My last post was resolutely negative, but I said I was doing two posts, so here is the second, and it’s thankfully a lot more positive. In the UK, we held our two seats: there are still two loud Green voices from the UK in the EP. True, we didn’t manage to increase our seats as we had expected to do, but we held our base firmly, and the UK-wide increase in the Green vote was 50%. In other words, the electoral system is just a tad crap for us, but we did pretty well. Now we need to build on that and make sure that we get those extra seats next time. One of my favourite set of numbers for the night was Brighton & Hove, where we took the most votes, beating all other parties. Lets hope we can have a repeat performance when it comes to the general election.

Looking elsewhere in Europe, the state of the greens is rather good. In France, we saw a gain of 8 seats, taking us to a total of 14. In Belgium, Groen! (Dutch-speaking greens) suffered at the hands of Vlaams Belang (far-right), but Ecolo (French-speaking greens) won two seats in the EP (up one from last time), and are also the third largest party in the Brussels Capital Region Parliament. Not all results are in, but by my estimates, we’ve gained 13 seats across Europe, making the European Greens a stronger force in EU politics. I’ll try and keep that pan-European thought in mind, rather than the UK results.

A tad busy today what with elections tomorrow and all, but I noticed a piece on the front page of the Guardian about the British Conservative leader’s decision to join with a bunch of homophobic and climate denying freaks from Poland and the Czech Republic in forming a new right-wing grouping in the next European Parliament.

Obviously this new group is going to be just a bit repulsive, and it seems mad for David Cameron to be doing this when he’s also trying to present the image of a new and fresh, inclusive Conservative Party in the UK, but there is one promising aspect of this: it will pull a few MEPs out of the European People’s Party, potentially giving the Party of European Socialists the dominating position in the Parliament. Frankly the PES is only a tad better than the EPP, but at least it’s something.

Anyway, I guess we’ll have to wait for the results of the elections before knowing for sure how things will turn out. In the mean time, I’m off leafleting. Several streets worth of tenements await me.

Just a short post today, as I should really be researching the EU’s climate change policy instead of blogging, but I was quite surprised by the remarks of Václav Claus in the EP yesterday, where he attacked the institution for not having legitimacy. Certainly there are arguments that the EP lacks legitimacy, but these are mainly based on low voter turnout at elections. Claus’s argument was that the lack of a government and opposition in the model of a more traditional parliamentary system led to the deficit of legitimacy. Being familiar with the pointless trading of insults and jeering that comes from that system at Westminster PMQs, I can’t say I’d like to see it replicated in Brussels.

OK, this one puzzles me: someone (apparently wearing a wig and make-up) managed to commit armed robbery at a branch of ING Bank inside the European Parliament, and they haven’t been caught!

 A spokesman for the Parliament said that the perpetrator might still be at large inside the building.

European Voice

I have a security pass for The Scottish Parliament, so I’m familiar with the procedures for access to that building, including the need to escort guests at all times, but on the occasions I’ve visited the EP, the fact that I can wander around freely on my own has always seemed somewhat unusual. I guess they’ll maybe consider tightening things up a bit now.

Update – 13h33

According to Twitter the best place to go in event of security breaches is the canteen! Twitter really comes into its own with things like this.

It is never encouraging when such a simple thing as removing highly inefficient and outdated light-bulbs from sale meets as much opposition as the initiative has done to date. Showing his party’s ‘green’ credentials as ever, a British Conservative MEP, John Bowis, has followed others in his party by opposing the withdrawal. In the past, the argument for incandescent bulbs has gone along the lines of freedom and civil liberties (light-bulbs naturally being a vital symbol of the freedom of the people), but now Bowis is claiming that currently available energy efficient bulbs might “cause pain and disability” to people suffering from epilepsy, lupus, migraines and autism.

It might be true that these conditions can be adversely affected by fluorescent lamps (a committee advising the European Commission found little evidence of significant effects), but it is still possible to use other forms of efficient bulbs, such as LED and halogen lamps. Hopefully sense will be seen, and the EP will vote through the ban.

