english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Home arrow newsitems arrow ECHR 9/11 ruling on a Gay Union : Humankind Implosion Risk or Chance for Childrens' Natural Births ?

ECHR 9/11 ruling on a Gay Union : Humankind Implosion Risk or Chance for Childrens' Natural Births ?

Written by ACM
Thursday, 07 November 2013


*Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo (*)/- An apparently anodynous, or slightly controversial, ECHR judgement published Today, but curiously decided since ...September 11, could, in fact, either give way to a kind of "Legal Hijacking" threatening to result in an even Worse Implosion of Humankind than real 9/11 NY WTC's Demolition, or, on the contrary, Help to find another way to Safeguard Childrens' Natural Births, and, therefore, strengthen the chances for Humankind's Natural general Development in the foreseable Future, according to the Legal Analysis, Interpretation and Conclusions that main Law Actors will make of this Tricky but interesting ECHR's Grand Chamber Judgement on a particular form of Civil Unions that Homosexual lobbies asked to open also for them, apparently skipping delicate issues about Children etc..


An important point, which deserves to be marked from the outset, is that ECHR's Grand Chamber doesn't exclude, a priori, the possibility for a Differentiated Legal Treatment of Homosexual partners, (compared to Natural Families composed by a Man and a Woman), mainly Justified by the former's Biological Inability to give Natural Birth to Children, particularly if this Necessary in order to reach the Legitimate Aim of a Law, as it results from Today's Judgement, (See Infra), rendered on the occasion of a measure taken back on 2008 by a former Greek Govenment, which had tried to focus its explanations precisely on this intrinsique Difference between Homosexuals and Natural Families, concerning the Natural Procreation of Children :

Indeed, "the Government’s ...main argument is that (the inscriminated) Law ...is designed to strengthen the legal status of Children born Outside Marriage, and to make it Easier for Parents to Raise their Children without being obliged to Marry. This aspect, it is argued, Distinguishes Different-Sex couples from Same-Sex couples, since the latter canNot have Biological Children together", as ECHR's ruling notes (§ 82).

But, in fact, Today's ECHR's ruling, has also many other, delicate Legal aspects, with more or less important Moral, Social and even Political possible repecussions, whose Analysis is both Interesting and Necessary, not only in order to seize some Positive Chances to strengthen Human Rights, but also in order to Help Prevent some apparently inexistent, but in reality very Dangerous Risks for the concerned Persons, Society, Countries and even Humankind (See Infra, particularly just before the conclusion)...




- It's a Fact that, independently of this or that individual judgement by one or another among the many ECHR's Chambers, at one or another moment, which is legally applicable only in that concrete affair and/or could be easily changed by another ECHR judgement in the Future of a fluctuating case law,

>>> it still remains that the official text of the PanEuropean Convention for Human Rights, clearly reserves the "Right to Marry ...and form a Family" just to "Men and Women of marriable age", according to its Article 12.

This would need 47 CoE Member States' agreement in order to eventually change in the Future : something obviously Impossible, particularly given the strong opposition of a Majority of CoE's Member States.. .


+ Moreover, ECHR has repeatedly confirmed, until recently, that, in general, "protection of the (Natural) Family in the Traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and Legitimate reason which might Justify a Difference in treatment", including vis a vis Homosexuals, in a variety of cases, (comp. f.ex. Karner v. Austria, 1998, X and others v. Austria, 2013, etc, See § 83).

In addition, ECHR also confirmed that "It goes without saying that the protection of the interests of the Child (a Crucial point, often evoked f.ex. by the French Popular Movement "Manif pour tous" and/or the Dissident Group of "Mayors for Childhood/Maires pour l'Enfance", which clearly refuse Same Sex Marriage, etc), is also a Legitimate aim" for such purpose (ibid).


- However, the present case didn't concern at all any kind of so-called "Marriage" between Homosexuals, but only the simple question whether mere "Civil Unions" should be open also for them, or not : This was clearly and repeatedly stressed by the present ECHR's judgement which notes, f.ex. that "the Legislation in question ... is designed ...(for) a Form of Partnership OTHER than Marriage, referred to as "Civil Unions"", i.e. "provided for a New Legal Form of Non-Marital Partnership", (§ 86 + 87).


