Poland in the making

20 years ago the Berlin wall fell. Or actually the citizens of GDR heard in the radio that they can now cross the border and claimed their right. Was it a revolution? In the European sense it was the high point of a wave started in Poland and Hungary, under the wind of change blowing from the East.

So where are we 20 years later? I just read a short interview with the Polish new Commissioner - Lewandowski. And it is the first time I hear that the EU budget should not only redistribute but bring dynamism to Europe. I am not sure if the French agriculture got the message but a new revolution is on the doorway. EU as a source of dynamism, not the stabilisation of agriculture public anger.

And then I read a story about the girls from Polish public agriculture companies (PGR) who try their chance in Warsaw. Thanks to EU money they manage to leave the villages of malaise, alkoholism and marital violence (sorry to all those who live there without falling into any of these psychological traps). They stay in Caritas house managed by the church in Warsaw. And you see how the nouns try to educate the young girls: teaching how to keep clean, making sure they feel the inferiority due to their background. 'White stripes' in the Polish context. And when you read this, then you know that Europe cannot turn its back on those forgotten in the hinterland. True- direct payments do not solve this issue. But still most of the Polish peasants (agriculture guys) are below the lower quarter of the French or German bauers.

Poland is still very 'peasant' in its thinking. We cherish resentiments which explain our poverty. We do not like the Germans because they invaded us and are cold, obedient and distant. The communism taught us that the state is a place to claim from not contribute. But time is working to our benefit. Many Poles have left Poland during the XX century and their offspring made their lives anew. They climb the ranks of ex-colonial empires. Many Poles got rich during the last 20 years and as part of becoming to the new elite their learn English, travel the world and aspire to be part of the Europeans. And the arriere-Poland has its chance too. Working in Leroy Merlin, Tesco, body-building gyms and new beauty salons. I hope that the next Polish transformation (the cultural one) will be less violent than the one we undergone in 1989-90.

Do we get anything about the EU? Me not!

By reading a provoking article about the state of Polish Universities I came across a very interesting University: The New School of Social Research which is located in New York. I looked at the type of classes they have and I realised how heterogenity of students and their interests make a vibrant community.
I am afraid that most of those studying the EU fall back to finding a single history of why all this happened. Of course there are federalists... but they only claim what is the end game- a federation of states/regions etc. There are functionalists, who say that we did it because we needed. There are realists who say that actually nature is not changing. They claim that states always existed and they have always pursued state interests... There are liberal intergovernmentalist who start depicting the rules of negotiations and the rational decision making. And at the very end we have politicians who write their biographies and depict the life as they remember it/or they want to be remembered.

So why we have direct elections to the European Parliament... I have not read a profound analysis of this break in politics in 1976 (it was decided then). What are the unintended consequences of the establishment of the Convention in Laeken? What was the mindset of the first Secretary General of the Commission? Did he perceive the role of administration according to ENA standards or was closer to the Dutch approach?

After all my studies I see an enormous gap in looking at all the European organisations jointly: Council of Europe, OECD, OECE, NATO. I understand that in 2009 the EU overshadows all the other phora. But how was it in the fifties, sixties?

And we fail to realise the huge complexity of interest formation and articulation within the governments and between them. I must say I know only one eye opening book about integration written by Philipe de Schouteete-a long serving member of COREPER. He does not depict history; he writes about ideas and their incarnations. And when he writes about these ideas, he shows the extremes and the full spectrum in between. OK, I agree I should read the Memoirs of Delors.
I was hoping that somebody (or me) will write one day a huge narrative about the European Union; a narrative which shall clarify who did what and when and with what objective. This would be exactly the story that nation states created to justify their claim to power and control. I understand that this needs to be deconstructed. But maybe we just should not have a new great narrative which will replace the existing ones. Cause then in becomes a religion....

Ok, I need to read more about the school in New York and maybe one day apply to join it. There is nothing more enthusiastic than an opportunity to challenge our mindset with creative people with different backgrounds. Maybe we, the funtionaires, take it to easy to be the guardians of the treaties and Commission spirit. Maybe we should be more challenging?

I think I should read more Weber about administration and bureacratisation of society. So my next post should be about the impact of new communication technologies on the XIX century administration.... Or actually the concepts continues the old French concept.... we the administrators, they --- les administre (please add the accent above the last e).

So the king is naked. European integration despite all the flags, speeches and anathems is an object which should be scrutinised without piety. Let's show the notions in the heads of the directors. Let's show what the promotion mechanisms are; who gets the Commission jobs and for what reasons. And let's show the aculturation of Commissioners- did they change after serving their term... Or they are statist actors as realists claim.

