This may serve as a “loud wake up call”, writes El País. Annually, Europeans waste

... 179 edible and healthy kilograms of food each [...] the major portion of which is household related, at 42% (of which 60% is apparently avoidable). Producers follow close behind on 39%; catering sector 14%; and lower down the scale, distributors at 5%.

Taking into account that 16 million Europeans receive aid from charity organisations, the report asks to-

... redistribute leftover food to poorer people which would end up as refuse.

The report drafted by Italian socialist MEP Salvatore Caronna calls on the Commission to promote measures to reduce waste, such as the double date labelling [sale date limit and latest possible consumption] and with discounts on food products damaged  or close to the expiry date.

... on a struggle for power, attention, and a monopoly on the interpretation of the treaties that could fail and ridicule parliament or modify the structure of power in Brussels.

This view is shared by Financial Times Deutschland which, nonetheless, casts doubts on Schulz’s ability to carry out his "coups". For example, Schulz plans on actively participating in EU summits, starting with the negotiations on the fiscal package.

At the same time, he cannot speak only for his political group, but will have to represent all the MEPs: the nationalists along with the pro-Europeans, the left and the right, the federalists and the centralists. He will not be able to represent all of these opinions in the negotiations. [...] and that is not his role.

For its part, the Polish press pays homage to the outgoing president. Wprost points out that Jerzy Buzek adopted a strategy of avoiding direct confrontation, preferring to seek political compromises, and also demonstrated a considerable talent as a negotiator. He was the one to convince Václav Klaus to sign the Lisbon Treaty, and it was his visit to Moldova that contributed to the resolution of the governmental crisis and the establishment of a pro-European coalition.

He had his finger on the pulse of international politics and knew where and when to be. He spoke to Egyptian protesters at Cairo’s Tahrir Square and to Libyan rebels in Tripoli, who chanted ‘Thank you, Europe!

Although he was universally liked and respected, Wprost points out that Busek was also criticised for his strict political correctness and “procedural super-meticulousness.” However, at the end of the day, enthusiastically notes Gazeta Wyborcza, Buzek-

... certainly demonstrated that Polish politicians are suitable for top international roles.

And when governments respond, they do so in a half-hearted fashion: by waiting for the Franco-German couple to take the initiative.

Willingly or perhaps not so willingly manning the helm, “Merkozy” has managed to pilot the euro through the shoals of the crisis – at least until now.

At the same time, their management of the emergency and the developments to come have enshrined the triumph of the intergovernmental method, favoured by Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, as well as the President of the European Council and adroit weaver of compromises, Herman Van Rompuy.

It is a method that has its advantages – we can react more rapidly, more effectively, and more legitimately when decisions are taken by government leaders – and its disadvantages: the absence of transparency and the de facto marginalisation of “small” countries.

The other drawback is that the intergovernmental method has sidelined community institutions (the European Commission and Parliament) to the point where it has weakened the entire EU, which is now perceived by the public as a part of the problem rather than the solution.

In spite of José Manuel Barroso’s demands for a more important role for the Commission – with, as a first step, control over the observance of the new pact for the euro – the institution he presides continues to viewed by  commentators and a significant section of public opinion as  a club of non-elected bureaucrats, which assumes that it can tell sovereign governments how to manage their budgets, and even how to apply austerity measures that are deemed to be inevitable.

This is the main disadvantage of the organisation that is supposed to embody European governance. Although they benefit from the approval of the European parliament, the European commissioners are not elected by citizens, but designated by member states.

This lack of direct suffrage has caused many Europeans to question the legitimacy of their actions. That is why it is desirable that they should be elected, either directly by citizens, or, perhaps more realistically in the short-term, by the members of the European Parliament.

By the same token, all the members of parliament will have to disclose their business activities and earnings for the three years preceding their nomination, and make public all revenues of more than 5,000 euros a year.” The text adds that “MEPs will have to hand over presents received when acting as official representatives to the parliament’s president."

The salaries paid to the 754 MEPs [which can amount to 10,000 euros per month after deductions] are the subject of much indignation in a society that is in the grip of a severe economic crisis. This loss of credibility has obliged the European Parliament to introduce the code of conduct which stipulates a range of sanctions for parliamentarians who fail to observe the new rules.

