Sport is one of the competences of the European Union since the Lisbon Treaty came into force. What is the added value of the EU in this field?
In any case, it is a subsidiary competence, as the main competences in sport belong to Member states and also to federations. But it is true that there are certain areas where the world of sport asks Europe to take measures, as, for example, the fight against doping-substances trafficking, making the fraud in sport an criminal offence, protecting minors, controlling the activities of sport agents, etc.

What do you think about the proposal of the European Commission to create a program dedicated to Sport, within the “Erasmus for all” program, with an envelope of 30 million Euros? What would be the actions the EU should support at first?
In my opinion, I believe that the word "Erasmus" should continue to be used as until now: exchange programs for young people. I believe that the money should be used for general European programs in order to support the organization of the European Day of Sport, the European Capital of Sport, the protection of indigenous sports, etc. I think that it is very important to be able to use structural funds for sport purposes, because the biggest amount of money we can use for sport infrastructures is in the structural funds.

What about the cooperation between the EU and the Council of Europe, which is very active in the field of Sport, or other sport institutions such as the IOC, the UEFA etc.?
I  firmly believe in the cooperation among bodies, as each of them has their own competences and it is of course very important to keep a close dialogue with European sport bodies like UEFA, Olympic committees, sportsmen associations, etc.

On issues like doping, racism, stadium violence, the Sport social impact, is the EU ready to commit itself? What about the means?
In these subjects that you mention is exactly where the EU should be involved, creating for example a European database in order to share information and to enhance cooperation, underlining the social impact that sport has and its importance for health, for the integration between different social groups and, above all asking Member states to adapt their legislation and, if necessary, to create a criminal offence to fight against doping-substance trafficking in the same way they fight against drugs. As I already mentioned, defining the sport fraud as a criminal offence in order to fight against illegal betting is also very important.

Sport is often described as a federative factor in our societies. Considering the current crisis, and the huge amount of money involved, spent into indecent salaries, is the EU willing to implement some regulation on this?
We live in a free market economy and it is really difficult to put salary limits. I do believe in financial transparency of clubs, agents and sportsmen, and Member states should take the corresponding measures (via taxation) in this sense. In any case, the European Parliament has entrusted Jean-Luc Dehaene a study on the financing of big clubs.

Interpol operates as its own international territory, similar to the Vatican, and as such is entitled to invite anyone it likes. However, in order to travel to Interpol’s headquarters in Lyon, Kuleshov had to obtain a French travel visa. Despite widespread condemnation of the French government for issuing the visa, Free Belarus Now, an umbrella group for Belarusian dissidents mainly in exile, saw an opportunity and petitioned the French Ministry of Justice to arrest Kuleshov over alleged breaches of the UN convention against Torture. The French authorities failed to respond to the request.

INTERPOL - A LAW UNTO ITSELF

The travel ban on Kuleshov and over 200 other prominent figures of President Lukashenko’s regime dates back to January 2011, following a brutal crackdown on civilians protesting allegedly rigged presidential elections. Belarus is commonly referred to as “Europe’s last dictatorship”. The three- term President, Alexander Lukashenko, has little patience for dissent, routinely imprisoning political opponents, human rights defenders and independent journalists on trumped up charges. Trials of political dissidents are held behind closed doors and the accused are usually denied legal counsel, according to Amnesty International. Many opponents of the regime are not charged at all; they are simply seized by the police and disappear into the prison system. Torture is said to be widespread.

IMPROVING THE CAPACITIES OF A POLICE STATE

Aside from the ethical uneasiness over Kuleshov’s visit, the practical repercussions are severe. Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble stated “By sharing important crime related information with Interpol and by recognizing the Interpol passport, Belarus enhances the security not only of its country and citizens, but of all Interpol’s 190 member countries,”  Noble goes on to link this statement to the global terrorist threat; but how will the sharing of information with the Belarusian authorities enhance the security of Belarusian citizens? Belarus is essentially a police state. Now it may become a police state with increased capacity and resources. The argument that better training of police will provide for better political conditions is disingenuous in the extreme; the most likely outcome is the Belarusian authorities will be better trained and equipped to apprehend those opposed to it’s regime, through the improved technology and intelligence resources Interpol provides.

LENDING A VEIL OF LEGITIMACY

Last December, Ales Mikhalevich was arrested at Warsaw airport en route to London, at the request of Belarusian authorities who had used Interpol to issue an arrest warrant. Mikhalevich was one of a number of politicians who dared to stand against Lukashenko in the 2010 presidential elections, which international observers noted to be flawed. Following widespread political demonstrations over the disputed results, Mikhalevich and other candidates were arrested on charges of inciting mass riots. He claimed he was tortured and once released, immediately fled to the Czech Republic where he was granted political asylum. The Polish government is one of the most outspoken critics of Belarus’ government and arrested Mikhalevich only because the warrant was issued through Interpol channels; once they realised the reality of the situation, they immediately released Mikhalevich and allowed him to travel onto London, where he met with British government officials to discuss the political situation in Belarus.

What happened to Mikhalevich is an example of the veil of legitimacy Lukashenko and his cohorts can now apply to their extra-legal attempts to quell political opposition in their country, thanks to Interpol’s willingness to cooperate with their efforts. Following the recent controversy over Kuleshov’s blatant flaunting of the travel ban, the European Union’s foreign ministers announced they had agreed to widen the scope of the EU’s sanctions against Belarus; the gesture appears rather empty however as no new individuals or companies were added to the list of those already facing sanctions, merely a lacklustre promise that a “substantial” number would face repercussions for their actions within Belarus in the coming months. No details were given either as to what “widening the scope” of existing sanctions would actually entail. Given the diplomatic reception Kuleshov received, Belarus’ political opposition and jailed human rights defenders shouldn’t hold out much hope of the EU or Interpol furthering their cause.

The road was long and hazardous. Approximately six years of negotiations, chapter by chapter, were needed before the Accession Treaty could finally be signed on December 9th, 2011. Between the signature and the referendum, there were only six weeks including Christmas break. The main Croatian political parties, SPD (Social Democratic Party, the ruling party since December) and HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union, leader of the opposition and ruling party from 2003 to 2011) set up a common understanding based on a shared goal: the accession to the European Union. The hit-and-run campaign left the adhesion opponents with no means to make themselves heard, against the "moderate" political parties and even the Church which is very powerful in this Catholic and very religious country. The result is clear: nearly two-thirds of voters said yes (66.27%). However, the turnout was the lowest ever recorded for a country wishing to join the EU (42.5%); the Eurosceptics having preferred to stay home rather than participating in an election which was already lost.

