (oil, weapons…).

The current system of intergovernmental negotiations at world level is doomed and time will show the price we are about to pay for having internationalised everything but democracy. Only by building world institutions, which would have as main interest the protection of the interests of human kind, we will be able to address global problems.

The continuous failure of Climate Change negotiations only show how good our representatives are doing their job of representing national interests. The problem is “who represents the interests of all of us, citizens of the world”?

Lester Brown, from the Earth Policy Institute, claims that the danger we are in is so big and urgent that we don’t have time to build world institutions to deal with the problem. We don’t have time to plan, only time to act, he says. The problem is that the reality shows that we are not able to act. Since Kyoto not much has moved and Poznan is only one more chapter of the drama. The representatives of the governments are not agreeing on the minimum measures to save the planet and something needs to be done.

Building the supranational structure of the EU has taken 50 years and we just don’t have this time. However, we might be about to witness a new way to build supranational institutions; from the bottom-up.

Al Gore and many others agree that the only way we can use our possibilities of survival is by creating a citizens movement that works beyond borders and that can put the interests of the earth before the interests of the nation-states.

This would be the first stone in the creation of World Institutions; the creation of a self-appointed world-demos.

I believe the only way we will get something out of the next meeting in Copenhaguen is by having a massive pressure from the world citizens who will have to face, once again, the fierce opposition of the nation-state.

Margaret Meade once wrote “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed it is the only thing that ever has”, we have no other chance.

EU difficult to understand? Try the UNFCCC!

It is nice to see the EU, the G77, the US and all the others gathered in the Poznan UNFCCC to discuss the NAMAs, the NAPAs and the QUELROs both in AWGKP and AWGLCA. As expected CAN and CJN have been critical and it looks like the BINGOs are going to get a good result in front of the TUNGOs and the RINGOs.

REDD and LULUCF don’t seem to be taken very much seriously despite the efforts of REFUK and the PAM and it is clear that SIDS will end up paying the highest price of the inadequacy of CDMs and others measures.

After all agreeing on MRV targets and a common vision is not a technological problem but a political one.

——–

This is just an example of how codified the talks on the Climate Change Conference taking place in Poznan until 12^th December can be.

For those who say the European Union is difficult to understand; you haven’t tried the UN negotiations on Climate Change. EU is peanuts!

UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change

NAMAs: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

NAPAs: National Adaptation Programmes of Action

BINGOs: Business and Industry Non-Governmental Organisations

TUNGOs and RINGOs: Trade Unions and Research and Independent NGOs

RFUK: United Kingdom Rainforest Foundation

REDD: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

PAM: Policies and Measures.

SIDS: Small Island Developing States

LULUCF: Land-use, Land-use Change and Forestry.

QUELRO: Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction Objective

MVR: Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable

European political parties: what kind of animals are they?

In view of the forthcoming European Parliament elections and the deep sleep in which EU politics seems to be, a big hope to revitalize the debate lies on the role that the European Political parties can play in the next months.

For the first time in the short history of EU politics the European Political parties will be allowed to campaign, will have a budget and the political foundations will be able to play a role.

However, the European political parties continue to be strange animals; firstly, they are made up of national parties, not individual members, secondly they don’t have lists of candidates, every constituency has its own lists, thirdly they are not the main actors in the campaigns, which happen at national level, fourthly they normally don’t have a common program and when they do, it can not be implemented because the winning party has no possibility to execute it because the elections are only about legislative lower chamber with no impact on the executive, fifthly even if they win the elections they have no take in the direction of the EU and if they had a take, the current system doesn’t held them accountable for that…

This is even more bizarre when we think that the European Parliament is representing the citizens whilst the European parties’ political line can not be changed by the citizens but by the national parties.

In order to analyze the challenges for the European political parties it helps to bring into the analysis the other strange animal of European politics; what some people think is a kind of European ghost and others see as a sleeping beauty: the European demos.

It is clear that for the fathers of Europe the “European awareness” –as it is called in the Maastricht treaty- or the concept of the “European people” was vital for the future of the European Union. And the European Parliament was created as a personification of this European demos which the only European institution directly elected by the citizens was supposed to shape.

