ALDE Party Congress - where your correspondent did go to the (meat)ball…

The world turns, and things change.

For many years, going to an ALDE event meant being led by the suave, and occasionally cynical, Robert Woodthorpe Browne, whose almost legendary ability to cut deals meant that our influence somewhat outweighed our numerical strength. And now, we have a new leader, David Chalmers, whose first Congress this was.

Naturally, David operates rather differently, although he clearly gets that, in a post-Brexit environment, Liberal Democrats have to work harder (and smarter) to get things done. And, whilst he’s still trying to assess the strengths and weaknesses of his core delegation, and work out whether or not individuals can be trusted, he’s being cautious in terms of how much room for manoeuvre he can grant us. Discipline is the watchword.

There is a logic to that, in that we’re obviously not in a position to freelance - we’re bound by Party policy, of course, and there are relationships with other sister parties that we want to maintain.

In truth, it affects me less than some. I’m not much of a policy wonk, at least I know that I’m not expert enough to assert much. And my “specialist subject”, i.e. the inner workings of the ALDE Party, is seldom of critical import, or, if I’m frank, of interest to my colleagues. Except when it is…

And this Congress was one of those rare events, with some rather significant proposals on representation of non-EU member parties, the abolition of the Individual Members in their current form, and a clearer structure for the appointment of future Secretary Generals. Having served on a small working group appointed by the Bureau to look at the Individual Members and Secretary General issues, I at least had a grasp of what was happening and the background before it.

There were a lot of policy resolutions - forty-three in total, plus six urgency resolutions - far too many to allow any meaningful discussion, although they had been ranked in order of perceived significance to ensure that some of the most far reaching ones got debated.

But I did at least have a job of sorts. There was a time when Returning Officers mattered. With paper ballots, a count was required and ALDE’s somewhat bizarre elections rules - first past the post but with a stipulation that voters must vote for as many candidates as there are vacancies - meant that you did at least have to think a bit. Now, with electronic voting, once polls close, the ballot technician pushes a button, the results are displayed, and that’s it.

But the rules still state that a Returning Officer is necessary, and my German colleague, Daniel Obst, and myself are apparently acceptable to the Secretariat - I don’t imagine that the Bureau care much - and so we are informally approached in advance, agree to resume our double act and all is well.

All that was required was to get to Stockholm…

ALDE Party Council, Bratislava 2022 - so, what did I actually do?

So, having given a more formal report on events in Bratislava, it’s really rather about time that I offer a more personal perspective on events, one that focuses more on me and what I did there.

Delegation Meeting

Whilst our primary business was discussing the urgency resolutions, my contribution was to offer some compromise language and update my colleagues on some technical details.

Individual Members summit

The leadership of the Individual Members are deeply unhappy about the proposal to bring the current arrangements to an end and create a new “Friends of ALDE” group. Members of the new group would not have voting rights at Congress or Council and would be supporters rather than active participants. I’m a Liberal Associate (the descriptor for non-EU members) with rights pretty much equivalent to those proposed under the new arrangements and had two reasons for attending, one rather more controversial than the other.

As a member, I had every right to attend and express my views. However, as one of the primary authors of the paper that was to be presented to Council the next day, I am partly responsible for the proposals by which the Individual Members will be wound up.

I do think that the leadership of the Individual Members has been pretty poor in recent years, resembling nothing more than a group of squabbling children arguing over possession of a rather shabby toy. The meetings I have attended have been pretty unedifying and behaviour has been poor. But that is, in itself, an argument for finding better leaders rather than simply abandoning the idea. Instead, my concern is that the policy demands of the Individual Members leadership seem determined to reduce the influence of the member parties to a point where there would be little value in paying an annual subscription. There is a philosophical chasm between the objectives of the two sides, and I can’t see how it can be reconciled.

I’m also not convinced that the leadership represent much more than themselves. The participants in their policy working groups come from a very small pool indeed. I am convinced that the majority of Individual Members join for three reasons - to show support, to be kept up to date with events and to attend briefings and seminars. The new proposal would allow all of that.

I didn’t want to say too much - I don’t agree with the stance they are taking - but felt obliged to correct some of the inaccuracies in their claims. And, whilst I don’t think that they’re in the mood to listen, I did at least try to convince them to stick to the facts.

Stuttgart Declaration session

I was a bit late for this, due to the Individual Members but I did make a contribution. The 1976 Stuttgart Declaration was the founding document for what is now ALDE and it is proposed to update it for a new political age.

It would be successful, I suggested, if we could come up with a statement of principles such that, if someone was to attempt to guess our policy stance on a particular issue, the statement would point towards what it might be. The great liberal philosophers remain valid because their arguments resonate across the ages, and our document should too. The policy statement which follows would be more of an appendix. That seemed to meet with approval, so perhaps I’ve hit upon something.

Council

As the delegation’s “house bureaucrat”, I’m given licence to lead on finance and organisational stuff. So, I queried why we weren’t offered an indication of the current 2022 budget outturn figures when asked to approve the 2023 budget. Comparing it to a 2022 budget which may, or may not, be a fair reflection of what actually happened, rather hampers Council from doing its job of scrutiny. The Treasurer suggested that it would be inappropriate to offer us unaudited figures and I guess that my perspective as a tax inspector differs from his as an accountant. I think that he’s wrong - my job is to scrutinise his work, not merely to applaud it, and I don’t doubt that I’ll return to that topic in May.

I also had a central role in the discussion of how a Secretary General is appointed and evaluated, given that I co-wrote the document that the Bureau presented to Council. The failure of the Co-Presidents to manage the agenda meant that it didn’t really get the airing I had hoped, which augurs badly for the discussion that has to take place at the next Congress. I raised the issue of a “conflict of interest” clause, preventing Bureau members from seeking the position within two years of the end of their term as a Bureau member - something we take for granted in government here. I sensed that Co-President Timmy Dooley wasn’t keen and whilst I did rather spring it on him, it’s an argument that I haven’t given up on.

