independent media for better debate

October 2010
Inside
A new vision of sustainability
The moment of truth for Turkey-EU relations
Can Sarkozy Achieve his French Connection?
The nuclear challenge
Galileo – A very European affair
The new Interinstitutional Agreement

O n l i n e : w ww. e ure p o r t e r. co.u k Video: www.eu repor t er.t v

 Give Europe a breath of fresh air

Europe possesses an energy source which could power it seven

times over: the wind. European companies are world leaders in
wind power, generating thousands of jobs. Wind energy reduces
Europe’s dependence, and spending, on imported fossil fuels. It
lowers electricity prices and emits no CO2.

Over the next 12 years, Europe must build new power capacity
equal to half the current total. We must use this opportunity to
construct a modern power system that meets the challenges of
Breath
the 21st century.
of FRESH AIR
Give Europe a breath of fresh air by adopting a wind turbine at
www.ewea.org/freshair www.ewea.org/freshair
 contents

independent media for better debate

October 2010
Inside
A new vision of sustainability
The moment of truth for Turkey-EU relations
Can Sarkozy Achieve his French Connection?
The nuclear challenge
Galileo – A very European affair
The new Interinstitutional Agreement

Building a Future on the Past

Can heritage projects help boost sagging economies or resolve conflicts?
Jim Gibbons reports for www.eureporter.tv from one of the EU’s
Capitals of Culture: Istanbul.

Onli ne: w w w. e ure po r t e r. c o. uk Vi d e o: www.e ure p or te r.tv

ECONOMY
4 NO EU TAXES – EUROPEAN CITIZEN’S INITIATIVE
COVER IMAGE COPYRIGHT: Derk Jan Eppink outlines his plans for an ECI preventing the EU from levying its own taxes
© Philippe SAMYN and PARTNERS architects & engineers,
LEAD and DESIGN. 11 EGG SECTOR UNDER THREAT FROM NEW LEGISLATION
Philippe Samyn and Partners, Studio Valle Progettazioni,
Buro Happold Limited.
Nikki Sinclaire MEP draws attention to the unequal application of new EU rules across the EU
PUBLISHER 13 ACHIEVING POWER AND INFLUENCE IN THE ONLINE AGE
Half Tidy Ltd
publisher@eureporter.co The world’s social media footprint is an untapped resource for people who need to build support
Sophia House for their issues, writes digital communications expert Mark Sinclair
28 Cathedral Road
Cardiff
Wales 20 CAN SARKOZY ACHIEVE HIS FRENCH CONNECTION?
CF11 9LJ Frank Prenesti on French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plan for a “Grand Paris”
United Kingdom

DIRECTOR THE EU AT HOME

Colin Stevens

Reg: GB072246293 9 THE NEW INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

VAT No: GB 995 6193 59
Does the new agreement promote democracy or abuse current EU treaties?
EDITOR
Nicolas J White 6 EUROPE’S SOFTWARE INNOVATION UNDER THREAT FROM PATENTS
editor@eureporter.co
Are software patents justified? Do they help of hinder the European economy?
CONTRIBUTORS
Chris White 15 REVISION OF TREATY RAISES ITS UGLY HEAD
Derk Jan Eppink MEP
Emre Kizilkaya Is it really time to revise the Lisbon Treaty?
Frank Prenesti
Ian Phillips 16 A NEW VISION OF SUSTAINABILITY
Jessica Sone
Jim Gibbons We profile the new European Council headquarters. What should policymakers take away from
Mark Sinclair
Michael J Warner the building?
Nikki Sinclaire MEP
Thomas Bauwens 26 GALILEO – A VERY EUROPEAN AFFAIR
ADVERTISING We look at the budget and deadline overruns on Europe’s prestige project. Is it still worth saving?
Andrew Gallo
advertising@eureporter.co
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
ACCOUNTS
accounts@eureporter.co 23 THE MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR TURKEY-EU RELATIONS
EDITORIAL CONSULTANT Could Turkey become an Islamist Russia?
Chris White
Consultant@eureporter.co 24 BUILDING A FUTURE ON THE PAST
EU REPORTER Jim Gibbons on the crossing of cultures in Turkey
EU Reporter is published monthly.
28 OBAMA IDEALISM MEETS RACIST REALITY
EU Reporter has used its best efforts in collecting and
preparing material for inclusion in EU Reporter, but Our man from across the pond on underhanded attempts to delegitimize Obama
cannot and does not warrant that the information
contained in this product is complete or accurate and
does not assume and hereby disclaims, liability to
any person for any loss or damage caused by errors
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
or omissions in EU Reporter, whether such errors or 19 GM CROPS
omissions result from negligence, accident or any
other cause. Is the commission running away from its responsibilities?
This publication may not be reproduced or copied in
whole or in part by any means without the express
permission of the officers of EU Reporter.
30 THE NUCLEAR CHALLENGE
© 2010, EU Reporter. All rights reserved. Chris White reviews two new energy pamphlets and talks to their author, Giles Chichister MEP

October 2010 • 3
economy
Derk Jan Eppink MEP
No EU Taxes –
European Citizen’s Initiative
By Derk Jan Eppink MEP
L
AST MONTH’S EU
Reporter article on the
European Citizens’ Initiative
(ECI), by Ian Phillips, provided
readers with a very thorough
and comprehensive guide to
how the process will work, once
it is formally in place.
ECIs are already being organised,
in fact, before that formal point is
reached, such as the one we are
developing at the website, www.
noeutax.eu . There are some other
fundamental changes currently
being proposed to the workings
of the EU. These changes may
be too far down the line to give
citizens a chance to say no to them,
if we wait until the ECI system
is in operation before drafting
texts and seeking signatories. On
certain issues, we need to be ready
4 • October 2010
to hit the ground running with a
well-subscribed ECI, ready for
submission, from the first moment
we can.
Foremost among those issues, in
our view, is the proposal to create
EU-wide taxation. At any level
of governance, tax is the most
tangible, direct link between the
citizen and government, yet there
are some very senior figures in the
EU who would like to establish
EU-wide taxes well before the
next elections to the European
Parliament - even though they
were not a serious issue in the
previous ones, held only last year.
What voice will there be,
therefore, for citizens across
the EU’s member states, if EU
taxation is introduced as part of
the next budget settlement, even
possibly buried away unnoticed
in the inevitable rows about
agricultural funds and national
rebates?
In collaboration with Belgian
think tank “Libera!” as co-
organizer and the Flemish Dutch
tax payers platform VlaNeTax ,
we have set up our “No EU
Tax”-ECI to ensure that citizens
will indeed have that voice. This
involvement of civil society
players is significant: our initiative
is not a political ego-platform
but a joint project that finds its
roots in shared and spontaneous
indignation. With the help and
co-operation, wherever possible,
of other taxpayers’ platforms and
sympathetic organisations across
many parts of Europe, we are
currently building a coalition of
citizens who simply want to say no
to EU-wide taxes. This coalition
will be open to all, irrespective
of ideological backgrounds, who
underwrite our ECI’s aims.
We know it is a daunting task.
We know that we need a million
signatures from, as it looks now,
at least a third of the member
states (nine countries), but we are
confident we will get them, because
the citizens realize they are paying
more than enough taxes already.
They don’t need additional tax
bills from Brussels, especially
since there is no real objective
requirement for it. The system
of national contributions now in
place allows for better scrutiny by
national parliaments than direct
EU taxation would. Theoretically,
if there actually were rational and