In this process of overcoming the national mindsets and construction of the European demos the European parties were thought to play an important role. Yet, I believe their contribution to the European project is still a blank page to be written soon.

The campaigns for European Parliament elections have always been run at national level, run with national arguments and where very little is discussed about European issues.

However, we know well that the big majority of national laws start at EU level, with the EP playing a major role. In fact if we look at the amount of copy-pasting of EU law into law of other non-EU countries we could claim that these are among the most important elections in the world.

Then, why such low turnout?

Is it that people don’t get it?

Is it that national parties are incapable to explain the importance of these elections?

It is probably a bit of everything. I believe the European parties can help bridge this gap by bringing the flesh to the European bone. Bringing excitement to the EP elections. Connecting the EP elections with the allocation of the European power.

Typical of any elections campaigns are “faces”, “promises”, “expectations”, “excitement”, “HOPE”! In the US elections last month we saw the importance of the personification of hope. Who will personalize the European “hope”?

The EU is the biggest donour of development aid in the world, we have the most progressive environmental legislation, our quality of life is envied all over… The European dream is a lot more real than the American dream! Now, where is the marketing? Who embodies these assets? Who can legitimately explain to Europeans and to world citizens what the EU does and why it is important?

It is necessary to link the EP elections with a political idea for the EU, able to be implemented and held accountable every 5 years, and this European ideal should be linked to a face, to a person embodying the hope.

In order to have a competition of European figures we badly need the contribution of the European Parties. If they are not willing to play the political game and continue to be held hostage of the interests of the national parties, the European project will progressively lose legitimacy.

Hence the fundamental question is: the continued decrease in turnout for EP elections is a structural problem or is it rather a temporary tendency that will pass?

If we believe that the problem is structural we have to substantially steer the direction of the boat if we want to avoid seeing the project sink. The European political parties play a vital role in this new direction the EU has to take to democratize the composition of its executive.

Therefore, it is not that the European Parties are strange animals because this is their nature; rather the opposite, they are strange because they are unfinished creatures!

If European democracy is meant to exist it is necessary that the European Parties continue its transformation into solid political movements, working with democratic structures and electing the leadership that will embody their vision for the EU and will defend it in the public arena. Then the European citizens can have something substantial to decide on and participation will go up.

If this doesn’t happen we will continue to expect the citizens to give the right answer to the wrong question. And some times the best answer to a wrong question is silence: people don’t turn up to vote… The citizens want to decide about power! about the person who will embody their hopes for the future. The European Parliament elections are important but time has come for the European parties to grow up and live up to what the citizens expect from them: a choice between political programs and political leadership.

Where do Spanish millions go?

Spanish government helping banking sector

The spanish government is the only european government not openly saying which banks will get how much money in the financial crisis.

It is accepted by everyone that this financial crisis is the result of bad regulation and hence bad management and functioning of the financial markets. The citizens are not to be held responsible for this mismanagement; we were instrumentalised by the financial and political power to bring big profits to the financial sector and its friends in politics by living on credits, we are now indebted for the next decades, we will have to pay with our taxes all the money now being lend to the banks and the last news in Spain are that the citizens won’t be allowed to know where the 250.000 milion euros of their taxes will go. The spanish government decided, once again, to hide from the people and, using once again methods in place since 70 years ago, is going to spend the public money at its will, deciding which banks they will help and with which amounts.

Ole Zapatero! Such a torero attitude when it comes to dealing with the bull, typical of spanish left and right parties, will help you manage it so that you get the job done without getting hurt but in the long run either the bull goes mad and takes you out of the way or you run out of bulls to kill… and your torero career is over.

The excessive carbon footprint of the European Parliament

The European Parliament -EP- is unique. It is the only directly elected supranational parliament in the world. It is also quite especial for having two meeting places; Brussels and Strasbourg.

The recently released study on the carbon footprint of the EP confirms the fact that commuting between the two seats is not only stupid but also envirnmentally harmful.