Until now, there was no specific code of this kind, but a series of regulations dispersed throughout the parliament’s rules of procedure (...) MEPs will now have to ‘present a declaration of interests to the parliament’s president' that will include the MEP’s salary, any other paid work, and information about any positions on boards of directors, associations or NGOs.

“The rich countries have had their way”, comments the Warsaw daily and names them all: the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Denmark and Finland. These member states had long fought for the EU budget to be frozen in real terms, arguing that the Commission was in no position to raise spending when everyone around was making cuts. “The result of the negotiations on the 2012 budget may prove a precedent for the much more important bargaining over the 2014-2020 Financial Framework”, concludes the Warsaw daily, stressing that the UK, supported by France and Germany, has already made it clear it won’t agree to any spending growth above inflation. The new EU Financial Framework is to be endorsed by the end of next year.

However, the experience of previous agreements hammered out after difficult negotiations should encourage us to hedge our bets. Markets move in mysterious ways, and there is a risk that this latest summit will have been for nothing. With this in mind, it is still too early to draw any conclusions as to its final outcome.

However, in a context where the response of European leaders was informed by the fact that the fate of the EU was at stake, a quick look at the European political landscape in the wake of the October 23 and 26 summits should be sufficient to tell us that the political crisis, which was obscured by the financial crisis, is only beginning.

As many commentators have noted, we are now embarked on a path towards the greater integration of the Eurozone, and this is a move which will generate a lot of uncertainty.

The highly publicised discussions between Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have demonstrated that the Paris-Berlin axis is once again the main motor of Europe. But we are no longer in a Europe with just six or 12 member states, and this motor will have less horsepower in the wake of successive EU enlargements and the creation of powerful internal organisations like the European Central Bank.

The spat between Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, and the Commons debate on a UK referendum to decide on Britain’s membership of the EU are evidence that London is also seeking to redefine its role in what is now a shifting architecture. "Merkozy" will be uneager to offer concessions to the British, who have exerted a long-standing influence on the liberal development of the European Commission, without assuming all the political responsibilities that this would imply.

However, the UK is not the only country to wonder about its role in Europe. The nine other EU members which are not in the euro, and in particular Poland and Sweden, are already grumbling about the inception of what will become a two-speed Europe. The Schengen Area and initiatives for European defence have already set a precedent for EU initiatives with a variable geometry. But they do not involve such a developed level of governance as the one implied by the control of national budgets and the appointment of a European minister of finance.

And here, we are touching on the main point about the instability to come: the economic government that Berlin and Paris are aiming to establish, with support from the Netherlands and Finland, will affect the sovereignty of states and raise the question of democratic control – an issue raised by sociologist Jürgen Habermas in a forthcoming essay from which Presseurop has published a number of extracts.

From this point of view, the EU has now embarked on a dangerous transition, in which its leaders will have to demonstrate their political effectiveness and at the same time keep an eye on the practicalities of democracy: especially when you consider that the ratification process for the 21 July agreement has already shown that national parliaments are very slow when they are required to respond to financial markets. 

Worse still, as Timothy Garton Ash pointed out this week in his analysis of the debates in the UK and German parliaments, national democracies are expressing conflicting demands that have caused the EU to stall. 

But given that no one is ready to establish a European democracy based on a parliament that is elected from transnational lists which take up a position on transnational debates, decisions will continue to be taken by political leaders who meet behind closed doors, and they will continue to be approved by parliaments that have been first and foremost elected to deal with national issues. The euro may be saved,  but the EU is still not out of the woods.

Translated from the French by Mark McGovern

“The EU does a lot of things that it should not do,” continues Expressen. “Presenting awards to journalists is one of these. It is not possible to safeguard the freedom of the press if at the same time you decide to reward those who write the ‘right things’ about the ‘right subjects.’”

Update October 21, 2011 – According to the blog La com européenne, the European Parliament has decided to abandon its prize for journalism.