I had to explain to the delegate from the Individual Members that the paper on the future of their organisation wasn’t a platform to argue whether or not they should be abolished - that decision was taken in Dublin at the previous Congress, after all - so trying to make the argument wasn’t particularly helpful. I’m guessing that this will run and run, not helped by some of the contradictory messages being conveyed.

If I had to sum up how Council went, from a personal perspective, I’d say that I did what I promised I would do, scrutinising the work of the ALDE Party, offering a perspective stemming from a firm belief that an organisation should live its own values in terms of how it operates and how it treats its people. 

A new constitution to play with...

I guess that I should be flattered to have received the call. After all, it's not every day that you get invited to join a working group set up to look into aspects of a major organisation's statutes and rules of procedure, and an international one at that.

And thus, part of my morning was spent with colleagues from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and Spain, as well as the ALDE Party's Deputy Secretary General and its new HR Manager, looking at how to address the issues within our remit. I wasn't in Dublin when the debates took place which caused our group to come into being, so it was interesting to establish the "backstory" and thus the context underpinning what we have been asked to do.

It is perhaps a sign that I am mellowing but I found myself resisting an urge to stray into the politics of the decisions we are asked to reconcile with the Statutes and Internal Regulations. After all, we are an advisory group, tasked with drawing up proposals to go before the Party Council and Congress, not a decision making body. I see our goal as one of reflecting the wishes of Council and the Congress in such a way as to give them what they want, as far as is possible within the framework of Belgian law and of good organisation.

Now I accept that what I've said so far is opaque to the point of total obscurity - "What is the bureaucrat on about?", I hear you mutter - but I'm not actually sure how much of what I'm being asked to consider is in the public domain and, even if it is, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about the notion of discussing it too widely - yet.

Regardless, it was nice to be doing something which demonstrates that I still have a role and have something to offer.

So, here are some general perspectives which will guide my contributions over the coming weeks;

• constitutions should protect all parties as far as is possible
• change should not stem from personalities, but from situations, even if the personality has created the situation
• complexity should be kept to a minimum
• the laws of the legal jurisdiction should be at the core of constitutional change

I've spent far more time than is necessarily healthy reading constitutions over the years - partly because nobody else ever seems to - but a grasp of the rules of any game tend to help you to play it more effectively. And you develop a philosophical position over the years which either becomes more rigid or more questioning - I've personally gone for the latter.

As I understand it, we are to report back to Council in Bratislava at the beginning of December, so time is short, especially if, as I hope, we don't "spring" our proposals on an unsuspecting room full of delegates. And now, I must draft something for my colleagues...

And so, in a not entirely welcome turn of events...

Seventeen months ago, in a set of internal party elections whose outcome was not entirely unexpected, I lost my place on the Federal International Relations Committee (FIRC) and failed to be elected back onto the ALDE Party Council delegation, the latter despite a second bite of the cherry granted to me by the party's (relative) success in the December 2019 General Election.

I wasn't that far from success in either contest but, if you haven't won, you've lost. And, in fairness, looking at who had won, and indeed at some of those who had lost, I couldn't in all fairness have much complaint. I don't offer the electorate promises on policy that aren't actually salient - ALDE Party Council seldom discusses policy and is more like a rather large Finance and Administration Committee - and my reputation is as a bureaucrat rather than an internationalist (that'll teach me to care about structure and process, won't it?). And, the candidates who beat me could claim experience and knowledge that, in truth, I can't match.

Accordingly, I had reconciled myself to the outcome and was hardly pining for a return - life is too short, and there's a whole world out there for someone with a sense of intellectual curiosity and a desire to understand as far as possible.

A vacancy had arisen, following the resignation of one of the directly elected FIRC members, both from the committee and the Party, but I wasn't the runner-up, and you seldom see that many resignations, even in a three-year term. And so, Jonathan Fryer's untimely, and extremely unfortunate, demise created an unexpected vacancy on both FIRC and the ALDE Party Council delegation.

Having been consulted on how the vacancies should be filled, for reasons I don't entirely comprehend, I pointed the Committee to Jack Coulson, the Party's very capable Company Secretary, who handles such things in accordance with the Party's constitution, and left matters to take their course.

Internal by-elections are often quite hard to call, especially when you're effectively eliminating someone with a considerable number of first preferences. The way they split isn't easily predictable, especially if, in the original count, their preferences weren't transferred as part of the process. Looking at the original result, there were a number of candidates potentially in the frame, so I didn't get my hopes up. And, as already noted, I wasn't desperate to return.

The result was a bit of a surprise, in that I was now successful in both elections. There was, however, something unexpected, in that the Constitution says that, in the event of a recount, no previously elected candidate should lose their place, and, in the ALDE Party Council recount, exactly that had happened. And so, I appealed, knowing that, if my appeal was successful, I would lose my newly gained place.

I should be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that my appeal was unsuccessful - * long time bureaucrat in interpretation fail * - but sometimes you don't have all of the facts and it turned out that the interpretation of the constitutional validity of the initial declaration of the result of the 2019 election had not been widely known.

And so, I am back, at least until 31 December next year. I'm not planning to get comfortable, and I don't know if I'll even run for re-election - we'll see how it goes. But you can expect some coverage here about what I'm doing on the Committee and elsewhere, for there's little point in my representing those people who kindly voted for me, and indeed, those who didn't - I didn't take it personally, I promise - otherwise.

So, bureaucrat, parish councillor and international activist. It's an eclectic collection of roles, but each offers me the opportunity to contribute to making things better, even if only slightly. And, at the end of the day, if you're making things better, you are making a contribution towards the wider community, and isn't that something we should all aspire to?...

