Speaking yesterday (4 November) at the opening ceremony of the College of Europe’s Bruges campus, European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek identified the creation of a European Energy Community as the next big vision for Europe.

“For some in the EU, energy policy is the fight against climate change, for others it is about energy security. It is both. Without energy security, and a comprehensive energy policy, we can not address climate change,” Buzek said.

“In March, the Council should accept a new plan on Europe’s energy policy which will deal with better transport and diversification of gas, both to and in the Union. But this is not ambitious enough,” the Parliament president stressed, referring to the EU’s Second Strategic Energy Review.

Buzek drew a comparison between the European situation in the aftermath of WWII and today’s necessity of relaunching Europe through a grand projet.

“In the 1950s, the European Coal and Steel Community was formed, giving joint control over coal, which was vital to the production of energy […] Today we need a new Schuman declaration, no longer because we fear war among ourselves, but because we need a new sense of solidarity in the production, purchase and consumption of energy,” he said.

According to the head of the EU assembly, the rationale of such a project lies in the creation of financial resources to create energy networks, increase interconnectivity, build gas and electric grids and augment diversification and investment in renewable sources. In such a scenario, “no member state can afford not to do it, but no state can afford to do it alone. This can only be done by sustained, European investments over the long term,” Buzek claimed.

“Energy is such an issue of national sovereignty that not all members will be willing to join at the start. But we must take a step forward and move on with those who are willing to join. It is time to consider pooling sovereignty over energy production,” he concluded.

The claim about the “totally alien form of justice” is just plain wrong … the erroneous belief that European forms of justice are somehow at fundamental variance with British traditions has gained some currency, and it creates entirely unnecessary unease.

As part of the Second World War settlement, this country was a key proponent of the European Convention of Human Rights. It was largely drafted by a British government lawyer, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, whose previous role had been British Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremburg war trials. It created an international treaty in which the basic rights already largely enshrined in British law were fundamental.

Subsequently, to its credit, the European Union has adopted the Convention as a condition of EU membership. [The author] should be grateful that access to the principles that he rightly wishes to protect has now been much more widely extended.

Barry Tempest, Dorchester and District Amnesty Group

In the Western Gazette, 5 November 2009

Michael Ignatieff, Leader of Canadian Liberal Opposition, quoted in interview with Charles Kennedy, The House Magazine, 21/9/09

“In Canada we have a deep, entrenched sense that we are a federal union in which there is, and must be, substantial powers to the provinces and even powers are not symmetrical. The provinces are equal, but not all provinces are the same.”

“We maintain the territorial integrity and sovereignty of federal states, the unity of states - and then we work out devolutionary and decentralising agreements. That’s a Canadian message. We’re in no position to tell anybody what to do, but we do think that’s been a good thing for us and that it’s a good way to go for other countries….”

“I do think the 21st century model is this complex mixture of federal unions that bolt down the sovereignty of national integrity and then allow substantial self-government. I’m very interested in how we keep models like the UN and the IMF going, and how make them work better. What is at stake is no less than the future of global government.”

“Poland believes that the European integration is the best response to challenges we face in a rapidly changing, multi-polar world. We don’t want the European Union to become a “super-state”, but we do want it to be more effective. We support building a more federal Union, which is able to play in global fields of competition as one of the strongest players. At the same time, we want a more democratic union. I am sure that a Union, which is able to take its fair share of responsibility for global affairs, is compatible with interests of the United States.”

…

“Poland is committed to uphold and further Europe’s alliance with the United States. Indeed, when it comes to security, we regard America as a European country. We advocate a permanent and active American presence in Europe be it political, military and economic. We see such presence as compatible with the advancement of European integration.”

Poland - Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, Radoslaw Sikorski, San Francisco, August 5, 2009, World Affairs Council of Northern California

“Are we content to see banks from other, especially small European, countries take deposits across the continent on the same basis as before? Increasingly, supervisors and governments in larger states are answering No. But what are the consequences of denying banks that right?

“In principle, we can imagine two solutions to the problem. One is to require all banks that wish to take retail deposits in another member state to establish separately capitalised subsidiaries, which would be supervised by the host country. Those subsidiaries would also contribute towards the costs of the local deposit protection scheme. Many other countries operate that kind of regime for foreign banks.

“The problem is that it would be a fundamental retreat from the concept of a single market and would be a serious constraint on the most effective use of bank capital in Europe at a time when capital is scarcer than ever.

“There is a logical alternative. It is to create a single European supervisory authority, at least for banks that wish to operate on a pan-European basis. It would, in a sense, be modelled on the federal charter approach of the US.”

…

“The advantages of the federal approach are clear. We could sustain the single market, underpinned by institutions that match the integration of financial firms. The political difficulties are equally apparent. At least until the Irish roadblock is removed, it is hard to see a European consensus emerging in favour of endowing new central agencies with powers now exercised by member states.”

…

“The French understood the problem, if they could not resolve it. They asked Jacques de Larosière to chair a group of wise folk and report to the Czechs in the spring. If anyone can find an elegant solution it will be him. It is important that he does, as otherwise 2009 could be the year in which the single market begins to unravel, an outcome we would all live to regret.”

From “Europe’s banks need a federal fix”, in the Financial Times, 14 January 2009. Sir Howard Davies is director of the LSE and formerly Chairman of the Financial Services Authority. Read the full article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5090d94-e18f-11dd-afa0-0000779fd2ac.html