To prove to sceptics that he is more alive than ever, Barroso pulled out two flagship proposals meant to calm the financial markets: First, a tax on financial transactions across the EU. Second, eurobonds for the eurozone... the sole offer that the same Barroso placed on the table last year at the same time, (the green light to a European debt facility to finance targeted investment projects), never saw the light of day [...] If he wins through just on the issues of financial regulation, at the height of the crisis, it's because he spent a good deal of his first term (2004-2009) unravelling what little regulation of the markets was already in place. [...] How can he claim today to have the means to put the markets back in their place?

For Público in Lisbon, Barroso's speech had “an essentially political objective: to reject the Franco-German proposal for an economic government of the eurozone that was presented by Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy during their meeting on August 16.” 

Yesterday, Mr Barroso told them that the 'economic power' in the Union can be wielded only by the Commission. And he said it before the only EU institution he can rely on in this affair - the European Parliament. His speech gives us a little taste of an admission of weakness. The Commission that he chairs has almost vanished in battle in the maelstrom of the European crisis. It has been systematically marginalised by the determination of the Franco-German duo. It has looked on helplessly at the transfer of power to Berlin. And if there was indeed a protagonist in the real fight against the destructive effects of this crisis, it was the European Central Bank. One might say that this shift is inevitable, and that the debt crisis has only speeded it up.

In any event, we must recognise that the Commission is taking action, notes El País, writing that Barroso's intervention before the European Parliament has been

one small example of realism in the doldrums of blunders and useless rhetoric that has characterised the management of the crisis in the eurozone lately.

Among the proposals put forward by the President of the Commission, Público singles out the figure of 0.01 percent: that's the amount of the “Tobin tax” that Brussels plans to impose on transactions among banks by 2014:

The figure shows the timidity of the initiative, compared to the 4,600 billion euros that European citizens have injected into the financial system since the start of the crisis. We will just have to wait and see if it will succeed, since the elephantine decision-making machinery of the Union requires that any modification of EU tax law be approved unanimously by all member states - and the British government has already expressed its opposition to the tax.

No offence to the President of the Commission, but he is not the one who should be giving the “speech on the state of the Union” - it's Angela Merkel who should, affirms editorialist Marek Magierowski in Rczespospolita:

He is not the one who pulls the strings and it won't be him who will be blamed for a possible disintegration of the eurozone… The EU is ruled by the German chancellor and everybody - world politicians, economists and investors alike - is keeping their eyes fixed on her [...] Barroso's speech was frequently interrupted with ovations from the MEPS and from leaders of the conservative parties in the European Parliament, whose comments betrayed something approaching enthusiasm. Everyone played their role perfectly wonderfully in the theatre of the EU. But real life is elsewhere.

The show of force by the President of the Commission, however, persuaded Maroun Labaki of Le Soir that

... José Manuel Barroso is a very able politician. A bit of tactics, some posturing, and great conviction: the President of the European Commission gave a grand and eminently political speech on the state of the Union'. [...] One can predict that an 'axis' was born yesterday between the Commission and the Europarliament. This rapprochement will be made de facto at the expense of the capitals and of the Council as a whole. The heads of state and government have true cause for worry...

“Even if there is a long road ahead, it is a good idea,” writes Yves Desmet in De Morgen. The editorialist remarks that “Europe is increasingly an economic and monetary project with no greater ambition than the rationalisation of national budgets. Beyond that, there is hardly anything resembling a political or moral project.” He goes on to warn against the populist nationalism that has emerged in many member states, which “is almost exclusively based on fear of others and selfishness”. “A European constituency will not be a cure-all, but at least it will give politicians a chance to seek the backing of voters for a large-scale European project in which they still believe. Then and only then will politicians have a political space in which they can communicate their message that globalisation and internationalisation do not only represent a threat but also an opportunity.”

“As it stands," explains the Warsaw daily, "there is no single organisation that can determine if an MEP has acted unethically." The anti-corruption initiative has been prompted by revelations in the Sunday Times which offered bribes to several MEPS – some of which were gratefully accepted. 