If we look at the distribution of Green House Gas (GHG) per source at world level we see that transport causes 13,5% of GHG, whilst electricity and heat represent 25%. It is quite shocking that the EP is close to producing 30% of its GHG from transport costs (home to work commuting, duty travel between and outside the three main working sites and transport using official and hired cars). This is more than twice as much than the average!!

The study doesn’t reveal how much of this 30% of GHG is caused by commuting from Brussels to Strasbourg. What is clear is that whatever these emissions could be easily saved just by stopping the commuting.

The Resolution of the Parliament of 24 April 2007 decided to cut the EP carbon emissions by 30% by 2020.  Stopping the commuting between Brussels and Strasbourg is something feasible, sensible, necessary and it even has a political majority in the house, among the governments and among the citizens.

The step number one to reduce the carbon footprint of the EP has to be stopping this travelling circus!

Who would die for free? Who would die for Freedom?

Today I visited the american cementery at Omaha Beach, Normandie, where 3000 american soldiers died on the 6th of June 1944 whilst trying to gain the shore in the first step to free Europe from Nazi occupation.

Everywhere in this memorial we are reminded that these soldiers died for our Freedom.

I walk around these many crosses wondering, once again, about the limits of human stupidity whilst I read amazing stories of courage and sacrifice of these soldiers in their twenties coming from the other side of the ocean to give their lives for us. By “us” I mean “us” in the broadest sense.

Could a scene of sacrifice like this be repeated today? I remember reading of a soldier from Illinois, 18 years old, who lied about his age to be enroled as volunteer and who was among the first to be killed in Omaha beach… Would a white, middle-class, 18 year old american of today be capable of a similar sacrifice? Would a 18 year-old, middle-class european bother enrolling in an army to go defend freedom in the other side of the ocean?

More amazing even is the fact that these people died “for free”.  They were not a professional army, they were not getting paid -as we understand a “pay” today-, yet they gave their lives when its country requested them to do so.

Currently, the armies have been professionalised and middle-class boys -an girls- can easily avoid getting killed in wars. Wars are fought by “latinos”, afro-americans, arabs… and they don’t fight for “freedom” in general but for the ticket for their families to a better world. They don’t fight for general ideas or countries but for papers and money to bring their families out of poverty. In this sense, modern soldiers put a price to their lifes. Yet, I don’t think they would dare to jump on the beaches of Normandy like these soldiers of the second world war did. The price is “too” high.

We definitely live in a different world where “freedom” doesn’t mean what it meant to those youngsters in the 1940s. We can say that the pursue of freedom has been individualised in the same way as the consumist society has turned the “people” into a “consumer”. We are all different individuals having our individual freedom as one of our main assets. The concept of collective freedom has been diluted and prostituted to an extend that it is only use by clowns such as G. Bush to justify forcing ilegal wars upon empoversihed countries.

This is not the freedom the american, british, polish, french, russian soldiers died for during the WWII. However, the need for this “collective freedom” tends to be rediscovered in times of economic, political and moral crisis. The current systemic crisis has the capacity to rally the youngsters of the world to save the destruction of the planet resources, to bring them together to ask for their right to freedom and consequently build structures and institutions that make war impossible but also that control the financial markets, the fiscal paradises, the food markets, etc…

The question is: will the new generation be ready to jump in the Omaha beach of the 21st century exposing themselves to the enemy fire?

Would they be willing to do it “for free”?

Looking for a president for the European Commission

After two failed referendums in France and Netherlands the European Commission had the chance to intervene in favour of the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland. Very little was done. After the results were known does the president of the EC go to Ireland? No. The political price has to be paid by Vice-President Margot Wallstrom.

Lately we have had the financial crisis. In the past the European Commission was good at anticipating crisis and former EC presidents took an active stand on the issue. The current Commission did not anticipate the crisis and during the last two weeks the protagonism was taken by UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, wellknown for his leadership skills…

Although it is true that the economic governance is not an EU competence, a visionary president of the EUropean Commission would have taken advantage of the opportunity to bring the EU forward.

