Tag Archives: commission

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge‘.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This morning the Stop TTIP coalition, consisting of over 300 civil society groups from across Europe, have filed a lawsuit against the European Commission at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The lawsuit challenges a decision made by the Commission to block a ‘European Citizen’s Initiative’ (ECI) on the controversial EU-USA trade deal known as TTIP, and a similar deal with Canada (CETA).

In September 2014 the European Commission was accused of “stifling citizens’ voices” last September after it rejected a proposal to hold a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ against the trade deals – on legally dubious grounds that betrayed a profound anti-democratic bias in the organisation.

The Initiative, which had been launched by trade unions, social justice campaigns, human rights groups and consumer watchdogs, if successful would have forced the Commission to review its policy on the deals and to hold a hearing in the European parliament.

People are being told – don’t interfere, until it’s too late

Nick Dearden, the director of the World Development Movement, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit said: “It’s disgraceful that the Commission is prepared to use such dirty tricks to attempt to stifle the million people across Europe who have voiced urgent concerns about TTIP and the way it is being negotiated.

“These people are rightly worried about the impact this far-reaching trade deal would have on vital public services, and hard-fought for legislation protecting labour rights and the environment.”

Michael Efler, a representative of the ECI’s citizens’ committee said: “We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens.

“While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements.”

Second initiative gains 850,000 signatures in a month

Despite the rejection of the ECI, campaign groups and trade unions launched a second self-organised, unofficial petition in early October, which has already gathered more than 864,000 signatures in just over a month. It reads:

“We call on the institutions of the European Union and its member states to stop the negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and not to ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.”

So far the Commission has continued to deny those voices a hearing, in favour of continuing to negotiate in secret. Around 50 people held a demonstration today at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg against both the trade deals and the Commission’s rejection of the ECI.

Blanche Weber, a member of the ECI’s citizens committee who took part in the protest said: “The gap between European politics and people is to be overcome – according to the rhetoric of politicians. However, the discrepancy between this spin and actual politics is a disgrace.

“Brussels’ arrogance towards Europe’s citizens is unacceptable! We will continue to defend ourselves against TTIP and CETA – also for the sake of European democracy.”

 

 

More information: Stop TTIP.

Sign the Citizens Initiative: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence‘ by Mary Fitzgerald & Michael Efler.

 

 




386605

Plan to label tar sands as ‘polluting’ scrapped by EU Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




    The European Commission yesterday proposed legislation to toss out a requirement to label tar sands oil as dirtier than other fossil fuels – a move that is likely to bolster Canada’s bitumen industry as it jockeys to break into European markets.

    Five years ago the Commission agreed to a piece of climate legislation called the ‘Fuel Quality Directive’, which was to be implemented in 2010 with the aim of cutting transport fuel emissions by 6% by the year 2020.

    The Commission previously proposed under this directive to require that that tar sands be reported as a greater carbon emitter than conventional crude, which could have led to a penalty on bitumen, most of which comes from Canada.

    However, following years of heavy industry pressure and government stalling, the plan still has not gone into effect – and now it is being withdrawn

    The price of an EU trade deal with the US and Canada?

    According to a report released this summer by Friends of the Earth Europe, Canada and the United States have aggressively lobbied to weaken the proposal by using negotiations over a ‘free trade’ deal with Europe-the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership-to press for a loosening of protections against tar sands.

    The proposed legislation unveiled Tuesday suggests this lobbying was successful. The submitted rules require refiners exporting fuel to the EU to report only an average of the carbon intensity of the feedstock used in making fuels.

    They do, therefore, not have to single out fuels derived from tar sands as more polluting, though a method is retained for calculating the carbon intensity of different fuel types over their lifecycle. These figures can then be used by states in calculating their mandatory 6% emissions cuts.

    “It is no secret that our initial proposal could not go through, due to resistance faced in some member states”, Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said in a statement.

    “However, the Commission is today giving this another push, to try and ensure that in the future, there will be a methodology and thus an incentive to choose less polluting fuels over more polluting ones like, for example, oil sands.”

    Efforts to keep out tar sands oil ‘weakened’

    Critics charge that the new methodology, which was first revealed to the press in June, weakens efforts to disincentivize tar sands imports into Europe.

    The move by the Commission comes despite the fact that it has officially recognized that tar sands oil extraction is dangerous for the planet.

    Bitumen is one of the dirtiest fuels on earth, produces up to five times more carbon than conventional crude oil, and its extraction process is extremely energy-intensive and destructive to ecosystems and creates large reservoirs of toxic waste.

    “The Commission has recognized the highly polluting nature of tar sands but is going to let this climate killer be used by European oil companies with no penalty at all”, said Colin Roche, extractives campaigner with Friends of the Earth Europe.

    “The Commission has clearly seen the problem but – under heavy pressure from the oil industry and the Canadian and US government – chosen not to act on it.”

    Tuesday’s proposal will be put through a two-month fast-track approval process and still must be debated by member states and rubber stamped by the European Parliament.

    In June, the first shipment of tar sands to Europe was met with protests, with demonstrators urging that tar sands must be left in the ground.

    The release of the Commission’s proposal on Tuesday comes the same day 700,000 barrels of tar sands oil are slated to arrive in Italy, marking the second such shipment to Europe.

     

     

    Sources: Common Dreams and EuroActiv. This article is substantially based on the Common Dreams article by Sarah Lazre, but has been changed too much for us to run it under her name.

     

     

     




    385158

How will the new EU team line up on GMOs, TTIP and energy? Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The new EU President says he will be looking for a more democratic approach to GMO authorisations and transatlantic trade.

He is also making radical and ambitious proposals for an Energy Union that will be “the world’s number one in renewable energies”. But are his Commissioners – ‘Team Juncker’ – fit for purpose?