I wrote a Ph.D. about it and I still know nothing.

looking beyond the current affairs

The last 2 months made me quite fed up with the European politics. Don't you have an impression that everything falls on one piece of hair? Barroso nomination, Irish referendum, the psyche of Mr Kaczynski and Klaus, Constitutional Courts. I had an impression of a soap opera when everyday the life of the main character is hanging desperately on a piece of information or the right set of street lights.
This is definetely bad taste. The Americans had a long preparation for elections. Primaries building up the pressure. Big or no so big debates. The final voting and Obama walking in the hall of fame.
The Europeans will finish with somebody taken out of a hat. And Mr Milliband refuses to become the Foreign Minister... unlike Ms Clinton who almost made it to be in the ruling seat.
You will say that the two systems are not comparable. You are right.
You will say that the European drama is of different kind. That we have just concluded the longest negotiations in history. We started by negotiating the Maastricht treaty in 1990 and we finish 2009 with a new set of institutions. So maybe indeed everything started with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the 20 years of changes were needed to work out a sensible compromise. So what we really miss is the historical perspective.
Anyway who remembers that George Washington was not really the strongest speech maker.... He laid foundations to the US. There was no Federal Reserve during his time etc.
We did it the other way round. First we build a central bank, than we chose the President (of the European Council).
Maybe this November is too grey. I miss the perspective. I am in the middle of my 30ties so why should I have it?
Peter Ludlow was actually very optimistic about the state of the Union. I want to believe that he is right. So let's forget the bickering over the name of the first President and let's cherish the moment... No more referenda in front... Hmmm- there are Interinstitutionals Agreements to be seen to.
Shitmerde.... I do not want negotiations all the time. I want a vision.
Change, we can. Preside we can. Draft communicates we can. Joining working lunches we can. I am fed up with diplomacy. I want something that the pupils in schools can learn and grasp. Be it van Rompuy.

The European sense of guilt

I have read today an article in a Polish newspaper under a significant title 'Waiting for the Barbarians'. The author talks about a recent book of Christopher Caldwell „Reflections on the Revolution in Europe". And a very interesting notion is about the Europe whose main reason of political action is the sense of guilt. Guilt for Holocaust (Jews), colonialism (Third World), discrimination (women, homosexuals). And this is right you would say. But actually when guilt is the source of our actions they not always leading to good results.
Many time I struggle to understand why we continue huge packages of development aid know that a big chunk of it finishes in the coffers of corrupt politicians. There are cases when development money turned an apparently functioning state (Ghana) into one driven by corruption. Only in 2000 we managed to come with a kind of benchmark - Millenium Developement Goals. So what were we doing before? Pumping money to keep dependence and pursue our political objectives? Probably partly so. But there is one issue which gets lost from this picture. The whole development sector, the insiders who profit so much from this neocolonial lifestyle and their priviliged roles in the African societies.
Of course there are plenty of people who come to development for ideological reasons and there really exist a lot of good projects. But my deep belief is that it can only function where there is face to face relation. I think that there are only few politicians who can sustain the pressure of easy money.
So what do I propose? I think that the EU should stop to be the biggest development donor in the world. We should rather provide European citizenship with tax deduction for all the money they give for charity. Let them finance projects that they deem beneficial. And we can use all the officials in DG DEV and AIDCO to better control Member States who want to pursue adverse economic policies against the developing countries. Maybe AIDCO should move in the direction of DG Competition... but this time we would talk about world unfair competition. Maybe this would be a better investment than in all the anti-immigration measures, border controlls etc. Policy coherence for development - this is what we try but rarely succeed. The name of the game is global governance.

Coming back to the sense of guilt - maybe it is time to admit that this feeling does not lead us far. A feeling of responsibility towards the future should become the guiding one.

So much, so good, so what? AD 2100

There is so much going on in the world. G20 shall meet in USA. Ireland is discussing about Lisbon treaty. Commission has lost a case for exceeding its rights in emission trading. China is buying energy sources around the world... they want to get rid of the dollars they gathered, before they lose value.

Still there is something missing in all these equations. All this noise about Lisbon, G20, Barroso cover something below. I think we should go back and read Marx and other sociologues. Not that I am a Marxist... coming from formerly Soviet Block I am far from this. I will be boring... we still have not learnt from the financial crisis. The cheap talk about cutting bankers bonuses hides a bigger problem: what is the role of finance in the current world?

I am looking for a new Keynes, somebody to put new founding blocks for economy. Somebody who would understand the financial markets and put them under social control. Somebody who would show the last 20 years (end of cold war) in the right perspective. BRICs- multipolar world... it is too much a repetition from the Saint League and Europe after the Napoleonic wars. The Iphone as a new Gutenberg revolution? Tempting but how strong is the link between power and communication. A new revolution - similar to the one of 1789 in Paris? American democracy seems too well embedded in the society.

What is the grand scheme, new pattern that would help us understand the new world post Lehman Brothers... Maybe it is time to go to China and see what is going on there? Or Iraq and Afghanistan are signs of the falling empire along the lines of the ancient Rome? Maybe I should start reading Arnold Toynbee and his study of civilisations. When do they fall? What triggers decline. Or XXI century will be the age of Islam?

Kalypso Nikolaidis in the Reflection Group is analysing different scenarios of the future. I suggest you have a look at this page 2100.org Maybe collectively we can be better in foreseeing the future than we used to have.