- In this regard, ECHR explicitly pushed aside any eventual claim that CoE's Member States might be, eventually, obliged to have some kind of Legal form, whatever, for Same Sex relationships in general, clearly droping that : - "The Court deems it important to ...(note that) ..the present case ... does NOT relate in the abstract to a general obligation on the ...State to provide for a Form of Legal recognition in domestic law for Same-Sex relationships". "In other words", the point at issue "is NOT that the ... State failed to comply with any positive Obligation, which might be imposed on it by the Convention", but, on the Contrary, only "that it introduced (at the State's own Initiative) a Distinction, which in the.. view (of the LGBTI Lobby), would discriminate.. against them", without presenting sufficient and/or necessary and proportional justifications in this case, ( § 75 + See Infra).


On the Contrary, it clearly results from this ECHR's Judgement, that, still Today, the large Majority of PanEuropean CoE's 47 Member States, i.e. 38 (Thirty Eight) States, do NOT provide at all for any so-called "Same Sex Marriage" whatever, Contrary to only 9 (Nine) States which did so just "recently", (i.e. most of them after Obama's election to USA's Presidency, back on 2009-2012)... As for merely "some form of Civil Partnership for Same Sex Couples, ... Other than Marriage", it's only "17 (Seventeen) States" which additionally .. authorize" such an "Alternative", compared to much More CoE's Member States : 21 (Twenty one), which do NOT accept Neither of them, still preferring to Focus rather on the Natural Family between Man and Woman, (the only able to give Natural Birth to Children), (Comp. § 91).

Even inside the EU's 28 Member States, as ECHR observed earlier, the Official "Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, prepared in 2006 by the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights", pointed out that:

- Certain EU Member "States still ... explicitly Forbid the notion that Same-Sex couples have the right to Marry", and, in general, "there is very Limited legal recognition of Same-Sex relationships", since "Marriage is Not available to same-sex couples", because "Laws of the Majority of States presuppose .. . that ..spouses are of Different Sexes", (I.e. "Men and Women", as ECHR's Article 12 already said).

With the Exception of just "a Few countries", where, on the Contrary, "Marriage between people of the Same Sex is legally recognized", while, "others ... have endorsed a Registered Partnership" only, (f.ex. on "Property", "Inheritance", and other such merely practical issues. And, in this regard, "it is Important to point out that the name ‘Registered Partnership’ has intentionally been chosen NOT to confuse it with Marriage, and it has been established as an Alternative method of recognizing Personal Relationships. This New institution is, consequently, as a rule Only accessible to couples who canNot Marry, and the Same-Sex Partnership does Not have the same Status and the same benefits as Marriage", EU Experts clearly Distinguished.

Moreover, an "Explicit reference to ‘Men and Women’" exists in several "Human Rights Instruments" (including, f.ex., CoE's own PanEuropean Convention on Human Rights, with its crystal-clear Article 12 : Comp. Supra), and "International Courts and Committees have so far Hesitated to extend the application of the right to Marry to Same-Sex couples", they noted, as ECHR reminded today (§31).




= > Accordingly, the only Open Issue in the present case (2013) was just to know if, and when (i.e. on which Conditions) a CoE's Member State could legally establish a kind of Civil "Partnership" for Man - Woman Couples, without necessarily inluding even Homosexuals in this, in all or in part.

- (a)- On the 1st point, ECHR's answer, as a matter of General Principle, is a crystal-clear "Yes !" Indeed, "such a Difference" can be Legal, if the concerned persons are not "in Comparable Situations", vis a vis "a Legitimate Aim pursued" by a State, and/or whenever there is an "objective and reasonable Justification" related to Natural Couples Man-Woman, but Not to Homosexual partners, as iit results in substance.

Thus, according to ECHR, such an Aim related f.ex. to the "protection of the (Natural) Family in the Traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and Legitimate reason which might Justify a Difference in treatment", including vis a vis Homosexuals, and, moreover, "it goes without saying that the protection of the interests of the Child, is also a Legitimate aim" for that purpose (Comp. Supra, and § 83).

- (b) - As regards the 2nd point, ECHR refers to a general case-law asking for the concerned "Difference in Treatment" to respect "the principle of Proportionality", i.e. for "the Measure chosen to be Suitable in principle (i.e. Adequat) for achievement of the Aim sought", and "also ...Necessary, in order to achieve that Aim", "the burden of proof" being; in such cases, "on the respondent Government" (§ 85).