It’s not just the Presidential contest that isn’t over yet...

One of the advantages of reading constitutions is that you tend to have a better grasp of the rules of the contest. And, if you read more than one constitution, you’re likely to have a better grasp of the intersections between them. Better still, if you had a hand in writing one of them...

When the new Federal International Relations Committee emerged from the Party’s most recent governance review, I was the Secretary of its predecessor, and I realised quite quickly that someone was going to have to deal with the constitutional niceties. Given the makeup of the Committee, that was probably always going to be me, and so I arranged for the creation of standing orders, a communications plan and all of the other stuff required by the Federal Constitution.

It would be fair to say that there was some grumbling in terms of why this stuff was necessary. But, if you’re going to have a job, you need a framework within which it can be delivered.

One of my early tasks was to suggest how the new ALDE Party Council delegation would be determined, and I concluded that, regardless of how many places we were entitled to, two of our delegates should be the Party President, given their stated role as the principle public representative of the Party, and the Chair of the Federal International Relations Committee, which seemed obvious. The rest were to be directly elected.

This was accepted by the Committee, and, in due course, advised to the Party so that this could be dealt with as part of the election cycle. I note, in passing, that this didn’t happen this year, and all six of our delegates were directly elected. And whilst that’s a problem, it’s not one that I can fix.

However, wearing one of my other hats, I was considering a proposal within the ALDE Party for revising its membership fee structure and, by extension, member party entitlements. From that sprang a revised formula for determining how many Council delegates a member party is entitled to, and this turned out to be;

1  +  number of votes received/500,000  +  percentage vote/10

where the votes received and percentage vote related to the last Parliamentary election.

2015 hadn’t been a good year for us, and so, the calculation was;

1  +  2,415,916/500,000  +  7.9/10  =   6.62

which was rounded to the nearest whole number, i.e. 7.

2017 was, almost unbelievably, worse, and so, the calculation was;

1  +  2,371,861/500,000  +  7.4/10   =   6.48

which, rounded to the nearest whole number, became 6, the number used to determine how many would be elected this time.

Those of you who “get” numbers will probably now be thinking, “ah, I see where this is going...”.

Throwing the current polling numbers into the calculation, and assuming that turnout on 12 December is similar to last time, the formula produces this;

1  +  5,120,000/500,000  +  16/10   =   12.84

or, rounded to the nearest whole number, 13.

In other words, the Returning Officer will be required to rerun the election with a revised number of vacancies, and my race may yet not be run...

A bureaucrat, a glass of Transnistrian brandy and some election results...

All good things must come to an end, I am told, and my time on the Party's Federal International Relations Committee has come to an end after five occasionally glorious years, following today's publication of the Federal Party election results.

In truth, I didn't do too badly, coming seventh on first preferences in an election for six vacancies although, in the final analysis, I was pushed down to eighth on transfers, but only just. And, given that I was beaten by some very worthy candidates, I can't really complain. Some churn is necessary to keep committees fresh, and I am no exception to that desirable rule.

Indeed, of the five members who ran for re-election, only two of us survived, with some interesting new members replacing us.

Hannah Bettsworth returns to the committee in a new guise, having previously represented the Young Liberals in her past life as their International Officer.

Doreen Huddart is an old friend, a fellow Returning Officer and candidate assessor but, more saliently, has served on the EU Committee of the Regions for two decades now. She knows how Europe works, and will add her own inimitable style to proceedings. She likes to do things, rather than be things.

Philippa Leslie-Jones is, I admit, a bit of a mystery to me, but as a former diplomat, you can hardly doubt her credibility as a member of the new committee.

Ruth Coleman-Taylor is another old friend, and has been an active member of our delegations to both the ALDE Party Council and Congress for many years, and is totally committed in her internationalism.

The two survivors are Phil Bennion and Jonathan Fryer, both of whom are well known and well regarded, so it is a strong committee going forward.

So, four women and two men, which is a bit unusual in historical terms, the committee having been a bit "male heavy" in the past.

I have one final task to perform, having been asked to act as Returning Officer for the election of a new Chair. One of the above six will fill the role, as per the Federal Constitution, and I will be working with Denali Ranasinghe, FIRC's Secretary, to progress this.

I also ran to return to the ALDE Party Council delegation after a three year break and, on first sight, it looks like I lost. There is a complication though, as we elected six members. The ALDE Party Standing Orders state that a member party's entitlement of Council delegates is linked to its electoral performance and is updated on 1 January of the year following the last set of national elections. So, if we do well, I might yet be back.

I may have rather more personal interest in our performance on 12 December than I had expected...

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - "Resolution on Transnational lists and the lead candidate process"

One of the things about the ALDE Party's Individual Members group is that it has a keen interest in what, to national parties, is rather esoteric. There is no "nation agenda" and thus they don't have an interest to protect, so to speak. The idea of transnational lists is not a new one, indeed, Andrew Duff has been championing the idea for some years now, seeing it as he does as a way of creating a "European demos".

Resolution on Transnational lists and the lead candidate process

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Athens, Greece, on 24-26 October 2019:

Notes that:

• more than 50% of the EU citizens eligible to vote took part at the last European elections in May 2019, marking the highest turnout in 20 years and the first time since the first direct elections in 1979 in which turnout increased. Significantly more young people with a pro-European mind-set cast their vote, according to a Eurobarometer survey across all 28 Member States. Among the main reasons identified for voting were “being in favour of the EU” (25%, +11 percentage points) and “the desire to change things by voting” (18%, +6 percentage points);
• regardless of the encouraging turnout increase, disaffection with politics, particularly but by no means exclusively among young people, is continuing to be a trend, and is one of the driving forces behind the rise of extreme and eurosceptic forces in many parts of Europe. While politicians are increasingly viewed as distant and out of touch with voters, the topics on the European agenda continue to be far-off to the voters;
• the political struggle following the elections in nominating the President of the European Commission, was vastly seen by the European citizens as a highlight for one of the fundamental structural challenges in European integration, as it was perceived to be an embodiment of behind-closed doors policies and lack of democratic transparency in decision-making;
• the “Lead candidate system” for the election of the President of the European Commission should therefore be maintained, but improved through the introduction of pan-European transnational lists for the European elections in 2024. This would ensure that the vote of the pro-European voters effectively matters and that a transnational, European political sphere is put in place as a precondition for the strengthening of the European citizenship.