Although “Jerzy Buzek has let the EU's anti-fraud office (Olaf) conduct an investigation into the Sunday Times cash-for-amendments scandal. But he continues to deny access to MEPs' offices,” reports EUobserver. The Polish European Parliament President argues that “MEPs must first be stripped of their immunity and that national authorities in Austria and Slovenia should step in to handle criminal proceedings.” 

While MEPs Ernst Strasser (Austria) and Zoran Thaler (Slovenia) have resigned in the wake of the scandal, Romania’s Adrian Severin has continued to sit in parliament as an independent. For Revista 22, which cites other cases of corruption in European institutions, the affair is little more than "the tip of the iceberg". 

The Bucharest weekly notes that in 2008, one of Germany’s highest ranking European Commission officials, Fritz Harald Wenig, was forced to resign in the wake of a similar Sunday Times investigation, in which "journalists passed themselves off for lobbyists" eager to distribute brown envelopes to eurocrats. 

And this is just one in a number of cases: in 2004, Greece’s Kalliopi Nikolaou, who was employed by the European Court of Auditors in Luxembourg, allegedly made use of unjustified payments to buy an apartment in London, while in 1999, French Commissioner Edith Cresson had a very close friend in a research job financed by European funds. In short, concludes Revista 22, "Brussels continues to be haunted by the spectre of corruption."

“Strasser threatened with criminal proceedings,” headlines Vienna daily Die Presse, after the former interior minister stepped down in the wake of London weekly’s revelations. Strasser argues that he has done “nothing wrong” and stresses he wished only to prevent "damage" to Austria's coalition government. He also claims that he had suspected foreign intelligence behind the action and continued to meet with them, "to get to those behind." However, as the Sunday Times notes, Strasser has also said to the undercover reporters, that a lobbyist “has some special smell. It’s true to be said I am myself something like that. So we have to be very careful.” “Where did Adrian Severin go wrong?” wonders Gândul. Reminding readers that Severin had launched an anti-corruption crusade on joining the European Parliament in 2007, the Bucharest daily quotes him as arguing that he has done “nothing illegal”, and his services were “not lobbying, but consultancy.” The Sunday Times notes that Severin emailed the reporters saying: “Just to let you know that the amendment desired by you has been tabled in due time.” Then sent an invoice for €12,000 for “consulting services concerning the codification of the Directive 94/19/EC, Directive 2009/14/EC and the amendments thereto”.

Népszabadság remarks that the Hungarian Prime Minister’s adversaries “should not confuse the ‘Hungarian Presidency’ with ‘Hungary’, or the EU will suffer.” In Brussels, the main priority should be “the smooth running of the leadership. And Orbán’s government has the necessary qualities to carry out this task, which is more a matter of protocol than of technical ability.” With regard to the content of his speech, Népszabadság remarks that the success of initiatives like the rapid accession of Croatia, which is “one of Hungary’s pet projects,” or the extension of the Schengen Area to include Romania and Bulgaria will depend to a large degree on the good will of Europe’s larger countries.

According to the daily, on 9 December MEPs and EU member states had failed to reach agreement, because “MEPs felt they had not been given sufficient say on the EU’s 2014-2020 Financial Perspectives and the question of the EU raising its own finances.” However, if the Commission had not presented a revised budget, “the new European External Action Service and European system of financial supervisors (ESFS) would have begun 2011 without a penny.” And certain European politicians would have been reduced to a diet of bread and water.

In a vote that “acknowledged member states’ arguments on the need to reduce EU spending in the current context of austerity, the parliament accepted a limited budgetary increase of 2.91% for 2010, whereas in October it had voted for a 5.9% rise,” notes the Brussels daily. “In 2011, spending will be capped at 126.5 billion euros, for 141.8 billion euros of commitment appropriations. In exchange parliament obtained a pledge from the Commission that it will present proposals on the EU raising its own finances in June of that year, within the framework of negotiations on the EU’s Financial Perspectives.”

For the Financial Times, the “unexpectedly stubborn stance" of member states has been prompted by "a desire to punish a Parliament that has grown increasingly assertive – some say grasping – since the Lisbon treaty came into force in December." MEPs believe that their demand for greater powers "is simply democracy," notes FT: "they are, after all, the only popularly-elected body in Brussels and they must be reckoned with."