Since October 2005, and the beginning of the negotiations, the question of the population support has been a chronic subject of concern in Brussels. Yet, the Croatian leaders never seemed to be really worried about it. Besides, this strategy of "laissez faire" was reinforced by the examples of the 2004 newcomers. From the leaders’ point of view, there would always be enough time to campaign. Actually it never happened to be necessary.
 
Successive governments have systematically ignored the call from a part of the population. No broad debates on joining the EU were organized; neither was any educational work done on the consequences of EU membership for the country. Let's be clear, it would not have changed anything. By initiating the negotiations in 2005, Croatia was already setting one foot in Europe. Six years later, after having implemented the necessary reforms to complete the 35 negotiating chapters, Croatia had transposed all the acquis communautaire. Clearly, the vast majority of Croatian legislation had become European. The debate should have taken place in 2005, it was back then that the Croatian should have decided whether or not they wanted to start this process. On January 22nd, 2012 it was too late to ask their opinion to the people.

Therefore it goes beyond whether the accession of Croatia is a good or a bad thing for the country. Certainly, positive and negative aspects will have their place in the first reports on adhesion, which would come in a few years. This is about democracy, accountability to the citizens of the candidate countries. Today, in Montenegro, Serbia or Macedonia, like in Croatia few years ago, people are kept out of the most important political decision of the last 20 years: it  will not only have a negative impact in these countries on the long-term but it will also affect at last the image of the European Union within the population. The EU does not need this bad publicity.

This is crucial if there is going to be enough food to feed the world’s growing population at a price which people can afford. Farmers are facing more challenges, including extreme volatility on agricultural markets, rising input costs, more extremes in weather as well as long term changes in climatic conditions. They will have to adapt, invest and modernise to meet these combined challenges. That is why the future CAP must focus on improving the economic performance of farming families and agri-cooperatives to enable them to get a better return from the market. We are concerned that the Commission’s proposals, which propose further mandatory environmental constraints on farmers making up to 30% of farmers direct payments dependent upon complying with environmental conditions, will not achieve this and will just add more costly burdens onto EU farmers, thus threatening their competitivity and economic viability. Farmers are already doing a lot for the environment and are willing to do more. But it must be based on win-win solutions for the both environment and growth. Farmers must be able to choose the measures which are most appropriate for their farm.  
 
Measures to promote green growth, which Copa-Cogeca is proposing, is the only way forward. Copa and Cogeca do not believe that it makes sense to require every single farm to stop producing on a certain percentage of their land when world food demand is set to rise by 70% by 2050 and production is threatened by more extremes of drought, flooding and storms. This has also been supported recently by many EU Agriculture Ministers and MEPs. Furthermore, the EU Commission proposal on the CAP post-2013 runs counter to the Commissions’ 2020 strategy for growth and employment.
 
The EU agriculture and agri-food sector ensures employment in EU rural areas for around 40 million people, providing the heart of rural areas,  and ensuring high quality food for 500 million consumers. Yet EU farmers’ income is on average only half that of average earnings. This is why it is essential that direct payments to farmers are maintained if the agricultural sector is to continue to assure these benefits. Currently, many young farmers are not willing to take over from the farm and older farmers are leaving the sector in view of the drastic economic situation. This is not sustainable or acceptable.  The real obstacle for young farmers is the lack of access to capital, poor returns from the market and the resultant low level of profitability of farm businesses.
 
We support the principle that CAP payments under the first pillar go to active farmers but the definition proposed by the Commission is not satisfactory. A very positive element in the Commission’s proposal is the introduction of European Innovation Partnerships to help improve links between researchers, farmers and advisors.We also need efficient and flexible measures to manage the market. These are crucial in view of the increasing market volatility. But we are concerned about the Commission’s proposed market measures.  Simply maintaining existing safety net measures, as proposed by the Commission, will not be adequate given the prospect of increasingly volatile markets. The level of the current safety nets has remained unchanged for over a decade while farm costs have risen rapidly. As a result they no longer even cover production costs of the most competitive producers and will therefore not enable producers to survive crises. We repeat our call for safety nets to be reinforced and updated to ensure they enable producers to cope during periods of low market prices and/or rapid increases in costs.
 
In addition, it is essential to strengthen producer organisations (POs) position in the food chain to meet the increasing world food demand. Farmers are currently up against the huge buying power of a few supermarkets and only get a fraction of the retail price. This situation must be improved in the reform.  They must get a better return from the markets. We welcome as a move in the right direction in the Commissions proposal the extension of the product coverage for recognition of producer organisations and their associations, as well as interbranch organisations, in addition to the Commission’s proposals for the milk sector. But we are very concerned about the fact that there is not a clear definition of a producer organisation in the EU Commissions proposal. It is also paramount that EU competition rules are adjusted to help producer organisations, such as cooperatives, to grow in size and scale.
 
The CAP is the only truly common policy and has made an important and successful contribution to the construction of Europe. Copa-Cogeca wants to ensure in the future the maintenance of a strong, dynamic, innovative CAP, with a strong EU budget behind it. We will continue to fight for this and call on EU Ministers, MEPs and the Commission to ensure that there is a profitable EU agri-food sector in the future, contributing to flourishing EU rural areas.


COPA-COGECA (Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations - General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union) is a EU farming representative organisation, recognised as one of the main representative bodies and the spokesman for the agricultural and fisheries cooperative sector.

In their political resolution, the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) expressed their doubts on the necessity of such an intergovernmental agreement. Both the method and the content have drawn sharp criticism: the MEPs denounce the turnaround of some leaders who, after having fought against the reinforcement of sanctions, defend today these measures in the context of the new treaty negotiations...measures which, by the way, are already enshrined in European law since the adoption by the legislative authority of the governance package in September 2011. That kind of behaviour makes some MEPs, like Daniel Cohn Bendit, argue that this new treaty is useless and that it is completely possible to act and take measures through current EU law.  
 
The MEPs also criticize the emphasis on austerity measures: in their resolution, the members call for a "Union both of stability and of sustainable growth". On the method, the MEPs are praising the community method and the inclusion of the Parliament in the negotiations. Indeed, for the moment, it is largely ignored; its last suggestions have not been taken on board and there is no open debate on what the treaty should be: where is the democratic legitimacy then? The question is also raised by the European trade unions. They just called for a protest movement against a treaty which, according to them, would generalize austerity in Europe and which will not be the result of a democratic process.
 
It does no harm just this once: the trade unions receive an unexpected support from the rating agencies: in its report published after having downgraded several European countries in the middle of January, Standards & Poors warns against a treaty revision which would only be based on austerity. According to the agency, this policy would be self-defeating in the long run given that "domestic demand would fall in line with consumers' rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues". S&P denounces the lack of vision of the European leaders and the focus on austerity at the expense of "a strong and consistent program to raise the growth potential of the economies in the Eurozone".
 
