How does the EU solve a problem like the Ukraine?

Update 13:45 - According to Antonio Delgado, Spanish Public Radio's EU correspondent, "diplomatic sources" have indicated that the UK, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Bulgaria are all "not keen" on sanctions, although the Italian Foreign Ministry issued a statement claiming that “In the event of the continuation of violence, we don’t rule out resorting to exceptional restrictive measures”.

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso on the other hand is optimistic:

Following developments in #Ukraine w/ shock & utter dismay. We expect targeted measures agreed by our #EU MS urgently http://t.co/nsy4JsSKhA
— José Manuel Barroso (@BarrosoEU) February 19, 2014

*****Original Post*****

The escalation in violence in Kiev yesterday and overnight poses a huge challenge to the EU. What, exactly, can it do here to prevent continuing civil disorder on its doorstep?

As ever when it comes to EU foreign policy, the first hurdle is to actually secure an agreement among 28 member states which is difficult in itself. As we've said on a number of occasions, Catherine Ashton's European External Action Service cannot magically replace 28 foreign policy positions - this has been proved time and again over Israel/Palestine, Libya, Syria etc. When it comes to the Ukraine, these differences have been apparent in how to deal with Russia in the first place, how hard it was to push for the EU-Ukraine trade agreement, then over how to deal with the anti-government protests, and now it looks likely they will appear in whether to impose sanctions. Here is a round-up of where the key EU countries stand on potential sanctions:

UK - Europe Minister David Lidington has condemned the violence and urged "all parties to return to the path of compromise and genuine negotiation" - no explicit reference to sanctions.

Poland - As the biggest supporter of Ukraine's eventual integration into the EU, Poland has consistently taken a hard stance on the issue. Speaking in the Polish parliament this morning, Prime Minister Donald Tusk called for targeted sanctions against those individuals "responsible for the Ukraine's misfortune". However, he conceded these tended to have limited effectiveness, but argued they sent a "moral" signal. He also slammed Russian pressure and warned that a civil war was possible. In a rare outbreak of political unity, the sanctions were also backed by the opposition Law and Justice party.

Germany - The German government (and the SPD in particular) has traditionally been very cautious when dealing with Russia so as not to alienate Moscow unnecessarily. For this reason they had opposed sanctions - supported by many in the European Parliament - but Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier yesterday noted that personal sanctions will now "surely be considered". Chancellor Merkel will discuss the situation with President Hollande later today.

France - French President Francois Hollande said that he “agreed with [Polish PM] Tusk on the need for swift European sanctions, targeted at the main responsible for these acts.”

Italy – It is unclear whether Rome's position will change following the recent developments and/or the appointment of Renzi's new cabinet but the existing position was to oppose sanctions, with Foreign Minister Emma Bonino arguing a couple of weeks ago that "it has always been easy to announce [sanctions], but it has never been easy to apply them in a coordinated fashion. To me, this doesn't seem the way to go.”

Sweden - Another strong supporter of Ukraine's EU ambitions and of the anti-government protectors, Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bild is as expected shouting the loudest, accusing Ukraine's President Yanukovych of "having blood on his hands".

Of course agreeing on a course of action is one thing - implementing it is another and the EU simply struggles to back up its rhetoric with 'hard power' due to the nature of the EU itself. The key will be how Putin responds if the situation continues to get out of hand - how will the EU respond if Moscow intervenes more directly? As the 2008 Georgian crisis showed - when the EU initially tried to present a common front - the Russians are very adept at exploiting any divisions and they still wield substantial leverage due to the reliance of many EU members on their energy resources.

Notwithstanding the need for a political solution to Ukraine's internal problems, there is surely a wider need for the EU and Russia to come to a sensible compromise over Ukraine's future - as the map below shows, geopolitically, the Ukraine is trapped between two large political and economic blocs (the map shows the respective customs union and potential members), and any closer political and economic integration of the Ukraine into the EU triggers Russia's age-old fears about 'encirclement'.

EU approval process for GM requires better balance between innovation and democratic accountability

Yesterday saw a debate between the EU's Europe ministers regarding the approval of Pioneer 1507 - a strain of genetically modified maize which has been developed by US firm DuPont to be pest-resistant. This is a fascinating case which sees the clash between EU legal procedures and scientific evidence on one hand, and public opinion and green lobbying on the other.