Points out that:

• the European Parliament has called for the introduction of transnational lists on numerous occasions, the first time being in 1998, followed by a proposal with an ALDE Group rapporteur in 2011, and just recently in the last mandate of the European Parliament with a strong support by the ALDE Group;
• that the ALDE Party has already acknowledged in its resolutions in 2013, 2016 and 2017 that “The elections of some members of the European Parliament via transnational lists will increase the importance of European political parties and contribute to the creation of a European public sphere”, that “the ALDE Party is well positioned to bridge the gap between national and European politics; (and) transnational coalitions have the potential to strengthen European democracy and can help to reconnect European citizens with European institutions, policies and issues;” and that lead candidate system needs to be supported and “a modified process to be developed to make the appointment of the President of the European Commission even more transparent and inclusive and to put an end to non-transparent backroom politics”;
• transnational lists will create a common European constituency for the entire European Union, alongside the constituencies of the Member states thus fostering the European citizenship and reinforcing the topics on the EU agenda. In addition, transnational lists will not affect degressive proportionality, and would be geographically and gender balanced to reflect the plurality of the European citizens;
• transnational lists have the potential to increase the visibility of pro-European parties and at the same time improve the balance between national interests and the common European goal.

Calls on the ALDE Party and its Member organisations, Party leaders, Commissioners, members of Governments, members of European and national parliaments to:

• work for the creation of transnational lists for the 2024 European elections that will allow citizens to vote for candidates from across the EU;
• make sure that European political parties are equipped with the legal frameworks for European - wide campaigns and budgeting for conducting a truly transnational campaign;
• ensure in the future, that the candidate of the party with the most votes should not necessarily become President of the European Commission, but rather the candidate who is able to unite a majority in the European Parliament and manage to gain the citizens’ support in a transnational lists’ European electoral system;
• reaffirm the commitment to the lead candidate process, but one that is reformed and improved to an electoral process in which the European citizens can directly participate in the appointment of the President of the European Commission;
• insist that the possibility to vote directly for lead candidates appointed by the different European political parties as heads of the transnational lists is the best way to ensure a pan-European political sphere and strengthening the interest in the European elections and the voter turnout;
• promote such system in the discussion of a conference and in any other high level event that may be organised by the European Union's institutions for reaching the political agreement on transnational lists by all pro-European parties.

There is a part of me that supports the notion, that believes in a European demos and sees the logic of transnational lists. And yet, there is a problem that the European political groupings are not represented across the Union, and the ability of transnational parties to campaign across twenty-eight nation states is utterly underdeveloped, with little sense that Europe-wide manifestos mean very much for now.

I also sense that there isn't a lot of agreement on the way, so this may well face quite a lot of opposition.

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - "A framework directive on soil protection"

I have an unexplained fondness for Radicali Italiani, who tend to write very intellectual resolutions which read like academic texts. This is one of their more accessible efforts...

A framework directive on soil protection

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Athens, Greece, on 24-26 October 2019:

Is convinced that:

• soil is one of the irreplaceable resources for the life of ecosystems and of man and that it is a substantially non-renewable resource;
• soil conservation, which is one of the main reservoirs of organic carbon, is one of the tools to reduce the effects of climate change.

Notes that:

• the main functions of the soil are: the offer of a physical and cultural environment for man and his activities, the production of biomass, food and raw materials, storage, filtration and transformation of nutrients substances and water, the provision of support for the development of biodiversity, the establishment of a carbon reserve and the conservation of the geological and archaeological heritage.

Considers that:

• European environmental directives compelled Member States to adopt appropriate legislation that in the last years has contributed to a change in citizens' behaviour and to improve the quality of environment;
• European policies on air and water protection, proper waste disposal, phytosanitary products influenced Member State legislation;
• in 2006, the European Commission adopted the "Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" (COM(2006) 231) but the draft of the framework Directive envisaged therein has never been adopted;
• the above-mentioned strategy accurately lists the threats affecting European soils;
• soil is one of the biggest organic carbon reservoirs, therefore soil protection is a crucial tool to combat climate change;
• some Member States, such as Italy, don't have a specific legislation on soil protection.

Calls on all member parties of ALDE Party, Renew Europe Group members of the European Parliament and Liberal Prime ministers:

• to promote at the European Commission a proposal for a Framework Directive on Soil Protection in order to influence Member State legislation, aiming to reverse the trends and improve the conditions of this irreplaceable environmental resource.

Again, there's not much there to argue with, and it should pass without much dissent.

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - "Chick culling – A European concern"

Sometimes, you end up with resolutions that don't appear to be terribly important, and this one is one of those. Yes, animal cruelty should be challenged, but at a time of stress, you do wonder if this is worth debating time...

Chick culling – A European concern

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Athens, Greece, on 24-26 October 2019:

Having regard to:

• the resolution “The Link between Animal Welfare, Public Health and Resistance to Antibiotics” adopted at the ALDE Party Congress in Helsinki, Finland (October 2010).