If they manage to meet today despite the general strike in Belgium (in order to protest against national austerity measures), the European heads of state and government have to hear the critics: their reaction is expected by all the stakeholders and the European citizens.

Few months ago, Hungary chaired the European Union (EU). On Wednesday, 18th, it was behind the Danish representative that Viktor Orban answered the critics addressed to his government in front of the European Parliament.

Many observers, such as Hungarian MPs and Hungarian and European citizens are concerned by the new constitution which came into force on the 1st of January 2012. While speaking in the plenary session in Strasbourg, the president of ALDE, Guy Verhofstadt, presented a document of fifteen pages pointing every issue of concern, not only those regarding the European law, but more importantly those dealing with the EU fundamental values.

AN INFRIGEMENT PROCEDURE

Among these issues, the European Commission has selected three: by sending three letters of formal notice, the EC has in fact started an infringement procedure against Hungary, the first step before possible referral to the European Court of Justice for having breached EU law. Viktor Orban has now to take the necessary steps to address the concerns over the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank, the judiciary and the data protection authorities.

To prove its determination on the dossier, the European Commission decided to shorten the time limit to receive an answer very fast: in theory the Member state has two months to react but in that specific case, Hungary has to answer within a month, maybe even 15 days!

The Commission is therefore awake. Whereas, until now its focus has been mostly on the economic measures necessary in Hungary, President Barroso told Viktor Orban and the European Parliament that these issues could go beyond the law: he called on the Hungarian government to respect its democratic obligations. According to some observers, this shift arises quite late; for others it does not go far enough. This being said, what is important to notice is that such a political debate on an EU Member State had not taken place in the EU for a long time.
Hungary is at the heart of the debate in the EU, but it is also the case back home: few days ago, demonstrations involving thousands of people took place in Budapest: on Saturday, 21st, to support the government and on Sunday, 22nd to defend the Klub radio, threatened with closure.

In a previous article, we discussed the difference between the greater desire for democracy in the countries of the South side of the Mediterranean and the weakening democracy in the North side countries: the Hungarian case proves that we need to be vigilant. If one wants to mention a positive aspect on this issue, it would be the creation of a debate, not only on the rule of law but also on the founding values of the EU. Such a debate could prove to be beneficial in the period of identity crisis we are facing. It remains now to be seen whether the debate on Hungary can be the "trigger of the advent of a new European citizenship‘s feeling" [1]?


[1] A quote from P. Gradvohl (Le Monde, January 13th, 2012)

Since 2008 the world is experiencing a dramatic increase in food prices creating instability in the world market and social  unrest.  Although the EU  is one of the wealthiest region in the world and is at the frontline to reduce by half the number of people in developing countries suffering from hunger by 2015,  nearly 43 million people living in the Community are at risk of malnutrition.

The EU with its "Food Distribution programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community" (MDP) is ensuring  since 1987 the distribution via charity organisations of free food to people in need. In 2009, around 18.3 million people in 20 member Sates benefited from the scheme.

SOLIDARITY BADLY SHAKEN

But the mechanism that allows to release public intervention stocks of agricultural products to Member States wishing to use them as food aid for people in need, suffered an embarassing political impasse when, in April  2011, the European Court of Justice, ruling on a request from Germany in 2009, said the programme could only use supplies from EU food stocks . Moreover, six member states (including Germany itself, the Czech Republic  and the UK) blocked a plan to keep aid flowing in the form of cash payments under social goals. This program conceived as an emergency  measure seemed to become unfortunately  over the years a long term solution. Something unbearable when combined with CAP's more market-oriented system and much lower levels of intervention stocks.
The 6 opposed countries  argued that  MPD was a social programme for which member states are responsible. In that case it has not be  financed under the EU's Common Agricultural Policy.  After a strong lobbying from France (which is one of the top aid recipient along with Poland and Italy) Germany eventually agreed to continue the programme for the next  two years provided that the European Commission pledged not to make a proposal to continue the food aid scheme beyond 2013. The agreement reached set €113 million as the total quantity allocated for the 2012 MPD's programme, exclusively based on all the available existing intervention stocks.

The  question is obvious now. With the economic and social situations we are currently facing, to what extent can we afford to jeopardize one of the only symbol of the European Union mutual solidarity? If the EU wants to  promote solidarity and prosperity approach on the world stage, shouldn't it start within its own boundaries?

The Mayans had predicted the end of the world in December 2012. On the eve of another European summit “of the last chance” to save the European Union we could have thought that the Apocalypse was scheduled for 2011. Eventually we are all alive and nothing has been resolved. Automatic sanctions, which have been added to the binding European golden rule for national budgets, or a permanent European Financial Stability mechanism established earlier than planned; in June 2012, , among other things, on the menu of a draft intergovernmental Treaty for 26 of the Member states without the British, do not seems to be very cheerful. The growing anti-European sentiment of citizens hit by severe austerity measures and the desire to limit the participation of the European Parliament and the European Commission will not make the life of this Treaty easier we want to adopt as quickly as possible.

A GLOBAL AUSTERITY IS NOT THE PANACEA

Meanwhile, simultaneous austerity measures in Europe look like being perilous. The detox after the holidays! So nothing has been resolved: the financial markets have also not waited to put pressure on the European sovereign debt. 15 euro zone countries including Germany and France are likely to see their ratings downgraded by the major rating agencies.

When you read the rating agencies’ or the major European banks’ reports on the economic perspectives, the expectations for 2012 are very clear: more fiscal restraint and tax consolidation indeed, but above all economic recovery and the strengthening the European banking sector are necessary. The European Central Bank has in fact understood this by cutting its rates and easing access to credit to European banks in order to avoid deflation. Indeed, some investors are reluctant to invest in a geographical area where leaders only plan to implement austerity.
Unfortunately it seems that the pressure of financial markets should be further necessary to encourage growth oriented measures. The Euro-bonds, the tax on financial transactions and a European economic recovery plan will have to be back on the negotiation table. The politically conservative European Parliament and European Commission are also determined to act accordingly. Let us be clear about it, the ideological block is on the side of the European Council of Heads of State and Government. By continually refusing to implement the most effective solutions because of electoral or ideological interests, the political message is undermined and new fears will emerge in 2012. But for now let us consume domestic products to please our relatives and the European economy.
 