Thus, f.ex., if "the Greek Government (could show) in the instant case that it was Necessary, in pursuit of the Legitimate Aims which they invoked, to Bar Same-Sex Couples from entering into the Civil Unions provided for by (a)Law (of) 2008", as ECHR noted, then, this would be endorsed by EuroJudges.

=> Among various such hypothesis, "it would ... have been Possible for the Legislature to include some Provisions dealing Specifically with Children, born outside Marriage" by a Natural Family, i.e. with a Mother and Father, "while at the same time extending to Same-Sex couples the General possibility of (simply) entering into a Civil Union" only, (i.e. without being obliged to include them even vis a vis the above-mentioned "Specific" Provisions concerning "Children"), ECHR apparently suggests.

At this point, it's also Important to note that, at least 4 among the EuroJudges who voted for Today's ECHR's judgement, decided "by a Majority", found necessary to exceptionaly Publish their Views, explaining, in substance, that they did so only because "Complex ... Issues", "comparable", f.ex. the notoriously Controversial and UnPopular "Adoption" of Children by Homosexuals (rejected by a large Majority of EU Citizens, f.ex. in France, etc., as many Polls attest), was "Not Raised" here :

>>> - Because, otherwise, (i.e. if this included Adoption of Children by Homosexuals), then "any such Adoption would necessarily, and indeed Radically, Affect the situation of the Child to be adopted, and that of the Other Biological Parent (Natural Mother or Father), Raising Delicate Issues with regard to the Best Interests of the Child , and the Other (Natural) Parent’s (European) Convention Rights", Warn these 4 EuroJudges, clearly declaring their Firm Opposition against anything of that kind, which would "Affect"any "Third Party", (i.e. a Child and/or his Natural Father and/or Mother) "in any way", as they stressed, (See "Joint Opinion", point 2).

In this regard, (which is obviously Crucial also for Protecting the Natural Procreation of Human Beings from any Risk of eventual Technocratic exploitation of Homosexual couples Sterility, f.ex. by finding a Pretext to massively launch many Thousands of "Medically Assisted Procreations", with PreNatal Tests, In Vitro Fertilisations, Artificial Inseminations, Subrogate Mothers, Sperm/Ovary Banks, etc), the 4 EuroJudges, focusing on the Controversy about the Unpopular "issue of Adoption within Same-Sex couples", whose "Specific Features" had been "explored extensively in (a) partly Dissenting Opinion" to another, recent ECHR Judgement (X and others v. Austria, 2013), which raised "the Issue of Adoption within Same Sex Couples", and, to be precise, "more particularly, ... concerned the possibility for an applicant to adopt her Partner's Child", (i.e. linked with at least 1 Natural, Biological Parent).

- But, here, on the Contrary, "No such considerations apply in the Present case", since "the applicants in this case are Same-Sex Adult couples who simply wish to Formalise their own Relationships", without affecting any Child at all, the 4 EuroJudges' clearly Distinguished.

- Indeed, the concerned "Greek legislation on Civil Unions makes No provision for Adoption .... , and, In other words, the possible Extension ...to include Same-Sex couples would Not raise Issues comparable to those in "X and Others v. Austria", observe in consequence those EuroJudges, (i.e. about the notoriously Controversial and Unpopular LGBTI demand to oblige Children to submit to the Authority of Homosexuals under pretext of "Adoption", in that Austrian case to the Partner of one among their Natural Parents). Thus, they made it clear that it was only because, in the present, "Greek" case, Children's fate was Not affected at all, in their view, that they agreed with the rest of the ECHR's Members. On the contrary, if Childrens' fate was at stake (f.ex. concering Adoption, Medically Assisted Procreation, Subrogate Mothers, etc., then, they would have voted Against the extension of such "Civil Unions" to Homosexuals, as it seems.


For the ECHR, it's only because it found that the respondent "Government have Not offered convincing and wighty Reasons capable of Justifying the Exclusion of Same-Sex Couple from the scope of (that) Law (of) 2008", that it concluded that there was a Violation of Articles 14 and 8 of the PanEuropean Convention on Human Rights, regarding Discrimination vis a vis Private/Family Life, as Today's judgement says (§ 92).

In other words, ECHR does not exclude at all, a prori, any possibility to eventually reserve such Civil Unions only for Natural Families, on the sole condition to have a Justification able to convince that such a Difference of treatment would be Legitimate and Necessary.