Back in July the new President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, set out his political agenda for the incoming Commission.

In it he signalled a new and welcome approach to the Commission’s attitude to GMOs, the proposed Transatlantic Investment Partnership (TTIP), energy and climate change.

But it’s not clear how much the corporate gang have to worry about. There is considerable doubt that the incumbents of the key posts in agriculture, environment, health and food safety, energy and climate change will be able – or even want, to follow Juncker’s lead.

An unpopular move – with the GMO lobby

This week he finalised the portfolios of the new Commissioner team and reiterated his message which was not well received by some corporate interests – in particular the biotech lobby.

“We believe this will not be positive”, said André Goig, chairman of EuropaBio (European Association of Bioindustries) and a regional director of Syngenta.

In his speech Juncker said he intended “to review the legislation applicable to the authorisation of GMOs” and indicated he would be seeking a more democratic approach.

“To me, it is simply not right that under the current rules, the Commission (EC) is legally forced to authorise new organisms for import and processing even though a clear majority of Member States is against.”

This was a reference to the notorious vote where a majority of EU states opposed to the authorisation of a GMO maize variety were over ruled by a minority in favour of approval due to the ‘weighting’ of votes cast by some larger – and pro-GMO – member states led by the UK.

Juncker also made the highly significant point that “The Commission should be in a position to give the majority view of democratically elected governments at least the same weight as scientific advice, notably when it comes to the safety of the food we eat and the environment in which we live.”

More good news – TTIP, Food safety

He followed this up with a seemingly uncompromising and welcome assurance on the current EU/US negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

“I will also be very clear that I will not sacrifice Europe’s safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity on the altar of free trade.”

The good news of the appointments is that the Health and Food Safety portfolio – which includes the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) – has gone to the Lithuanian Health Minister, Vytenis Andriukaitis.

He has a reputation for supporting state regulation over industry and is said to have a “mistrust of the private sector and the market in general.”

This is exactly what is needed to offset the recent EC tendency to seek reduced regulation and to tackle the much criticised, pro-GMO EFSA which has consistently been too close to industry.

Bad news for agriculture and environment?

Other positions may be problematic.

The Environment portfolio – a crucial one for the GMO cropping issue – has gone to Karmenu Vella – who doesn’t appear to have ever said anything about GMOs. But his pro-business and anti-regulation stance whilst Malta’s Minister of Tourism doesn’t bode well.

Ireland’s Phil Hogan has been given the Agriculture portfolio which also includes the issue of GMO crops as well as agriculture’s role in TTIP.

Hogan does not have a particularly illustrious reputation in government – better known for his gaffes than his achievements. He has no record on agriculture and it is hard to find if he has any views on genetic engineering but he is said to have ‘liberal’ views on trade and is likely to be close to the UK position on farming issues.

Energy and Climate Change – a merger or a mess up?

For the first time within the EC, Junkers has created a new tier of Vice Presidents who will act as his “filters”, “right arms” or possibly filtering right arms, in an attempt to both “streamline” and “integrate” policies.

Slovenia’s ex-Prime Minister Alenka Bratušek will lead the EU’s energy policy as Vice President for Energy Union with the objective of bringing about “a resilient Energy Union, with a forward-looking climate change policy.”

She is tasked with steering the work of the Commissioners for Climate Action and Energy; Transport and Space; Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Regional Policy, Agriculture and Rural Development; and Research, Science and Innovation.

At the same time the portfolios of Climate Action and Energy have been merged and given to the former Spanish environment minister Miguel Arias Cañete.

As well as reporting to Bratušek, he has to report to the Vice President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness: An arrangement which reflects the schizophrenia or – to put it more kindly – the balancing act, of trying to limit climate relevant emissions whilst pursuing market competitiveness and economic growth.

Sustainability ‘relegated to the margins’

Some environmental groups are concerned about the wobble and direction of Cañete’s balance; pointing to his ties to the oil industry in Spain and to his role as environment minister in removing subsidies for renewable energy.

He is a controversial appointment and there is also a more than a touch of controversy about Bratušek. She has been severely criticised in Slovenia for “nominating herself” as candidate for the EC – which many regard as a corrupt act – as well as for her “high” salary and “selling out” to business interests.

But the main concern is that these new structures will bring confusion rather than clarity and inertia rather integration.

Everyone wants a connected energy and climate policy and some environmentalists like Wendel Trio, director of Climate Action Network Europe feel it is too soon to tell if that apparent lack of clarity about the new arrangements and appointments will pose a problem.

Others believe that in the restructuring of portfolios, environment and climate action have been marginalised, according to Jeremy Wates, Secretary General of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB):

“Instead of putting sustainability central to his new team, Juncker has decided to relegate it to the margins by scrapping the dedicated posts of a climate and an environment commissioner and appointing a deregulation first Vice-President to put a competitiveness filter on all initiatives.”

Coming up – crucial Parliamentary hearings

All Vice Presidents and Commissioners will play a part in the TTIP negotiations and we have to hope that President Juncker’s statement means what it says and that ‘Team Juncker’ gets behind it.

There are clearly significant differences in the underlying views of Commissioners and as the TTIP negotiations progress tensions will emerge.

At which point the position taken by, firstly Germany, and secondly by the European Parliament (EP), will become pivotal.

It is hard to gauge at this stage how far the composition of the newly elected EP will alter the stance taken by the outgoing one.

All members of ‘Team Juncker’ have to appear before, and be approved by, the EP in the next few weeks. Those hearings will be very instructive.

 

 

Lawrence Woodward is founder and director of GM Education, where this article was originally published.

Sources:

 

 




384079