TO ADDRESS UNEMPLOYMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE WILL GIVE BACK FAITH IN THE EUROPEAN INTEGRATION
 
In 2012 coming elections particularly in France and Italy (not to mention the US, Russia and the change at the head of the Chinese party) may add difficulties. There is no doubt that nothing will move on by referring to a magnified national past.  Indeed to try finding similarities with King Henri IV or Charles De Gaulle or promoting the purchase of national products as an industrial policy  won’t solve the issues of unemployment and won’t  help at all to alleviate a continental crisis. With no room for manoeuvre in terms of national fiscal policy, Member States isolated in their national corner will achieve nothing. They must admit that the European Union, which carries no debt, has to initiate a real intelligent stimulus package for the European economy as a whole. Obviously in front of the tremendous challenges to tackle (financial regulation, stimulus growth package, climate change), EU Member states would paradoxically strengthen their sovereignty only with a greater and shared European sovereignty. A European financial transaction tax, pooling a part of the debt through the means of Eurobonds and the launch of EU project bonds on green economic development with the help of the European Investment Bank are interesting possibilities debated many times in the European Parliament and in the European Commission.
 
To give back faith in European integration to citizens, you cannot base the path towards recovery solely on austerity measures affecting mostly the weakest or by fostering selfish nationalistic behaviours. The recession foreseen in 2012 would maybe bring our dear European governments to reasonable actions.

Follow the Generation 112 WebTV on Youtube: G112 TV

Find all the Euro-Zappings: click here

The current reform of the CFP is designed in a context of failure: 88% of fish stocks in European waters are overfished and most of them have difficulties to recover due to this overfishing. This is a straightforward assessment and there is many reasons to explain it.

QUOTAS AND BEYOND

The majority of stakeholders agree that the hyper-centralized mechanism of decision making has so far favored the short-term policy-making in favor of the fisheries sector rather than a global view which would also take into account environmental considerations.  Everyone has in mind the imae of European Ministers of fisheries competing for quota increase at the end of every year The CFP is reviewed by the Commission every ten years and the current reform proposals were published in July. It intends to implement an unprecedented re-decentralization of decision making in this area. Indeed, it would leave strategic decisions and policies at the European level, and transfer to a local level (not yet defined) the management of technical measures for an implementation more respectful of the diversity of contexts, methods of fishing and species fished.

Furthermore, to ensure stock recovery, the Commission proposed to adopt stricter quotas to support the inshore artisanal fishing and the more selective methods, to encourage research to improve the knowledge concerning our seas and develop fishing methods having a minor impact on the ecosystem, develop aquaculture, improve controls and reduce the overcapacity of European fishing vessels.

A final aspect to be considered in forming an opinion on this issue is the "external dimension" of the CFP. Europe is the largest consumer of seafood in the world. It imports nearly 75% of what it consumes. Fishing in Europe, including European vessels operating in international waters, is subject to the strictest regulations in respect of environmental, health rules, product traceability and rights of workers on board. However, products imported into the EU are not subject to the same or similar test as European products. This creates a situation of strong competition disadvantage for European producers, and it is often difficult to know what the consumer really has on his plate.

A COMPLEX REFORM

The great uncertainty of the negotiations on this reform is the position of the European Parliament. Indeed, the Members of the European Parliament will vote for the first time in co-decision on fisheries reform following the institutional changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. Rapporteurs for the various proposals of the "reform package" have just been appointed, and many events are organized in the Parliament on this subject. It is clear that the negotiations will be long and arduous.

The management of fisheries resources of the European Union must be made by consulting all stakeholders at all levels for a better understanding and application of standards for species conservation. The stock recovery will eventually be favorable for fishermen, who will have more resources to exploit. It appears that in this case the two main competing interests are the environmental interests and the interests of the extractive and aquaculture sector.  The consumers’ interest is unfortunately not taking too much into account. However, the sake of the key current issues on that topic lies in the hands of the consumers: are they going to be ready to pay the price of an environmental friendly fishing, health standards and strict traceability, or are they going to favor cheap importations with questionable origin sometimes? The Common Fisheries Policy asks the question of a society choice that European leaders will also face, in the future in, other areas.

Going through the analysis that the so called ‘Indignados’ undertake on the current situation of the EU feels somehow familiar. The claims on the democratic deficit of the Union and the lack of a real accountability are among the favorite topics to be discussed in the Brussels arena, be it in a brain packed classroom in some elitist institution or around a beer in one of the many city’s Brasseries.

It could not be otherwise: the two main mottos of the movement originated last March in Spain have for long been ‘They do not represent us’ and ‘We are not merchandise in the hands of bankers and politicians’. And, with a EU currently at the centre of all economic controversies and a growing popular detachment to the European cause, what better political entity to address their claims to than the Brussels headquarted Union?

And yet, neither is the message that the ‘Indignados’ send to the European Union a clear one, nor is the response of the institutions seen as a consistent reaction to their concerns. The Greek inspired popular assemblies meet the inscrutable European bureaucracy. A headless movement trying to encompass the voice of the ‘Polis’ meets a countless number of institutions, DGs, Agencies, Governments and Departments each claiming to represent 500 million of Europeans.

And it is in this atypical exchange of ideas, in the relationship the popular movement seeks (not) to establish with the Public Administration where the political interest of the phenomenon lies. As in a Greek tragedy, the members of the Chorus arrive to the Pantheon (Brussels) after long weeks of marching. There, they get all the attention of the ‘Archons’, eager to hear their proposals. They are received in the European Parliament, conferences and debates requiring their presence are organized, the European Commission puts forward the efforts of the Union to tackle the roots and consequences of the financial crisis (CDS regulation, reinforcement of the 2020 Strategy, the European Social Fund). They even get messages of sympathy from the two main actors of this European drama: Barroso and Van Rompuy ‘understand’ their ‘legitimate’ claims, but can do nothing about it, desolés.

One by one, the thespians in this tragedy turn towards the Chorus of anonymous citizens as if to ask ‘what do you want’. The response of the ‘Indignados’ is always the same: they want a real democracy, one that provides direct links and accountability between the politicians and the citizens. They want, as Schumpeter said, a European Union who strikes a real balance between the market and social policies. They want the institutions to act on the causes and effects of the financial crisis and to put an end to the desperate situation of many people around Europe. They want to know who does what and why. They want to choose who does what and why. They are not interested in doing politics, they are the polis and want their elected representatives to do their job. And how? That is up to them, but always on the premise of working for the citizens and not for the markets.

What the ‘Indignados’ want from the European Union is, in sum, not different from what they have been defending on the streets of Madrid, Rome, New York or Melbourne. No concrete proposals are presented because this has never been the intention of the movement. In turn, neither can be the European Union’s response any different from those expressed by the rest of Public Administrations around the world. No specific actions tackling the popular claims have been presented; no Route Plans, no set of solutions have been put together, arguably because in order to address the main concerns expressed in Sol and beyond, the system would need to experiment a Copernican turn not likely to be taken in the near future. What, in fairness, is not (at least, not only) the fault of the EU. But neither is the fault of the million people who have seen their life style and hopes drastically deteriorated since the financial crisis began.

Whether the actors in this piece will come to a common understanding and whether the citizen’s Choir will be able to influence the way decisions are taken in the heart of the European Union, only time will tell. Until then, a growing murmur spreads around in the audience ‘Silence, the people has talked’.