Notes that:

• as of 2018 around 7 billion day-old male chicks were culled per year in the egg industry worldwide;
• not all culled chicks can be used as animal feed (e.g. for snakes);
• the practice of chick culling produces millions of unnecessary deaths of chicks and is therefore unethical;
• the EU needs to have equal livestock husbandry standards to ensure fair competition;
• unilateral measures at national level cannot stop the practice of chick culling in the EU as a unilateral approach leads to millions of day-old chicks to be transported to those countries that still allow chick culling.

Calls for:

• all EU Member States to introduce an alternative procedure to timely identify masculine chicks before they are able to feel pain;
• all EU Member States to ban the practice of chick culling;
• all EU Member States to decide which alternative procedure to timely identify male chicks they want to implement. Currently, countries can choose for example the ovo-gender determination or the magnetic resonance imaging;
• the EU to invest in research projects about alternatives to culling chicks;
• the EU to install a system that ensures the enforcement of the ban on chick culling.

I have to be honest and admit that I know nothing about this, but would expect it to be passed without much comment.

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - "Carbon Capture and Storage: Reaching the Paris Goals"

More environmental policy making, this time from our Norwegian sister party, Venstre...

Carbon Capture and Storage: Reaching the Paris Goals

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Athens, Greece, on 24-26 October 2019:

Taking note of:

• the fact that carbon capture and storage (CCS) enables deep decarbonisation of the economy, and in particular for a number of industries that have few or no other options to significantly reduce emissions;
• the challenge posed by waste management, as global waste is predicted to reach several billion tonnes by 2050 and a significant part of this waste is expected to be incinerated, a process which leads to high levels of CO2 emissions;
• the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s estimate that CCS can bring about 19 percent of global CO2 emission cuts by 2050;
• the work of countries such as the Netherlands, the UK and Norway in developing CCS through a series of pilot project;
• the IPCC 1.5 degree report, highlighting the urgency for climate action, and the need to successfully implement affordable CCS solutions to be able to significantly reduce global emissions by mid-century.

Believing:

• cross-border cooperation on CCS can help rapidly drive down costs of decarbonising the European economy
• in a European approach to CCS that connects infrastructure and supports research and development funding in a way to maintain the competitiveness of European industry in a low-carbon economy;
• that CCS, rather than prolonging the life of the fossil fuelled economy, is a necessary solution to decarbonise industries where no other options currently exist;
• that the successful reduction of costs for CCS technology will also lay the groundwork for potential carbon dioxide removal technologies in the future, which might prove necessary if global emissions aren't reduced rapidly.

Calls for:

• recognition by all European countries that CCS technology has been deployed at scale for decades, and is readily available;
• recognition that cooperation on CCS across Europe is a necessity to enable deep decarbonisation of the European economy;
• all ALDE Party members to work in their respective countries to increase support and, where necessary, develop funding schemes for CCS technology;
• all ALDE Party members to work in their respective countries towards developing storage facilities for CO2 and/or transportation infrastructure nationally, and thus contributing to realising the continent-wide uptake of CCS technology;
• all ALDE Party members to work to support increased EU funding for CCS pilot projects.

I tend to the view that there's little in this resolution to oppose, but sense that it might be combined with the previous resolution, "A Climate Policy that Delivers on the Paris Agreement" for the sake of coherence.

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - "A Climate Policy that Delivers on the Paris Agreement"

So, as promised, here we go with the draft resolutions submitted for debate at the end of next month...

A Climate Policy that Delivers on the Paris Agreement

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Party convening in Athens, Greece, on 24-26 October 2019:

Taking note of:

• the alarming trends of climate change and environmental deterioration in the last couple of decades;
• the fact that the rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade and that the rate of sea level rise in the last two decades, however, is nearly double of that of the last century and is accelerating every year;
• that according to the European Environment agency, EU greenhouse gas emissions increased by 0.6% in 2017, following a 0.4% decrease in 2016, and projected reductions fall short of the 40 % emissions reduction target for 2030;
• that human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels and global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate;
• that shipping emissions are predicted to increase between 50% and 250% by 2050, depending on future economic and energy developments, and that global international aviation emissions are projected to increase 300-700% by 2050;
• that global warming is a phenomenon witnessed in most land and ocean regions, causing hot extremes in most inhabited regions, heavy precipitation in several regions and the probability of drought and precipitation deficits in some regions. That this poses the rising concern of access to water and food security and climate migration; 
• that according to the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change published in 2006, estimates that the costs and risks of climate change inaction will be equivalent to losing from 5% to 20% or more of the global GDP each year, while the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation of the levels of CO2 emissions is amounting to around 2% of global GDP per year;
• the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol;
• the Paris Agreement and the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC and the 11th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP11) held in Paris, France from 30 November to 11 December 2015;
• the commitment of all countries under the Paris Agreement to limit the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C;
• the IPCC 1.5°C Special Report from October 2018 in which the world’s leading climate scientists warn there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5°C, and call for urgent action to require unprecedented efforts to cut fossil-fuel use in half in less than 15 years and eliminate their use almost entirely in 30 years;
• the UN Climate Action Summit held in New York 23 September 2019;
• the growth of employment in the environmental goods and services sector in the years 2007-2011 by 20% in spite of the crisis;
• the global market for environmental goods and services is estimated at €1,000 billion per year and is growing fast;
• that according to the Commission, better eco-design, waste prevention, recycling and reuse could bring net savings for EU businesses, estimated to represent up to €600 billion, or 8% of annual turnover, while also reducing total greenhouse gas emissions by 2-4%;
• the crucial role of non-state actors, and especially the private sector, in decarbonising our economy and combating climate change;
• the collective nature of environmental threats, meaning that no country goes unaffected by the actions of another;
• the moderate progress for the preparatory work ahead of the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UNFCCC;
• the European Council’s failed attempts to commit to climate neutrality by 2050;
• the student-led climate change marches across the world against government inaction on climate change, inspired by Greta Thunberg. 