I’ve neglected this blog for far too long, and it’s time to restart regular blogging. So my first topic is one which I followed for a while last year: the Energy and Climate Package. Actually, it isn’t specifically about that, rather it’s about what one of the outcomes of that was meant to be.

The Commission wanted to achieve a moral high-ground with the Package. Essentially, it should have poured icy cold water on the argument that the advanced portions of the developing world shouldn’t have to act on climate change in any strenuous way, as they didn’t make the problem, and the developed world has benefited hugely from emissions of greenhouse gases. Aside from the fact that this argument for non-action can be negated by matters of self-interest for the developing world, it was a fairly good idea of the Commission to try to lead the way.

Unfortunately (or some may say, fortunately), the EU doesn’t just do what the Commission wants. MEPs and national ministers have their say too, and the Package was watered down at every stage, until a very weak piece of legislation was spat out the other end. You could say that the institutions break the legislation down like grass in a cow’s stomach. Take that metaphor where you will.

Anyway, it seems that the Commission hasn’t realised that its proposals were digested in that way, as it has apparently just urged developing nations to cut their emissions, regardless of the EU’s rather limited actions, beholden as it is to commercial interests.

Certainly, the approach to tackling climate change must be global in scale, and stronger nations must help weaker nations, but though this may be initially suggested by the Commission’s media release, it does also go on to say that:

“Up to 2020 the bulk of actions in these countries will have low costs—or even benefits—and should be financed domestically.”

To me this does not seem to be a particularly constructive way of helping very poor states to make the necessary adaptations to their economies and infrastructure that will be needed. After the diluting of the Energy & Climate Package, it seems that the EU is in a bit of a muddle over what to do. A generally pro-action Commission (though clearly not a dream Green Commission) seems held back by the more reluctant views of member states and citizens. I think this is something I’m certainly going to come back to pretty soon.

Climate & Energy Package

Ok, so things didn’t look good for the climate and energy package before it went before the environment committee of the European Parliament a couple of weeks ago, but it got through just about all right. Well today the European Council managed to make time to discuss it, in between Gordon Brown saving capitalism, and it seems that, while the eastern Europeans didn’t make much of a dent on it in earlier stages, they are doing their best to water it right down now. Euractiv reports that there is co-operation, but it seems likely that the final agreement will be a shadow of what it should have been.

Canada

Brave faces and disappointment for the Greens were the result of the general election in Canada. Despite gaining 6% of the vote, the party didn’t manage to elect an MP. It looks like the same old problems as we have in the UK were partly to blame: non-proportional electoral system, other parties spouting “greenwash”, &c.

UN

The United Nations Environment Programme will be leading an initiative to develop a workable “green new deal. The proposals are separate from the New Economic Foundation’s report on the same topic which was produced by a committee including Caroline Lucas, and while seeming to be watered down slightly, should be welcomed.

As I mentioned in my last post, today is Thursday. No matter what you may think otherwise, I am not a day late with the briefing.

Europe

One of the main pieces of Europe wide environmental news this week was the Energy and Climate package, which is currently wandering through the EU’s decision making process. MEPs in the environment committee of the Parliament voted on a number of aspects, and the end result is fairly good. Barroso has also called for the package to not be forgotten amongst the discussion of economic woes at the European Council next week.

In another EP decision, the flag, anthem, Europe Day (9th of May if you were wondering) and motto of the EU have been formally recognised. This was one of the aspects of the original European Constitution that was removed to placate less willing Europeans, such as us islanders.

I also had to share this video from EUtube, titled “Make Love not CO2″:

UK

According to a local newspaper story headline: “North Somerset Greens tackle financial crisis“. We’re all ok then! Actually, a meeting of the branch discussed the turmoil, and how Greens can respond to it with things such as the Green New Deal. On the topic of the Green New Deal, our shiny new leader in England & Wales, Caroline Lucas MEP, has written a piece in The Guardian about it.