concrete reasons to increase the
rate of national contributions, then
these should be able to convince
national governments.
It is disappointing that there
are many prominent EU leaders
who do not wish to acknowledge
this. In August, when the
Taxation Commissioner, Janusz
Lewandowski, signalled his
plans for pan-EU taxes in an
interview with the Financial
Times Deutschland, he breezily
remarked that “the door is open
to think about revenues that are
not claimed by (national) finance
ministers.” The grand gates of
the Berlaymont may be wide
open to it, but we believe ordinary
taxpayers will firmly shut all their
doors and windows to the idea of
another fiscal layer.
...in the ECI, the EU In my new book, “Bonfire
has finally hit upon of Bureaucracy in Europe”
(and in my earlier book, “Life
an excellent idea of a European Mandarin”), I
which could
© Photo Parlement Europeen
predicted calls for EU taxes and I
genuinely put it back also showed how the EU elite has
lost touch with today’s realities in
in touch with public pursuit of the almost religious ideal
opinion. It is up to us, of “ever-closer union”, instead
of concentrating on its core tasks
the citizens, therefore, such as the single market. Having
to usher it there. previously worked in the cabinets
of two commissioners over a
period of eight years, I have seen
from the inside the extent to which
this is so.
Significantly, the Commission has
announced it is sympathetic to the
general idea of EU-wide taxation
before it has examined the various
options for its implementation (air
transport, financial transactions,
greenhouse gas emissions, to
name but three). Clearly, it does
not take a big leap of imagination
to conclude that pan-EU taxes
are an end in themselves for the
Commission, rather than there
being any real need to levy in
specific areas.
Indeed, the EU has little need to
raise its own taxes. Each year, it
cannot even spend all the money
it gets from national governments.
In the structural funds budget
alone, four and a half billion euros
remained unspent in 2008, and,
as is well known, major parts of
the EU budget are spent in a way
that is not approved by the EU
Court of Auditors. And this has
been the case for many years now.
There is no doubt scope for ample
budgetary rationalisation within
the current EU-budget.
The EU tax proposal , on the
other hand, at a time when citizens
are being obliged to tighten their
belts, sends the wrong signal. It will
October 2010 •
only add to the total fiscal pressures
on the citizen. Even Commissioner
Lewandowski admits it. His plan
must be fought tooth and nail –
let Brussels tighten its belt too.
Understandably, politicians like
increased budgets to spend on
pet policies. Yet insisting on less
waste and budgetary austerity
is usually frowned upon in the
EU parliament and almost
invariably labelled “anti-EU”. A
shame. Fighting big government
and EU taxes is not aimed against
the EU itself. After all, one can
love one’s country and still fight
government waste, no? Whether
one favours or opposes further EU
integration is not even the point:
opposing government waste and
unnecessary taxes ought to be the
reflex from well-meaning EU-
sceptics and EU-patriots alike.
Meanwhile, the taxpayers in
the EU member states need
protection. If politicians are
unwilling, the citizen can now
try to make the point directly.
That is why we have set up our
Citizens’ Initiative.
Already various MEPs are vowing
to block “dangerous initiatives”.
That seems to include “un-
European” ECI’s, a very debatable
concept that would leave the door
wide open to politicized, subjective
treatment. A strong signal from one
million or more citizens across nine
or more member states against
direct EU – taxation, might be
considered just such a “danger”.
Indeed, we suspect that some
inside the EU institutions would
view any ECI as dangerous. We
observe among those a tendency
to regard the ECI as a marked
shift away from representative
democracy, something that
could only disturb the current
balance of power. This is a
strong exaggeration: the ECI,
as foreseen by the Lisbon
agreement would supplement
rather then erode the way EU
policy is shaped. Nevertheless,
the original ECI proposal by the
EU commission has built in a
whole series of hurdles to limit
the possibility of an initiative
ever reaching the finishing line.
The requirement for a million
signatures from at least nine
member states is merely the last of
these hurdles.
Before an ECI even triggers
the starting gun, let alone gets to
the finishing tape, its organiser
must submit a request to the
Commission for a decision on
its admissibility, after having
collected 300,000 signatures.
economy
300,000 signatures just to let
the Commission decide if it is
admissible or not!
Then there is the requirement
that each signature should be
accompanied by an item of the
signatory’s personal data, such
as passport or ID card number,
social security number or fiscal
number. Clearly, there are serious
data protection considerations
here, compounded by the
proposal that the organiser of
the ECI should be designated as
data controller and should then
be considered liable in civil or
criminal law for any infringements.
All of this is just unnecessary;
signatures could quite perfectly and
simply be validated in conjunction
with electoral registers. As things
currently stand, many will be
disinclined to give such sensitive
data and therefore will be
conveniently removed from the
ECI process. Nor will it have gone
unnoticed that many potential
organisers of ECIs, particularly
individuals and small voluntary
groups, could be deterred from
doing so, because of the current
deadline of 12 months in which
the signatures must be collected.
12 months for 1 million signatures?
That will only prove realistic for
already previously established large
networks, such as trade unions, or
Greenpeace for example.
Most importantly, the EU
Commission ought finally to
state clearly how it intends to
treat successful initiatives. For all
the elaborate hurdles it currently
puts in place, it promises almost
nothing. We feel every successful
initiative deserves at least a public
hearing. A “thank you” letter
simply won’t do.
It is very sad, really, because in
the ECI, the EU has finally hit
upon an excellent idea which
could genuinely put it back in
touch with public opinion. It is
up to us, the citizens, therefore,
to usher it there. In order to
really give the citizen a voice, the
Citizen’s Initiative must be easy
to use and transparent. If the
ECI’s only use turns out to be
its theoretical existence, then it
will turn out just be another
sterile symbol .
So please, if you are one of
the many who oppose pan-EU
taxation, go to www.noeutax.eu,
sign up to our draft ECI and, as
soon as the system gets the green
light, we will be ready straight away
to deliver a very important message
from the citizens to the political
elite – no to EU-wide taxation!
5
the eu at home
The EPO has granted in the region of 50,000 software patents
Europe’s software innovation
under threat from patents
By Ciarán O’Riordan, Executive Director, End Software Patents
T
HE EU’S POLICY on
topics such as copyrights,
patents, and trademarks
has been a bumpy road. The
most memorable is still the
“software patents directive”.
Hotly debated for more than
three years, that directive was
rejected definitively by the
European Parliament in 2005.
Not only has the EU since
stayed away from the topic of
substantive patent law but massive
participation from citizens and
SMEs has led to close scrutiny and
debate of related legislation ever
since. Some subsequent proposals
have raised new problems, others
have been criticised as “software
patents by the backdoor”.
These policies are often discussed
in terms of “intellectual property”,
a term which seems to be at the
6 • October 2010
root of some of the EU’s problems.
The best known laws which fall
under this name are copyrights,
patents, and trademarks, each of
which are already very different
in their purposes and effects,
but we also have design rights,
utility model rights, geographical
indications (“Champagne” has
to come from the Champagne
region of France), database rights,
and more.
A trademark is a tool for avoiding
consumer confusion. A patent is
a government granted right to
prevent other product developers
from using an idea - even if the
other product developers never saw
the patent or the patent holder’s
product and their use of the
same idea is purely coincidental.
Copyright is an automatic (no
grant required, no fee to be paid)
right to prevent others from
making copies of your work – but
copyright doesn’t prevent people
from independently making a work
that’s coincidentally similar.
When the EU proposes a policy
about “intellectual property”, it’s
proposing a single way of thinking
about these. The difficulty is
clear: is wanting stronger or more
flexible trademark enforcement
really linked to wanting the same
change in enforcement of all those
other laws? When wine growers or
cheese makers push for a change in
how their geographical indications
are enforced, should this result
in a change in enforcement
of copyrights, patents, and
trademarks?
The EU has proposed two
directives on enforcement of “IP”
rights. The first got amended and
© European Union, 2010
watered down until it had little
relation to it’s original text. The
second (IPRED2) raised such
debate that it was neglected by the
EU institutions. After being asleep
for five years, it was withdrawn in
September.
THE SOFTWARE
PATENTS DIRECTIVE
The first draft of the Software
Patents Directive was published
by the European Commission in
February 2002. The origin of that
text is unclear since, although it
should be written by the European
Commission, journalists noticed
that the “Author” field of the file
instead contained the name of a
lobbyist for the Business Software
Alliance – a group that lobbies
for software patents and which
has strong ties to large corporations.

...if you use a patented idea, knowingly or unknowingly, without permission, you’ve broken the law.
If a patent was valid in your country despite being in a language you can’t read, then you’d be
bound by laws written in a foreign language.
Much of the world’s server infrastructure runs on ‘free software’
In any case, the proposed text
clearly aimed to expand patents to
cover software.
Between copyrights, trademarks,
and patents, the latter has the
distinction of being difficult
to avoid and very expensive to
defend against. In fields such as
pharmaceuticals or automobile
manufacturing, these problems
are eased by the manufacturers
having legal teams and a certain
level of financing. To be in those
industries, you have to be able to
afford factories, raw materials,
machinery, and you have to have
the legal resources to pass an array
of regulations. These organisations
put resources into avoiding
infringement, and they are already
set up to challenge any accusations.
In software, there’s a joke about
a manager who phones a lawyer
saying: “I got this letter saying
I have to license a patent for
€5,000 – do I have to pay this?”
and the lawyer replies “I can
review it for €12,000”.
Today, software is increasingly
being written by developers
who are closer to the user of the
software. Instead of the mainframe
days where software was an
accompaniment for hardware,
software is now often written by
small businesses and by users
who work as a team. The rise in
“free software” – software whose
source code is fully available
is a very visible example. The
software that delivers most of the
world’s websites today is a free
software system called Apache.
The name comes from the way it
was developed, with many website
October 2010 •
operators contributing patches
to a shared system, they built “a
patchy” system which did what
they needed. Free software also
enables companies to improve and
adapt software internally.
The result of this shift is that
we have a large portion of
development being done by people
who are paid to do a non-software
job, and develop software in the
course of that work. Adding legal
risks and licensing costs to software
development would stifle this
culture, returning us to the model
of the 80s and 90s where software
is something you buy (take it or
leave it) rather than something you
develop or control.
No surprise then that it was
companies like Microsoft and
IBM who pushed for software
patents, while the coalition
against software patents included
representatives of SMEs such as
CEA-PME and UEAPME (which
represents companies employing
12 million people in Europe) and
organisations supporting open
standards and free software such as
FFII and FSFE.
THE PROBLEMS OF
THE UNIFIED PATENT
JURISDICTION
T h e re h ave b e e n va r i o u s
proposals for unifying the patent
jurisdictions of Europe. Some,
such as UPLS, are EU proposals,
others such as EPLA are suggested
as international treaties. All
contain three problems – one is a
democratic problem, one a socio-
economic problem, and the third is
a mix of both.
The democratic problem is that
these treaties propose various
ways of avoiding the cost of
translating all patent applications
into the languages of all target
countries. Here’s the snag: if you
use a patented idea, knowingly or
unknowingly, without permission,
you’ve broken the law. If a patent
was valid in your country despite
being in a language you can’t
read, then you’d be bound by laws
written in a foreign language. Some
in the European Commission
think the solution is to publish all
patents in English, French, and
German and let the rest of Europe
rely on their knowledge of these
languages. I have to say, I don’t go
thirsty when left to fend for myself
in Spain, but asking me to read
and abide by a legal document in
Spanish is a bridge too far.
The socio-economic problem
is about costs. The costs of
obtaining and enforcing patents
are much higher in Europe than
in the USA. Not only do patent
applications have to be translated
into the languages of all the target
countries, but enforcement is less
cost effective because seeking full
damages would require a separate
court case in each country.
This inefficiency is a problem,
but it’s paradoxically a solution to
certain other problems. If a global
company sees its patent being
violated all over Europe, there’s
no court they can go to to seek
damages for all those violations.
Suing in Germany or the UK
might be worthwhile, or perhaps
one or two other countries, but
what usually happens is that they
sue in the USA, leaving Europe
as a clearly less litigious region.
Removing this inefficiency would
naturally increase the volume of
litigation. The current volume
of litigation is so low that many
software developers aren’t even
aware that software patents
are regularly granted and even
occasionally upheld in European
courts. It’s an inefficiency that
bottle necks a bigger problem.
The third problem is in the
specifics of the various proposals.
If we create a central European (or
EU) court, who should be a judge
on the court? Well, hiring patent
experts sounds like a reasonable
the eu at home
suggestion, until we look at who
this would be. A 2000 survey by the
European Commission received 18
replies from people classed as “IPR
professionals”, 17 of which argued
in favour of software patents. This
happens continually, in the EU, the
USA, Australia, every time there’s
a consultation about patentability,
there’s a barrage of submissions
from lawyers explaining that
software should be patentable.
It’s like the arms industry lobbying
for war. Lord Justice Jacob wrote
this in his 2006 rejection of a
software patent:
“If the encouragement of
patenting and of patent litigation
as industries in themselves were
a purpose of the patent system,
then the case for construing the
categories [of exclusion] narrowly
(and indeed for removing them) is
made out. But not otherwise.”
Other proposals have even
suggested putting the European
Patent Office (EPO) in charge of
hiring and firing judges. Given
that the EPO has granted in the
region of 50,000 software patents,
they can hardly be called non-
partisan.
The legal situation is that patent
governance is divided in three.
First, there are the legislative
texts, based on the European
Patent Convention, which says
in black and white that: “shall
not be regarded as inventions:
[...] programs for computers [...]
as such”. Secondly there’s the
European Patent Office, which
says that this exclusion should be
interpreted so narrowly as to be
nearly non-existant. Thirdly, we
have the national courts which
uphold some EPO-g ranted
software patents and reject others.
The unified patent jurisdiction
would result in the national courts
being replaced by judges with a
background similar to the people in
the EPO, which means upholding
software patents.
This explains the observation
by attorney Alison Crofts of
Dorsey & Whitney LLP that
“The industry-based driving force
behind the EPLA comes from the
pro-software patent group as a way
of ensuring that their software or
potential software patents are fully
enforceable across Europe.”
7