Choir exits left towards backstage. The curtain closes.

In that tough period where the financial power of the EU member states is weakened by the sovereign debt crisis, and knowing that the EU budget is highly dependent on national contributions, is there a risk to have a shrinking EU budget for the next financial period 2014-2020?
Nobody can tell what the outcome of the negotiations on the next financial framework (MFF 2014-2020) will be. For one thing, it requires unanimity between the 27 Member States and since it covers every aspect of the EU policies, you can imagine that this calls for compromises. Having said that, under our proposal the next MFF would represent a mere 1% of the 27 Member States' GNI, I don't think this means a big EU budget. For me, the key will be how Member States will present it to their respective national audience; of course, if they present the future EU budgets as some "lost money" rather than as an investment for 27 countries and half a billion Europeans, then their task will be difficult.
 
But one should keep a few facts in mind: first, though most Member States have to face the consequences of overspending in previous years, we cannot assume that the crisis will go on for ten years or so, we must adopt a financial framework for the post crisis period, that is a framework that grows as Member States' GNI finances will improve; second, remember that less than 6% of the EU budget remains in "Brussels", for the functioning of the EU institutions; therefore over 94% of the EU budget goes back to Europe's regions, citizens and businesses. Finally, I would like to stress that for the period 2000-2010: national budgets in the EU grew by 62% whereas the EU budget grew by only 37%...
 
 
How to solve the crisis equation: spending reduction and austerity on the one hand, and growth and employment on the other hand?
It is not an easy situation. The Commission fully recognizes that our new financial perspective is being born in times of serious financial and economic crisis. But because of the current crisis we must invest today for tomorrow's growth. If you look at the budgets of national members, they too sensibly avoid cutting in areas that boost growth and innovation.  For the EU budget, the key is to focus on those investments where one euro spent at EU level is worth more than if spent at national level. One example is the Connecting Europe Facility with €50 billion for transport, energy and ICT project; the idea behind it is to create "connectors" between all our Member States to enable smoother and more efficient movements of goods across the EU but also to connect us to each other in the field of energy and Internet broadband. Another example is the €80bn we propose to invest in research and innovation; clearly it is better for our scientists to work together whenever possible, to avoid duplication and gaps that are unavoidable if 27 Member States invest in innovation without looking at what is being done across their border.
 
 
The issue of own resources for the EU have been on the table for a while. Do you think that the EU member states will accept to create such resources like the financial transaction tax or the European VAT for example?
At first sight, this is immensely difficult: taxation issues require unanimity between the Member States plus ratification by each Member according to their national rules. Many forecast that it will be impossible to have the 27 Member States agree on that issue. However that is not as straightforward. As already stated, the MFF proposal is so wide that compromises between Member States will be needed; one can imagine that an agreement on the EU budget's future resources be reached through linking that issue with others.
 
At the end of the day, the current system of resources is amazingly complex, opaque and not fair to all. Furthermore, Member States complain that the EU budget costs them too much. Fair enough, therefore we suggest two new resources that will enable us to lower the Member States' contributions (over 70%) to the EU budget while making the system simpler, more transparent and fairer.
Finally, let me add two crucial elements: the EU budget has always had resources from taxation, there is no revolution here! Also, 10 Member States already have a financial transaction tax in one shape or another, including Britain, and that has not led to any losses; why would a pan EU tax, set at a very low level (0.01% for certain transactions), have negative repercussions then?
 
 
How would be spent this new resources? If we read all the statements on this topic, it feels that the money has been spent ten times already.
 That is for the EU Member States and the European Parliament to decide! We have put our proposal on the table; we suggest that part of the revenue of a financial transaction tax be dedicated to feeding the EU budget in order to reduce Member States' contributions, now it is for them to decide what to do with it.
 
 
What are the next steps for the 2014-2020 budget and how will the other EU institutions be involved?
It takes 12-18 months to agree on the legal bases for all the multi-annual programmes and projects which will be financed under the MFF, in areas such as research, education, cohesion, development aid, neighbourhood policy etc. In order to allow these programmes to start in January 2014, a political agreement on the ceiling in the MFF should be taken no later than one and a half year before the framework enters into force. Furthermore, the political agreement will need to be translated into a Council Regulation requiring the consent of the European Parliament.
 
The Polish Presidency of the Council (second half of 2011) kick-started the negotiations in the Council and did a very good job. Now comes the time for the Danish presidency to tackle the issue.
 
According to the Lisbon Treaty the Council's position must be adopted at unanimity, then the European Parliament can either agree to the whole package or to reject it. Of course, the Council associates the Commission and the European Parliament to its process to adopt a position. As for the other EU institutions and the main stakeholders, they have each made their views known during the consultation period and we keep a close contact with them. I personally meet representatives of Europe's businesses and regions for instance to listen to their concerns.

How will the new Common Fisheries Policies (CFP) deal with the environmental concerns and the preservation of the biodiversity?
Sustainability is at the heart of the proposed reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy. We should have in mind that today in European Union we have three out of four fish stocks overexploited. At the same time, the catches are only a fraction of what they used to be in the nineties and still dipping year after year. So, what we need is healthier and sustainable fish stocks and a maximum economic return for fishing communities. To achieve these tasks we had to go through a deep reform of our Common Fisheries Policy and afford to manage each fish stock in such a way that we can get maximum financial gains while still keeping the stock sustainable.
 
The new Common Fisheries Policy aims in making sure that by 2015 we will make the most of our catches safely in a sustainable way. Fishing in a sustainable way means that we have to define and respect the Maximum Sustainable Yield for each stock and for each fishing field. Implementation of the ecosystem approach, which will replace the single-species management plans by fishery-based plans, will be of great importance for this task. But we cannot work effectively towards this ambitious reform if we do not have proper scientific research and advice. We also need scientists for the modernization of the fishing fleet and fishing methods, eg for the development of the appropriate fishing gears which achieve the capture of certain stocks and at the same time reduce by-catches.
 
What is a top priority in our new Common Fisheries Policy is to eliminate discards, i.e. the throwing of unwanted fish overboard. This is a one way route to protect valuable fish resources and oblige vessels owners to land all their catches. And of course we need the active involvement of all those involved (decision makers, fishermen, coastal populations, retailers, consumers and taxpayers) who will be enabled by the new tools we have put on the table to play their part in decision-making which concerns them.
 