It's true that the Greek "Government maintained that the Biological Difference" of Homosexuals, consisting to the Fact that they "Could Not have biological Children together, justified limiting civil unions to different-sex couples", as ECHR's ruling notes. Because "the 'Hard Core' of that Legislation" was "represented" by "provisions" aiming to "establish Paternity" even Out of "Marriage and ... Courts", since they "enabled the Father of a Child Born Out of Marriage, to establish Paternity and be Involved in the Child's UpBringing, without having to be Married to (its) Mother", (§ 89).

- But, "even assuming that the legislature’s Intention was to enhance the legal protection of Children born Outside Marriage ..., (nevertheless) the fact remains that, (this) Law ....introduced a form of Civil Partnership, known as Civil Unions, which (also) ... allowed Differend-Sex Couples ... to Regulate numerous Aspects of their Relationship, whether they had Children, or Not", while always "Excluding Same-Sex couples", even from that other possibility to simply Regulate their own Relationship, (regardless of any Children), ECHR critically points out (§ 88), adding that "in that connection", even "the Explanatory Report on the Legislation at issue offers No insight into the legislature’s decision to Limit civil Unions" to Natural Couples, Man-Woman, only, (ibid).

As far as it concerns that Part of the 2008 Law which did Not concern Children at all, the Greek Government had "contented that .. (such) Civil Unions ...would result .. in Rights and Obligations – in terms of ...Property status, the Financial relations within each couple and their Inheritance rights – for which (Homosexuals) could already provide a Legal Framework under Ordinary law, that is to say, on a Contractual basis", i.e.. even without using such kind of Civil Unions, ECHR noted, (§ 80).

+ But, "the Court is of the View that .... the Civil Partnerships, provided ...as an Officially Recognised Alternative to Marriage, have an Intrinsic Value for (Homosexuals), Irrespective of the legal effects ... that they would produce", Today's Ruling goes on to add. Because "Same-sex couples ....entering into Stable Committed Relationships", and "Sharing their Lives, have the Same Needs in terms of Mutual Support and Assistance as Different-Sex couples. Accordingly, ...entering into a Civil Union would afford ...the only opportunity available to them under Greek law of Formalising their Relationship by conferring on it a Legal Status Recognised by the State", stressed ECHR. EuroJudges admitted that (as the Greek Government had argued : Comp. Supra), indeed, it was always possible for Homosexuals "to Regulate issues concerning Property, Maintenance and Inheritance, ... as Private Individuals entering into Contracts under the Ordinary Law", "But" they "noted that extending Civil Unions to Same-Sex couples would allow the latter to" do so also "on the Basis of the Legal Rules governing Civil Unions, thus having their Relationship Officially Recognised by the State", as ECHR's Ruling repeatedly underlines, (§ 81).


=> It's, therefore, mainly for that reason that Today's Ruling condemned the Greek State for "Discrimination" concerning the Private/Family Life of 8 Homosexuals who had applied to the ECHR, and ordered it to pay 40.000 € for "Non-Pecuniary Damage" (consisting mainly to the "Frustration" that they said they had felt), as well as another 11.000 € for "Costs and Expenses", - in reply to their demands to reimburse Travels to/from Strasbourg, "Time spent on the case" by controversial NGO "Greek Helsinki Monitor" ... "at an Hourly rate of EUR 100", (sic !), etc - in Addition to "any Tax that may be chargeable to them", in 3 Months time, from the expiry of which, it would also have to pay an "Interest"...


More than 51.000 €, plus Taxes, plus Interests, etc, merely for a ..."Frustration" reportedly felt by a few Homosexuals just because the Greek State hadn't yet "Officially Recognized their Relationship", even if they hadn't any difficulty at all to Regulate their Private Life as they wished (Comp. Supra), at the same time that Poor Natural Families face in Greece notorious Hardships from an exceptionaly Heavy Financial Crisis, innocent Young or Old People are even committing Suicide, Threatened to be thrown to the Street, and/or Starve from Hunger, deprived even of basic Health Care, or just with a "Pension" of only ...300 € per Month, while the Greek State is Hindered to help them, obliged to pay excessive amounts of Money to a disproportionate number of often corrupted Civil Servants and/or Bankers up to -and even well beyond 2020+, etc., can obviously appear as Scandalous to the eyes of many Honest EU Citizens ! (Comp., f.ex. : http://www.eurofora.net/forum/index.php/topic,637.0.html ).

