It says it won’t accept a “gentlemen’s club” but how gender-balanced is the European Parliament itself?

Jean-Claude Juncker and his people have rightly expressed concern over the lack of female European Commission candidates put forward by member states. It’s raining men in Brussels as we put it recently.

Never slow to jump on a bandwagon, certain MEPs are now digging in as well, threatening a veto (remember the European Parliament has to approve the new Commission) should Juncker’s Commission not include enough women.

The European Parliament’s President Martin Schulz – the guy, remember, who lost to Juncker – said

"The European Parliament is very concerned that at present virtually all the potential candidates whose names are circulating are men. The European Parliament will not accept a gentlemen’s club." 

The head of the liberal ALDE group, Guy Verhofstadt – a man known for his strong views – added

"As liberals, we cannot support a commission with too few women."

Meanwhile, the head of the Socialists in the EP, an Italian gentleman named Gianni Pittella, said

"We will not support a European Commission with fewer women than today." 

Fine, these three men have a point. But let’s throw back the question: how gender-balanced is the European Parliament itself? Well, a rather mixed bag it turns out – with some depressing stats in particular:

• 20% of members in the Conference of Presidents – EP group leaders plus the EP President, i.e. the top dogs – are female 
• 22% of the leaders of the EP’s political groups are female 
• 37% of MEPs are female 
• 45% of the EP’s committee chairs are female (encouragingly up from 36% in the last Parliament) 

So whilst not exactly Whites or the East India Club – hardly a great beacon of gender balance either. As that old saying goes, start with the man (errr) in the mirror.

EU Foreign Policy: Kum-bay-ah or Machiavelli?

The EU’s fledgling External Action Service has regularly been mocked for its naivety and ‘Kum-bay-ah’ approach; all too often it seems to base its polices on projecting a positive image of the EU, occasionally backed by some suitably bland statements, supposedly helping autocrats and dictators around the world to see the error of their ways and embrace reform.

It seems however, that the recent unrest in North Africa and the Middle East has brought a hitherto hidden Machiavellian tendency in the EU’s foreign policy to the fore. Firstly, we had the Maltese EU Commissioner for health going off-message on Libya a couple of weeks ago by saying he “didn't think [he] had the right, or anyone else, to make a statement on whether he [Gaddafi] should step down”.

Now Robert Cooper, senior advisor to EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton, has claimed Bahrain is normally "a rather pleasant, peaceful place", and defended its security forces after they opened fire on protesters with live ammunition last week:

"I'm not sure if the police have had to deal with these public order questions before. It's not easy dealing with large demonstrations in which there may be violence. It's a difficult task for policemen. It's not something that we always get right in the best Western countries and accidents happen”.

His statement ought to be seen in the context of an earlier work in which he claimed:

“The challenge of the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards…When dealing with more old fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era – force, pre-emptive attack deception, whatever is necessary… Among ourselves we keep the law but when operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle”

This also follows the reports that another Ashton aide was briefing against a no-fly over Libya, which briefly put her at odds with both Cameron and Sarkozy, until it was explained away as a 'rogue briefing'.

These kinds of ill-advised comments emanating from the EU apparatus, and the fact that we'll never know who authorised them, demonstrate inconsistency, and further undermine the EEAS's objective of getting Europe to "speak with one voice". They also underline the potential danger of a power struggle over the EU's foreign policy at a time when Europe is facing an uncertain future.

Barroso's case of the Budget Blues

After a tumultuous five-plus-months of discussions, EU negotiations over the 2011 budget broke down two days ago, leaving an array of despondent MEPs, Commissioners and eurocrats to lament a 'budgetary crisis'.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso launched a not so veiled attack on the terribly obstinate member states who tried to install a little 'pseudo-austerity' into the EU budget (real austerity would mean actually cutting expenditure rather than trying to cap the budget rise at 2.9%). Jose said:

I regret that a small number of member states were not prepared to negotiate in a European spirit Those that think they have won a victory over 'Brussels' have shot themselves in the foot. They should know that they have dealt a blow to people all over Europe and in the developing world.

Yes, you read right. Barroso is actually attempting to take the moral high ground here. First of all, if the EU institutions really wanted to help the developing world, why not spend some time taking a long hard look at the existing fat in the EU budget rather than jumping up and down demanding more money.

But, more hypocritical, is the presumption that an increased EU budget is necessarily going to help the developing world. What about the huge amounts spent supporting European farmers at the expense of their competitors in poorer countries and the additional impact this has on increasing food prices?

One can also point to flaws in EU trade agreements that leave poorer countries unable to support domestic producers against floods of cheap, subsidised European imports.