Unbelievably, DuPont first applied for EU approval back in 2001, but due to the political resistance to GM in the EU, this application was deliberately kicked into the long grass despite six separate positive opinions from the EU's food quango, the European Food Safety Agency. The wider context is a climate of political hostility which has resulted in Europe falling far behind the rest of the world when it comes to biotechnology - aside from Pioneer 1507 only one other GM crop has been approved in the past 15 years. The result is that biotech companies such as BASF and Monsanto have already left the EU and others could follow suit, with the loss of jobs, investment and trading opportunities.

Following a legal challenge by DuPont, the EU's General Court ruled that the EU was breaching its own rules by not taking a decision. Opinion among member states was divided, with five states including the UK minded to vote in favour, four including Germany minded to abstain and the remaining 19 minded to vote against (a formal vote was not actually held). Despite the large number of member states opposing the approval, no qualified majority was reached either way.

Under the EU's comitology process, when the result is indecisive, the Commission can chose to push ahead with its original proposal, and its looks set to do so (in fact during the debate the Council's legal service indicated it would be legally obliged to).

This is undoubtedly a problematic situation. On one hand, it is good that the Commission is heeding the independent scientific recommendation issued by EFSA. As EU Health Commissioner Tonio Borg argued during the debate, member states should not pick and chose when to follow such advice and when to disregard it. On the other hand it is bad from a democratic perspective when the Commission forces through something opposed by a majority of member states and public opinion - the EU was rightly slammed for proposing to ban jugs of olive oil from restaurant tables following a similarly inconclusive vote.

The case therefore illustrates the need for more flexibility in the EU on issues where member states cannot agree and where public sensitivities need to be taken into account. As UK Europe Minister David Lidington argued during the debate:

"I've no wish to force any country that doesn't want to cultivate this variety of maize to do so... in the longer term the answer surely has to be some agreement under which we agree that those member states that want to have GM crops in cultivation are free to do it while those maintain a ban are free to do so as well."

Greater flexibility for member states to ‘go it alone’ in designing appropriate regulatory frameworks for GM was also one of the recommended in the recent Fresh Start report on the EU's impact on UK Life Sciences. This would be a good compromise - that way it would be down to national governments and parliaments to decide whether to allow cultivation of GM crops - and it would be down to national politicians in favour of this to show the requisite leadership to win over public opinion.

Hague and Lidington raising the stakes?

The last few days have seen some tough talk from the UK's Foreign Office on the size and role of Catherine Ashton's External Action Service. Following a meeting of EU foreign ministers yesterday, Europe Minister David Lidington used uncharacteristically undiplomatic - albeit justified - language, describing Ashton's demands for a 5.8% increase to the EEAS' budget next year as "somewhat ludicrous", adding “They’ve got to get real as far as the budget is concerned.” (indeed)

He also made a point of underlining how the FCO is now keeping a watchful eye on the EU's 136 embassies around the world, saying that “William [Hague] has sent out instructions to all our posts around the world to be vigilant about any risk of competence creep,” referring to the ever-present risk of the EEAS taking on an increasing number of responsibilities that should belong to member states.

And, in case anyone in Ashton's bureaucratic machine hadn't quite got the message, the man himself (Hague, that is) used an interview on the Today Programme this morning to fire a couple of warning shots of his own. On the proposed budget increase for the EEAS, he said,

"I don't think it is necessary to have such an increase at a time where diplomatic services across the world, certainly across Europe, are tightening their belts, becoming more efficient. We are expanding our diplomatic network in the world but we are doing that by saving GBP100 million of administrative costs."

On the risk of the EEAS' incrementally increasing its power, he noted,

"We will always guard against mission creep. We are very clear about what's a UK responsibility and what is an External Action Service responsibility. I am certainly giving a pre-emptive warning. Where we have seen one or two instances of it, we have dealt with that but we will always be vigilant about that."

Then he went on to make, possibly, the most important point of all - which we highlighted in our recent paper looking at the need to overhaul the EU's North Africa and Middle East policy (which to be fair, is a view that the Commission/the EEAS is coming around to as well):

“Where more money is needed…is the much bigger project, and it’s one much in line with what the United States is seeking, of a bold and ambitious approach to change in the Middle East and North Africa - Europe providing a magnet for positive change; the resources that will help small and medium sized enterprises to grow in these countries and bring economic stability. And that is the big issue rather than the administrative budget of the External Action Service."

This is a pretty robust - but more importantly a sensible - line from the Foreign Office. More please.

This Government cannot be trusted on EU crime and policing

The torrent of EU justice, police and immigration laws keeps on coming and the Government keeps on signing up to them.