 
At the same time how can we deal with social concerns and the preservation of an important economic sector? Is it possible to avoid an opposition between these two concerns?
If things do not change, in future we will loose jobs for good, and not only among fishermen: the processing industry, transport, port infrastructures, auctions and retailers will be equally affected. What we need is healthier and sustainable fish stocks. Only then can there be a maximum economic return for fishing communities. Seamen in general and fishermen in particular, often operate in harsh working conditions in order to perform their job and earn a living. Work as a fisher is a high-risk and often insufficiently rewarded profession, which however is very important to both EU economy and food supply. In light of the adverse conditions under which fishers work it is clear that in order to recruit and retain fishermen, we have no choice but to render the profession more attractive than it currently is, by making the profession safer, modernized and better remunerated.
 
I understand that the transition to the new regime can be difficult for some fishing communities. So, I have put forward a new funding mechanism for fisheries and maritime policy, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. This new fund will finance our new EU maritime and fisheries policy towards social cohesion, environmental sustainability, smart growth and new jobs in coastal areas. An innovation is that the new proposed simplified framework for decision-making will allow the Member States to devise their own fisheries management regime according to the needs of their own regional specificities with the help of the industry itself!
 
 
The quotas are one of the main issues of the reform. How do you plan to implement a fair reform in this respect?
To bring the number of fishing vessels in line with existing fishing opportunities, the new CFP includes the introduction of transferable fishing concessions incorporating a number of safeguards in order to avoid negative side effects. This will be a system of transferable catch shares, known as 'concessions', which will be introduced as from 2014 for vessels over 12 metres long and all vessels using towed gear. Based on agreed principles at EU level the concessions will be distributed by Member States in a transparent way and will grant their owners an entitlement to a share of the national fishing opportunities for each year. Operators will be able to lease or trade their concessions within their Member state, not between Member states. The concessions will have a minimum validity of 15 years but can be recalled before expiry in case of serious infringement by the holder. Member States may create a reserve and introduce a fee for the concessions.  This new system will give the fishing industry a long-term perspective, more flexibility and greater accountability, while at the same time will contribute to reduce overcapacity of fishing fleet. Operators will have an incentive to increase their concessions while others may decide to leave the industry. It is predicted that incomes could rise by over 20% and crew wages by between 50% and over 100% by 2022 under this system.
 
 
It appears that the stocks from our seas are not sufficient to feed Europe, and that we need importations. How could we solve this problem?
When the resource fished in our waters is not sufficient then we need to ensure seafood resources from imports on the one hand, but also from aquaculture. The EU, being the world's largest importer of fisheries products must act abroad as at home, hence the external fisheries policy must be an integrated part of the Common Fisheries Policy. In international and regional organisations, the EU will therefore advocate the principles of sustainability and conservation of fish stocks and marine biodiversity as well as the social and employment rights and of course the sanitary requirements applied in EU for safety food. And of course we will establish alliances and undertake actions with key partners to combat illegal fishing and reduce overcapacity.
 
For aquaculture we will enhance the increase of production and supply of seafood that becomes from aquaculture activities in the EU, thus boosting growth in coastal and rural areas. There is a really great potential for the further development of aquaculture in the EU. By 2014, Member States will draft national strategic plans to remove administrative barriers and uphold environmental, social and economic standards for the farmed-fish industry.
 
I believe that our new Common Fisheries Policy will ensure our fish for the future and revive the viability and prosperity of the EU coastal communities.

New step towards a greater financial regulation, continuation of research on Nuclear energy and the Durban world conference
 
What did we learn from last plenary session? Despite the rising opposition against nuclear energy in Europe the EP has voted for the continuation of nuclear research and therefore rejected a call to phase out from nuclear energy.

We also try to understand what is the position of the EU few weeks before the world conference on climate change in Durban.

And then we focus again on economic issues: after the implementation of three European authorities to monitor financial, banking and insurance markets in 2010 by the Commission and the European Parliament, after a push of the EP for a financial transaction tax last spring, while it kept on advocating the implementation of Eurobonds, a new step towards financial regulation has been reached by the MEPs during last plenary session. They voted indeed for short selling limitations as a way of curbing speculation on a country default through Credit default swaps (CDS), adopting the first European regulation in that field.
 
To debate about all those topics, we had the pleasure to welcome Doru Frantescu from votewach.eu
 

Watch your EP is recorded within the European Parliament in Brussels and presented by Anne-Sophie Michel and Arezki Yaïche

Watch your EP - Podcast

Watch your EP - the Webradio of Generation 112

Let’s get back on the MDP issue, the acronym of the European food aid scheme for the most deprived persons. Launched in 1987 when Coluche turned up at the European Parliament, and put into place by the socialist President of the European Commission Jacques Delors, this program was built around a simple but effective idea: Take the surplus stock from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and redistribute it to the poor through food banks.
 
When these surpluses disappeared with CAP reforms, the Commission replaced this support in kind with financial assistance, which in 2011 was around € 500 million and benefited over 13 million people.
 
LEGAL GROUNDS V. MORAL GROUNDS
 
Six European countries headed by Germany, have denounced this practice, which had no "legal basis", in other words, that went beyond the mandate granted by the law. Ignoring the disastrous political message, the Court of Justice of the EU was seized in order to resolve the dispute. In politics, for some, legal grounds take precedence over  moral grounds.
 
Not surprisingly, the Court questioned the practice of the European Commission to "subsidize" food banks. Weeks of indignation, negotiations, criticisms, endless discussions, and pressures have led, as usual, on November 14, to a poor compromise: a continuation of the MDP until the end of 2013, the time to find an alternative, which, according to Germany, should be set up by Member States.
 
A EULOGY
 
This is where the case takes a new turn. Germany demands in return for this agreement that the MDP is removed on January 1st, 2014, and that the management of  food aid to the poor is delegated to the Member States. And the highlight of the show comes from the German Minister of Agriculture, Ilse Aigner, with her statement that: "It must be very clear: from January 1st, 2014, there will be no social policy at the European level ".
 
Beyond the disastrous political message, the removal of one of the few concrete social actions of the European Union is a deplorable political orientation Germany intends to give to Europe, making out that European social policy is a gadget that we could do without.
 
In these times of crisis, social protests, calling into question of the European project, our leaders would do well to stop building up this community religion of the “AAA” and sacrificing on its altar one of the last hints of social policy in Europe.

The European institutions are currently working on the design of the next regional policy for 2014-2020. What are the main priorities for this period?

At a time when public money is scarce and when growth-enhancing investment is more needed than ever, the Commission has put forward key changes to regional policy, which are currently debated by the European Parliament and the member states. These proposals reflect a long and complex process of preparation and consultation with the member states, regions and other stakeholders throughout Europe. They offer solutions for dealing with the current economic, financial and societal challenges.
 
As it stands, the European Commission has proposed a budget for regional and cohesion policy of 336 billion Euro for the next period of seven years. In the face of the economic crisis; we must achieve more without a budget increase, by spending wisely. This means a policy which is both more ambitious and more effective, with stronger governance and a streamlined delivery system to reduce bureaucracy for beneficiaries.
 