Welcomes:

• the Commission's strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral economy by 2050;
• the new Commission president Ursula von der Leyen’s promise to within her first 100 days to deliver a European Green Deal to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050;
• the adoption of European Union climate and energy legislation such as Emissions Trading System (ETS), Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) and the Governance Regulation;
• the adoption of the agreement reached at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. 

Believes that:

• the Paris Agreement and the outlined path towards decarbonisation will give reliable guidance for decision-making, avoid costly lock-ins to high-carbon investments, provide certainty and predictability to business and investors, and encourage a shift from fossil fuel investments towards more sustainable alternative investments;
• the adoption of the revision of the EU Emissions Trading System for the period 2021-2030 and the Effort Sharing Regulation for the same period is an important step that needs to be followed by higher ambition within a mid-term review if the Union will stay on track to meet the Paris Agreement;
• raising the ambition, as was done in the revision of EU legislation regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy, was important in order to show that higher ambition is not only needed but also very much possible;
• a sustainable bioeconomy and circular economy will be a crucial part of the green transition;
• the role of private actors in ensuring the achievement of environmental goals cannot be understated, and that it is crucial that the necessary frameworks, stability for investments and long term goals exist for the private sector to fulfil their full potential in the environmental area;
• youth engagement plays an essential role in climate policy, as it is the youth that will have to face the results of the decisions of today;
• facilitating the development of market solutions, new technology, and green private investment is crucial if we are to reach our common environmental goals;
• it is important that the EU shows global leadership through established climate frameworks and that they, where appropriate, are open to non-EU actors;
• Europe must take global leadership in combating climate change through reductions of greenhouse gas emissions and the transition to a fossil free economy;
• the EU and its Member States must take action in prevention and necessary adaptation of present and future climate change impacts, for example by strengthening its resilience in all areas and making use of all funding instruments available;
• a robust and credible rule book on how to fully implement the Paris Agreement is needed if the aims of the agreement are to be met.

Calls on:

• the Commission to swiftly propose an ambitious European Green Deal, including at least a trillion Euros of investments over the coming decade, and an effective climate law that raises the targets for the EU greenhouse gas emissions to be at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, and to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, also including considerable economic consequences, for example economic fines or withheld payments from the EU budget, for countries failing to reach their climate and energy targets, ensuring that the Union will meet its commitment under the Paris Agreement;
• the European Council to commit, as soon as possible, to the target of climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest;
• the Commission to come up with a strengthened governance framework to prevent and respond to climate risk and climate-related disasters in the European Union;
• the Commission to promote sustainable agriculture practices and investments including sustainable practices to prevent and control pests;
• the Commission to propose measures to strengthen the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS), including to increase the linear reduction factor reducing the number of allowances distributed each year, reducing the surplus more rapidly by keeping the withdrawal rate to the market stability reserve at 24% a year even after 2023, to include more sectors such as shipping and international aviation, and move to full auctioning of allowances for all sectors, in order to ensure a sufficiently high carbon price and investments in low carbon technologies and innovation to drive 142 own emissions at the rate needed to reach climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest;
• the Commission to propose a framework at the EU level in order to promote technical solutions for negative emissions;
• increased and binding EU energy targets for energy efficiency and renewable energy to at least 40% for 2030 in order to achieve EU climate targets;
• the Commission to propose a strategy to promote and simplify rail transport across borders to make it more competitive with aviation;
• the Commission to propose a strategy for greener aviation, in particular by promoting technical solutions for aviation biofuel and electric aircraft;
• the building of bridges and common frameworks between all European countries to promote environmental and climate cooperation towards the agreed international goals of the Paris Agreement;
• the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to agree on a Paris-compatible Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 that rules out fossil fuel subsidies and supports the transition to a more sustainable, competitive European economy;
• all ALDE member parties to work towards ending the $65 billion (€57.5 billion) fuel tax exemption for international aviation, and insist on an update of Article 24 of the Chicago Convention from 1944 in order to end the obsolete fuel tax exemption for international aviation;
• the Commission to propose a contingency plan on how to handle the consequences of climate change, including natural disasters, climate migration and the projections of its impact;
• all ALDE member parties that substantial progress is needed at the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UNFCCC, in particular in finalising the outstanding issues for the rule book on how to implement the Paris Agreement from COP24 in Katowice, in particular on cooperative mechanisms under Article 6.

Well, you certainly can't describe it as sketchy or unambitious, and I suspect that it stands up well.

ALDE Party Congress, Athens 2019 - the draft resolutions for debate

Yes, it's coming up to that time of year again, when liberals from across the continent come together to meet, debate and swap ideas. There may also be the odd glass of something taken too... Over the next two weeks, I'll be covering the resolutions submitted for debate, and offering some of my thoughts where appropriate.

But first, here's the list (and I'll add links to each as I publish...)

1. A Climate Policy that Delivers on the Paris Agreement (submitted by Centerpartiet (Sweden), Nowoczesna (Poland), Radikale Venstre (Denmark), Liberal Democrats and LYMEC)
2. Carbon Capture and Storage: Reaching the Paris Goals (submitted by Venstre (Norway))
3. Chick culling – A European concern (submitted by the Free Democrats (Germany)) 
4. A framework directive on soil protection (submitted by Radicali Italiani)
5. Resolution on Transnational lists and the lead candidate process (submitted by the ALDE Individual Members and LYMEC)
6. Democracy, rule of law and knowledge during the digital revolution (submitted by Radicali Italiani)
7. Creation of a European Rule of Law Mechanism (submitted by the ALDE Individual Members)
8. Strengthening European democracy and values (submitted by Piu Europa (Italy))
9. Supporting ALDE Individual Members in Central and Eastern Europe (submitted by the ALDE Individual Members)
10. Improving Europe’s capabilities to address the rise of China (submitted by Centerpartiet (Sweden), Liberalerna (Sweden) and the Free Democrats (Germany))
11. Strengthening the European Union as a Global Actor (submitted by the Free Democrats (Germany)) 
12. The United Kingdom and the European Union (submitted by the Liberal Democrats)
13. Reducing Harm for Migrant and Vulnerable Workers (submitted by the Liberal Democrats)

It's a varied list, with three resolutions either authored or co-authored by the Liberal Democrats. But bear in mind that these aren't the final versions, as amendments are possible until 27 September, and members of the Federal International Relations Committee, including myself, are already on the case...