© European Union, 2010
Closer scrutiny: Parliament would have greater say in the selection of the EU’s executive
The new Interinstitutional Agreement –
promoting democracy or abusing the treaties?
By Ian Phillips, Senior Associate, Interel European Affairs
T
HE ENTRY INTO
force of the Treaty of
Lisbon has seen an
express legal basis provided for
Interinstitutional Agreements
for the first time. The European
Pa r l i a m e n t l e a p t a t t h e
opportunity to reinforce its
power of scrutiny over the
European Commission, and
to be further placed on a
level par with the Council of
Ministers through the new
Interinstitutional Agreement
drafted in September. Some
see this agreement as a
potential staler of the Executive
branch, and others deem it
an abuse of the Treaty of the
Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) with a de facto
empowerment of the European
Parliament beyond what was
agreed under the Treaty of
Lisbon. Whichever way you
look at it, the Parliament has
done well for itself.
Though on the surface the
Interinstitutional Agreement
appears to be a technical
document, its political
ramifications are significant. In
the area of legislative procedure
and planning the Parliament
has essentially secured itself a role
in setting the multiannual and
annual legislative programmes,
a role hitherto strictly within
the remit of the European
Commission as the executive
body of the European Union.
It has done so by ensuring
October 2010 •
the Commission present its
programmes for scrutiny and
justification and thus given
the Parliament a means of
applying political pressure on the
Commission to take Parliament’s
recommendations on board (points
33, 36, 39, 43, 51, 59 and annex 4
of the agreement).
As to the provisions in the
agreement covering Parliamentary
scrutiny, these have given
Parliament political clout as to
how the Commissioners conduct
themselves in the exercise of
their functions. No longer will a
Commissioner be able to wear
two hats in the course of an
electoral campaign, he or she
will have to take unpaid leave
(point 4 of the agreement). If the
Commission seeks to amend the
Commissioner’s code of conduct,
they must seek Parliament’s
opinion. The provisions also
provide for Parliament to scrutinize
any incumbent for the top job of
a European agency. Add to this
the previous interinstitutional
agreement, where the Parliament
auditions the candidates for
Commission President and
Commissioner, and you see
the Parliament have an increased
role in the selection of the
European executive.
Possibly one of the most
significant developments from
the agreement lies in the field of
international relations. Under
points 23 to 27 and annex 3 of
the Interinstitutional Agreement,
the Parliament has secured the
right to be present at nearly
all international meetings that
have for purpose international
agreements involving the EU,
be it as a delegation or as
observers. The key here lies in
Parliament’s right to scrutinize,
and consequently apply pressure,
on the Commission’s negotiating
remit. Tie into this the new
obligations for the Commission
to provide the Parliament with
sensitive documents, one sees
Parliament on equal footing
with Council.
The final major element of
the agreement sees a much
greater interaction between the
Parliament and Commission with
the President of the Parliament
attending meetings of the College
of Commissioners, and in turn
the Commission President and
Vice-President for exter nal
relations attending meetings of
the Conference of Presidents.
The agreement also stipulates that
the Secretaries General of both
institutions be regularly in touch.
The concern for some is that
if one combines the citizen’s
initiative, the right of National
parliaments under the TFEU to
scrutinize Commission proposals,
a l o n g w i t h t h e E u ro p e a n
Parliament’s new rights of scrutiny
under the Interinstitutional
Agreement, then we are in danger
of effectively freezing the executive
body of the European Union from
carrying out its functions. Arguably
the eu at home
the European Parliament, as
the directly elected body within
the EU, is merely exercising powers
traditionally found in parliaments
the world over, which is to supervise
and direct the executive branch
of government. Parliament will
also argue that they are merely
putting in practice an underlying
theme of the Treaty of Lisbon
that c alls for th e g reater
democratic accountability of the
European Union.
For those who see this agreement
as a de facto seizure of power by
the European Parliament contrary
to the TFEU, they may very well
find themselves on the same side
as the Council of Ministers. The
Council having chosen not to
partake in the negotiations on the
new Interinstitutional Agreement
now finds itself wishing it had.
The Council argues that too
many powers were given to the
Parliament, specifically regarding
international negotiations, and
has called for the Legal Services to
review the agreement. It has been
reported that they might consider
taking the Parliament to court
if it adopts this agreement. This
notwithstanding, the Parliament
has adopted the agreement at
their Strasbourg sitting this month,
and this marks a steady path of
increased Parliamentary power
that the European Parliament
has successfully secured at every
revision of the treaties of the EU
since it first became directly elected
in 1979.
9

Egg sector under threat
from new legislation
Progress on animal welfare to be undermined?
By Nikki Sinclaire MEP
T
HE UK EGG industry
is currently enjoying a
period of growth, with
the sector providing significant
employment. British producers
have the largest free-range flock
in Europe – 41% of all laying
hens are free range, compared
to an average of 17.1% across
the EU – and after substantial
investment and preparation
are ready to implement new EU
Laying Hen Legislation, with all
caged hens to be housed in new-
style welfare-friendly cages
by 1st January 2012. Germany,
Sweden, the Netherlands, and
Austria also have particularly
high standards in this sector,
indeed their national legislation
is way advanced over that of
the EU. In Sweden all laying
hens have been housed in
new-style cages since 2009,
an achievement equalled by
Germany at the beginning of
this year.
There are, however, concerns
that egg producers in some
member states will not be ready
for implementation of the new
legislation in time, and that they
will be allowed to continue to
market eggs produced more
cheaply than those in countries that
have achieved full implementation.
Not least amongst the factors
at play is the current economic
October 2010 •
situation which will have an
adverse effect on implementation,
as it remains difficult for producers
to access funding in order to invest
in new equipment.
There are also other factors
involved. Whilst the Northern
European states may have a more
enlightened attitude to animal
welfare, in other states the mindset
is different, and practices that some
might find barbaric may be the
norm for others. Until relatively
recently, for example, Bulgaria had
no animal welfare act in place, and
even now enforcement of newly
introduced legislation is considered
inadequate. Agriculture Minister
Miroslav Naydenov, however,
recently proposed jail sentences
of 1 to 5 years for those convicted
of committing acts of cruelty
against animals, a positive move
strongly suggesting a correlation
between economic development
and improved attitudes towards
animal welfare. Greece has also
come under fire for its record on
animal welfare, and it is interesting
to note that the Greek Animal
Welfare Fund was started by an
English woman, Eleanor Close,
and to this day receives no funding
at all from the Greek government.
I mention these examples not
in condemnation, but merely
to illustrate the different social
and economic factors that affect
attitudes, and commitment, to
animal welfare.
The European Commission
should be ready to protect
producers who become compliant
with the new regulations on time,
and forbid the export of cheaper
and inferior eggs within the EU.
It is not, however, only within the
context of the EU internal market
that unfair competition could
penalise those who are compliant
with the new legislation.
The EU is a net exporter of eggs
and egg products – production is
estimated to be 104.8% of demand
– and has been for some time,
although some egg products for
processing purposes are imported,
mainly due to price benefits. There
are almost 30,000 egg producers
in the EU, most of which are the
small family owned businesses
that are the backbone of our
economies.
It would be disastrous for the egg
sector if the new legislation were
to drive retailers and processors to
turn to imported eggs on the basis
of price, as is already happening
to a degree. If this were to happen,
and if increased costs were to have
the simultaneous effect of making
EU exports less attractive, the
effects on small businesses and their
employees could be very serious
indeed. I fear this may be another
example of the Commission
economy
It would be
disastrous for the
egg sector if the new
legislation were to
drive retailers and
processors to turn
to imported eggs on
the basis of price.
pushing for new legislation without
fully understanding the needs of
the sector that is to be affected.
Consumer choice and fair
competition are essential, and it is
clear that consumers are prepared
to pay a premium in the interests
of animal welfare – in Northern
Europe particularly, demand for
free-range and organic eggs as a
percentage of sales is rising - but if
we do not have a level playing field
then egg producers will be hit hard
by cheap imports, and the work
they have already done to improve
conditions for animals will be
seriously undermined.
11