Strengthening our focus on Europe 2020 goals is a key driving principle of future regional policy. More developed regions will need to primarily focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy (20% of their total allocation), the competitiveness of new small companies and innovation. Less developed regions will be able to choose a wider range of objectives. Here we will maintain flexibility, rather than adopting a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Regions will continue to develop investment strategies adapted to their specific needs, helping them fulfil their potential to deliver growth and jobs.
 
We also aim to reinforce performance by introducing new conditions and incentives to ensure that EU funding helps Member States to deliver Europe 2020 objectives and targets. We want to see funds being spent where the regulatory and physical contexts are right, where the effectiveness of the investments is not going to be undermined by known bottlenecks. We also want to make the release of additional funds contingent on performance.
 
To encourage performance and results, we propose to set aside 5% of the budget, which will at the mid-term review be allocated to those regions which are doing best at reaching their individual targets, which will be written down in a partnership contract with every region at the outset of the new financial programming period.
 
Finally, the proposals include an integrated approach to community-led local development, which facilitates integrated investment by small communities including local authorities, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and economic and social partners.
 

The regional policy was created with solidarity purposes, in order to close the gap between the poorest regions and the richest ones. Now that the eastern regions are catching up, what is the next step?

The historical goal of regional policy was to reduce the differences between regions, especially in terms of relative wealth. While this goal has been achieved to a certain extent – for example, from 2000-2006, with the support of EU regional policy, the newer Member States have experienced a 5 % climb in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita – differences do persist, even within these countries, and many regions are still 'catching up'. In acknowledgement of this, we have introduced the category of 'transition regions', to provide the right kind of investment framework for those regions which are between 75 and 90 % of the EU GDP average. We must continue to support member states to take measures to tackle regional differences; such as through the strengthening of their administrative capacity, and the improvement of the transparency, accountability and legitimacy of decision-making.
 
In the meantime also, regional policy must implement strategies to achieve overall EU goals, such as Europe 2020. This only works if all regions can invest in goals like innovation, reducing CO2 emissions and research, to fight poverty, to improve employment rates, to increase the rate of renewable energies and to increase the level of educational attainment. Europe 2020 can only be implemented if the whole of Europe is actively involved.


The European Commission is planning to implement a system of conditionality which could result in the suspension of cohesion policy support if a member state has an excessive budget deficit. What do you answer to those who say that it is an unfair and inefficient proposal?

It is of increased importance that we establish a closer link between regional policy and the economic governance of the Union, in order to ensure that the effectiveness of EU investment is underpinned by sound economic policies and that EU funds can, if necessary, be redirected to address the economic problems a country is facing. This process has to be gradual and proportional, starting with amendments to programmes.
 
Where, despite the enhanced use of EU funds, after repeated warnings a member state fails to take effective action in the context of the economic governance process, the Commission should have the right to suspend all or part of the payments and commitments. Let me stress that this is a last recourse measure, as our policy aims to prevent drastic economic situations. It is a last recourse measure, which then would be applied in a proportionate and effective way, ensuring equal treatment.
 
Also, any suspensions would be lifted and funds be made available again if the member state concerned takes the necessary action


The debate on the financial perspectives for 2014-2020 is not over, and some countries are advocating a reduction of the regional policy budget. How do you feel about this claim?

We have the Europe 2020 Strategy, which has been drawn up at the request of all EU member states, and which needs to be implemented. Regional policy will be the tool, the key instrument, to ensure that the strategy will be realised on the ground. In order to do so, you need the right kind of budget. I think the proposal of the European Commission takes this into account and foresees the right amount to invest wisely, taking the budgetary constraints of member states into account as well.

Follow the Generation 112 WebTV on Youtube: G112 TV

Find all the Euro-Zappings: click here

Dear diary,

Popularity can not be bought. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have done their best to push me to the front of the stage. They made me a figure of British politics. 2005 and 2006 were good years, as I was elected Minister and Politician of the year. I really believed I was going places, first, with national positions in London and then with an international stature in Brussels by becoming Commissioner, in 2008. I was really confident! And at last a woman, British, no less, with an important position within the EU, in the Trade field. What a beautiful story! But since my appointment to my current position of High Representative for Foreign Policy, I am only facing sarcasm. Not competent, not enough on the field, not charismatic ... But they chose me for the job...

My spokesman Michael told me that I have missed the turning point of the 2.0 Internet, that social networks were the key. But my team still refuses to create me a fan page on Facebook. I have a sort of page that contains my wikipedia bio, but the number of people who like this page decreases day after day. Until recently they were 175, now 108 and it does not get any better. I have tried to be clever with three identical pages by changing my name or titles, but without any success. Why it does not work while the others are successful? I am not sure Van Rompuy has more charisma than me, but 3357 people have clicked on the "Like" button on his page.

I am not even authorized to be on Twitter... My team said no. What are they afraid of? Then they created an account named eu_eeas ("eu" for European Union and "eeas" for the European external action service - my own diplomatic service) but I do not have the password. Who do they think I am? As if I was constantly making blunders ... It happens of course, but not more than the average guy... I feel stifled and it does not help my popularity, especially as Tony and Gordon are gone and Cameron constantly says bad things about me in London.

Maybe I will have the right to have a Google + account, it seems nice, with the circles and stuff ... Otherwise if Cameron kicks me out, I'll have to sign up on LinkedIn to find a job. Or maybe I could reactivate my MSN account. It seems that it’s coming back into fashion among those who are nostalgic for the 1990s.

Why were the elections of October 9th 2011 that significant? There are at least 3 main points to mention, beside the fact that it’s the first time in post-communist Poland that a political party, which led the country for the last 4 years, is winning a successive term.
 
THE PHENOMENON OF PALIKOT AND HIS MOVEMENT
 
First of all, Janusz Palikot’s Movement (Ruch Palikota) emerged as the third most powerful party in the new Parliament. With its 10% of the votes, the anti-clerical, leftist, liberal party, which has been officially established only 1 year before the most recent elections, is foreshadowing the emergence of a new trend in Polish political culture. “In 10-15 years, Palikot’s Movement will take over the power” – tells Gazeta Wyborcza professor Janusz Czapiński, a sociologist at the University of Warsaw. Is this really possible in a country which for a long time has been identified as a nation of devout Catholics? In fact, the current socio-political reality in Poland seems to welcome the political and cultural change started Palikot – a controversial politician, accused by the opposition of being an anticlerical modern populist of middle class.