This crisis is only starting and more opportunities will come to set up the right structure in order to better regulate the anarchy in financial markets. Can we trust the current president Barrosso to properly represent the European interest or should we rather start looking for a new president of the European Commission?

The forthcoming European Parliament Elections are an opportunity we should use to this effect.

One of the possible consequences of the crisis?

The Economist – “The magazine irrationalis”

I’m perplexed by the ideological coherence of this widely read -and
respected- magazine that preaches logic, rationalism and economic liberalism.

Not too long ago -one month- it was still preaching free market, no regulations, no intervention of the state and that the government should work only in those areas where it is not profitable for the private sector to operate.

This same magazine has always preached globalisation without regulations, without institutions responsible to monitor anything and has been actively campaigning against any political integration in Europe because that could “undermine” economic competitiveness in the continent…

For them, democracy is only valid as colonialist tool when the western countries intervene in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, but they will never advocate for democracy at supranational level, putting the economic powers under democratic scrutiny is “nonsense” according to the prestigious magazine.

The big laugh about all this comes in times of crisis like the times where we are now. The financial crisis has changed all the ideological rational of this very theoretical magazine: from asking the state to stay away from private sector is now applauding the big bailouts and nationalisation of private banks.

The time to privatise profits is over, now it is time to nationalise debts and make the people, the “consumers” as they call them, pay the price of private businesses mismanagements.

Now it is time to promote fiscal authority intervention, meaning the finances ministries will use taxpayer money to nationalise the banks. Beyond that they are proposing that it would be good to have the possibility to act as financial authority at European level, in other words, the need to collect
takes at European level and “de facto” launch an European economic policy which is something that they have always opposed based on ideological grants.

In a rational world, once this crisis is over, the magazine would learn from its mistakes and move to ask for a minimum regulation at supranational level on the financial markets and for the EU to have economic governance.

Unfortunately this magazine is as rational as human beings.

Don’t vote!

We would need something similar for the European Parliament elections…

Imagine a public market without plastic bags…

When will the most environmentally friendly food be packed in something that is not plastic?

Whilst some supermarkets in Belgium start charging the customers for the plastic bags it is sad to see that in public markets in my Brussels neighbourhood, where the freshest food can be found, the plastic is still everywhere and for free.

It felt strange to see how a normal young hippy-happy family with three children who were queuing before me in one of these market grocery shops, left the market with more than 20 plastic bags. The family left the market carrying 4 or 5 plastic bags each of them, almost empty…

It is a paradox that in the public markets, where the freshest food can be found especially in summer, plastic bags are a lot more present than in supermarkets, the main representative of mass-consumption.

The democratic instruments such as regulation on bans or taxes on plastic bags can be better implemented in big supermarkets than in public markets. Yet if we want pubic markets to keep its share as providers of season food, supporting producers living in the city surroundings and hence support self-sufficiency and avoid all the pollution of importing the fruits from the other side of the world an effort needs to be made to educate consumers in public markets to bring their shopping carts or cloth bags instead of opting to ask for a plastic bag.

Ireland neutrality challenged by the the Lisbon treaty or rather the USA?

After all, it looks like we can blame someone of the NO to Lisbon in Ireland: the USA. The poor americans  get blamed by everybody

If it is finally proven that the funding for the NO campaign in Ireland was coming from the US and more concretely the military sector, it will be fun to see how most alegations against the Lisbon treaty for interfering in Irish neutrality will be challenged.

Declan Ganley, the multi-millionaire businessman behind Libertas, has significant business interests in America which could have been a decisive contribution to bring the EU to the standstill caused by the irish rejection to the Lisbon treaty. This is particularly worrying because one of the main arguments used by Libertas in the campaign, together with legalisation of abortion, death penalty and other lies,  was precisely the danger that an EU with stronger Foreign and Defense policy would have for irish neutrality -and american interests-.

Here we go! The irish, allegedly US-sponsored, neutrality is stopping the EU from moving forward in democratic reform. This is a nice paradox!

A treaty meant to bring more transparency to the EU hijacked by a campaign whose funding was everything but transparent but who claimed to ask for a more transparent and democratic EU…

Lisbon Treaty ratification – What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger!