eureporter will be running free
seminars in the new year with
Mark Sinclair, aimed at trade groups,
industry associations and lobbyists.
Learn how to harness online data,
monitor sentiment, analyse conversation
themes and trends, cut through the
“noise” and reach the right people.
Punch well above your weight by being
much more strategic and informed, in
real time, than those who compete for
the same attention.
Register now for more information
about eureporter’s free seminars at
www.eureporter.co/seminars
Achieving power and
influence in the online age
By Mark Sinclair, yourBusinessChannel
Physical protests are dramatic, but social media monitoring is another way to demonstrate large scale support
P
OLITICIANS ARE DOING
it. So is the private sector.
And the public can’t get
enough of it. Social media is a
huge global phenomenon, that’s
a given. But now smart players
are realising that social media is
not just a place to talk. It’s also a
place to listen.
Whether your business is
marketing products or advocating
a point of view, new listening
and monitoring technology has
transformed the internet into a
fertile, and cost effective, ground
for stakeholder research.
Now officially ahead of
pornography as the world’s
number one online activity,
our collective musings on social
networks have spawned huge data
warehouses that record comment
after comment. One marketing
company we work with is storing
over 9 billion conversations, and
is adding over 40 million more
every day.
We’re not just talking about
comments on Twitter and
Facebook here either. This
operation is monitoring more
than 200 million sites around
the globe – mainstream social
networking sites and all manner
of review sites and special interest
communities. In other words,
they’re covering all the “public”
places people go to talk on the web,
English-speaking and otherwise.
October 2010 •
While the amount of data
is overwhelming, what’s really
interesting is the evolution of
technology that makes interpreting
it not only manageable, but also
provides meaningful results. Access
to reliable measurement and
monitoring is one factor behind
institutions growing willingness to
embrace social media. Ultimately
of course the prize is not the data,
but what it enables organisations
to achieve – the opportunity to
implement campaigns that turn
individuals into foot soldiers
with a message. As Ford’s chief
marketing executive James Farley
said last year, “if you are trying
to communicate, as we are, that
you have been reinventing the
company, you can’t just say it. You
have to get the people to say it to
each other.”
Google “social media
monitoring” and you’ll appreciate
the rapid emergence of technology
and services that enable
organisations to understand what
people are saying and to whom
they are saying it.
Effectively we’re talking about
market research – but drawing
on a massive, global dataset. And
because of advances in language-
based technology, this is a multi-
lingual solution.
A clear understanding about
how your brand or issue is being
talked about today is now within
reach of every organisation. Track
sentiment over time. Assess how
campaigns are resonating. See
what people are saying about
specific products or initiatives.
Monitor share of voice relative
to competitors. Identify activists
and geographical hotspots.
Understand the buzz words people
are using, and incorporate them
into the next campaign.
While the capabilities of social
media monitoring software
continue to improve, some
challenges remain, in particular
the issues of how to respond to
real time criticism and accurate
measurement of ROI for social
media campaigns. Despite this,
the industry has reached a point
where the world’s biggest brands
are relying on this kind of research
to inform multi-million dollar
investment decisions.
Something I’m asked a lot is
what could people be saying on
the internet that’s relevant to my
organisation? It’s a legitimate
question – after all, while plenty of
people were happy to comment on
the latest Old Spice commercial,
most people’s business is more
local, or more niche.
My response is to come back to
the vast nature of the internet,
the power of the technology,
and the skill of the operator. In
other words, while searching on
a specific organisation may not
economy
yield rich results, more rewarding
information can be found by
searching around the topic and
gaining a deeper understanding of
the stakeholders.
W h a t yo u d o w i t h t h a t
information is largely up to
you. There are a wealth of
applications, from sales and
marketing, through to community
relations, issues management,
public affairs, and even product
development. Perhaps a better way
of identifying applications is to
ask, ‘what areas of our organisation
would be improved if we had a
more intimate understanding of
what our stakeholders think, feel
and do?’
With “engagement” a hot topic
in business today, many experts
caution that true engagement
required to inspire loyalty and
passion in a customer base is
impossible without investment in
data analysis to inform decision-
making. Close analysis of current
opinion is now not only possible.
When you factor in return on
investment, it becomes affordable
as well.
Any org anisation where
legitimacy depends on having a
engaged constituency and/or mass
support can benefit from taking
a closer look at social media – as
a channel to speak and, arguably
more importantly in the first
instance, as a channel to listen.
13
NEWS

POLITICS

BUSINESS

CAMPAIGNS

www.tvfour.eu
Tel: London +44 20 3384 4061 Brussels +32 2 808 12 24

Revision of treaty
raises its ugly head
By James Hempstead
A
FTER ALMOST A
decade and a number
of referendums, the
Lisbon Treaty finally entered
into force. The road from Nice to
Lisbon was a long and rocky one
with the European Constitution
failing to pass muster with the
French and Dutch electorate and
the subsequent Lisbon treaty
failing to impress Irish voters,
the first time at least. Now, in
the wake of the financial crisis,
it would appear that the EU is
looking to go another round.
In the wake of the financial
crisis, the EU is keen to ensure
that the conditions that provoked
the eurozone crisis aren’t
repeated. As such, the institutions
have been working closely on a
financial supervision package. A
push towards greater economic
governance at EU level has
prompted calls for even tighter
rules as well as tough sanctions on
member states that are in violation
of the rules set out by the EU.
In a joint statement, the French
President, Nicolas Sarkozy and
the German Chancellor, Angela
Merkel called for revisions to
the Lisbon treaty to allow for “
suspension of the voting rights
of the Member State” if they are
October 2010 •
found to be in “serious violation of
basic principles of Economic and
Monetary Union”. Such a change
would require the amendments
to the Lisbon Treaty be “adopted
and ratified by Member States in
accordance with their respective
constitutional requirements”.
However, since the entry into
force of the treaty, Council has
had less of a free reign in such
matters as the council now needs
the consent of the European
Parliament as co-legislators. Indeed
the EPP group in the European
Parliament is committed to asking
for a convention to ensure that
process is as transparent as possible
with Íñigo Méndez de Vigo MEP
stating that “the process cannot
happen behind closed doors”.
Opposition to the treaty change
does not simply come from the fact
that it might happen behind closed
doors. The real problem some
have with the proposals is that the
ratification process will simply
serve as a distraction, preventing
any concrete action from taking
place. “Now is a time for action,
not debate over institutional issues”
said Mr Méndez de Vigo arguing
that the real issue that ought to
be on the agenda is how to solve
the current economic crisis “not
constitutional or institutional
debate”. Indeed, Mr Méndez de
Vigo called on governments to
stop being so “concerned with
institutional changes” and get back
to questions of policy.
Another crucial point to be
considered is the effect this
could have on some of the more
eurosceptic countries in the EU.
There are extremely vocal calls
for a referendum on Europe in
the UK such as with Conservative
MEP Daniel Hannan who recently
launched a campaign in favour of
a referendum on EU membership.
T h e r e h ave b e e n s i m i l a r
campaigns from other parties too,
such as Nikki Sinclaire MEP who
beat Hannan to the punch with her
campaign for a referendum on the
UK’s membership of the EU.
There are also concerns over
Ireland where a supreme court
ruling which states that significant
changes to European treaties must
be put to a referendum before they
can be ratified by the government.
The original Lisbon Treaty
required two referendums in
Ireland in order to pass, a sequence
of events that left many with a
bitter taste in their mouth over
the perceived democratic deficit
of holding a second referendum
the eu at home
© The Council of the European Union
The real issue that
ought to be on the
agenda is how to
solve the current
economic crisis “not
constitutional or
institutional debate”.
because the government didn’t like
the result of the first one.
With calls from Íñigo Méndez
de Vigo MEP to “eng age
representatives at the national
level” it would seem apparent that,
if the council were to attempt to
adopt changes to the Lisbon Treaty
the process could easily get bogged
down in national parliaments for
a good while. The cost of such
measures would undoubtedly be
very high both in terms of time
and money but, perhaps most
crucially, in missed opportunities
for more concrete action in the
short term.
15
 the eu at home

A new vision of sustainability

By Nicolas White

© Philippe SAMYN and PARTNERS architects & engineers, LEAD and DESIGN. Philippe Samyn and Partners, Studio Valle Progettazioni, Buro Happold Limited.

16 • September 2010

T
HE EU HAS outgrown
yet another building.
With the enlargement
of the EU in 2004 and the
entry into force of the Lisbon
Treaty, the European council
found itself in need of a new
headquarters to accommodate
the new influx of members
and staff. As a result, the EU
commissioned a new building
for the council’s headquarters.
Construction is now underway
next door to the council’s
current home in the Justus
Lipsius building.
The building has been
designed with sustainability and
environmental factors in mind in
terms of carbon footprint but also
other forms of pollution much
overlooked in this modern age of
climate change. It is hoped that this
new building will serve as a new
model of sustainability. Indeed,
The mastermind behind the new
building, Dr Philippe Samyn,
architect and civil engineer, sees
the current focus on CO2 as what
some would imagine as the only
form of pollution as being deeply
harmful to the integrity of new
building projects.
Stating that “energy saving should
not be done at any cost” Samyn
September 2010 •
the eu at home
the environmental damage of
quarrying can be monumental. In
Samyn’s words, “stone comes from
destroying a mountain”.
This approach to environmental sustainability Samyn does not see wood as the
sustainable building material that
demonstrates a flexibility that one would many do. Citing elements such
hope the European Council might take into as deforestation, the comparative
account once they take up residence in their fragility and shorter lifespan of
wood, as well as the chemicals
new headquarters. needed to protect it from the
elements. Where there is wood in
the building, the floors for example,
explained how solely focussing on choices for the new Residence great care has been taken to ensure
the energy efficiency of a building Palace was to restore the sensory that as much wood from the old
“hurts the senses”. For example, experience within the building Residence Palace on the site is
when selecting materials, the glass as well as present a new model of used. Indeed, when new wood has
used has a large impact on the sustainability. been needed, small planks have
energy efficiency of a building. This new approach to been used in an effort to stem the
‘Energy efficient’ glass has thin sustainability appears to be rooted deforestation of older trees. For the
oxide layers that provide for better in the much repeated mantra principal structure, Samyn instead
insulation that clear glass. However, “reduce, re-use, recycle”. Indeed, opted to use steel as, even though
these oxide layers block out around the new Residence Palace building it might have a higher carbon
20% of the light spectrum. It is could be seen as that mantra given footprint initially, it can be recycled
these layers that give glass a green physical form. with relative ease.
tint when you look at the pane A building is more than the sum Describing his vision of a
from the side. of its parts and those parts can somewhat utopian society, Dr
Samyn points to these examples be seen in more ways than their Samyn explained that one should
as being in the “grey-zone of carbon footprint. For example, see the planet as a finite entity and
science”. Explaining that we don’t the touting of wood and stone that, through the use of materials
know how these deprivations of cladding over other materials as like steel, we could one day
the senses affect us but that in his being more ‘sustainable’ is seen as enter a “closed circle of building
opinion at least, they have a quite only presenting part of the case. components and materials” with
a bad effect on human comfort. While its true that stone doesn’t steel for new construction projects
The aim of many of the material emit as much CO2 as concrete, coming from old, disused buildings
17
the eu at home
The ‘lantern’ part of the building will house the meeting rooms
A far cry from the current meeting room next door
for example, just like stones and hard bricks
in the past. In fact, Samyn asserts the fact that
building materials were much more easily
reused in ancient times than they are now.
While this may have something to do with the
primitive technologies available at the time
as opposed to those we currently have at our
disposal, there remains a lesson to be drawn
from such practices. While the new Council
building will not be easily dismantled, it does
represent a significant step towards the goal of a
recyclable building.
The new Council headquarters might not be
easily recycled just yet, but they are being built,
at least in part, out of recyclable materials. Two
sides of the building will be composed of a
‘patchwork’ of old oak window frames sourced
from across Europe. Something the architect
hopes will allow the building to express the
“diversity and coherence of European culture”.
It is somewhat ironic that these window frames
are in such abundance for use in the new
Council headquarters considering many of
them were discarded, not because they no
longer performed their intended function, but
because of EU regulations concerning thermal
performance.
Samyn’s approach to the issue of
sustainability can be seen as slightly at odds
18
with policymakers. While policymakers tend
to see environmental issues in black and white,
and legislate accordingly, Samyn takes the
view that, while some technologies might not
be environmentally friendly per se, they can be
applied in a responsible way.
Rather than seeing products as ‘green’ and
‘not green’, Samyn is more inclined to analyze
the cost of using each material, taking into
account more than simply energy efficiency and
CO2 emissions. Samyn sees material choices
as part of a larger budget. Perhaps grounded
in his desire to see the kilowatt hour as a
universal currency, he explains that budgeting
properly can allow one to use “nicer” materials
that would normally be rejected due to their
‘poor’ environmental credentials.
For instance, there are two types of fluorescent
strip light bulbs. One that allows for colour
reproduction of 82% and one that allows
colour reproduction of 92% at the expense
of 3 to 4% energy efficiency. According to
Samyn, in the environmentalist’s book, the more
efficient bulb would always triumph. However,
for him, the answer is not always to choose
the best performer in terms of efficiency, instead
opting to use less efficient bulbs more sparingly.
This approach to environmental sustainability
demonstrates a flexibility that one would hope
the European Council might take into account
once they take up residence in their new
headquarters. In addition to carbon footprint,
Samyn, as an architect, is concerned with
the quality of light in a building, noise
pollution, air quality and even the elimination
of odours. For example, the ceilings in the
building will have open joins to allow for
easy cleaning, helping to keep air quality as
high as possible.
Some might question the need for a new
Council building, especially at a time when
national governments are being forced to cut
back on public spending, much to the chagrin
of many Europeans. Indeed, some will hold up
the new Council headquarters as yet another
example of the EU’s ballooning budget.
Doubly so when one considers some of the
other aspects of sustainability addressed in the
design of the building.
The carpets in the building are to be made
from densely knotted Merino wool after
designs by a collection of European artists.
The original idea was to have them woven
by Tibetan craftsmen, something which
would give the building a decidedly
international flavour. Samyn defended the
cost of the carpets by explaining that when
the time comes for them to be replaced, they
can be sold at auction for more than they
originally cost, something which would also
prevent the carpets from becoming part of
the the “garbage cycle”. Whether this is
realistic or not remains to be seen, however,
it certainly puts an interesting spin on the idea
of sustainability.
The EU’s desire for sustainability to be
reflected in all aspects of the building has
certainly been taken into account. The design
is filled with minor touches that all add
something to the sustainability of the
building. Whether it be covering the doors
in small tiles instead of one large covering to
make them easier to repair, or the “umbrella”
of solar panels covering the roof of the building.
The question now is whether or not the EU
can live up to its new building.
• October 2010