The EU's large aid budget is also less effective at targeting funds at the poorest countries than many of member states' own aid programmes.

All in all, Barrosso's tug at the heart strings looks a lot more like a self-serving attempt to boost the power of the EU institutions rather than a sudden bout of altruism.

Double Standards & Flexible Principles

The row between the French government and the European Commission over the repatriations of Roma people has reawakened the debate about immigration policies, solidarity and racism. The topic is extremely complex, and some of the main questions could remain unanswered for a long time.

But the recent quarrel has also shown how the French government is guilty of double standards when it comes to respecting "European principles".

As we argue in this letter to European Voice today, for years France has lectured other member states on the need for "European solidarity" and to keep up the image of a happy family. However, now that it is accused of violating several key EU laws, the French government suddenly seems much less keen to abide by the principles it used to preach.

But Sarkozy is not the only one who has displayed the symptoms of "EU-hypocrisy" lately. As Dutch MEP Derk-Jan Eppink revealed during the last plenary session of the European Parliament, in 2002 Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights because, three years before, 74 Roma people had been "collectively expelled" and deported to Slovakia. And guess who the Belgian Prime Minister was at the time? None other than Liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt (shaking hands with Sarkozy in the picture), the staunchest defender of euro-federalism and "European values".

Indeed, only last week, Verhofstadt was quick to join the rest of the European Parliament in condemning the French policy. He said,

"The reaction from several French government ministers to our criticism is regrettable. This is not a question of political diktat but an appeal to a better sense of judgement based on commonly shared European values for tolerance, non-discrimination and respect for free movement. The Roma are European citizens just like any other."

"Parliament this week was perfectly entitled to point out that bribing or forcing one ethnic group to return, en masse, to another member state, is not in conformity with EU laws, nor in the spirit of the treaties."

It's worth watching the video below right to the end of Eppink's speech. The look on Verhofstadt's face is a picture.

Is even virtual democracy too dangerous for the EU?

A lot of attention has been paid in recent weeks to the European Parliament-funded virtual reality experience, Citzalia, which recreates life in the Parliament online.

As its weblog states, it is "a role playing game and social networking forum wrapped in a virtual 3D world that captures the essence of the European Parliament." All for the tidy sum of €275,000.

In The Sunday Telegraph, Christopher Booker made the suggestion that "We are given virtual democracy in exchange for real power”.

However, it seems that even "virtual democracy" cannot be trusted by the EU.

The Guardian reported that in the new taxpayer-funded virtual world, "Avatars of European commission officials will also wander the halls 'correcting' mistaken views about the EU." The developer stresses that "there won't be any censorship, but there is a huge risk that misinformation could be fed in. They won't be editing for views, but having these people in can sort of correct things."

Given the EU's inability to accept what voters tell it in the real world, it is hardly surprising that Alles tonenit cannot trust ordinary citizens (who, let us not forget, are paying for this through the EU budget) to have their own debate online, without the need for EU supervision (sorry, "correction").

A vacuous slogan?

The European Parliament today held a hearing entitled "Unity in Diversity", one of the EU's more hypocritical slogans, on the role that religious belief should play in society after ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.

"Unity in diversity" is one of those wishy washy terms that often become rather meaningless. But wouldn't the EU be a much better place if this maxim, rather than that of "ever close union", was the one that prevailed, be it the EU's respect for religious differences to respect for the existing member states' differing legal systems, cultures and social and employment practices?

Guess that's not what the EU really meant though is it..

Infuriating and fatal

Over on Comment is Free we take a look at the simmering EU pay dispute, which took a new turn yesterday when the Commission decided to take all 27 EU member states to the ECJ over their refusal to increase their offer of a 1.85% pay rise for EU officials to 3.7%.

It seems it is not only us that think this is a ridiculous situation. An article in Die Welt by Brussels correspondent Hannelore Crolly argues that,

"It is a fatal decision for the EU Commission to argue over the increase in payment to 50,000 already well-paid employees in the face of objections from the debt ridden member states in court…In a deliberately insensitive and almost frightening way, the Commission is again sending the wrong message to the people, who it should be trying to win over for the European cause."

Similarly an article in Kölner Stadt Anzeiger argues: “The EU is fighting against the countries that support it. It is not just painful, it is infuriating.”

In today's WSJ Charles Forelle takes a critical look at the "compulsory method" that was used to arrive at the 3.7% pay increase demanded by EU civil servants and which has become central to the dispute. He notes that,

"To crunch the civil servants' cost-of-living adjustment, the EU's statistical office doesn't rely on Belgian data for housing costs. Instead, each year it surveys its own staffers, asking them how much they pay. The purpose isn't lost on those surveyed. A privacy statement attached to the survey says the data will be used "for the calculation of the annual salary adjustment."

