This morning I went to the Fondation Universitaire to give a keynote speech on the Lisbon Treaty and its effects on the institutional dynamics of the European Union. My audience were an Erasmus  network of academics and researchers collectively known as Lisboan. My main theme was the importance of implementing all of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, including those concerning the democratic life of the Union (Title II of the Treaty). I argued in this context that we should not sidestep one of the ironies of the Treaty, that the gap between the EU and its citizens that the Treaty was designed to narrow grew in its absence. But the provisions the Treaty contains to narrow that gap were the results of a considered reflection process that did not only include the Convention but also the European Commission’s preceding White Paper on Governance (2001). The picture shows my audience, which included the distinguished figure (standing) of Brendan Donnelly, a former MEP and now Director of the UK’s Federal Trust.

A little later the plenary session hosted a visit from Johannes Hahn, European Commissioner responsible for regional policy, who had come to take part in a thematic debate on the situation and prospects for cohesion policy under the Europe 2020 strategy. Other key participants in the debate were, variously, Carmelo Cedrone (Italy, Employees’ Group), rapporteur of the Committee’s opinion on the future of cohesion policy, Etele Barath (Hungary, Various Interests’ Group), rapporteur of an exploratory opinion, requested by the Hungarian presidency, on the role and priorities of cohesion policy in the Europe 2020 strategy, and Mr Barath (again) and Mihai Manoliu (Romania, Employers’ Group), joint rapporteurs of the Committee’s opinion on the Danube Strategy. In his opening address Mr Hahn argued strongly for qualitative, and not just quantitative, growth.

This morning’s plenary session kicked off with the debate and adoption of a truly landmark opinion on the EU Budget Review. The opinion, authored by Henri Malosse (President of the Employers’ Group) and Gerard Dantin (Employees’ Group) is a pugnacious recognition that the review ‘is not a question of figures but rather a tool serving a political project’. The rapporteurs point out that today’s EU  ‘does not have the budgetary means to implement  either its political strategy or the commitments deriving from the new Lisbon Treaty.’ They insist that the battle of public opinion must be energetically joined and won because if the EU budget is to achieve optimal leverage effect it must be strengthened.

The EESC’s 472nd plenary session got under way this afternoon with a visit from Enikö Györi, the Hungarian Minister of State for EU Affairs, who gave a detailed review of the Hungarian presidency-in-office of the Council over the past six months. In the ensuing debate there was general recognition that the Hungarian presidency had, on balance, performed very well in sometimes very difficult circumstances. As the 2004 enlargements rapidly fade into the middle distance, such presidencies are graphic proof of the speed and depth of the enlargement process.

Claudia Schmied

This evening, in the EESC’s flagship Jacques Delors HQ building, EESC President Staffan Nilsson and Dr Claudia Schmied, Austrian Federal Minister for Education, Arts and Culture opened a rich exhibition, In Between. Austria Contemporary, in the presence of Johannes Hahn, European Commissioner for Regional Policy and Androulla Vassiliou, European Commissioner for Education, Culture, Multilingualism and Youth. The exhibition presents several trends in contemporary Austrian art that give good insights into the current art scene in Austria. The exhibition will be open to the public until 7 July 2011, so pop along, if you’re interested.

The European Economic and Social Committee’s main decision-making body, the Bureau, met again this afternoon. A primary purpose of such meetings is to prepare the following days’ plenary session, but there tend also to be one or more political discussions on important themes and topics. This afternoon, budgetary matters were much to the fore, but there was also a discussion on how the Committee needs to adapt its working methods so as to deliver its opinions in a timely fashion to the European Parliament. Consultation of the Committee by the European Parliament was an innovation of the Lisbon Treaty and is a growing phenomenon. As a quid pro quo, however, the Parliament imposes a three-month deadline on the Committee (which is entirely understandable, given the time pressure it is itself under in the ordinary legislative procedure), hence the discussion about how the Committee could meet such deadlines whilst maintaining the quality of its opinions.