ALDE Party Congress 2018 - “ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas...”

Jacques Brel, one of the great Belgian performers, sang of his sense of despair and loss at the end of a relationship, of the desperation with which men would try to resuscitate a dying romance they had destroyed by their own failures. And, whilst our relationship with Europe is in danger of reaching a depressing end through the failures of others, the sense of despair and loss is not dissimilar for some of us.

And so, at the end of an ALDE Party Congress which saw the adoption of a manifesto for European Parliamentary elections we probably won’t be fighting, and the creation of a leadership team for a campaign that will pass us by, what have we learned?

1. Europe, and even our liberal colleagues, are preparing to move on without us. Yes, they are sympathetic to our own desire to stay and engage, but there are some who, to be blunt, would rather have Brexit just happen than allow a protracted process and the resultant instability to distract from the serious business of reforming Europe, its economy and its institutions. We are pitied as much as we are respected for our history and our contribution in years past.
2. ALDE is torn between those who are proud to be liberals and those who see the advantages of using words like “progressive” and “centrist”, the latter looking to build a bigger tent, a more effective (or powerful) political gathering, bringing in the likes of En Marche. That tension expresses itself as much through strategic considerations as opposed to policy ones - any pan-European manifesto is inevitably drafted as to allow a degree of designed flexibility of interpretation.
3. The balance of power in the ALDE Party is shifting eastwards and southwards, with Bureau members now from Spain, Slovenia, Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. There are Liberal Prime Minsters in Estonia, Finland and Slovenia too, and Liberal Commissioners from Slovenia, Estonia and the Czech Republic. The new Europe means a new ALDE Party.
4. The apparent current weakness of the two historically powerful blocs in European politics - the Socialists and the Christian Democrats - offers the potential to change the dynamics of the Parliament, as both blocs lose support to the extremes at one end and, in moving to retain those voters, to the Greens and Liberals from their more moderate supporters. That leads to the emergence of co-operation between groups whose policy platforms have sufficient overlap.

The potential, both for growth of influence, and for a blurring of philosophy, is there, and in years gone by, Liberal Democrat’s would have been at the heart of the debate. That, sadly, is no longer the case.

And, if Brexit goes ahead, we will lose our right to vote or speak on future manifestos, or to vote for Spitzenkandidaten, leaving us amongst the Moldovans and Armenians in terms of status if not, perhaps, in terms of influence. It will not be the same, and the transition may be an uncomfortable one.

Ne me quitte pas, ALDE Party, ne me quitte pas, ne me quitte pas...

Goodbye Catalans, I never really knew you...

Today saw something historically unusual, the expulsion of a member party from one of the European political groupings, as PdeCAT (the Catalan European Democratic Party) were the subject of an extraordinary ALDE Party Council meeting in Brussels.

As I’m no longer one of the Party’s Council delegation due to not being Welsh (it’s a long story...), I wasn’t there, but there is an element of sadness to what was an overwhelming vote to expel them. There seems to be little suggestion that they have become anyone other than a liberal grouping, but the links to their discredited predecessor movement, accused of serious corruption in office, were seemingly too great to be ignored.

I’m not an expert on the politics of Spain, although there were always thought to be issues retaining Ciudadanos and any pro-Catalan independence group in the same organisation. And, if forced to choose, big picture politics would tend towards favouring the bigger of the two. I’m not suggesting that there was any pressure to choose a side, and suspect that, had there been any, the vote to expel would have been rather closer.

But the crossover between its predecessor, CDC, and the new grouping, with key figures in common, meant trouble as soon as accusations of corruptions became prosecutions. No wider political grouping wants to be tainted by association, and excision became the obvious outcome.

So, no more Catalans, and a marker sent out to any member parties who might have issues amongst their senior leadership. Let’s hope that ALDE doesn’t have to do such a thing again too soon...

@ALDEParty - I’m still helpful after all these years...

I’ve spent the day mostly in Brussels, in my capacity as a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee, fulfilling a slightly different role to the one I’ve traditionally filled, that of institutional memory and provider of context.

The Committee is undergoing a process of transition at the moment, with the five original members (including myself) on our way out - two this year, three next - and six new members coming in. And that means that they have a bit of a learning curve, just as we did when we started.

Questions of why we do what we do, and how we do it aren’t entirely written down, as our role has evolved somewhat, and whilst the minutes record faithfully our decisions, it isn’t always obvious why. Given that our role, whilst low profile, has significance for both the Bureau and the Secretariat, who we advise and scrutinise to some extent, we also act to ensure that member parties are protected from reputational risk by association.

Admittedly, the Secretariat has been equally zealous in ensuring compliance with both the legal and organisational frameworks of the European Parliament, and has explored ways of raising funds without cutting ethical corners. They take this very seriously, which should be a reassurance to us all.

We make suggestions, examine proposed actions, probe expenditure patterns, and act, I suppose, as an audit and compliance board would. It is an important function, and an enjoyable one at the same time, as it allows me an opportunity to work with the management team and the staff, and to get a better grasp of what they are doing.

But the end is drawing near, as my final term ends next year, and I’ll pass the baton onto Birshen, Mats, Claus, Gaëlle, Adrian and Iztok. They’ll do just fine...