Stable structures benefit from crisis whilst unstable ones tend to be destroyed by them. The EU was born from a big crisis named 2^nd World War and has been forged crisis by crisis. Following the saying “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” I have no doubt that the EU will come out stronger of the new crisis generated by the Irish NO to the Lisbon treaty.

Democracy is based on conflict and discussion to find the consensus that can bring the best outcome to the citizens. If you want gain without pain authoritarian regimes can deliver the best solution. Countries like Libia, China or Russia don’t have to debate the ratification of treaties bringing more democracy and transparency to the country… however, I still prefer our “crisis”.

It is true that the EU is sometimes too far away from the citizens, that the heads of state say at home the opposite of what they say in Brussels, that the EU is sometimes too elitist… but with or without Lisbon treaty the EU will continue to be the most successful intend to overcome nationalist interest and achieve lasting peace in the European continent. Therefore it is the procedure and not the content of the project what should be questioned.

Federalists and other sensible groups suggested from the beginning that the European Constitution should not be ratified with unanimity because that would block the process if only one country would say NO. The French and the Dutch said no and the process was blocked. Then they watered down the text and tried again with the same stubborn system that will give to any national democracy the capacity to stop the European democratic process.

Legally speaking the text should not go on if only one country opposes it, this is the virtue of unanimity! However it looks like the European leaders will decide to move on disregarding the Irish vote. This is unfortunate but necessary. The EU needs to get the institutional reforms out of the way as soon as possible and focus on delivering to the citizens. Whatever the way we get there from here will be neither entirely democratic nor highly undemocratic; I believe the content of the treaty improves European democracy but the ratification procedure by unanimity undermines it. From the democratic point of view it can be justified to move on with the implementation as soon as the majority of citizens and majority of member states ratify the text.

With the current situation and with the Council running the show I’m convinced we won’t get any better democratic system to ratify the text, hence the need to get it out of the way as soon as possible. The longer it takes to solve this ratification problem the more the people will doubt about European project. In any case, this “crisis” won’t destroy the European project, it can delay it instead. However the climate change and food, financial and energy crisis can be a lot more harmful for Europe if not faced with the right equipment. The Lisbon treaty better equips the EU to face the challenges of the 21^st century and should enter into force in the countries that ratified it as soon as a majority of citizens and states approve it.

Madness in Dublin – No to Lisbon Treaty… but nice tits!

Below you can find a number of funny reactions I got when campaining in the streets of Dublin for the YES to the Lisbon Treaty.

As you will see they are mostly highly intelectual considerations about the meaning of the text put to a referendum.

—

Italian activist: Will you vote for the Lisbon treaty tomorrow?

Random irish pedestrian: I hope not. I’m English.

—

Catalan activist: bla, bla, bla, in favour of the treaty…

No campaigner (red with rage): I’m against abortion and that’s why I will vote against this treaty… but I wish your mum would have taken the pill of the day-after!

—

Swedish activist: Will you vote for the Lisbon treaty tomorrow?

Random irish pedestrian: No.      But nice tits!

—

Dannish acitivist: Will you vote for the Lisbon treaty tomorrow?

Random irish pedestrian 2: I will vote no.

Dannish acitivist: please! You have to vote yes!

Random irish pedestrian 2: I’ll vote yes if you give me a blowjob.

Dannish acitivist: …

—

Italian activist: Will you vote for the Lisbon treaty tomorrow?

Random irish pedestrian 3: mmmm… don’t know. If you let me cut your hair I’ll vote yes.

Italian activist: mmm… ok, let’s go!

15 minutes later the Italian activist comes back with new hair cut and having won not one but 2 votes for the YES.

—

Catalan activist: Will you vote for the Lisbon treaty tomorrow?

Random irish pedestrian 4: pardon?

Catalan activist: ah! Pardon, you’re French? Then I guess you can’t vote…

French tourist/immigrant: Oui, I’m here since two weeks trying to find a job to learn English… When did you arrived?

Catalan activist: mmm… yesterday afternoon.

French tourist/immigrant: you arrive yesterday and you already got a job?!?