Luca Jahier

The enlarged Presidency, composed of the Committee’s President, two Vice-Presidents and the three Group Presidents could be described as the Bureau’s preparatory body. Originally informal, its role is now recognised in the Committee’s rules of procedure and is to my mind a pragmatic response to the steady increase in the size of the Committee’s Bureau (39 members currently). This morning’s breakfast meeting therefore focussed primarily on the agenda of the afternoon’s Bureau meeting, but there were also several general political discussions. In the margins of the meeting Luca Jahier, the President of the Various Interests Group, generously presented me with a copy of a just-published book (Libro bianco sul Terzo settore, edited by Stefano Zamagni, il Mulino, 2011) in which he has authored the concluding chapter on the European dimension of the third sector. This was a double pleasure since, as readers of this blog will know, many moons ago Stefano Zamagni (a Bologna-based economist) once taught a young Martin Westlake.

I don’t write posts about every film I see, and certainly not about every bad film I see. Take it from me, X-Men: First Class is not a good film. Even N° 2 sprog and assorted friends were agreed as we left the cinema this evening; this was not a film they would be recommending to anybody any time soon. And yet, here I am writing about it, and this for two reasons. First, James McAvoy, who plays Professor Charles Xavier, looks and sounds uncannily like David Cameron, and to see what would appear to be the current British Prime Minister reading minds and fighting mutants is sort of fun, in a slightly worrying way. Second, the climax of the story is set amid the Cuban missile crisis. According to the screenplay, World War III was averted by the mutants, flinging secret submarines and stealth jets around much as boys kick tin cans in the street. But once we had staggered home I was able to explain to N° 2 sprog a little about the real Cold War and the real crisis and how it really was a close run thing and I hope there will be a faint glimmer of understanding and recollection next time the Cold War is mentioned. Even bad films can have silver linings!

This evening we watched Into the Wild, a (2007) film midway between Jack Kerouac and Jeremiah Johnson in theme. It is a pretty faithful story of the true life and times of Christopher McCandless, a determined young vagabond, consumed with wanderlust, who finally died of starvation, either by choice or by accident, in the Alaskan wilderness. Sean Penn’s direction is peerless. Though a hommage to the real McCandless, this is a film that should, and hopefully will, stand on its own reputation. Part of its attractiveness comes from its honesty and authenticity, enhanced by the incorporation into the story of real American places and people, such as Salvation Mountain and its creator, Leonard Knight. But the film’s success owes a great deal to Emile Hirsch’s entirely convincing performance as ‘Alexander Supertramp’. Many will be well aware of the controversy surrounding McCandless’s alleged  ‘irresponsible’ behaviour and ‘suicidal’ choices. We’ll never know the truth, but one of the sweeter and more convincing explanations is that McCandless, knowing full well that there was no longer such a thing as an unmapped wilderness, deliberately eschewed the maps that would have saved his life. Whatever, we don’t need to know anything about the ‘true’ story to enjoy a great American road movie.

Next week sees an EESC Bureau meeting (Tuesday) and a plenary session (Wednesday and Thursday). The Committee’s normal rhythm would have seen a management board meeting on Monday morning followed by a preparatory meeting of all of the services involved in the organisation of the two meetings (known simply as a ‘pre-session’ meeting). As I have surely already written elsewhere, in the Council of Europe’s parliamentary assembly (where I once worked) we use to call such preparatory meetings ‘morning masses’ – for the obvious reason that they were held early each morning. In the Committee we get by with a single ‘mass’, in part because the sessions are shorter, in part because the Committee’s apolitical membership seeks consensus and ‘political’ amendments are therefore more rare. Because this coming Monday is a holiday, we advanced all of our Monday meetings to today, thus giving our Friday a very Monday-ish feel. Chairing these meetings is an immense pleasure. So efficient and knowledgeable are my colleagues that it feels like climbing into a powerful and well-upholstered limousine. All I have to do is push the starter button – and even that is largely symbolic.