GM crops
Is the Commission running away from its responsibilities?
By Thomas Bauwens
F
ROM SALMON TO potatoes and
maize, the EU has a full GMO plate to
deal with, one that irritates not only
ecologists, but farmers and member states
as well. Obviously, trying to pass the buck to
national governments wasn’t a solution. The
Commission only showed its lack of ideas in
trying to break the deadlock...
Will 2010 be the year that decides on GMOs’
European future? That’s what the Commission
seems to want at least. In July, it revived the
debate over GMOs with a proposal to let EU
member states rule on GM Crops. Two months
later, the Council of Ministers highlighted
the weaknesses of this solution and sent the
Commission back to the drawing board. A
failure? Not for Commissioner John Dalli, who
repeatedly congratulated himself for reviving
the debate and pushing member states to take
responsibility. Even though the plan has not
been embraced by the Council, it will indeed
serve as a basis for future discussions.
Actually, one can grant the Commissioner
that he managed to do what seemed almost
impossible to achieve a couple years ago:
make almost everyone, from GMO supporters
to opponents, agree to... disagree. Why?
Supposedly, such a proposal would create a
distortion of competition between member
states. It would raise barriers on the EU internal
market as soon as a member state decides to
ban a GMO authorised in other member states,
it would go against EU treaties and it would
open door to complaints and sanctions from the
WTO. The truth is, without the Commission to
back them, member states that oppose GMOs
would feel unprecedented pressure from biotech
companies and farmers who want to keep pace
with global agriculture market developments.
On the other hand, pro-GMO countries would
have to take responsibility when going against
the will of their citizens.
Appearances are deceptive: the single
market for GMOs actually ceased to exist a
long time ago. Right now the Commission is
taking responsibility for most prohibitions, but
October 2010 •
energy and environment
member states can decide to prohibit the
cultivation of an EU-approved GM plant if
scientific research raises doubts about its safety.
The new system would only go further, helping
the Commission to artificially put an end to a
ten-year-old debate within its walls by letting
member states make the final decision on each
product. Scientific evidence could even be
replaced by socio-economic considerations or,
thanks to a new Article 26b in the Directive on
the Deliberate Release of GMOs, by any other
moral or ethical concerns.
The problem is, with only two GM plants
currently authorised in Europe (Monsato’s
MON810 maize and BASF’s Amflora potato)
and under the current legal framework, the EU
is already facing a lot of resistance. Germany,
France, Luxembourg, Austria and Greece have So far, mainstream debate
already banned the MON810 maize from their has been mostly sterile,
fields in order to “protect the environment”
from its effects, despite the absence of any
being focused on health
scientific grounds to justify such a measure. and environment without
Some researchers even mentioned that managing to build any
MON810 had less impact on the environment
than most chemical insecticides used to scientific grounds.
protect plants from caterpillars. Hence, the
proposal to let national governments make
the decision by themselves would only fuel one point: the reason for the current deadlock
the current conflict between supporters is, ahead the lack of qualified majority within
and opponents to GMOs, by moving it to a the Council, the need to improve research,
larger scale. safety testing and transparency. While 60% of
Of course, as mentioned by Commissioner European citizens are opposed to the use of
Dalli when he responded critics of his proposal, GMOs according the a Eurobarometer survey
the current situation is also unbearable. In 2006, published in 2008, the same survey indeed
following disputes with Argentina, Canada shows that “Europeans in general tend to feel
and the USA, the WTO condemned the EU that they lack information“ on this topic.
moratorium on GM products, the delays on So far, mainstream debate has been mostly
product-specific applications and the lack of sterile, being focused on health and environment
appropriate risk assessments in some member without managing to build any scientific
states. Since then, two of the three disputes have grounds. One could wonder if accepting
been settled, but the one with the USA remains. ethical, moral and socio-economic concerns
The EU approval system is considered too slow, would not simply fuel the ambient paranoia
and therefore needs to be accelerated. and create legal uncertainty, while threatening
Should this be done at all costs? Probably not. the CAP itself. Shouldn’t we make sure we
Whilst the EU has a hard time dealing with know what we’re dealing with before opening
GMOs, green organisations may be right on Pandora’s box?
19
economy
La Défense, Paris
Can Sarkozy achieve
his French connection?
The French President has big plans to make
Paris an economic hub, but can he pull it off?
By Frank Prenesti
F
RANCE HAS BEEN in
the news for all the wrong
reasons. A wave of national
strikes over pensions has brought
the country to a standstill and
President Nicolas Sarkozy’s
immigration policies have
provoked international criticism.
So where does that leave his
ambitious vision of a “Grand
Paris”, unveiled in 2008, that
would see the biggest changes to
the city landscape in more than
150 years and leave his indelible
mark on the capital?
The 35 billion euro plan calls
for developments extending
beyond the city’s traditional
boundary of the periphique ring
road, but Sarkozy’s recent political
woes and the toughest economic
climate since the Great Depression
20
may result in someone else seeing
the dream come to fruition.
Sarkozy commissioned 10
architects to come up with their
ideas of what an expanded Paris
might look like, in what has been
called the biggest redesign of the
city since the 19th century when
Baron Haussmann created the
great boulevards that define it.
The remit is not just about
new buildings and breaching
boundaries, it is about completing
a 20-year cultural, social and
economic project to bridge
the disconnect between the
metropolitan Paris most people
associate the city with and its local
neighborhoods.
The challenge was to find a
way to link Paris (a city of just
2.2 million citizens) with its
outskirts – an area that takes in
11.5 million inhabitants over
12 square kilometers – some
spectacular, such as Versailles,
and others that have severe social
problems, such the La Courneuve
housing estate.
Sarkozy’s ambitious scheme
also sets a target of creating one
million new jobs over the next
two decades as all the pieces of
his plan fall into place.
The underlying aim is to create
economic g rowth through
innovation and an increase in
the region’s working population.
The government also wants to
improve the quality of life for the
city’s inhabitants “by way of jobs,
transport, housing and culture”
according to the Paris Region
Economic Development Agency
(PREDA), set up to help promote
the area to foreign investors and
help them when they arrive.
One of the stumbling blocks
is the thorny question of who
controls what within the project.
The myriad of local councils
that surround the city of Paris
are concerned that their views
will be sidelined or that central
government will start to take more
control over regional matters.
The architectural teams, taking
in urban planners and landscape
experts from around the world
came up with a wide-ranging
selection of how they saw Paris in
2030. The resulting presentations
had everything from Antoine
Grumbach’s “valley of the Seine”,
that stretched from Paris to the
port of le Havre in the west to
Christian de Portzamparc’s “sky
train” running through the city and
a new train station in Aubervilliers
to serve cities in northern Europe.
The other part of the plan is to
link all the outlying regions with a
new transport system. Central to
this is the creation of eight business
“clusters” within the regions
around the city of Paris.
Sarkozy has committed to
spending 18 billion euros on a 130
kilometres of new metro track
that not only link areas of business
expertise that complement each
other from within the clusters, but
provide integrated transport hubs
that give businesses swift access via
air or rail.
• October 2010
 economy

