*** DANIEL GUEGUEN: Comitologie. Le pouvoir européen confisqué. European Training Institute (57 rue Froissart, B-1040 Brussels. Tel: (32-2) 4007730 - fax: 7327525 - Email: info@e-t-i.be - Internet: http://www.e-t-i.be ). 2010, 71 pp, €10. ISBN 978-2-930586-00-7.
“This book is the history of an administration that had many great qualities but which turned in on itself, confiscated the power delegated to it by member states and organised itself in a way it saw fit, whilst neglecting the democratic control of the legislators, such as the Council and the Parliament - which must remain Masters of the Union -subject to the decisions of an administration that had become the dominating force” … During the 25 years he spent in some of Europe's capitals, Daniel Guéguen developed a reputation as a competent lobbyist with integrity. His mastery of the Community decision-making channels is borne out in the way in which he identifies, in this book (also published in English under the title of “Comitology. Hijacking European Power?” ISBN 978-2-930586-01-4), the foundations and modalities contained within the very obscure committee meeting procedures. Nevertheless, in these pages, it is less of the expert who does the talking, than the European citizen. In this case, the European citizen is both a concerned and fairly outraged democrat, who takes matters to task in a caustic style. What do the committee procedures created in 1962, developed in the reforms of 1987, 1999 and July 2006 essentially consist of? What do the “execution measures” conferred by the member states to the Commission correspond to? Do committee procedures themselves introduce a hidden power into the Union? Why do the Member States leave so many powers to the Commission and grant it, during the reforms programmed for 2010, “ the right to further extend the parameters of its quasi-legislative powers, in keeping with its goal”? These are some of the questions the author seeks to provide answers to, not from the point of a legal specialist but by examining them within a political perspective, “within the political and administrative balance of powers” and with a twofold fundamental question, “who is master of whom? The legislator or the European civil servant?” Daniel Guéguen considers that the problem is now caused by the fact that even the most insignificant European civil servant is master of the Union. The Union is now seen by way of an increasingly arrogant Commission, a technocracy, devoid of real political counter-powers. Would the author put himself in this category - traditionally overrepresented by the French - people who believe that the Commission is not a political body? No, he is more subtle than that: the problem is due to its hybrid structure, “which is a half political and half administrative body”, which is now going to be penalised by a, “reinforcement in the administrative side, to the detriment of the political element”. Why? Firstly, because the allocation of a Commissioner by each member state has undermined the College of Commissioners (at a legal level, this is a non-national body, which is neutral and in charge of the general interest). The third wave of accession even saw concerns of the national interest become generalised on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont building. In these conditions, the author quite sincerely asks, “how a Commissioner known for defending his national interests is able to impose his authority on European civil servants in charge of the Community interest?
In this context, Daniel Guéguen seeks to demonstrate how the Commission has become the master of committee procedures and how it has already exercised and aspires to exercise this power, without too much political interference from either the European Parliament or the Council, “where there is a risk of bad governance, obscurity and subjectivity, which would ultimately mean that democracy suffers”. In the author's eyes this book is nothing less than an appeal to open a public debate. No-one denies that there is a need for this, even if it were simply to check out the facts that have fuelled the author's fears. After all, does not this European expert seriously get it wrong when he affirms that the monopoly of legislative initiatives was only granted to the Commission with the Single Act of 1987?
Michel Theys
*** MARTIN KREMER, RODERICK PARKES: The British Question. What Explains the EU's New Angloscepticism? Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs (3-4 Ludwigkirchplatz, D-10719 Berlin. Tel: (49-30) 88007-0 - fax: 88007-100 - Email: swp@swp-berlin.org - Internet: http://www.swp-berlin.org ). "SWP Comments" series, No. 11. 2010, 4 pp.
And what if, by sewing the seeds of discord or at least the most cowardly form of co-operation based on exclusive national interest, the United Kingdom had succeeded in fanning the flames of Anglo-scepticism within the Union? This is the area the authors of this paper cheerfully explore, which is as brief as it is intellectually cutting. One of the two German researchers who wrote the paper, Roderick Parkes was the head of the Brussels office of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs based in Berlin. The author's starting point is that the Lisbon Treaty could be seen as an, “Anglicising of the Union's political system”, which consolidated the intergovernmental method dear to the heart of London but which soon appeared to be a Pyrrhic victory, when the governments suddenly had more responsibility than before in the definition of common objectives and ensuring that these objectives were attained. Suddenly, British exceptionalism, based on profoundly ideological (and egotistical) pragmatism is less likely to attract London's less ambitious partners, who, previously had more time to hide behind this “voluntary scapegoat”. Current challenges would be impossible to tackle within the configuration of the Lisbon Treaty and governments are reaching an accommodation on structural British hostility, a reason why we now see an increasing,“ Anglo-scepticism” or even “Anglophobia”. According to the authors, everything would suggest that in the coming months, London will begin to feel much less comfortable than it did previously.
(MT)
*** Politique étrangère. Institut français des relations internationales (27 rue de la Procession, F-75740 Paris Cedex 15. Tel: (33-1) 40157010 - Email: pe@ifri-org - Internet: http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.org ). 2010, No.2, 236 pp, €20. Subscription: €75 (France), €115 (abroad). ISBN 978-2-86592-713-5.
This quarterly review of the Institute presided by Thierry de Montbrial provides a very comprehensive insight into the general elections in the United Kingdom. Professor Jolyon Howorth (Universities of Yale and Bath) explains the arrival in power of the Conservatives in terms of a shift from resistance to rancour with Europe. The author believes that the worst-case scenario, which cannot be ruled out, is the United Kingdom's “bitter retreat” from the Union. The author believes that this period of turning in on itself, isolation and a certain degree of humility out in “North Sea” could, in the long-term, lead the British to revise their judgement on joining the Union again after 2040, by accepting all the Community acquis. The British economy, cohesion in the country, its evolution towards a “ new civic nation” and, ultimately, gloomy prospects for British defence policies, are also examined.
(MT)
*** RICARD ZAPATA-BARRERO (editors): Immigration and Self-government of Minority Nations. Presses Interuniversitaires Européennes / Peter Lang (1 av. Maurice, B-1050 Brussels. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - fax: 3761727 - Email: pie@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). "Diversitas" series, No. 3. 2009, 177 pp., €27.90. ISBN 978-90-5201-547-7.
This book was originally published in Catalan and tackles the question of interaction between immigrants and sub-state political entities. A professor in political theory at the University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, who edited the publication, developed the conceptual framework. The subject is then examined by exploring the notion of “minority nations”, such as Catalonia and Quebec and the specific case of Flanders, the majority community in the framework of the Belgian state. In each case, the subject is tackled by two complementary viewpoints: the way in which immigration and immigrants are seen from the point of view of the regional governmental authorities and the manner in which these authorities are seen by the immigrant populations.
(MT)
*** DAGMAR KIEFER: Multicultural Work in Five United Nations Organisations. An Austrian Perspective (1 Moosstrasse, Postfach 350, CH-2542 Pieterlen. Tel: (41-32) 3761717 - fax: 3761727 - Email: info@peterlang.com - Internet: http://www.peterlang.com ). “Forschungsergebnisse der Wirtschaftsuniversität Vienna” No. 35. 2009, 155 pp, €35.30. ISBN 978-3-631-59170-3.
This book is an extension of PhD thesis, which attempted to locate shift and/or group work prevailing in international organisations, as well as the elements that help promote or hamper this multi cultural work. The study is based on 50 semi-structured interviews with Austrians operating in five United Nations linked organisations.
(PBo)