According to a recent sociological research entitled “Diagnoza społeczna 2011” (Societal Diagnosis 2011), the percentage of Polish citizens declaring themselves as Catholics, who are regularly participating in the Sunday mass, is drastically falling. At the beginning of the 90’s, it was around 13% of the Polish citizens who did not go to church. At the beginning of a new century – that number rose to 26%. Today – it is 33%, so in 10-15 years it will be half of the population. These figures give Palikot, or someone Palikot-like, the perfect chance to take the lead. Described by the Economist as the “exuberant vodka tycoon”, and considered by the Polish Catholic Church representatives as the black sheep of the political scene, Janusz Palikot, throughout his campaign, has been calling for taxation of the Church, liberalization of laws for gay marriage and abortion, and legalization of marijuana. Among the most significant and controversial  figures of Palikot’s party one will find: Robert Biedroń – one of the leading gay figures in the Polish public life actively taking part in campaigns fighting sexual minority discrimination, and Anna Grodzka – the first transsexual representative to bear a parliamentary mandate in the history of Poland.
After a series of scandals involving the leader of the third most powerful party in the lower chamber of the parliament (“Sejm”), what Poland now wants is to see the powerful Palikot figure that would not be all about controversy. After an inauguration of his mandate with the “cross wars” (Palikot called for the removal of any religious symbols from the parliamentary building), it’s high time to attack the burdensome bureaucracy significantly stifling foreign investment into the country. Although the Polish economy has been praised by international analysts as the only one in Europe that avoided recession in the aftermath of the global crisis, there is still a lot to be done, especially before the 2012 Euro Championship - a great chance that Poland cannot afford to miss.
 
THE LEFT… COMPLETELY LEFT OUT INDEED
 
Secondly, the outcomes of the last elections were the most dramatic for the left wing parties. Since 1989, the Democratic Left Alliance (“Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej”) has not received such a small amount of votes as in the last elections. A drop in the percentage of supporters might have been caused by the activity of Janusz Palikot, who seems to have stolen some votes from the post-communist left party. However, putting 100% of blame on the leader of the new libertarian, or as some say – “extreme left”, would be more than not fair.

Palikot was indeed the revelation of the most recent elections, yet it was the inactivity of SLD’s managing team which was the main reason of one of the most notable political failures in the past two decades. Before a country-wide convention of the SLD will meet on December 10^th, Leszek Miller – the new head of the SLD parliamentary group  (also the former Prime Minister between 2001 and 2004) has ordered all of the local party structures to conduct a census of its members.  According to the last official census which took place in 2003, The Democratic Left Alliance was composed of an army of 90 thousand members. Today, according to Gazeta Wyborcza, that number can slightly exceed 58 thousand. Where were all of these activists during the campaign? How is it possible that a party exceeding Civic Platform in the number of its members (Donald Tusk is leading a party with around 50 thousand members), has received the smallest share of votes in its history (receiving electoral support from 1,1 million voters)?                                                                                            
As SLD members are counting down the days till the 10^th of December, the future of the left wing in Poland remains one of the hottest topics of  these days. Although some were seriously hoping for Aleksander Kwaśniewski – the former president – to magically revive the dying hopes of the leftist activists, it seems to be doubtful whether the “caviar” party (as Ryszard Kalisz, parliamentarian, member of SLD - has described his political party) can do magic in a country, where the current purchasing power does not allow citizens to buy caviar, unless it is the artificial one.
 
NO COUNTRY FOR OPPOSITION
 
Several weeks have passed already since parliamentary elections, yet no radical changes can be seen yet on the horizon. Journalists and observers of the political scenes are growing impatient, waiting for Donald Tusk to initiate a wave of political changes promised during the electoral campaign. No wonder no one has seen any changes yet – the Prime Minister has still not decided how his future cabinet will look like. As Donald Tusk is procrastinating with the final recruitment, the opposition led by Jarosław Kaczyński (leader of Law and Justice) seems to be falling apart. Janusz Janicki (a journalist of a weekly magazine “Polityka”) has dared to say that the opposition has not been so week in years. The second greatest political power in the recent elections has basically given up participation in the Polish political scene after results of the elections have become known.

It looks like Kaczyński will have to practice loosing the game first, if he really wants to come back into the play and continue the “heritage of his brother”   - former president of the Republic of Poland who died in an airplane crash on the Russian territory on the 10.04.2010) – as he repeated over and over again during his campaign. Meanwhile, the party seems to grow more and more divided as a result of an internal dispute between the so called supporters and enemies of Zbigniew Ziobro – the former Minister of Justice. Ziobro’s euro- parliamentarian mandate has distanced him from the national political arena during the past 2 years (since elections in 2009). The recent elections have brought him back home, even at the price of neglecting some of his duties in Brussels, yet the story did not have a happy ending. Jarosław Kaczyński seemed to be deliberately ignoring his party colleague, and as if it were not enough – refusing him the right to speak at the party’s recent official gatherings.  This seek-and-hide game, ended abruptly with the revocation of Ziobro’s party membership, seemed to make perfect sense though. Zbigniew Ziobro, a once popular Law and Justice party member, making regular hot appearances in the headlines, may have been cherished way too much in the eyes of Kaczyński. The nature of Law and Justice does not allow plurality of leadership. Kaczyński, often named by his partisans as “prezes” (CEO or director), is actually acting as the only party head. Although the king is still guarding his post on the throne, he seems to have misplaced the crown. Law and Justice is not only lacking internal unity, but it’s lacking a more general, more abstract vision of where the country should be heading to.
 
WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT OF THOSE ELECTIONS IN EUROPE?
 
The victory of Donald Tusk has been regarded by European leaders and commentators as a chance to achieve political stability in Poland’s international affairs - at least for the next 4 four years. Deutsche Welle suggested on the day of elections that Kaczyński’s history of “inflammatory remarks” (as for example the ones cautioning his compatriots against “German imperialism”) make Donald Tusk - a sensitive politician understanding “the complexity and historical context” – a much more suitable leader for the position of the Prime Minister of one of the EU member countries. Besides more friendly ties with foreign countries’ leaders, Donald Tusk also provides the West with the minimum guarantee of continuing the modernization of the country in close relation with European Institutions. Poland is the country obtaining the biggest benefits coming from the EU funds – EUR 67 billion to be spent in the period between 2006 and 2013. The modernization efforts which have been taken so far, however, don’t seem to satisfy a nation that has been waiting 20 years to see highways.

The dynamics of infrastructural works, especially before the Euro 2012 Football championship, needs to be stepped up. At the moment, when the first highways are being built, their users are asked to pay 20 groszy (5 euro cents) for every kilometer they drive in a car, and 10 groszy - in a motorbike. Taking into account the average Polish salary, this amount is definitely too high. The Polish, polarized society, deserves mush more than a country developing luxurious, inaccessible facilities, which will leave the average citizen on the brink of poverty. In the end, it seems that “gradual but stable” reforms promised by Donald Tusk will need a reform themselves, just like the economy - still fighting to meet the convergence criteria in order to have green light for entering the eurozone.