Mind The Gap

Sir Tim Berners-Lee - The Good Knight

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the man who is responsible for the internet came to the European Parliament to deliver an impassioned plea to keep the internet open, free and available to all. He described the internet as a medium that didn’t discriminate on national or political grounds and that he hoped that industries involved would allow a neutral space that countries or companies wouldn’t try to control it. “Democracy is getting more participatory and it was important that people got their information from a neutral source”, but he insisted that monitoring people’s use of the internet was a real source of concern, “people use the internet in very intimate ways, for example if I had cancer I would look for information, if I was a teenager, wondering if I was homosexual or not, and I was visiting sites to work out what I was, I wouldn’t want to think that every click was being monitored. To spy on my information to build a profile of me could be incredibly damaging. To use this information is much more valuable for a company, but more dangerous to me. It’s more dangerous than having a TV in my room, monitoring my every move”.

This call for electronic civil liberties was echoed by Pirate Party MEP, Christian Engström (Green/EFA) is launching a campaign to create an Internet Bill of Rights, using web collaboration to write it. “This is something that we will be putting forward and we want as much input from citizens as possible.” Is access to the internet a human right? “Oh yes, definitely.” He sees this as an extent of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” Engström sees the electronic frontier as the new battleground, “This is what the internet is all about and these are the freedoms they are trying to take away from us by talk of filtering, limiting what users can do etc. Article 10 is at the centre of the struggle for a free internet.”

Reducing these rights on an all pervasive platform like the intenet, reduces rights for everyone, “fundamental rights are called that because they are fundamental”. The solitary Pirate has achieved an important change in the recent telecoms package, guaranteeing disconnected users a right to be heard. How did he achieve this? By engaging in the process and making connections with other MEP’s and groups. “There are protest groups who just shout and then play the martyr, but we are here to actually change things.” The next change they look to introduce is the Bill of Rights, “The discussion of the document is almost as important as the document itself, it’s about opening the eyes of states and politicians.”

Engström holds up a copy of the ACTA response, that has been leaked on the net, “If you turn this 180% then it actually becomes a pretty good Bill of Rights. I think the EC should just say no. it’s completely incompatible with European Human Rights.” As he says, “It is not acceptable that new legislation that restricts both our fundamental rights and the free and open internet is being drafted in secret negotiations by non-elected officials together with representatives of a foreign power.This simply not how laws should be made in a democratic society. It’s embarrassing to have to point out something so obvious.”

All You Need Is Lentils - EPA/BENOIT DOPPAGNE BELGIUM OUT

After the underwhelming appointments of Van Rompuy and Ashton, the European Parliament was treated to some traffic stopping star power as Sir Paul McCartney came to speak at an event organised by Edward MacMillan-Scott, entitled “Less Meat = Less Heat”. The former Beatle was there to publicise a campaign for a “meat free Monday”, saying that “we can all make a contribution to fighting  global warming by eating less meat” and said that having a meat free day was something that people could do, “people can find out about this and can just try not to have meet one day a week. It’s not hard. going vegetarian is a lot harder for people as it needs passion.” He suggested that the beginning of the week was a good place to start because “most people have a blowout at the weekend so Monday’s a good time to do it.”

MacMillan-Scott said they were “focusing on the issue that wasn’t on the Copenhagen agenda as highly as it should be; the fact that livestock production produces more greenhouse gasses than the whole of the transport sector. When asked if he trusted the Americans to play a real role at Copenhagen to reduce carbon emissions, Sir Paul replied, “Of course. I think this issue is going to affect everyone and in Copenhagen, I’m not sure how much can be done but I want to make people aware of what people can do and there are many Americans involved in the Meat free Monday.”

The issue of EU agriculture was raised and McCarthy suggested that bodies such as the Parliament could educate and encourage people to eat less meat whilst helping farmers adapt to the changes. He said that he wished that his views on global warming were wrong but felt that the issue was real and that change was vital to saving the planet for the next generation. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also pointed out that using farming land for cultivation would be more effective at providing food for an increasing number of people and could assist in lifting people out of poverty. more controversially, he suggested that taxation could be a mechanism to encourage lower meat consumption as that approach “would make a lot of sense”.