Serious Critical Questions are, moreover, raised also by the Fact that, as the "Dissident" Opinion published by EuroJudge Pinto de Albuquerque (who Voted Against the above mentioned Condamnation) denounces, "the particular interest of (this) case is that the Grand Chamber performs an abstract review of ...a Greek law" : It "not only reviews ...a law which has Not been Applied to the Applicants, but furthermore does it WITHOUT the benefit of PRIOR SCRUTINY of that same legislation BY THE NATIONAL COURTS; ..without any prior national judicial review".

In fact, this complaint should have been declared "Inadmissible for Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies"; because "the ...applicants ...did Not even try to lodge their claim before the National Courts" : "No opportunity was given to the national authorities to address the applicants’ complaint at the national level". Thus, "the principle of Subsidiarity was infringed". "The Applicants Failed to use the Remedies that would have enabled the Greek Courts to examine their allegations of a violation of the Convention. Consequently, the Grand Chamber of the (Eurpopean) Court should Not have addressed the Merits of the case, which it did as a European Constitutional Court functioning ....at the direct request of the persons concerned. Not even Hans Kelsen, the architect of the concentrated Constitutional judicial Review system, would have dreamed that one day such a step would be taken in Europe !", the Dissident EuroJudge concludes critically...


A "9/11" against real Human Rights ?...


However, for "EuroFora", the main Risk might be elsewhere :

- Curiously, this controversial ECHR's ruling is published on November, while, in fact, EuroJudges had already taken their Decision on ... "September 11", 2013, i.e. right on the Anniversary Day for the 9/11/2001 Mass Deadly Terrorist Attacks at New York and Washington DC, which have notoriously Marked World's History, bringing Big, unexpected Changes : A too long Delay of 2 Months, which is quite Unusual for the ECHR.

But this is not the only Strange fact in this ruling : Indeed, as we say above, the Greek Government had mainly tried to explain the exclusion of Homosexuals from those Civil Unions created on 2008, by claiming, in substance, that their Aim was to help Raise Children even Out of Marriage, while Same Sex couples were Biologically Sterile and Unable to have Children by themselves. ECHR did not exclude a priori such Differences of Treatment, related to Children issues, between Natural/Traditional Family and Homosexual couples. But a Majority of EuroJudges argued that, nevertheless, even this kind of Civil Unions had an "Intrinseque" Interest for Homosexuals, simply because it gave a kind of "Official Recognition of their Relationship by the State", while the Greek Government hadn't even tried to explain their exclusion from that symbolic advantage f.ex. by any eventual argument which might have been linked to Children or anything else, (Comp. Supra).

However, often, what is most important might be not necessarily what is said explicitly, but what EXISTS OBJECTIVELY, as an unavoidable Legal possibility, inside a precise Judgement :

Apparently, the Greek Government, based mainly on the 2008 Facts, acted in this way also on 2013 in front of the ECHR, because it took for granted that Homosexuals being Biologically Unable to give any Natural Birth to Children, then, it should have been Obvious that they had Nothing to do with a Legislation focused in particular on Making Easy to Raise Children even out of marriage, (specialy when that 2008 Law didn't even give at all to Homosexuals any possibility to obtain at least some Children by "Adoptions").

But this ECHR's ruling, by nevetheless condemning the exclusion of Homosexuals even from such a kind of particular Civil Unions, while, at the same time, it undelines what it finds to be "a Trend currently emerging, with regard to the introduction of forms of legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships", (particularly after the 2009 Start of Obama's USPresidential mandate), might, objectively, lead to a situation in the forthcoming Future where Homosexual couples would really attempt to use Legal possibilities as those provided for by the Greek 2008 Law in order to facilitate the raising of Children even out of Marriage...

How ? Obviously by Changing so brutaly the Traditional Legal landscape, that Homosexuals might start to massively "Adopt" Children thus submitted to the Power of even total Strangers to their Natural Family, (something which would naturally Risk to unavoidably Boost also Children "Trafficking" of Children, as,f.ex. it already started to happen in Holland, etc), abuse of "Subrogate Mothers"' atrocity, make a Massive use of "Medically Assisted Procreations", with Sperm/Eggs' Banks, Genetic PreNatal Tests, In Vitro Fertilisations, Artificial Inseminations, etc. i.e. practically submitting Human Procreation to Technocrats, (which would obviously provoke Big Dangers against Humankind, particularly if this would be combined, at the same time, with Parallel Changes introducing possibilities for Massive Genetic Manipulations of Human Embryos, etc., as it has already started to be done in Obama's USA since 2009-2012, in Hollande's France since 2012-2013, etc)...