October 2009 when Sarkozy’s son

Jean announced he was running
for the top post at EPADESA. He
was forced to withdraw soon after
when there was a public outcry.
Financing for this massive scheme
comes from the government in
the form of a 35 billion handout
known as “the national loan”.
Banks that were bailed out
by the government during the
2009 financial crisis will stump
up the 13 billion euros they owe
the French taxpayer as part
of the deal. The remaining
22 billion euros will be raised
via debt markets through the
g over n m en t’s ow n age n c y
with medium and long-term
repayment schedules.
There are also ambitious plans
© ARD / Michel Derouault

to transform a quiet area 20

PREDA chief executive Denis
Ter sen said the economic
strength of the region is often
underestimated.
“We sometimes forget that it is an
economic powerhouse,” Tersen
says, compared with the traditional
notion of it as the world’s most
romantic city.
“There are 4 million jobs
here and we have the highest
GDP in Europe compared with
other regions.”
PREDA is keen to showcase this
transport plan as a more reliable
alternative to its cross-channel rival
London, notorious for its unreliable
and expensive transport links. That
case was strengthened further
with the new British government’s
decision not to go ahead with a
third runway at Heathrow airport.
“The contact with local
neighborhoods is an issue for
airports all around the world,” says
a spokesman for Charles de Gaulle
airport’s terminal 2, noting that the
airport sits on the city’s outskirts on
an area the size of Heathrow and
Frankfurt airports combined and
not hemmed in by nearby suburbs.
“We have four parallel runways.
The difficulty in Europe is to get
new runways as the main issue is
about increasing capacity,” he said.
CDG is promoted as a major hub,
allowing smoother connections to
flights around the world with 35
percent of passengers there just
for connections. It also a major
logistical centre with US courier
Are Sarkozy’s plans for Paris on track?
firm FedEx choosing the airport
as its European base.
CDG boasts four runways and
will be connected to the new
system with Orly airport, Gare
du Nord and Gare del’Est train
stations allowing TGV and
Eurostar rail services to whisk
business people to the UK and
other main European cities.
Tersen says the new driverless
metro system would help to
bring some districts of the region
out of “isolation”.
“It will be a new automatic metro
that runs 24 hours a day with only
(new) 40 stations. It will be paid
for by the increased value of the
(surrounding) properties that will
benefit from the new network,”
he said.
With refurbishment to the
regional RER lines, Sarkozy wants
to ultimately have a transport
system that operates around the
clock with a single fare structure.
The modernist La Defense
business area is also busy
preparing for change with 13
building projects on the cards or
being constructed. EPADESA,
the public body responsible for
planning in the district, wants
to boost economic output of
existing businesses and create an
“integrated city” with residential
and open spaces to give it a more
urban feel.
The projects involve some new
build and some demolition-
reconstruction of older generation
buildings. The gover nment
effectively owns the land and
“leases” the sky above.
Significant office space increases
will come from the 166-metre
Carpe Diem tower, which started
construction in March and is due
for completion in 2012 and the D2
tower on which work should start
soon. There are also two mixed-
use (office, retail and housing)
323-metre skyscrapers slated for
construction, designed by Britain’s
Norman Foster, called Hermitage
1 & 2. A 343-room hotel is also
planned, but there is no timeframe
for construction yet.
EPADESA officials hope the
new transport links will make
La Defense an even more
attractive offer for business people
with the prospect of checking in
luggage at a station in the district
and picking it up at whatever
foreign destination they may be
travelling to.
Olivier Machault, the body’s
finance director said La Defense
would like a direct link to the
airport and possibly a Eurostar
link for travellers from Britain.
However, his pressing concern is
somewhere to accommodate them.
“We need more hotels because
our hotels (there are four in the
area) are very, very full during the
week. We need 3 or four more,
with one or two very high standard
ones,” Machault said.
Ironically, La Defense was in the
headlines for different reasons in
kilometres to the south of the
city into one of the world’s leading
science and technological centres.
It has been allocated 1.5 billion
euros out of the national loan to
link it with local universities.
Plateau de Saclay currently
houses 4,000 companies and the
target is to have 12,000 researchers
working there by 2015. However,
remoteness of the site and the
lack of transport links are causing
concern among some of the
French scientific elite
Guillaume Pasquier, head of
the agency responsible for Paris-
Saclay, said it will take 15 years
to get everything in place and
“transform an empty area into a
vibrant campus”.
But the Times Higher Education
magazine reported in October
that France’s academic institutions
are lukewarm about moving to
a remote location from rather
more plush and pleasant premises
in Paris.
The magazine quoted Sarkozy,
speaking last month during a
visit to a nanotechnology site at
Saclay, saying that academics
should see the move as an
opportunity to break down barriers
between institutions.
“In the face of stiff world
competition, it is unreasonable to
maintain this mosaic of prestigious
institutions, which are divided by
completely artificial and obsolete
administrative barriers,” he was
reported as saying.
Sarkozy may have a have a
grand plan for expanding and
connecting the bustling city
more famous for brasseries and
boulevards than its business,
but like the metro system that
criss-crosses Paris, the path ahead
is unlikely to be straightforward.

October 2010 • 21
 external relations

The moment of truth

for Turkey-EU relations
What if Turkey becomes an Islamist Russia?
By Emre Kizilkaya

D
URING A WORKING
lunch with the
r e p r e s e n t a t i ve s o f
the Muslim community in
France, behind closed doors
last month, French President
Nicolas Sarkozy uttered the
following words about Turkey’s
EU membership:
“Turkey is a very important
country. I’ll visit it around the
end of the year. However, my
opinion about Turkey’s EU
membership didn’t change. EU
leaders that say they support
Turkey are not honest. If Turkey
has got so many friends, why isn’t it
© European Union, 2010

already a member? It is clear

that these countries don’t behave
honestly. At least, I am honest.
Instead of as a full EU member,
I would like to see Turkey as an
element of a new axis with the EU
and Russia. A cooperation between
these three powers would be much
more relevant.”
While he still insists on seeing
Turkey as an extra-European
country, it seems that the French
President is on the verge of
making a Turkish initiative
by acknowledging Ankara’s
growing importance.
But why has Sarkozy, a rightist
leader who has again been
dubbed as a xenophobic populist
following the expulsion of the
Roma in France, suddenly started
to talk about Turkey in such a
positive tone?
Because the Islamist AKP
government in Turkey is drifting
away from the EU, and is starting
to pursue a bolder, wider and and
more independent foreign policy
while consolidating its domestic
power after eight years of rule?
Ke m a l K i l i c d a ro g l u , t h e
new leader of CHP, the main
opposition party in Turkey, was
in Brussels last month. During a
speech he made at the European
Policy Center on September 16th,
Kilicdaroglu emphasized that he
chose Brussels as the destination for
his first official visit to Europe.
After reminding EU leaders that
Turkey’s project of European
Kemal Kılıçdaroglgu meeting Štefan Füle, European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy
integration had been kickstarted
and continued by CHP and other
Social Democrats in Turkey,
Kilicdaroglu talked rather
bitterly about the support that
EU leaders and institutions still
provide to the AKP:
“The AKP government, does
not exhibit a concrete will to
transmit universal values like
democracy, rule of law and
human rights required by the
EU accession process to Turkey’s
neighbouring states, while
claiming to play a pivotal and
problem-solving role in the region.
CHP, on the contrary, regards
it as very important to pursue
a coordinated policy with the
EU towards its neighbouring
countries like Iran and Israel.
A coordinated approach in
this context would not only be
beneficial for the EU and Turkey
but also for the countries in
the region.”
Kilicdaroglu met with several
EU officials, as well as the Social
Democrat leaders in other
European countries and the
European Parliament. Almost all
of them were asking him: “Where
is Turkey heading to nowadays?
Where does the AKP take your
country to? We’re concerned.”
Kilicdaroglu reportedly replied.
“We were warning you about this
in 2003, when AKP had come to
power, and you were then labelling
us as the ‘secularist old-guard’.
Now do you realize the danger,
which is not only posed against
Turkey, but also against the EU?”
Take the never-ending economic
crisis... Add the demographic
facts about the EU… Finally,
remember how the EU supported
AKP’s recent constitutional
amendments that were approved
by a referendum in Turkey on
September 12th.
Then you’ll see the big picture
of a crossroads where the number
of regretful EU officials rises as
an omnipotent AKP government
keeps marching to for m an
authoritarian one-party rule in
a new Turkey with a political
opposition suppressed and a free
media castrated by financial threats
from the government, like the
$2.5 billion tax penalty that was
imposed on Dogan, the biggest
media group in the country.
As we reach this crossroad, there
will surely be a moment of truth
and we are fast approaching it. In
these circumstances, it is natural
that even a politician like Sarkozy
gets scared as he sees where the
EU and Turkey are heading. The
French leader is right: at least,
he has always been honest and
consistent, unlike many other
EU leaders.
To conclude, we can argue that it
is very probable that 2010 will be
decisive for the future of Europe
and Turkey. If AKP should be
able to form another one- party
government following the general
elections, paving the way to the
transformation of Turkey into
a postmodern dictatorship by
enforcing the presidential system,
who should we accuse first? The
secular opposition in Turkey or the
two-faced EU leaders who have
been trying to make us believe that
AKP is a democratising force?
W h o eve r we a c c u s e, t h e
ultimate result will not change:
There will be a decayed EU, lost
without “old” Turkey, and its new
neighbour in Southeast Europe:
An “Islamist Russia” with Muslim
oligarchs in charge...
Will Sarkozy still be talking about
an EU-Turkey-Russia axis then?

October 2010 • 23
external relations
Always there in the background: is Islam on the rise in Turkey?
Building a future on the past
By Jim Gibbons
O
NE OF HIS greatest
regrets, according
to my highly erudite
Turkish friend, is that he cannot
read and enjoy the great Turkish
poets of early last century and
before. The reason for that, of
course, is the great revolution
of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the
man who turned Turkey into
a western-looking, secular
state. But abandoning Arabic
script in favour of the Latin
alphabet meant Turkish words
lost their etymological roots
and the great writers of the
past were consigned to being
enjoyed only by those who both
read Arabic and speak Turkish,
which no longer go together,
of course. Even so, despite this
literary disjunction, nobody
could accuse Turkey of having
24
forgotten its past, whatever
the problems of its present, and
nowhere is that more apparent
than in Istanbul. Even so, not
being part of the European
Union might make it seem an
odd choice as one of this year’s
three European Capitals of
Culture, a selection invariably
made the Council of the
European Union. The other two
are Essen in Germany and Pecs
in Hungary.
Of course, it’s not such an
unexpected choice as the venue
for the Third European Heritage
Forum, as that’s a Council of
Europe initiative, and Turkey
was a founding member. By
coincidence, this year marks the
25th anniversary of the Council’s
“European Heritage Days”, and
the Forum itself fell just one day
before another anniversary: it
was exactly five years since formal
membership negotiations began
between Turkey and the EU.
In Istanbul, much that is old
and historic remains. But some
of the less celebrated older parts
– still with their own appeal – are
vanishing under the wheels of
progress, as Turkey seeks new
investment and greater prosperity.
Which is odd, since the purpose
of the Forum was to look at
how heritage issues can help
overcome poverty, social exclusion
and even conflict.
“The biggest problem we have in
Turkey is the Kurdish problem,”
admits Defne Gursoy, a Turkish
journalist who also works as a
researcher at the Sorbonne. “Many
projects include these socially
excluded communities, so civil
society is starting to get them onto
the bandwagon to develop heritage
projects.” It sounds like a great
idea, but the problem with trying
to unite disparate ethnic groups
through a shared heritage is that
they each have a different take
on whose heritage it really is. The
principle is based on the Council
of Europe’s Faro Convention,
agreed in 2005 and now boasting
almost enough signatures to
come into effect (things can
move painfully slowly in inter-
governmental bodies). In simple
terms, it says heritage belongs to us
all, so that, for example, a Swedish
architect, spotting an important
but unregarded pillar in Anatolia,
say, can insist on its preservation
because it’s his (or her) heritage too.
In other words, it makes heritage
a human right. It’ll need all the
• October 2010