And then Sir Paul left as he arrived, in a flurry of photographs, autographs, waving and much sighing from the women of the Parliament.

On her second day as the Eu’s high representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton appeared in the European Parliament’s main chamber to answer questions from MEPS. This early visit was intended to show the EP that she was going to take their role very seriously and many MEP’s appreciated the gesture and saw it like Jose Salafranca Sanchez-Neyra (EPP) did, as a “sign of goodwill”. Her strategy was simple, to make it clear that she intended to involve the Parliament, “I shouldn’t just come before you at times like this, I hope you will contact me with your concerns, or anything you want to bring to my attention, at any time” and to emphasise the consensual nature of the role, representing 27 nations, “It is important to find common threads. I mean highest common factor, not the lowest common denominator. Her final aim was to avoid making an error or commiting any policy blunders. In all this, she was successful.

The chamber was, like so many of the members, warmly receptive to her. The only outspoken objections came from the UK Conservative Party and the UK Independence Party. Charles Tannock (ECR) asked what experience she brought to the table and why she thought she was quaslified enough to do the job and fired off a series of detailed policy questions. In a stinging reply, the Baroness said “I was chosen because 27 heads of government invited me. I may not be your choice but I appear to be theirs and I will do my best to do the job as best as I possibly can.” This was greeted with applause from all over the chamber. David Campbell-Bannerman (EFD) Asked her if she had accepted Soviet money during her time as treasurer of the UK Campaign for nuclear disarnament in the early 80’s. She denied this strongly and expressed her hope that “I hope you ask me some foreign policy questions next time we have an encounter.” More applause for the Baroness.

By this time it was clear that there was some steel to the Lady, but the UK Conservatives kept up their attack when Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR) made a rather bizarre request, “Given that your nomination came as an afterthought from the Prime Minister and his socialist fellow travellers, when hopefully there is a change of government next year, will you tender your resignation and seek a fresh mandate.” He followed that up by asking why the EU was in Afghanistan “to make the streets of the UK safe” when “there are many immigrants coming into the Uk illegally from countries that are incubators of terrorism.” Ashton batted this aside easily by pointing out that “”I am glad you think I was an afterthought. That is not the discussion I had with the Prime Minister. Can I say your leader was one of the first to congratulate me. I do not think he is seeking my resignation. I still have the voicemail message if you would like to hear it.” This was met by silence from Van Orden and laughter from elsewhere.

Although MEPs gave her a warm welcome and enjoyed seeing her sweep away her critics, they did give notice that questions at her hearings would require more solid answers, but she was cut some slack on her second day in the job. She was open about her progress, “My avoidance of answers is not because I do not have views but because it is very very important to make sure that what I say to you is considered and not just a reaction… This is brand new. I do not have an office, I do not have a Cabinet, I do not have a team. I inherited a blank piece of paper and at the moment I have writtten one or two small things on it.”

She asked Parliament’s help to help fulfil the potential of the job. If she can provide more in depth answers to policy questions when she sits in the Parliament in January, there is every sign that she will win support. Today, she charmed and impressed. Next, she will have to consolidate the impression she made.

Copyright by World Economic Forum

There comes a point in the downward trajectory of a politicians life, when their support for a contender is the kiss of death. so it appears for Gordon Brown, the beleaguered British Prime minister. After promoting his arch rival for the post of Council President he was forced to accept reality at a meeting of the Socialist Group ahead of the anointing dinner.

Seeing that the group wanted the High Representative and spurned his endorsing of Tony Blair as a big hitter on the world stage, he then went through the list of candidates for the High Representative position. Front runner was his current foreign Minister, a man with a good reputation. No good, because Brown didn’t want a by-election in Milliband’s South Shields seat, and when you’re worrying about losing a seat in the Labour heartlands, you’re in a dire position. Secondly was Lord Mandelson. Out. Brown needs him for the forthcoming election campaign and to try to keep his party’s Blairites in check. Next was Geoff Hoon, who was quickly dismissed.