Home Office Minister James Brokenshire today told the House of Commons that the UK has opted in to the EU's cyber-crime directive. Now leaving aside the merits or drawbacks of the new law in question, this decision demonstrates the complete lack of democratic accountability that we've been highlighting over the past weeks and why we've been pushing for MPs and the public to be given more power under the EU Bill.

Not only did MPs not get to vote on whether the UK should sign up to this particular directive, the Government broke the European Scrutiny Committee's 'scrutiny reserve' to do so. MPs on the ESC considered the proposal late last year but did not clear it because they felt there were still questions for Ministers to answer about the plans. The directive sets "a maximum term of imprisonment of at least five years" for certain cyber-crime offences.

But there is another technical but hugely significant point. We've explained before that in 2014 the UK has the right to opt out of around 90-100 EU policing laws that came into force before the Lisbon Treaty took effect. On the other hand, if the Government decides to remain opted in, these laws will fall under the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the first time. The Government has said it will put this hugely important decision to a vote in both Houses of Parliament - something that we welcome.

However, the directive the Government opted in to today 'repeals and replaces' a pre-Lisbon law, meaning that there is now one less EU law the UK can opt out of in 2014. It also means that the Government has today handed jurisdiction over the area of cyber-crime from the UK courts to the ECJ. And all without Parliamentary debate or approval.

The Minister said that by giving an oral statement to the House he was acting in the spirit of Parliamentary scrutiny but this is, quite frankly, nonsense. What use is scrutiny after the event? The Government has made a decision and there's nothing anyone can do about it. Today's statement was just to put that fact on record.

Last month, Europe Minister David Lidington made a statement committing the Government to observe Parliamentary scrutiny and give MPs more opportunity to have a say on EU justice and home affairs opt ins. On today's evidence it doesn't seem the Home Office got the message.

To make matters worse, the Government also looks set to opt in to the EU's plans to make the telephone numbers, addresses, credit card numbers, email and other details of British air travellers available on demand to police forces across Europe. The Commission's current proposal covers flights between EU and third countries but, not satisfied with this, the Coalition wants the proposal stretched further to cover data collected on all flights within the EU as well.

MPs have again been sidelined and the Government is fast losing any trust that Lidington has been seeking to build on this issue.

Power to the Parliament

Open Europe has just hosted a debate on the Coalition Government's proposed 'referendum lock' with Europe Minister David Lidington. A write-up and recording of the event will be put on our events page shortly. But in the meantime, two thoughts:

A point raised - echoing what was argued in the Economist's Bagehot column last week - is that the referendum lock amounts to an effective "UK Veto Bill" over new EU treaties. This, so the reasoning goes, is de facto locking in a two-speed Europe, with Britain in the 'slow lane', as it would never be able to sign up to new Treaties under the Bill (assuming that any referendum on a new EU Treaty in the UK would result in a No vote).

This logic contains some truth but is also dated. In today's more fluid, interesting but also more perilous, Europe what matters is one thing: the health of your economy.

Europe is already a multi-speed beast, fuelled by the ongoing eurozone crisis. The slow lane is reserved for the countries which don't have enough cash to carry them over until tomorrow - not those which choose to stay out of the European Public Prosecutor (for example). Which lane the UK occupies in the future will depend on its economic fundamentals - not the referendum lock.

Secondly, some commentators really should read the actual Bill before ranting. Philip Stephens, who every week recycles columns in the FT, for instance. Today he argues,

It is likewise curious that a Tory party so wedded to parliamentary sovereignty should be so keen to subordinate its authority to a plebiscite. Margaret Thatcher got it right when she criticised the last popular vote on Europe in 1975. The referendum, the then Tory leader observed, sacrificed parliamentary sovereignty to political expediency.

This is wide of the mark. In fact, the biggest winner from this Bill is not the British people - a referendum is unlikely to be called for a long-time (which Stephens also acknowledges) - but the UK Parliament. Every decision outlined in the referendum lock will ultimately rest with Parliament, including whether a power shift is significant enough to warrant a referendum under the so-called significance criteria in the Bill.

In this sense, the proposal is actually more of a Parliamentary lock, than a referendum lock. What the Bill will do is restore some control to Parliament - which has been handed over to the government (and then onto MEPs, EU judges and eurocrats) through various EU treaties.

Now it's up to Parliament to decide what to do with these powers.

Ps. Stephens also argues that the EU Bill is "a piece of legislation so dense and unintelligible that it makes the Maastricht treaty seem like an easy read." He clearly has limited experience with EU treaties and texts. In fact, the EU Bill is a Stieg Larsson novel compared to much coming out of Brussels, such as the unconsolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty for example (which we were the first to decodify).