signatures it can get; as the English
philosopher Jeremy Bentham
observed, real rights come from
real laws. “Natural rights is simple
nonsense,” he wrote, “Natural and
imprescriptible rights, rhetorical
nonsense – nonsense upon stilts.”
But that’s not to say that the force
of law cannot create such rights; it’s
something the Council of Europe
is rather good at.
But one of the biggest obstacles
was raised right at the outset:
preserving heritage and developing
heritage projects costs money. Even
Turkey, which is recovering from
the economic crisis faster than
most of its western neighbours,
has been accused of sacrificing
older buildings in favour of new
development. Istanbul’s old
19th century wooden buildings
are a case in point. “We have
some contradictions of interest
between the people interested in
cultural heritage and the people
interested in the transformation
of this cultural heritage,” Ahmet
Insel, a Professor of Economics
at Galatasaray University, told
me. “I think the majority of those
providing funds for heritage
projects are most interested in their
profitability. And this profitability
can come in the form of more
tourist business, improved services,
but we must be careful, too,
because we can also transform
some village somewhere into a
piece of theatre.” Disneyfication:
perish the thought!
Not much risk of that in Eastern
Turkey, but money is still an issue,
of course. I spoke with a spice
seller in Istanbul’s crowded and
aromatic Spice Market. “I come
from Anatolia but I got out of
there,” he said, “But the culture
is better than in the western part,
because when you go to the eastern
part and you have no money you
can stay one month, two months,
in someone’s house, no problem.
But in Istanbul: no money, no
honey!” I had just watched him
sell two grams of pure saffron to a
pair of Australian tourists for
€30, so somebody is making
honey, but it’s not Orhan who is
just a salesman.
The Council of Europe, rooted
as it is in juridical, human rights
and heritage issues, is bound to
October 2010 •
external relations
take a view that cultural matters
merit more attention from
governments. But they have a
point. “Culture itself is a kind of
glue for society, it’s what makes
society human,” says Robert
Palmer, the Council’s Director of
Culture, “and governments must
recognise the value of continuing
their investment. But they must
also recognise the amazing nature
of heritage in terms of stimulating
the economy.” Yes, quite, but with
banks to bail out, currencies to
shore up and unrest in the streets
it’s probably not the first thing on
their minds.
Turkey is still a long way from
being accepted into the EU, despite
former German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer predicting that
the economic crisis – and Turkey’s
relative economic success – may
soften opposition in Germany,
France and Austria, where it’s
strongest. Even Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
mountains to climb in terms of
satisfying Brussels that all his ethnic
minorities – and their respective
heritages – will be sufficiently
respected, even if the constitutional
position of the generals has been
dealt a blow. In any case, many
observers believe that the 58% yes
vote in the recent constitutional
referendum should be seen more
as backing for Mr Erdogan’s
softly Islamist party, rather than
a rallying call for reform. Many
intellectuals voted no; they feared
it would weaken the independence
of the judiciary.
But heritage can be shared to
good effect, putting an end to
conflict, and nowhere displays
that better than Istanbul. The
opening ceremony of the 3rd
European Heritage Forum was
held in the Hagia Irini museum.
Built on the site of a pre-Christian
temple it was Constantinople’s
first Christian church, becoming
a weapons store after the city’s
conquest in 1453 by Mehmet II,
then a museum. Now it’s a concert
hall, where traditional Turkish
music was played to delegates
under the Turkish and European
flags and beneath a large cross
painted in the dome above. A
meeting of cultures, if not always
Istanbul’s historic Spice Market - only the neon is new
of minds.
25
the eu at home
Galileo –
A very European affair
By Jessica Sone
G
alileo, the European
Union’s prestigious and
tactical satellite project
is coming under increasing
political pressure over rising
costs at a time when member
states are facing savage cuts.
However, the project still enjoys
broad support within the EU
institutions.
The 29th of September marked
a European day of action, titled
“No to austerity – Priority for jobs
and growth! “ led by the European
Trade Union Confederation. In
addition to the European day of
action, there have been strikes
across the EU in reaction to
government spending cuts with
26
the left pointing to the Keynesian
model of increased public
spending in order to promote
economic recovery. Indeed, all
sides in the debate on the future
of the European economy agree
that something has to be done. The
left calls for increased spending
with the right calling for spending
cuts. One thing both sides could
certainly agree on however, is that
government waste does nothing to
help anyone.
Why then, is the EU so insistent
on pursuing its Galileo project to
the bitter end? In a recent report
by Open Europe it was revealed
that the cost of the project has
risen dramatically from €2.6
billion in the year 2000 to around
€22.2 billion.
The Galileo project was supposed
to be one of the jewels in Europe’s
crown. A satellite navigation system
that was developed and built in
Europe. It would be more accurate
than the GPS system made
available by the Pentagon and,
crucially, would not be under the
control of a foreign government.
When completed, the Galileo
system will be accurate to within
one meter with a premium service
available to paying customer that is
accurate to within one centimeter.
It will also have strong encryption
as well as extra information
such as weather conditions. In
addition, the fact that it won’t be
run by the Pentagon will mean that
the quality of service will not drop
as GPS can when the US military
need extra capacity.
The benefits for the European
consumer are not immediately
clear however. While GPS is only
accurate to within ten meters, it
is wholly sufficient for consumer
g rade satellite navig ation,
despite the occasional news story
chronicling the unhappy journey
that ended with the driver being
told to drive into a river by their
trusty sat-nav.
However well intentioned the
Galileo project was when it began,
it quickly became an example of
• October 2010

© European Union, 2010
Antonio Tajani, vice president of the european commission for industry and entrepreneurship at the Galileo Application Days
how not to run a project. A joint
venture between the EU and the
European Space Agency (ESA)
(although the project would be
wholly funded by the EU) the
first four years went relatively
well with the European court of
auditors noting that the European
Commission had “actively played
its role of initiating the program
and getting it started”. However,
“Delays and cost overruns became
apparent in the course of 2005,
but no corrective action was taken
until March 2007.” This finding
led the court to conclude that “The
Commission failed to provide
adequate leadership”.
In 2005 infighting between
member states about the details
of where the money allocated
to the project should be spent as
well as the locations of key facilities
and infrastructure. Member
states also fought with the private
investors who were meant to
finance two thirds of the project.
Eventually, the private backers
pulled out of the project altogether
citing concer ns about the
commercial viability of the project
going forward.
Perhaps the private investors had
a better idea of the situation than
the European Commission. It has
since been revealed that the project
will be almost ten years overdue
and will cost almost ten times more
than originally forecast. Indeed,
the Galileo project has become an
example of European cooperation
at it’s worst. Infighting between
member states, EU institutions
October 2010 •
and private enterprise have, it
would seem, almost come to define
the project.
While a more accurate, European
controlled satellite navigation
system still looks good, on paper
at least, the fact is that the
project has been so delayed that
both Russia and China have
completed and launched their
own rival services, casting doubt
on whether or not the Galileo
service, if completed, could ever be
commercially viable.
While the commercial viability
of the project remains in question,
it would appear that there is still a
broad wave of support for Galileo.
Mathieu Grosch MEP was keen
to highlight the benefits that
Galileo would bring, citing
independence from foreign
controlled systems as one of the
top reasons to continue with the
project. In addition he noted that
the increased accuracy and extra
features supported by Galileo over
GPS would allow for advances in
navigation and security, especially
in respect to the tracking of
commercial goods.
Indeed, Galileo could be exactly
what Europe’s transport sector
needs. The EU is pressing for more
‘intelligent’ transport systems in
an effort to cut down on CO2
emissions. At the July plenary
before the summer recess, MEPs
adopted a report by Mathieu
Grosch MEP which called
measures to combat bottlenecks in
and around cities as well as a more
efficient interface between various
the eu at home
modes of transport across the will be cross party concern at the
EU, something that Galileo could amounts of money the commission
compliment very nicely. is talking about to get Galileo up
When asked about the costs, and running, especially given the
Grosch expressed concern but was German government’s admission
keen to point out that, while the that once operational, Galileo
sums of money may be large, there may not be profitable, even in the
were “more obvious benefits to the long term.
Galileo project than there are to At a time where member states
many of the projects undertaken are slashing public spending and
by the EU”. Indeed, While the EU the EU is talking about levying its
has cut back on some spending it own taxes in order to increase it’s
has been all too eager to allocate budget, this is perhaps the worst
large amounts of money to new possible time for such revelations to
projects as well as make it clear come out.
that things like the CAP are not
going away any time soon. Indeed,
the Commissioner in charge of
the CAP, Dacian Cioloş, recently
commented that farmers ought
not be embarrassed because they
receive state money.
Grosch revealed his surprise
that member states and private
industry had not been more keen
on the project. Indeed, it could
perhaps be argued that with more
stakeholders involved, there would
have been more oversight that
could have prevented so many
delays and budget overruns, or at
least mitigated them. The Galileo project
The EU has something of a
reputation for spending vast was supposed to be
amounts of money on projects one of the jewels in
where the benefit is not clear or,
at least, not unanimously agreed Europe’s crown. A
upon. However, the Galileo satellite navigation
project must stand out amongst system that was
them as one of the most bizarre.
Whether they favour increased developed and built
public spending or spending cuts, in Europe.
one thing must be clear, there
27
external relations
O
N JANUARY 20TH,
2009, history was
made — and many
black Americans were feeling
an increased sense of pride.
With the swearing in of
Barack Obama as the 44th
President of the United States,
many black Americans were
walking a little straighter,
holding their heads up a
little higher and, in many
cases, feeling a renewed
sense of self. It even affected
the children.
In all my years of mentoring
young black men, I had never seen
such a sense of pride. For the first
time, many of these young men are
saying that they want to be lawyers,
senators and governors, instead of
rappers, basketball and football
players. The dawn of a new day
had arrived. Or so we thought.
Everyone was so euphoric about
the positive aspects of his election
that they did not consider that
there were those for whom the
thought of an Obama presidency
was not a good thing. The media
had labeled Barack Obama the
first post-racial president. The
28
problem is that someone forgot
to tell the people who were angry
that a black man now occupied
the White House. Clearly, not all
of Obama’s political opponents
have racist thoughts, but you can
tell by the signs they carry and the
comments they make that some of
them do. These individuals have
attempted to score cheap political
points by telling people that the
big, bad black man was coming
after them.
It started with the rumors about
Obama going after guns, then
lawsuits claiming that he was
born in Kenya, then a member
of Congress shouting, “You lie,”
during a presidential address. A
lot of these actions were aimed at
delegitimizing Obama as president
of the United States. To a number
of black Americans, if you can
delegitimize a Harvard educated
attorney, who was elected to the
United States Senate and then
achieved an electoral landslide,
then the rest of black America
does not stand a chance.
Most Obama supporter s,
including myself, completely
underestimated how ang ry
Obama idealism
meets racist
reality
By Michael J. Warner in Washington
some white people would be.
Frankly, we should have known
When the President took office,
unemployment was approaching
10 percent. All of a sudden, you
had a black president, a black
attorney general and a female
secretary of state.
I have heard numerous times
in the past 20 months how this
is the worst time in history to be
a white male. White people are
scared. During the campaign, I
heard some white Democrats say
that they were voting for Senator
John McCain because they were
afraid of what Obama would do
to white people in retaliation for all
of those years of discrimination.
I also saw on television where a
white man was literally crying
because, as he put it, “we used
to be in charge, but now all of
the blacks and illegal aliens have
the power.”
Then, of course, there were
the middle-aged white people
screaming, “We want our country
back.” This, just a few short
months after the President took
office. Since nothing could be done
about the President, some feel
that segments of white America
decided to take it out on black
professionals.
It’s a no-brainer that the
economic woes of our country
have hit black America harder
that white America, but there is a
segment of black America that was
convinced they would prosper as
well as their white counterparts –
the black professionals. Boy were
they wrong. Black unemployment
is nearly double that of their
white counterparts. Story after
story has come out that basically
tells us that some white individuals
believe it is now OK to be a little
bit racist.
The New York times reported
that blacks who submit resumes
with “ethnic sounding” names
are not being considered for
employment regardless of which
Ivy League school they went
to in favor of whites with lower
qualifications. A white female
in Houston lost her election for
judge because she had a first
name that sounded black. (She
has since legally changed her
name.) White parents across the
country are convinced that if
• October 2010