Finally their eye settled on Baroness Ashton, someone who has never held elective office and has foreign policy experience that can only be politely described as thin. However, she has the precious virtue of not holding a seat in Parliament, thus avoiding a by-election and she is a woman, thus helping attain the much wanted gender balance.

How little strategic thought went into this decision was displayed by her opening announcement at the press conference when she announced “It is some measure of my surprise that I haven’t got an acceptance speech”‘. It also leaves the Socialist Group with the embarrassment of promoting a member of the House of Lords and Brown having to explain why he was so strongly advocating a big hitter, that he said the EU absolutely needed, and ended up with someone as well known in the UK as the Belgian Premier.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Lord Mandelson was in Brussels recently, speaking to the Breugel think tank, where he also pushed for a big hitter in the two top jobs saying that the EU needed to stop choosing “safe, uncontroversial choices” and that “going for second or even third best candidates would make us all lose out.” Sadly, that is exactly what Brown, the Socialist Group and the Council have just done.

Iraq. The one word epitaph for Blair’s career. This Sunday, we see why he wasn’t going to get the top job as the Sunday Telegraph reports on a huge pile of classified documents they have received. More detail here and here

No doubt many will be relieved that these documents aren’t about the collossal misjudgment and deception of the new President.

Last Friday the Breugel think tank invited Lord Mandelson to speak on the subject of Europe’s future. He blasted the EU institutions as being in need of radical reform and said that EC President Barrosso needed to be very radical in his second term.  His biggest complaint was that the EU showed a lack of leadership. In a clear plug for Tony Blair he castigated the EU for picking ’safe, uncontroversial choices’ saying that ‘going for second or even third best candidates would make us all lose out’.

Blair does seem to have dropped out of the running, despite spending the weekend phoning round leaders to gain support, the simple fact is that the S&D Group angrily rejected him, as has all the others. When William Hague said that he wouldn’t want Blair, Labour rounded on him for being unpatriotic and acting against Britain’s best interests.

The whispers in the corridors is that Blair is out but David Miliband is in as high Representative, the post that many would argue is the more powerful of the two top jobs. Labour insiders think that Miliband may not take the position as he is coming under considerable pressure to refuse. Why? Because Brown doesn’t want a by-election.

How is that in Britain’s best interest, Mr Brown? To decline a top job in Europe because you’re scared of losing a by-election shows how desperate a position Labour is in and shows a complete lack of strategic vision.

It has been a long time since the Brussels scene was so abuzz, for nothing livens up the city more that a good session of gossip, intrigue, plotting and scheming, for this is what the EU does best. The long running soap opera of choosing the President is made even better by adding a High Representative into the mix. Oh how we all love going through the matrix, looking for patterns along the lines of, ‘If the President is from the North and large, the HR must be from small and South. Or possibly East’ and so on. The race has been made even more impenetrable by the virtual candidacy of Tony Blair, whose spokesmen are still claiming not to be campaigning as the job doesn’t exist. Meanwhile British diplomats are having more discrete lunches than their livers can stand and articles in the press are appearing, all from Blair’s buddies. Junker announced his candidacy, not directly, but by proclaiming that the EU needed a President who had the very qualities he found in himself. Remarkable coincidence.

But some names are ruling themselves out, sometimes with some considerable wiggle room. Mary Robinson withdrew from a popular internet based campaign and David Milliband was doing all the right things until he suddenly withdrew – via Twitter, how very modern. One can only wonder what sweetener was given to the boy David to drop his bid, done so that he didn’t get in the way of Blair. Could it be the Labour leadership, this winter? Blair is the man to beat and the discussion rages on choosing a global figure or a more modest chairman. On paper, it looks like the HR has the potential to be the more powerful figure, but, being the EU, they still haven’t sorted out what the job description is yet.

But if they want someone who “will stop the traffic in Beijing”, then Blair might be a bit small, a touch tarnished by his past. There is another towering European from a mid-sized country, who has experience in government and would stop the traffic all over the world and he has good relations with the US and a reputation for looking for consensus between party lines. Who should Europe select to represent them? Step forward Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California.