Irish campaign getting colours

Thanks to EUObserver I came across the leaflet distributed in Ireland by Freedom and Democracy Group of the EP. I must say this is the first time that I see a clear message about the European Union and what stands behind it.
I do not want to say that I would sign to this message and the information behind. Especially the data showing the loss of 'relative voting power in the EU Council' is unfounded showing that the Germany gains 100% while Ireland loses 50% (on the graph rather 60%). But let's not play a Commissioner here. The important is that there is a clear message behind. And a lot of mixed concepts that should be used for real debate/discussion/duel.
I am not sure if anybody on the YES side will be ready to stand up against the claims and beat down the arguments of NO camp.
Why? Because a lot of these messages are right. The problem is that they are exaggerated.
1. Does the EU want to enlarge to Turkey? Yes. It would not negotiate if it did not.
2. Will Ireland become a net contributor to the EU? I hope so given it is one of richest countries...
3. Is the cheaper workforce from the East a challenge to the jobs in Ireland. Of course, these are the rules of the competition.
4. Does the Commission want to establish a common corporate tax basis? Yes, to facilitate the life of business.
5. Is Europe becoming an empire? I think in some sense it already is. The question is what are the objectives and values of this block/federation/confederation. And how the power is controlled. I am not satisfied by the existing control standards.
6. Does the EU try to harmonise civil laws? Yes, as it results from the growing number of conflicts between national laws. Take a case of international marriages and divorces.
7. Do we trust politicians like Sarkozy and Barroso - surrounded by some Irish heads? I believe Sarkozy tries to realise his vision of France and Europe. As to Barroso- I do believe he works hard to lead the Commission in the direction he believes it should go. Do you know this direction? Frankly saying- I have not captured it. Probably I should go for a one month sabatical to study his 40 page programme.

So, would I vote yes to the Lisbon treaty? Does the Freedom and Democracy group have the right to publish some materials? What is really at stake in this referendum? What is the central question?

I think it should be put as follows: Are Irish people ready to support the EU integration process as described in the Treaty of Lisbon.
If yes, then Sarkozy, Barroso and Merkel have the right to continue along the existing lines.
If no, then the EU will have 2 questions to reply:
Do we want to continue integration as set in Lisbon Treaty without the Irish and other blocking nations? Or should we go back to the drawing board and redesign the integration process.

So the 2nd October might be the real date of EU meeting its fate. I will watch it with attention.

Barroso stays - good or bad news? The answer lies in BEPA.

So the Barroso renomination saga is getting to the end. All the signs seem to show that the Greens, Liberals, Socialists and Communist did not manage to agree how to block Mr Nicy. They forced him to have a Commissioner for human rights, split the Justice, Security and Home affairs dossier and put a single person for financial markets supervision. But they failed to sink him. He is like a big ship, with some flaws and leakages but still able to navigate. He wrote a very nice document which will not go down into history because nobody managed to find a nice phrase to caracterise his new vision. Actually Rassmussen even said that 95% of the new vision is already in the plans of the European Commission. So the re-election show did not satisfy the spectators.

But this show had its own rules. And the main rule is that you cannot really change the course of events untill you have a senior contender, somobody challenging Barroso for the presidency. And I think this should be a starting point of all discussions. That there are incumbents who want to retain their power. But in all democracies there are candidates who contest them. We did not have such during these elections to the EP. The Socialists have not manage to agree on one for various reasons. And their weakness should really in the spotlight of the discussions. I was thinking that economic crisis would naturally benefit the descendants of Karl Marx. But it did not. Actually it increased the support for nationalist solutions, those personalised in anti-European parties: British Nationalist Party, UK Independance Party and those which claim themselves Eurorealists - British Conservatives, Polish Law and Justice and the Czech ODS.

So we do not say it openly but the political scene in Europe is in a flux. The discussion about the causes and culprits for the financial crisis has not really started. We are still more curious if the crisis is over or not. But the sole searching should start quickly. And this will not be a discussion between the current Left and Right. I think this discussion will touch the basis of consumption society: relations between generations (pensions and climate change); relations between the West and the poorer rest of the world; role of financial services sector against the 'real' economy, the role of imagined communities.

I think the only political movement ready to approach these questions are the Greens. I saw recently the 'Baader Meinhof complex' and I see that the questions posed by the activists-terrorist are even more pertinent now. I think we need to approach the questions of gender and sexuality. And the role of the state cannot anymore be perceived through the lenses of post-war welfare state. XXI century will be no longer about nuclear containment and the trade unions. It will be about those have-nots which shall protest in different ways again who have.

And we should not forget that we are leaving the Gutenberg age and going to the Icon age. Time to go back to McLuhan and read about the role of media in societies. Not many link that the invention of print by Gutenberg in XVth century was followed by the thesis of Martin Luther and the Peasant's War in Germany. I think it depends on the political elites if we approach a new revolution or will address those who contest via political action.

So coming back to the original question about Barroso - is it a good or bed news? I would say that the problem with generals is they are always preparing for the wars which have been fought already. So if Barroso leadersip will be forward or backward looking - this is the question. It remains to be seen what will happen with the Bureau of European Political Advisors (BEPA) - the Forward Studies Unit of Jacques Delors. Evidently it failed with preparing for the financial crisis. If it fails next time, Europe will be in danger.