Certainly, the present ECHR ruling could (and, in our sense : Should) be also interpreted legally in such a way that it couldn't do more than just incite the Greek and other Legislators, when they take the initiative to create Civil Unions or any other Legal Forms for Unmarried Couples, to include also Homosexuals ONLY to those provisions which do NOT concern Children (Comp. Supra). The ommission of similar possibilities for Homosexuals regarding other provisions which deal with Children, would be justified by the obvious Necessity to ensure the Legitimate Aim of preventing such Dangers for Humankind as those against which we have just Warned above, (Comp. Supra : the previous paragraph).

=> Otherwise, this "9/11" decided ECHR Ruling, which was published only Today, (Comp. Supra), could really Risk to become an even Bigger Danger of Major Hazards against Humankind than the real 9/11 was for New York's WTC's Deadly Implosion !...

As in traditional Alfred Hitchkock's films, (Comp. f. ex. with the famous images of those "Birds", and/or of that apparently anodynous Agricultural Crop-spraying small Airplane, which are suddenly both transformed into Dangerous Instruments for Deadly Attacks), as well as in the 9/11's Hijacking of peaceful Civil Airplanes, suddenly transformed into Suicide Bombs triggering Deadly Mass Destructions, TCW's Demolition, etc, IF people are not careful enough, then, obviously, even some apparently "Anodynous" ECHR Rulings as this on the "Vallianatos" case, (curiously published Today, 2 Months after its Adoption at the Anniversary Day of September 11), could, obviously (Comp. Facts cited Supra) be technically "Hijacked"and turned into Legal Instruments of Mass Destruction against a Humankind, then, threatened with an even Worse "Implosion" than that of New York's World Trade Center Skyscrapers, even if this unfolds, at first, Silently....






(*) Angelo Marcopolo : DEA/Master in Public Law : 17,5/20 + Research proposed by Strasbourg's Law Faculty for a PhD Thesis' Prize. +Journalist for European News including Human Rights/BioEthics +20 Years: EU/CoE/UNO+ 3/1993-2013.




("DraftNews", as already sent, earlier, to "EuroFora"s Subscribers/Donors. A more accurate, full Final Version may be published asap).




Multi-lingual Interface


Visitors: 57412588


Login Form

Remember me

Lost your Password?
No account yet? Create account


RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3

Other Menu


Recent developments proved that Europe can suceed to overcome challenges by aiming at great objectives, and this is needed also in 2009, said EU chairman, French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

    - "It's in the name of Great Ideas, Projects, Ambition and Ideals, that EU can overcome" challenges, stressed Sarkozy at EU Parliament in Strasbourg, in conclusion of a dense 7 months EU Chairmanship. "It's even easier for Europe to have Great projects, able to overcome national egoism, instead of limiting itself only to small projects" (unable to do alike), he observed.     

- "Europe must remain Ambitious and understand that the World needs her to take Decisions". "The World needs a Strong Europe", which "thinks on its own, has convictions, its own responses, its imagination" : "A Europe which does not limit itself into following" others, (as it did in the Past, when it followed USA, f.ex. on Bosnia). On the contrary, "Europe should undertake its own responsibilities", he said, after a series of succes in stopping the War between Russia and Georgia, and organizing the 1st EuroZone's Summit in Paris, which incited the Washington DC G-20 Summit to extend similar decisions World-wide.  

    - "When you sweep it all under the carpet, prepare yourself for hard tomorrows", he warned. "What hinders decisions is the lack of Courage and Will, the fading away of Ideals", he stressed before EU Parliament's 2008 debate on Human Rights and Sakharov prize on Freedom of thought attributed by MEPs to Chinese cyber-dissident Hu Jia, followed by an EU - Turkey meeting on Friday.