For Gazeta Wyborcza, "the fiasco is proof that the battle for power within the EU has only just begun." If "the outcome of the conflict is a defeat for Parliament and victory for a handful of governments led by London, we will be faced with the prospect of the progressive dismantling of the EU."

The Warsaw daily argues that the debate is not just about money but about national governments’ willingness to discuss the process for drafting the EU budget and the issue of EU financial resources with MEPs. Parliament’s participation in budgetary negotiations will add to the legitimacy of the EU and ensure that future budgets are of equal benefit to all the EU’s member states and not just a handful of countries.

On 15 November, "it appears that a number of governments chose to obstruct the 2011 EU budget to avoid establishing a precedent. They were probably also planning to substantially reduce the budget in the future. However,” Gazeta Wyborcza warns, “if this idea prevails, instead of growing the EU will shrink."

Hot on the heels of this initiative, MEPs concluded an inter-institutional framework agreement (FA) with the European Commission that will allow them greater powers, notably in fields of international negotiations and access to classified documents. The European Council, which deliberately stayed away from negotiations on this issue, has announced that it is contesting the validity of the FA and will file a claim with the European Court of Justice in the event that "the European Commission or Parliament applies the agreement in a manner that undermines its interests and prerogatives."

The European Parliament has demonstrated its awareness of the new powers it has obtained under the Lisbon Treaty and its intention to make use of them – and it appears to have the support of the Commission in this regard. Only, the European Council, which directly represents EU member states, seems to be thwarted rather than empowered by the new rules. With this in mind, it is rowing against the tide to maintain the existing status quo. In the new framework defined by Lisbon, Europe’s three major institutions are marking out their territory, and the elected representatives of Europe’s citizens are moving quickly to claim new ground.

The deal Catherine Ashton pushed through on 21 June tracing the contours of Europe’s future diplomatic corps is one episode in Parliament’s battle against "the states’ stranglehold on Brussels". The European Commission, Council and Parliament reached a compromise based on a corps of about 7,000 diplomats, 60% of whom are to be European officials and 40% national officials.

The MEPs “had called in vain for the service to be integrated into the European Commission so its operation and budget could be better controlled”, adds Le Monde. They feel the Commission should rely on them to see Community projects through. "The confusion surrounding the Greek bailout showed the limitations of inter-state cooperation,” stresses ex-Belgian PM and the Liberals’ parliamentary leader Guy Verhofstadt, who is regarded as “one of the most influential men in the assembly". This positioning is nothing new, explains Le Monde, but the Lisbon Treaty has “reinvigorated” it. "The MEPs have new perogatives and intend to use them: more codecision with the Council, greater budgetary clout and the power to reject international treaties outright." Their offensive, concludes the daily, won’t fail to incur the wrath of European capitals and the Council.

“I think there’ll be a moment of: ‘My God, what the hell have we done?’” prophesies political scientist Hugo Brady, as recently quoted on euobserver.com. With Lisbon everything is in place to put the states back centre-stage: an end to federalist ambitions, a Commission president (José Manuel Barroso), Council president (Herman Van Rompuy) and High Representative for Foreign Affairs (Catherine Ashton) handpicked so as not to eclipse the leaders of Europe’s biggest countries. Everything, that is, except the buttressing of parliamentary prerogatives.

Giving more clout to the only elected officials in the whole Community machine is obviously a good thing. But absent a bona fide European representation – replete with parties, programmes and electoral campaigns that go beyond local issues –, this new parliamentary power is liable to be confined in its exercise to politicking purposes.

The hearings for the European commissioners designate might well give us a first taste of what is to come. We know the nominations of Van Rompuy and Ashton are, above all, the upshot of negotiations between the European right and left-wing parties. And the MEPs are already arming to take out a Commission candidate or two. Gazeta Wyborcza reports that the Czech Štefan Füle and Hungarian László Andor are under fire for their Communist past. It would be a pity if the elected representatives, who are expected to take on concrete problems, were to let their national squabbles and the desire to assert themselves take precedence over the general weal. E.M.