@ALDEParty: a day of advanced bureaucracy for political parties

It does sometimes seem hard to believe that I’m now in my seventh year as a member of the ALDE Party’s Financial Advisory Committee. Perhaps that’s because, when I was first appointed, it was on the basis that we would serve no more than three two-year terms, but for various reasons, we have all been extended, some of us for one year, the remainder (including myself) for two.

And in that time, the Committee has evolved. We still do financial advisory stuff, but we also consider grant applications to the Political Projects fund, we examine proposals for new types of spending and advise on such things as fundraising strategy. We are, perhaps, a sounding board for the Secretariat and the Bureau, given our experience of the internal dynamics of political parties. My history as a Regional Secretary, Treasurer and all around bureaucrat gives me an unusual perspective, which comes in handy.

Our relationship with the Secretariat is a healthy one, in that we are willing to ask challenging questions, but have, over time developed a genuine respect for the ability of the senior management team. Indeed, I find myself wondering how the similar relationship between the relevant bodies of the Liberal Democrats and the executive team works. Fortunately, that remains someone else’s problem.

Today, we examined the recently completed 2017 audit, looked at the 2018 budget figures to date, and discussed the relationship between the Committee and the Bureau. We also gave some thoughts on how the Bureau might look at filling the vacancies on our committee as they arise. 

I can’t, for reasons of organisational integrity, discuss the audit. It remains to be considered by the Bureau and the ALDE Party Council, each of which has legal responsibilities, but I am personally reassured that the Party’s finances are healthy and that the fiscal controls are in good hands.

We have had an influence over the years, drawing up an ethical fundraising strategy for the Party which, I understand, has been duplicated by the European People’s Party (plagiarism is the ultimate form of flattery, I guess, although a payment for our work would be nice...), and leading on a restructuring of the membership fee system to make it easier for small member parties from poorer countries.

One thing that does vaguely worry me though is that we appear to have become, almost by stealth, the only group holding the Bureau and the Secretariat to account. Council seems to take increasingly little interest in the day to day running of the ALDE Party, which is rather its constitutionally defined role. In an organisation where transparency is considered important, that might not be critical, but there is a principle here.

When the Liberal Democrats elect members of the ALDE Party Council, candidates tend to talk about ideas, about policy. They don’t talk about how a liberal political party should be run and operated, perhaps because it’s rather dull. And yet, a political party should, in the way it works, reflect its philosophical roots, within the confines of legislation.

I suspect, though, that our delegation is not alone in being more interested in ideas than in process. And if people aren’t interested in process, they are, not unreasonably, not going to pay much attention to such things, trusting the professional staff and the Bureau to take care of it.

Which is why I wondered aloud about reforming Council to sharpen its focus...

Nick Tyrone - taking hyperbole to an epoch-defining low...

It is not often that I am moved to criticise a fellow Liberal Democrat blogger. Generally speaking, if I join in, you've probably stretched the envelope of acceptable behaviour or attacked someone I love. However, on this occasion, I'm making an exception.

In his 'interesting' posting on the ALDE Group's entanglement with the Five Star Movement, he describes the decision of the Parliamentary Group to reject the proposed entry of the Beppe Grillo led group as 'an epoch defining act of stupidity'. One might argue as to whether it was the right call or not, and there are arguments either way, but come now, Nick, epoch defining to reject a party that has no clear philosophical basis except whatever Beppe thinks when he gets up in the morning? Methinks one protests too much.

And whilst Nick claims to spent time around ALDE and other European liberal parties, and I have no reason to doubt that, he may not be talking to the people I talk to as a member of the ALDE Party Council. I am more than aware of the accusations of fake news generation that whirl around M5S, and of their views regarding the Euro and the future of NATO. Indeed, the proposed deal included a provision that their MEPs would be members of the ALDE Group but not bound by its whip, something which smacks of a 'marriage of convenience'.

Perhaps there was a prospect of a coming together of M5S and European liberal forces leading to an evolution of the former into a genuinely liberal party, and perhaps such an evolution will take place eventually. Personally, I've seen too many personality driven parties disintegrate once the key personality quits or implodes to be that confident, but one learns not to presume anything - something doubly true when considering Italian politics.

But there is no point admitting one dubiously liberal grouping only to lose a number of established ones in protest. ALDE is already a coming together of social liberal and economic liberal parties whose shared objectives outweigh the disagreements. Adding M5S to the mix would be one step too far for a number of them.

So, encourage M5S down a path towards a genuinely liberal grouping in Italy with an informal agreement to work together on issues where the agenda is a shared one by all means and, if they demonstrate that there is a potential place for them amongst the Liberal family, then fine, let's talk about some more formal relationship. But until then, the idea that you invite people to be the flag bearers for liberalism who oppose some of its core tenets for political advantage isn't an epoch defining act of stupidity, it's a demonstration that a political party has to maintain some core principles, lest it forget why it exists in the first place.

And finally, Nick suggests that, in his time spent around ALDE and other European liberal parties, the one thing he noticed again and again is a lack of understanding about how politics basically works. I disagree, obviously, because I'm one of those stupid European liberals he so disparagingly refers to. I might find myself wondering just how successful Nick's brand of politics is, given that there are seven ALDE Prime Ministers, and five Liberal Commissioners, and that the number of Nick Tyrones in government is how many exactly?

But he's entitled to his opinion and I'm entitled to mine. And I think that Nick needs, on some future occasion, to come to an ALDE Party Congress and meet some of the people I meet and talk to them. But as he loathes them - his words, not mine - I'm not sure that a meeting of minds is very likely. Perhaps becoming a member of the Five Star Movement and trying to influence them towards liberalism from the inside might be more palatable to him than spending time with his fellow liberals?