their child does not get into a good university, it’s
because the university favors blacks. Regardless
of the fact that blacks make up a small fraction
of the university population.
Perhaps most astonishing is the fact that the
infamous phony crime claims have skyrocketed.
That is where people commit crimes or
fake crimes and blame them on an unidentified
black person. In August 2010, a white female
reported that an unidentified black woman
approached her, said, “Hey, pretty girl, want
something to drink?” and then proceeded to
throw acid in her face. It was revealed shortly
afterward that she did it to herself.
A young woman from Texas said that she
was attacked by an Obama supporter who
carved a B into her cheek. This was also found
to be false and that the young lady did it to
herself. A white police officer in Philadelphia
intentionally shot himself earlier this year
and claimed it was an imaginary black man.
Last summer, a white female said that she and
her daughter were abducted by black men, when
in reality they were at Disney World. These
incidents are too numerous to count.
This is happening in politics, as well. The new
tactic for race-baiters is to edit a video to make
it look like a black person in authority hates
white people and is abusing that authority
against whites, as was done in the case of Shirley
Sherrod. Ms. Sherrod was a high-ranking
official in the Department of Agriculture who
October 2010 •
external relations
had given a speech to the NAACP recounting
a difficult time in her life. A known race-baiter
chopped up the video of her speech and let it
out on the Internet. She was humiliated and
fired publicly. The next few days were filled
with conservative commentators making veiled
remarks about how this is what happens when
you let blacks have positions of authority.
When it was revealed not to be true, there were
no repressions on the individual who started
it – but the President and his administration
was criticized for taking action on the assumption
that the fraud was true.
In perhaps the most astonishing and insulting
event, a United States Senator has proclaimed
that white privilege, having certain advantages
in society because you are white, does not exist
and that any and all diversity programs should
be ended. The irony is that the Senator is a
member of an institution that has had four black
members in the last one hundred years and Black unemployment is
members of that institution fought civil rights as
much as they could. nearly double that of their
As long as people continue to have an us-against- white counterparts. Story
them mentality, and as long as a large segment
of white society believes that they will suffer if a after story has come out
minority has a supervisory role over them, these that basically tells us that
events will continue. Given what is going on in this some white individuals
country with regards to immigration, it appears
that white America will believe the same if a Latino believe it is now OK to
ever becomes president. But for now, it’s the black be a little bit racist.
professional who is suffering the greatest injustice.
29
energy and environment
The nuclear challenge
By Chris White
T
HERE IS SOMETHING
admirable and eminently
re a s s u ri n g a b o u t a
politician who brings experience
and knowledge from a past
period of their life to the job
of legislating.
In these days of uncertainty about
pretty well every aspect of life,
knowledge is key. Environmental
issues vie with economic issues
and the revolving debate between
all factions of society is a challenge
for politicians.
Energy is the crux of a wide
ranging debate about Europe’s
future so a new pamphlet “In
Praise of Nuclear Energy” is a
welcome attempt to dispel some
of the mythology surrounding
a key component of the EU’s
energy landscape.
Its author Giles Chichester
makes a convincing case for a new
technology that, as he says, is not so
new. The pamphlet, and a second
titled “Sustainable Secure Energy”
are an attempt to put nuclear
energy firmly back on the political
and economic agenda.
As the President of the European
Energy Forum, Giles goes to great
pains to stress that the views and
arguments he propounds are
his own. He even distances his
views from those of his British
Conservative Party. He is, of
course, the energy spokesman for
30
the European Conservative and
Reformist Group in the European
Parliament though, in an interview
with EU Reporter he surmised
that support for nuclear energy is
“broadly unanimous” in the ECR.
Across the EU it is most certainly
not. As Giles Chichester writes:
“Like all complicated technologies
– especially those that border on
the wondrous, nuclear energy has
its skeptics and opponents”. A
master of understatement is Giles.
But he goes on to say: “Yet if one
takes a cool look at the benefits
of nuclear energy in today’s
world I would characterise those
skeptics as Luddites. This was the
name given in English social and
economic history to men who
were so frightened of change,
progress, invention and machines
that they tried to stop it by breaking
the machines.”
Such is the debate about
nuclear energy in Europe. The
now veteran MEP, in a former
capacity, was a pamphleteer
for nuclear energy. He and his
partner produced and distributed
educational posters and
information aimed at educating the
public, especially school children
about nuclear energy.
His return to his old profession
is of much greater significance.
It comes at a time when energy
is fundamental to economic
health and security. As Giles
Chichester concludes: “...
it is abundantly clear to me
that the case for nuclear
energy does need to be made
over and over again, both to inform
the vast majority of people who
don’t really know much about
it and to counter the negative
propaganda so passionately
promoted by opponents.”
H i s c a s e i s t h at nu c l e a r
technology has progressed over the
past hundred years and is now well
proven with 437 reactors operating
world wide. Nuclear energy, he
says, is complimentary to green
technologies but is currently the
only available bulk supplier of our
base load electricity demand.
Security of supply is a strong
element of Giles Chichester’s case
for nuclear energy. A little known
but compelling fact is that should
there be a disruption of supply
nuclear power could continue for
three years without a break.
Long ter m price stability
is a major argument for the
technology as well as, of course,
negligible CO2 emissions. As he
writes: “Nuclear Energy is almost
emission free.” He goes on to
say: “ Increasing reliance on gas
and oil have created external
energy dependencies that give
rise to political, economic and
supply uncertainties.”
In his second timely pamphlet
Giles Chichester sets out the case
for other forms of renewable
energy. This covers smart metering
and transport. It is a balanced
account which, while it doesn’t
exclude nuclear energy, manages to
present a broad picture of society’s
current problems and dilemmas.
Again he descends on the
“individual” making the point that:
“People have to be persuaded that
spending money before it becomes
absolutely necessary, i.e. before the
boiler breaks down, is actually both
a good thing to do for sustainability,
and economically sensible in the
long run.”
In concluding his pamphlet
on nuclear energy Chichester is
typically pragmatic. In another
masterful understatement he
writes: “Of course, work remains
to be done to reassure the public
that nuclear energy is safe,
the waste issue is manageable
and disposable and that
decommissioning is both pre-
funded and carried out effectively.
We politicians have a key role to
play here and it is most important
that we do not shrink from it.”
At least we know to whom the
pamphlets are directed.
In Praise of Nuclear Energy and
Sustainable Secure Energy are available
from the office of Giles Chichester MEP.
• October 2010
 MEET GIULIETTA.
JOIN US AS WE CELEBRATE THE ARRIVAL
OF GIULIETTA… AND 100 YEARS OF
HEART-STIRRING ALFA ROMEO CARS.

FROM JUST £16,995 OTR.

Introducing the new Alfa Romeo Giulietta equipped with Pre-Fill braking system and Alfa Romeo D.N.A. to
make your drive even more dynamic. Developed to deliver low CO 2 emissions with superior fuel economy
and awarded a 5 star Euro NCAP safety rating with an overall score of 87/100, making it best in its class.
WITHOUT HEART WE WOULD BE MERE MACHINES.

www.alfaromeo.co.uk

Model shown: Alfa Giulietta 1750 TBi 235bhp Cloverleaf at £24,495 OTR including optional Ghiaccio
White special paint at £490.00. Range of official fuel consumption figures for the Alfa Giulietta range:
Urban 26.2 – 51.4 mpg (10.8 – 5.5 I/100km); Extra Urban 48.7 – 76.4 mpg (5.8 – 3.7 I/100km);
Combined 37.2 – 64.2 mpg (7.6 – 4.4 I/100km). CO2 emissions 177 – 114 g/km. Prices correct at time
of going to press.