He adds,

"Rent-survey data accounted for nearly all of the increase in the EU's
bespoke cost-of-living figure…Had the EU used the Belgian consumer-price index -
which fell 1.1% - to adjust the civil-servant salaries, the raise would have
been a more recession-friendly 1.7%, instead of the now-vilified 3.7%."

As we've argued before, with civil servants in Latvia seeing their pay cut by 25% and Ireland slashing 1.3 billion euros off its public sector wage bill, EU officials' refusal to accept a compromise wage increase of 1.85% does seem rather churlish, to put it mildly.

Downright scandalous

We had been forced led to believe by the powers that be that the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (by hook and by crook) was meant to signal the end of the EU's internal wrangling and launch the EU into a new decade more outward looking and firmly focussed on the needs of its citizens.

However, the 40,000 - 50,000 or so EU bureaucrats in Brussels (and Luxembourg) plainly have other ideas. They have decided to start 2010 by taking all 27 member states of the EU to the European Court of Justice over their refusal to agree an inflation busting 3.7% pay rise. EU officials have been unwilling to accept a compromise offer from member states of a 1.85% rise.

Now this is so outrageous on so many levels that you would be forgiven for thinking this was a joke or something concocted by the most vehement eurosceptic. But if you're struggling to believe it, take a look here.

First, the pay rise itself. EU officials are paid well, very well. The basic monthly salary of the lowest pay grade is €2,550 per month, while a department head can expect to earn around €17,700 per month, and are paying special "community taxes" ranging from 8% to 45% (with the highest tax bracket applying only on wages above €6,700 per month). They receive all manner of benefits, including generous allowances for their children's education and very favourable pension arrangements.

Despite these benefits, EU officials are insistent that, in the worst recession for generations, they are entitled to more because "that's what the 'compulsory method' for calculating the figure says" and that it is a matter of "rule of law" as a Commission spokesperson delicately put it. Evidently, recessions can't penetrate the Brussels bubble and, even if they did, they would of course be superseded by EU law.

The scale of the brazen disregard for what is happening to Europeans elsewhere and the sheer bloody-midedness is quite frankly awesome.

Second, is the process by which this issue of the pay rise will inevitably happen be decided. You could cut the lack of democratic accountability with a knife. Today's decision to take the matter to the ECJ was taken by the 'College of Commissioners', which includes all 27 EU Commissioners and the UK's very own Catherine Ashton. The decision was taken by unanimity, so it therefore follows that the Baroness thought this a good idea too.

Because all the salaries of those directly employed by the EU institutions are based upon the same pay scale, the 27 EU Commissioners are also set to benefit from the additional 3.7%. Now Ashton's decision is not looking so silly (well, for her anyway). As Bruno Waterfield over at the Telegraph notes, Ashton will pocket an extra £9,000 on top of her basic annual salary of £241,000 if the commission's legal action is successful. But it does not stop there.

Not content with an assault on EU taxpayers' wallets, the Commissioners have made sure to insult their intellect for good measure. Commission spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen told journalists that due to the stalemate between member states and the Commission "Now it's for the court" to decide. Reading this at first glance one would think this reasonable - an impartial judiciary is just the job for such institutional difficulties.

But, hang on a minute, aren't the ECJ judges' salaries also based on the very same pay scale as all other EU officials? Why yes they are. Thank the EU for those checks and balances. The festive season may be over but the expression 'Turkeys don't often vote for Christmas' still very much applies.

Do as I say, not as I do

In October EU ministers and heads of state met under the Swedish EU Presidency to discuss how to fight global poverty and combat climate change.

The Swedish press reported over Christmas that the participants in these so-called European Development Days managed to clock up some £310,000 in limousine expenses alone during the five days that the conference lasted, providing yet another text-book example of how not to go about your business if you want citizens and the rest of the world to follow your "lead". The extensive use of limousines to ferry ministers to EU meetings where poverty and CO2 reductions are being discussed doesn't exactly send out the right signals..

EU Comedy Awards

In an earlier post this week we asked who on earth the European Parliament was giving snazzy medals out to, and what on earth for?

Well, courtesy of the Telegraph's Bruno Waterfield it turns out that Den Dover, the disgraced former Tory MEP who owes the taxpayer £500K in "unduly paid" expenses, has been awarded a medal for his "vital contribution to the public debate". Ditto Tom Wise - you know, the UKIP MEP who has been charged with fraud over claims of secretarial allowances worth £36K.

It's so stupid it's hilarious.