    - "I don't abandon my convictions" and "I will take initiatives" on EU level also in 2009, Sarkozy announced later. "France will not stop having convictions and taking initiatives" on Europe. + "It's an Error to wish to pass over the Heads of those who are elected in their Countries" : "It's an integrism I always fought against"', he warned.
French EU Presidency faced 4 unexpected Crisis :

- An institutional crisis, with the Irish "No" to EU Lisbon Treaty, just before it started. A geopolitical crisis, wth the threat of War between Russia and Georgia risking to throw Europe back to Cold-war divisions, on August. A World-wide Financial and Economic crisis, arriving at a bad moment before crucial 2009 EU elections. And even a Strasbourg's mini-crisis, with EU Parliament's roof curiously falling down, from unknown reasons, in a brand new building on August, provoking an unprecedented transfert of the 2 September Plenary Sessions...

But it wasn't enough to stop Sarkozy ! On the contrary, it stimulated him...

- "The better way to deal with the recent problems of EU institutions (as the "3 NO" by France, the Netherlands and Ireland) is to take them as a "Test" in order to find solutions closer to Citizens' concerns", said later in Strasbourg Sarkozy's new choice as Ministe for EU affairs, Bruno Le Maire.

- On the Institutional front, Sarkozy gave Time to the Irish to think about it, and stroke on December a deal including a New Referendum after the June 2009 EU Elections, in exchange of a promise to keep the rule of "one EU Commissioner for each EU Member Country", and some opt-outs on Defence and Fiscal EU policies, Abortion, etc. If the Irish get a "Yes" Majority, then the institutional package could be completed in 2010 or 2011 on the occasion of Croatia's probable EU accession.

He was accused in Strasbourg to upgrade EU Council and downgrade EU Commision, but he replied that "strong Political initiatives by EU Council reinforce also the more technical role of EU Commission, under the political-technical leadership of its President", all 3 "working together with EU Parliament".

- But, meanwhile, Sarkozy energetically spearheaded an Historic 1st Summit of EuroZone's 15 Heads of State and Government at EU's core, exceptionally enlarged to a partial participation of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on October 12 in Paris' Elysee palace, which started to tackle succesfully the growing world Financial crisis.

    It also paved the way for its endorsement by a subsequent Brussels' 27 EU Member States' gathering, before it all come to Washington's G-20 Summit. And "Europe was united, it asked for the 1st G-20 Summit, and it will also organise the next G-20 Summit on April in London", he observed.   

 But a Conference with EU, Russia, African and other Developing Countries, hosted in Strasbourg shortly after Washington G-20 Summit by the French EU Presidency, took a Resolution asking to enlarge participation to Global Economic Governance. Many found, indeed, illogic and unacceptable that f.ex. states as Turkey were given a seat at G-20 level, while all African Countries, and even the African Union itself, representing the greatest Continent on Earth, were excluded...

    Meanwhile, even USA''s "Paulson No 3" Plan, was, in fact, inspired by Europe's No 1 Plan", Sarkozy observed, largelly applauded by MEPs.

    And "Europe showed Solidarity" by mobilizing some 22 Billion credit for Hungary, 1,7 billion for Ukraine, as we do nowadays for Baltic States, etc., he added.

    The move on Economy was extended on December by an EU stimulus' plan totalling some 200 billion Euros, including 5 Billions released by EU Commission for big Projects, as well as various parallel National plans for Economic revival, (fex. 26 billions in France alone). They might appear limited, compared to USA President-elect Obama's reported plan to boost the American economy with 800 billion $, but at least succeded to overcome Europe's divisions for the first time on Economic governance, opening new horizons.

- The French President stressed even harder the unique role of an active EU Council's chairmanship, when he moved swiftly and efficiently, at the beginning of August, to succesfully stop War between Russia and Georgia, at the last minute, which threatened to bring Europe back to Cold War division.

"We (EU) also wanted to avoid a situation like in Bosnia, in the Past, when EU was absent, so that our American friends took their responsibilitues, and EU only followed", despite the fact that the conflict took place in Europe. Now, it was the EU who took its responsibilities".

A roadmap towards a new PanEuropean Security policy, before which all unilateral moves to place new Missiles (from USA or Russia) would be freezed, was proposed by Sarkozy after a meeting with Russian president Medvedev, at the eve of Washington DC's G-20 Summit.

Ukraine's "European" character was stressed at a Sarkozy - Jushenko Summit, September in Paris, while EU adopted on December an "Eastern policy", in which, "I'm convinced that our (EU's) future is to find with our Neighbours the conditions for Economic Development. Peace and Security, by explaining them that.. they must respect (Human Rights') Values, and adopt behaviors different from the Past", explained Sarkozy in Strasbourg.

