After a survey of the previous year’s activities (mostly non-academic, but not too embarrassing) Professor Griffiths distributed the degree certificates to the graduates.

The degree has not been in existence long enough to develop much by way of tradition, but afterwards all the Masters students could sign their name in the ‘sweat chamber’, where previously students used to wait for their final exams and where, for centuries they have signed their names upon graduating. None of the graduates missed this opportunity to add their names for posterity, or at least until someone signs over them.

Another part of the ceremony is the award of the J.W. Beyen prize for the best thesis written in the previous academic year.

Johan Willem Beyen was Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands from 1952-1956. Together with his Belgian colleague Paul-Henri Spaak he put European integration again on its feet after the debacle with the European Defence Community. The linchpin was a conference in May 1955 in Messina, on the island of Sicily, where J.W. Beyen played a key role. The conference led in the end to the European Treaties of Rome.

Each of the shortlisted students gave a brief presentation of their work, after which Jean Penders read the lauratio and awarded the prize for 2010-11. Jean Penders said something about the shortlisted students, in alphabetical order:

Thesis topic: The French Expulsions of 2010: Beyond the Case of the Roma

In the summer of 2010 The French authorities expulsed, deported groups of Roma from France. Collectively.

Why? A link was made between immigration and criminality. Strange, because in the statistics you can not find a parallel. Then: criminality under Romans. Nothing in the statistics points to a special link.

Was there big opposition against the Roma? They are a curious lot; nomadic and not eager to state their ethnicity. But the numbers of Roma are not significant enough to justify extreme measures like expulsion.

One must assume that the real reason was President Sarkozy’s desire to prop up his waning popularity in the polls. Economic times were gloomy in France in that year and the menace of Jean Marie Le Pen and the Front National breaking in in the traditional electoral following of the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire) had to be held in check.

The great merit of Madalina’s thesis is that she has not been diverted in sidepaths but squarely puts as central theme the freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens in the member states. And the Romanian Roma – they are the main performers in the thesis – are EU citizens. The right of freedom of movement and residence is stipulated in the Lisbon Treaty and further developed in Directive 38/2004 including procedural safeguards.

France, cofounder of Communities and Union, most important member with Germany, is in this case taking dangerous liberties with these freedoms. You can expulse  EU citizens out of France, but not collectively. Each case has to be treated individually. You have to apply clear criteria etc.

Who are the other parties in this strange story. There is the Romanian Government, NGO’s and the European Commission as guardian of the Treaties. To begin with a summing up: the Commission was not very brave, the Romanian Government too timid with Paris and the NGO’s not very helpful. It took a while before the Commission spoke out in defence of the freedom of movement and residence. Commisioner Reding threatened with an infringement procedure but that was not realised. Some NGO’s stood up for the Roma, protested against discrimination and stigmatisation and that was fine. But the issue became more a case of protecting a minority and the NGO’s were sidetracked  from speaking out in favour of the right ot freedom of movement. The timidity of Bucharest versus Paris had to do maybe with the difficult accession process of Romania.

Madalina stayed brilliantly on track. Her thesis is filled with dynamite. She acts in places not as a researcher but as a lawyer. In the background you hear “J’accuse!”.
It was great fun to read her thesis.

Thesis topic: Under Construction: The Bumpy Road Towards Competitiveness.
A Critical Assessment of the EU’s Policy to Become the Most Competitive Knowledge-based Economy in the World.

Well, critical it is. After reading her thesis you are left with the smoking ruins of the Lisbon Strategy. If Barroso read it, he would burst out into tears. I learned a lot. A basic thing is the difference between research and innovation. Stop putting those two notions in one basket. Research is necessary for a strong economy but you have to apply the results to produce the innovations which make you competitive. In other words, you have to file for patents. Patents in the EU is a catastrophe.

The aim of the Lisbon Strategy was to close the gap with the United States. That did not happen. And, according to Cornelia, that will not happen. Lisbon 2000 failed and Europe 2020, the second try, is on this moment not likely to fare much better.

What was the main problem, well described by Cornelia, with the Lisbon Strategy? The Council gave it a pompous start and the Commission was not very much involved. The governance was wrong from the start. Nothing much happened. Second, the differences in economic level between the Member States were too great to allow for a one-size-fits all policy.

Cornelia states that the Strategy should have been reformulated after the “big bang”, the mammoth enlargement of 2004. Bringing together in one Strategy developed economies with economies in transition just did not work out.

The target of a 3% GDP investment did not materialize. It stand on 1,9.

It was not wise to apply a uniform figure EU wide. One should have made room for different percentages by member states. Some states do more: Sweden 3,7 ; others less. Funny, the uniform 3% was put up as a marker to catch up with the US. But in the US is no uniformity: Wyoming invests 0,41% in R & D; New Mexico 7,53%.

The Commission was in favour of pooling of reserves. There are advantages but also disadvantages. By avoiding overlap you get more efficiency. But some Member States have year-long specializations; interrupting those processes for pooling causes inefficiency. The Commission, of course, was in a difficult position. Under FP 7 her contribution is 60 billion (in 7 years); she asks for FP 8  80 billion (in seven years).  3% means 375 billion per year. So the lion’s share has to come from the Member States.

Strange thing with FP’s. The intentions is to honour the best proposals. So, in theory Portugal can have a better score then Poland. But if you look at a chart of the allocated funds, it was always a funnel. From Germany down to Malta. Very strange.

A last point. The governance: intergovernmental or supranational. An eternal debate. We have to construct a stronger position for the European Commission. The resemblance with the present eurocrisis is striking.

Cornelia has underlined that R&D are important for economic growth and spread of technology but maybe not the most important factor; a good environment for firms helps even better. Cornelia has been relentless in demonstrating and underlining the weak points in the Lisbon Strategy. Was Elena a fierce lawyer, Cornelia a merciless controller.

Thesis tpoci: The European Union and a Common Minority Policy

A Common Minority Policy. Why? Have we not enough on our plate with the eurocrisis. The banking crisis? How can the EU survive in the globalization struggle? How to manage and keep away the constant pushing for enlargement with new members in a time of euroscepticism?

That is not the way Ingo thinks and operates. There are political and practical reasons for a minority policy. This could be a good tool for conflict prevention; look at Kosovo. But there is also a question of normative commitment. As a promoter of human rights the EU has to play a role in guaranteeing rights of minorities.

To be able to develop a common policy you need a definition of a minority. And, of course, you have to select criteria as a basis for a definition. Agreeing on a definition implies recognition. And recognition is the basis for protection. And protection has negative aspects f.e. protection against discrimination and positive aspects, i.e. facilities for education in and use of a minority language.

Well there you can only admire Ingo’s work. I am inclined to state that we have here a typical example of German thoroughness. He examined the legislations and rules concerning minorities of all 27 Member States. Without exaggeration: it was the task of a monk. I do not mean to say that all Germans are monks. But here we have one. Imagine the situation 15 years hence when the EU may count an odd 40 member states. It is then not possible to write a thesis of this kind anymore.

Carefully testing the selected characteristics and criteria Ingo designed several definitions and came out in the end with a text acceptable in his view in 17 of the 27 present Member States. Other Member States could be persuaded later or maybe a little bit forced.

Is that a sufficiently strong fundament to start a common minority policy? Sure it is, especially if you are a convinced optimist, like Ingo. By the way, we know already enhanced cooperation (art. 326 etc. TFEU), structured cooperation in the common security and defence policy, the eurozone and the Schengen area.

A common minority policy fits marvellous in this multilayered structure.