Meanwhile, the "Union for the Mediterranean" was created, since July's Summit if 45 Heads of State and Government in Paris, as "an organisation for a permanent Dialogue, that we need", mainly in order to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, by bringing together, for the 1st time, Israelis and Arabs, where "Europe must be present, in order to avoid a frontal clash".

- "If Europe doesn't take its part for Peace in the Middle-East, nobody else will do that in our place", Sarkozy stressed.
    Meanwhile, other EU Agreements were brokered during the French EU Presidency on Immigration, (fex. common Asylum rules, etc), and Climat- Energy :

    - On Climat-Energy, the 2007 German EU Presidency had fixed a triple 20% aim for 2020 (20% renewable Energies, 20% reduction of CO2 emmission, 20% energy efficience/economies), and the 2008 French EU Presidecny realized that, making the necessary compromises in order to modernize EU's industry, but without throwing some former Central-Eastern European Countries into abrupt Economic break down risking "social explosion".

    - Defence-Security EU policy was mainly postponed for April 2009, since both German chancellor Merkel and French president Sarkozy want to strike a deal with the new American president Obama in Strasbourg's NATO Summit.

    However, with all these 4 unexpected Crisis diverting attention to other urgencies, People wil wonder now, what happened to the famous deal proposed by freshly-elected French President Sarkozy on Turkey's controversial EU bid, back on August 2007, to continue EU - Turkey negotiations, but on the double condition that core chapters, intrinsequally linked with EU Membership, will be excluded, and that a collective Reflexion and Debate on Europe's future would start before the end of 2008.

    It was meant to reply to the crucial question : What kind of Europe do we want in 10 or 20 Years from now : A large Market, or a Political Europe, with a popular identity ? In Sarkozy's thinking, presented in his 2 landmark speeches on Europe in Strasbourg, shortly before and after the 2007 Elections, (on February and July 2007), Turkey's controversial EU bid would be incompatible with the second choice.

    It's true that EU Commision's Chairman, Jose Barroso, (who had notoriously declared, as former Portuguese Prime Minister, that he found "nonsense" the idea that Europe might become equal to the US), had repeatedly tried to avoid that Sarkozy's criticism on Turkey might start winning a larger audience in Europe, preferring a discrete "wismens' committee" work. And that most of the personalities later chosen in order to participate in a Committee on Europe's Future, are too much linked with Socialist parties and/or American policies, to be really critical of USA's notorious wish to impose Turkey to the EU, as Sarkozy had noted himself since March 2007..

     - "It's on EU Council's presidency to take political initiatives. EU Commission has other competences", stressed Sarkozy. The "European Ideal" is to "build Europe with the States, not against them". "Ask Europeans to chose between their countries and Europe won't work. You don't choose between your two parents : We must add them together".

    "France and Germany have an Historic Duty to work together, precisely because of what happened to the Past. We have to work hand by hand. We cannot be separated.It goes beyond me and Mrs Merkel today, Mr Schroeder and Mr. Chirac yesterday. It's not a choice, it's a duty to Europe and to the World".  "We need Germany, as Germany needs Europe". Compromise is inevitable, here as everywhere, and each one made some steps towards eachother's positions.

    But "it's true that Mrs Merkel didn't chose her Socialist partners, while I chose mine", Sarkozy said, in an indirect hint that the Socialist Minister of Finance in Germany might be a cause of minor past disagreements in Economy, which were overcome in recent negotiations.

    "We (France and Germany) have particular duties in Europe", but "in a Europe of 27 Member States, it's not enough for France and Germany to agree between them.

    "I always thought that Great Britain has a special role to play in Europe. ... Now, everybody "saw what it cost payed the UK for having been too exclusively open towards the US (and) Financial services. Europe needs the UK, but also the UK needs Europe" :- "We were able to face the hardest moment of the Financial crisis because the UK clearly chose Europe", stressed Sarkozy, reminding Gordon Brown's exceptional participation to the Historic 1st Heads of State/Government Summit of EuroZone, October 12 in Paris (See EuroFora's Reportage from Elysee Palace then).

     - "Some look at Europe with old glasses aged 30 years ago. While we must look at her in relation to what it will be in 30 years" in the Future, Sarkozy concluded.


2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?


SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.